Southpark Stick of truth. A game of the show done right.

[alphamalet]

What passes as a 'game' depends on who is playing it and their experience of what they find fun, interactive and enjoyable.

By that logic, could my computer desktop pass as a game for me because I find it fun, interactive, and enjoyable to click on icons to launch applications? Though your desktop is interactive and can be found fun and enjoyable, your desktop itself doesn't qualify as a game and there are reasons for that. Academics have already discussed what makes a game a game, and it's a topic I've studied extensively as part of my college major (and to be honest, I have no desire to debate with you what a game is). Why was this even brought up anyway? I'm not saying that South Park: TSOF isn't a game; what I'm arguing is statements such as, "It's like I'm not even playing a game," being billed as a good thing does the medium both you and I love no justice.

'Cinematic' alone is not an insult to the game industry or games as a whole but a mere term, a word we use to describe something we consider to be similar to movies/tv.

I'll let Yahtzee take it from here. Watch the first 45 seconds of his Wet review.

Spoiler

Yahtzee also touches on why the "desire to be more 'cinematic'" is one of the reasons why AAA console games are "devolving" here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9063-The-Rise-of-Rail-Roading]

Devaluing everything else a game does except it's gameplay is still slighting games though. It's devaluing the artistic product of years of work by multiple people who are working in collaboration to make something that isn't any one of it's parts but is more than the sum of them. It's okay to like different things, but when you tell people that the things they like are 'slighting videgames' and somehow wrong, what good is that doing for the world?

Gamespace is huge. It's not a progression of previous mediums, it's a whole extra dimension. If paintings work in two dimensions, sculptures work in three, silent film works in four dimensions, film with audio works in five dimensions (up, down, left, right, time, 'sound'), videogames are six dimensional because they have a 'change' axis too where the same point in time and space still has a different thing happening because the player moved left instead of right.

But what this means is that there are more possibilities not less. So when you're saying a game should only have narrative focus, you're needlessly restricting the awesomeness of videogames. But equally when you're saying that games shouldn't have a narrative focus if they want one, you're taking this absolutely cool and enormous design space and you're making it smaller and taking away some of the great things it can do.

Of which South Park: The Stick Of Truth is a fine example.

This is a far more reasoned post than the previous one I responded to, and poses an interesting topic for discussion.

Let me first clarify something. I am not saying that video games should disregard narrative and storytelling, nor am I trying to slight the composition of elements that makes a game in their totality. What I take issue with is the thought that video games should be "cinematic", or that, "...Half the time you'd swear you were watching the tv show and not playing a game" is somehow a good thing.

Games are the only medium of entertainment that offers gameplay. It is the quintessential element that separates it from any other medium of entertainment.
Cinema is a non-interactive medium of entertainment that takes no input from a person experiencing it.

When you make a game "cinematic", you are crafting an experience that mimics cinema to some degree, and to mimic cinema you need to craft an experience whose design entails less and less gameplay. Certainly you've noticed that during a cinematic sequence of a game, your input as a player becomes limited or nonexistent, in favor of the action playing out on your screen. When you do this, you are stripping away the gameplay of a game, the part that makes a game unique from a movie, book, tv show, etc. When you do this,

you're taking this absolutely cool and enormous design space and you're making it smaller and taking away some of the great [and unique] things it can do.

At this point, I'm obviously talking beyond the South Park game, but what I would truly like to see are MORE games that tell stories in a way that only games can! Games that acknowledge player agency, and use it as a tool to further storytelling. Spec Ops: The Line is a perfect example of a game whose story revolves entirely around the fact that players make conscious choices within its system of gameplay. It's a game whose story COULD NOT be told by any other artistic medium, and I think more developers should strive to make games that transcend cinema/tv shows instead of mimicking them.

Either way, good conversation, and very interesting points. I'd be curious to see your response, but if it's something about what makes/doesn't make a game, I'd rather not start that conversation. It usually devolves into a never-ending conversation of semantics.

 

[OpticalJunction]

Only played a little of it, it really does stay true to the show. On the downside the combat was kinda boring.

 

[Nazulu]

Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very competent and well thought out game. However, I find the humour really flat and I really don't like the whole idea of it. I guess it's a parody of RPG games that revisits classic episode story elements and jokes, but the execution of them is bland and nothing shocking like they used to do.

 

[DeimosMasque]

As always, The Simpsons did it.

If you liked the Simpsons game you will like this game. They are basically the same game. And I liked the Simpsons game, it was funny and clever and quick.

Which Simpsons game? I don't recall playing one that is a turn based RPG with action buttons for attack and defense. I'm not being facetious, I seriously don't know what Simpsons game your referencing cause I'd like to play it.

Anyways. I'm about 10 hours into it, on Day 2 after you choose which faction to finally side with and I have to say I'm having a blast. I particularly like a part of the game where an audio log says something like, "Their coming, why aren't I running? Why am I just standing here recording a pointless audio log?"

To me the game is the definitive South Park game and probably one of the best licensed material games not made by Telltale. I particularly like some of the little touches made to make you feel like your in the show (whenever you load the game it plays one of the incidental scene change music pieces.) But the writers (Trey and Matt) are obviously gamers who know what it's like playing games. Lots of jokes about Boss fights, intentional lose fights, silent protagonists, and the audio log bit I mentioned earlier.

My only real complaint about the game is that it's a bit too easy. I've never had an issue with money, I've only died in a fight three times and basically you're just given better equipment everywhere you go.

However I will say this, if you don't like South Park... you're not going to like this game. That's just the cold hard truth of it.

EDIT: I just remembered another thing I disliked. You get filled up on "Junk/Misc" items that are meant to sell to vendors. The clever thing is they are mostly show references like "Alabama Man," Terrance and Phillip Dolls, Pubes and various other stuff. But there is no Sell All. There is "Sell Stack" which sells all of a single item but since all the items are literally worthless, why can't I just sell them all and get it over with?

 

[Rylot]

Granted some of their earlier games fell kinda flat.

Just for the record, this is the first and only game that Matt and Trey actually wrote themselves. They've had nothing to do with any of the other South Park games. I'd say it's the fact that they were actually directly involved with this one that's making it so successful.

That makes sense. Wonder why it's taken them so long to be this active in the creation of a game?

Edit:

snip

It seems like you're missing why people are praising the game for being like the show. It isn't that there are a lot of cut scenes so you just watch the game like you would the show, but instead that even when you're walking about town or in combat it's still like you're watching the show. Characters move, sound and act like they do in the show. It's being praised as a good example of a licensed product because every aspect of the game is very close to the thing it's based off of.

 

[FPLOON]

My only real complaint about the game is that it's a bit too easy. I've never had an issue with money, I've only died in a fight three times and basically you're just given better equipment everywhere you go.

However I will say this, if you don't like South Park... you're not going to like this game. That's just the cold hard truth of it.

EDIT: I just remembered another thing I disliked. You get filled up on "Junk/Misc" items that are meant to sell to vendors. The clever thing is they are mostly show references like "Alabama Man," Terrance and Phillip Dolls, Pubes and various other stuff. But there is no Sell All. There is "Sell Stack" which sells all of a single item but since all the items are literally worthless, why can't I just sell them all and get it over with?

I would also add that if you never cared for South Park... This game probably would not persuade you otherwise... and, yeah, I haven't tried to sell any of the "Junk/Misc." items yet for extra money, but it doesn't seem like they would make a small joke about the lack of a "Sell All" option...

OT: This game is truly the definitive South Park game, that knows how it uses it's source material well enough that you will have people like the OP saying how "it feels like you're actually watching the show itself". It took me a while to go through the battle menu manually, especially when the finger is just slightly off the appointed option you want to choose from, but that was quickly countered by the dialogue coming from most of the enemies you face...

Is the game worth 60 bones? It depends on how much you like/care about South Park in general... With that said, I already know I'm going to replay this game again only as a different class... (I'm currently playing as a black Jew...)

 

[Aussie502]

half the time you'd swear you were watching the tv show and not playing a game.

And that's why it fails as a true game within the medium. It's something we shouldn't be appraising nor aspiring.

This! This guy gets it!

It's time we stop devaluing games by trying to make them "cinematic", and it's time we stop slighting games by saying playing it is as if "you were watching [a] tv show and not paying a game." Buried in the statement is the notion that games are somehow inferior to that of a more traditional art form, and by disregarding the gaminess (gameplay) of games, they begin to become something more. That thought process does nothing to further the medium.

The game is definitely not a purely cinematic experience. When people say they feel like they're watching the tv show, they're not saying that the game plays itself and you are just there for the ride. They're saying that the art style, aesthetics, voice acting and scripting writing are so true to the source material, that it's hard to some times believe it's a game. (From an art style perspective, not a gameplay perspective)

How many terrible games have there been over the years that have tried to make the transition from television/cinema to video games and vice versa? How many games have there been where the game was pretty good, but didn't quite catch the same aesthetic feel as the television show? Take the Simpsons as an example. There's been plenty of Simpsons games in the past. But none have ever really felt like it was taken straight from an episode of the show and placed into a game setting. Either by not having the correct voice actors, or the developers have struggled to perfectly simulate the shows art style within a game environment, or something else.

This is where the South Park: Stick of Truth shines. It's managed to match all the little subtleties of the show with the perks and gameplay experiences of a video game. This is why people are praising it.

I also believe it's unfair to call out a game based off a TV show as being unfit to be a "true game within the medium". There's only so many gameplay elements that can be used with an aesthetic style such as South Park. Basically any 3d game is out of the question unless you change major features of the show, which is not what anyone wants from a South Park game.

 

[DeimosMasque]

The game that came out with the movie. It wasn't an RPG but it was the same type of game, tv humor ala cut-scenes melded with gameplay. This was to the people who deride this as not being "enough game", which it totally is.

That explains it. I stopped paying attention to Simpsons games after the Hit-and-Run one. I just assumed they hadn't made any other ones. So the Simpson's Movie game is good? Might have to check it out.

I would also add that if you never cared for South Park... This game probably would not persuade you otherwise... and, yeah, I haven't tried to sell any of the "Junk/Misc." items yet for extra money, but it doesn't seem like they would make a small joke about the lack of a "Sell All" option...

OT: This game is truly the definitive South Park game, that knows how it uses it's source material well enough that you will have people like the OP saying how "it feels like you're actually watching the show itself". It took me a while to go through the battle menu manually, especially when the finger is just slightly off the appointed option you want to choose from, but that was quickly countered by the dialogue coming from most of the enemies you face...

Is the game worth 60 bones? It depends on how much you like/care about South Park in general... With that said, I already know I'm going to replay this game again only as a different class... (I'm currently playing as a black Jew...)

Yeah that goes without saying. If you never liked South Park... yeah this isn't changing your mind. It's deeply entrenched in the South Park mythos and the humor is much the same, though it is more it's later seasons humor rather than the early seasons humor.

I also look forward to playing through with other classes, and to find out if the faction decision you make actually matters (I'm guessing not)

 

[BrotherRool]

but if it's something about what makes/doesn't make a game, I'd rather not start that conversation. It usually devolves into a never-ending conversation of semantics.

You have no idea how happy I am to hear someone say that =D

Let me first clarify something. I am not saying that video games should disregard narrative and storytelling, nor am I trying to slight the composition of elements that makes a game in their totality. What I take issue with is the thought that video games should be "cinematic", or that, "...Half the time you'd swear you were watching the tv show and not playing a game" is somehow a good thing.

Games are the only medium of entertainment that offers gameplay. It is the quintessential element that separates it from any other medium of entertainment.
Cinema is a non-interactive medium of entertainment that takes no input from a person experiencing it.

When you make a game "cinematic", you are crafting an experience that mimics cinema to some degree, and to mimic cinema you need to craft an experience whose design entails less and less gameplay. Certainly you've noticed that during a cinematic sequence of a game, your input as a player becomes limited or nonexistent, in favor of the action playing out on your screen. When you do this, you are stripping away the gameplay of a game, the part that makes a game unique from a movie, book, tv show, etc. When you do this,

you're taking this absolutely cool and enormous design space and you're making it smaller and taking away some of the great [and unique] things it can do.

At this point, I'm obviously talking beyond the South Park game, but what I would truly like to see are MORE games that tell stories in a way that only games can! Games that acknowledge player agency, and use it as a tool to further storytelling. Spec Ops: The Line is a perfect example of a game whose story revolves entirely around the fact that players make conscious choices within its system of gameplay. It's a game whose story COULD NOT be told by any other artistic medium, and I think more developers should strive to make games that transcend cinema/tv shows instead of mimicking them.

Either way, good conversation, and very interesting points. I'd be curious to see your response,

I think the area I can agree with you most with, is that there's a huge and largely unexplored area of incorporating gameplay into narrative design and the possibilities there are really exciting. And in general when you make a videogame you should be focusing all the tools you have available to you for your goal. If you want to tell a story then you should be tooling your gameplay towards telling that story. If the Last of Us had empowering mow-down-zombies-with-machineguns-and-rocket-launchers gameplay it would not have become half as popular and to be honest, probably worth no-ones time. (And equally of course this goes the other way, if you want to make a brain scratching puzzler then your visuals and sound design should suit this too.)

But I don't think this necessarily involves making the game more interactive or making the gameplay have larger focus. The small things can have profound effects and create something that you'd be unable to experience outside games. As an example, Katawa Shoujo is an interactive novel that has so little interaction that it would be a very valid target for the 'is it a game schtick', but it is infinitely better for having that interaction because they built the story around the idea that the player was choosing to pursue person X which allowed it to hammer some life lessons home by making the player experience the same thing as the protagonist.

Matches and Matrimony in a similar way was based around the book Pride and Prejudice and had a few options you select and then some stats you had to choose to train that would be checked against for the story to go down certain paths. As a game it certainly wasn't fun but I did have an amazing time exploring that game because they'd turned failing into part of the experience. Not marrying Mr Darcy (now I'm typing this I realise I'm probably losing some cool points ) was effectively a game over if that was your goal, but the loss was important because it taught you about the aspects of Elizabeth Bennet's character that were so vital to their relationship and the losing made you understand what it is that helped their relationship tick. I couldn't recommend the game to anybody but it gave me a greater understanding of the book in a way that the book itself would never have been able to do.

I'm not sure that we necessarily disagree about this point but I just wanted to try and make where I stood clear. Spec Ops wasn't known for the high quality of it's shooting and it used cutscenes too. What was important was that it acknowledging the existence of the player and wove that inextricably into it's story. It's not so much the degree or quality of the gameplay sometimes, it's how they use it.


I think the point where we probably disagree is that I don't mind games being 'cinematic' or 'like the TV show' because I think the fundamental experience of the game is different enough that a 'cinematic' game is it's own unique thing and not really like a film at all. And if a game sticks in a very flashy non-interactive chase sequence I don't mind too much because on some level it's happening to a character I associate with as 'me' and nothing else can provide that.

To bring it back to South Park; playing The Stick of Truth is always going to be different from the show because you're controlling your own character and walking around that world. Think about how cool that is for a moment, we've taken this flat non-interactive world that people love and let them walk around inside of it. You can pop into school and the teacher will say something terribly emasculating to you, or go see Cartman and have him chuck a racial slur your way. The manner you're experiencing the world might be more as an observer than as a world changer, but you're still observing it from inside your universe. You are a person taking part in the kid's wacky games and fantasy world.

So that's why I take 'it's like the TV show' as a good thing. Because it's like the TV show, except because it's a game you're inside the show this time.

 

[Groxnax]

I know I like this game but how did they sneak some of the material of the game past the censors and the ESRB?

Those that have played the Underwear Gnomes part know what I mean.

 

[Roxas1359]

I know I like this game but how did they sneak some of the material of the game past the censors and the ESRB?

Those that have played the Underwear Gnomes part know what I mean.

They have tons of experience since they have to tell the FCC what it is they will be airing on television, and the ESRB has no actual legal standing in the US while the FCC does. I feel sorry for the person who has the job of explaining to the FCC what they are gonna air. XD