The Problem With Storytelling in Video Games
- Page 1 of 1
Hey, SLAENT. It's been a minute.
So, I love video games, as both a hobby, and as a form of art. I'll take a video game over a book, a TV show, or a movie when it comes to legitimately entertaining ways to kill time. But if I'm being honest, video games fall short compared to other forms of modern media when it comes to telling a compelling story. And it's not due to the actual plots within the games themselves, or the voice acting, or the quality of the graphics in a cutscene. But rather, it has more to do with the way these stories are conceived on the cutting room floor, and how these stories are presented to us when we finally get to play them.
For the purposes of this post, I'm gonna be picking on David Cage a lot.
Cage's work has made people have very drastic & polarizing opinions on not only his ability to tell a story, but his overall quality as a person. Some view Cage as one of gaming's few important auteurs in the vein of Hideo Kojima or Jonathan Blow; the kind of visionary that producers & creative leaders within the gaming industry follow the lead of. Others view Cage as a hack, with ripped-off cliches, played out tropes, and redundant plot points making the majority of his work seem like half-assed attempts to channel the ideas from better source material into his works. One thing is true, regardless of your perspective of him: he & his team at Quantic Dream manage to turn heads with their focus on visually capturing the human emotion via high polygon counts. And every now and then, it works out for Cage in undeniable ways.
Let's start with his best work to date - not anything from Heavy Rain or Beyond: Two Souls - but from one of his tech demos: Kara.
There's no denying the technical prowess of this media demonstration; this is one of the most impressive visual displays to date, especially when you consider the fact that it was running on the PlayStation 3 in real time. But it's also Cage's best moment of writing & directing.
Cage has never been one to shy away from putting female characters into awkward & sexually precarious situations. Most of the time, it lands with a loud thud at best, and slaps you in the face at worst (DRINKING GAME IDEA: Take a shot for every rapey scene in a Cage game. DISCLAIMER: I'm not responsible for your death). But here, the combining of the baby-like wonder and curiosity of a woman-like android literally taking her first breath and living, with the concept of an assumedly multi-national corporation creating retail-model humanoid robots that can be used for, among other things, sexual pleasure... it works really well. It creates a feeling of unease in the viewer, as he or she comes to grips with the idea of seeing something that was literally meant to be an object become more than that. Kara, the character herself, sells the ranges of emotions she displays very well. The dialog between her and the engineer assembling her is really good, as her emotional responses to being disassembled eventually breaks the otherwise cut & dry demeanor of the engineer, making him realize he's not just disassembling a robot - he's actually killing a person.
But, details aside, the main reasons for why this scene works is because of Cage's focus. He's not just linking a bunch of loose plot threads together, or weaving a bunch of intricate details and ideas into the plot. He's actually focusing on a singular idea, and executing on that idea solely, with no distractions.
But, that's just the thing about why video games mostly suck at telling stories: there's no focus. Mainly because a video game has many different aspects to it that add to its overall value as a product. And because all of those aspects have to be considered when creating a video game, some aspects have to take priorities over others. For example, Kara is a tech demo. As in, you aren't playing it. You don't have to be considerate of random physics calculations, or input lag, or AI. It plays itself, as all cutscenes do. Now, imagine how different Kara could've been if player input was actually involved. Cage could've potentially lost his focus on the message he's trying to sell to the viewer by having to create a more "gamey" scenario.
A lot of video games have stories that seem to be written in bits and pieces. Imagine if you were working on a screenplay. But instead of writing it in a linear fashion from beginning to end, you wrote the ending first, then the beginning scene, and then wrote every other scene randomly in order until you came up with the final draft. Most video games have plots that seem to be written in this manner. As if the development team developed their game scene by scene, but instead of the writers creating an interesting scenario from scratch, the dev team said "I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN IN THIS SCENE" and the writers wrote around that central idea, out of context with the rest of the other scenes that have been written up to that point. Added to these problems is the dissonance between narrative & gameplay, aka, the "ludonarrative dissonance". A lot of games have gameplay mechanics that are at odds with events & themes in the game's plot, like for example, if a character has super acrobatic abilities during gameplay, but lacks those super-acrobatic abilities during a specific segment of the plot, or throughout the entire plot.
For a perfect example of both segmented writing & dissonant scenarios is another David Cage work: Indigo Prophecy. A lot of stuff that happens in IP is... stupid. I mean, how else can one describe how a supernatural crime thriller turns into the Matrix meets The Invisibles? The game is constantly throwing new plot points at the player from out of nowhere, especially after the halfway point, and none of them really make sense or connect with one another. This game, along with Beyond: Two Souls, suffers from the scenario-to-scenario approach to writing a game's plot.
Then you have games that were written cohesively, then seemingly had portions of the game removed for certain reasons. I recently completed Final Fantasy XV, and it's a good game and the plot is understandable. Problem is, I couldn't take-in the plot by playing the game alone. I had to watch the associated film Kingsglaive, watch the anime, and play both DLC's. No game should ever have parts of the game removed just to sell external media or DLC. Imagine if Breaking Bad had you paying for Jesse's individual scenes separately. That would be ridiculous, right? It would basically ensure that only a small number of people would actually be able to see your content, and the mass majority of viewers would be left with massive plot holes in the central show.
Because of the lack of focus on the content within the game itself, XV ends up with massive plot holes. Character motivations go unexplained, and characters we're supposed to care about end up failing to gain the player's attention. For example, Lunafreya is supposed to be the main protag's love interest, but she spends literally no time together with Noctis outside of a few small seconds in the middle of the game. Most of the development of their relationship occurs in the form of cryptic love letters being delivered by a time-traveling dog. There are also moments in the game where members of the main party randomly take off, and the only way the players can get any insight of their whereabouts is if they buy the damn DLC. And to be honest, at least only one of those DLC's, Episode Prompto, is actually worth it so far, as it actually delves into Promto's character backstory and motivations. Episode Gladiolus is worthless. SPOILER ALERT: He fights Gilgamesh. Yay?
And finally, sometimes even when the narratives are solid, the story falls apart due to the characters within them. Final Fantasy XII is a great game with a plot that should've been way better than it was, with a heavy focus on political upheaval and the instability that can come in the midst of global war & conquest. The problem? It was told through the perspective of a worthless character in the name of Vaan. Crucial moments in the plot are interrupted by Vaan's nasally voice injecting worthless dialog about being a sky pirate. By the halfway point of the game, Vaan becomes virtually invisible in the plot, as his arc was pretty much settled in the first six hours of the game. It makes you wonder why he was even there in the first place.
All of these examples point towards a lack of focus. Instead of creating a central narrative first, from beginning to end, then designing the game around that, most developers design the story around the game, piece by piece. And what you end up with are plots that feel disconnected and broken, with narratives that don't flow well together from scene to scene.
One could argue that gameplay trumps story, and I would agree. But since most modern games are heavily inspired by film, they would do well to create better stories for the player by creating focused narratives to draw the player in. But I don't know if the gaming industry has the right kind of people who can properly create narratives. The nature of the gaming industry makes it so that there are very few auteurs, since most game developers are considered expendable, even in the indie scene. And the auteurs we do have may lack the ability to fully realize the full storytelling potential of the medium. Personally, I would rather that Cage not be in charge of any creative decisions in any medium, due to his lack of self-awareness, his frankly uncomfortable portrayal of women & people of color in his games, and his overbearing pretentiousness. But he's one of the only ones willing to push the medium's ability to tell a tale, even if he fails spectacularly most of the time.
So, I love video games, as both a hobby, and as a form of art. I'll take a video game over a book, a TV show, or a movie when it comes to legitimately entertaining ways to kill time. But if I'm being honest, video games fall short compared to other forms of modern media when it comes to telling a compelling story. And it's not due to the actual plots within the games themselves, or the voice acting, or the quality of the graphics in a cutscene. But rather, it has more to do with the way these stories are conceived on the cutting room floor, and how these stories are presented to us when we finally get to play them.
For the purposes of this post, I'm gonna be picking on David Cage a lot.
Cage's work has made people have very drastic & polarizing opinions on not only his ability to tell a story, but his overall quality as a person. Some view Cage as one of gaming's few important auteurs in the vein of Hideo Kojima or Jonathan Blow; the kind of visionary that producers & creative leaders within the gaming industry follow the lead of. Others view Cage as a hack, with ripped-off cliches, played out tropes, and redundant plot points making the majority of his work seem like half-assed attempts to channel the ideas from better source material into his works. One thing is true, regardless of your perspective of him: he & his team at Quantic Dream manage to turn heads with their focus on visually capturing the human emotion via high polygon counts. And every now and then, it works out for Cage in undeniable ways.
Let's start with his best work to date - not anything from Heavy Rain or Beyond: Two Souls - but from one of his tech demos: Kara.
There's no denying the technical prowess of this media demonstration; this is one of the most impressive visual displays to date, especially when you consider the fact that it was running on the PlayStation 3 in real time. But it's also Cage's best moment of writing & directing.
Cage has never been one to shy away from putting female characters into awkward & sexually precarious situations. Most of the time, it lands with a loud thud at best, and slaps you in the face at worst (DRINKING GAME IDEA: Take a shot for every rapey scene in a Cage game. DISCLAIMER: I'm not responsible for your death). But here, the combining of the baby-like wonder and curiosity of a woman-like android literally taking her first breath and living, with the concept of an assumedly multi-national corporation creating retail-model humanoid robots that can be used for, among other things, sexual pleasure... it works really well. It creates a feeling of unease in the viewer, as he or she comes to grips with the idea of seeing something that was literally meant to be an object become more than that. Kara, the character herself, sells the ranges of emotions she displays very well. The dialog between her and the engineer assembling her is really good, as her emotional responses to being disassembled eventually breaks the otherwise cut & dry demeanor of the engineer, making him realize he's not just disassembling a robot - he's actually killing a person.
But, details aside, the main reasons for why this scene works is because of Cage's focus. He's not just linking a bunch of loose plot threads together, or weaving a bunch of intricate details and ideas into the plot. He's actually focusing on a singular idea, and executing on that idea solely, with no distractions.
But, that's just the thing about why video games mostly suck at telling stories: there's no focus. Mainly because a video game has many different aspects to it that add to its overall value as a product. And because all of those aspects have to be considered when creating a video game, some aspects have to take priorities over others. For example, Kara is a tech demo. As in, you aren't playing it. You don't have to be considerate of random physics calculations, or input lag, or AI. It plays itself, as all cutscenes do. Now, imagine how different Kara could've been if player input was actually involved. Cage could've potentially lost his focus on the message he's trying to sell to the viewer by having to create a more "gamey" scenario.
A lot of video games have stories that seem to be written in bits and pieces. Imagine if you were working on a screenplay. But instead of writing it in a linear fashion from beginning to end, you wrote the ending first, then the beginning scene, and then wrote every other scene randomly in order until you came up with the final draft. Most video games have plots that seem to be written in this manner. As if the development team developed their game scene by scene, but instead of the writers creating an interesting scenario from scratch, the dev team said "I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN IN THIS SCENE" and the writers wrote around that central idea, out of context with the rest of the other scenes that have been written up to that point. Added to these problems is the dissonance between narrative & gameplay, aka, the "ludonarrative dissonance". A lot of games have gameplay mechanics that are at odds with events & themes in the game's plot, like for example, if a character has super acrobatic abilities during gameplay, but lacks those super-acrobatic abilities during a specific segment of the plot, or throughout the entire plot.
For a perfect example of both segmented writing & dissonant scenarios is another David Cage work: Indigo Prophecy. A lot of stuff that happens in IP is... stupid. I mean, how else can one describe how a supernatural crime thriller turns into the Matrix meets The Invisibles? The game is constantly throwing new plot points at the player from out of nowhere, especially after the halfway point, and none of them really make sense or connect with one another. This game, along with Beyond: Two Souls, suffers from the scenario-to-scenario approach to writing a game's plot.
Then you have games that were written cohesively, then seemingly had portions of the game removed for certain reasons. I recently completed Final Fantasy XV, and it's a good game and the plot is understandable. Problem is, I couldn't take-in the plot by playing the game alone. I had to watch the associated film Kingsglaive, watch the anime, and play both DLC's. No game should ever have parts of the game removed just to sell external media or DLC. Imagine if Breaking Bad had you paying for Jesse's individual scenes separately. That would be ridiculous, right? It would basically ensure that only a small number of people would actually be able to see your content, and the mass majority of viewers would be left with massive plot holes in the central show.
Because of the lack of focus on the content within the game itself, XV ends up with massive plot holes. Character motivations go unexplained, and characters we're supposed to care about end up failing to gain the player's attention. For example, Lunafreya is supposed to be the main protag's love interest, but she spends literally no time together with Noctis outside of a few small seconds in the middle of the game. Most of the development of their relationship occurs in the form of cryptic love letters being delivered by a time-traveling dog. There are also moments in the game where members of the main party randomly take off, and the only way the players can get any insight of their whereabouts is if they buy the damn DLC. And to be honest, at least only one of those DLC's, Episode Prompto, is actually worth it so far, as it actually delves into Promto's character backstory and motivations. Episode Gladiolus is worthless. SPOILER ALERT: He fights Gilgamesh. Yay?
And finally, sometimes even when the narratives are solid, the story falls apart due to the characters within them. Final Fantasy XII is a great game with a plot that should've been way better than it was, with a heavy focus on political upheaval and the instability that can come in the midst of global war & conquest. The problem? It was told through the perspective of a worthless character in the name of Vaan. Crucial moments in the plot are interrupted by Vaan's nasally voice injecting worthless dialog about being a sky pirate. By the halfway point of the game, Vaan becomes virtually invisible in the plot, as his arc was pretty much settled in the first six hours of the game. It makes you wonder why he was even there in the first place.
All of these examples point towards a lack of focus. Instead of creating a central narrative first, from beginning to end, then designing the game around that, most developers design the story around the game, piece by piece. And what you end up with are plots that feel disconnected and broken, with narratives that don't flow well together from scene to scene.
One could argue that gameplay trumps story, and I would agree. But since most modern games are heavily inspired by film, they would do well to create better stories for the player by creating focused narratives to draw the player in. But I don't know if the gaming industry has the right kind of people who can properly create narratives. The nature of the gaming industry makes it so that there are very few auteurs, since most game developers are considered expendable, even in the indie scene. And the auteurs we do have may lack the ability to fully realize the full storytelling potential of the medium. Personally, I would rather that Cage not be in charge of any creative decisions in any medium, due to his lack of self-awareness, his frankly uncomfortable portrayal of women & people of color in his games, and his overbearing pretentiousness. But he's one of the only ones willing to push the medium's ability to tell a tale, even if he fails spectacularly most of the time.
I get the feeling Cage isn't particularly good at making games or telling a story, and yet has somehow landed in the enviable position of being funded to make whatever he wants.
Life's unfair like that.
Life's unfair like that.
This is some really good stuff.
The way you are describing how stories are made in games is pretty dang spot on with what happened with DOOM 2016. They didn't really have a story until the very last minute. The game was built around designing encounters to challenge the player in specific way. The story was built around that.
Maybe that is the correct approach for some games, but definitely not all. I think a lot of the problems you are pointing out contribute to why I think most game stories are trash. I find that game creators have better odds at creating good characters and developing them. Most of the RPGs I love are really good in this aspect despite the overall story being somewhat lacking.
The way you are describing how stories are made in games is pretty dang spot on with what happened with DOOM 2016. They didn't really have a story until the very last minute. The game was built around designing encounters to challenge the player in specific way. The story was built around that.
Maybe that is the correct approach for some games, but definitely not all. I think a lot of the problems you are pointing out contribute to why I think most game stories are trash. I find that game creators have better odds at creating good characters and developing them. Most of the RPGs I love are really good in this aspect despite the overall story being somewhat lacking.
More damning than the fact that the narrative is hastily and thoughtlessly smeared onto everything else is the fact that the vast majority of video games simply do not have you doing anything narratively interesting.
Imagine a book that read: He ran. He ducked. He fired his gun. Someone died. He fired his gun again. Someone else died. He ran. He jumped. He ran some more. He slid. He hid. He poked his head out. He fired his gun. He hid. He poked his head out. He fired his gun. He hid. He tossed a grenade. Someone exploded. He jumped. He ran. He ran some more. He fired his gun. He kept running. He fired his gun again. Someone died. And on and on it went for 10+ hours.
Games will feature better, more meaningful stories when they provide you better, more meaningful interactions.
Imagine a book that read: He ran. He ducked. He fired his gun. Someone died. He fired his gun again. Someone else died. He ran. He jumped. He ran some more. He slid. He hid. He poked his head out. He fired his gun. He hid. He poked his head out. He fired his gun. He hid. He tossed a grenade. Someone exploded. He jumped. He ran. He ran some more. He fired his gun. He kept running. He fired his gun again. Someone died. And on and on it went for 10+ hours.
Games will feature better, more meaningful stories when they provide you better, more meaningful interactions.
By Kibner Go To PostThis is some really good stuff.
The way you are describing how stories are made in games is pretty dang spot on with what happened with DOOM 2016. They didn't really have a story until the very last minute. The game was built around designing encounters to challenge the player in specific way. The story was built around that.
.
How can games NOT be made this way? The primary desire from a gamer is that it be fun. The story is secondary. When games become tooooo cinematic they're criticized, they're criticized for being on rails or for QTE or something. Remember The Order ???
I haven't played any Cage games, so I can't make comments on his stuff, but your point specifically is why I think stories in games suffer. Because it's difficult to tell a story while also building a compelling gaming experience.
Take sanbox games for example. Often times the side quests are distractions from the main show. You may like the side quest. You may even want the reward for doing the side quest, but after doing more side quests than mission quests the story becomes disjointed.
Games like Uncharted do an OK job of being cinematic and pushing a narrative while also being a game. It's a challenge though because they're often criticized for being playable movies while other times because the game hasn't done enough to innovate the 3rd person shooter genre. It's a balancing act though. You make the combat too challenging and the game becomes less cinematic and the story becomes more chopped up. Make the game too easy and now it's not fun.
Most of this issues has to do with game design and pacing IMO
By flinbad the flailer Go To PostGames will feature better, more meaningful stories when they provide you better, more meaningful interactions.
This is probably true.
By flinbad the flailer Go To PostMore damning than the fact that the narrative is hastily and thoughtlessly smeared onto everything else is the fact that the vast majority of video games simply do not have you doing anything narratively interesting.
Imagine a book that read: He ran. He ducked. He fired his gun. Someone died. He fired his gun again. Someone else died. He ran. He jumped. He ran some more. He slid. He hid. He poked his head out. He fired his gun. He hid. He poked his head out. He fired his gun. He hid. He tossed a grenade. Someone exploded. He jumped. He ran. He ran some more. He fired his gun. He kept running. He fired his gun again. Someone died. And on and on it went for 10+ hours.
Games will feature better, more meaningful stories when they provide you better, more meaningful interactions.
True.
Thinking of games that give worthwhile story beats during gameplay without it feeling awkward and there's not many. Uncharted is guilty as fuck of not passing your 'book test' . I think UC more or less succeeds in mimicking summer blockbusters even if its more Transformers than it is Mad Max.
Uncharted is an interesting case, cause while I'm here complaining with you guys about how games should/could have you interact more meaningfully with the world to create better, more compelling stories, the bits in UC where you do exactly that are kinda boring to me. The flashbacks of young drake specifically.
I can't remember which it is but Vaan was either never meant to be in the game or was meant to have a minor role. He was added/role increased near the end of development because SE knows their fans have terrible taste and needed a typically terrible character for them.
A good story can be hard to define. There's not a JRPG I've finished to completion that I wasn't entertained enough by story wise to finish. There's a difference between quality execution and prose and how much your interest is drawn. There are novels that I've read that have such fantastic prose and you can tell there's a deep structured outline which is assisting this precision--and yet I hated the shit anyway because it wasn't compelling for one reason or another. Likewise, I've had books be written like complete ass but there was something to them that kept me turning pages.
A game can be the same way in regards to story. I might list the Elder Scrolls games as games that have strong lore to them, and strong depth to their storyworlds and universe, but completely lack soul (and my interest) due to a lack of interaction in regards to players in the world. There's no point in a huge world with a great backstory if every person I interact with is limited to one or two lines of text at most.
I do like the Bioware games because even though I can say that's what there is not fantastically done, I can say that they do give you many opportunities to learn more about a character, or see these characters interact with different situations and other characters.
It's a more complicated discussion for non-rpgs of course.
A game can be the same way in regards to story. I might list the Elder Scrolls games as games that have strong lore to them, and strong depth to their storyworlds and universe, but completely lack soul (and my interest) due to a lack of interaction in regards to players in the world. There's no point in a huge world with a great backstory if every person I interact with is limited to one or two lines of text at most.
I do like the Bioware games because even though I can say that's what there is not fantastically done, I can say that they do give you many opportunities to learn more about a character, or see these characters interact with different situations and other characters.
It's a more complicated discussion for non-rpgs of course.
By Moris Go To PostTrue.
Thinking of games that give worthwhile story beats during gameplay without it feeling awkward and there's not many. Uncharted is guilty as fuck of not passing your 'book test' . I think UC more or less succeeds in mimicking summer blockbusters even if its more Transformers than it is Mad Max.
Uncharted is an interesting case, cause while I'm here complaining with you guys about how games should/could have you interact more meaningfully with the world to create better, more compelling stories, the bits in UC where you do exactly that are kinda boring to me. The flashbacks of young drake specifically.
This goes back to that balancing act I was talking about. A lot of this depends on the user too and what they want out of the game. We want great stories, but not at the cost of enjoyment at a base gaming level. It's hard to make a quality story that feels natural and seamless without affecting gameplay.
How did I miss this topic?
I think Uncharted is one of the worst offenders of the OP's claims. Drake is an Indiana Jones-type thief, but for the sake of gameplay, he's more like Marcus Felix, capable of taking out entire military platoons for "gameplay" reasons. Nonsense like that is why I played on the easiest difficulty, because the Drake's body count is inappropriate for his character, and I did not want to waste my time having shootouts when I want to be looking for treasure and solving puzzles--don't get me started on all the parkour stuff.
I consider Witcher 3 to be the best game of all time because of how every element of that game is woven into its world in a meaningful way. Yes, you ultimately want to find Ciri, and you're doing the detective work for that, but the player can also invest themselves into the lore of the world by doing side-quests because you're a witcher, and witchers hunt monsters--supernatural or human--for bounties.
AAA also tends to be bombastic with big budget, and big expectations that are rarely filled. There are plenty of indie, adventure, point-and-click games that deliver the kind of story that is ideal, too.
I think Uncharted is one of the worst offenders of the OP's claims. Drake is an Indiana Jones-type thief, but for the sake of gameplay, he's more like Marcus Felix, capable of taking out entire military platoons for "gameplay" reasons. Nonsense like that is why I played on the easiest difficulty, because the Drake's body count is inappropriate for his character, and I did not want to waste my time having shootouts when I want to be looking for treasure and solving puzzles--don't get me started on all the parkour stuff.
I consider Witcher 3 to be the best game of all time because of how every element of that game is woven into its world in a meaningful way. Yes, you ultimately want to find Ciri, and you're doing the detective work for that, but the player can also invest themselves into the lore of the world by doing side-quests because you're a witcher, and witchers hunt monsters--supernatural or human--for bounties.
AAA also tends to be bombastic with big budget, and big expectations that are rarely filled. There are plenty of indie, adventure, point-and-click games that deliver the kind of story that is ideal, too.
John McClane is my all-time favorite action hero, actually. Die Hard is one of the greatest films ever made.
But we're talking about video games, not movies. Stay focused!
But we're talking about video games, not movies. Stay focused!
There's no difference LOL
Where do you think the tropes come from? The everyman/reluctant hero has been around long before Naughty Dog was a thing. The archetype is exactly that of John McClane's -- probably more anti-hero than anything if we're being honest.
If you think a detective with basic pistol training that doesn't actively train with SWAT is capable of taking down an entire terrorist organization with paramilitary guns-for-hire (DH1) and an entire US Army Special Forces combat unit that easily took out a SWAT unit (DH2) by himself is believable, then you must believe that Nathan Drake is as well. They are one in the same trope.
Dismissing the latter while accepting the former is just illogical. It doesn't matter which medium the story is told through when they are telling the same story.
Speaking of Indiana Jones: he's a fucking professor with a whip beating Nazis to a pulp. Come on.
Where do you think the tropes come from? The everyman/reluctant hero has been around long before Naughty Dog was a thing. The archetype is exactly that of John McClane's -- probably more anti-hero than anything if we're being honest.
If you think a detective with basic pistol training that doesn't actively train with SWAT is capable of taking down an entire terrorist organization with paramilitary guns-for-hire (DH1) and an entire US Army Special Forces combat unit that easily took out a SWAT unit (DH2) by himself is believable, then you must believe that Nathan Drake is as well. They are one in the same trope.
Dismissing the latter while accepting the former is just illogical. It doesn't matter which medium the story is told through when they are telling the same story.
Speaking of Indiana Jones: he's a fucking professor with a whip beating Nazis to a pulp. Come on.
The only thing I remember about DH2 was that it was in an airport, McClane ejects his seat as something (an airplane?) blows up, and he blows up an airplane by lighting a trail of leaking fuel on fire. *shrug*
As far as DH1 is concerned, McClane is not out in the open. He's stealthy, taking them out 1-2 at a time. The suspension of disbelief is not significant.
Nathan Drake is out there Arena Shooter style like Gears of War, with 10 dudes pointing guns at him at once. Rambo, or even better, Terminator, would be better comparisons to what Drake does. Again, because gameplay necessitates that the player, feel awesome--as much as Drake, perhaps.
This is something that Spec Ops: The Line critiques directly. It's a game that, intentionally or because of the ineptitude of the developer, displaces the gameplay to elevate the story. I'll never play another "serious" FPS the same way after that.
Not all professors are poindexters.
As far as DH1 is concerned, McClane is not out in the open. He's stealthy, taking them out 1-2 at a time. The suspension of disbelief is not significant.
Nathan Drake is out there Arena Shooter style like Gears of War, with 10 dudes pointing guns at him at once. Rambo, or even better, Terminator, would be better comparisons to what Drake does. Again, because gameplay necessitates that the player, feel awesome--as much as Drake, perhaps.
This is something that Spec Ops: The Line critiques directly. It's a game that, intentionally or because of the ineptitude of the developer, displaces the gameplay to elevate the story. I'll never play another "serious" FPS the same way after that.
Not all professors are poindexters.
I'm flat out telling you what happens in DH2: He took on a US Army Special Forces Unit by himself and wins. The same SF Unit took out an entire SWAT team with ease in the same movie. If you're okay with that but object to Nathan Drake because of the medium? That's purely illogical and absurd.
And again, Indiana Jones fights Nazis with a whip.
What you're also arguing is that a thief cannot achieve the skills needed (box? shoot a gun?) to do what he does and only someone trained under an official government capacity (cop, military, etc) can, which like, misses the point of the character lol.
And again, Indiana Jones fights Nazis with a whip.
What you're also arguing is that a thief cannot achieve the skills needed (box? shoot a gun?) to do what he does and only someone trained under an official government capacity (cop, military, etc) can, which like, misses the point of the character lol.
Not just because of the medium that I accept McClane, but because of the character. McClane exudes coolness from the Dirty Harry school of character archetypes. I expect him to be awesome. If he takes out USSF, I can believe it.
Nathan Drake is...aloof. Generic. He strikes me as an everygamer's ideal power fantasy. I find his grimdark image on the cover of UC4 completely incongruent to his buffoonery and dumb luck.
Nathan Drake is picaresque. John McClane is a hero. McClane is manly. Nathan Drake is Ben Stiller from Night at the Museum deciding to not be a bum and becoming Nicholas Cage in National Treasure, with a gun.
I don't buy it.
Downplaying the role of ludonarrative in all this is problematic. By comparison, I find the older Tomb Raider games (such as Anniversary) better than Uncharted because the focus is on exploration and artifact discovery rather than hostile encounters. Lara Croft is believable. Again, if I want to play a shooter, I'll play a shooter.
I have not played the newer TR games, but from what I have read, it goes in the direction of UC, too. I'll reevaluate my position on TR as a franchise when I play them, but like my comics, I only consider one canon valid.
Nathan Drake is...aloof. Generic. He strikes me as an everygamer's ideal power fantasy. I find his grimdark image on the cover of UC4 completely incongruent to his buffoonery and dumb luck.
Nathan Drake is picaresque. John McClane is a hero. McClane is manly. Nathan Drake is Ben Stiller from Night at the Museum deciding to not be a bum and becoming Nicholas Cage in National Treasure, with a gun.
I don't buy it.
Downplaying the role of ludonarrative in all this is problematic. By comparison, I find the older Tomb Raider games (such as Anniversary) better than Uncharted because the focus is on exploration and artifact discovery rather than hostile encounters. Lara Croft is believable. Again, if I want to play a shooter, I'll play a shooter.
I have not played the newer TR games, but from what I have read, it goes in the direction of UC, too. I'll reevaluate my position on TR as a franchise when I play them, but like my comics, I only consider one canon valid.
Your caricatures of those characters is hilarious and also wrong. John McClane is a fuck-up, a drunk, and in some Die Hard movies barely a cop in good standing.
And older Tomb Raiders? "Lara Croft is believable" rofl
You literally buy that 20-something heiress with zero formal-anything fighting tigers and pirates is more believable? Alright. You see what you want to see, then.
And older Tomb Raiders? "Lara Croft is believable" rofl
You literally buy that 20-something heiress with zero formal-anything fighting tigers and pirates is more believable? Alright. You see what you want to see, then.
It's weird to me that people get hung up on the fact that Nathan Drake kills hundreds of people when the least believable thing about the the whole thing is that there were actually hundreds of people for him to kill.
It's all play pretend. It's not that complicated.
It's all play pretend. It's not that complicated.
I'm still 😂 at OG Lara Croft being a believable character.
The entire point of those games was to put a hot woman into an Indiana Jones with guns type of situation (and then later dinosaurs?) with zero story or plot motivation. But alright, looooool
The entire point of those games was to put a hot woman into an Indiana Jones with guns type of situation (and then later dinosaurs?) with zero story or plot motivation. But alright, looooool
Would be interested to know how old PR was when he first played Tomb Raider or watched a Die Hard film
For me, I seperate the entries rather than looking at the character as a whole. You have to, especially for John McClane. You watch Die Hard, and its reasonable by action film standards. Little dissonance there. You watch Die Hard 4, and its stupid as fuck, and it makes the character silly by extension. I certainly wasn't sitting in the cinema thinking 'oh he'll have picked up that car-into-a-helicopter move during his police training, good old John McClane'
Drake of course starts off doing crazy unrealistic things, and it never changes. But don't pretend that John McClane is any better now just because he starts off as a normal enough cop.
For me, I seperate the entries rather than looking at the character as a whole. You have to, especially for John McClane. You watch Die Hard, and its reasonable by action film standards. Little dissonance there. You watch Die Hard 4, and its stupid as fuck, and it makes the character silly by extension. I certainly wasn't sitting in the cinema thinking 'oh he'll have picked up that car-into-a-helicopter move during his police training, good old John McClane'
Drake of course starts off doing crazy unrealistic things, and it never changes. But don't pretend that John McClane is any better now just because he starts off as a normal enough cop.
Even then it’s still far fetched that a regular Joe detective on the outs with his department is capable of taking down a terrorist organization with mercenaries for hire and an entire Special Forces unit by himself. But we’re okay with it because it was fun and that’s okay. Same goes with Nathan Drake.
By Hitch Go To PostWould be interested to know how old PR was when he first played Tomb Raider or watched a Die Hard film
For me, I seperate the entries rather than looking at the character as a whole. You have to, especially for John McClane. You watch Die Hard, and its reasonable by action film standards. Little dissonance there. You watch Die Hard 4, and its stupid as ****, and it makes the character silly by extension. I certainly wasn't sitting in the cinema thinking 'oh he'll have picked up that car-into-a-helicopter move during his police training, good old John McClane'
Drake of course starts off doing crazy unrealistic things, and it never changes. But don't pretend that John McClane is any better now just because he starts off as a normal enough cop.
I was 13 when Tomb Raider and Die Hard Trilogy came out. By then I hadn't even seen Die Hard 2, but had watched Die Hard 3 in particular several times. Had to double-back and watch Die Hard, and just noticed it would air every Christmas. When I eventually did watch Die Hard 2, I thought it was stupid.
Die Hard 4 and 5 are also stupid. They both have that Expendables feel of "for the lulz." There is zero required suspension of belief because its all parody anyway, as they intentionally embellish all the exploits of action heroes of past years--the kind of stuff that were blockbusters back in the 80's and 90's which would be lucky to get a B-tier Hollywood release now. That's how I feel about Uncharted and the Ludonarrative Dissonance argument. Like HasphatsAnts said, why are there even that many people for Drake to kill, let alone his ability to kill them.
It's about setting the tone. We go into video games (and movies) already knowing it's all fiction; the pedant could apply the "this but not that" rhetorical question almost universally.
Croft is believable because IRL rich people get bored and do stupid life-defying stuff that regular folks don't even consider because they're too busy being tired from working a 9-5. Laura doesn't do stuff like beat up dudes 2-3x her size with her bare hands like in Atomic Blonde. She just jumps/flips around shooting. Sure, fine. The enemy encounter count is also low. You encounter like, 4-6 wolves and bear in the first cave of TR. There are like 5 humans to kill in the entire game. In TR2-3, you might encounter two people at a time at most (those games had more humans), but nothing outrageous like a platoon.
You are definitely wrong about there being zero plot. Laura's exploits are known when she is approached by, unbeknownst to Croft at the time, the lackey of a descendant of Atlantis for the purpose of finding an artifact that will return the Atlantian's power.
Drake being an urchin/orphan/thief/bandit is fine, too, which would explain all the free climbing, but not the G.I. Joe-style take out a squad of dudes with automatic weapons while armed with a handgun.
Bringing it back to Cage, I enjoyed Heavy Rain, and it's my wife's favorite game. I recently started Until Dawn, and it has a very Heavy Rain feel to it so far. Only about 2 hours in so far.