Too much story in modern games? *spawn

[Prophecy2k]

I could be perfectly wrong about Battlefield 3. Maybe the single player was a big boost. I still think developers need to play to their strengths, and in most cases that is not story or integrating story into gameplay.

Just to clarify on BF3 and your comment about story being done badly adversely affecting the overall quality of a game (which I agree with in part). BF3 is actually a bad example as by your own admission the series has always been MP focussed. So having a terrible SP campaign actually took nothing away from the MP component of that game, as the game still scored well overall (though many critics docked points in their reviews for the quality of the SP portion), and the game still sold gangbusters.

I think a bad SP campaign only takes away from a game if the SP component is the primary mode, be it that it was advertised and marketed as such, or that the game's preceding interation in the series never had a MP component (e.g. Uncharted 2*).

On the flip side however, I find it rather telling that games almost never get a negative reception or reviews if the MP section of the game is shite and the SP is awesome. It says alot to me about the level of priority in the minds of the industry critics and fans at least (which is of course only a small subsection of the wider market, but does however undeniably influence the wider market buying trends).

Note: *i'm not saying U2's SP or MP is bad. Just using the game as an example whose prior iteration in the series didn't have a MP component. Thus the game is seen as SP focussed.

 

[Bigduo209]

I could be perfectly wrong about Battlefield 3. Maybe the single player was a big boost. I still think developers need to play to their strengths, and in most cases that is not story or integrating story into gameplay.

I think maybe other games like BF3 or CoD could stand to somewhat loosen the reins on the SP portion by exploring branching narratives, bring in an isolated perk/rank system, and focusing on creating better A.I. Keep some of the cool set-piece moments, but allow some player improvisation into the SP part of the game.

It's sad that EA has the initiative to go after CoD, but CoD (w/ Black Ops 2) is the only one actually opening up the single player with some narrative branching for it's FPS campaign. I guess that's what happens when you're the trendsetter, everybody else just blindly follows your lead but never really think outside the box.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I think maybe other games like BF3 or CoD could stand to somewhat loosen the reins on the SP portion by exploring branching narratives, bring in an isolated perk/rank system, and focusing on creating better A.I. Keep some of the cool set-piece moments, but allow some player improvisation into the SP part of the game.

It's sad that EA has the initiative to go after CoD, but CoD (w/ Black Ops 2) is the only one actually opening up the single player with some narrative branching for it's FPS campaign. I guess that's what happens when you're the trendsetter, everybody else just blindly follows your lead but never really think outside the box.

Thank God for Halo then. And games like R3, Crysis, KZ that try to differentiate themselves to varying degrees.

I'm glad however of COD's own differentiating within the genre for BLOPS2. It just means that FPS' will start being more than simple linear shooting galleries going into next-gen.

It was fine for a while, but I'm glad things are changing now rather than devs just allowing the entire genre to stagnate.

 

[swym]

Are you really suggesting Angry Birds' story catapulted its sales astronomically above that of similar games?

As Prophecy2k said it, it's more like the game is the sum of its parts.
The story didn't hurt the sales though, right? Or do you think Angry Birds would have sold more without the back-story? Because this is the general claim I was replying to.

 

[Jedi2016]

Angry Birds has a story?

 

[Prophecy2k]

Angry Birds has a story?

Course it does... It's pretty barebones. It's really just setting and characters. But there are the little cartoon cinematics that show the endless schism between the birds and the green pigs. It's a big part of the games thematic and visual appeal.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think Battlefield is the exact sort of game that could do a barebones almost-no-plot single player really, really well. You've already got these huge multiplayer maps and the vehicles and everything. Program some AI and make the game a series of tailor-made challenges that are more specific than what you do online. Basically, ship the game as what Unreal Tournament already is, but Battlefield.

. If what you are saying is true, how come that no plotless puzzle game managed to sell more copies than Myst?

Tetris for the original Game Boy sold 35 million copies. I remember when Myst on the shelves, too, you could buy these CDs with 50 or 100 or whatever puzzle games on them. Seem like everyone had a couple of those. I wonder what the aggregate was?

 

[Billy Idol]

I think Battlefield is the exact sort of game that could do a barebones almost-no-plot single player really, really well. You've already got these huge multiplayer maps and the vehicles and everything. Program some AI and make the game a series of tailor-made challenges that are more specific than what you do online. Basically, ship the game as what Unreal Tournament already is, but Battlefield.

Na, I actually enjoyed the SP campaign very much. Even played through twice because of the insane graphics and spectacle. I admit, that I did not think the story is really noteworthy...but I appreciate that the set pieces are somehow connected. Furthermore, SP really gives the devs the chance to shine technically: in a controlled environment, they can maximise graphics, destruction and drama in my opnion. So in the end, I am happy that they include and put real effort in it!!

I also played through UT3 SP...and this is really only a placeholder campaign, not very interesting for me. So I definitively prefer BF3 SP!!

 

[green.pixel]

Games which have proved popular in the past with solid gameplay and complex mechanics and gameplay systems, have been ruined this gen in an attempt to make those games appeal to some "broad" homogenised consumerbase, who in reality doesn't exist.

They certainly exist, otherwise those games wouldn't sell that well.

If you believe that these factors:

- the conditions under which the game is made - climate in which it is developed in, target audience, the budget and even region of the world of the team making it
- the developer and the publisher behind it (I've seen people say "who cares who's developing, it's just some [franchise name]") The IPs are not as important as the studio behind them. It's funny to see people on forums get excited over IPs being resurrected by new studios.
- the hardware and the controls it is designed around

don't have an impact on the final quality of the game, I want to live in your fantasy land. I really do.

Console FPSes have had unlockables going back to the N64.

They don't function in the same way. The purpose of the mechanical (the ones which aren't purely cosmetical, i.e. the ones which don't leave a mechanical impact in the game world) unlocks (weapons, perks, killstreaks and other shit) is to level the playing field/skill surve by rewarding the player for the least ammount of invested effort. The goal is to make the players believe they're achieving something with the least ammount of work possible, by giving them objectives to pursue that are achievable solely by investing time, when really all that has changed is numbers on the screen. It is an artifical growth curve with an intent of making the players who aren't good at developing their abilities in any tangible feel the sense of improvement. Compare them to the organically developed ones with no traceable degree of progress other than raw results. It seems that people who don't like unbalanced bar-filling treadmills are becoming a depressingly small group, unfortunately. Along with Achievments and GamerScores it is a videogame form of operant conditioning. They present a lucrative opportunity for companies to apply psychological discoveries on willing test subjects known as the paying customers. Given the popularity of GamerCards in online communities, it seems that it's what the majority of today's gamers want.

I'm not sure what to make of the controllers we have today, do we really need all those buttons ?Is someone thinking that having a lot of buttons which are only useful in limited circumstances equals offering any useful freedom or gameplay ?

A more complicated controller doesn't automatically insure that a game will be more complex and allow more freedom in the design, but it certainly makes that task much easier.

I'm pretty sure that a game like MadWorld would be much better (and not suck so much) if Platinum didn't have to design their game around the Wii controller. I'm also certain that the average length of the list of actions you are called upon to grasp at any given time in an FPS has shrunk. In the case of multiplatform development, the gamepad's limitations are obviously going to pop up during the game's design phase.
.
Complex concepts require complex controls. For example Homeworld, Freespace 2, Tekki/Steel Battalion.

Whenever developer talks about increasing accesibility/streamlining, it always ends up with dumbing down and simplification across the board. Not just trimming the fat (clearly useless or inefficient options that add nothing to the game) which what streamlining should ideally ammount to. Steamlining menus in an action game is fine, but if you want to make the combat more accessible then you are going to remove some of the complexity and sucking out the enjoyment/fun. It's more complex in strategy games; making the menus more accessible is also fine, but the problem is the menus and strategy are intrinsically tied. I really dislike when developers believe they can make the game more accessible without changing its core. They goal is always to make the player spend less effort on something

It just sounds like it's a wrong emphasis, when is reloading (a weapon) really strategic in a game ? Is it worth having it if it's just a routine/reflex action .

In Red Orchestra games reloading while you still have bullets left equals lost bullets. Neotokyo, HL2 mod, has a similar use.

 

[Bigduo209]

Whenever developer talks about increasing accesibility/streamlining, it always ends up with dumbing down and simplification across the board. Not just trimming the fat (clearly useless or inefficient options that add nothing to the game) which what streamlining should ideally ammount to. Steamlining menus in an action game is fine, but if you want to make the combat more accessible then you are going to remove some of the complexity and sucking out the enjoyment/fun. It's more complex in strategy games; making the menus more accessible is also fine, but the problem is the menus and strategy are intrinsically tied. I really dislike when developers believe they can make the game more accessible without changing its core. They goal is always to make the player spend less effort on something.

Nowadays this idea comes to mind when playing Spiderman 2 and Prince of Persia:The Two Thrones (PS2), I went back to playing those games recently and really had to readjust to the controls.

Now readjusting to them definitely took some effort, but it made me realize just how much fun it was to not always have everything be automated. It may have been harder to learn the controls in order to move, but the sense of being able to control the tiniest of actions was so gratifying.

I don't always feel like it was the game's fault *I say always because there's still some gameplay issues*. I feel more responsible for making mistakes because they were my mistakes, I had to understand where I went wrong to complete certain objectives. Most of today's games can be screwed-up even worse because of streamlined controls, because certain automated mechanics can lead to more hits than misses.

Like you said, streamlining in certain things can be good. However trying create something streamlined with a bit more complexity in design isn't a surefire way to make something work.

 

[Arwin]

It's getting odd-topic a bit but you should compare Foosball on DualShock vs using two Move controllers. It is quite the difference.

I think although I can really appreciate story, I am definitely warming to the idea of refocussing purely on gameplay and trying to make a fun gameplay box to mess around in.

Even when games do that though, I can still imagine the more complex one basically evolving their inevitable tutorials into a story.

 

[Prophecy2k]

They certainly exist, otherwise those games wouldn't sell that well.

If you believe that these factors:

- the conditions under which the game is made - climate in which it is developed in, target audience, the budget and even region of the world of the team making it
- the developer and the publisher behind it (I've seen people say "who cares who's developing, it's just some [franchise name]") The IPs are not as important as the studio behind them. It's funny to see people on forums get excited over IPs being resurrected by new studios.
- the hardware and the controls it is designed around

don't have an impact on the final quality of the game, I want to live in your fantasy land. I really do

Where did I say that? Huh? R u sure you responded to the right post?

 

[green.pixel]

Where did I say that? Huh?

I responded to your post with the first sentence and then expanded on related ideas. A general observation, not a direct response to what you've written.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think every game that has reloading should result in losing the magazine when you reload. Instead of an ammo count, you should have a mag count.

Regarding what I said about Battlefield's story, I really liked the campaign in Battlefield: BC2. It's just that I think the COD-style campaign should be saved for the Medal of Honor series. I'd really like to see more campaigns in the style of BF2: Modern Combat, which had more in common with BF multiplayer, Star Wars Battlefront and Battalion Wars than Call of Duty.

 

[Sigfried1977]

Finished The Darkness II a couple of days ago. Mechanically it was a thrilling, immensely gratifying, ultra-violent power trip. I probably would have been content with all that already, but in the end, the story really made it special. Even the little Darkling got to shine in a surprisingly heart-felt moment.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Finished The Darkness II a couple of days ago. Mechanically it was a thrilling, immensely gratifying, ultra-violent power trip. I probably would have been content with all that already, but in the end, the story really made it special. Even the little Darkling got to shine in a surprisingly heart-felt moment.

Did you play the first? If so how do they compare?

Loved the story in the first game.

In fact come to think of it, some of the best FPS games in memory on both console and PC have been very story driven games.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I did play the first. I prefer the second one though. The first game is slightly more unique due to its limited open world game design, but in my opinion the pseudo open word added precisely nothing to the first game. If anything, Starbreeze's 3-subway stations-with-a-handful-of-houses-version of New York felt pretty silly. I really liked the story in the first game, but otherwise it was basically a worse version of The Chronicles of Riddick- Escape from Butcher Bay. Adventure elements or not, The Darkness was still a shooter. Unfortunately it was also a pretty lousy one.

The Darkness 2 on the other hand is as linear as they come, but the completely revamped mechanics make it a joy to play. I particularly love how powerful the game makes you feel right from the get go, and it only gets better from there. You never have to go into a menu to change powers either - everything single action is mapped to the controller. Aiming feels great and your tentacles have just the right range and power. You are basically a deadly force from any distance. Unlike the first game, TDII is also pretty fast. There's still tons and tons of wonderfully gory animations involving your tentacles, but you don't have to wait forever for lefty and righty fighting over a torn out heart anymore. They are efficient devourers in TDII.

I terms of story I think both games are equally strong. The second game is paced much better though, and despite bucket loads of gore it actually tells a very personal story that's often downright sweet. It's a bit less bleak than the first game, and I really love how much the expressive faces add to the characters. Writing and voice acting are fantastic as well. Visually The Darkness II is nearly flawless. This has to be one of the, if not the most convincing use use of cel-shading in any game ever.

It's a rather short game mind you. Probably 6 hours long.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I did play the first. I prefer the second one though. The first game is slightly more unique due to its limited open world game design, but in my opinion the pseudo open word added precisely nothing to the first game. If anything, Starbreeze's 3-subway stations-with-a-handful-of-houses-version of New York felt pretty silly. I really liked the story in the first game, but otherwise it was basically a worse version of The Chronicles of Riddick- Escape from Butcher Bay. Adventure elements or not, The Darkness was still a shooter. Unfortunately it was also a pretty lousy one.

The Darkness 2 on the other hand is as linear as they come, but the completely revamped mechanics make it a joy to play. I particularly love how powerful the game makes you feel right from the get go, and it only gets better from there. You never have to go into a menu to change powers either - everything single action is mapped to the controller. Aiming feels great and your tentacles have just the right range and power. You are basically a deadly force from any distance. Unlike the first game, TDII is also pretty fast. There's still tons and tons of wonderfully gory animations involving your tentacles, but you don't have to wait forever for lefty and righty fighting over a torn out heart anymore. They are efficient devourers in TDII.

I terms of story I think both games are equally strong. The second game is paced much better though, and despite bucket loads of gore it actually tells a very personal story that's often downright sweet. It's a bit less bleak than the first game, and I really love how much the expressive faces add to the characters. Writing and voice acting are fantastic as well. Visually The Darkness II is nearly flawless. This has to be one of the, if not the most convincing use use of cel-shading in any game ever.

It's a rather short game mind you. Probably 6 hours long.

Thanks for the impressions. Much appreciated. Will def check the game out.

One more thing though, before I get told off for going too OT: Have you read the comics? Does the story follow them closely or not?

That was the one thing I didn't like about the first game was how much they deviated unnecessarily from the comics.

 

[Sigfried1977]

No, I didn't. That said, the second game is a direct sequel to the first game. For what it's worth, the story was penned by a writer who also worked on books.

Did the first game really deviate that much from the comics? I remember that it wasn't based on the original Darkness comics, but on a particular take on the series that came out quite a bit later instead.

By the way, Jackie gets his classic Darkness armor in the game as well - Nice touch.

 

[Prophecy2k]

No, I didn't. That said, the second game is a direct sequel to the first game. For what it's worth, the story was penned by a writer who also worked on books.

Did the first game really deviate that much from the comics? I remember that it wasn't based on the original Darkness comics, but on a particular take on the series that came out quite a bit later instead.

By the way, Jackie gets his classic Darkness armor in the game as well - Nice touch.

... bought!!!!

Sweet.

Yeah the games followed the Darkness zero (iirc), which was a spin-off series. There were quite a few changes, i.e. the non-existence of the Angelus (an integral character in the entire series), the bald guy with the glowy eyes, and also the swappage in and out of the character that

Spoiler

killed Jackie's g/f

. It's been a while, will try to remeber the names and get back to you.