Besides that it's bad and reptetive , even worse then 1&2 gameplay wise.Elizabeth is a pointless plot device.
Its a 3.6/10 at most , i don't know how it managed to get such high ratings besides the press being paided of. It looks like shit plays like shit and the story falls apart if you actualy pay attention.
With time, but so long as gameplay mechanics (jRPG battles, regenerating enemies, puzzles) as opposed to interaction (kill him or don't) are a part of a game, I expect it will be considered a flawed narrative medium. Even the Telltale games have their puzzles which interrupt the flow of the story.
1) Every choice we ever make that will make the difference in the outcome of something else creates a multitude of universes which differ in how that one choice played out and what the results were. Traveling into one of these, you could kill yourself because the "you" that you are is not the "you" you'd be killing. Each universe continues along its way, some with you, some without you.
2) The above scenario isn't true and you, traveling back in time to kill your past self, inadvertently kill yourself. Naturally you can only do this once and, henceforth, the future in which you had lived would never come to pass.
games that follow the traditional narrative route (literally playing a movie) will fall several miles flat of any decent film, let-alone piece of literature. Games need to properly meld player interaction with thematic narrative elements as this is something other medium's simply cannot do
This game has you play as a teenage boy that was meant to die, but was saved by contact with an artifact, literally the fingernail of a divine being from beyond the stars. Now pulled between a world where he died and one where he lived, the boy is given the opportunity to undo the damage that a well-intentioned man has done to the very threads of reality.
Done properly, this would make for a good novel. I'd argue the same can be said for many games, including "Rule of Rose," "Haunting Ground," and more.
>>323071000 That is, like almost all other opinions expressed in this thread, utter bullshit. Homeworld, for an instance, has a completely linear, classical storytelling where the player has actually virtually no control over where the story will go. Yet it easily surpasses majority of modern space opera fiction in existence in other media.
Silent Hill 2 has, for all intents and purposes (ignoring the multiple ending gimmick, which really does not add much to the actual story), has completely linear narrative as well, yet it puts absolute majority of modern cinematic horror production to shame.
There is no reason why a well realized story would automatically be less valuable in a game, just because games offer other options than linear storytelling as an option - and keeping those two examples in mind, it's there is also no reason to assume that game would not be able to tell a linear story well.
Games can tell stories differently, yes. And that makes them unique, yes. But that does not mean non-linear narrative, and bridging the mechanical and narrative elements are the ONLY things game can do well.
Just like cinema can be a primarily an experience for the ear, even though it's main unique quality is showing images in motion, or how music can be a fantasty storytelling device, even though it's main unique selling feature is it's ability to synchronize with certain deeper predictive and pattern-recognizing mechanisms in our brain thus directly induce sense of gratification and pleasure.
It's stupid to assume that games can be good storytelling device in one way and one way only. I have no fucking idea why you cretins cling to that idea so hard.
>>323073053 I'm not doubting that it's possible for a linear game to have a narrative that is on par with those offered by good literature and film, just that I've never experienced it and for me it's essentially impossible given some inherent limitations.
This might seem like a protracted and unnecessary breakdown, but think of it this way; an author merely has to deal with the translation of setting, characters, narrative, etc. from his mind onto the page; creator's of a film have to do essentially the same but also worry about every other component that a piece of cinema is comprised of. In the case of game devs (for even a linear game with highly simplistic gameplay mechanics) there is even more work outside of simply the game's narrative and writing and so forth that it shouldn't really be all that surprising that these things suffer greatly (in my opinion) as a result.
>>323075854 >just that I've never experienced it and for me it's essentially impossible given some inherent limitations. I'm honestly bit confused about the statement. So do you not doubt it's possible, or it's essentially impossible? And I don't think you have a very clear idea about the amount of work it takes to translate an idea into a literal story, or a movie, and how much concessions and great limitations it involves, if you think it's somehow fundamentally different from a game.
>>323076504 For a second I though you might be one of the few people knowing what they are talking about, but wow... no. You are not. What the fuck is the train of thought there, actually? That is even more absurd and incoherent than the usual local tripe.
>>323077121 No. Just like I don't think cinema, books, music or theatre are art. Games, cinema, literature, music: those are media. Media are defined by purely formal parameters, while art is a subject of normative evaluation - media tells you what properties does a work have to have in order to fall under the category of said media, but nothing about their quality. Art is entirely and exclusively about quality.
So no MEDIUM is art. Individual works of ANY medium can be considered art. In other words, games are not art, but individual game, or even an individual, concrete contribution of one to a specific game or games could be considered art. You can't say games are art any more than you can say "movies are for education", or "music is good". Because no, not all of them are. But you can take any movie, any composition, or any game and say about that specific piece: it's good, or bad, or educative, or art.
Games are no different from any other creative outlets and media out there. As long as we admit the chance that some game might be actually good (by what ever merits of "good" aside from subjectivism we chose), we open up the possibility that some game could be reasonably considered a work of art.
Art, after all, does not mean anything less and anything more than "something we consider valuable".
Now the questions: are there games we consider really profoundly valuable? Are there any games we should consider valuable? And what the hell are our criteria for value? are still left to be discussed, preferably on some kind of more academic level.
TLDR: games as a medium are not "art" (that is, games are not art inherently), but individual game could be theoretically considered art if we could produce a reasonble body of authority and criteria of value.
Thread replies: 60 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 371859
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.