GTA V: No Female Protagonist

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] nope. Whats weird is why the movie wasn't as well received as the games were.Lulu_Lulu

And I liked both Advent Children and Spirit's Within. Although the stories in the games are better because they have more time to tell a good story. Advent Children was mostly good because of the fight scenes. I can't remember much from Spirit's Within, but I remember enjoying it. 

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Jacanuk"] Thats because you lack the interactive element ;) Noone will be interested in a "game" you cant actually play.Tropictrain

And I liked both Advent Children and Spirit's Within. Although the stories in the games are better because they have more time to tell a good story. Advent Children was mostly good because of the fight scenes. I can't remember much from Spirit's Within, but I remember enjoying it. 

Well considering this thread will likely remain front page hot for the next three weeks ( at least. Impressive though ). I'll leave a comment at another in-depth look at how a gender change would have made the story different than the one they wanted to tell.

Considering all the other movies and shows that Rockstar have tried to 'loosely' capture the VG essecnce of. (Man on Fire, Miami Vice, Godfather,) it seems GTA5 is 'very-loosely' going after elements of 1995's HEAT. They're planning and executing serial robberies, and experiencing each of robbers personal problems in between their scores and antics, and Trevor just appears at first sight like the loose cannon 'Waingro' 

A professional female in that outfit would not allow reckless man like 'Waingro' to exist or create as many problems as he did, and pull the entire crew into further police exposure. Hence the story would have dramatically changed. ( ex: Mona Sax  would've shot that man dead. TRUST ME. ) It also reflects how serial robber crew stories tend to be gender homogenous, and real the chemical imbalance or misplaced trust or hasty decisions in such groups also makes for good storytelling because everyone is compromised. unless there is DEEP seated trust is established tween the unit.( I.E. Turetto & Letty Fast & Furious, Bonnie & Clyde, Gary Sinise and Lili Taylor in Ransom " for awhile..." or real life stories like Card Counting Christians although those guys are a business not thieves in my view. )

Now thats not to say they couldn't have modeled 'Set it Off' thats a crew entirely of ladies that experience the same problem, but their loves did kinda weaken group cohesiveness.  I guess Dan Houser just picked what he could write with more immediate familiarity. Otherwise it would have been a writer who can better identify with women, and cast some some good ones too.

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Indeed, where it gets confusing is if somebody plays the game for the story.Lulu_Lulu

I already answered this question. First of all, the movies don't tell the story found in the game. Advent Children is a sequel to Final Fantasy 7. Why would I watch the sequel INSTEAD? That doesn't make any sense. Second, as I said before, the interactive component of video games improves the story. Not because the gameplay is fun necessarily, but it builds empathy for the main character. This is an empathy you can't get by watching a movie. That is why I prefer video games. The story itself doesn't need to be interactive for me to feel this. The story is improved by the empathy the gameplay creates. That's why I play games for the story. 

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Jacanuk"] Why? Final Fantasy is one of the best game stories out there.Tropictrain

I already answered this question. First of all, the movies don't tell the story found in the game. Advent Children is a sequel to Final Fantasy 7. Why would I watch the sequel INSTEAD? That doesn't make any sense. Second, as I said before, the interactive component of video games improves the story. Not because the gameplay is fun necessarily, but it builds empathy for the main character. This is an empathy you can't get by watching a movie. That is why I prefer video games. The story itself doesn't need to be interactive for me to feel this. The story is improved by the empathy the gameplay creates. That's why I play games for the story. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Never said it wasn't. I can't tell a good story from a great one, so I never delve into stuff like quality. Anyway the confusing part has nothing to do with how good the story is, its why would someone prefer the game over the movie with their reasoning like "the game is more interactive" despite the story being executed using the same non-interactive technique as the movie does, (assuming one plays games for the story)Lulu_Lulu

I already answered this question. First of all, the movies don't tell the story found in the game. Advent Children is a sequel to Final Fantasy 7. Why would I watch the sequel INSTEAD? That doesn't make any sense. Second, as I said before, the interactive component of video games improves the story. Not because the gameplay is fun necessarily, but it builds empathy for the main character. This is an empathy you can't get by watching a movie. That is why I prefer video games. The story itself doesn't need to be interactive for me to feel this. The story is improved by the empathy the gameplay creates. That's why I play games for the story. 

And you completely ignored my second point again. 

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

I already answered this question. First of all, the movies don't tell the story found in the game. Advent Children is a sequel to Final Fantasy 7. Why would I watch the sequel INSTEAD? That doesn't make any sense. Second, as I said before, the interactive component of video games improves the story. Not because the gameplay is fun necessarily, but it builds empathy for the main character. This is an empathy you can't get by watching a movie. That is why I prefer video games. The story itself doesn't need to be interactive for me to feel this. The story is improved by the empathy the gameplay creates. That's why I play games for the story. 

Tropictrain

And you completely ignored my second point again. 

On playing a game only for the story:

I've done this quite a few times.  It was the major selling point for me playing the Legacy of Kain games, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, hell it was the ONLY reason I played Spec Ops: The Line.  Which is the one that has the best points for a strong story in a video game.

Spec Ops as a game is nothing but uninspired, run-of-the-mill cover based shooting, with very little to break up the tedium.  The story however, is fantastic.  It was clearly inspired by Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, the short novel the movie Apocalypse Now was based on.

The game really explores the grey uncertainty in war, that the "us versus them" mentality we as Americans tend to have is nice and idyllic, but hardly realistic.  It drives home that war is neither fun nor entertaining.  It also very clearly exposes just how disingenuous and downright disrespectful games like Battlefield and Call of Duty can be to these real world issues of war and terrorism.  Guaranteeing I'll never be able to enjoy another modern military shooter again that treats war like popcorn entertainment.

Now I know most would say "Then why not just read the book or watch the movie if the game isn't very good?", because I would have never made the connection to video games on this issue if the message wasn't through a video game.  Reading a book or watching a movie would have never made me consider the insincerity that's so pervasive in the military shooter genre.  Most people play video games seeing themselves as the main character, when they screw up in Mass Effect they don't say or think "Commander Shepard died", they say "I died".  They are the ones doing these actions, they aren't some passive observer, in their mind they are the ones causing these events to unfold.  So when terrible things happen in a video game that are a direct cause to the actions of the player, it carries far more impact than it would in a movie or book.

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] My post was actualy suppose to be read hypothetically, I tried not give any specifics or examples, its quite obvious that stories in FF7 will be unique and different, you know, to prevent redundancy and confusion.Lulu_Lulu

And you completely ignored my second point again. 

And how it enhances the story, yes. 

On playing a game only for the story:

I've done this quite a few times.  It was the major selling point for me playing the Legacy of Kain games, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, hell it was the ONLY reason I played Spec Ops: The Line.  Which is the one that has the best points for a strong story in a video game.

Spec Ops as a game is nothing but uninspired, run-of-the-mill cover based shooting, with very little to break up the tedium.  The story however, is fantastic.  It was clearly inspired by Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, the short novel the movie Apocalypse Now was based on.

The game really explores the grey uncertainty in war, that the "us versus them" mentality we as Americans tend to have is nice and idyllic, but hardly realistic.  It drives home that war is neither fun nor entertaining.  It also very clearly exposes just how disingenuous and downright disrespectful games like Battlefield and Call of Duty can be to these real world issues of war and terrorism.  Guaranteeing I'll never be able to enjoy another modern military shooter again that treats war like popcorn entertainment.

Now I know most would say "Then why not just read the book or watch the movie if the game isn't very good?", because I would have never made the connection to video games on this issue if the message wasn't through a video game.  Reading a book or watching a movie would have never made me consider the insincerity that's so pervasive in the military shooter genre.  Most people play video games seeing themselves as the main character, when they screw up in Mass Effect they don't say or think "Commander Shepard died", they say "I died".  They are the ones doing these actions, they aren't some passive observer, in their mind they are the ones causing these events to unfold.  So when terrible things happen in a video game that are a direct cause to the actions of the player, it carries far more impact than it would in a movie or book.

keech

Exactly. This is what point I've been trying to get across. 

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

And you completely ignored my second point again. 

Tropictrain

And how it enhances the story, yes. 

[QUOTE="keech"]

On playing a game only for the story:

I've done this quite a few times.  It was the major selling point for me playing the Legacy of Kain games, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, hell it was the ONLY reason I played Spec Ops: The Line.  Which is the one that has the best points for a strong story in a video game.

Spec Ops as a game is nothing but uninspired, run-of-the-mill cover based shooting, with very little to break up the tedium.  The story however, is fantastic.  It was clearly inspired by Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, the short novel the movie Apocalypse Now was based on.

The game really explores the grey uncertainty in war, that the "us versus them" mentality we as Americans tend to have is nice and idyllic, but hardly realistic.  It drives home that war is neither fun nor entertaining.  It also very clearly exposes just how disingenuous and downright disrespectful games like Battlefield and Call of Duty can be to these real world issues of war and terrorism.  Guaranteeing I'll never be able to enjoy another modern military shooter again that treats war like popcorn entertainment.

Now I know most would say "Then why not just read the book or watch the movie if the game isn't very good?", because I would have never made the connection to video games on this issue if the message wasn't through a video game.  Reading a book or watching a movie would have never made me consider the insincerity that's so pervasive in the military shooter genre.  Most people play video games seeing themselves as the main character, when they screw up in Mass Effect they don't say or think "Commander Shepard died", they say "I died".  They are the ones doing these actions, they aren't some passive observer, in their mind they are the ones causing these events to unfold.  So when terrible things happen in a video game that are a direct cause to the actions of the player, it carries far more impact than it would in a movie or book.

Tropictrain

Exactly. This is what point I've been trying to get across. 

I haven't played Spec Ops so I don't know exactly why the story is so special from an interactive perspective. But the way I hear it, the story (as good as it was) was still more observable than interactive. The story does provide context for the gameplay, but as I said before, assuming one plays games for the story and only the story (gameplay aside), why pick a game with a story that can only be experience passively, ofcourse excluding an obvious reason like "there isn't a movie/book equivalent of it" ?

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="keech"]

On playing a game only for the story:

I've done this quite a few times.  It was the major selling point for me playing the Legacy of Kain games, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, hell it was the ONLY reason I played Spec Ops: The Line.  Which is the one that has the best points for a strong story in a video game.

Spec Ops as a game is nothing but uninspired, run-of-the-mill cover based shooting, with very little to break up the tedium.  The story however, is fantastic.  It was clearly inspired by Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, the short novel the movie Apocalypse Now was based on.

The game really explores the grey uncertainty in war, that the "us versus them" mentality we as Americans tend to have is nice and idyllic, but hardly realistic.  It drives home that war is neither fun nor entertaining.  It also very clearly exposes just how disingenuous and downright disrespectful games like Battlefield and Call of Duty can be to these real world issues of war and terrorism.  Guaranteeing I'll never be able to enjoy another modern military shooter again that treats war like popcorn entertainment.

Now I know most would say "Then why not just read the book or watch the movie if the game isn't very good?", because I would have never made the connection to video games on this issue if the message wasn't through a video game.  Reading a book or watching a movie would have never made me consider the insincerity that's so pervasive in the military shooter genre.  Most people play video games seeing themselves as the main character, when they screw up in Mass Effect they don't say or think "Commander Shepard died", they say "I died".  They are the ones doing these actions, they aren't some passive observer, in their mind they are the ones causing these events to unfold.  So when terrible things happen in a video game that are a direct cause to the actions of the player, it carries far more impact than it would in a movie or book.

Lulu_Lulu

Exactly. This is what point I've been trying to get across. 

I haven't played Spec Ops so I don't know exactly why the story is so special from an interactive perspective. But the way I hear it, the story (as good as it was) was still more observable than interactive. The story does provide context for the gameplay, but as I said before, assuming one plays games for the story and only the story (gameplay aside), why pick a game with a story that can only be experience passively, ofcourse excluding an obvious reason like "there isn't a movie/book equivalent of it" ?

The reason was given. No matter how many times we explain it you're not going to understand. Your problem is that you separate the gameplay from the story. You act as if when the gameplay starts, the story is put on hold. This is not true. We can't have a discussion about story in games without bringing up the gameplay. If you can't understand that then you don't understand games. And it's this kind of thinking that is holding back the industry. 

I've seen this issue debated a few times on this board. The idea of female protagonists in a video game: does it matter?

GTA V has three leads, all of them male.

Does this bother you at all? If one of the three were female, would you not buy GTA V? Does it even need discussed?

I wrote a blog about it, and would love any feedback. Have a read, if you please.

http://www.gamespot.com/users/experience_fade/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-26035885

experience_fade

Nope. Why would I care if it featured a female or not?

journey and flower were awesome games that had no gender. If tomb raider had a man in the lead I would still have liked the game, or if samus was really a guy Id still love metroid.

When people try and inject too much reality into games and start worrying about which gender is doing what or being represented in certain ways you might as well quit playing games because youre worrying too much about a fictional fantasy video game instead of having fun with it.

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

Exactly. This is what point I've been trying to get across. 

Tropictrain

I haven't played Spec Ops so I don't know exactly why the story is so special from an interactive perspective. But the way I hear it, the story (as good as it was) was still more observable than interactive. The story does provide context for the gameplay, but as I said before, assuming one plays games for the story and only the story (gameplay aside), why pick a game with a story that can only be experience passively, ofcourse excluding an obvious reason like "there isn't a movie/book equivalent of it" ?

The reason was given. No matter how many times we explain it you're not going to understand. Your problem is that you separate the gameplay from the story. You act as if when the gameplay starts, the story is put on hold. This is not true. We can't have a discussion about story in games without bringing up the gameplay. If you can't understand that then you don't understand games. And it's this kind of thinking that is holding back the industry. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] If you play the game for the story AND gameplay then what I said just sounds stupid.

I haven't played Spec Ops so I don't know exactly why the story is so special from an interactive perspective. But the way I hear it, the story (as good as it was) was still more observable than interactive. The story does provide context for the gameplay, but as I said before, assuming one plays games for the story and only the story (gameplay aside), why pick a game with a story that can only be experience passively, ofcourse excluding an obvious reason like "there isn't a movie/book equivalent of it" ?

Lulu_Lulu

The reason was given. No matter how many times we explain it you're not going to understand. Your problem is that you separate the gameplay from the story. You act as if when the gameplay starts, the story is put on hold. This is not true. We can't have a discussion about story in games without bringing up the gameplay. If you can't understand that then you don't understand games. And it's this kind of thinking that is holding back the industry. 

Not from what I've experienced. And I'm not just talking about games where my actions affect the story. When I play the game, I'm living the story. Even if the gameplay isn't fun. Killer 7 is another game where the gameplay isn't fun and I have no control over the story. But it's one of my favourite games of all time. I play it for the story and it would not work nearly as well if it was in any other medium. It's an extremely surreal world which is truly enhanced by being able to explore it myself. The gameplay segments serves to enhance the story. If the story was removed I would not enjoy it at all.

Now if you still don't like my answer then I don't know what else I can say. That's the answer to why I play a game for the story and why I would prefer it over another medium. If you're still confused then I can't help you. 

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

The reason was given. No matter how many times we explain it you're not going to understand. Your problem is that you separate the gameplay from the story. You act as if when the gameplay starts, the story is put on hold. This is not true. We can't have a discussion about story in games without bringing up the gameplay. If you can't understand that then you don't understand games. And it's this kind of thinking that is holding back the industry. 

Tropictrain

Not from what I've experienced. And I'm not just talking about games where my actions affect the story. When I play the game, I'm living the story. Even if the gameplay isn't fun. Killer 7 is another game where the gameplay isn't fun and I have no control over the story. But it's one of my favourite games of all time. I play it for the story and it would not work nearly as well if it was in any other medium. It's an extremely surreal world which is truly enhanced by being able to explore it myself. The gameplay segments serves to enhance the story. If the story was removed I would not enjoy it at all.

Now if you still don't like my answer then I don't know what else I can say. That's the answer to why I play a game for the story and why I would prefer it over another medium. If you're still confused then I can't help you. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Most of the time the story is actualy on hold until the next cutscene. Lulu_Lulu

Not from what I've experienced. And I'm not just talking about games where my actions affect the story. When I play the game, I'm living the story. Even if the gameplay isn't fun. Killer 7 is another game where the gameplay isn't fun and I have no control over the story. But it's one of my favourite games of all time. I play it for the story and it would not work nearly as well if it was in any other medium. It's an extremely surreal world which is truly enhanced by being able to explore it myself. The gameplay segments serves to enhance the story. If the story was removed I would not enjoy it at all.

Now if you still don't like my answer then I don't know what else I can say. That's the answer to why I play a game for the story and why I would prefer it over another medium. If you're still confused then I can't help you. 

You keep saying that, but you are.

You've asked numorous times,  "assuming one plays games for the story and only the story (gameplay aside), why pick a game with a story that can only be experience passively."

What Tropic said is the answer to your question. I don't know why it's so hard for you to see that. He's ansered you about as many times as you asked. But you keep saying you're not talking about the same thing...

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

Not from what I've experienced. And I'm not just talking about games where my actions affect the story. When I play the game, I'm living the story. Even if the gameplay isn't fun. Killer 7 is another game where the gameplay isn't fun and I have no control over the story. But it's one of my favourite games of all time. I play it for the story and it would not work nearly as well if it was in any other medium. It's an extremely surreal world which is truly enhanced by being able to explore it myself. The gameplay segments serves to enhance the story. If the story was removed I would not enjoy it at all.

Now if you still don't like my answer then I don't know what else I can say. That's the answer to why I play a game for the story and why I would prefer it over another medium. If you're still confused then I can't help you. 

lazyathew

You keep saying that, but you are.

You've asked numorous times,  "assuming one plays games for the story and only the story (gameplay aside), why pick a game with a story that can only be experience passively."

What Tropic said is the answer to your question. I don't know why it's so hard for you to see that. He's ansered you about as many times as you asked. But you keep saying you're not talking about the same thing...

and yeah one can treat gameplay and story as seperate entities.

and yeah one can treat gameplay and story as seperate entities.

and yeah one can treat gameplay and story as seperate entities.

Most of the time the story is actualy on hold until the next cutscene. Lulu_Lulu

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Most of the time the story is actualy on hold until the next cutscene. Jacanuk

And I stand by what I said. I'm just having a hard time turning it into words because Mr. Train keeps mentioning gameplay where I didn't (or didn't mean to).

and yeah one can treat gameplay and story as seperate entities.

Lulu_Lulu

Well then you'll never understand why someone would play a video game for the story. If you ignore the gameplay and only look at the cutscenes then obviously a movie would be the better option. But if you ignore the gameplay you ignore what makes it a video game. It's like asking "Why would someone watch a movie for the story instead of the book? (Ignore the audio and visuals.)" You position the question so that no one can possibly answer it and act as if you're victorious. The interactive component of the medium can do a lot more to deliver narrative than allowing the player to change the story. If you don't see that then you don't understand a video game's true potential. And no matter how many times we explain it to you, you never will. You think cut scenes are the only way to tell story. Since I'm playing through it right now, I'll point to Batman Arkham Asylum as an example that proves you wrong. The story is definitely not put on hold during gameplay. The Scarecrow segments in particular tell more story through the gameplay than through cutscenes. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You can't discuss story in games without bringing up gameplay. This is at least the case when the developer is trying to take full advantage of the medium. This, perhaps, doesn't happen as often as it should but you seem to refuse to believe it can happen at all. And yet you complain that developers don't take full advantage of the interactive component of games. Some games, such as Arkham Asylum, just don't lend themselves to a branching narrative. But they take advantage of the gameplay to enhance the story. And they do a very good job of it. 

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Most of the time the story is actualy on hold until the next cutscene. Lulu_Lulu

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] And I stand by what I said. I'm just having a hard time turning it into words because Mr. Train keeps mentioning gameplay where I didn't (or didn't mean to).

and yeah one can treat gameplay and story as seperate entities.

Tropictrain

Well then you'll never understand why someone would play a video game for the story. If you ignore the gameplay and only look at the cutscenes then obviously a movie would be the better option. But if you ignore the gameplay you ignore what makes it a video game. It's like asking "Why would someone watch a movie for the story instead of the book? (Ignore the audio and visuals.)" You position the question so that no one can possibly answer it and act as if you're victorious. The interactive component of the medium can do a lot more to deliver narrative than allowing the player to change the story. If you don't see that then you don't understand a video game's true potential. And no matter how many times we explain it to you, you never will. You think cut scenes are the only way to tell story. Since I'm playing through it right now, I'll point to Batman Arkham Asylum as an example that proves you wrong. The story is definitely not put on hold during gameplay. The Scarecrow segments in particular tell more story through the gameplay than through cutscenes. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You can't discuss story in games without bringing up gameplay. This is at least the case when the developer is trying to take full advantage of the medium. This, perhaps, doesn't happen as often as it should but you seem to refuse to believe it can happen at all. And yet you complain that developers don't take full advantage of the interactive component of games. Some games, such as Arkham Asylum, just don't lend themselves to a branching narrative. But they take advantage of the gameplay to enhance the story. And they do a very good job of it. 

Uhm . . . . Wow okay. Great example with the scarecrow by the way. Anyway you're under the impression I'm trying to win an Argument, I'm not. I'm saying there are people, many of them infact, who play games for the story and only for the story with their reasoning being its for the interativity, for the scarecrow segment in AA it makes sense, for the Joker segments it doesn't. I replayed it once, skipping many of the cutscenes and believe me, The Joker was nothing compared to Dr. Crane. I'm not trying to win anything here nor am I oblivious to video game's true potential, I just wana see if you see things the way I do . . . . . If not then I gladly embrace losing whatever it is you think we're arguing about and by on my merry way.Lulu_Lulu

Yes there are many people like that. And I'm trying to explain why that's the case. And you're unable to see why that is the case. 

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Jacanuk"] Either you have played some really shitty games but 90% of the games that have been released lately dont stop the story while you play and contiune it in the next cutscene.Jacanuk

the story and gameplay complimented each other very very well, but I still experienced the story passively, not as much as Final Fantasy, but enough piece together most of the plot by cutscene alone.

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"]

Yes there are many people like that. And I'm trying to explain why that's the case. And you're unable to see why that is the case. 

Tropictrain

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Uhm . . . . Wow okay. Great example with the scarecrow by the way. Anyway you're under the impression I'm trying to win an Argument, I'm not. I'm saying there are people, many of them infact, who play games for the story and only for the story with their reasoning being its for the interativity, for the scarecrow segment in AA it makes sense, for the Joker segments it doesn't. I replayed it once, skipping many of the cutscenes and believe me, The Joker was nothing compared to Dr. Crane. I'm not trying to win anything here nor am I oblivious to video game's true potential, I just wana see if you see things the way I do . . . . . If not then I gladly embrace losing whatever it is you think we're arguing about and by on my merry way.Tropictrain

Yes there are many people like that. And I'm trying to explain why that's the case. And you're unable to see why that is the case. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] [QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Uhm . . . . Wow okay. Great example with the scarecrow by the way. Anyway you're under the impression I'm trying to win an Argument, I'm not. I'm saying there are people, many of them infact, who play games for the story and only for the story with their reasoning being its for the interativity, for the scarecrow segment in AA it makes sense, for the Joker segments it doesn't. I replayed it once, skipping many of the cutscenes and believe me, The Joker was nothing compared to Dr. Crane. I'm not trying to win anything here nor am I oblivious to video game's true potential, I just wana see if you see things the way I do . . . . . If not then I gladly embrace losing whatever it is you think we're arguing about and by on my merry way.Lulu_Lulu

Yes there are many people like that. And I'm trying to explain why that's the case. And you're unable to see why that is the case. 

No I don't.

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

Yes there are many people like that. And I'm trying to explain why that's the case. And you're unable to see why that is the case. 

Tropictrain

No I don't.

So?

No creative work should have to be comprised of a list of bullet points. If the creators' vision for the game didn't feature a female lead, that's fine. I'd be fine if the game featured ALL female leads as well. I'm sort of sick of people thinking that every goddamn thing that gets made has to have this magical list of ingredients to be fair to everyone and well-rounded. Fvck that. Make the games as the vision of the creator(s) dictates. 

Shame-usBlackley

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

So?

No creative work should have to be comprised of a list of bullet points. If the creators' vision for the game didn't feature a female lead, that's fine. I'd be fine if the game featured ALL female leads as well. I'm sort of sick of people thinking that every goddamn thing that gets made has to have this magical list of ingredients to be fair to everyone and well-rounded. Fvck that. Make the games as the vision of the creator(s) dictates. 

Rattlesnake_8

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] And I stand by what I said. I'm just having a hard time turning it into words because Mr. Train keeps mentioning gameplay where I didn't (or didn't mean to).

and yeah one can treat gameplay and story as seperate entities.

Tropictrain

Well then you'll never understand why someone would play a video game for the story. If you ignore the gameplay and only look at the cutscenes then obviously a movie would be the better option. But if you ignore the gameplay you ignore what makes it a video game. It's like asking "Why would someone watch a movie for the story instead of the book? (Ignore the audio and visuals.)" You position the question so that no one can possibly answer it and act as if you're victorious. The interactive component of the medium can do a lot more to deliver narrative than allowing the player to change the story. If you don't see that then you don't understand a video game's true potential. And no matter how many times we explain it to you, you never will. You think cut scenes are the only way to tell story. Since I'm playing through it right now, I'll point to Batman Arkham Asylum as an example that proves you wrong. The story is definitely not put on hold during gameplay. The Scarecrow segments in particular tell more story through the gameplay than through cutscenes. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You can't discuss story in games without bringing up gameplay. This is at least the case when the developer is trying to take full advantage of the medium. This, perhaps, doesn't happen as often as it should but you seem to refuse to believe it can happen at all. And yet you complain that developers don't take full advantage of the interactive component of games. Some games, such as Arkham Asylum, just don't lend themselves to a branching narrative. But they take advantage of the gameplay to enhance the story. And they do a very good job of it. 

There are also foreshadowing cutscenes that hint at random encounters and traps you'll run into later. Resident Evil and FF series made use of that.

In FF7 we felt what we now call "permadeath" because of Aerith. So the two are not exclusively oil and water. I think some folks just have  tunnel vision because of critical gamers fallout and derivative trends in this current gen. Art and games still have way more potential beyond the skew we constantly view them with.

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] And I stand by what I said. I'm just having a hard time turning it into words because Mr. Train keeps mentioning gameplay where I didn't (or didn't mean to).

and yeah one can treat gameplay and story as seperate entities.

platinumking320

Well then you'll never understand why someone would play a video game for the story. If you ignore the gameplay and only look at the cutscenes then obviously a movie would be the better option. But if you ignore the gameplay you ignore what makes it a video game. It's like asking "Why would someone watch a movie for the story instead of the book? (Ignore the audio and visuals.)" You position the question so that no one can possibly answer it and act as if you're victorious. The interactive component of the medium can do a lot more to deliver narrative than allowing the player to change the story. If you don't see that then you don't understand a video game's true potential. And no matter how many times we explain it to you, you never will. You think cut scenes are the only way to tell story. Since I'm playing through it right now, I'll point to Batman Arkham Asylum as an example that proves you wrong. The story is definitely not put on hold during gameplay. The Scarecrow segments in particular tell more story through the gameplay than through cutscenes. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You can't discuss story in games without bringing up gameplay. This is at least the case when the developer is trying to take full advantage of the medium. This, perhaps, doesn't happen as often as it should but you seem to refuse to believe it can happen at all. And yet you complain that developers don't take full advantage of the interactive component of games. Some games, such as Arkham Asylum, just don't lend themselves to a branching narrative. But they take advantage of the gameplay to enhance the story. And they do a very good job of it. 

There are also foreshadowing cutscenes that hint at random encounters and traps you'll run into later. Resident Evil and FF series made use of that.

In FF7 we felt what we now call "permadeath" because of Aerith. So the two are not exclusively oil and water. I think some folks just have  tunnel vision because of critical gamers fallout and derivative trends in this current gen. Art and games still have way more potential beyond the skew we constantly view them with.

[QUOTE="platinumking320"]

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

Well then you'll never understand why someone would play a video game for the story. If you ignore the gameplay and only look at the cutscenes then obviously a movie would be the better option. But if you ignore the gameplay you ignore what makes it a video game. It's like asking "Why would someone watch a movie for the story instead of the book? (Ignore the audio and visuals.)" You position the question so that no one can possibly answer it and act as if you're victorious. The interactive component of the medium can do a lot more to deliver narrative than allowing the player to change the story. If you don't see that then you don't understand a video game's true potential. And no matter how many times we explain it to you, you never will. You think cut scenes are the only way to tell story. Since I'm playing through it right now, I'll point to Batman Arkham Asylum as an example that proves you wrong. The story is definitely not put on hold during gameplay. The Scarecrow segments in particular tell more story through the gameplay than through cutscenes. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You can't discuss story in games without bringing up gameplay. This is at least the case when the developer is trying to take full advantage of the medium. This, perhaps, doesn't happen as often as it should but you seem to refuse to believe it can happen at all. And yet you complain that developers don't take full advantage of the interactive component of games. Some games, such as Arkham Asylum, just don't lend themselves to a branching narrative. But they take advantage of the gameplay to enhance the story. And they do a very good job of it. 

Lulu_Lulu

There are also foreshadowing cutscenes that hint at random encounters and traps you'll run into later. Resident Evil and FF series made use of that.

In FF7 we felt what we now call "permadeath" because of Aerith. So the two are not exclusively oil and water. I think some folks just have  tunnel vision because of critical gamers fallout and derivative trends in this current gen. Art and games still have way more potential beyond the skew we constantly view them with.

Yeah. but it did kinda start on a different topic. I wonder if we should hand the mic back to experience_fade now.

Maybe it's all  this ominous, ghostly glass ceiling of criticism on what video games in pop opinions "can and can't be"  being manifested in different ways in our society. I think thats what gamers are really railing against, but its also in different ways.

We've got congressional pressure after newtown. game Journalism criticism of action games in general after a bunch of CoDs, male action jingoism dissonance with  real world , industry desperation, layoffs and politics.  Gamasutra's belief that games will never be considered as Art in the future. Take your pick. Its all part of a larger mess.

but IMO games always opened my mind to their vast potential, more so than caused me to lament their limits.

[QUOTE="platinumking320"]

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

Well then you'll never understand why someone would play a video game for the story. If you ignore the gameplay and only look at the cutscenes then obviously a movie would be the better option. But if you ignore the gameplay you ignore what makes it a video game. It's like asking "Why would someone watch a movie for the story instead of the book? (Ignore the audio and visuals.)" You position the question so that no one can possibly answer it and act as if you're victorious. The interactive component of the medium can do a lot more to deliver narrative than allowing the player to change the story. If you don't see that then you don't understand a video game's true potential. And no matter how many times we explain it to you, you never will. You think cut scenes are the only way to tell story. Since I'm playing through it right now, I'll point to Batman Arkham Asylum as an example that proves you wrong. The story is definitely not put on hold during gameplay. The Scarecrow segments in particular tell more story through the gameplay than through cutscenes. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You can't discuss story in games without bringing up gameplay. This is at least the case when the developer is trying to take full advantage of the medium. This, perhaps, doesn't happen as often as it should but you seem to refuse to believe it can happen at all. And yet you complain that developers don't take full advantage of the interactive component of games. Some games, such as Arkham Asylum, just don't lend themselves to a branching narrative. But they take advantage of the gameplay to enhance the story. And they do a very good job of it. 

Lulu_Lulu

There are also foreshadowing cutscenes that hint at random encounters and traps you'll run into later. Resident Evil and FF series made use of that.

In FF7 we felt what we now call "permadeath" because of Aerith. So the two are not exclusively oil and water. I think some folks just have  tunnel vision because of critical gamers fallout and derivative trends in this current gen. Art and games still have way more potential beyond the skew we constantly view them with.

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] But I love females! They jiggle :P! Lulu_Lulu

nope it doesnt bother me at all and frankly speaking i dont know why anyone would want a female protagonist as a gta character. i thought female gamers want non negative,typecast, objectified women?

i say if females want more great female characters, get in the industry and fight the system...make your own studios and make games. developers are going to make games they want to play, and if they want a male lead for THEIR game, why would anyone tell them their vision is wrong? not objectifing women shouldnt always be in games, but there are some women that are vicitims to those circumstances, lets not ignore that fact either. lets just have a balance for both males and females in both positive AND negative light