About Assassin's Creed, I don't think it is a Trilogy, "but those are spin-offs that don't follow the same story." seems wrong to say as-- correct me if I'm wrong-- Revelations was about Altair (main character being Ezio).
Sorry for the late reply but I was playing U2, conveniently... :)Vatusus
Allright, I think I like a lot of your answers and will use a thing or two from them myself. Still, I will make some points. Not necessarily to futher the discussion... further (duh), but to provide some kind of clsoure on what I've taken from it.
1st question: Yes. Building tension is better then presenting "it" right at the beggining imo. Case in mind: Jurassic Park. The movie takes a while until a dangerous dinossaur 1st appears. When T-Rex finally shows up, the impact is bigger because the expactance was building up until it finally happens. When it comes to twists, I'm a sucker for them. I like to be completely blown away when something that seems obvious really isnt. But thats my personal preference, dont know about others
So maybe we could conclude this point with something like... as long as studios (gaming, movie,...) can pull it off well, they should try to go for that approach. Whether a presentation of that "mysterious element" was handled well in a specific story, is probably usually debatable, but once someone admits that is was done well, they will most likely enjoy it more than a story without that kind of "mystery". OK. Might be the case.
2nd question: Character development has different levels of importance, depending on the genre. I wouldnt exepct an action game to have the same character development as an RPG. Being involved within the world and characters is what makes us like RPGs, at least that why I like RPGs. Uncharted "one dimensional" characters fit its genre pretty well but those same characters in an RPG wouldnt do the job. The contrary is also applied. Deep character development in action games also dont fit as it could drag on and deviates the player from the constant action. And yes, its possible to have likable "non-deep" characters. Agent 47 barelly speaks and its a loved character by many. Actions can "speak" for the characters. I honestly dont know how to respond to the question before this one though... at least not in english :(
Well, I am not sure with that one. Two examples come to mind, Fallout 2 and Spec Ops: the Line. The first one, IMO, is a representative of very solid RPG with even many creatively designed and written characters who are very likeable IMO (Sulik, Harold, Marcus), but don't undergo any signifficant character development as far as I can tell (basically, from the moment we meet them, nothing extremely important happens to them, that would make them change their opinions, behaviour, mindset,... very much) and the second one is an example of an action game with one of the most impactful evolutions of a main character and one of the best depictions of effects of PTSD on a person in modern games. Not sure about System Wars here, but generally I saw a lot of people giving a credit to that game as far story / twists / character development was concerned and some were going as far as saying, that in terms of sadness, drama and depiction of PTSD, the game has surpassed even Mass Effect 3 both in terms of content and execution and I can at least partially agree with that.
So, I think that lack of character development in Uncharted has more to do with it trying to be a very light-hearted story with a lot of funny moments than it being an action game. I am curious what will Naughty Dog do with the Last of Us for example.
However, that brings me back to question of importance of character development. And here I would say that you might be right about one thing. That character development in RPGs is important as long as it is connected to player's actions. Changing some character's mind (Ashley's about aliens) or affecting their life (helping Wrex become clan leader) sounds is pretty amazing. The characters chaning on their own (Garrus becoming Archangel, Anderson turning into resistance leader), not so much IMO. Sure, it still makes them more colorful, but such changes are something that is to be expected in serious and dramatic stories.
So, I think that I am slowly starting to form my own opinion on the question... Mass Effect's characters do deserve more credit for their character development, but only for the parts, that are dependant on player's actions IMO. The rest "comes with the territory" of Mass Effect being a dramatic story as opposed to lighthearted adventure that is Uncharted. So, I think that I will have to retract my point, about how the fact that ME is an RPG shouldn't play a role in comparison, back. The interactivity (dialogues, choices) on its own might not be important and the character development might not be either, but the character development that is dependant on player's interaction... that is something that deserves more credit.
I'm surprised AC didn't get more, what with all the recent hype of it's newest release. Also I'm surprised at how Mass Effect's winning. I thought people were still crying over the end of the third game.
Either way though, Mass Effect is a deserving first in this poll, and Uncharted is a deserving second. You did good System Wars, you did good. I'm... proud... of you...
Log in to comment