[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41161824]ha, dont blow smoke up my collective asses.
you're all focusing on how well some archaic old tried and true method is so well for telling a story only because it has been tried and true.
impossible has been said to many times to count in this industry. you are the crusty old demographic going harumph! and i am the person who will be laughing a few years down the line.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing wrong with open-world games, but I don't think you understand how ridiculously hard it would be to make the game open.
Like how you said this:
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41161682]if the story was of them getting from boston to philly then why didn't the developers just create a giant expanse between those two places and that's the game map?[/QUOTE]
Do you realize how difficult it would be to make an open-world of over 300 miles, maintaining the same amount of detail and level of storytelling, without making it dull at any point? You're thinking a bit too ambitiously, a game like that will never come out, unless a huge developer works on a game for a decade.
I used to play Broken Sword: Shadow of The Templar on PC, its a point n click story driven game, and it hardly have any cinematic sequence, low res too, with no facial expressions, but the story was far more interesting than most games nowdays that employs fantastic cinematics. A story-driven games can be made interesting without much cinematic sequence.
As for doing things the innovative way, nobody ever said that a 3D megaman would work. But they manage to make a whole new system to it using same idea (blue hero shooting robots), producing Megaman 64 which beat its 2D couterpart in every ways,gameplay and story, but not sell so much because it was not hyped-up.
About resource allocation, maybe they can figure out how to blend in the story with better gameplay if they are not spending all their money on pixel shaders, motion capturing and all that. They are brilliant people after all.
[QUOTE=hakimhakim;41162012]I used to play Broken Sword: Shadow of The Templar on PC, its a point n click story driven game, and it hardly have any cinematic sequence, low res too, with no facial expressions, but the story was far more interesting than most games nowdays that employs fantastic cinematics. A story-driven games can be made interesting without much cinematic sequence.
As for doing things the innovative way, nobody ever said that a 3D megaman would work. But they manage to make a whole new system to it using same idea (blue hero shooting robots), producing Megaman 64 which beat its 2D couterpart in every ways,gameplay and story, but not sell so much because it was not hyped-up.
About resource allocation, maybe they can figure out how to blend in the story with better gameplay if they are not spending all their money on pixel shaders, motion capturing and all that. They are brilliant people after all.[/QUOTE]
Except there's nothing wrong with the gameplay at all other than the annoying pushback/stumble from getting shot or getting hit by a melee weapon but that's to punish you for not being stealthy in a game that encourages stealth.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;41162043]Except there's nothing wrong with the gameplay at all other than the annoying pushback/stumble from getting shot or getting hit by a melee weapon but that's to punish you for not being stealthy in a game that encourages stealth.[/QUOTE]
theres nothing wrong with plain water either, but i wont say its the drinks of the year
[QUOTE=hakimhakim;41162012]nobody ever said that a 3D megaman would work. But they manage to make a whole new system to it using same idea (blue hero shooting robots), producing [b]Megaman 64 which beat its 2D couterpart in every ways,gameplay and story[/b][/QUOTE]
I'm going a bit off topic, but uhh...
[QUOTE=Yogkog;41162084]I'm going a bit off topic, but uhh...[/QUOTE]
I didn't even read that part, I can literally take everything he's said in this thread and dismiss it because if you think Megaman 64 had better gameplay than Megaman or Megaman X you must be brain dead.
[QUOTE=Yogkog;41162084]I'm going a bit off topic, but uhh...[/QUOTE]
lol just trying to say that a same idea can be made better using other system/gameplay without turning them into cinematics wedged between shooting stuff
In the future discussion regarding The Last of Us should go in the Last of Us thread, OP. Making a new thread purely to express your opinion is unnecessary and it clutters up the subforum.
[QUOTE=hakimhakim;41162119]lol just trying to say that a same idea can be made better using other system/gameplay without turning them into cinematics wedged between shooting stuff[/QUOTE]
But now you're thinking in the sense that if there's shooting and cinematics involved, it's suddenly a low quality game?
This whole thread is basically:
[I]"I don't like this genre of games and you shouldn't either."
"Why?"
"Because I like this genre more!"[/I]
It was hyped a lot. To me personally, it lived up to every bit of hype. I knew it was going to be a linear, story-driven game, just like I knew Uncharted would be when I bought it. It's still a game, and it's still very fun for me, and obviously for many others. Arguing that other games have done well without linear gameplay or cinematic sequences is pointless. They may have done well [I]without[/I] those, but Naughty Dog also did very well [I]with[/I] them. If you don't like the way the game is presented, then you aren't the target audience, just move on.
So the big draw of the game is that it's story-driven, and a "cinematic" experience
But you can't possibly appreciate how good the game is by watching.
Isn't that kind of backwards? I mean, anybody can watch the cutscenes and listen to the dialogue. Generally, the games that have to be played in order to be enjoyed the most are the ones with unusual gameplay or control elements. Not the story-focused ones.
[QUOTE=Loofiloo;41163065]So the big draw of the game is that it's story-driven, and a "cinematic" experience
But you can't possibly appreciate how good the game is by watching.
Isn't that kind of backwards? I mean, anybody can watch the cutscenes and listen to the dialogue. Generally, the games that have to be played in order to be enjoyed the most are the ones with unusual gameplay or control elements. Not the story-focused ones.[/QUOTE]
Yea, but in terms of video games, you most likely won't be as immersed into the story as you would if you were playing it, making it seem of lesser quality or not as interesting
[editline]24th June 2013[/editline]
It's like watching a really plot-focused movie. You can read up a summary of the movie but it's not the same as watching it
[QUOTE=Loofiloo;41163065]So the big draw of the game is that it's story-driven, and a "cinematic" experience
But you can't possibly appreciate how good the game is by watching.
Isn't that kind of backwards? I mean, anybody can watch the cutscenes and listen to the dialogue. Generally, the games that have to be played in order to be enjoyed the most are the ones with unusual gameplay or control elements. Not the story-focused ones.[/QUOTE]
The story is the main driving force for the game but the thing is the gameplay is also really good, which is what most people here are trying to get through to the guy. There's no denying you can watch the game on YouTube and enjoy it but it's idiotic to say you experience the game how it's meant to be if you're not the one in the driving seat.
there's the problem
we don't feel in the driving seat to begin with in these games
[editline]25th June 2013[/editline]
just hubs even, some kind of persistence even if it's limited is way better. it doesn't matter that linear sequences exist, just break them up because one corridor after another is crap.
it's why i like bioshock 1 better than infinite. i actually got tired of playing infinite and installed 1 and enjoyed myself much better.
Last of Us is overhyped but it's stilla pretty good game. The intro is good but the beginning sucks.
This game has to be linear, you have to sacrifice openness when your going for a game that looks as good as it does. It's already as is extremely taxing on the ps3.
Quality/quantity.
A long long time ago, i watched Metal Gear Solid 4, in its entirety, all the cutscenes all the codecs, because i was unemplyoed and couldnt afford a PS3.
i saw what happened and it was ok, then i got a job, bought it myself, and sank so many hours into the game and go very heavily involved, got loads more than i got from a longplay of the game because I had control. I wasnt rushing through it to start the next game and get more pageviews. I was playing for myself.
As for The Last of Us, id watched practically nothing of it, assumed it was a generic zombie game which im sick of by now, and didnt want to buy it. saw good reviews, still a bit wary but eventually i caved in and bought it. From the start the execution was great and very involving. characters that have been around for 5 minutes gave major feels when they were removed from the game. Some sections arent amazing, and im ok with that, i didnt expect a perfect game, but overall its very immersive, and far more enjoyable than the videos ive watched since i played it.
Recently i have found myself easing off on games and being a more responsible adult, but the last of us reignited my love for games, and i think its unjustified to whine about it for getting good reviews.
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Adius Shadow;41191433]This game has to be linear, you have to sacrifice openness when your going for a game that looks as good as it does. It's already as is extremely taxing on the ps3.
Quality/quantity.[/QUOTE]
I dont mind the linearity if its telling a good story
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
went back to read more thread, and i died a little inside, so much demand for open world games would really detract from the point.
Gonna go for fallout 3 on this example, the last mission you need to turn the water pump on to bring clean water to everyon and save the day, with that being open world you can play the whole story as lineat up to that point, where things are really serious then decide, you know whats more important right now? BOBBLE HEADS.
If you want an openworld game, play an open world game, if you want a captivating/immersive story, play (dont watch! youre meant to be getting immersed) the last of us.
[QUOTE=Skellyhell;41191689]
If you want an openworld game, play an open world game, if you want a captivating/immersive story, play (dont watch! youre meant to be getting immersed) the last of us.[/QUOTE]
There's a lot of games that manage to blend a good emotionally-engaging story with its gameplay. One example is Ar Tonelico 2. Its quite linear, with ugly graphics, but it manage to tell the story in an engaging and original ways. The choices and action that you made actually have major implications on the gameplay and stories. Instead of telling the character's stories head on, it was incorporated in many gameplay elements (diving into minds, synthesizing things, world exploring, interaction with npcs). Although the basic/main story is linear, but the immersiveness come from the player's own action and choices.
But what I found in TLOU is quite bland. The game almost like telling people what to feel. The story is hardly original. Not much variations of scene/mood either. Its like "hey this character is going to die, now feel sad!". The story is really predictable. I havent even saw much of the game yet, but i can bet it will go with something like "joel and ellie will develop some emotional bond, ellie or joel will be put in danger, and the player will have to save him/her, or make a tragic choice". The way they told the story is lame too.
Just trying to say that it doesnt need to be THAT linear for a game to be immersive story-wise.
Game is awesome... judging it by watching youtubes is just stupid.
Well sometimes it's not about trying something new, it's about perfecting existing methods of storytelling...but if you seriously don't see ANY of the reasoning behind all the hype, then you're doing it wrong.
I don't even own a playstation 3 and I think it's game of the year. I'm a PC gamer for fucks sake.
It's a very different experience to witness a car crash in person rather than to watch it from a recording.
Maybe that example is retarded but it makes sense to me.
I'm also watching a full walkthrough, and it's extremely boring. Sure, the story is mildly intriguing, gameplay oscillates between stealth and combat, while encouraging players to be stealthy.
I don't know on what difficulty the one who recorded the playthrough is playing, but stealth is a complete joke. It's the same strangling animation over and over and over again, and there's no challenge at all. Level design is linear, and the item crafting is boring.
This game is just like Bioshock Infinite. Lots of pretty level art, overhyped to hell and back, raving reviews from the gaming "journalism" shills, linear as fuck level design, good story, simplistic stealth / combat, press X to advance plot.
It's like nobody's criticizing these games on gameplay nowadays, because LOOK AT THOSE CUTSCENES.
[QUOTE=zugu;41193869]I'm also watching a full walkthrough, and it's extremely boring. Sure, the story is mildly intriguing, gameplay oscillates between stealth and combat, while encouraging players to be stealthy.
I don't know on what difficulty the one who recorded the playthrough is playing, but stealth is a complete joke. It's the same strangling animation over and over and over again, and there's no challenge at all. Level design is linear, and the item crafting is boring.
This game is just like Bioshock Infinite. Lots of pretty level art, overhyped to hell and back, raving reviews from the gaming "journalism" shills, linear as fuck level design, good story, simplistic stealth / combat, press X to advance plot.
It's like nobody's criticizing these games on gameplay nowadays, because LOOK AT THOSE CUTSCENES.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely agree.
If you guys hate the game so much then just read a book.
[IMG]http://bookcoverarchive.com/images/books/the_road_oprahs_book_club.large.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Mr Flexi;41193666]It's a very different experience to witness a car crash in person rather than to watch it from a recording.
Maybe that example is retarded but it makes sense to me.[/QUOTE]
Ive seen people get hit by cars, burnout collisions where vehicles fly in the air and corkscrew onto their roof.
Ive even seen a cyclist get splattered in half. All of this with my own two eyes. Not different at all to any youtube ive seen.
Least to me. See thats my point. No one here is willing to accept there are different minds and perceptions different to your own. People see and experience things differently than you.
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
And just because you dont see that way you deny anything because you cant relate because you only see your way.
You dont need strict linearity to tell a good story. There are games that prove that
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
I happen to have a fairly good imagination. After watching a fourty minute lets play of dishonored, then getting it in the mail the next day I discovered that the lets play gave me such a good idea of how the game works and nearly everything about it. When I played the game my expectations of the game were met nearly perfectly
[QUOTE=zugu;41193869]I'm also watching a full walkthrough, and it's extremely boring. Sure, the story is mildly intriguing, gameplay oscillates between stealth and combat, while encouraging players to be stealthy.
I don't know on what difficulty the one who recorded the playthrough is playing, but stealth is a complete joke. It's the same strangling animation over and over and over again, and there's no challenge at all. Level design is linear, and the item crafting is boring.
This game is just like Bioshock Infinite. Lots of pretty level art, overhyped to hell and back, raving reviews from the gaming "journalism" shills, linear as fuck level design, good story, simplistic stealth / combat, press X to advance plot.
It's like nobody's criticizing these games on gameplay nowadays, because LOOK AT THOSE CUTSCENES.[/QUOTE]
How the hell can you say it has no challenge if you haven't played it.
I thought the gameplay was fine, it's not the best part about the game, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Sorry, but you can literally not have an opinion on how the game plays without actually PLAYING the fucking game.
And yet I do. Just you cant picture it because you cant do it yourself. So If you cant do it it must be impossible.
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
All these big blockbuster games come out and they bring literally nothing new to the.table but its bioshock or those guys who made drakes so everyone puckers up for a long suck because of "story".
Story telling isnt innovative if its presented in the same way forever
So Half Life is a shit game and is overhyped?
that game is well over a decade old
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
wow i think you just proved the point right there for me
TLOU hype will probably blow over like those other "artistic deep" games.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
