Dragon's Crown |OT| -- NOW AVAILABLE! Hands-On Impressions Inside!

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Phantom_Leo (7054 posts) -

Dragons-crown-sorceress-468.jpg

________

k-bigpic.jpg

________

#2 Posted by Phantom_Leo (7054 posts) -

**Just to put her into context, in case you don't know, she is a character from Dragon's Crown. This is a side-scrolling, arcade-style, Beat-em-up coming for PS3 and Vita in August.**

dragon.jpg

________

#3 Posted by GT90 (6256 posts) -

A gaming journalist over a kotaku brought this up and I completely disagree. I want developers to draw characters how they feel they should. Is the character a bit over the top? Sure. But, not offensive in the least bit.

#4 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

It's more of a question is it tasteful and sexy or juvenile and sleazy which is up to the individual, but by no means offensive.

I personally don't like the design.

#5 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18206 posts) -

i-svhrTpg-950x10000.jpg.

#6 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

It looks perfectly appropriate for the gaming industry's prized market demographic of drooling white males with adolescent hot chick fantasies.

capaho

So only white males leer and applaud overt sexuality?

Jesus, either you really have your head up your ass, or the biggest racial chip on your shoulder I've ever seen. Possibly both.

Go watch a rap video and get back to me on drooling males, champ. Skin color has nothing to do with being sexist.

#7 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

Not really. She's really the only "sexy" character in the game. The Amazon is just ridiculous, and the Elf is actually proportioned and clothed. The men are just as bad, with a ridiculously huge knight, a burly and almost naked Dwarf, and they have their normal character too. It's all just fantasy, and I feel that when both the men and women are ridiculously proportioned there's little to be offended with.

Don't get me wrong, the design is still humorous, but offensive? Nah.

#8 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

It looks perfectly appropriate for the gaming industry's prized market demographic of drooling white males with adolescent hot chick fantasies.

#9 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1730 posts) -

No. Her proportions are ridiculous though. I mean...how is she even standing? :lol:

#10 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69803 posts) -
i am not offended by this
#11 Posted by Ballroompirate (22281 posts) -

Nope but it does make me want a glass of milk and some oreos.

#12 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

without context, i doubt i'd find her offensive but probably off putting. like rachel in ninja gaiden sigma is a bad caricature, but i don't find her to be offensive. however, i think it would be unfair to base judgment on her with just that.

with some context, i actually kind of like the design. the game itself is unlikely to provide detailed characters and it's unlikely more details would have translated to looting and leveling. it's just going to get the feel of the world across through exaggerated visuals (i think it's kind of a fun connection to make between the need for loot and overtly lusty visuals). also, i see that particular design as a bit of a play on japanese moe only with similarly exaggerated western sensibilities.

#13 Posted by punkpunker (3320 posts) -

eww, it looks like hentai fantasy woman.

#14 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18206 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

On topic, I don't find the character offensive. Perhaps slightly ludicrous. But really, is a big busted, round-bottomed woman all that much of an issue? Any more than, say, the ripped pecs and washboard abs that represent many of the male heroes we play as?

Shame-usBlackley

Except the ripped pecs and muscles actually have a function in the context of violence (I am a ripped barbarian and I kill life, rargh) , whereas a massive pair of juggs doesn't. Let's face it: a muscular guy on the cover tells us "This game contains brutality", while a buxom lady only tells us "Buy this game in the off chance to see tìts"

That would be true if muscle bound dudes were only present in games where physical prowess meant something. How do you feel about, say, fighting games? Further, if muscled up dudes and busty women sell games, then aren't they accomplishing the same thing just with different degrees of ridiiculousness?

Nah, I'm pretty sure fighting games qualify as brutality as well. Come on, there's no way around this: muscles serve two purposes: sex appeal and dominance over enemies. Boobs only serve one purpose, sex appeal.

#15 Posted by josephl64 (4424 posts) -

I prefer the elf girl, but I don't find her offensive

#16 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

Not really. She's really the only "sexy" character in the game. The Amazon is just ridiculous, and the Elf is actually proportioned and clothed. The men are just as bad, with a ridiculously huge knight, a burly and almost naked Dwarf, and they have their normal character too. It's all just fantasy, and I feel that when both the men and women are ridiculously proportioned there's little to be offended with.

Don't get me wrong, the design is still humorous, but offensive? Nah.

IndianaPwns39

Yeah, the dwarf looks like Gileas Thunderhead on steroids. So no, I'm not offended by the female character. The artist is being evenhanded.

I thought Kotaku's attempt to pick a fight was lame, though it was a shame the designer rose to their bait and fell to their level.

Dragons-Crown-Dwarf.jpg

#17 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -
I don't think it is offensive it just looks bad. They could have given her big honkers without being ridiculous about it.
#18 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

On topic, I don't find the character offensive. Perhaps slightly ludicrous. But really, is a big busted, round-bottomed woman all that much of an issue? Any more than, say, the ripped pecs and washboard abs that represent many of the male heroes we play as?

#19 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

Not in the least. 

#20 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16609 posts) -

Actually I find her mroe chuckleworthy than anything.

#21 Posted by SteelAttack (10520 posts) -

No, I don't. It takes a tad more than a big set of breasts in a videogame character design to offend me. Besides, when you take the design in its proper context, you realize how much work has been put into the creation of something like this beyond the "huh, boobs" impression.

#22 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18206 posts) -

On topic, I don't find the character offensive. Perhaps slightly ludicrous. But really, is a big busted, round-bottomed woman all that much of an issue? Any more than, say, the ripped pecs and washboard abs that represent many of the male heroes we play as?

Shame-usBlackley
Except the ripped pecs and muscles actually have a function in the context of violence (I am a ripped barbarian and I kill life, rargh) , whereas a massive pair of juggs doesn't. Let's face it: a muscular guy on the cover tells us "This game contains brutality", while a buxom lady only tells us "Buy this game in the off chance to see tìts"
#23 Posted by lozengez (509 posts) -

I don't find it in the least bit offensive.

I don't understand where America went wrong in this regard.  When did we return to the puritanical age?

#24 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

On topic, I don't find the character offensive. Perhaps slightly ludicrous. But really, is a big busted, round-bottomed woman all that much of an issue? Any more than, say, the ripped pecs and washboard abs that represent many of the male heroes we play as?

Black_Knight_00

Except the ripped pecs and muscles actually have a function in the context of violence (I am a ripped barbarian and I kill life, rargh) , whereas a massive pair of juggs doesn't. Let's face it: a muscular guy on the cover tells us "This game contains brutality", while a buxom lady only tells us "Buy this game in the off chance to see tìts"

That would be true if muscle bound dudes were only present in games where physical prowess meant something. How do you feel about, say, fighting games? Further, if muscled up dudes and busty women sell games, then aren't they accomplishing the same thing just with different degrees of ridiiculousness?

#25 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

[QUOTE="capaho"]

It looks perfectly appropriate for the gaming industry's prized market demographic of drooling white males with adolescent hot chick fantasies.

Shame-usBlackley

So only white males leer and applaud overt sexuality?

Jesus, either you really have your head up your ass, or the biggest racial chip on your shoulder I've ever seen. Possibly both.

Go watch a rap video and get back to me on drooling males, champ. Skin color has nothing to do with being sexist.

My apologies. I didn't mean to offend you if you happen to be in that particular demographic, despite the offensive nature of your reply. In any case, the comment was sarcasm, it was not a reflection of my perception of actual gamers. I was referring to the lack of sensitivity to diversity in the design of game characters, particularly the main character that the gamer controls as their alter ego in the game's story. The vast majority of games feature a white male heterosexual protagonist or anti-hero who is usually also sexist and misogynistic. It's quite tiresome.
#26 Posted by JamDev (970 posts) -
Nothing offensive to me about ridiculous cartoon boobs. The only things I find a bit off putting in games are the sexualized depictions of children and very young teens in some Japanese games and the juxtaposition of sex and violence in some games. The Japanese obsession with 'cute' young girls in games gets a pass for some reason, if any western developer did the same thing there would be an almighty sh*tstorm, but we are just supposed to accept it as a cultural oddity or something. The sex with violence thing is less common, but when it crops up you can't help but wonder who exactly it's aimed at. Being titillated by sex is normal, being titillated by violence is normal, but both at the same time is just a bit weird.
#27 Posted by JamDev (970 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

On topic, I don't find the character offensive. Perhaps slightly ludicrous. But really, is a big busted, round-bottomed woman all that much of an issue? Any more than, say, the ripped pecs and washboard abs that represent many of the male heroes we play as?

Shame-usBlackley

Except the ripped pecs and muscles actually have a function in the context of violence (I am a ripped barbarian and I kill life, rargh) , whereas a massive pair of juggs doesn't. Let's face it: a muscular guy on the cover tells us "This game contains brutality", while a buxom lady only tells us "Buy this game in the off chance to see tìts"

That would be true if muscle bound dudes were only present in games where physical prowess meant something. How do you feel about, say, fighting games? Further, if muscled up dudes and busty women sell games, then aren't they accomplishing the same thing just with different degrees of ridiiculousness?

The muscle bound hero and the buxom girl are both male fantasy figures. The male characters in games are not designed to be sexually appealing to female gamers they are designed to be aspirational figures for male gamers. Not that there is anything wrong with that, we are the target demographic, but you are misrepresenting the situation.
#28 Posted by CipherMage (6 posts) -

Offensive?  No.  Ridiculously over the top?  Kinda, sorta, yeah...

 

I can't judge fairly, as I haven't looked at many screenshots, and this could very well accurately reflect the world in which Dragon's Crown is set.  But after playing Muramasa, I can't help but feel as though maybe the Sorceress' character design is a little distasteful, even with Kongiku's character design: at least her boobs had...more clothing on them?  Also, Momohime's design was extremely well done in terms of taste.

 

Ah well -- if anime has taught me anything, it's that the Japanese -- like many others -- prefer their women busty.  And if they were going for a classical fantasy style, you can't really blame the artists, as spell-casting chicks in fantasy art of old have always lacked a decent amount of clothing.

#29 Posted by PelicanRebelLdr (128 posts) -
I find it to be stupid more than offensive.
#30 Posted by Pffrbt (6475 posts) -

A gaming journalist over a kotaku brought this up and I completely disagree.

GT90

Kotaku exists to fish for hits. It's completely clear that these character designs are satire.

#31 Posted by Legolas_Katarn (15592 posts) -
No. I imagine it is so over the top as more of a joke/homage due to the the typical portrayal of a sorceress, they are using shown to be scantily clad and having large and/or barely concealed breasts.

No, I don't. It takes a tad more than a big set of breasts in a videogame character design to offend me. Besides, when you take the design in its proper context, you realize how much work has been put into the creation of something like this beyond the "huh, boobs" impression.

That seems to confirm my thoughts
#32 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

 

The thing is, how do you make a men sexualized for women. You ask 10 women, you'll get 10 different answers, and the underlying common denominator i've found with hetero-women is what is more sexually appealing has a lot more to do with how the person's personality and body behavior comes across and less to do with the immediate visual physical characteristics. You ask the same question to hetero-men, you most certainly will be able to create an easy to draw female form that will appeal to hetero-men (and even a lot of homo-women - if my lesbian friends opinions alone are anything to go by...).

It's much of the same reason why like male strippers are far less popular then say female ones. because when you put a guy in that pose or position, women do not find that attractive. Putting sultry shirtless guy with one hand slowly creepin' down to his crotch area doesn't register nearly as well with hetero-women as say when you put a woman in that same position it to appeal to men.

Point being, to make and send an effective immediate message to the consumer, in this regard - is a whole lot easier, you do the equal but opposite it doesn't work.

Having recently gotten back into comics, the one thing i notice that almost all the women i know - real life and online - When asked who is the hottest guy in the mainstream super hero comics. it's Nightwing. Why is that? well, if you read his books, they're very much romantic soap opera bits with Dick Grayson and whatever girl he's with in that particular series. Now why is that the easily numero uno winner as opposed to the rest of sausage fest of super heroes?

Because it's the same reason how bald / fat / wealthy but stereotypically-considered ugly guy still on average can get with an attractive girl then the opposite, and i very much think that it is as much social as it is nature.

I very much try to remind myself of the idea of confirmation bias, however, i am seeing the trend again and again. This argument of effectively shaming hetero-men for buying or designing or drawing their ENTERTAINMENT and FANTASY'S as they see fit is a fundamentally unfair one, and an argument based on placing unfair/non-existent equivalencies between how the genders/sexes/orientations operate, see each other, and see themselves in relation to others.

and i find the idea that the only ok way for big buxom women and big hulking men is if it's played for laughs or for mocking, both telling, self-limiting, and insulting.

 

Anyways,

That's just my 2 cents.

Just very tired of this crap, see it very much in the vain of "i wasn't planning on buying this! but let me make a huge fuss and be offended over this"

#33 Posted by MrGeezer (56042 posts) -

A gaming journalist over a kotaku brought this up and I completely disagree. I want developers to draw characters how they feel they should. Is the character a bit over the top? Sure. But, not offensive in the least bit.

GT90
That's either a developer who really needs to get laid more and meet more actual women, or it's a developer who thinks that gamers really need to get laid more and meet more actual women. Either way, unless the context of this is making fun of such tropes, then there's the assumption that SOMEONE has the mind of an antisocial adolescent virgin. Either that person is the developer for genuinely finding that appealing, or the developer assumes that stereotype of his audience and thinks he's peddling games to lonely 16 year old nerds who have never touched a boob or talked to a real woman.
#34 Posted by MrGeezer (56042 posts) -

Actually I find her mroe chuckleworthy than anything.

turtlethetaffer
That's the thing...that character's design is so ludicrous that I suspect it may be a joke. But if it's not a joke, then that's kind of sad. Either way, I couldn't say more without having more context.
#35 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34126 posts) -

offensive? Not at all.

Ridiculous and awfully designed? Definintely.

Would any guy even find that attractive at all? I like breasts and all but come on, it just doesn't work when the proportions are so unrealisitic and blatant like that.

#36 Posted by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

Offensive, hardly. Laughable and annoying yes. I bet other characters will poke fun at her breasts during the entire game. And no, that's not character development. 

These things make it hard to take something seriously. The artwork is stunning. I can't see why they need huge breasts to help them sell their games. 

#38 Posted by TheShadowLord07 (22110 posts) -

not offended by it. just find it a littletoo distracted 

#39 Posted by Bigboi500 (29145 posts) -

Not offended. Anyone who takes a stroll in to the real world from time to time will know that there are lots of real women with large breasts and a big ole butt, and there's nothing wrong with that.

#40 Posted by MonoSilver (1525 posts) -
Nope. There have been so many overly sexualised female characters in video games now it's nothing new. I don't see why designers create characters like that though because they're never sexy or attractive. Tiny anime heads, mahoosive breasts and an arse too big to sit in any chair don't really float my boat.
#41 Posted by Flubbbs (2912 posts) -

no i dont find it offensive

#42 Posted by Pedro (21017 posts) -

Characters like these reminds; or reinforced, the juvenile nature of gaming.

#43 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Sadly, gaming (well most of it ) is about the bottom line: making the most money. They're going to almost always try to appeal to the largest demographic in gaming: white adolescent males.

Maybe that will change one day, but as of now you'll have to look into some really niche corners to find video game character diversity. I'd love to see a main character in a game with real human flaws like in reality, like an unattractive woman, or an older person who isn't likable, or an obese black child, etc.

Gaming still has a long way to go to mature like other forms of media that have been around a lot longer.

Bigboi500

More diversity in race and gender is happening. Starhawk, Guacamelee, Assassin's Creed: Liberation, Assassin's Creed 3 and The Walking Dead are five recent(ish) games which spring to mind which starred non-white characters, and the last four were commercially successful.

However, I doubt the ugly and the obese are ever going to become common in games. In visual media (no matter how old) the unattractive are always going to be the exception to the rule. That is as true in movies and television (where plain or ugly women are supermodel types wearing glasses, makeup and frumpy clothes) as it is in videogames.

Probably not, and until it does, video game story experiences will probably never evolve past the level of a B grade superficial film.

don't think you totally got what he was saying at all. look at books, movies, shows, music and you will find the exact same thing. and like he said it doesn't matter how old or how far back you go it's the same thing. the ugly and obese are the exception not part of the rule. Mind you we are using the other mediums as a benchmark to classify our medium as 'good enough' or not.

----------------

Part of me wonders if the reason we keep seeing this topic come up a lot year in year out is because gamers are getting older and growing out of games but want something from games that games largely cannot fill as a medium. If you want an ultra realistic very serious thought-provoking story your gonna end up getting an interactive movie in the form of Heavy Rain. and some people have a hard time calling those video games to begin with.

The almost entirety of video games is based around conflict. killing something, whether it's alternate dimensions monsters in Gravity Rush, or thugs in Grand Theft Auto, or stepping on turtles in Mario games. it's around the same central idea and context for conflicts to be resolved.

This is the crux of video games and mainstream superhero comic books. A comic book with no "Pow!" going on in it, is considered a waste of your money and time by the vast majority of people - who actually read - comic books.

 

the fact that the video game character is brown or white or is a woman with no boobs or gigantic ones, is usually just window dressing. It's just an avatar. and evidently by how many games use blank slate young seemingly hetero white dude is because that apparently seems the least 'offensive' and the least amount of baggage attached, ergo it's your blank slate character.

 

My ultimate point is, I think a large of part of the underlying desire, this deep desperate need to have this medium be considered adult by the other 'accepted' mediums, stems in part of people growing out of games and wanting something from it for which it can't really deliver even when it tries.

 

and I notice this shows up a lot - whenever a game like Dragon's Crown or Lollipop Chainsaw shows up on the scene.

#44 Posted by Ricardo41 (1027 posts) -

It looks perfectly appropriate for the gaming industry's prized market demographic of drooling white males with adolescent hot chick fantasies.

capaho

This. And then we wonder why so few people take games and gamers seriously.

#45 Posted by Metamania (11964 posts) -

No, I don't. Not at all.

#46 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="capaho"]

It looks perfectly appropriate for the gaming industry's prized market demographic of drooling white males with adolescent hot chick fantasies.

Ricardo41

This. And then we wonder why so few people take games and gamers seriously.

@capaho What does being white have to do with anything? As a black guy who has spent some time in Southeast Asia and Latin America, I can say with a high degree of certitude that hot chicks are popular among guys of all colors.

@Ricardo If one wants to take issue with the design of the Sorceress, fine and good, but don't do it for 'respect'. If someone doesn't want to take a form of media seriously, they can always find an excuse.b No one weeps that B movies will prevent the film industry from being taken seriously or that 50 Shades of Gray will destroy all respect for literature.

#47 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

 The muscle bound hero and the buxom girl are both male fantasy figures. The male characters in games are not designed to be sexually appealing to female gamers they are designed to be aspirational figures for male gamers. Not that there is anything wrong with that, we are the target demographic, but you are misrepresenting the situation.JamDev

I didn't say they weren't. I asked how is it that one is more offensive than the other.

And besides, that's total bullshlt -- my wife used to come in and watch me play Metal Gear just to check out Snake's ass and sneaking suit. 

#48 Posted by MonoSilver (1525 posts) -

[QUOTE="JamDev"] The muscle bound hero and the buxom girl are both male fantasy figures. The male characters in games are not designed to be sexually appealing to female gamers they are designed to be aspirational figures for male gamers. Not that there is anything wrong with that, we are the target demographic, but you are misrepresenting the situation.Shame-usBlackley

I didn't say they weren't. I asked how is it that one is more offensive than the other.

And besides, that's total bullshlt -- my wife used to come in and watch me play Metal Gear just to check out Snake's ass and sneaking suit. 

She must have had a good imagination considering the graphics. :)
#49 Posted by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="JamDev"] The muscle bound hero and the buxom girl are both male fantasy figures. The male characters in games are not designed to be sexually appealing to female gamers they are designed to be aspirational figures for male gamers. Not that there is anything wrong with that, we are the target demographic, but you are misrepresenting the situation.MonoSilver

I didn't say they weren't. I asked how is it that one is more offensive than the other.

And besides, that's total bullshlt -- my wife used to come in and watch me play Metal Gear just to check out Snake's ass and sneaking suit. 

She must have had a good imagination considering the graphics. :)

To be honest he was sexy in the artwork of the original games. The codec calls I mean... He appeared as a George Cloony type of thing. By the time they made the second I felt meh.

They hate us. They changed Dante to a Bieber. Made snake old... They HATE US :P I agree with JamDev, men wearing revealing clothes in games has more to do with showing their physical power rather than appeal. 

#50 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

Bigboi500

Let me unpack and answer first statement. then the next.

As for the exact same, the fundamentals of each medium specifically the time it has to effectively convey it's intended message(s) is different. books could take weeks (War and Peace, Les Miserable just as two examples of very long classic literature). a movie usually has about 90 - 160 minutes to get it's story and message(s) across, a song about 2-5 minutes. A game could take a few hours or weeks but here's the big difference. games are interactive, and in the most basic of sense a game just has to be a form of video-interactivity for the viewer/player for it to technically be considered even a video game.

But when you think of super long games, something has to occupy that time, so what is it? it's combat. Notoriously long games like in RPG's, it's basically abnegation level-grinding. There is no character development in that. It's something i noticed in the criticism for Bioshock infinite from Spoony to the Polygon reviewer roundtable discuession, that the one part no one liked was the combat sequences.

Everyone was fully engaged in the drapins of Columbia and the relationships between the characters, that for the most part the combat was just there as filler. Remember - and i apologize if you haven't played it - there is effectively no combat for the first 45 or so minutes in that game.

and this ties back to what i was talking about earlier about asking for something that really isn't there. strip away the explosions and combats from a video game and you in effect get a visual slightly-interactive movie with all the character development you want. I mean if you applied that to say Mass Effect 3, you basically got yourself a "choose your own adventure" tale. A rather good one i'd argue, but still a choose your own adventure.

That is fundamentally the crux of games. people - on game forums - are wanting these thought provoking stories and settings that stir conversation, but it's juxtapose with gun-play/magic/sword combat filler.

-----------------

As for your second statement, i do NOT believe that to be true at all. whether your triple AAA, indie or independent all together, you can make your own game. No one has to or should have to make that road easy for you to make your own vision come true in game form, but you can. the tools are there, the opportunities are there, you simply have to work at it and achieve it. and CarnegeHeart already pointed out just a few games that already broke the mold that were both well received critically and financially successful. That trend will continue, so long as people actually spend their hard earned money on those games. because writing about how much we loved xyz game but didn't actually buy ourselves doesn't do jack to help further those sorts of games. Nevermind that i DO think it is too much to put it upon an entire other demographics (in this case the mostly straight, mostly white, mostly male industry) to have to make games for everyone else and in between because of a loud minority on the internet and their game websites editors.

The issue is I think - especially for game veterans and older gamers - is a matter of being jaded because you've played so much already. Its why you also see music and movie snobs online as well. You've seen the tropes so many times, that they become more then a little annoying. For the jaded that is.

 

The cold hard truth is this, for the masses. Transformers (the movie) was amazing. For the geeks and those who loved Transformers. they unanimously hated it. But this has been true since the beginning of story telling. simple exciting tales entertain the masses, more cerebral and thought-provoking happen less often and are less well known by the masses (unless they make it mandatory reading in k-12 schools). Like everyone knows The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye but damned if anyone actually cared or really liked it or actually wanted to think any deeper about it's story elements then what was absolutely necessary to complete homework.

 

Which while i've just mentioned Great Gatsby and having read it, and will go see the movie, i can guarantee you the movie will miss or downplay key themes in the movie primarily because of the amount of information that is conveyed on a piece of paper is different then what is conveyed on a still image screen and it only has about 90-160 minutes to tell you the entire book's story. As best as it can, the 'movie' that played in your head is always better then what you end up seeing from someone else.

 

Which is why i say again, maybe what people are asking from games simply isn't gonna come from your traditional game. You should look to playing To The Moon, and not fret about some indie guys game because it's got chicks with massive boobs and guys with unbelievably large muscles. Buy Last of Us and Remember Me, instead of fretting about how the latest Call of Duty knocked both of them out of the park in terms of sales and global mindshare, or - as we are both avid gamers - keep an active eye out for games that deserve recognition and call them out.

 

but for me, in terms of stories told-to-you-explicitly in games? i'm not counting on it, everything for me is based on experience of play and adventure in whatever story setup it may be in. Precisely because a story-heavy game has to be reconciled with bloody/interruptive combat filler. You have to be able to reconcile that, and the only way i see how is through making it an experience, not an info-dump.

 

Because in that case, might as well read a book or watch the HBO series.

Because the shallow stories we see in a lot of pop culture mediums isn't going away. in fact it's not even new. it's always been with us.


P.S. As GamingQueen wrote in another thread, ExtraCredits also did a piece of Non-Combat Gaming, but as good as is it, just reflect on it for a bit and hopefully you'll see what i mean by the problem you find in traditional games to begin with.and what it allows/limits for story telling opportunities.