Originally posted by: blurredvision
Originally posted by: destrekor
and guess what. Halo 3 is said to be 6 hours for a good FPS player. Can't put too much story in that span of time, you say? Again, you need to play Heavenly Sword then to see just how much story can be crammed into 6 hours.
And you can easily allure to a much more grand story by saying just a line or two, or by watching character interactions. You can use flashbacks as well.
Ya, I haven't played Heavenly Sword, so I won't pretend to know how it plays. But I've been reading that Halo 3 is a 10-12 hour game the first time through. *shrug*
And as far as story telling being a lost art... far from it. Just some developers are lazy and it seems the lazy gamer these days seems not to care so much. But if you bill a game as one that's strong in the story department, then the players won't be upset with the cutscenes.
I actually really enjoyed Xenosaga Pt1 (never got around to Pt2 and 3), and while people complained of the cutscenes being too long (some clocked in over a half-hour.. the game had a LOT of story-telling moments), it was so worth it.. a very well-written story.
But you said that you shouldn't have to access other mediums to understand the story. Sure, the 30-minute cutscenes are in the game, but you go from playing the game to watching a movie. Are you saying that you'd be fine if they included a bulk of the novels in the game itself, and made you sit and read for 30 minutes before they'd let you continue?
But see, I don't see why you gotta hate on my game console choice or even go as far as to assume I'm a fanboy because of that choice. I have explained many times, that my choice of not owning a 360 is solely for one reason: all the games I want on it show up on the PC as well, and since I have built a gaming rig, and enjoy keyboard and mouse more.. I'd rather use my PC. And since there are essentially no games on the 360 that I want that will never make it to PC.. I'm fine with that choice.
That's understood. I didn't necessarily hate on your console of choice. I just don't understand how any true, self-confessed FPS gamer doesn't like Halo in the least bit. It doesn't have to be your favorite, but as far as the fundementals of a game goes, it does everything right to make it fun and engaging. The controls are spot on, the story is fleshed out, the variety of multiplayer is fantastic, amogst many other things. I ALWAYS assume Halo haters are PS3 fanboys.
And my dislike of Halo is not because it's a bad game, but because it's overrated. I thought Halo was an enjoyable shooter, but it was far from groundbreaking and was not something I'd hype and drool over.
I still can never understand the "overrated" argument. It got great reviews across the board when it was released, and 200k unique players still play every day online almost 3 years after it's release. Halo 2 wasn't groundbreaking in itself (maybe it's multiplayer party system was), but Halo: CE was definitely groundbreaking for a FPS on a console when it was released. The control was perfect, the music and sound in 5.1 was amazing, the story was intriguing and interesting, the weapons and vehicles were a great compliment to the story and gameplay, and the multiplayer was the best people had seen in Goldeneye. You don't have to hype and drool over a game for it to be groundbreaking.
And if I really wanted multiplayer, I could get Warhawk and enjoy that just as much as you Halo owners. It offers essentially all the same things, and from my playtimes with it and Halo.. really is quite comparable of an experience, where I cannot even say one is better than the other. So I could enjoy that while waiting the same length of time you will be before the next big blockbuster. Mass Effect comes out in November, and quite a few hits for the PS3 are coming in that time: Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank (scored a 93 from a UK review), and GT5: Prologue. That's just before the end of this year. Now I'm not trying to spark any kind of console debate, just trying to prove you wrong. That's all. 😉
Ya, I surely do not want a console debate either. I started it, I'll not continue it. But yes, Warhawk looks fantastic, but we'll see how Halo 3's multiplayer fleshes out before comparing it.
oh and one last comment: how can one get a fill of story from a game that may last 6 hours for some? Well, whatabout a fill of story from a movie that lasts 2 hours? If you pack the story in just right, you can have a very good story if you try.
I can see your point.
maybe I have a finer appreciation for good story telling, because I like writing stories myself. I have plans for a multi-book/multi-medium story of my own, but just need the time/resources to actually go about it. I like both graphic novels and regular novels, and my story would need both mediums to be properly told in terms of my vision, but that's all beside the point.
No offense, but it sounds to me like you probably are just not interested in the Halo universe....I don't think it's necessarily the story is bad. But how can you knock a game branching out into novels when you are using the multi-medium approach yourself? You are obviously casting your vote for this method to tell a story, what makes Halo so bad for doing this?
instead of breaking this up even more, I'll just make a mass reply and reply in points:
1. Different mediums: cutscenes I do not judge to be a seperate medium, and if used correctly can further envelope the user into the story. Xenosaga was billed as a playable movie essentially, so that may be the wrong direction to take (insane length cutscenes). However, I do not feel one should introduce novelized text into a story unless it's to be a different gameplay experience (a few games are like that. Games like Indigo Prophecy is the type of game medium where you would see more text-based story).
2. As far as my take on multiple mediums, well look at it as in overlapping style, that and graphic novels and text novels are very similar, at least imho. But here's how I actually envisioned my story: regular novel that takes place as a certain time, more of a dystopia-style novel. A graphic novel series that starts in the future, in the same story universe but becomes more sci-fi. After that series is completed, revisit the novel's story as adapt it into a graphic novel or two. A prequel could be written as a regular novel as well. I guess I can say I don't technically hate the idea, but in Halo's sense, it doesn't appear to be 'deep' on its own. An individual should not have to be required to access another medium to find the depth. Each medium should be able to stand on its own and present a deep story, with additional details being accessible if the individual wants it. I just find that style of story presentation has to be properly executed.
3. I have not said that Halo is a horrible game and does not deserve play. However, it does NOT deserve the cult following it seems to have. I say this because, while a good game, it does not compare to better titles in the FPS genre (of which do NOT have the same cult following). An FPS can be enjoyable to play, but still be bland and not be mentally stimulating.
I also just feel it's not something everyone should be proud of, because it does NOT break the mold. However, it appears that games that do venture out of the standard mold so not seem to garner the same cult reception, which is telling that gamers are not seeking a challenge (for the mind). But that is the same across the board for all mediums: many examples across all mediums can be found, where a more generic 'item' will sell more than one that challengers the individual's mind. However, all the ones that are very good at challenging a person's thinking DO have a cult following, however that cult is truly indeed more of a cult, versus the generic just have a massive audience that really likes it. (I'm trying to be generic in my words here to make the statement apply to all mediums like I intend the thought too.)
See, what I am trying to say, is I guess developers can sense this and some want to create games, that while not billed as 'Halo Killer', are simply more generic in the formula that they will attract more sales. I just wish we could see more developers actually challenging the norm and developing games that are actually very deep and yet still very enjoyable to play. Not to mention the games that do challenge the formula tend not to garner high review scores, which is odd because you'll find those games tend to have a small cult-like following claiming the game is gold. Take for example, a much better Bungie game: Oni. I thoroughly enjoyed that game. The story may have not been gold, but the gameplay was phenomenal imho, because it was fresh. Halo is something I consider 'stale' because it's a tried and true formula that just happened to be executed the best among most other console-only FPS games. I hope you can see what I am trying to say here.
4. Your comment about it not being overrated, is indeed intriguing. You essentially state the game is groundbreaking, just because it actually made right of things that should have always been present in games. Groundbreaking is when you depart from the norm and deliver an outstanding product, not simply perfect the faults of previous games. One style of thought is its groundbreaking for featuring great controls and everything else you mentioned, while the other style of thought is that those were already expected of games, and the others failed while Halo finally got it right. Big deal. That's why I understand why people enjoy Halo, because it finally got controls and everything right and actually offered fun multiplayer. But it's far from groundbreaking, and is indeed overrated. It meets my expectations of a game. Cool. It doesn't break any new ground nor does it offer a unique play experience. I guess as a PC gamer I am unfairly making it compete against PC FPS games, which have long-ago delivered what Halo delivered for consoles, and since not everyone console gamer has a PC capable of gaming, I guess I am indeed unfair. However, I stand by my comments.
5. As for being interested in the Halo universe. I am not necessarily disinterested, I just feel it's not unique. It's a game I'd still play if I have access to it, but it's not something I'm gonna rave or drool over. I play many things I don't deem to be the greatest at it's genre, but that's because I am not overly critical and simply enjoy the experience trying to be presented to me. Like many movies. Many critics will pan them, while I simply laugh and instead of picking out all the flaws, simply accept it for what it is and enjoy it as best I can.
Hope I am clearing up some of my originally miscommunicated ideas. I tend not to stress the right points when debating and thus miscommunicate a statement I am trying to make. I apologize.
😉
