-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sonic the Hedgehog Community |OT2 Battle|
- Thread starter Professor Beef
- Start date
- Status
Dark Schala
Eloquent Princess
Finished the Scarescraper. Or at least one mode of it and finished all 25 floors of it with Bean. That was fun.
Noi and I need to finish off SR3 one of these days.
The whole thing about Jak II is that it feels like Rubin wanted to make something more than a video game.
Oh god, I can't remember where I read the stupid thing, but apparently he took issue with Super Mario 64's only reward being a kiss from a princess, and that players who play platformers don't want such a simple goal to pursue. And thus we have this cinematic structure in Jak II now. I think AniHawk has mentioned it off and on in places, so I know I'm not pulling it out of my ass. Platformers just aren't like that, though. They tend to test the player's skill through obstructions and timing (sometimes memorization), and the true reward is presumably getting through the level, getting through the level quickly, or getting through the level without any damage. The player can set this sort of goal for themselves if they wish. The ending of the game is the narrative/game's goal of saying that you got through every single stage and everything the game threw at you at increasing difficulty without the narrative being thrown in your face all the time. It's the type of thing I tend to bring up whenever I say why I play platformers: I don't play them for the story or characters or whatever. I play them for the mechanics, stage diversity, stage design, and how I can complete the stage in various ways depending on the goal I set, whether it's no-damage, no-death, speedrun, get through, etc. My interest in a platformer's narrative is pretty small, and the only time I seem to like it is when feelings/character direction is quickly and nicely animated with the character models with as little text as possible.
It's like... I like bringing up Falcom's design philosophy a lot because it's the type of philosophy I cherish and don't seem to see often anymore. And that's:
Systems and mechanics first. Characters and narrative second. The way Jak II (and later ND games to me) seems to be designed is narrative/characters first, and then designing the game around it. I've seen this sort of philosophy in a lot of games this generation, and it's something I don't really appreciate at all. Now according to a lot of people, Uncharted 2 is incredibly successful with this formula because it's linear and focuses on one thing as opposed to focusing on many different things and being a mess. Jak II, by contrast, ends up having the narrative win over the gameplay incredibly often, and the game part of the game suffers because of it. The most important feature of Jak II, to its developers at the time, was communicating its narrative first and foremost as opposed to crafting a cohesive game with coherent systems in place that players will take advantage of when platforming.
Speaking of Naughty Dog...
To be honest, I'm kind of hesitant to start playing Uncharted 2 simply because I'm afraid it won't live up to what everyone's been telling me about the game (ie: game of the generation calibre). I don't like games with a huge cinematic focus, so that's why I'd stayed far away from the Uncharted games until now. And I've been told by some people that they're afraid that they're overselling the game to me. Though I loved Asura's Wrath, and that generally fits into the type of game I don't generally like, so who knows.
I've been told to stay the eff away from Uncharted 3, though, haha. Just because the problem I had with Uncharted 1's endgame apparently happens with Uncharted 3.
Noi and I need to finish off SR3 one of these days.
EDGY. Or at least edgy for the sake of being edgy. Outside of the Shadow the Hedgehogginess, the game had poor hovercar controls, a bad camera at times, a weird checkpointing system, some of the mission structure is weird, and whatever good platforming sections there are in the game are completely overshadowed by the rest of the game.
The whole thing about Jak II is that it feels like Rubin wanted to make something more than a video game.
Oh god, I can't remember where I read the stupid thing, but apparently he took issue with Super Mario 64's only reward being a kiss from a princess, and that players who play platformers don't want such a simple goal to pursue. And thus we have this cinematic structure in Jak II now. I think AniHawk has mentioned it off and on in places, so I know I'm not pulling it out of my ass. Platformers just aren't like that, though. They tend to test the player's skill through obstructions and timing (sometimes memorization), and the true reward is presumably getting through the level, getting through the level quickly, or getting through the level without any damage. The player can set this sort of goal for themselves if they wish. The ending of the game is the narrative/game's goal of saying that you got through every single stage and everything the game threw at you at increasing difficulty without the narrative being thrown in your face all the time. It's the type of thing I tend to bring up whenever I say why I play platformers: I don't play them for the story or characters or whatever. I play them for the mechanics, stage diversity, stage design, and how I can complete the stage in various ways depending on the goal I set, whether it's no-damage, no-death, speedrun, get through, etc. My interest in a platformer's narrative is pretty small, and the only time I seem to like it is when feelings/character direction is quickly and nicely animated with the character models with as little text as possible.
It's like... I like bringing up Falcom's design philosophy a lot because it's the type of philosophy I cherish and don't seem to see often anymore. And that's:
Toshihiro Kondo said:
Systems and mechanics first. Characters and narrative second. The way Jak II (and later ND games to me) seems to be designed is narrative/characters first, and then designing the game around it. I've seen this sort of philosophy in a lot of games this generation, and it's something I don't really appreciate at all. Now according to a lot of people, Uncharted 2 is incredibly successful with this formula because it's linear and focuses on one thing as opposed to focusing on many different things and being a mess. Jak II, by contrast, ends up having the narrative win over the gameplay incredibly often, and the game part of the game suffers because of it. The most important feature of Jak II, to its developers at the time, was communicating its narrative first and foremost as opposed to crafting a cohesive game with coherent systems in place that players will take advantage of when platforming.
Speaking of Naughty Dog...
To be honest, I'm kind of hesitant to start playing Uncharted 2 simply because I'm afraid it won't live up to what everyone's been telling me about the game (ie: game of the generation calibre). I don't like games with a huge cinematic focus, so that's why I'd stayed far away from the Uncharted games until now. And I've been told by some people that they're afraid that they're overselling the game to me. Though I loved Asura's Wrath, and that generally fits into the type of game I don't generally like, so who knows.
I've been told to stay the eff away from Uncharted 3, though, haha. Just because the problem I had with Uncharted 1's endgame apparently happens with Uncharted 3.
Dark Schala
Eloquent Princess
Well, based on what I know from Uncharted 1, despite the dissonance created with Nate's character killing hundreds of dudes, he's a likeable and entertaining person. Jokey? Smart whenever he's in cutscenes that demonstrate his mentality as a treasure hunter. A lot of what people seem to like about the Uncharted games are the characters. Coming off of Uncharted 1, the only one I got to know well enough was Nate as opposed to Sully.
The Uncharted 2 commercial, from what I recall, focused on how it acted as a playable popcorn flick. And I guess that's where a lot of the accolades go in respect to it? I'm sure Uncharted 2 is a respectable shooter with moments that keep the player in suspense. There must be a reason why so many people like it. I can't exactly say why that is because I haven't played it yet.
Not to mention that the games look good. Good art direction, decent mo-cap, scenes generally directed well, script is fine, voice cast is good. As much as I don't care for cinematic games or games with a strong focus on cutscenes, I have to at least give the Uncharted games credit for kind of doing the formula in a decent manner that's enough to make lots of people like it.
It's just like how I like Assassin's Creed games, I guess (which tends to fall into the whole "why do people like these games so much because they churn one out every year" bit). I like the tons of stuff to do, the historical research done for the game, the Kyd music, the language options, and Ezio was a neat character. I get why people can't stand them, but I genuinely like the attempt to recreate cities from the past with lots of well-known structures from them. Though after AC3, I dunnooooooo...
The Uncharted 2 commercial, from what I recall, focused on how it acted as a playable popcorn flick. And I guess that's where a lot of the accolades go in respect to it? I'm sure Uncharted 2 is a respectable shooter with moments that keep the player in suspense. There must be a reason why so many people like it. I can't exactly say why that is because I haven't played it yet.
Not to mention that the games look good. Good art direction, decent mo-cap, scenes generally directed well, script is fine, voice cast is good. As much as I don't care for cinematic games or games with a strong focus on cutscenes, I have to at least give the Uncharted games credit for kind of doing the formula in a decent manner that's enough to make lots of people like it.
It's just like how I like Assassin's Creed games, I guess (which tends to fall into the whole "why do people like these games so much because they churn one out every year" bit). I like the tons of stuff to do, the historical research done for the game, the Kyd music, the language options, and Ezio was a neat character. I get why people can't stand them, but I genuinely like the attempt to recreate cities from the past with lots of well-known structures from them. Though after AC3, I dunnooooooo...
Meccanical
Member
Shadow Hog
Member
Two Thrones tried to address that, didn't it?
Of course, I couldn't fathom why they went the route they did with Warrior Within. It just didn't seem like the direction the series should've gone in any sense other than a cynical "Halo and GTA3 are selling like hotcakes so let's go make this MATURE" cash grab. I hadn't even played Sands of Time (still haven't, although I own it) and that much was obvious to me.
Hot Coldman
Banned
The thing is, not all of Jak II's characters were destroyed by the shift in tone. Jak is the notable case and his new look is rightly ridiculed, but i feel as though there is still a lot of good stuff there under the "MATURE" surface. Going through a quick list (in spoilers for PKrockin and Nocturnowl, basically if you can't see a name don't click as they are revealed later on in the game.).
THE BAD:
Jak
Torn
Baron Praxis
THE UGLY:
THE GOOD:
Daxter
There are of course other characters but I find that most of them are inoffensive yet unremarkable so I won't bother talking about them. As for the gameplay, well I do have stuff to say but i feel like it has been discussed to death already so i won't drag it out further. Seeing as some of you clearly feel strongly about the shift in tone I thought I'd offer a detailed look into the story aspects of the game so I hope you find it interesting at least. I could go on about Naughty Dog's later games to no end but that is a post for another day I feel.
THE BAD:
Jak
is probably the character that suffers the most in the transition. He was already a boring mute protagonist in the first game, but here he gets a beard, some guns and a pretty new ability to grow his hair and nails out and create a fancy purple light show, all in the name of making him 'cool'. Needless to say it backfires horribly. In addition he gets a brand new personality to go with it, and can commonly be seen scowling, sulking, crossing his arms angrily, slamming his fist on tables, swearing but not to much, shouting, threatening old men and generally being a jerk. Everything about his character, particularly in the first half of the game gives off bad vibes. This is the biggest blotch on the script by some margin and i was very thankful that he was massively mellowed out in the third game.
Torn
is a new character who suffers from similar issues to Jak. When these two are in a room together you can feel the angst and forced edginess dripping off the walls. Not very interesting and hardly any character development, he epitomises the need for maturity the developer's so desperately wanted.
Baron Praxis
is a generic villain if ever there was one. With his moustache, mechs and horrible carbon footprint he kind of resembles an harder Eggman. Not much else to say here, it's like an assembly line of identical characters so far.
THE UGLY:
Kiera, oh boy what can i say. Not so much a victim of the tonal shift as much as being written out of the script almost entirely for large portions of the game, something that got even worse in the third entry. It's a shame as she is not that bad of a character, it's nice to see someone who isn't grumpy and super serious all the time.
THE GOOD:
Daxter
is the saving grace of the game's script and in my opinion partially rescues it from it's grimdark hell. I've heard people complain that they find him annoying, but Daxter brings something desperately needed to the cutscenes. A sense of humour. His dynamic with many of the characters such as Sig, Torn, Vin and especially Krew actually had me laughing out loud at times and I was genuinely looking forward to many of the cutscenes when I replayed the game recently. And here lies my partial defense of the game, at least from a tone perspective. The game is damn funny a lot of the time and if you can just block your ears whenever the aforementioned bad trio are talking (and Errol) then you actually find more enjoyment in the story.
Sig and Vin both add into this point in very different ways. Sig at first glance fits neatly into the cliched hardasses above, with his big muscles, super powerful gun and overly deep voice. But after just a little time with the guy you can see that not only is he pretty funny in his own right, but he is always smiling and actually is a pretty nice guy. Vin on the other hand plays perfectly into the slapstick comedy of Daxter and his crazy antics provide some of the most hilarious moments in the game, he's a top character in my book.
Krew is the real villain of the piece, and what a villain he is. Basically everything that was missing in Praxis as a good antagonist is here in Krew, and he has a 3-dimensional personality to boot. He's both a ruthlessly intelligent and cold-hearted gangster yet incredibly lazy and unhygienic. He has a biting sarcasm but rises to anger quickly. He loves fine silks and clothes but he is obsessed with weapons and explosives. He is actually quite camp yet he loves bloodsports and killing. These are all things that make him both fun to watch and listen to, but also a dark character who isn't grimdark, if you follow my meaning. To top it off his bickering with Daxter is my true highlight of the game's story, the scene with the racing contract being a particular standout.
There are of course other characters but I find that most of them are inoffensive yet unremarkable so I won't bother talking about them. As for the gameplay, well I do have stuff to say but i feel like it has been discussed to death already so i won't drag it out further. Seeing as some of you clearly feel strongly about the shift in tone I thought I'd offer a detailed look into the story aspects of the game so I hope you find it interesting at least. I could go on about Naughty Dog's later games to no end but that is a post for another day I feel.
Daxter is pretty annoying. Every single cutscene is him either whining about something or acting all goofy for the laughs. Usually both. It's actually distracting enough that sometimes after the cutscene is done I realize I totally missed what my mission is supposed to be. And honestly I don't think he's all that funny.
This game would be a lot more fun if I didn't spend over half of it just driving from place to place.
Remember Crackdown? That was a good game. It had Agency Resupply Points that acted as warps to certain places in the city so you didn't have to spend hours driving around. Also, as you ran around the city you could level up your abilities and find new guns/cars by collecting orbs, exploring and fighting gang members. Finally, the missions all took place inside the actual city, so knowing how the city was laid out would help you complete them. In Jak 2 there's no sort of fast travel, there's no reason to fight anyone or explore, and the missions almost always take place in another area.
For 2003, the city in Jak 2 is impressive technically but design-wise it's kind of pointless and it's really interfering with my enjoyment of the game.
This game would be a lot more fun if I didn't spend over half of it just driving from place to place.
Remember Crackdown? That was a good game. It had Agency Resupply Points that acted as warps to certain places in the city so you didn't have to spend hours driving around. Also, as you ran around the city you could level up your abilities and find new guns/cars by collecting orbs, exploring and fighting gang members. Finally, the missions all took place inside the actual city, so knowing how the city was laid out would help you complete them. In Jak 2 there's no sort of fast travel, there's no reason to fight anyone or explore, and the missions almost always take place in another area.
For 2003, the city in Jak 2 is impressive technically but design-wise it's kind of pointless and it's really interfering with my enjoyment of the game.
Meccanical
Member
the really fun part is that jak and daxter did have warp points.
Hot Coldman
Banned
ViewtifulJC
Banned
It reminds me of the Indiana Jones trilogy. First one had a great likable adventuer, paling around with his female love interest who can kick ass in a fight, had a great throwback adventure serial feel and sense of whimsy, shit felt magical. Then you had the sequel, darker, more violent, not something the kids gonna like. Gone are the classic tunes, the old friends, the girl you liked from the last one. Protagonist is now a bit of a jerk-ass, even turns into a DARK version of himself halfway through the movie. Not bad, but it loses something that made the first one so fun. So third one comes around, that take that criticism under advisement and try REALLY hard to be like the first one. Things are a lot cheerier, comedy is broader, the classic music is back, brought back the old friends you liked, same bad guy as the first one, the whole deal. You can tell they're straining to be like the first one, so it never captures that effortless lightning-in-a-bottle magic the first one had, but overall it's a damn fun time and sends the trilogy out on a high note.
And PoP08 is KotCS, and I don't talk about that one.
But can we actually have this though?
I need a reminder on every device when this comes on because with the exception of last Friday, I ALWAYS forgetwhile I'm just posting whatever dumb crap I find:
yessssssssssssss
Shadow Hog
Member
I'd have figured Forgotten Sands was Crystal Skull.
(Disclaimer: I actually like Crystal Skull, fridge scene notwithstanding. It's no Raiders or Last Crusade - arguably better than Temple - but I still liked it.)
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Forgotten Sands is the Young Indiana Jones TV series.
PhantomOfTheKnight
Member
Wow, Uncle Grandpa is the biggest mindfuck I've seen in a while. At least the character himself isn't annoying.
I don't know how to feel about that show. "He's everybody's uncle and grandpa" sounds like it makes for some funny jokes (everyone has that one uncle/grandpa that...), but then everything about its execution is completely different from that. And add in the fact that it's apparently related to that Super Mountain Fort Awesome show from 2011 or something and you have got one crazy looking clusterfuck of what.
So I dunno.
So I dunno.
tiggerkiddo
Member
Quick, someone talk about moe!
Shadow Hog
Member
Sorry, I'm not well-versed on the Three Stooges. Not even Moe, as intriguing as he is.
He's a guy who owns a bar named after himself.
Oh, a wise guy, eh? Why I oughta...
This is the same company that rewarded us with
a bright light
i wish i could find the exact video of jason rubin saying that shit, too. it's been years and it was on gamevideos.com from what i remember.
however, i did find an old interview that was on cvg back in the day. here are some choice quotes. i'm a nice guy, so i'll even leave them in context.
so to recap:
-gamers only played mario in the 90s because they were forced to do so, and there were no extremely gory/bloody games that appealed to kids back then
-jak ii is better than mario because you're not saving a princess, you're getting revenge
-super mario sunshine, the only mario game with full voice acting in its cutscenes, is a prime example of how nintendo is behind the times because they don't have voice acting in their games
-solid character development and an amazing story is a staple of classic miyamoto games
-miyamoto is running nintendo and making games. that's why super mario sunshine sucks
-jak ii is great because we have a real actual story unlike those fake stories in other games
-jak ii is great because you can do anything whenever wherever, even if it doesn't make much sense
-ratchet & clank limited different types of gameplay to different sections, and that made it not as good as it could have been
however, i did find an old interview that was on cvg back in the day. here are some choice quotes. i'm a nice guy, so i'll even leave them in context.
so to recap:
-gamers only played mario in the 90s because they were forced to do so, and there were no extremely gory/bloody games that appealed to kids back then
-jak ii is better than mario because you're not saving a princess, you're getting revenge
-super mario sunshine, the only mario game with full voice acting in its cutscenes, is a prime example of how nintendo is behind the times because they don't have voice acting in their games
-solid character development and an amazing story is a staple of classic miyamoto games
-miyamoto is running nintendo and making games. that's why super mario sunshine sucks
-jak ii is great because we have a real actual story unlike those fake stories in other games
-jak ii is great because you can do anything whenever wherever, even if it doesn't make much sense
-ratchet & clank limited different types of gameplay to different sections, and that made it not as good as it could have been
that's what makes jak ii such a remarkably bad game. it's bad enough that the story sucks, that it negatively influences so much of the game design, but it comes from a really mean place. it comes from the idea of 'fuck those guys, they aren't as smart as i am'. instead of looking to other games for inspiration, they were looking down on their contemporaries with disdain. it's such a smug, hateful product through and through.
i feel this attitude permeates most of their games since then, especially since the critical acclaim they achieved with uncharted 2. druckmann spouted some real shit during development of the last of us. however, they had the design chops to back up their viewpoint by then, so i'm willing to let it go if it means they'll keep getting better.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
the voice acting in SMS is SO BAD. I remember hearing that it was all part of Big N's plan on the old GameFAQs board. "This is Nintendo giving you fanboys what you want. If they did voice acting in Zelda, it would be shit like this, so be careful what you wish for!"
the voice acting in all of nintendo's games were bad until very recently. kid icarus: uprising, fire emblem: awakening, and xenoblade chronicles had some good shit. super mario sunshine, fire emblem path of radiance and radiant dawn, baten kaitos, sin & punishment 2, other m to some degree (i think the voices were fine, but the direction was off). i don't think it was nintendo's intention to make games with bad voice acting, but i do think that a zelda game with voice acting would have sounded awful. i'm less concerned about it these days.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I remember reading Parish's review of Other M, and he noted that Nintendo is just about one generation behind people when it comes to a lot of things, including video game storytelling. Other M was them in that awkward FMV PS1 level of narrative, and they're going through the growing pains the rest of the industry has gone through. And you're right, their most recent efforts have shown a remarkable improvement, to the point that I don't think voice acting would RUIN Zelda or anything. As long as it's good, then whatever.
Meanwhile in 1993, DOOM was busy being the most installed piece of software in the world and the Genesis edition of Mortal Kombat sparked national controversy.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
God forbid you can like both or anything
"I still have vivid memories of all the different levels. The control is still pretty much unrivalled. It convinced me that games were art" - Gabe Newell on his all-time favorite game, Super Mario 64(his second favorite being Doom, which inspired him to get into games in the first place)
"I still have vivid memories of all the different levels. The control is still pretty much unrivalled. It convinced me that games were art" - Gabe Newell on his all-time favorite game, Super Mario 64(his second favorite being Doom, which inspired him to get into games in the first place)
Professor Beef
Banned
In IRC, we were talking about evil twins. I was accused of already being the evil one. 
Wow, never seen this before. I'm kinda wishing I hadn't tried to defend it earlier now, because this is just stupid.
Hot Coldman
Banned
Anyone who watched the Gametrailers Bonus Round videos know how much of a corporate ballwasher Jason Rubin is.
I can't remember the exact details, but there was a interview sometime before Uncharted 3 came out that pretty much epitomizes your post. Something about how they were complaining that other games were getting higher metacritics and acclaim but they were the first to have good stories (their claim) or something.
oh yeah. i mixed up druckmann and balestra, but this one is druckmann:
this one is balestra:
i took issue with the balestra one, and got into a spat with arne over it. the whole notion that video games are inherently this lesser thing that need to be made better just comes across as insanely insulting.
Shadow Hog
Member
So who's the good one? Doctor Pork or something?In IRC, we were talking about evil twins. I was accused of already being the evil one.
Hot Coldman
Banned
It's not the best quote, for sure. I see some validity in the sense that a lot of real dross gets praised as good video game narrative, but the idea that ND's is objectively supreme and deserves more recognition? That's for others to decide, not them.
Well, David Cage is a bit more reasonable. He knows the type of games he wants to make, but doesn't condemn others from an ivory tower. He even separates skill based games from his own in the last thread about him.
After nearly 6 months, and three additional 3DS games added to my backlog, I've completed Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon. Really fun, challenging game, Next Level did a fantastic job.
Time to finally crack open Fire Emblem and see what all the fuss is about. Then Animal Crossing. Then Mario and Luigi...
Time to finally crack open Fire Emblem and see what all the fuss is about. Then Animal Crossing. Then Mario and Luigi...
Dark Schala
Eloquent Princess
Oh, I finished Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon today, too. I might do a writeup for that later after I end up talking to Bean about it, the final boss, and the ending. Overall, I'm feeling very positive towards it despite some inconsistencies. Mike Peacock, Darren Radtke, and Chad York did a good job with the soundtrack. It also made me realize that I like the Luigi model more than the Mario model. *shrug*
2012 was a year where I stepped out of my comfort zone and played games I usually wouldn't play or went back to genres I played a lot as a kid.
But I can say that with certainty, this entire generation was where I stepped out of my comfort zone and played games I wouldn't even think of playing. I was 17 when this gen started. If you told my 17-18-year-old self that I would've played stuff like Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Gravity Rush, and hell, even Luigi's Mansion, I would've told you that you were bonkers. I would have never touched those games at all. And I kind of think the generation was good in terms of that. It allowed a lot of people to branch out from their comfort zones. A few people I know who were completely Nintendo-exclusive ended up getting other consoles, others who played mostly RPGs started playing shooters, people gave VNs a better chance, etc.
Additionally, it was a nice chance to get re-acquainted with older series because of the retro revival.
Even then, you have people like Steven Spielberg, Vin Diesel, and Josef Fares getting into video game design, and some of them directing some stuff okay (contrary to what Ken Levine thinks) So it's not like video games aren't respected in a sense that film is. I still think video games are its own thing, much like movies are their own thing, books are their own thing, etc. Acclaim doesn't come from realism and cinematics alone. It's what you do with the medium at-hand that makes it cohesive and pleasing. That's why you have games like 999 being so wonderful--it even goes so far as to use the device that you are playing the game on as a gameplay and narrative mechanic. That's depth. It's much more rewarding to have design decisions like that or using everything there is about the medium to convey your narrative or game design as opposed to going all out and trying to make it realistic or simply aesthetically-pleasing.
I don't think that what they're doing is necessarily redefining the genre, though their games will have influence on forthcoming games and their design, but they're simply making room for the cinematic game genre. Players still have agency over what they're doing while playing something with a UI that gives the player feedback. We've certainly come a long way from that CRT amusement device in the late 1940s where you blew targets up.
(Hope it works now. D
2012 was a year where I stepped out of my comfort zone and played games I usually wouldn't play or went back to genres I played a lot as a kid.
But I can say that with certainty, this entire generation was where I stepped out of my comfort zone and played games I wouldn't even think of playing. I was 17 when this gen started. If you told my 17-18-year-old self that I would've played stuff like Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Gravity Rush, and hell, even Luigi's Mansion, I would've told you that you were bonkers. I would have never touched those games at all. And I kind of think the generation was good in terms of that. It allowed a lot of people to branch out from their comfort zones. A few people I know who were completely Nintendo-exclusive ended up getting other consoles, others who played mostly RPGs started playing shooters, people gave VNs a better chance, etc.
Additionally, it was a nice chance to get re-acquainted with older series because of the retro revival.
That's a pretty good way to sum it all up. What they did to Jak was outright weird. It was a strange way of giving character to a character who was previously silent, and the reasoning for it is disappointing. Jak's character came off as being gritty for the sake of grittiness, even somewhat worse than Shadow in some respects (though they're both equal in what their characters try to convey with varying degrees of fan feedback).
Oh lordy, and I just said that whole bit about not wanting to play cinematic experiences because they just don't jive well with me. Sciz gave the example of LucasArts adventure games, but I'd also like to use VNs as an example. Stuff like Nakige (stuff that's intended to have an emotional impact on the player so much so that they feel to cry), sound novels like 428: Fuusa Sareta Shibuya de, Portopia Serial Murder Case, etc. may not be realistic (well, 428 certainly is), but they're simply experiences that are used to convey a narrative but the player still has enough agency to guide the narrative in a direction based on his or her choices.
Even then, you have people like Steven Spielberg, Vin Diesel, and Josef Fares getting into video game design, and some of them directing some stuff okay (contrary to what Ken Levine thinks) So it's not like video games aren't respected in a sense that film is. I still think video games are its own thing, much like movies are their own thing, books are their own thing, etc. Acclaim doesn't come from realism and cinematics alone. It's what you do with the medium at-hand that makes it cohesive and pleasing. That's why you have games like 999 being so wonderful--it even goes so far as to use the device that you are playing the game on as a gameplay and narrative mechanic. That's depth. It's much more rewarding to have design decisions like that or using everything there is about the medium to convey your narrative or game design as opposed to going all out and trying to make it realistic or simply aesthetically-pleasing.
I don't think that what they're doing is necessarily redefining the genre, though their games will have influence on forthcoming games and their design, but they're simply making room for the cinematic game genre. Players still have agency over what they're doing while playing something with a UI that gives the player feedback. We've certainly come a long way from that CRT amusement device in the late 1940s where you blew targets up.
Awww, haha.
(Hope it works now. D
- Status