No, no, that isn't true at all. If you get a bad ending, it just makes you want to try harder. If James drives his car into a fucking lake in SH2 you play it again and try to get Maria or Leaves and then even Rebirth.
You two forget that video games are an interactive media, which means they should be completely customizable. You wanna kill your father? Go ahead. Don't want to? Spare the bastard. You wanna fuck someone? Get it on. Want to be a loner? Hey, your call.
Ohohohoho. Hold up a second buddy. Though I do see what you're saying and I'm an advocate for merging the two types of story-telling, you are mistaking interactivity for open-world/open-endedness. Interactivity works on many levels and not necessarily on the level of realism, as you are suggesting. What we have right now are two niche types of storytelling games: the JRPG, which focuses on central plot and the WRPG, which focuses on a saturation of choices. My idea was to create a best-of-both-worlds situation, and we are discussing how that can be achieved.
Anyway, your interpretation of "interactivity" is very narrow considering all games are essentially interactive, even Street Fighter. But Street Fighter is, by no means, "realistic". You can't kill people you want to kill, or choose NOT to participate in the tourney. But it is interactive on a level that works with that specific type of game. The interactivity lies in the combat and is actually very in-depth in that aspect. So to say "interactivity" is merely doing what you want would destroy all concepts of genre and purpose. If I could go around doing whatever I wanted in Street Fighter, it wouldn't be a fighting game. Hell, would it even be a game? It would be a life sim.
And yes, Fenn, that has been my point all along. With an over-saturation of choices, there is no possible way to make all of the choices meaningful. In fact, most of the choices will probably be inconsequential or meaningless. That is why a strong central plot should exist to establish PURPOSE in the game.
Last edited by CypressDahlia; 11-04-2011 at 04:40 PM.
Yep. There is still one way you're supposed to do things.
First off, Cypress, you can't liken this to Street Fighter. This is a story thread, not a brawler thread. Secondly, what the hell do you mean "one way you're supposed to do things"? You can do anything however you want, you arbitrary dictator.
Yes, yes I can. You made a general statement that games are "about interactivity" and hence should be open-world/ended. I said your definition of interactivity is flawed in the sense that games can be interactive and not necessarily open-ended. In fact, if all games went by your definition of "interactivity", all games would be Minecraft. Even then, in Minecraft there are things you're "supposed" to do. Certain actions are considered "playing the game" and others are not. That's because, even in a game like Minecraft, you are encouraged by the game mechanics to do specific things.
If I sat around all day in Minecraft jumping on top of blocks, then jumping off, then jumping on again, am I "playing it right"?
When did I ever say that games should be open-world? I never said that, fiend. Not once did I. First, games with stories should be open-ended, you fool. Street Fighter and Minecraft do not count, and Minecraft, for all it matters, is the ultimate open-world open-end game. Second, and most important, you're twisting my words around, you. Interactive media should be open (not open world) to the point where the player is satisfied.