Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

A single theoretical physicist defeating hordes of super elite marines, soldiers, ninjas and aliens with nothing but guns is the most stupid thing ever. You can only go so far with "the magical suit!" excuse. But I play HL games not for it's grand story, but for awesome gameplay, similar to Ninja Gaiden games.

 

[Frankenstrat]

Star Ocean 4. Fuck everything about this game's storytelling.

MW2 wasn't as bad as some of the others, but overall, the story is goddamn stupid. The cia managed to bring a private right next to one of the most wanted men in the world in a few days time? SURE! Said private needs to participate in a terror attack, and can't just fucking kill makarov and his squad from behind? WHY NOT. And WW3 being started over one american body found at a terror attack site? OKEY DOKEY.

Kingdom Hearts series

Other M

And Sonic 06. Hooooly shit they jumped the shark here. That and with Unleashed. I mean, jesus fuck, at least they got it right with colors, but that was a couple installments too late.

At the midpoint in the game, the villain casts a spell that turns everybody in the world racist.

hahaha, what? that sounds like something out of the boondocks. now I'm intrigued.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Whoa. Does GAF hate MGS4?

I think I can speak for everyone on GAF when I call MGS4 the most game ever.

 

[Des0lar]

When I think of MGS4 this is really all that comes to mind

I know nothing about the MGS series, but apparently it's about nanomachines doing stuff?!

 

[Fimbulvetr]

"Dr. Breen you stinking alien breath, I'm gonna kill you, shit bird."
EPIC.

Soooooooo our choice is between two versions of dumb?

No wonder people think all VG stories are horrible.

I think I can speak for everyone on GAF when I call MGS4 the most game ever.

Yes, soon GAF shall consume all gamers.

One of us. One of us.

 

[DemiMatt]

man those old KH BBS posts are golden, I forgot how convoluted those games are. Funny thing is, like a friggin altzheimers patient, I always try to go deeper upon beating a game trying to make sense of it . . . sighhhh

 

[nexen]

Pfft, if he is not me as evident in the fact that I would prefer to shove Alyx the first chance I get.

And I disagree with the "Gordon isn't a character" thing. If he isn't, Valve sure like to pretend that he is a character with other characters speaking to him, Alyx blushing to him, or whathaveyou.

People should accept that although the gameplay is awesome, the story and characters of Half-Life series are not that excellent

Thank you.

Half Life revolutionized fps games, Half Life 2 had some great stuff in it. Story was not great in either game.
The SETTING was fantastic and HL2 had some great atmosphere. But the actual story in Half Life 1 and 2 were so full of missing information that I have trouble calling them stories at all.

Gordon Freeman is definitely a character. He has an identifiable look, has relationships with people in the game world which have histories outside of the game, and he has a love interest. His personality can even be somewhat gauged by the way people interact with him and the choices you are not able to make in the game. A linear FPS is a terrible place to put a cipher character. It works for Oblivion and Fallout 3 and some BioWare fare but not in a game where there are really no choices for you to make the character with.

That being said I'm not sure it belongs in this thread. It isn't bad, it just isn't what people claim it to be.

Did anyone bash on FFVII yet?

 

[Sibylus]

Oh please.
Alyx in episode 1 is doing what? Oh right, she does show up for the first 5 minutes. Hl2 she's just hanging around because she can. She could not even be there and it wouldn't do anything for or against the plot. Gordon's the hero. Gordon's the one actually doing things, like anything in the story. Why he's doing it? Because other people are telling you to and because you can't not do anything else. And most of the time, it isn't Alyx even giving direction or purpose to the plot.

They injected her into episode 2 because people liked her and they gotta try to get somewhere with this mess.

HL2's story is awful. Case in point, we got people calling Alyx the main character.

And the reason why Gordon is a silent protoganist is because it's a legacy thing with HL1. It worked with HL1 as there were very few times you could talk to a human being. In hl2, you spent what felt like hours stuck in a space with characters yapping at you with no reply. It didn't work. It doesn't work.

I agree with you, the walking camera with legs is the main character.

About that "legacy thing":

Laidlaw said the choice was simply to put the player in the shoes of the lead character. "It wasn't a big statement," he said. While now it just seems appropriate for a game based in the Half-Life universe game to have a silent lead, the writer isn't entirely sure he'd do it again. "If we were setting out on a game like that, would we decide to do it any different?" he asked. "...I wouldn't wish that process on anyone else, because it does have limitations."

The outspoken fans of Half-Life have their own ideas about Gordon Freeman. "One of the number one [fan] suggestions is to [have Gordon talk]," said Laidlaw. "It's like they think it's an accident, or that we don't have enough money to have Gordon Freeman talk."

Initially, Half-Life writers wanted Gordon Freeman to be devoid of virtually any identity at all -- to be a blank slate. Laidlaw said, "As far as Gordon Freeman is concerned, we didn't initially have visualizations [about what he would look like]." But marketing insisted otherwise. "There was kind of an unpleasant shot of this guy [on the game's packaging] who we didn't want any preconceived notions about. ... So there was an uneasy truce that we had to show the guy."

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=25292

This project always crashes up against the hard reality that Gordon Freeman is a cipher - a Teflon conduit for the player's senses. As soon as you try to turn him into an actual character separate from the player's will, he loses whatever it is that makes him an interesting first-person-game protagonist. Anybody from outside Valve who gets a hold of the project instantly turns Gordon Freeman into the perfect starring vehicle for that week's top celebrity, and the arbitrary changes just get worse from there. Even if Valve makes the movie independently, we would have to solve the Freeman character dilemma - but at least I believe we would solve it in such a way that it would be true to the rest of our vision.

http://a1.gamesradar.com/f/flash-gordon/a-200707269522842016/p-3

The character of Gordon Freeman? Well, ultimately he was just a name. There was this character that you played who was this eyepiece looking into this universe, a motive force that enables you to move through it. We just wanted to create somebody who didn't get in the way of the player exploring on their own yet feeling like they had a specific role - never quite sure that they were playing it right, but having it as part of the whole experience.

Are you doing the right thing or the wrong thing? We really like messing around with the implications of telling you that you're doing one thing, when actually, everything else is forcing you to do something different from that. There's irony in the game - everybody tells you that you're a scientist, but all you're actually doing is running around shooting stuff. All these things fall into the bucket of Gordon Freeman...

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=920482&page=16

When asked if he'd consider giving Freeman a voice (he's been mute in every Half-Life so far) - he added:

"We're not philosophically opposed to this, but we don't have any good reasons to do it. Right now making your companions more interesting and compelling seems a more fruitful avenue to explore."

http://www.computerandvideogames.co...ll-next-half-life-wont-change-gordon-freeman/

On the reasons why HL1 had a limited cast of characters:

Well, we didn't always have the resources; early on we wanted a wider range of characters - we wanted women scientists and stuff there - but we just didn't have the texture read memory. The train says they're an equal-opportunities employer on the way in, but the fact is that there are no women there that day. They all stayed at home; they knew there was something going on.

The whole relationship with Dr Mossman in HL2 was a scene that we tried to do in Half-Life. We'd done a whole bunch of stuff for this scene where there was a betrayal by a woman scientist; at that point in the story Freeman was being hunted and you think that the scientists are all your friends, so this scientist says she's going to get you help and tells you to stay in the room you're in - and then she calls the guards. We couldn't do that in Half-Life - we didn't really have characters on that level - so it was cool in HL2 when we had characters who were far enough along...

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=920482&page=16​

Certainly sounds like they continued it just because!

Freeman is not a character in the classical sense. He certainly has presence in the world, but he's more vehicle than character in his own right. As I said at the top of this post, he's a camera with legs, that's his function and purpose in the series. You're certainly constrained from taking certain actions, but that's simply because the developers are interested in conveying one story, and not a multiple-branched monster with numerous endings and outcomes for you to affect.

And yes, I would call Alyx the protagonist of the series from HL2 onward. She's the primary driver for the overarching plot development, her presence is tied to some of the most pivotal events in the franchise, and it is her person and her family that rests at the human core of the narrative. Remove her and the series is unrecognizable, it's about god-knows-who and nothing in particular. Your summary of her character flies so far off the mark that you may as well be talking about another entirely. When was the last time you played the games?

Anyway, I talked about the same things a few days ago, links if you're curious: [1] [2] [3]

 

[DeadTrees]

Freeman is not a character in the classical sense. He certainly has presence in the world, but he's more vehicle than character in his own right. As I said at the top of this post, he's a camera with legs, that's his function and purpose in the series. You're certainly constrained from taking certain actions, but that's simply because the developers are interested in conveying one story, and not a multiple-branched monster with numerous endings and outcomes for you to affect.

...So? This is the paradigm behind 90-99% of all the video games ever made. "Though they are the instruments of the President's rescue from ninjas, the Bad Dudes are never more than mere avatars for the game's true protagonist, that guy with the bomber jacket and weird haircut."

 

[PetriP-TNT]

The cover says it all

WOW, Deep Freeze. I got this the same time I got RR type 4 and both were in japanese and had no idea what was going on! I forget the title every now and then and it always pops somewhere

 

[beef3483]

So bad it retroactively ruins the entire franchise.
.

My pick. It really is sad when you think of all the cutscenes you had to endure throughout the series only to have it end like that. This game singlehandedly ruined my perception of both MGS and Kojima.

 

[MetalFearSolid]

My pick. It really is sad when you think of all the cutscenes you had to endure throughout the series only to have it end like that. This game singlehandedly ruined my perception of both MGS and Kojima.

Damn..I thought this game was alright story wise 8/10, another game that flops story wise is Splinter Cell Conviction, gameplay was alright, story was stupid

 

[timetokill]

Heavy Rain for me. Terrible plot, terrible characters, terrible storytelling. Nobody did anything that remotely made sense. It was as though a five-year old was trying to come up with a serial killer story on the fly, but without the amusing results that make Axe Cop worth it.

 

[Sibylus]

...So? This is the paradigm behind 90-99% of all the video games ever made. "Though they are the instruments of the President's rescue from ninjas, the Bad Dudes are never more than mere avatars for the game's true protagonist, that guy with the bomber jacket and weird haircut."

There's a distinction you're not making here: while all player characters are vehicles for the player, few operate with that as their singular function. Numerous games (perhaps even most) strive to give a voice and body to the camera, to render it as much a character as any else. Player characters like Freeman strive in the inverse direction, stripping away characterization and focusing on pure locomotion. One is constructive and the other is reductive, and Freeman is reduced to the point where he is only nominally a character. As such, why is it controversial to regard an NPC as the central character in the work, given that the narrative rests upon her actions and movements most of all? I can provide examples, if that's at all helpful.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

I do. Comics are generally terrible. Maybe being outside of the Japanese culture is what makes me hate most jrpg's stories. It could just be a west vs east thing for me. I'm not saying western storytelling is better.

Everything is generally terrible. Food, movies, people, music, literature, tv, games, etc.

 

[hteng]

FFX, hated the "it;s all dream" sort of story

 

[KevinCow]

Everything is generally terrible. Food, movies, people, music, literature, tv, games, etc.

Most of anything is terrible, but that "most" seems far more significant when it comes to anime.

FFX, hated the "it;s all dream" sort of story

But it wasn't all a dream. It was even stupider than that.

 

[KenOD]

The others might generally be terrible, but the hell etc is. One of the greatest Latin expressions we've kept.

FFX, hated the "it;s all dream" sort of story

Only none of it was "just a dream", it all happened and the people still existed with thoughts and dreams all their own. [insert horrible dub laugh here]. Besides, despite a dream happening and people coming from it, all but a few moments of the game were set in the "real world" and had lasting affects.

Someday though I do wish to see another strong game where I can enjoy the story and feel for the characters where it is just a dream. Link's Awakening remains one of my favourites, but I hate to think it's the lone exception when I know it can be done.

 

[jaxword]

Everyone who said FF13 is objectively wrong.

FF13 cannot be bad, because it has the best character that the FF franchise has created in years:

Sazh is cool, therefore FF13 is cool.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Everyone who said FF13 is objectively wrong.

FF13 cannot be bad, because it has the best character that the FF franchise has created in years:

Sazh is cool, therefore FF13 is cool.

His logic is undeniable

 

[Sevket-Erhat]

WOW, Deep Freeze. I got this the same time I got RR type 4 and both were in japanese and had no idea what was going on! I forget the title every now and then and it always pops somewhere

How can I forget the line that the bad guy says "Freeze...Deep"

 

[DeadTrees]

There's a distinction you're not making here: while all player characters are vehicles for the player, few operate with that as their singular function.

Of course I'm not making the distinction, because it's a silly one. Who are the PCs of, say, Tai-pan, Space Invaders, Missile Command, R-Type, Tetris, Populous, Bejeweled, Daytona USA, Quake, Gran Turismo 5, or [insert any old run-around-and-shoot-online-players-in-the-face game here]? Whoever they may be, they have less individuality/identity than GF. So what makes him a special case, other that your insistence that he is? "Buh-buh-buh some guy on the dev team said it was true, so it must be true!"

As such, why is it controversial to regard an NPC as the central character in the work, given that the narrative rests upon her actions and movements most of all?

Your preferred character is one of the most blatant Mary Sues in gaming history, so maybe we're just trying to do you a favor.

 

[RedRedSuit]

As far as I'm concerned, all the reasons people come up with to justify the whole Gordon-is-a-mute thing are apologism, pure and simple. People will contort their brains and sentences into incredible shapes to make it seem or sound okay, but it remains and will always remain the greatest weakness of the great Half-Life series. VALVe are brilliant developers with a nearly unparalleled understanding of atmosphere and worldbuilding, but this decision continuously knocks down games in the series down a notch.

Simply put, it's just annoying. It's supposed to make me feel immersed, but I don't feel like I'm in control as a mute any more than I would if the character spoke for me. In fact, I feel less in control, because I constantly want to scream things like, "HEY BARNEY -- SEE THAT GUY IN A GRAY SUIT? WHO THE FUCK IS HE?!?!!?!" and, "whoa... how did I get here?". Yes, it makes the whole thing very mysterious and all but not in a good way. It just reminds me I'm playing a game -- a game where most things make sense, but one very important thing doesn't.

It's a weird artificial limitation that doesn't make any sense. Obviously it'll never go away now, as it getting rid of it is actually hard... unlike binding grenade to a secondary button or eliminating a pointless armor meter. Oh well....

---

Anyway, to answer the question, I won't answer the exact one, as the worst story I've seen is probably from some terrible, not very notable game. However the most disappointing story in a game with promise was L.A. Noire's. What a disjointed, poorly paced mess with a terrible ending. Such a waste of technology.

 

[MGrant]

I don't accept the "Japanese writers are awful" argument I saw popping up earlier in the thread. Shigesato Itoi, Hayao Miyazaki, the folks who make up Hajime Yatate: all compelling storytellers. It's just that these particular writers are bad (probably because they started as programmers and never really got an education in literatary technique). And they're not 100% bad, they just make really unfortunate decisions and go too far.

Take FFX for example. Your dad was an asshole, but after a bit of growing up and experiencing the world, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and allows himself to be enslaved by a religious tyrant and transformed into an indestructible, nonstop killing machine, all in order to save the ones he loves. There's an interesting story here. But then it goes off the deep end: turns out you are the dream of an ancient destroyed civilization, who lost a war so they decided to become "Fayths," which are these kids who go around wearing hoods and are magical I guess. Your mentor is actually dead even though he is clearly alive. And for some reason, after saving the people of Spira, they decide to put another summoner (who most people only know as the would-be bride of a psychopath) in charge of their world, even though the last time they put a summoner in charge of everything, well, Final Fantasy X happened.

But I could have lived with that and just said, "well I guess some things are just lost in translation." Until Final Fantasy XIII repeated every plot hole, cliche, and stupid twist from FFX, only amped up by a thousand times in ridiculousness:

Spoiler

Impenetrable terminology and unexplained social constructs? Yep. I wish a translator had gone rogue and just used the words "god," "slave," and "monster" instead of "fal'Cie," "l'Cie," and "Cie'th," because the amount of times these words are used before they are explained (in text, never fully in the game) is incredible.

Idiotic, impossible-to-believe twist? Yep. Two of your party members (including the stupid one) are actually servants of a different set of gods from the real planet below Cocoon (an artificial world) who want to destroy the Cocoon gods by asking said two party members to transform (how? fuck if I know) into an ancient beast that will kill the thing that is supporting Cocoon and make it crash to the ground.

Crazy religious tyrants with nonsensical plans? Yep, but this time they're gods, who have no clear motive other than arbitrarily turning people into crystals or monsters, based on whether they complete a task for which they are given no specific instructions. You'd figure a god who wanted to get some shit done would be direct, but apparently not. The majority of their dialogue is some variation of "You can't beat me, I'm a god!" But you do beat them. And then a massive deus ex machina leads to a shitty ending.

That's my attempt at explaining the story. There has got to be a better way to understand it.

 

[Sibylus]

Of course I'm not making the distinction, because it's a silly one. Who are the PCs of, say, Tai-pan, Space Invaders, Missile Command, R-Type, Tetris, Populous, Bejeweled, Daytona USA, Quake, Gran Turismo 5, or [insert any old run-around-and-shoot-online-players-in-the-face game here]? Whoever they may be, they have less individuality/identity than GF. So what makes him a special case, other that your insistence that he is? "Buh-buh-buh some guy on the dev team said it was true, so it must be true!"

You call the distinction silly, but you offer weak justification by giving examples of games that don't strive for narrative or forgo it altogether (as in multiplayer). For games that do present a narrative and characterization (I thought it was implicitly clear I was talking of these), it can be an important distinction to make because the games falling on separate sides of the spectrum will often favor different approaches for these sorts of things (ie, A game with a reductive PC can tend more toward the seamless, a game with a constructive PC can tend more toward the cinematic). Qualitatively, they also "feel" distinct to the end player, they bring different strengths and weaknesses to bear.

The developer's stated intent can't simply be dismissed out of hand, because it provides important context to the decisions they made with the game and the ways they conveyed their stories, and more readily separates fact from fiction than outright assertion. Backing up what I have to say with knowledgeable sources, the noive!

Your preferred character is one of the most blatant Mary Sues in gaming history, so maybe we're just trying to do you a favor.

In a sea of sentient tits, hapless princesses, and sex objects, Alyx Vance is the fish you choose to fry? And as a Mary Sue? Can we go into detail here?

 

[rvy]

MGS4
Mass Effect 2

What could have been, my friends... what could have been.

I wish you guys would start explaining how you would improve MGS 4's story. There's just no way to do it right and please the 5+ millions of hardcore fans who bought the game.
Most people got what they wanted: Fanservice, rendering MG, MG II: Solid Snake, MGS and Sons Of Liberty irrelevant, melodrama, cringe-worthy wedding scenes, depressed side-kick and just general blasphemy and ridiculousness with poop/fart jokes.

STOP HATING. I couldn't have done better with the limitations Kojima was given.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

I wish you guys would start explaining how you would improve MGS 4's story. There's just no way to do it right and please the 5+ millions of hardcore fans who bought the game.
Most people got what they wanted: Fanservice, rendering MG, MG II: Solid Snake, MGS and Sons Of Liberty irrelevant, melodrama, cringe-worthy wedding scenes, depressed side-kick and just general blasphemy and ridiculousness with poop/fart jokes.

STOP HATING. I couldn't have done better with the limitations Kojima was given.

So what you're saying is that MGS4 still has a bad story?

But you're also getting mad at other people for saying it?

That's.... weird.

 

[EatChildren]

I wish you guys would start explaining how you would improve MGS 4's story. There's just no way to do it right and please the 5+ millions of hardcore fans who bought the game.
Most people got what they wanted: Fanservice, rendering MG, MG II: Solid Snake, MGS and Sons Of Liberty irrelevant, melodrama, cringe-worthy wedding scenes, depressed side-kick and just general blasphemy and ridiculousness with poop/fart jokes.

STOP HATING. I couldn't have done better with the limitations Kojima was given.

I would improve it by having a clearly defined story premise and progression that was coloured with rational (within context of Metal Gear) twists, characters with defined personalities, and themes and scenarios that dont conflict or flat out retcon the rest of the Metal Gear saga.

MGS4's problems have little to do with fanservice. The problem is that it goes out of its way to construct absurd scenarios, and retcons established canon for no good reason. Twists for the sake of twists. Melodrama for the sake of melodrama.

Hell, the one major theme of the story, nanomachines, is essentially deus ex machina. Its a completely undefined concept that chops and changes in function whenever Kojima sees fit. Its a mess.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

MGS4 also pops into my mind.

I remember when I played MGS1 on my PSX.
"I wonder why Vamp can do the things he does! He must have a great backstory. I guess they will explain all the plotholes in the future games!"

Then MGS4 comes around..

I really thought it would be a joke until the end, but sadly it wasnt...

 

[Red UFO]

I thought Black-Ops had a rubbish story. The plot was silly, the 'twist' was predictable and to make things worse it spends about half an hour explaining it to you, when it's pretty obvious what's going on. I liked the structure of the story and commend Treyarch for mixing it up, but the overarching plot was straight up dumb.

 

[Mr. B Natural]

You call the distinction silly, but you offer weak justification by giving examples of games that don't strive for narrative or forgo it altogether (as in multiplayer). For games that do present a narrative and characterization (I thought it was implicitly clear I was talking of these), it can be an important distinction to make because the games falling on separate sides of the spectrum will often favor different approaches for these sorts of things (ie, A game with a reductive PC can tend more toward the seamless, a game with a constructive PC can tend more toward the cinematic). Qualitatively, they also "feel" distinct to the end player, they bring different strengths and weaknesses to bear.

The developer's stated intent can't simply be dismissed out of hand, because it provides important context to the decisions they made with the game and the ways they conveyed their stories, and more readily separates fact from fiction than outright assertion. Backing up what I have to say with knowledgeable sources, the noive!


In a sea of sentient tits, hapless princesses, and sex objects, Alyx Vance is the fish you choose to fry? And as a Mary Sue? Can we go into detail here?

They didn't convey much of anything in HL2 or its episodes. Nothing much has happened. Episode 1 was all about just exploring a tower and blowing it up. What "character" is needed there? None. It's JUST like Bad Dudes except with more budget and after beating level X somebody gives you orders to go play level X+1. HL2 was just running on rails, destroying shit. That's all. Valve tried to make some kind of story around that but they failed miserably. Without the tank crushing through the world, there is nothing. So, yes, that makes the tank the main character by default.

Every time Gordon runs into someone in the story, it's because they have something for him to do. They themselves have nothing to do. None of the characters are essential. What he's doing is rather bland and not character driven, but destruction driven. The story could be about Gordon being the last man alive and nothing would change. Nothing. Instead, he just crowbar across the land, wrecking alien shit.

Gordon is the main character for the same reason the Bad Dudes are the main character. They're the ones doing shit, they're the ones making things happen. The plot revolves around them by default. And no, not talking doesn't dismiss them from that.

 

[HK-47]

Most of anything is terrible, but that "most" seems far more significant when it comes to anime.

Not true. Just stop basing everything on magical girl, shonen, moe and harem series. Try some seinen.

 

[djplaeskool]

The story in Last Rebellion is pretty awful.
I'm just playing it because I want the "Congrats: you beat a little girl" achievement...

 

[rvy]

So what you're saying is that MGS4 still has a bad story?

But you're also getting mad at other people for saying it?

That's.... weird.

I'm actually just kidding. Vocal minority that despises MGS4 here. Question is still valid, I'd like to read what people would do.

I would improve it by having a clearly defined story premise and progression that was coloured with rational (within context of Metal Gear) twists, characters with defined personalities, and themes and scenarios that dont conflict or flat out retcon the rest of the Metal Gear saga.

MGS4's problems have little to do with fanservice. The problem is that it goes out of its way to construct absurd scenarios, and retcons established canon for no good reason. Twists for the sake of twists. Melodrama for the sake of melodrama.

Hell, the one major theme of the story, nanomachines, is essentially deus ex machina. Its a completely undefined concept that chops and changes in function whenever Kojima sees fit. Its a mess.

How would you clean up the "MGS 2 mess" as so many people like to call it? Liquid's arm for instance.

 

[Verendus]

I'm actually just kidding. Vocal minority that despises MGS4 here. Question is still valid, I'd like to read what people would do.


How would you clean up the "MGS 2 mess" as so many people like to call it? Liquid's arm for instance.

No need to clean it up. It's acceptable within the MGS universe. You just leave it as Liquid taking over Ocelot. Considering Ocelot's background, it would be reasonable. Far more than the craziness in MGS4, that's for sure.

In my ideal scenario, I'd put 35% of the game as Raiden, detailing his transformation from human to cyborg, and the rest as Solid Snake attempting a final attack to stop Liquid. You merge the two storylines together so Raiden shows in the final 1/3 of the game to assist you and you keep it one expansive location. You can still get variety in locations, but it would be a lot more focused. There would be no boring cutscenes inside rooms between acts either.

I'd keep the character focus for Snake about dying from FoxDie, but instead of having Snake aging rapidly and looking like an old man, it'd just be him battling with slowing senses, movements and mental ability. The idea in that concept is good and a natural extension of MGS1. Not to mention how a refreshed Snake like the one in MGS2 would handle such a challenge. The execution of it in MGS4 tried it but it was really poor: battered old man who has given up.

Core story focus would be on Solid stopping Liquid as well as Snake's new attitude in regards to the world since his MGS1 days. You keep it simple and close to the character. It's his final mission. You bring everything from his past full circle. His battles with Big Boss, his history, his new outlook on life, then his final deterioration. It's a character examination. The plot wouldn't have needless twists that somehow mess with previous games. Everything that would occur would be as a result of the game itself so that it remains consistent and can stand on its own.

Anyways, there's a bunch of ways to improve MGS4's story. I'd revamp the story completely and throw out most of the crap in the game (Naomi/Ocelot sub-plot, Meryl/Johnny sub-plot, Hypnosis Ocelot, Big Boss, MGS3 support team being the big bad), but it can be done. Explaining to you exactly how I would do it would take too long though.

 

[rvy]

No need to clean it up. It's acceptable within the MGS universe. You just leave it as Liquid taking over Ocelot. Considering Ocelot's background, it would be reasonable. Far more than the craziness in MGS4, that's for sure.

In my ideal scenario, I'd put 35% of the game as Raiden, detailing his transformation from human to cyborg, and the rest as Solid Snake attempting a final attack to stop Liquid. You merge the two storylines together so Raiden shows in the final 1/3 of the game to assist you and you keep it one expansive location. You can still get variety in locations, but it would be a lot more focused. There would be no boring cutscenes inside rooms between acts either.

I'd keep the character focus for Snake about dying from FoxDie, but instead of having Snake aging rapidly and looking like an old man, it'd just be him battling with slowing senses, movements and mental ability. The idea in that concept is good and a natural extension of MGS1. Not to mention how a refreshed Snake like the one in MGS2 would handle such a challenge. The execution of it in MGS4 tried it but it was really poor: battered old man who has given up.

Core story focus would be on Solid stopping Liquid as well as Snake's new attitude in regards to the world since his MGS1 days. You keep it simple and close to the character. It's his final mission. You bring everything from his past full circle. His battles with Big Boss, his history, his new outlook on life, then his final deterioration. It's a character examination. The plot wouldn't have needless twists that somehow mess with previous games. Everything that would occur would be as a result of the game itself so that it remains consistent and can stand on its own.

Anyways, there's a bunch of ways to improve MGS4's story. I'd revamp the story completely and throw out most of the crap in the game (Naomi/Ocelot sub-plot, Meryl/Johnny sub-plot, Hypnosis Ocelot, Big Boss, MGS3 support team being the big bad), but it can be done. Explaining to you exactly how I would do it would take too long though.

I like what I'm reading, honestly.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

The story in Last Rebellion is pretty awful.
I'm just playing it because I want the "Congrats: you beat a little girl" achievement...

....Go on.

 

[Thagomizer]

I think some of you are confusing "bland, generic, average" with "actively awful," which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

I mean, sure, it's not particularly origional and Gordon as a silent protagonist hurt it, but to say that the Half-Life games have a story bad enough to be anywhere near this thread is asinine.

 

[Chinner]

i think the problem with mgs4, apart from hideo kojima, is that it was trying to cater towards videogame fans who don't really understand the purpose of ambiguity.

 

[HK-47]

I think some of you are confusing "bland, generic, average" with "actively awful," which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

I mean, sure, it's not particularly origional and Gordon as a silent protagonist hurt it, but to say that the Half-Life games have a story bad enough to be anywhere near this thread is asinine.

We arent discussing HL because its story is one of the worst.

 

[How About No]

i think the problem with mgs4, apart from hideo kojima, is that it was trying to cater towards videogame fans who don't really understand the purpose of ambiguity.

So what you are saying is, video game players have a hard time picking up on subtlety and like everything spelled out for them, resulting in points being repeated over and over?

Here, let me show you this presentation

 

[FireFly]

As far as I'm concerned, all the reasons people come up with to justify the whole Gordon-is-a-mute thing are apologism, pure and simple. People will contort their brains and sentences into incredible shapes to make it seem or sound okay, but it remains and will always remain the greatest weakness of the great Half-Life series. VALVe are brilliant developers with a nearly unparalleled understanding of atmosphere and worldbuilding, but this decision continuously knocks down games in the series down a notch.

It's a limitation of the medium itself. It simply isn't possible for the player to directly communicate with characters within the game world, so you essentially have two choices:

1.) Write the player out of the game, by replacing him with a fully realized character who acts of his own accord and is observed by the player in a detached way, as he makes decisions for him.

2.) Give the player space to think and react as himself - as if he really was trapped within the game universe, by imposing a single narrative restriction; no one is going to talk for him.

Essentially, with the latter approach, the 'character' you play is a vessel you inhabit for the duration of the game. When someone talks to you, or reproaches you, or encourages you, there's no one else they're addressing, no other character to pick up the slack.

That's a very powerful narrative device, and is really the only way in which the player can feel fully involved in what's happening, as a participant, rather than an observer. Of course, for the illusion to be maintained you have to be able to accept your inability to speak, and in he Half-Life life games they deal with this by keeping Gordon's true persona, and the reasons for his (incredibly improbable) survival, a complete mystery.

For all we know, Gordon may genuinely have become mute. Or he may being entirely controlled by outside forces (i.e the player), which is certainly what's hinted at in the Vort speak. Essentially Gordon is a giant narrative black hole, created to give the player space to make his own story.

Almost everything about him is an enigma. You remove that, and you're essentially talking about a different game.

 

[RedRedSuit]

It's a limitation of the medium itself.

Yep. And the way they dealt with this limitation hurt rather than helped.

1.) Write the player out of the game, by replacing him with a fully realized character who acts of his own accord and is observed by the player in a detached way, as he makes decisions for him.

This one is better. (Though "makes decisions" is an overstatement. All we're talking about is a few lines here and there.)

2.) Give the player space to think and react as himself - as if he really was trapped within the game universe, by imposing a single narrative restriction; no one is going to talk for him.

This one is worse. (I don't get to "react" as myself. If I could, I'd be able to find out answers to various questions which are still shrouded in mystery.)

That's a very powerful narrative device,

It is a poor narrative device that does not work well in the context of the series and takes me OUT of the experience, which is the opposite of its aim.

For all we know, Gordon may genuinely have become mute. Or he may being entirely controlled by outside forces (i.e the player), which is certainly what's hinted at in the Vort speak. Essentially Gordon is a giant narrative black hole, created to give the player space to make his own story.

This is the apologism to which I was referring in my post. None of this makes any practical sense. There is no "own story" that is created by this decision. HL games are wholly linear story-wise with very little freedom. There is an objective reality to these games, which is slowly but surely exposed by the things other characters say. The game has an objective reality that's not open to interpretation... with the exception of the main character. This is inconsistent and annoying. The refusal of the main character to ask elementary questions in highly mysterious circumstances does not "make my own story"; it just leaves things artificially mysterious thus forming an annoying narrative hole which doesn't match the rest of the game.

It makes GF even more of a flying camera with a gun than he already is.

Moreover, IIRC, I have read in VALVe interviews that GF is *not* a mute. He says things... you just don't hear them.

Almost everything about him is an enigma. You remove that, and you're essentially talking about a different game.

Damn right. A better one.

Everything about "him" (me) should NOT be an enigma. I am me. I should know things about myself. Sure, if it were some plot device like having amnesia or whatever, then it would make sense that I know very little about my circumstances. However, that's not the case here. In this game, it feels like everyone knows a lot of things, and I don't know crap... only bits and pieces of what others say. This constant ignorance combined with muteness is just annoying -- not a "powerful narrative device."

 

[Buckethead]

Gears of War 2

 

[Zenith]

Keeping Freeman a mute post-HL2 was a laughable decision. They can gloss over current events in HL2 because the NPCs don't know Gordon's been in stasis for 10 years, but when it comes to Ep 2 and you're just expected to "fix" a rocket you know nothing about for a purpose not told it really breaks the immersion as the dialogue is painfully forced to avoid giving you an explanation.

Also lulz at Alex falling in love with you when you've never even had a conversation.

 

[The Librarian]

You never "fix" a rocket in Episode 2.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Xenosaga. Star Ocean 3. I can think of a ton of 'em. A lot of games just have godawful storylines.

Final Fantasy X relies mostly on fridge logic and the sequel turns the Fayth into jerkasses, i.e. Tidus was a creation of theirs, and when Yuna succeeds in awakening them, they know how much it makes Yuna sad that he disappears, but they basically say, "tough shit." Then, in the sequel, when Yuna does MORE shit for them, they reveal they can just revive him at any time. So why the fuck did they make Tidus disappear in the first place? Because they're jerks.

 

[Mudkips]

Without question. The most BS, nonsense story in a 21st century RPG. Ugh. I kept hoping it would get better, and then the END came, and it was the WORST, most nonsensical, BS part of all.

Eternal Sonata was pointless, but fine. It was all Chopin's fevered dream as he languished, dying. The game tells you this right from the get go. The story has nothing at all to do with the game, but it doesn't get in the way, it doesn't pull a shitty twist on you, and it doesn't take itself seriously.

is MUCH worse in terms of story. It takes itself seriously, it gets in the way, it has an inconclusive ending, you don't even know who the characters are until you beat it once, and nothing makes sense.

 

[Equus Bellator Apex]

Gears of War 2

What happens in Gears of War 2?

 

[FireFly]

Yep. And the way they dealt with this limitation hurt rather than helped.



This one is better. (Though "makes decisions" is an overstatement. All we're talking about is a few lines here and there.)

I don't see any actual argument, here. Just you stating one approach is better than the other. Would you be happy if I simply replied in a similar vein "no, it's not", and left it there?

As far as I can tell, the particular trade-off they took in the Half-Life series - by having a mute character - didn't work for you, and from that you're inferring that it didn't work for everyone, and that it was therefore a bad decision. And you just can't make that jump.

Whatever Valve does, some people will be unhappy. You just happen to be on one side of that fence. If Valve do a fully voiced character in their next game, the sides will switch again, and those that appreciated the 'anonymity' of Gordon will be disappointed.

That's what makes it a tradeoff, rather than a situation in which there is clearly one right answer. Unless you think Valve should design their games for you alone.

This one is worse. (I don't get to "react" as myself. If I could, I'd be able to find out answers to various questions which are still shrouded in mystery.)

You don't get to react as yourself in any game in the sense that you have very limited control over your character. If you're blocked by a waist high wall, and the developers didn't program a 'mantling' animation then you're stuck. In fact for the most part all you can do is aim and fire, and interact in very limited and prescribed ways. See a cup of coffee: can you pick it up and drink it? No.

The game works because you accept these arbitrary limitations, as part of the fabric of what you can and cannot do. In that regard, not being able to talk is merely one of a hundred limitations. And once you've accepted it, say on the premise you *are* actually controlling Gordon, then you're free to 'become' Gordon, and believe that the characters in the game world are actually talking to you, rather than to someone else who you happen to control.

To use the most literal analogy: imagine that you're transported into another universe, in someone else's body, and as a consequence of this you can't talk. Now imagine that you're transported into someone else's head, and have to watch them make decisions. See the difference?

It is a poor narrative device that does not work well in the context of the series and takes me OUT of the experience, which is the opposite of its aim.

Whatever choice Valve make, some people will be taken out the experience as a result. If they give the player character a voice, then equally some people will find that voice to be at a disconnect with what they're thinking and feeling, and that will take them out of the experience too.

As I said before, there's no 'right answer'. You like one solution: great! Just don't try to pretend it's ideal for everyone.

This is the apologism to which I was referring in my post. None of this makes any practical sense. There is no "own story" that is created by this decision. HL games are wholly linear story-wise with very little freedom. There is an objective reality to these games, which is slowly but surely exposed by the things other characters say. The refusal of the main character to ask elementary questions in highly mysterious circumstances does not "make my own story"; it just leaves things artificially mysterious thus forming an annoying narrative hole which doesn't match the rest of the game.

The narrative hole isn't mysterious at all. It's there for the player to create their own explanation as to who Gordon is.

You're right, there is an objective reality to Gordon, it's just not one Valve have definitely decided on. That's why they've explicitly refused to settle things one way or the other.

Here's what Marc said in an e-mail reply to me many years back:

"Given current technical restrictions, there is no instinctive way to
talk back in a game, or to have characters respond intelligently to what
you say, or to have the game respond to the infinite number of things
you might feel like saying. I have to confess, I'm not sure what true
reality is. Maybe the vortigaunts know."