I've become the same, especially as it's easier to deal with a poor story (usually) to get to great gameplay than to deal with poor gameplay (again, usually) to get to a great story. The only reasons those aren't absolutes is that sometimes we get long, terrible, unskippable cutscenes (NiGHTS Wii and to a lesser extent Other M), whereas sometimes the gameplay's such an easy push over it doesn't really matter if it isn't fantastic (LA Noire actually lets it be skipped, ME3 makes a mode easy enough it may as well be skippable, and Nier can be powered through in the end game), but I can usually get the story in another form whether it's an LP or just reading wikipedia, so gameplay always gets the nod.
... And, now that I think about it, this is actually especially true for RPGs despite their initial status as THE place to go for stories in games. They're also designed in a way that lends themselves better to exploration and experimentation, so it's a shame to see that get compromised for some terrible cinematic vision as the case was for FFXIII.
I completely agree. Sometimes I don't pay attention to the story at all, or if a cutscene's going on, I turn around and do something else while it's going on (because I've noticed that cutscenes this generation have gotten rather long).
It's interesting, though, since I don't really go to RPGs for storytelling anymore unless the games really warrant it (ex: Planescape: Torment, Sora no Kiseki, Suikoden, etc.). I've gotten so dissatisfied with the genre in terms of storytelling that I mostly come to them for systems. And if those systems aren't working correctly, and if the story's a complete mess, then I don't think very much of the game. Video games, as a medium can be used to show a myriad of ways to show the game's world and narrative to the player, whether that is via exploration, storytelling, NPC dialogue, enemy encounters (this can demonstrate the ecology of the environment to the player, for example, if enough thought is put into it), physics, technology employed, skills players have available to them, etc. Because video games is the medium it is, developers can experiment as much as they want with regards to showing the player what they want them to see or learn about the universe they've crafted, and this goes hand-in-hand with game design.
When you design a game that, for the most part, is a one-way street, with most of the narrative being placed into the in-game encyclopedia that updates (and has a red update window flashing in the corner after a cutscene) after a cutscene, where barely any of the game's world building being communicated in the games
cutscenes which were created to replace simple dialogue exchanges, you've got an issue with melding game design with your narrative!
It doesn't say much about your story when after a cutscene where the characters use their jargon and geographical terminology, there's a red flashing box in the corner that tells you to read the in-game encyclopedia to get all the information you need because you can't be fucking bothered to include that stuff in cutscene dialogue or you don't care to throw around a few NPCs here and there to make the world feel somewhat alive enough to tell you some of these terms that you've just heard. What you're doing isn't world-building. You're simply showing the player that your cutscenes are there to show pretty shit as opposed to communicate proper information to the player.
That's one of the major things I can't stand about this game's design. It's just weird. It's an experiment, yes. But when you carry it on in some fashion to the sequel, it tells me that you haven't learned anything at all, or you're stubborn and don't know how to mix narrative with your overall game design. I haven't even begun to discuss the dungeon design and the fact that the towns in the game are mere setpieces to action sequences and battles.
The game builds tension to a climax, but it doesn't allow the player to rest between these sequences. The experiment was roller coaster game design, which could be fine and dandy, and then you hit Chapter 11 where everything just stops. Some people like this, and I kind of don't. The story begins to go nowhere, and the game design as a whole becomes inconsistent. This is FF13's game design and flow: ==========O==O. If you have to wait that long to let the player do what he or she wants to do in a role-playing game, then you haven't been that successful in adequately building and releasing narrative tension. This could have been remedied by throwing in a group who sympathized with your party's plight, and then you could have done whatever you wanted for a little bit before moving on. To add insult to injury, outside of Pulse, you can't backtrack. Being able to backtrack to places you've been to previously gives them a little bit of significance to the player because if he or she chooses to do so out of curiosity and their own will, he or she may go back to that area to see if it's changed since you've last been there. But since the game doesn't give the player a chance to do so, it gives little significance to the places you were before, and they are merely rendered as setpieces for action sequences in previous chapters.
I just can't stand how that game's designed. I want to learn more about the world, but the game won't let me. Don't tell me. Show me. That's why you've selected a video game as the medium for your narrative, right? Use it to your full advantage, then.
Maybe it's just been a while since I've played the FFXIII games, but I don't remember anything about the Chocobo's name being some big thing like the datalog suggests. Can someone please fill me in?
It's in one of Final Fantasy XIII-2's DLCs. If you want you can watch
Kung Fu Jesus, Pokecapn and others go through it (spoilers for FF13 and FF13-2, obviously).
Also, the Pokecapn thread is here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=475554