At any rate, I'm not quite following your argument that "It's indecent for letting us play out the terrible thing that is happening to people right now." By that logic, Call of Duty 4 was indecent for allowing the player to participate in a war not unlike what is happening in the Middle East.
That's a little out of context. I meant that people getting gunned down by terrorists is something that happens almost weekly. Read the previous posts if you want the whole picture.
Ah. Well, if you played SotC (fantastic, fantastic game - one of the best of the last generation), it was about a boy who arrived in this distant, empty land with a dead girl, and made a pact with a supernatural being. The only way to revive her was to slay 16 colossi around this world - it was a very minimalistic story, but so very effective.
Here's the thing: The colossi weren't evil creatures. You were the one attacking them, and some only fought back after they were attacked, with you the aggressor, attacking them while they were sleeping or catching them otherwise off guard. And every time you killed one, the game did its best to make you feel "holy shit, I'm the bad guy here, I'm murdering these innocent creatures and slaying these ancient beasts that never did anything to me." It was clear that you were doing something wrong, and the course of the game reflected that.
It was an incredibly emotional experience, and it would have never resonated with me half as much if it had just shown me "Oh hey, there's this guy who is running around killing these Colossi." Because you did it, your actions had more weight, and you felt revulsion at what you were being asked to do. It lent the story much more emotional impact than it would have otherwise.
Perhaps that's where our disagreement lies. I've known first-hand how genuinely impactful it can be when the game asks you to do something you don't want to do, and how successful it is in drawing you into the story.
I'm uncomfortable with this. This scene is far too close to reality. I have no problem with killing civilians in GTA's clearly fiction environment, but this terrorist attack is reminiscent of this:
That's right. This is not fiction, not just a game. This shit was real. I don't want reality in my video games or video games in my reality (if I enjoyed reality I'd go outside more often). To me, this is no different than a game asking me to steer a plane into a building full of people in a well populated city or to flip the switch of a gas chamber full of concentration camp prisoners. I draw the line at recreating atrocities. It's disturbing. It's offensive. I can't do it. I wont do it.
And being okay with murder doesn't make you cool or mature. You're just desensitized, and just because I'm not, it doesn't make me a 12-year-old.
paypuh: So the Aussies are going to ban a game they otherwise probably wouldn't have, but America isn't banning the game (I can't recall the last time they did) and the game takes place IN America. Am I understanding this correctly? What a mess.
They may not ban the game, but just wait for the media shit storm and we'll see what goes down.
Georgeman: But I do think it possible. You see, only a small minority of gamers truly care about stories. Stories can become barriers to the enjoyment of a game, especially, if they are unskippable. Also, just because you think that a story is "compelling" doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Others might call it obnoxious, intrusive, nonsensical, etc. Also, stories are not "replayable" so they are hardly a strong selling point.
I'm sorry, I can't agree with you on this. The entire purpose of a campaign mode in video games is to present a storyline, and many games are renowned because of their stories. It's possible I'm in a minority (because I care about the story considerably), but I don't see how anyone can find the storylines trivial in any of the games I listed.
So, movies and books can depict modern violence, but games can't? Why?
In movies or books there's actors and you don't have any choice at all. You identify alot more with what goes on in a videogame because you're the one in control, especially in first-person mode. The comparison you're making is flawed because they are very different mediums. Interaction is a very powerful thing. I mean, you acknowledge this yourself;
Sure, IW could just have made this a cutscene, but then they'd just be aping a movie. By making the player do it, by asking the player to play the role of somebody doing something that it makes unmistakably clear is reprehensibly evil, that's something that a book or movie could never do.
You're absolutely correct that this is stuff that happens around the globe today, but I think it's for that exact reason that games and developers shouldn't be afraid to tackle it.
I have to completely disagree with you here. The game is not a documentary. It's a game and it lacks decency. Yes, "decency" is a terrible thing to say or expect these days. Only pussies and grandma use that word. But I still believe in something like that and to me it's indecent to make a joke about someone at his funeral. It's indecent to act like a handicapped person infront of someone who is handicapped. It's indecent to play on the shortcomings or misfortunes of others, right in their face, and this is what this game does.
CantFaketheFunk: If movies had never sought to make people uncomfortable or make them feel bad, we'd never have a film like Schindler's List.
Schindlers list shows you the atrocities commited by the Nazis by showing you what the Nazis did. It doesn't require you dress up in SS-uniform and accompany a Jew to a gas chamber to make it's point, does it? Would you consider it appropriate if Spielberg allowed some cinema visitors to do just that before seeing the movie? So that they can better appreciate what was happening back then?
Ok, I'm going to get some sort of reprimanding for this, but really.
Take that firm grip you have on what you think is the world around you's balls, and let go.
I don't see why everyones so serious about this. Its a fucking game. Oh no, you're shooting people!
Who the fuck says those people are innocent? In real life, all of them are going to hell. Innocence is a word people throw around to wildly. More than half probably had sex before they got married, did drugs, or stole something.
All of which are against the 10 commandments. Even if you're athiest, all of those are breaking a certain moral code that all people have lost today.
I'm having trouble taking a lecture on the Ten Commandments seriously from someone with what appears to be Satan surrounded by a Star of David in their avatar, alongside the declaration that you're a Satanist in your profile.
Somehow it's just a little hard for me to take you seriously.
I don't see why everyones so serious about this. Its a fucking game. Oh no, you're shooting people! Who the fuck says those people are innocent? In real life, all of them are going to hell. Innocence is a word people throw around to wildly. More than half probably had sex before they got married, did drugs, or stole something.
Yes, of course. And because it's just a game, let's also have a child-molestation game where you abduct and rape young boys. And because people do drugs and cheat on their wives, they deserve to die or have their families blown up to pieces infront of their eyes... whatever man. Whatever.
As far as Rpgs are concerned, character creation and interesting worlds can be better sellers than a story. Oblivion and Fallout 3 won't be remembered for their stories but for the ability to explore huge worlds and do lots of neat and cool things.
And I insist: Game worlds can convey a far better story than a boring cutscene or some random dude/dudette.
I don't see why everyones so serious about this. Its a fucking game. Oh no, you're shooting people! Who the fuck says those people are innocent? In real life, all of them are going to hell. Innocence is a word people throw around to wildly. More than half probably had sex before they got married, did drugs, or stole something.
Yes, of course. And because it's just a game, let's also have a child-molestation game where you abduct and rape young boys.
But, Rapelay already exists! (Oh wait, that covers girls)
Raykuza: I'm uncomfortable with this. This scene is far too close to reality. I have no problem with killing civilians in GTA's clearly fiction environment, but this terrorist attack is reminiscent of this:
That's right. This is not fiction, not just a game. This shit was real. I don't want reality in my video games or video games in my reality (if I enjoyed reality I'd go outside more often). To me, this is no different than a game asking me to steer a plane into a building full of people in a well populated city or to flip the switch of a gas chamber full of concentration camp prisoners. I draw the line at recreating atrocities. It's disturbing. It's offensive. I can't do it. I wont do it.
And being okay with murder doesn't make you cool or mature. You're just desensitized, and just because I'm not, it doesn't make me a 12-year-old.
Okay, hang on, hold the phone.
Why are you assuming that everyone who is *okay with the idea of this being in the game* is automatically *okay with murder* and desensitized? Personally, I know damn well that I'm going to have an incredibly difficult time actually doing it in the game, and it's going to disturb me to high hell and back, and I'm certainly no 12-year-old.
But that's the point of the sequence.
I'm not even sure it is a recreation of the Mumbai attacks, to be honest. This game has been in development since 2007. The idea of the terrorist attack on the airport was probably in concepts since well before the end of 2008, and if anything I think this is just an unfortunate coincidence.
As far as Rpgs are concerned, character creation and interesting worlds can be better sellers than a story. Oblivion and Fallout 3 won't be remembered for their stories but for the ability to explore huge worlds and do lots of neat and cool things.
And I insist: Game worlds can convey a far better story than a boring cutscene or some random dude/dudette.
And right there, you've nailed it on the head. Actions in a game can convey a far better story than a boring cutscene. Why do you think the one thing Everybody remembers from CoD4 was the ending of "Shock and Awe" as you controlled the dying marine as he stumbled around, his vision fading, until he finally collapsed and died? Because it was a sequence that was not just a "boring cutscene" but one that was fully integrated into the gameplay.
I don't see why everyones so serious about this. Its a fucking game. Oh no, you're shooting people! Who the fuck says those people are innocent? In real life, all of them are going to hell. Innocence is a word people throw around to wildly. More than half probably had sex before they got married, did drugs, or stole something.
Yes, of course. And because it's just a game, let's also have a child-molestation game where you abduct and rape young boys. And because people do drugs and cheat on their wives, they deserve to die or have their families blown up to pieces infront of their eyes... whatever man. Whatever.
They do. I don't think you know me, but I am a strong believe in Thomas Hobbes. There are rules, and they are there for a reason. If it were my perfect rule, if a child steals a piece of gum, his parents are killed, and he is forced to live with it.
So, movies and books can depict modern violence, but games can't? Why?
In movies or books there's actors and you don't have any choice at all. You identify alot more with what goes on in a videogame because you're the one in control, especially in first-person mode. The comparison you're making is flawed because they are very different mediums. Interaction is a very powerful thing. I mean, you acknowledge this yourself;
Sure, IW could just have made this a cutscene, but then they'd just be aping a movie. By making the player do it, by asking the player to play the role of somebody doing something that it makes unmistakably clear is reprehensibly evil, that's something that a book or movie could never do.
You're absolutely correct that this is stuff that happens around the globe today, but I think it's for that exact reason that games and developers shouldn't be afraid to tackle it.
I have to completely disagree with you here. The game is not a documentary. It's a game and it lacks decency. Yes, "decency" is a terrible thing to say or expect these days. Only pussies and grandma use that word. But I still believe in something like that and to me it's indecent to make a joke about someone at his funeral. It's indecent to act like a handicapped person infront of someone who is handicapped. It's indecent to play on the shortcomings or misfortunes of others, right in their face, and this is what this game does.
CantFaketheFunk: If movies had never sought to make people uncomfortable or make them feel bad, we'd never have a film like Schindler's List.
Schindlers list shows you the atrocities commited by the Nazis by showing you what the Nazis did. It doesn't require you dress up in SS-uniform and accompany a Jew to a gas chamber to make it's point, does it? Would you consider it appropriate if Spielberg allowed some cinema visitors to do just that before seeing the movie? So that they can better appreciate what was happening back then?
Ok, I'm going to get some sort of reprimanding for this, but really.
Take that firm grip you have on what you think is the world around you's balls, and let go.
I don't see why everyones so serious about this. Its a fucking game. Oh no, you're shooting people!
Who the fuck says those people are innocent? In real life, all of them are going to hell. Innocence is a word people throw around to wildly. More than half probably had sex before they got married, did drugs, or stole something.
All of which are against the 10 commandments. Even if you're athiest, all of those are breaking a certain moral code that all people have lost today.
I'm having trouble taking a lecture on the Ten Commandments seriously from someone with what appears to be Satan surrounded by a Star of David in their avatar, alongside the declaration that you're a Satanist in your profile.
Somehow it's just a little hard for me to take you seriously.
Ever heard of Lawful Evil? I revere Satan because he is the epitome of what humans are and always will be. Bad. Bad. Bad.
As far as Rpgs are concerned, character creation and interesting worlds can be better sellers than a story. Oblivion and Fallout 3 won't be remembered for their stories but for the ability to explore huge worlds and do lots of neat and cool things.
And I insist: Game worlds can convey a far better story than a boring cutscene or some random dude/dudette.
The point you originally made was that very few games are recognized for their storytelling when there are tons and lots of people play them.
As for you point here you are saying that a game world can convey a much better story then a cut-scene, but that is still story, story telling does not need to be in a cut-scene.
Here's the thing: The colossi weren't evil creatures. You were the one attacking them, and some only fought back after they were attacked, with you the aggressor, attacking them while they were sleeping or catching them otherwise off guard. And every time you killed one, the game did its best to make you feel "holy shit, I'm the bad guy here, I'm murdering these innocent creatures and slaying these ancient beasts that never did anything to me." It was clear that you were doing something wrong, and the course of the game reflected that.
It does sound like a great game. But I see a difference here. In the game you're talking about you have to make ambivalent decisions, but you act out of a sense of good. The character you play doesn't sound like a homicidal maniac, but like someone doing his best to help and has to make difficuilt choices along the way.
In contrast MW2 simply lets you act out the homicidal maniac. I don't really see any thought-provoking moral depth here. Just shock value and voyeurism.
Georgeman: But I do think it possible. You see, only a small minority of gamers truly care about stories. Stories can become barriers to the enjoyment of a game, especially, if they are unskippable. Also, just because you think that a story is "compelling" doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Others might call it obnoxious, intrusive, nonsensical, etc. Also, stories are not "replayable" so they are hardly a strong selling point.
I'm sorry, I can't agree with you on this. The entire purpose of a campaign mode in video games is to present a storyline, and many games are renowned because of their stories. It's possible I'm in a minority (because I care about the story considerably), but I don't see how anyone can find the storylines trivial in any of the games I listed.
Renowed? By whom? The game critics? Or a small minority of gamers? Critical success doesn't necessarily equate to commercial success. Many people wished that Planescape had sold better. It didn't. Same case with Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, World Ends with You, etc.
Feel free to like story based games. I also do like them (I still consider Planescape my favourite game and I have a soft spot for Bioware Rpgs) But we can't just say that they are selling well when they clearly ain't. There must be a reason that the people don't buy these videogames.
Georgeman: But I do think it possible. You see, only a small minority of gamers truly care about stories. Stories can become barriers to the enjoyment of a game, especially, if they are unskippable. Also, just because you think that a story is "compelling" doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Others might call it obnoxious, intrusive, nonsensical, etc. Also, stories are not "replayable" so they are hardly a strong selling point.
I'm sorry, I can't agree with you on this. The entire purpose of a campaign mode in video games is to present a storyline, and many games are renowned because of their stories. It's possible I'm in a minority (because I care about the story considerably), but I don't see how anyone can find the storylines trivial in any of the games I listed.
Renowed? By whom? The game critics? Or a small minority of gamers? Critical success doesn't necessarily equate to commercial success. Many people wished that Planescape had sold better. It didn't. Same case with Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, World Ends with You, etc.
Feel free to like story based games. I also do like them (I still consider Planescape my favourite game and I have a soft spot for Bioware Rpgs) But we can't just say that they are selling well when they clearly ain't. There must be a reason that the people don't buy these videogames.
As far as Rpgs are concerned, character creation and interesting worlds can be better sellers than a story. Oblivion and Fallout 3 won't be remembered for their stories but for the ability to explore huge worlds and do lots of neat and cool things.
And I insist: Game worlds can convey a far better story than a boring cutscene or some random dude/dudette.
The point you originally made was that very few games are recognized for their storytelling when there are tons and lots of people play them.
As for you point here you are saying that a game world can convey a much better story then a cut-scene, but that is still story, story telling does not need to be in a cut-scene.
Your second point is fair enough. It's just that many people confuse story telling with endless cutscenes.
As for your first point, more people play Mario, Wii Sports, Tetris, Pac-Man etc. than Final Fantasy and similar games. Tons of people can apparently never surpass a whole crapton of people. :P
Georgeman: But I do think it possible. You see, only a small minority of gamers truly care about stories. Stories can become barriers to the enjoyment of a game, especially, if they are unskippable. Also, just because you think that a story is "compelling" doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Others might call it obnoxious, intrusive, nonsensical, etc. Also, stories are not "replayable" so they are hardly a strong selling point.
I'm sorry, I can't agree with you on this. The entire purpose of a campaign mode in video games is to present a storyline, and many games are renowned because of their stories. It's possible I'm in a minority (because I care about the story considerably), but I don't see how anyone can find the storylines trivial in any of the games I listed.
Renowed? By whom? The game critics? Or a small minority of gamers? Critical success doesn't necessarily equate to commercial success. Many people wished that Planescape had sold better. It didn't. Same case with Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, World Ends with You, etc.
Feel free to like story based games. I also do like them (I still consider Planescape my favourite game and I have a soft spot for Bioware Rpgs) But we can't just say that they are selling well when they clearly ain't. There must be a reason that the people don't buy these videogames.
Oh, I gotcha. Thanks for the clarification :)
Np. ;) Glad to have an argument without any kind of flaming.
Here's the thing: The colossi weren't evil creatures. You were the one attacking them, and some only fought back after they were attacked, with you the aggressor, attacking them while they were sleeping or catching them otherwise off guard. And every time you killed one, the game did its best to make you feel "holy shit, I'm the bad guy here, I'm murdering these innocent creatures and slaying these ancient beasts that never did anything to me." It was clear that you were doing something wrong, and the course of the game reflected that.
It does sound like a great game. But I see a difference here. In the game you're talking about you have to make ambivalent decisions, but you act out of a sense of good. The character you play doesn't sound like a homicidal maniac, but like someone doing his best to help and has to make difficuilt choices along the way.
In contrast MW2 simply lets you act out the homicidal maniac. I don't really see any thought-provoking moral depth here. Just shock value and voyeurism.
Aren't you playing as an undercover agent of some variety (CIA?) at this point? Pretty sure you are. You're not some 'homicidal maniac' at all.
Here's the thing: The colossi weren't evil creatures. You were the one attacking them, and some only fought back after they were attacked, with you the aggressor, attacking them while they were sleeping or catching them otherwise off guard. And every time you killed one, the game did its best to make you feel "holy shit, I'm the bad guy here, I'm murdering these innocent creatures and slaying these ancient beasts that never did anything to me." It was clear that you were doing something wrong, and the course of the game reflected that.
It does sound like a great game. But I see a difference here. In the game you're talking about you have to make ambivalent decisions, but you act out of a sense of good. The character you play doesn't sound like a homicidal maniac, but like someone doing his best to help and has to make difficuilt choices along the way.
In contrast MW2 simply lets you act out the homicidal maniac. I don't really see any thought-provoking moral depth here. Just shock value and voyeurism.
As I understand it, in the context of the scene you are actually a CIA agent who has been sent undercover with the instructions to infiltrate this terror cell *at all costs,* because the man who runs it has the ability to spark a worldwide conflict that would make an incident like this look like a footnote. So you are instructed to do whatever they tell you in the interests of earning the man's trust in order to prevent a greater tragedy.
When I said "people okay with murder" I meant the people that honestly don't see a damn thing wrong with this and will feel no discomfort while playing through the sequence.
I would have quoted you CantFaketheFunk, but I have no idea how.
As far as Rpgs are concerned, character creation and interesting worlds can be better sellers than a story. Oblivion and Fallout 3 won't be remembered for their stories but for the ability to explore huge worlds and do lots of neat and cool things.
And I insist: Game worlds can convey a far better story than a boring cutscene or some random dude/dudette.
The point you originally made was that very few games are recognized for their storytelling when there are tons and lots of people play them.
As for you point here you are saying that a game world can convey a much better story then a cut-scene, but that is still story, story telling does not need to be in a cut-scene.
Your second point is fair enough. It's just that many people confuse story telling with endless cutscenes.
As for your first point, more people play Mario, Wii Sports, Tetris, Pac-Man etc. than Final Fantasy and similar games. Tons of people can apparently never surpass a whole crapton of people. :P
But they are still there and there are still a lot of them, or no-one would spend the time and resources to make so many over so many years, in the end there are enough to make good games for a good market. I think on this point we can agree to disagree.
Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.
Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.
That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.
Raykuza: When I said "people okay with murder" I meant the people that honestly don't see a damn thing wrong with this and will feel no discomfort while playing through the sequence.
I would have quoted you CantFaketheFunk, but I have no idea how.
Click the blue "Quote" button at the bottom right of the post :)
As I understand it, in the context of the scene you are actually a CIA agent who has been sent undercover with the instructions to infiltrate this terror cell *at all costs,* because the man who runs it has the ability to spark a worldwide conflict that would make an incident like this look like a footnote. So you are instructed to do whatever they tell you in the interests of earning the man's trust in order to prevent a greater tragedy.
Okay, I was unaware of that, I thought you were supposed to be one of the terrorists. This of course mitigates the moral wrongness of the scene somwhat, but in the end, it doesn't really make a difference if you're "supposed" to be a CIA agent or a terrorist, if you end up shooting people one way or another.
The more I think about it, the more this sounds like an excuse to make the scene somewhat acceptable and legitimate, but still allow the player to mercilessly butcher civilians in terrorist-fashion.
To me there is no moral dillema. The only right decision would be for the CIA agent to give up his cover and attempt to take out the terrorists before they even entered the building. But maybe Infinity Ward will come up with a context to make it somewhat acceptable and plausible. I guess we will have to wait to find out.
Woodsey: Well maybe the Aussie officials need to be locked away, because clearly none of them are mature enough to handle any content not designed for a 3 year old.
If it was done in a film (in fact I think it has anyway) no one would care. Nor if it was done in a book, where the description was in-depth and grotesque.
But OH NOEZ!!1! PIXELZ!!
The only people that are affected by this are dip shit officials, they're the ones who can't tell fact from fiction.
Now if you don't mind I'm off to clean my AK, I've got an airport to raid in the morning.
Hear hear.
Although, it's been said many times before that video games are interactive and therefore pose the dilemma of choice. I think that people are right to be a little shocked, this is a bold move from a company to immerse us in (well not us, fuck paying 60 dollars for 4 hours of play time - no I don't play multiplayer) their version of saving the world.
I think the bigger problem here is that these games continue to be the same old shit. No matter how many bells and whistles you put on the same old pie, it's still a pie. It might taste good but it's nothing new.
I for one would like to see a game about saving the world from the real villains...indifference and mediocrity.
Surely the blowing of shit up is fighting mediocrity?
And I really do think that the interactivity is totally balanced out by the fact that its pixels. Trust me, I've felt sorry for characters in games before (I've only executed a couple of very very bad people people in Mass Effect, and I can't bring myself to do something bad in KotOR still) but its not real.
Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.
That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.
Is it all that much of a seller? From what I see it sold about 800000 copies on its first week, less than Metal Gear 4 did on its first week. And Killzone 2 sold about 750000 on its first week and only recently surpassed the 2 million mark. Yes, 1 million is a success, just not a particularly memorable one.
Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.
That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.
Is it all that much of a seller? From what I see it sold about 800000 copies on its first week, less than Metal Gear 4 did on its first week. And Killzone 2 sold about 750000 on its first week and only recently surpassed the 2 million mark. Yes, 1 million is a success, just not a particularly memorable one.
Yes it is, and to be fair MGS has a following dating back almost 20 years, there is also the fact that it is up against stiff competition coming out at this time, but regardless for a story driven FPS it has still been a great success.
I think we are going to be just coming back to the same point in that Story driven games can be very lucrative but that these days most of the numbers go towards casual games, that doesn't mean that a good story driven game isn't ever going to be as lucrative as some well selling casual games.
Ya know. Not to offend my across the pond brethren as they can not be blamed for their governments stupidity (Well actually they can as they voted for the bastards) but who really gives a fuck about what australia thinks about games anymore? No matter what happens, if there is one douchebag who is going to cry over it then it will be the australian government. I can honestly see a few developers getting fucked off and just when they first announce games have a big note "Will not be available in australia" just so that the Oz govt gets cut off before they even get the chance to whine.
Hmm, question is, will I skip these scenes? I will end up getting MW2 - pre-owned copy, given Activison have made it clear they see the UK as their bitches - and so I wonder if I'll be comfortable enough with those sequences.
As for Australia, is anyone surprised the dictatorsh- I mean, government of Australia would have a problem with it.
What we have is a lobby group saying that the OFLC should review their classification of Modern Warfare 2. That is all. Unless IW deliberately left that scene out of the review copy to get it through, I don't see the OFLC revising its decision as they knew this level is in the game. Australians are going to be able to buy the game.
As for the level itself, it sounds like a wasted opportunity to me. Unless they try and at least get into the mindset of the terrorists, try and look at why they do what they do, what they believe, make them 'human' with goals and motivations, all it sounds like is just making sure you know who the bad guys are by making them go:
'Ve are eeevil Russians who hate Ameeerica for no reazon in particular, und vill put zem down like pig-dogs zey are. All of zem, none vill be spared. Did I mention zat ve are evil? Evil, EEEEEEVIIIIIILLL! (with wiggly finger motions)'
That doesn't sound like a high point in games-are-art, sounds like the plot for a b-grade action movie. I wasn't getting such campy vibes from it, I wouldn't mind it.
Yes, but they are NEVER just as lucrative a business as the aforementioned titles. I don't say that they are unnecessary as games. I just say that at their current form they can never be compared to the mass-selling titles.
That may be in most cases now, but look at something like Uncharted 2, that game is a lot about story and it helps to sell the game and it has sold exceptionally well.
Is it all that much of a seller? From what I see it sold about 800000 copies on its first week, less than Metal Gear 4 did on its first week. And Killzone 2 sold about 750000 on its first week and only recently surpassed the 2 million mark. Yes, 1 million is a success, just not a particularly memorable one.
Yes it is, and to be fair MGS has a following dating back almost 20 years, there is also the fact that it is up against stiff competition coming out at this time, but regardless for a story driven FPS it has still been a great success.
I think we are going to be just coming back to the same point in that Story driven games can be very lucrative but that these days most of the numbers go towards casual games, that doesn't mean that a good story driven game isn't ever going to be as lucrative as some well selling casual games.
Oh, those "casual games" drive me insane...
I really don't think so. Simple games don't have an overblown budget. The companies that develop complex games might make good revenue, but how much of it translates to profit? Think of all the money spent on high definition, game engines and physics engine. The heavy marketing campaign?
Ah. Well, if you played SotC (fantastic, fantastic game - one of the best of the last generation), it was about a boy who arrived in this distant, empty land with a dead girl, and made a pact with a supernatural being. The only way to revive her was to slay 16 colossi around this world - it was a very minimalistic story, but so very effective.
Here's the thing: The colossi weren't evil creatures. You were the one attacking them, and some only fought back after they were attacked, with you the aggressor, attacking them while they were sleeping or catching them otherwise off guard. And every time you killed one, the game did its best to make you feel "holy shit, I'm the bad guy here, I'm murdering these innocent creatures and slaying these ancient beasts that never did anything to me." It was clear that you were doing something wrong, and the course of the game reflected that.
It was an incredibly emotional experience, and it would have never resonated with me half as much if it had just shown me "Oh hey, there's this guy who is running around killing these Colossi." Because you did it, your actions had more weight, and you felt revulsion at what you were being asked to do. It lent the story much more emotional impact than it would have otherwise.
Perhaps that's where our disagreement lies. I've known first-hand how genuinely impactful it can be when the game asks you to do something you don't want to do, and how successful it is in drawing you into the story.