Comments on: Minstrels http://www.gazimoff.com/2009/01/28/minstrels/ Ramblings of a geek in an insane world Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:53:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Gazimoff http://www.gazimoff.com/2009/01/28/minstrels/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Gazimoff Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:14:19 +0000 http://www.gazimoff.com/?p=118#comment-22 I think both your opinions are valid. I feel that having a good story only helps to strengthen a game as it aids immersion and helps keep the player hooked. Having said that, the story shouldn't get in the way of gameplay or prevent the player from having fun, just as gameplay shouldn't prevent the story from being told. It's all about maintaining the flow and pacing of a game, and avoiding choices that take away that feeling of playing a game instead of watching an interactive movie. On the subject of PC gaming, I am even wary about the strength of the platform as an MMO option. On the Xbox 360 you already have voice chat built in as standard, with a keyboard accessory that clips into the joypad available for £20. Star Trek Online (an MMO) is being developed for both PC and console play. Halo Wars is an action RTS also coming out for the Xbox. I just get the feeling that content that's been traditionally PC based is starting to drift towards consoles. I also think that people are less likely to shell out on upgrading their PC every six months while we're in this recession, which makes tech-heavy games like Crysis seem even more like a pretty bad investment choice. If you're interested in hearing some more thoughts on gaming narrative from some professionals, pick up the latest copy of Rebel FM (episode 4). They have quite a large segment on techniques employed to explore narrative that you'll probably find quite interesting: http://www.eat-sleep-game.com/news/2009/01/28/rebel-fm-episode-4-012809/ I think both your opinions are valid. I feel that having a good story only helps to strengthen a game as it aids immersion and helps keep the player hooked. Having said that, the story shouldn’t get in the way of gameplay or prevent the player from having fun, just as gameplay shouldn’t prevent the story from being told. It’s all about maintaining the flow and pacing of a game, and avoiding choices that take away that feeling of playing a game instead of watching an interactive movie.

On the subject of PC gaming, I am even wary about the strength of the platform as an MMO option. On the Xbox 360 you already have voice chat built in as standard, with a keyboard accessory that clips into the joypad available for £20. Star Trek Online (an MMO) is being developed for both PC and console play. Halo Wars is an action RTS also coming out for the Xbox. I just get the feeling that content that’s been traditionally PC based is starting to drift towards consoles. I also think that people are less likely to shell out on upgrading their PC every six months while we’re in this recession, which makes tech-heavy games like Crysis seem even more like a pretty bad investment choice.

If you’re interested in hearing some more thoughts on gaming narrative from some professionals, pick up the latest copy of Rebel FM (episode 4). They have quite a large segment on techniques employed to explore narrative that you’ll probably find quite interesting:

http://www.eat-sleep-game.com/news/2009/01/28/rebel-fm-episode-4-012809/

]]> By: Rholand http://www.gazimoff.com/2009/01/28/minstrels/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Rholand Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:41:04 +0000 http://www.gazimoff.com/?p=118#comment-21 I think that in general you are right - Additionally, I am feeling like "Havoc engine - watch stuff break!" and "Choose your own storyline!" or "Sandbox world" is becoming an excuse not to actually make a decent game. Not saying that stories with impressive physic engines and a karma system of some kind can not be good - I hugely enjoyed portals and knights of the old republic, but I am getting a definite vibe of "Sure, I get it, you can make wood splinter in a cool way... Bravo.. Can we have some decent storytelling and some immersive gameplay soon?". I am feeling like games are getting posh... They have to be more than they are; You can not just make a FPS, you HAVE to have either "Impressive physics!" or "RPG-elements" and honestly I think that it is trying to be more than I want. I for one have a blast every time i play Serious Sam, though that most certainly not is the most difficult or plot-filled game. It is a shooter, it knows it, and it loves it - and that is what I think many game titles is lacking, the humilty to admit what they are and just run with it. I felt the same happened (And for me it was what killed this series) in GTA: San Andreas - suddenly they stuffed in these "RPG-elements" which effectively introduced grind in a game that was all about doing what the heck you wanted to. If I want to watch my diet or dress up my character (Which I don't really do all too often) I would play The Sims. I think that in general you are right – Additionally, I am feeling like “Havoc engine – watch stuff break!” and “Choose your own storyline!” or “Sandbox world” is becoming an excuse not to actually make a decent game. Not saying that stories with impressive physic engines and a karma system of some kind can not be good – I hugely enjoyed portals and knights of the old republic, but I am getting a definite vibe of “Sure, I get it, you can make wood splinter in a cool way… Bravo.. Can we have some decent storytelling and some immersive gameplay soon?”.
I am feeling like games are getting posh… They have to be more than they are; You can not just make a FPS, you HAVE to have either “Impressive physics!” or “RPG-elements” and honestly I think that it is trying to be more than I want. I for one have a blast every time i play Serious Sam, though that most certainly not is the most difficult or plot-filled game. It is a shooter, it knows it, and it loves it – and that is what I think many game titles is lacking, the humilty to admit what they are and just run with it. I felt the same happened (And for me it was what killed this series) in GTA: San Andreas – suddenly they stuffed in these “RPG-elements” which effectively introduced grind in a game that was all about doing what the heck you wanted to. If I want to watch my diet or dress up my character (Which I don’t really do all too often) I would play The Sims.

]]> By: Khaotikal http://www.gazimoff.com/2009/01/28/minstrels/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Khaotikal Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:50:01 +0000 http://www.gazimoff.com/?p=118#comment-20 I think that the problem with plots is that many gamers are being lead into a belief (usually through the sort of review critics and magazines that look at Graphics and Plot over gameplay and actual FUN) that they want big long complicated plots with twists, backstories and even multiple endings as an option. Because if not they're clearly being treated as idiots by a game designer who obviously thought a complicated story would be too much for them. Constant throwback references to how the Final Fantasy series is an awesome story teller and an example of plot meets game. But in Final Fantasy the story is underlying and half the time leads to another almost instant encounter, or just keeps the action going. Most of these heavy plot story telling games today are cutscene after cutscene where if I can't actually skip the damn thing I'm forced to stop play to watch. Yes sometimes games probably lack enough plot and background as to explain a situation (ala Mirror's Edge, you're really not given enough explanation as to the why factor of it all) but to me the perfect idea of game meets plot is where it compliments the action, not overruns it, like Resident Evil or Command and Conquer style games. Red Alert 2 for example was awesome at plotlines and cutscenes (that skippable) that entertained. The same went for Westwood's last roll of the dice with Emperor: Battle for Dune. To me, games like Day of the Tentacle, Simon the Sorceror and Sam'n'Max were the kind of games that could get away with working a long plot, or constant story and dialog because that's what the games were about. There were minigames in some of those titles but they didn't force you to stop playing the main story. It's the element of choice, something Bethesda do well with both FO3 and Oblivion, you can play the main story straight through and not touch a single side piece of content if you want to, or it's always there and available if you do. As for PC gaming being dead, well it will always struggle in an offline gaming world against console gaming, but there will always be PC only titles that will keep the system going. Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Empire: Total War, Dawn of War 2 all spring to mind. Now while this means PC gaming is somewhat pigeonholed into RTS/Adventure style gaming it's no different than the Wii's style of family play/adventure or the XBox/PS3's style of Shoot/Racer specialisations. What the PC will always have is the MMO market, which will always keep people playing and pushing to improve their PC hardware and software in order to keep the best graphics running, the best performance and smoothness in what is essentially competitive gaming. The same can be said for Counterstrike: Source, four years old and still gets a large player following. I think that the problem with plots is that many gamers are being lead into a belief (usually through the sort of review critics and magazines that look at Graphics and Plot over gameplay and actual FUN) that they want big long complicated plots with twists, backstories and even multiple endings as an option. Because if not they’re clearly being treated as idiots by a game designer who obviously thought a complicated story would be too much for them.

Constant throwback references to how the Final Fantasy series is an awesome story teller and an example of plot meets game. But in Final Fantasy the story is underlying and half the time leads to another almost instant encounter, or just keeps the action going. Most of these heavy plot story telling games today are cutscene after cutscene where if I can’t actually skip the damn thing I’m forced to stop play to watch.

Yes sometimes games probably lack enough plot and background as to explain a situation (ala Mirror’s Edge, you’re really not given enough explanation as to the why factor of it all) but to me the perfect idea of game meets plot is where it compliments the action, not overruns it, like Resident Evil or Command and Conquer style games. Red Alert 2 for example was awesome at plotlines and cutscenes (that skippable) that entertained. The same went for Westwood’s last roll of the dice with Emperor: Battle for Dune.

To me, games like Day of the Tentacle, Simon the Sorceror and Sam’n'Max were the kind of games that could get away with working a long plot, or constant story and dialog because that’s what the games were about. There were minigames in some of those titles but they didn’t force you to stop playing the main story. It’s the element of choice, something Bethesda do well with both FO3 and Oblivion, you can play the main story straight through and not touch a single side piece of content if you want to, or it’s always there and available if you do.

As for PC gaming being dead, well it will always struggle in an offline gaming world against console gaming, but there will always be PC only titles that will keep the system going. Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Empire: Total War, Dawn of War 2 all spring to mind. Now while this means PC gaming is somewhat pigeonholed into RTS/Adventure style gaming it’s no different than the Wii’s style of family play/adventure or the XBox/PS3′s style of Shoot/Racer specialisations.

What the PC will always have is the MMO market, which will always keep people playing and pushing to improve their PC hardware and software in order to keep the best graphics running, the best performance and smoothness in what is essentially competitive gaming. The same can be said for Counterstrike: Source, four years old and still gets a large player following.

]]>