That's kinda harsh. While Bayonetta did suffer the same "don't reveal the plot until the final act" narrative as Final Fantasy XIII, at least it didn't take 20-25 hours to get there.
Also, I may have a biased opinion against the Gears franchise, but I wouldn't call it the worst writing in video games.
Besides, there are far better [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroid:_Other_M] examples [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(series)] of truly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haze_(video_game)] awful [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophobia_(video_game)] narrative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Kitten] in games [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Persia:_Warrior_Within] out there.
While I will agree to a lesser extent with Huchinson that Japanese games get away with a little more than USA games, for example Japan's Chainsaw Lolipop, Japanese games are still critiqued just as much as any other game.
Also, Bayonetta is better than Gears of War when it comes to story... or interesting gameplay... or interesting characters that you can actually care about... or actually caring that someone died and doesn't try to force you to feel sad by playing a depressing song over the death scene. Hmmm... Bayonetta is a better game overall.
Hutchinson wants games to be based on whether or not their narratives are "any good," but that's entirely subjective--what's "gibberish" to one person could be fantastic to another.
Fallacious nonsense. Whether a person appreciates a narrative is subjective, but the written form has a structure and narratives CAN be judged objectively on that basis, just as art can be judged objectively on technical quality, and music can be judged by form and harmonious complexity.
I like Pulp military sci-fi, Warhammer 40K novels in particular, but I would be a cretinous moron if I tried to equate them with actual capital-L Literature. I like some cheesy Eurodance music, but arguing that such music is "good" would be nonsense.
The same applies here: you can enjoy a convoluted, nonsensical, poorly-constructed mess of a story like many JRPGs, but that does not make it good, because it remains a convoluted, nonsensical, poorly-constructed mess despite your personal subjective level of appreciation.
But the only reason harmonious complexity is judged as a good asset to have, still comes from opinion. Its the majority opinion, but it's still subjective. Move that particular work of music into a culture that appreciates nothing but simplicity, and it's no longer good. I'm basically just playing a devil's advocate here, because I do understand your point. We do have standards that you can ALWAYS compare these things to, but they are still set by our culture, by people, and thus can't be considered truly objective. "will most people like this/consider it well constructed?" That's a fine, objective question to ask. "IS it good/IS it well constructed?" That's a question that can't be answered without opinion somewhere.
The fact that he compares Bayonetta to Gears shows how much of a fucking idiot he is. Bayonetta's gameplay is on a whole other level compared to the shitty cover shooting of Gears.
The problem being that if it is going to be released to a western audience it will be judged by western standards, same as anything released over there will be judged by their standards.
OT: There is a reason it is very, very rare that I buy an eastern game. (If I recall the last one was Infinite Space on my DS)
That doesn't really make any sense. Authorial intent is, without a doubt, important, but it shouldn't be the sole factor used to judge the quality of a work.
For an example, let's use Christian Weston Chandler's magnum opus, Sonichu.
It is, without a doubt, true that the author intended his self insert character to be the hero. The hero of Sonichu, the person who is supposed to do good, causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. To many people, this colors the protagonist as more evil than good, but by your logic, the protagonist is unquestionably good and anyone who says otherwise has no right to unless they come from the same background as Mr. Chandler. The protagonist, who the author intended to be good, is objectively good regardless of allegedly invalid criticism. This notion is false.
So if I liked Gears AND Bayonetta I can just go down with the rest of them Mr. Hutchinson?
Anyways, granted that alot of Japanese games speak gibberish but at leat they don't constantly pull the bull-shit science/fate/conspiracy card like every western game does. Sometimes abit of mind fuckery can be a nice change of pace... sometimes, FF10 can still go fudge itself.
The fact that he compares Bayonetta to Gears shows how much of a fucking idiot he is. Bayonetta's gameplay is on a whole other level compared to the shitty cover shooting of Gears.
I think he was actually talking about the stories there guy/gal and i'll be the first to admit that Bayonetta's story was abit... er... daffy. Still really fun though.
Hutchinson wants games to be based on whether or not their narratives are "any good," but that's entirely subjective--what's "gibberish" to one person could be fantastic to another.
Fallacious nonsense. Whether a person appreciates a narrative is subjective, but the written form has a structure and narratives CAN be judged objectively on that basis, just as art can be judged objectively on technical quality, and music can be judged by form and harmonious complexity.
I like Pulp military sci-fi, Warhammer 40K novels in particular, but I would be a cretinous moron if I tried to equate them with actual capital-L Literature. I like some cheesy Eurodance music, but arguing that such music is "good" would be nonsense.
The same applies here: you can enjoy a convoluted, nonsensical, poorly-constructed mess of a story like many JRPGs, but that does not make it good, because it remains a convoluted, nonsensical, poorly-constructed mess despite your personal subjective level of appreciation.
Shakespeare was a hack writer of his day, perhaps the hack writer. Plays like Marlowe's Faust were considered the capital L-Literature back in that time period, as well as Ben Jonson, and in general all playwrites were considered inferior to poets. Shakespeare thought his own plays were crap whereas his Sonnets were his true literature.
Louisa May Alcott said the following about Little Women:
A book for girls being wanted by a certain publisher, she hastily scribbled a little story describing a few scenes and adventures in the lives of herself and sisters - though boys were more in her line - and with very slight hopes of success sent it out to seek its fortune.
Things always went by contraries with Jo. Her first book, labored over for years, and launched full of the high hopes and ambitious dreams of youth, floundered on its voyage, though the wreck continued to float long afterward, to the profit of the publisher at least. The hastily written story, sent away with no thought beyond the few dollars it might bring, sailed with a fair wind and a wise pilot at the helm into public favor, and came home heavily laden with an unexpected cargo of gold and glory."
A Christmas Carol was Charles Dickens needing some money fast, not a grand Literary project, the Romantic Poets considered their own poems inferior because they wanted to revive classical 16th Century plays (oh the irony) and of course Tom Sawyer was pretty much nonsese written to provide the character for Huckleberry Finn.
So what is and isn't Literature is not some great set in stone thing decided by English professors at Oxford University, and often stuff considered trash in its day becomes considered Literature (capital L) a hudnred years later.
As for this myth of being able to judge narrative objectively on its technical merits, objectively James Joyce writes absolute crap. There's very little coherence, it's all very stream of consciousness and it's almost unreadable in many parts. Ever read Finnegan's Wake? Jesus it's incomprehensible. And yet in 1998 Modern Library ranked Ulysses as the no.1 English-Language novel of the century. (A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man was 3rd) No Structure to speak of, very little narrative, punctuation and grammar are all over the place and the storylines interweave in non-chronological order with several repetitions and the author admitted not a great deal of thought given to them.
So accuse me and my very fine English Literature degree of being cretinous morons but I would say that I feel very within my writes to call pulp sci-fi Literature with a capital L, in the same way that I call the written-for-the-masses, money-making, sub-par to the classical poets Hamlet a piece of Literature with a capital L. Remember that Hamlet was effectively fan-fiction of the play Amleth or possibly the lost Elizabethan play 'Ur-Hamlet.' In four hundred years someone we consider 'great' like Ian McEwan might be forgotten, while Tara Gillespie of My Immortal fame is considered a visionary ahead of her time.
To try and judge what is or is not fit for the English canon and the designation of 'Literature' is a subject not even the most well respected academics in the world can agree on, so what exactly gives you the ability to pass judgement on it? Because I would genuinely like to know your reasoning behind that decision.
My English Literature (Capital L!) degree thanks you for this. Haha.
OT: I have to say I have no idea what this guy is talking about -
Any sort of favouritism I've witnessed with regards to games is more publisher biased than ethnic/cultural, keeping the developers and publishers sweet with decent scores for the sake of their review copies. In the same way that music magazines will give favourable reviews to big bands regardless of quality, because if they don't there's a chance that they will have access to said band pulled and that would severely hamper their ability to sell copy.
It appears nobody in this fucking thread decided to read the article.
The guy is arguing that game journalists allow Japanese developers to get away with ridiculous shitty stories and then punch Western developers in the face and proceed to piss on them for having a minor plot hole. He isn't saying that AC:R was the best game of all man kind or that it's even better than the Japanese games he criticizes; he's saying that game journalists don't give Japanese games the flak he thinks they deserve.
Also, being on the internet and having an opinion on a game does not make you a game journalist. Pull your fucking heads out of your arses.
Soooooooo Gears of War's story is better than Bayonetta...
A game where basically:
1) Possibly the only three interesting things in the entire franchise, besides Dom's romance subplot those being Azura, Lambency, the prior knowledge of E-Day, were both introduced AND glossed over in the final act.
2) The ONLY OTHER GODDAMNED INTERESTING PART in the entire story, that being Dom's subsequent fall after Maria's death, is admittedly ended well in his sacrifice at the end of the second act in the story, but is UTTERLY RUINED by Marcus's stupid thing at the end.
3) The ending. You do not introduce something interesting between the Locust Queen and Adam Fenix, build it up to that moment, and then NOT DELIVER just so we can have a reference to Dom's death.
At least Bayonetta's plot wasn't disappointing, and at least it was consistent in its incoherency. You could turn your brain off and enjoy the nonsense that was Bayonetta. Not so much in GoW, where the writers continually shoot themselves in the foot and write out the more interesting plot elements for more cliche tripe.
It's kind of ironic to point the finger at Japanese stories. Sure they are cheesy, but they are comic book style stories. The game and comic/anime markets are essentially the same. Any trip to Akihabara or Den Den Town will show you that. Yet in terms of 'gibberish' stories, one must point out that Assassin's Creed has as core to its story an idea that has been known as impossible for decades (at least). Add to that the derivative Illuminati'esque intrigue and conspiracy only beaten in convolutedness by Metal Gear Solid.
Of course, he did say that the Japanese stories were 'literally' gibberish. Perhaps he'd left the subtitles off. That's what's called 'another language' my friend. However, the Japanese love those stories, for the overlap given above. Whereas Gears of War is trying to be Band of Bros ..er Brothers (Bruthas?), many Japanese games are trying to be as overwrought and melodramatic as the comics and animation which they are often based on or intrinsic to.
But seriously, Gears of War was not narrative gold.
More than that, in this generation of consoles alone, there have been 5 main installments of Assassin's Creed. There have been 7 other games, 17 'other media' and an upcoming film. This isn't saturation? The biggest games this generation are all non-Japanese and part of long series. Call of Duty will likely have a showing of 8 major titles in this generation, perhaps more. What's fundamentally different between them except their settings and who has what MacGuffin and for what, and who's chasing them for it. These are plots worthy of video cinema from Asylum.
The games which have had stories worth writing home about have not been franchised up the wahoo, and have not made suits into millionaires. This guy seems to have the same disease as some of the indy devs lately, in that he can't keep his mouth shut.
That doesn't really make any sense. Authorial intent is, without a doubt, important, but it shouldn't be the sole factor used to judge the quality of a work.
For an example, let's use Christian Weston Chandler's magnum opus, Sonichu.
It is, without a doubt, true that the author intended his self insert character to be the hero. The hero of Sonichu, the person who is supposed to do good, causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. To many people, this colors the protagonist as more evil than good, but by your logic, the protagonist is unquestionably good and anyone who says otherwise has no right to unless they come from the same background as Mr. Chandler. The protagonist, who the author intended to be good, is objectively good regardless of allegedly invalid criticism. This notion is false.
Good thing that that wasn't what I said, like, at all, otherwise I'd feel kinda silly.
Notice my phrase, "take a back seat", which implies that it is still indeed in the car, it's just not the top priority.
As for your example, it would seem to me, not having read the book, that Chandler intended for Sonichu to be a hero, correct? By de-constructing the narrative, we discover that he failed in his attempt. Had he however intended for Sonichu to be, to use a popular modern phrase, a anti-hero, he would have succeeded.
Again, I have not read the work in question, so forgive me if I have misunderstood something, but I think my point has been clarified. Also, I am not sure as to how this particular example pertains to whether it is valid to judge eastern games by western standards.
The fact that he compares Bayonetta to Gears shows how much of a fucking idiot he is. Bayonetta's gameplay is on a whole other level compared to the shitty cover shooting of Gears.
I think he was actually talking about the stories there guy/gal and i'll be the first to admit that Bayonetta's story was abit... er... daffy. Still really fun though.
I'd still rather it have a good narrative ASWELL as being fun but I can see where your coming from, Angry Birds was as basic a story as any yet it was still fun.
Has that even come out yet? Or was that your point in his subtle racism gag?
OT: Japan's actually taking a shit-ton of flak lately for its stories in games, as in, can anyone name any from this gen to score over 8/10 or get praise for it's story?
If anything Western games get too much leeway on shitty sub-par story telling by the wheel of "Terrorists from *INSERT NON-AMERICAN COUNTRY HERE*, invade and America has to save the day!" The fact Homefront even saw the light of day shows how little story matters to a lot of Western devs.
Seriously, I want to like Ubisoft, can they please just... just stop this bullshit? Just stop this "We're taking an even handed approach FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEEDOM AMERICA! No, but we're being really balanced in our portrayal" and "Japan gets a free ride on stories! Even when they're stupid time travel induced things with a stuffed toy while OURS are serious re-enactments of the Borgia's in Rome so pretty much historical research with a self-insert fanfic character"((Personal Note, I really liked FFXIII-2 despite Mog and Assassin's Creed 2 but I can make fun of stupid drama))
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
