Bethesda on the Escapist - The Right Direction

[Per]

I'm not just mincing words; setting, premise, plot and story are different things, and you can get very different games by emphasizing different elements. Grim Fandango is a great game with a great story (and plot), but it's not at all the same kind of game as Fallout. Story entails structure, and one of the ideas with Fallout (as with Wasteland before it) was to dispense with structure. (This does not mean of course that lack of structure equals content, or Oblivion and Notepad would have been great RPGs).

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Hello Per,

With Structure, do you mean eatablished settings?

Most cRPGs take place in a fantasy setting and involve magic to some degree, Fallout changed that by putting it on an alternate futuristic Earth with magic abscent and its effects (long range attacks and stat altering effects) being replaced with guns and drugs.

 

[mortiz]

A game is meant to be fun to play, if you simply want a good story go watch a movie or read a book.

That sentence is plain stupidity, IMHO, sorry, but that's what I think. A videogame has as much right to stand as an artwork as any other artwork, and that means being fun to play, interesting to see, beautiful to hear, innovative or everything at the same time. Story, game-play, graphics, whatever, it's all part of Art isn't it, so why the fuck can't a game be genial because of its story, even while having a crappy game-play and graphics huh?

Once again, I wholeheartedly think that though is just stupid and retard... Once again, sorry if I offend you, it's not my intention. It's my opinion.

I think the difference is how we define a game, if a "game" simply contained the elements you've mentioned, a story with little to no gameplay, I wouldn't consider it a game at all. I'd see it as an interactive story, another type of computer application, on par with visual E-Books, and I'm sure you wouldn't say an E-book was a game would you? While interactive story's can be interesting and fun in their own way I don't believe Fallout falls into that category, Fallout is a computer game through and through with an excellent story and good writing. A game designed to be fun, or even invoke other emotions such as sadness to empathy, can still be seen a work of art since it designed to envoke a specific kind of emotional response. So to accept what is billed as a computer game with shitty gameplay is ridiculous, in fact if the game has terrible gameplay it detracts from the overall experience because you primarily play a game right? Slogging through a game just waiting for the next little nugget of story to appear doesn't sound like my idea of a good time.

. Once again, sorry if I offend you, it's not my intention. It's my opinion

Of course it was your intention, otherwise you wouldn't have used the language you used. No point trying to hide it.

 

[Per]

With Structure, do you mean eatablished settings?

No, structure has to do with how the game plays out, i.e. with story, pacing etc. (but also with gameplay factors that are not related to story or flavour). Genre is an aspect of setting.

Fallout is a computer game through and through with an excellent story

What story?

Describe the story of Fallout to me. I'll tell you about a dozen games with entirely different stories. Then you can try to argue that what you described is "the story of Fallout" but mine aren't.

And obviously I meant "minding" words in my previous post, not "mincing".

 

[mortiz]

With Structure, do you mean eatablished settings?

No, structure has to do with how the game plays out, i.e. with story, pacing etc. (but also with gameplay factors that are not related to story or flavour). Genre is an aspect of setting.

Fallout is a computer game through and through with an excellent story

What story?

Describe the story of Fallout to me. I'll tell you about a dozen games with entirely different stories. Then you can try to argue that what you described is "the story of Fallout" but mine aren't.

And obviously I meant "minding" words in my previous post, not "mincing".

I'm not interested in debating Fallout's story with you, that comment was throw-away and not central to my point, which is that a good computer game must have good gameplay. It depends If you take the story to encompass the characters, and their personalities and motives, for instance the idea behind The Master was an interesting plot point, whilst he was a monster his motives were more complex than saying "Oh, he's evil and must die", which is where Fallout's "story" comes into it's own. I make no distinction between story and plot by the way. Fallout has a story, however it is a story that you can influence to produce different outcomes. For example when I play through Fallout I'm following my own story through that game with its own beginning, middle and an end. I was simply using story as a generic term to describe the main quest line involving the water chip and the super mutants.

 

[Morbus]

I think the difference is how we define a game, if a "game" simply contained the elements you've mentioned, a story with little to no gameplay, I wouldn't consider it a game at all. I'd see it as an interactive story, another type of computer application, on par with visual E-Books, and I'm sure you wouldn't say an E-book was a game would you?

Then let's think, for instance, a game like POS but with an awesome story It's still a game, crappy crappy gameplay, but an awesome story. Would it be a good game? Or, for instance, see Fahrenheit (or Indigo Prophecy). A somewhat interesting story with a somewhat uninteresting game-play. A good game? I think so. Or games that are nothing else than gameplay: UT2004. I sometimes think we shouldn't call games like that "games" but, instead, tools. Of course a game with no (game)play is no game, but a game with shitty gameplay *is* a game. That was my point. And if that game has an interesting story, that the game may have a chance of being a decent game, just for the story, as it could be just for the gameplay, or even just for the art direction (depending on the game genre).

A game designed to be fun, or even invoke other emotions such as sadness to empathy, can still be seen a work of art since it designed to envoke a specific kind of emotional response.

"or even invoke other emotions" That's right, that's what i was talking about. Some games simple aren't meant to be fun, and that doesn't make the bad games. If you were implying that "or even invoke other emotions" part in your previous post, then i misunderstood you. I was reacting to the idea of "games are meant to be fun".

Of course it was your intention, otherwise you wouldn't have used the language you used. No point trying to hide it.

I'm neither English native (not much of a euphemist here) nor an hypocrite. I "insulted" your opinion not you. If you got offended then it's not my fault, I'm not responsible that our opinions clash with each other...

Besides, I wouldn't want to insult a person I don't even know, would I? It's the first time i remember replying to one of your posts, and i have nothing against you...

 

[mortiz]

That was my point. And if that game has an interesting story, that the game may have a chance of being a decent game, just for the story, as it could be just for the gameplay, or even just for the art direction (depending on the game genre).

The rest of your post above this means absolutely nothing in the context of this discussion, you’re simply reaffirming that shitty games are still games, well duh. However, this part is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think a computer game with really shitty gameplay can ever be called a decent game. If an application has simply enough interaction to get you from point A to point B in the story then it's an interactive story. As soon as you start adding additional layers on top of that which attempt to make the application more entertaining ( otherwise there'd be no point in doing it) that's when you start getting into game territory. A game like Pong is a game in its purest form; it doesn't contain an interaction for getting from point A to point B in a story as its pure aim is to be entertaining. The old text based adventures on the other hand contain just enough interaction to get you from point A to point B in the story. If you attempt to add additional "gameplay" on top of that, which turns out to be bad gameplay you've hit a problem. Because those extra layers start to detract from the experience. They're like obstacles in the way of becoming engrossed in the story. A story cannot make the game, you can say that the game had a decent story, but story alone is not enough because a game is defined by how the user interacts with the “story” or interfaces with the game in general and then by what rules the user is constrained by once in the game. If that’s skewered you can’t simply expect people to simply ignore it, it’d be like trying to look through a dirty window of game play. Fahrenheit’s game play was good enough which is a key point. If Fahrenheit was a lot longer however I could see how its gameplay would start to drain on me. So was it a good game? As a game I honestly didn't think it was that great, as I've said though, it had enough game play to keep me interested, it was probably just about the right length.

"or even invoke other emotions" That's right, that's what i was talking about. Some games simple aren't meant to be fun, and that doesn't make the bad games. If you were implying that "or even invoke other emotions" part in your previous post, then i misunderstood you. I was reacting to the idea of "games are meant to be fun".

You're putting video-games on the level of high art, I'm sure you're aware that most video game designers don't have that in mind when they create a game, their primary concern is if it's fun to play or not. If it isn't fun to play, forget it. Invoking emotions is all well and good when it's driven along by something that makes the player want to keep playing. No one would play a game just to make them self feel sad, or angry, though those emotions may be invoked within the context of the game itself. People watch movies in order to have their emotions taken to new places, whether it is excitement in the case of an action movie, or sadness in the case of a tragedy. However, your average game is a lot longer than your average movie, and if you're demanding attention and interaction from the player you're going to need something else to keep them interested for 10+ hours. Movies also don't have the problems inherent with bad gameplay. As I've said, if it's bad it seriously detracts from the experience and your deluded if you think someone's going to suffer 10 hours of shitty gameplay in order to hear your story. They'd probably end up going on gamefaqs and reading the plot summery.

 

[Morbus]

You're putting video-games on the level of high art, I'm sure you're aware that most video game designers don't have that in mind when they create a game, their primary concern is if it's fun to play or not.

If course i have that in mind. But that doesn't mean anything. Some cinema directors' primary concer is also that, and that doesn't mean a movie is meant to be fun, just because there are relatively more games meant to be fun than movies meant to that as well. I'm not sure I explained myself clearly.

If it isn't fun to play, forget it.

Fun? In what sense? Is a survival horror fun? Sometimes games are just not fun in the plain meaning of the word. Then again, if you mean fun by when, after you play the game, you *like* the game, that's ok, but I don't call that fun. Tolkien's books, for instance, are not "fun" to read, but I like Calvin & Hobbes too... Just like Fahrenheit was not "fun" to play, even though I like a round of F.E.A.R. Combat, from time to time. Even Fallout is not "fun" for me (some part's are, of course, but so are some parts of Tolkien's work)...

Invoking emotions is all well and good when it's driven along by something that makes the player want to keep playing.

Knowing what comes next? Challenge? Having nothing better to do? All of these are reasons for one to keep on playing a game. Of course, you can also keep on playing a game because it's fun, and you like having fun.

For instance: is it fun to spend hours grinding in some random MMORPG? I don't think so, and I doubt many people disagree with me. Even so, there are many MMORP players... Why? Challenge, maybe, or just the promise of a fun yet to come...

Movies also don't have the problems inherent with bad gameplay.

They have other variables, like bad acting or crap like that.

As I've said, if it's bad it seriously detracts from the experience and your deluded if you think someone's going to suffer 10 hours of shitty gameplay in order to hear your story.

Look, for instance, a Fallout game just like FO1 is, but where EVERY combat consists on clicking in your enemy and seeing him die. No chances for you to loose a combat. That's not good gameplay for sure. Yet, the game would be good because of other factors. You can also think of the opossite: a Fallout game just like FO1 where every dialog would consist on hearing what other's have to say. The game wouldn't be THAT bad, would it? It still had the combat and the setting and the story... FOT is a good game, just for the gameplay (Tactics....). Final Fantasies are also good games just for the story, and if FFVII had crappy combat, it would rock all the same.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

I'm willing to suggest that much of this discussion is pretty moot, simply because I think it is very unlikely that Bethesda will release a game that fails on the most basic level; in all likelihood they will release something that is playable and is decently entertaining to a reasonable number of people. However, that wouldn't make it a good game, and certainly not a good Fallout sequel.

I suspect that Fallout 3 will be good enough to be a success in terms of sales to people who are new to the Fallout series, which is exactly what the majority of discussions here aren't relevant to, because people who have followed the series want a good game that is also an authentic sequel.

Failure to respect and build upon canon will only adversely affect the game for people who understand the first games, people who haven't played them won't notice any detriment. If you aren't familiar with the benchmarks, then you have no judgement as to whether a thing is better or worse than that; you judge it solely against itself, and in that respect Fallout 3 is likely - at worst - to merely be a very mediocre game. (Which for the rest of us who do know, would be a terrible thing.)

[/i]

 

[Miria]

I won't believe any of what they've said until I really see it. Bethesda has failed to impress me in any way, shape, and form. And I do not believe they will pull it off at all.

 

[Per]

I make no distinction between story and plot by the way.

I'm sure that works for you. But if I say I make no distinction between graphic presentation and graphic detail, and go on to say the most important thing is that Fallout 3 "has great graphics, like Fallout", I shouldn't be surprised if people's bullshit detectors start going off. Because "great graphics" and "graphics like Fallout's" can mean vastly different things.