Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[3]

Do you really consider those part of the gameplay? I certainly don't. Better to either properly integrate the gameplay and narrative or not at all, rather than do it half-baked.

It's even worse when it comes to HL1, wherein 99% of the time there is essentially nothing to do during said encounters (apologies for additional derail, but I was playing Unreal recently and I can never help myself being annoyed about HL1's overshadowing hype).

[Calhoun]

Do you really consider those part of the gameplay? I certainly don't. Better to either properly integrate the gameplay and narrative or not at all, rather than do it half-baked.

It's even worse when it comes to HL1, wherein 99% of the time there is essentially nothing to do during said encounters (apologies for additional derail, but I was playing Unreal recently and I can never help myself being annoyed about HL1's overshadowing hype).

Yeah, I do. Those scenes further the plot and I am genuinely interested in hearing what the character have to say, there is good voice acting, and the animation is nice.I'm also not stuck to one spot in the ground where I am forced to sit and listen, I really hate that. What do you consider to be a successful integration of gameplay and narrative? Audio logs? Text-terminals? Both of those things are completely ignorable, and breaking up the action to read a couple pages of text is extremely boring.

In the original half-life, yeah, there wasn't much to do within the environment where you got locked down, but really, where that happened was in the beginning, before all hell broke loose. Where it makes sense.

[3]

The quality of the scenes involved in the technique shouldn't have much to do with its hypotheical effectiveness, so I'll put the voice acting, animation and such aside for the moment.

What I encourage is gameplay and narrative being integrated in a proper fashion. If telling the story appears to necessarily remove from the gameplay (i.e., via including cut-scenes, scenes where you do nothing but stand around and have people talk at you, etc.), then either the story isn't properly written for a game, or the narrative is being approached in the wrong fashion. If the story's implemented in a way that doesn't intrude on gameplay, then clearly it's not important enough for me to pay attention to. It's a difficult issue to approach, but the fact that the dilemma exists is enough to prove that games need a very unique approach to writing.

[Calhoun]

How does it remove from the gameplay? Why should I be shooting dudes all the time? I don't get that at all.

I'm don't even really know what you are saying. Are you saying there is as of yet no game (Or at leasts FPS) that tells story properly?

[3]

You should be shooting all the time, because if you don't have a gun to shoot with, there's very little else you can do. The Gravity Gun averted this... slightly, but I can't help thinking that that was accidental/secondary (behind "Hey! Let's show off the game's physics!").

If the game was designed to involve much other than constantly shooting things, then there would be mechanics implemented that made not shooting things just as important as shooting them.

[Calhoun]

Say, for example, the mechanic of having scripted encounters with friendly NPC's?

I don't get why having a gun means you always should be shooting. Like, at all. That idea seems preposterous, and I'm glad it mostly died in the 90's. However, I understand why they did it then. I occasionally enjoy mindless shooting, but I do like having games with real stories. If that means I have to not shoot a dude, I'm perfectly fine with that.

[3]

As I implied previously, having characters talk at you isn't a gameplay mechanic. There is no equivalent action to the scenes wherein the player is talked at in normal gameplay, and due to this there is dissonance between what the player can and can't do normally and what the player can and can't do during NPC interaction - a poor, but immediate, example of this is the scene at the end of Nova Prospekt where you can suddenly get through those doors that have been blocking you the entire game just because you have Alyx with you. (The concept appears to be a remnant from traditional cut-scenes, which I'm sure you're aware of, wherein what goes on in cut-scenes has absolutely no relevance to what goes on in actual gameplay)

The reason you should always be shooting has nothing to do with the fact that you have a gun. It is because the game is designed specifically for you to be shooting things.

All I am suggesting is that if you should stop shooting in cut-scenes (or equivalent), then there should be a good reason why you should stop shooting in gameplay as well, otherwise you end up with a case of cutscene/gameplay dissonance.

[Calhoun]

So, because Alyx (Or other characters) being your friend and needing to say something to you is not a good reason for you not to be shooting them?

Yeah, so the whole locked door thing isn't amazing, but that's something else entirely, that's not one of the scripted encounters (Like the at Dr. Kleiner's lab, where people are just talking).

I don't see a problem in those parts where there is just talking, I have no reason TO shoot these people, these are people from Black Mesa, who I've worked with for years. These are my friends. Or they are the resistance fighters, that are on my side. Why would I shoot any of those people?

So, because it's a first person shooter, you should be shooting people all the time? I don't see why that is at all. That just entails that you will be in a first-person perspective, and there will be shooting.

[3]

So, because Alyx (Or other characters) being your friend and needing to say something to you is not a good reason for you not to be shooting them?

Having people talk at you is not a gameplay mechanic. It is a method of advancing narrative. It is a method of encouraging immersion. It is not gameplay. HL2's gameplay revolves around shooting things. If it does not revolve around shooting things, it is either not an FPS, or it's not a good FPS. So you're not providing a particulary good example.

Yeah, so the whole locked door thing isn't amazing, but that's something else entirely, that's not one of the scripted encounters (Like the at Dr. Kleiner's lab, where people are just talking).

It's a credit to HL2's quality of build that I couldn't come up with a better example. It does a very good job of maintaining the illusion that gameplay and narrative are actually intertwined. They're still not, at least not very well, but it does a better job than most games of appearing so.

I don't see a problem in those parts where there is just talking, I have no reason TO shoot these people, these are people from Black Mesa, who I've worked with for years. These are my friends. Or they are the resistance fighters, that are on my side. Why would I shoot any of those people?

Fundamentally, the player doesn't shoot the characters that advance the story not because he/she doesn't have a reason, but because the characters advance the narrative. They are a necessity. The background story of the characters aside, their relevance in the setting aside, you can't shoot them. In fact, you can't do anything other than follow them around and let them speak at you. And that is part of the issue.

So, because it's a first person shooter, you should be shooting people all the time? I don't see why that is at all. That just entails that you will be in a first-person perspective, and there will be shooting.

->

All I am suggesting is that if you should stop shooting in cut-scenes (or equivalent), then there should be a good reason why you should stop shooting in gameplay as well, otherwise you end up with a case of cutscene/gameplay dissonance.

[Calhoun]

Okay, but you aren't answering any of my questions.

Yeah, it does revolve around shooting, you do that alot. But what you are saying with:

Fundamentally, the player doesn't shoot the characters that advance the story not because he/she doesn't have a reason, but because the characters advance the narrative. They are a necessity. The background story of the characters aside, their relevance in the setting aside, you can't shoot them. In fact, you can't do anything other than follow them around and let them speak at you. And that is part of the issue.

It's a linear game. So, yeah, shooting people who advance the plot is kind of a bad thing, and the other option is putting in a game over screen if you do. I don't see the problem here.

But what I really don't get is why you think there isn't a good reason not to shoot these people. Or why you think the reasons to not shoot these people are not good reason to stop shooting.

Can you give me a reason to shoot Alyx, other than to see what would happen if you did? Can you give me a reason why your character, Gordon, would ever shoot Eli, or Barney?

[3]

You're thinking too narrowly. I specifically added "in fact, you can't do anything other than follow them around and let them speak at you" in an attempt to avoid that kind of response, as I hoped I might when I typed "the background story of the characters aside, their relevance in the setting aside". But regardless. Here is the issue as I see it, put concisely:

There is no equivalent action to being spoken at in normal gameplay. You are either shooting things for extended periods, or you are being spoken at and unable to shoot with a purpose (there are minor deviations to this, but they probably exist for the express purpose of being exceptions to the rule). There is a clear line of seperation between the game's two halves. This is extremely similar to what occurs in games with traditional cut-scenes.

[Calhoun]

Sure, if you put everything else aside, Yeah, okay, it breaks down, but the fact is, all those things ARE THERE. You can't just ignore all of them for the purpose of your argument. It doesn't make any sense.

It's like if you strip down everything of the Half-life 2 plot to "Aliens come and invade earth." Yeah, that's really basic, simple, and been done to death, but with everything else that it brings along with it. It works, and quite nicely.

[3]

Did you only read the first paragraph? My point has nothing to do with the characters or setting; that was a sidetrack. In fact, I was talking about how the game takes immersion away by making narrative and gameplay sections distinct, even in a partially covert manner.

[Calhoun]

No, I read the whole thing, and I don't get your point. In the game, I don't feel immersion break because, Oh my god, I'm not shooting these people who are my friends. If there was a jarring transition where these people were talking to me that I had no clue who they were, and I was suddenly unable to use my weapons, THAT would break immersion, but in the game, that never occurs to me, I have no want or desire to shoot these people. I have no reason.

[Shadowlord]

I don't see a problem in those parts where there is just talking, I have no reason TO shoot these people, these are people from Black Mesa, who I've worked with for years. These are my friends. Or they are the resistance fighters, that are on my side. Why would I shoot any of those people?

Because

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dr. Mossman is a traitor

, and you've seen the future! And so, to prevent her from betraying the resistance, or get revenge because she already has been doing so, you shoot her as soon as you meet her. Unfortunately, she turns out to be both immune to bullets and completely unaware that you are firing at her. You can empty an entire SMG clip into her and fire a grenade at her and she just keeps on babbling at you like nothing is wrong. Gordon would probably react with "Wait a minute, is

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dr. Mossman

a hologram? Hmm. That would explain why everyone ignores me when I talk, wouldn't it?"