Topic: EA Buys Approximately 20% of Ubi Soft

[KnowsNothing]

Quote
Heh, dude, I hope you're not taking me seriously... for some reason I get that a lot. Maybe now is a bit too late to point out that I'm not angry at all. I just like arguing. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he's on the edge of his seat, nostrils flaring, cursing at the computer screen.

At least we're on the same page about that =p  It did sound like you were angry, and I apologize if I sounded angry too =p.  

Quote
"PaLaDiN, if you're going to stick by that Pong analogy than there's no use talking to you (not that there was much use before >_>). I'm thinking you made that post out of pure obstinance. If not, and you truley believe that you have a good argument there....well, we can just let you be on your merry little way."

No no no, go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong. Are you implying that Pong sucks? Blasphemy! What about Tetris?

As a matter of fact, I love Pong.  Tetris too, I just suck at it D=  Anyway, let's take a look at Pong: (a) It was one of the first arcade games and, if I'm not mistaken, the first home console game (well, a variation of it...) and (b) it's a ping-pong game.  Both of these things are very good reasons why there was no story.  Also good reasons why it didn't NEED a story.  Thus it being a bad example and a weak argument.

I typed up a whole big response, but I'll sumamrize.  I see where you're coming from.  Basically, you judge a game's story compared to any story you've experienced.  I judge it just in the game industry.  Would you agree that if BG&E's story was the first of it's kind than it would be strong?  Well, for a game like that, it was the first of it's kind.  It was then combined with what I felt was strong gameplay (which is all this pretty much comes down to anyway >_>) which resulted in a  high quality experience.

Anyway, you're saying that it's a weak story.  I'm saying that it's a mediocre story on it's own, but when put into the game it works very well.  Which, in my opinion, warrents a positive review and respect for the developer.  A game's story won't make or break it, it only adds to it.

Quote
Your logic is selective and inconsistent.

Well DUH.  Half the time I'm not even sure what I'm going on about.  We're arguing slightly different things here, but what the hell.  RANT RANT RANT I have nothing else to do.

(btw, I added this somewhere in my longer version of this post, so I'll just stick it at the end.  What's your favorite book with the best story?  Now pretend that it was made into a game with great gameplay.  Would you say that the story is weak because it's been done before?  I wouldn't because it'd be the first time that it was brought into gaming.  It's a little different since it's a game based on a book, but I'm just trying to reinstate my opinion that when passing judgement on any aspect of a game, I'm not going to look into other forms of media as comparision.)



(also, I can't remember what I said in my last posts besides what you quoted and I can't be arsed into looking.  So NYAH)

[TheYoungerPlumber]

About Rayman DS: I've been thinking the same exact thing ever since screens popped up.  I'm convinced it is Rayman 2, just like Kirby: Nightmare in Dreamland was Kirby's Adventure but that fact was downplayed by Nintendo.

I'm actually very worried about Rayman 2 D-pad.  It'll work fine for the sliding sections, but the main game required precision...more precision than Mario 64 most of the time.  I think this is in part due to the linear level design.  I wouldn't be surprised if the was delayed to include a stylus control after seeing Mario 64 DS which, though not perfect, works pretty well and could be improved upon.  

[Mario]

From the latest screens it shows that Rayman DS has a very practical touch screen analog input control, different to the Super Mario 64 DS touch screen control.

[Hostile Creation]

Quote
Reading that makes me cry and scream all at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I love a paperback as much as the next person (even moreso, maybe?) but to say that a book is the only storytelling medium allowed? The notion is incredibly short-sighted. A movie can tell a story. Poetry can tell a story. Even a series of beautiful pictures can tell a story. Why then, should a game not be allowed to do so? Who's to say that just because the main focus of a game is interaction, no other method of enjoyment is allowed? That's just dense. I enjoyed Ratchet and Clank not only because of its gameplay, but because I was curious to find out what would happen next. I loved playing LeChuck's Revenge because of its hilarious story, not just because I like Adventure games. And Psychonauts compels me to play it, not merely because it's a 3D platformer, but because the characters have a depth to their history which you can discover if you only look for it. In the same fashion, I love Beyond Good and Evil not only because of the style of gameplay, but also because it's got an excellent story which shows the power of the media.

I did not mean to imply in any way that books were the only medium.  I'm a creative person, and I like to experience every form of storytelling I can find.  I write regularly (poetry and prose, though mainly prose) and I have every intention of going into the movie industry (taking three communications classes next semester).  I like reading quality comics (or making less than quality comics with my friends, but that's a whole different story).  One of my favorite childhood books is a picture book called Freefall, no words at all.  And yes, I like stories in video games.  But when it comes to video games, I like the game and how it plays before the story.  And not just how it plays, but how it feels when I play it.  Nintendo games make me feel a certain way, the details contained therein, the way the NPCs act, how the characters you play are often so silent and yet you feel so close to them.
One of my favorite video game stories is, as a matter of fact, a Zelda game.  Link's Awakening.  Not just the plot altogether, but the way it unfolded, and that ending. . . it's an incredible story.  But I enjoyed playing the game, experiencing it, more than I did taking in the story.  That's irrelevant, though.  My point is, BG&E probably had a good story.  I'm tempted to try it out now.  But most of the books I'll read will surpass it regardless, and I know this.  They will have better characters, better atmosphere, a better plot, and better twists, and they haven't even visualized it for me.  It's not pointless to appreciate a game's story, but it's pointless to squabble over it not having a particularly good one when that was not the intention of the developers at all.
In short, a game is meant to be played.  Having a story is excellent, and if it's good that's awesome, but a game should not simply be a medium for telling a story.  It should be a game, and there's nothing wrong with focusing on it being a game more than it having a story.

[Caillan]

There are few artistic mediums in which a completely original story can be told. In my opinion, a good book isn't one with a good story: it is one that tells a story well. My favourite author will often casually remark what is to happen at the end of a section in an otherwise wayward sentence, yet his books are excellent. Games are no different in this respect: why did MGS2 feel so mediocre? Little effort was made to entwine story and gameplay; they were seperate elements with little connexion, there was a movie and a game. It is for this reason that I feel FMV scenes in RPGs are redundant, unless they are a 'treat' rarely found. For me, combining story and gameplay is key to allowing the industry develop and allowing games to be considered respectable like books or movies are to normal folk.

[KDR_11k]

TYP: I've played Rayman 2 on the PC, the game doesn't suffer from digital control. Well, okay, I never got far (10-15 levels in, I think) but it's a Rayman game, you're not supposed to win.

After I just realized I have to blacklist EA for the same offense as Ubisoft (overbroad copy-protection schemes that make legal users envy the pirates who can play their games without trouble) this news has zero effect on me. Well, okay, even without blacklisting them I wouldn't buy their games but still.

[Hostile Creation]

Caillan, how a story is told is often the key to whether it's good or not.  A book with an excellent plot can be absolutely terrible.  An original plot is always refreshing, but the storytelling is more important than the story itself.
But I didn't want to get that deep into it, explaining how it related to books and games and all of that.  I just wanted to get the simple message across.

[kirby_killer_dedede]

Well, at least thanks to the NFL deal we get all the football games.  No more "in your faces" from PS2 owners about ESPN and such.

EA is coming!  LOCK THE FREAKING DOORS, DAMMIT, LOCK THE FREAKING DOORS.

[KDR_11k]

Correction: We get all officially licensed NFL games. Sports games have been and will be made without licenses to the official names.

[Bloodworth]

oh my, sorry to drag this up again, but I just read the completely off-topic arguments here.  Here's my take:

I get the sense that what people perceive as a "good story" these days is merely a game with good voice acting.  Finally, games like BG&E have people acting rather than (poorly) reading lines.  And really I think this is about the only difference between BG&E and a game like Baten Kaitos, which got trashed for having a "bad story" by some people. It wasn't any worse than a Final Fantasy plot, but DID have terrible acting that made you question whether anyone even looked at their lines before recording.

As for the game itself, I thought that BG&E was gorgeous and I liked the dungeon designs, but there were way too many downsides:  The battle system was pretty stiff and uninteresting; the game was entirely too small; and it was simple to do everything in the first play-through, leaving no reason to play it again.