posted
As a casual video game player, here are some of my thoughts on OSC's comments.
In a very loose generality you can divide video games up into two basic catagories, single player and multiplayer. Multiplayer games don't need a story (e.g. sports, racing, stragegy, and FPS's). They often have a single player mode but the story behind it is usually rather weak (e.g. win the Superbowl, beat Mr. X in a race, destroy the Protoss base, kill all the baddies and defeat the demon leader.) Occasionally you get a stand-out from these for single player mode, Half-life for example, they are pretty rare.
Single player games are either RPG, puzzle or arcade games. RPG tend to lend themselves best to story telling better, Final Fantasy III is a prime example, but the best games tend to blend RPG, puzzle and arcade elements to tell a story. The Legend of Zelda series would be a good example of this.
Now I do need to disagree with OSC that deadlines are useless. Didn't one or the original founders of ID leave the company to produce the "ultimate FPS"? I recall reading a review at one point on how great it would be since you would control different characters throughout the game and what you did as one character would impact the story line of another. However, it took so long to "perfect" the game that by the time it was released the gaming population had gotten tired of waiting and had moved on. Deadlines draw a line in the sand where you can gage if the product is "good enough" for release, because no project is ever fully "complete".
One last comment, that photo of him definitly shows is Park heritage.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
But, you know, I don't think the video game industry is THAT tired out. Just look at the DS, for heaven's sake. If you ask me (and the 10 million plus owners of it worldwide) there's certainly something there for everyone. There is also tons of viable storytelling on the system.
I could spend a lot of time listing out tons of games that don't follow the same tired formulas, etc. etc. But you guys probably don't want to hear that right now...
*shrugs* Just my opinion.
And if Mr. Card reads this, I can't recommend the game Phoenix Wright highly enough. It's an insane premise--it's essentially a lawyer simulation game. But it's also one of the most enjoyable games out there right now. It's got an amazing story, and never requires you to have twitch reflexes, or anything like that. To the contrary, it relies entirely on a persons intellect.
Great, great game that I think a tired-out gamer like Orson Scott Card could really get into.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I bet if Mr. Card played the right games he could find great stories. JLM mentions Final Fantasy 3 (6 for playstation) and that's certainly a good one, but I think 7, 9 and especially 10 are even better. (FF8's story's okay, but it has a very poor battle system.)
posted
I'm not familiar with exactly which games OSC was playing before he decided that they were getting repetitive, but his comments seem to indicate that he mainly played FPS games. OSC definitely has a point that the full story-telling potential of games is not being realised, but now that many FPS games are turning episodic (following suit with Half Life 2) and being distributed online, that may change. Note: 'may'.
The development cycle is also changing, and it's the developers rather than the publishers who are benefiting. They no longer have to create a brand new game engine to tell 1/4 of a story, and wait another 2 years to make their next game. They can improve the engine in increments, and keep the story going on a more regular and involving basis.
And if you look hard enough, there is always an original game or two, usually by small developers, which come along with something refreshing and involving. Often the big established publishers want to focus on perfecting a tried and true formula. The perfected, polished game which results (Call of Duty 2 for WWII FPS, Company of Heroes for RTS, Civ 4 for turn-based strategy) are always great games, but there's something to be said for rough and ready games which tell a great story. Somewhere between Half Life 2 and Advent Rising there's an awesome game waiting to be discovered.
I thought this was the best comment in the interview:
quote:Card: We've had the technical capability for doing great storytelling in games for 15 years. All of these innovations, adding more memory, will mean what, adding more levels? If you still have the mind-set that dominates in the publishing end -- I'm not talking about the developers; the developers already know how to make better games than they're making.
posted
I thought Halo 2 had a pretty interesting story. But "vanilla" Halo is more fun to replay, I think. Or maybe I just have happier memories from the time in my life when I was first going through it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I thought Halo 2 had a pretty interesting story. But "vanilla" Halo is more fun to replay, I think. Or maybe I just have happier memories from the time in my life when I was first going through it.
Personally, I think that Halo is more fun to replay too. Mainly, I think it's due to the unevenness of Halo's level design. Halo had some absolutely amazing levels(Maw, 1st half of silent cartographer, etc), but then they also had some incredibly tedious levels like the Library. When you go back and replay it, you can pick and choose which levels to do, so you don't have to deal with the ones that aren't fun. At its best, I thought Halo had better design than Halo 2, but since Halo 2 had better consistency it was better to play straight through. At least, that's how it feels for me.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with JLM in an instance such as this:
quote:Originally posted by JLM: Now I do need to disagree with OSC that deadlines are useless. Didn't one or the original founders of ID leave the company to produce the "ultimate FPS"? I recall reading a review at one point on how great it would be since you would control different characters throughout the game and what you did as one character would impact the story line of another. However, it took so long to "perfect" the game that by the time it was released the gaming population had gotten tired of waiting and had moved on. Deadlines draw a line in the sand where you can gage if the product is "good enough" for release, because no project is ever fully "complete".
Most games that COULD be better take so long to refine that by the time they come out the fan base will have dwindled. A producer could leave deadlines out of it and let the creators have fun but at the same time they better keep the game quiet or else the gamers will lose faith when years go by without a game. Similar to me, personally, losing faith that 'Ender's Game: The Movie' will ever come to theatres.
Mind you this is just my opinion.
Posts: 28 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
