mysour

Thank you for your gracious and non-defensive response to my sharpness. You're reasonable and affable. I admire that and am less frustrated now with similar responses from the community thanks to you.

I actually played 'Heavy Rain' for the first time right before 'Detroit' came out and I thought it I might face genre fatigue, but really the opposite was true. There's something really intriguing about this kind of involved interactive storytelling that kept me engaged and immersed in the world. Interactive drama is a unique medium that seems to suffer from very specific problems across its entire ilk. Quantic Dream, Telltale, Bethesda, and Bioware have all been facing similar issues when it comes to telling stories where making choices can change outcomes. I definitely think that games like this could benefit from a full team of talented writers, but I suppose it's not a hard and fast rule. 'Detroit' appears to just have David Cage, while Telltale and Bioware games have multiple writers. Mass Effect 2 is one of my all time favorite games because it has actually gameplay as well as a compelling interactive story, and I think it's the best example of how this genre can be done right. Quantic Dream and Telltale could learn from classic Bioware, but overall I'd say 'Detroit' does fine doing its own thing. It's entertainment value was validated overall for me. I was worthy of my time and money. It wasn't flawless, and I wish it was better in a few areas.

Some of my problems with 'Detroit':

a. A lack of worldbuilding content. I wish I could explore the world with more writing via background conversations, conversations with NPCs, newspaper clippings, police files, journal entries, android memories, etc. The game has most of these things, but I think it's super minimal. The Mass Effect games are really fleshed out through these kinds of things and I could explore it all to as great an extent as I wanted, but 'Detroit' really limits this potential. Some parts of the game seemed more full than others in that respect, but others felt super empty and lacking. Having a codex or some sort of reference database would have been super appropriate, especially for Connor. Many times through the game I wish I could have talked to certain characters, and other characters more fully, and examined details more fully and talk to characters about those details. I'm sure for pacing and other reasons they decided not to do that (also, it doesn't seem to be part of their modus operandi), but I felt the world building was incomplete because of it. Game of Thrones is a great series because you can continually glean new information about the world every time you reread it. There's so much lore to it that it feels like a fully realized world. 'Detroit' squeezes by with limited info sprinkles, but I think it suffers for it.

b. Going off of my first point, during certain conversations I would only be given so much time or opportunities to ask questions and explore dialogue options. Most of the time I could explore a couple of dialogue options before the game would force the story along to the next part. It may be argued that a more realistic experience would be similar, but it was very unsatisfying for my interviews to be cut short and instead broke my immersion.

c. A bunch of times I was distraught because I found I had decided things without really knowing what my options were or that I was supposed to even make a choice. These kinds of games encourage multiple play throughs because of branching paths, and maybe it's the authentic choice-making experience, but I think these games can entertain gamer playstyles better.

d. There are multiple examples of careless writing. I'm thinking of one offender near the end of the game where I instantly thought of glaring solution to a situation and it wasn't ever presented. I know there are others, but I think these are a result of David Cage doing most of it himself. I think he could have used more people to challenge and edit his ideas.

I think 'Detroit' is a fantastic step forward for Quantic Dream, and I definitely think it's worth a play. Maybe wait until it's cheaper and give it a go. I just played 'Heavy Rain' nearly a decade after its release, and even having the reveal of that game spoiled for me, I enjoyed the ride nonetheless. I think trophies were the one thing I really struggled with that game because they were influencing how I made my decisions. I rather ignored them for 'Detroit' because of that. I'd say the writing quality is actually kind of similar, so if you don't like the writing in QD games so far, maybe you won't like this one?

I'd recommend the game, but to revisit the original points:

3. I'll admit I'm not an authority and can't empathize from personal experience, but from that position it presents itself as a very relatable and engaging situation. A lot of stories have fictional and uncommon situations but they're still relatable and engaging.

4. People have fragile egos and body images, but I don't think the path to strength is to destroy images of perfection and accept unhealthy lifestyles for the sake of satisfying the status quo. I'd say it's mostly porn, not standards of beauty, are what's ultimately responsible for objectification. Standards for beauty are prevalent in the natural world, and media does create a disconnect between appearance and personality as you suggest, but that's where we need to educate one another on the distinctions. It makes sense to me in the discussion of androids that we would create them in the likeness of our ideal beauty because that's what we wish we were not who we are. It'd be unbelievable if the game featured androids that looked like everyday folks unless that was a recognizable theme in the game (I don't think it is). It's unreasonable to expect the game to weave those threads when it's basically one guy with other goals in his writing.

6. I think perfect writing, though unobtainable, would be able to gain complete success. Perfect writing, I think, would appeal to most people with universal themes, relatable depth, undeniable truth, and unprecedented creativity (real inventiveness is super unlikely). It's conceptually possible though improbable and tangential to the conversation. Heh.

I think writing can be judged objectively, but very minimally so. Most of the time it's subjectively judged. In 'Heavy Rain' when Ethan is calling out for his sons, I wouldn't say it's bad writing so much as annoying if you spam the 'x' button and/or in the actor's inflection. Yet I've seen people attack this as "bad" writing which is puzzling to me. A father would most certainly call out his son's name in those situations. A subjective opinion doesn't make some objectively bad. Objectively bad writing would be based rather on its grammar, structure, and spelling. From there it's debatable. Someone might think the flow is bad and another someone might think the flow is good. Who is right? I don't think there is really a way to say definitively what is objectively good or bad for certain aspects of creative endeavors. It's hard to put into words, but I can agree with you in a sense. There are things that are convincingly bad...such as 'Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 5' and those instances are hard to account for in my argument. But hey, maybe it comes down to the semantics of the quantifiers. What does 'good' mean and what does 'bad' mean? I think bad and good are almost too definitive to be fully functional descriptions of impermanent things.

Anyway, you're a chill dude. I'm looking forward to a response from you.

I agree with this. To expand on the topic, I feel it's next to impossible not to see the historic parallel, but in the context of them being human-created second citizens aka "not people," keeping them in a separate part of the bus is most practical. Let the beings who actually care about comfort sit in the seats. Should your Windows laptop get its own seat because it has Cortana enabled? However, when you think of them as self-aware, the conversation changes.

I've played through the game and I'm going to go through and respond to all of your questions. I didn't come through the experience without issues, but I had an overall positive experience. 'Detroit: Become Human' is one of the few games I've played in my life that I actively wanted to return to every day and experience more of. Most other games I can wait a few days before coming back. But I think the narrow perspectives gleaned from one trailer is selling the game short.

1. The trailer shows a small part of the game. Immediately I see smooth animation, detailed models, and good lighting. I hear somber violins that swell and reflect the action and emotions in a scene. I love the technical side of this game, and it's all pretty apparent in this trailer. This game is clearly a leading contender in the arena of visual interactive storytelling. Based on that alone, I'm in.

2. As far as I can tell, David Cage is the only credited writer for this game which is crazy to me considering the extensive writing in the game. I definitely think QuanticDream should have a greater range of writers to really flesh out the stories and give it some diversity, stronger continuity, depth, and overall polish.

3. If the subject matter of domestic abuse from the trailer turns you off, then I can see how buying the game would be unappealing especially if it's painfully relatable. However, domestic abuse is not the focus of this game. That father story is corned into one chapter, a very small portion of the game. If you thought the entire game was that, then I'd understand if you didn't think this game was for you. But I personally, at no point, was under the impression that the game would be so limited in scope, even based on the trailer. My impression of the real world is that there are lots of fathers just like the one in the trailer. I wouldn't say cliche so much as real depressing stereotype. How is it unrealistic or inaccurate? I'm sure lots of kids fear for their lives within their own homes. Maybe it's not the exact scenario you're familiar with, but I don't see how the representation shown in the trailer could be so problematic.

4. Robot designs? That's problematic? Attractive androids cliche? Goodness, who would want to buy an unattractive android? There is a part of the game, early on I think, that mentions that robotic looking androids were unsettling to the public causing the designers to instead make them look and sound like attractive humans. I think many of your complaints are addressed in some fashion in the game, which you wouldn't necessarily get from the trailer. Anyway, I bet the market for homely androids would be too small to be anywhere close to lucrative. I think it's super realistic to think that were androids to be part of daily life, they would be attractive and/or sexy. I don't think it's wrong to desire perfection as long one knows it's not actually obtainable and that all people deserve love regardless of how they look. I can imagine a corporation putting out less attractive models for discount prices, but then realistically, their brand would be associated with the ugly models and that would be counterproductive marketing. I think attractive androids make sense.

In regards to android roles, you should understand that all androids are in subservient roles, not just the female shaped ones. You've assume way too much and your perspective is hampered by limited information and an irrational desire to hate the game. You've established some really strong opinions on it for some reason having not even played it.

5.If you're familiar with Quantic Dream games at all, you should know that chapters can turn out differently depending on how you play. This chapter is really early on in the game and the the father didn't get shot in my play through. The trailer is showing one possible set of outcomes, but the information revealed in the trailer is super basic and I'd say very unspoilery considering how early it is given. There's more contextual information to uncover about that scene when you play through the whole game. I'm also interested to know how you'd market the game, assuming you actually take steps to learn about the game through research or playing it, without showing story (which is at least 80% of the game).

6. It's hard to deal with this point because I think it's part of a much larger conversation that encompasses all story telling mediums. Ultimately, whether a story is good or not really depends on the individual experiencing it. I don't think individuals can validly make the judgment on a story for everybody. Some people will see Detroit: Become Human as a master class in story-telling, and others like Alex Navarro won't. Overall, personally, I think it's good overall. There are parts that I really enjoyed and parts that didn't work for me. I think you'd have a hard time explaining what good quality writing is because if you knew for certain what perfect writing was, you could have the entire world eating out of your hands. But very few people are already not buying what you're selling based on your OP alone making me think you aren't an authority on compelling writing. I'm not trying to say that I am, but I understand that whether storytelling is good or not, is not a binary universal consideration. There's no formula that will spit out: this story is BAD, or, this story is GOOD. Trying to spark controversy doesn't count. That's easy to do. Bringing people together, that's hard. I could argue that's what 'Detroit: Become Human' is trying to do, and it works at points and fails at other...for me, in the physical, emotional, and spiritual place I'm in right now. If I played it again, made the same decisions or made different ones, I could feel differently. Any number of real world factors could influence how I perceive the storytelling. Too much coffee before playing could affect my concentration and perspective and maybe I'd like it less in that situation as opposed to having a good night's rest and eating a balanced breakfast.

I just wonder, is the dialogue not realistic enough for you? Realistic dialogue is full of inconsistencies, pauses, mumbling, etc. Those things are annoying and would make this game terrible more a lot of people. I wouldn't think it would be an easy task to get all of the dialogue in a game of this size to strike the perfect balance between plausibility and functionality.

To wrap this up, I want to say that it's good to have standards, but how can you enjoy anything with unrealistic standards? Everything is deficient in some way, often many ways. You'll never be happy with anything if you don't learn to appreciate the small things. It sounds like you've judged this game based on three minutes of footage. You wouldn't want people to judge you based on some comparable measurement. Learn to be more charitable and fair in your assessments, and your capacity to have fun is unclocked. Broaden your horizons, don't narrow them. You are the one limiting yourself and your enjoyment of things.

This game works for a lot of people it seems; maybe it could work for you if you learn to open yourself up more.

I want to play this after seeing on the GOTY lists. However, I'm with you on the whole first-person horror game fear. I made it through the first Bioshock after warming up to it after the first few encounters. The splicers are really creepy and I hate things attacking me from behind. I want to play acclaimed games like Deadspace and Amnesia, but it becomes a bit much when they turn off lights and do jump scares.

Question: What's the difficulty of the game? Is it hard to run away from monsters and complete game objectives? I might be able to eventually deal with the scariness if I don't have to solve a bunch of puzzles simultaneously.

Recommendation: Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw made a series of adventure horror games that are really good and are available for free on his website. The games are in order 5 Days a Stranger, 7 Days a Skeptic (my favorite), Trilby's Notes, and 6 Days a Sacrifice. They have a great atmosphere for 2d adventure games. What I'm hoping for, which may never happen, is that they'll get remastered for consoles. That'd be great.

I like this game, but at a certain point I would just rather watch it play out than make the decisions because no matter what I do, bad things happen. That's the way of the game and that's the way of Westeros, but I don't feel like I'm making any decisions that will actually affect the the Forresters' fate. I feel like I'm merely making the decision of who dies last.

Does anybody know how the DLC will generally work? Am I going to be buying songs at $2-4 a pop? Will I be able to buy packs of songs for less? If I want the songs from Green Day Rock Band, should I just buy an old copy, tie them to my Xbox-360, and then have them in RB4?

@fish_face_mcgee: You know, I have to agree with you. I'm constantly second-guessing my choices because I don't want things to turn out terribly, but that's exactly what seems to be the course as soon as I make a decision. There doesn't seem to be support for the decisions you make.

I don't know it seemed to me like the PS4 list was a lot more attractive what with No Man's Sky, Axiom Verge, and Bloodborne. I guess maybe this year's a great year to catch up on the backlog...and take my time getting a PS4.

Have I been listening to the Bombcast for 5 years? Wow.

Last year I had tweetdeck set up to contain all the duders tweets in one stream and all other relevant game industry people's in seperate streams (developers, other lesser important press, people whose opinions I care about). I also had a few streams set up in tabs so I could switch to a better performing stream at any given notice.