Well, I still remeber in Gears 2 when they made you carry that dumb box around for 20 mins.crackdealer said:
Will they slaughter the Gears of War story?
- Thread starter Arkhangelsk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think what I find interesting is that people complain about the story in Gears of War - it seems that such people must have their heads buried in the sand most of the time.
I'll give a quick synopsis, without any fluff: Humanity is being attacked by an irresistible force. All hope lies in the hands of a small team of exceptional bad-assess, who routinely succeed in the face of almost certain defeat. At the close of the first episode of play, the aforementioned bad-asses resolve the immediate problem, but unfortunately fail to ultimately resolve the problem. As the second act is revealed, humanity is found to be in even more dire straits than before, and the same team of bad-asses once again proves they are the only ones capable of solving the problem. Another of the great strengths of the enemy is revealed and quickly dispatched, and humanity concocts a wild scheme designed to end the war quickly. Unfortunately, by the end it seems as though they may have played into right into the diabolical machinations of some other ultimate evil force driving their enemy.
Basically, if one strips away the fluff, you'll find that it is essentially the exact same story arc seen in most every video game ever made. In fact, Star Wars and the Matrix are two notable movie trilogies that follow this exact same pattern. If this specific story arc pattern can be heralded in other games and media, what exactly is the problem? I'd say we need to look at the culprits:
Dialogue - some people will say that the game has laughably bad dialogue, and they may have something there. That said, we must consider that every single major character in the game has fought a brutal losing war for most of their lives - such things are almost certain to erode one's capacity for motivating speech. When one is forced through necessity to meet problems with nothing but brute force and firepower while watching their friends and family be claimed by an unstoppable force, resorting to gallows humor is really the only place one can go for a laugh.
Characterization - I will admit that there is poor characterization, but that is not really the fault of either story or universe, but rather by the games basic design. During the game, the player will confront problems through the use of firepower and heroics, and any other character traits are revealed in cut scenes. Since 99% of our experience with the characters is found in firefights with the locust, any traits revealed in a cut scene that do not meet the limited knowledge set we gain through gameplay are discared as "tacked on". This is a problem with any media that focuses on action to move the plot forward. Were the game to focus more on better, consistent characterization, there would inevitably be wild swings in the play dynamic and pacing, or it would be force to travel down the dark road of Metal Gear Solid where one spends as much time watching movies as they do playing the actual game.
Universe Specific Plot Points - Again, I see nothing really wrong with this factor. Locust may be aliens, or perhaps mutated humans. Either way, they represent a sufficiently foreign force that helps clearly define who is a "good guy" and who is a "bad guy". Star Wars accomplished this by ensuring the bad guys wore shiny armor, or dressed mostly in black, while the good guys favored a less conservative garb with a wider variety of color. The focus of immulsion as an energy source and perhaps original cause of the conflict is another point - at least there is a reasonable motivation for people do so silly things; desperation is the mother of most stupidity. In Star Wars, the key motivation appears to be a grab for power, and I tend to think of power as a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. (Actually, I've never understood exactly WHY the Palpatine wanted to rule the galaxy, given that he really didn't seem to have any grand schemes on what he would do with said power). It seems that the universe specific plot points are actually quite suitable for the world the game takes place in and provides a reasonable basis for the game's actions. Again, the story could be improved here if there were more time to explore in greater detail each piece and character, but doing so would inevitably harm the action oriented gameplay.
Considering just what KIND of game Gears of War is, it actually has an excellent story. Yes it has glaring weaknesses, but it would seem that the only way to resolve those is to change how the game is played OR explore the back story and motivations in greater detail in other media (graphic novels seem like the most logical approach). The story in GoW as such complements the gameplay, and never seeks to become the focus. In essense, it provides a rich framework in which to paint a beautiful canvas of brutal violence and deeds of inconceivable heroism, and I think that's enough.
And, as an aside, can anyone think of any mainstream action game that has a truly better story? I can think of a host of RPG's that do, of course but the story in an RPG is a key part of the experience. Half-Life's story is no better, it just does a better job of characterization. Call of Duty and other war games don't have a story so much as they exist within the framework of a narrative, and I'd only be willing to grant that CoD 4 may have a compelling, original story, but characterization and dialogue suffer for the same reasons they suffer in GoW. Assassin's creed seems to be following the very same story arc, based on one episode of play.
In short, is there some action game with a magical story that I am unaware of, or do people rip on GoW's story because it's popular and they can handily point to in order to seem as though they are the sort of person who truly values the story in a game primarily about killing people?
I'll give a quick synopsis, without any fluff: Humanity is being attacked by an irresistible force. All hope lies in the hands of a small team of exceptional bad-assess, who routinely succeed in the face of almost certain defeat. At the close of the first episode of play, the aforementioned bad-asses resolve the immediate problem, but unfortunately fail to ultimately resolve the problem. As the second act is revealed, humanity is found to be in even more dire straits than before, and the same team of bad-asses once again proves they are the only ones capable of solving the problem. Another of the great strengths of the enemy is revealed and quickly dispatched, and humanity concocts a wild scheme designed to end the war quickly. Unfortunately, by the end it seems as though they may have played into right into the diabolical machinations of some other ultimate evil force driving their enemy.
Basically, if one strips away the fluff, you'll find that it is essentially the exact same story arc seen in most every video game ever made. In fact, Star Wars and the Matrix are two notable movie trilogies that follow this exact same pattern. If this specific story arc pattern can be heralded in other games and media, what exactly is the problem? I'd say we need to look at the culprits:
Dialogue - some people will say that the game has laughably bad dialogue, and they may have something there. That said, we must consider that every single major character in the game has fought a brutal losing war for most of their lives - such things are almost certain to erode one's capacity for motivating speech. When one is forced through necessity to meet problems with nothing but brute force and firepower while watching their friends and family be claimed by an unstoppable force, resorting to gallows humor is really the only place one can go for a laugh.
Characterization - I will admit that there is poor characterization, but that is not really the fault of either story or universe, but rather by the games basic design. During the game, the player will confront problems through the use of firepower and heroics, and any other character traits are revealed in cut scenes. Since 99% of our experience with the characters is found in firefights with the locust, any traits revealed in a cut scene that do not meet the limited knowledge set we gain through gameplay are discared as "tacked on". This is a problem with any media that focuses on action to move the plot forward. Were the game to focus more on better, consistent characterization, there would inevitably be wild swings in the play dynamic and pacing, or it would be force to travel down the dark road of Metal Gear Solid where one spends as much time watching movies as they do playing the actual game.
Universe Specific Plot Points - Again, I see nothing really wrong with this factor. Locust may be aliens, or perhaps mutated humans. Either way, they represent a sufficiently foreign force that helps clearly define who is a "good guy" and who is a "bad guy". Star Wars accomplished this by ensuring the bad guys wore shiny armor, or dressed mostly in black, while the good guys favored a less conservative garb with a wider variety of color. The focus of immulsion as an energy source and perhaps original cause of the conflict is another point - at least there is a reasonable motivation for people do so silly things; desperation is the mother of most stupidity. In Star Wars, the key motivation appears to be a grab for power, and I tend to think of power as a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. (Actually, I've never understood exactly WHY the Palpatine wanted to rule the galaxy, given that he really didn't seem to have any grand schemes on what he would do with said power). It seems that the universe specific plot points are actually quite suitable for the world the game takes place in and provides a reasonable basis for the game's actions. Again, the story could be improved here if there were more time to explore in greater detail each piece and character, but doing so would inevitably harm the action oriented gameplay.
Considering just what KIND of game Gears of War is, it actually has an excellent story. Yes it has glaring weaknesses, but it would seem that the only way to resolve those is to change how the game is played OR explore the back story and motivations in greater detail in other media (graphic novels seem like the most logical approach). The story in GoW as such complements the gameplay, and never seeks to become the focus. In essense, it provides a rich framework in which to paint a beautiful canvas of brutal violence and deeds of inconceivable heroism, and I think that's enough.
And, as an aside, can anyone think of any mainstream action game that has a truly better story? I can think of a host of RPG's that do, of course but the story in an RPG is a key part of the experience. Half-Life's story is no better, it just does a better job of characterization. Call of Duty and other war games don't have a story so much as they exist within the framework of a narrative, and I'd only be willing to grant that CoD 4 may have a compelling, original story, but characterization and dialogue suffer for the same reasons they suffer in GoW. Assassin's creed seems to be following the very same story arc, based on one episode of play.
In short, is there some action game with a magical story that I am unaware of, or do people rip on GoW's story because it's popular and they can handily point to in order to seem as though they are the sort of person who truly values the story in a game primarily about killing people?
You mean that bomb on the level before the Centaur level? Try 2 minutes. All you need is to know how to aim with a pistol. And yes, I played on Insane.crackdealer said:
I wouldn't really take the story seriously.
I liked playing through the campaigns, but it was a rather... Strange story in the first place. Not that there is anything wrong with strange things, that is.
I liked playing through the campaigns, but it was a rather... Strange story in the first place. Not that there is anything wrong with strange things, that is.
So was I but it was on co-op too and its really hard to coordinate between to drunk people. I just feel that level was out of place in Gears. I mean I want to be cutting up people not lugging around a box for however long and I still don't even know what it was.crazyhaircut94 said:
EDIT: Also razor hail is a weak excuse for Kryll.
I forgot about that part of the story.crackdealer said:
It really desensitizes the love story when to complete it, I need to chainsaw a couple of strange looking creatures and splatter their brains all over me and my friends.
ok ok, i think the history of Gears (i was gonna write GOW but thats the name of other franchize haha) was well put in the only terms it could had being put, the scenario where everyone haves a background that makes them who they are actually sum up to the characterization they make
Cole was a player of some kind of sport, so they make him flamboyant and loud speaking in sports terms
Marcus has had his life well fucked up from the beggining... so they make him bitter and sarcastic
Dom is searching for his whife, so they make him all reasonably vindictive against the ARMY and the LOCUST alike (wich is one way to grieve) "SPOILER" and after he has to shoot his wife we haves some closure by being more of a bad ass against the locust
if you think of the past of the characters their way of looking at things well... i dont know if having their training i would have acted or expressed myself differently, anywhay the over all story has being made a thousand times, except now it is presented by a diferent writer, and i dont think the characterization was THAT bad...
Cole was a player of some kind of sport, so they make him flamboyant and loud speaking in sports terms
Marcus has had his life well fucked up from the beggining... so they make him bitter and sarcastic
Dom is searching for his whife, so they make him all reasonably vindictive against the ARMY and the LOCUST alike (wich is one way to grieve) "SPOILER" and after he has to shoot his wife we haves some closure by being more of a bad ass against the locust
if you think of the past of the characters their way of looking at things well... i dont know if having their training i would have acted or expressed myself differently, anywhay the over all story has being made a thousand times, except now it is presented by a diferent writer, and i dont think the characterization was THAT bad...
How could they? How could they possibly write anything worse than "IT'S A GIANT WORM!!!!!1111"crazyhaircut94 said:
I was going to post something about how probably upwards of 75% of the people here are, in fact, not writers of any level of merit and are probably under the assumption that this mythical beast known as "Good Writing" somehow hinges on originality, but Eclectic Dreck beat me to it, the bastard. And I had this whole good post drafted in the back of mind. I kid of course, it's actually refreshing to see that there are indeed people on the internet that have a posting IQ greater than or equal to 70.
In brief, he is absolutely right, although he might over-rationalize the position of the writers, but as one myself, I can support that kind of thing. If a writer churns out what is legitimately subpar writing, I personally don't think they have the right to hide behind the excuse, "Well, that's what an actual person in the given situation would likely say." This seems like a valid excuse, up until the point where you realize that what people in real life tend to say in any given situation is usually not very witty or entertaining, mainly because it's extemporaneous and most people just aren't that clever. That being said, writers run the perilous gauntlet of somehow trying to find a happy balance between what is appropriate speech, that is to say, the kind of thing real people have the potential to come with, and what is entertaining, the sort of thing that while might be difficult for the average person to come up with off-the-cuff, is also not inconceivable. The tragic thing, is that most people who criticize writing are completely unaware of this plight of the writer.
Oh, and as an addendum for Eclectic personally, it actually makes perfect sense that Palpatine would want control of the galaxy. Your logic is sound though, for many people, power is just a means to an end, but for a great many other people, power actually is the end. While this might seem vain, it is nevertheless the driving motivation for a number of people, the Emperor included.
In brief, he is absolutely right, although he might over-rationalize the position of the writers, but as one myself, I can support that kind of thing. If a writer churns out what is legitimately subpar writing, I personally don't think they have the right to hide behind the excuse, "Well, that's what an actual person in the given situation would likely say." This seems like a valid excuse, up until the point where you realize that what people in real life tend to say in any given situation is usually not very witty or entertaining, mainly because it's extemporaneous and most people just aren't that clever. That being said, writers run the perilous gauntlet of somehow trying to find a happy balance between what is appropriate speech, that is to say, the kind of thing real people have the potential to come with, and what is entertaining, the sort of thing that while might be difficult for the average person to come up with off-the-cuff, is also not inconceivable. The tragic thing, is that most people who criticize writing are completely unaware of this plight of the writer.
Oh, and as an addendum for Eclectic personally, it actually makes perfect sense that Palpatine would want control of the galaxy. Your logic is sound though, for many people, power is just a means to an end, but for a great many other people, power actually is the end. While this might seem vain, it is nevertheless the driving motivation for a number of people, the Emperor included.
You have a better plan for sinking cities? Or maybe we just want something better than "sinking cities" as the "evil plan #2" for the villains?Decoy Doctorpus said: