Personally, when it comes to storylines in games, I can quite happily just ignore them, or, at worst, rant at how unneccesary they are to the playing experience. I just don't think they're appropriate.
Now, I wouldn't say that my stance is particularly hardcore; on the contrary, I loved every last minute of Grim Fandango's game and story. Yet the two elelments in that particular game are fundamental - the progressing through puzzles will lead you further into the story, while the story itself brings more puzzles - basically, the two elements were complimentary.
And, whilst I'm trying to display a balanced arguement, Half Life 2 manage to do this successfully as well - by keeping the player constantly in the first person perspective, and allowing them free movement throughout storyline segments, it helped create a beleivable world and situation.
Still, however, games of the past, that have remained classics, have as much storyline in them as a Happy Meal has nutritional value. Super Mario Bros. was quite happy to use little more than "Kidnapped Princess" as an excuse for constant running and jumping, Sonic the Hedgehog had a simple "Evil Scientist" to motivate us, and God only knows how Pacman got in that maze but people were all too happy to get him the hell away from those ghosts. Yet games nowadays are content with using storylines to rope us in, to convince us to keep playing, and here lies my biggest concern - that the lines between game and film, at least in presentation, are being blurred.
While games have always had a distinct quality to them that no other medium has touched upon, their insistence on cinematic cutscenes or storylines leaves me particularly cold, as they lose more of their game-like charm and lean more towards Hollywood in style. And it doesn't matter how well developers can pull them off (DMC4's almst pantomime cutscenes were admittedly entertaining), I can't help but wonder if this isn't just, dare I say, a bit lazy?
All the time spent coding these intricate FMVs could have been better spent utilising the game's code, graphics, music and gameplay to motivate the player's progression. A wonderful example is the Metroid series. Like all classic games, the storyline and goal is clear from the outset. No section of the game is interrupted by cutscenes, dialogue or plot-twists; instead, events are represented in-game with the engine's sprites and music. And while the later Metroid Prime games did allow for scans in order to give the player further insite into the game's events, these were entirely optional, and ignoring them never distracted or confused the experience. The fact that this game was released around the same time the cinematic trend first got into swing, and still managed to stand head and shoulders above other games in the eyes of critics and gamers alike speaks volumes to me. Meanwhile, Resident Evil 4's storyline was daft, needless, utterly intrusive and did nothing to enhance the game's absolutely sublime action. Had they eliminated the ludicrous plot in favour of non-stop, balls to the wall, uninterrupted shooting, it wouldn't have harmed the game in the slightest. In fact, upon repeated plays, I skip the cutscenes instantly.
I just wondered if anybody else out there feels the same way - that unless you can incorporate the story seamlessly and flawlessly into the game, you're better off going without. Should be an interesting debate.
Now, I wouldn't say that my stance is particularly hardcore; on the contrary, I loved every last minute of Grim Fandango's game and story. Yet the two elelments in that particular game are fundamental - the progressing through puzzles will lead you further into the story, while the story itself brings more puzzles - basically, the two elements were complimentary.
And, whilst I'm trying to display a balanced arguement, Half Life 2 manage to do this successfully as well - by keeping the player constantly in the first person perspective, and allowing them free movement throughout storyline segments, it helped create a beleivable world and situation.
Still, however, games of the past, that have remained classics, have as much storyline in them as a Happy Meal has nutritional value. Super Mario Bros. was quite happy to use little more than "Kidnapped Princess" as an excuse for constant running and jumping, Sonic the Hedgehog had a simple "Evil Scientist" to motivate us, and God only knows how Pacman got in that maze but people were all too happy to get him the hell away from those ghosts. Yet games nowadays are content with using storylines to rope us in, to convince us to keep playing, and here lies my biggest concern - that the lines between game and film, at least in presentation, are being blurred.
While games have always had a distinct quality to them that no other medium has touched upon, their insistence on cinematic cutscenes or storylines leaves me particularly cold, as they lose more of their game-like charm and lean more towards Hollywood in style. And it doesn't matter how well developers can pull them off (DMC4's almst pantomime cutscenes were admittedly entertaining), I can't help but wonder if this isn't just, dare I say, a bit lazy?
All the time spent coding these intricate FMVs could have been better spent utilising the game's code, graphics, music and gameplay to motivate the player's progression. A wonderful example is the Metroid series. Like all classic games, the storyline and goal is clear from the outset. No section of the game is interrupted by cutscenes, dialogue or plot-twists; instead, events are represented in-game with the engine's sprites and music. And while the later Metroid Prime games did allow for scans in order to give the player further insite into the game's events, these were entirely optional, and ignoring them never distracted or confused the experience. The fact that this game was released around the same time the cinematic trend first got into swing, and still managed to stand head and shoulders above other games in the eyes of critics and gamers alike speaks volumes to me. Meanwhile, Resident Evil 4's storyline was daft, needless, utterly intrusive and did nothing to enhance the game's absolutely sublime action. Had they eliminated the ludicrous plot in favour of non-stop, balls to the wall, uninterrupted shooting, it wouldn't have harmed the game in the slightest. In fact, upon repeated plays, I skip the cutscenes instantly.
I just wondered if anybody else out there feels the same way - that unless you can incorporate the story seamlessly and flawlessly into the game, you're better off going without. Should be an interesting debate.
