vidiot's forum posts
Exactly.@Nighthawk871 said:
The Elder Scrolls games are true RPGs in that they require you to, you know...actually role play. It's an integral part of the game's identity, and if you don't enjoy it then the game probably isn't for you. We all have certain genres that we just can't seem to enjoy. I have a lot of respect for racing and fighting games, but I don't enjoy playing them.
Except true roleplaying in a single player environment like Elder Scrolls is not only boring, but actually impossible. Roleplaying is the act of playing out a role in a world that dynamically reacts to that role. That reaction requires other people. Otherwise all you get are scripted responses and has always and continues to be the ultimate weakness in any game that tries to boast choice.
It's all emulation to what actual "true" role-playing is. In the case of Skyrim the main actual design that get's the most attention, is literally sandbox/open-world, which is a design that is nowhere near a definitive description to a "true" role-playing game. It's a good emulative design, but it is not a definitive attribute.
Presentation of story (Which at the end of the day is what this blog seems to be about) is not shoe-horned into just "one-way" for an RPG. This concept is ironically, quite narrow-minded. Trying to rely on a game's stimulative/scripted elements is something that is very risky, and if done not-correctly, make the flaws in the game's core narrative more pronounced. This is a concept that is not exclusive to RPG's.
The comparison to the Witcher is something that bears repeating, especially in massive RPG definition debate threads that needlessly go on forever. There are most certainly choices to be had in The Witcher, but the game understands it is a multi-linear affair, which is what I personally find non-linear storytelling in games to be. You have either good choices, or bad choices, and both of those paths are about as linear in scope as any other narrative in a videogame.
I find that The Witcher understands this base concept to a degree (self aware of the mechanics of it's own storytelling), and that's why while Geralt must make choices throughout the narrative, he is still Geralt and not some mute blank-slate. Why "Geralt works" also has to do with general storytelling, which I would counter to this blog (sorta a counter, you touched upon this a bit) is not just because of cut-scenes but because of general storytelling. There is no technical substitute for good writing and general storytelling.
The cut-scene is simply a presentation tool, nothing more nothing less.
I like the part where the dude got sliced a bunch, because you know, you gotta make sure.
One of the major complaints regarding Bethesda's now honored tradition of having a janky game, involves the reasoning that the game is just...Well..."Too big".
I have difficulty wrapping my head around that argument. How does having a large intricate game-world, make dragons fly backwards?
I remember reading this post-mortem quick interview a long time ago for Fallout 3, in-fact I sill have the quote:
It seems more reasonable, that when it comes to the technicalities, Bethesda simply has trouble. Some of the earliest Fallout 3 problems involved NPC's walking off of high points and falling to their deaths. (<-Reasons for ladders :P)"One day, we tried to figure out why we wanted ladders so bad because we don't really need them. It just felt like we're game development pussies because we can't do ladders." -Todd Howard
While I remember bugs and issues in other open-world games (Primarily Rockstar developed) I can't recall anything coming close to some of the sheer insanity I have seen from Bethesda offerings. There's a good point to be made that even after all the testing that was done on this title, the PS3 version has issues that it currently faces. How does that work?
In Bethesda's defense though, they have developed and released titles in far faster succession than other open-world developers.
Perhaps the argument is not just the technicalities to how large these game-worlds are, but the reasonable time-schedules they place on themselves. Rockstar games are being developed by multiple different studios, the guys at Bethesda went from Oblivion, to Fallout 3, to now finally Skyrim. This would make more sense, not only are they developing a large game-world, but for one studio they are also releasing games at a higher-rate.
There is validity on getting upset at something that messes up a really well-made game, as someone who struggled just trying to get Fallout 3 to run on my PC, I understand where TC initial post is coming from. That being said, out of the last several releases from Bethesda: Skyrim seems pretty stable by comparison. There's also the fact that it does work on other platforms, and that things will probably be patched...and patched...and patched...in the future.
That's kinda how this generation operates. :/
Apparently there's a total of 20 of us (myself included) that have it. That's 20 out of a total of 4,881... 0.4%.
So...Yeah... There's that.
That being said: Look how much a few days can dramatically change a situation. Xenoblade has been announced for NA release today, and I'm excited for other people to enjoy this game.
Understandable. People seem to forget that Xenoblade was one of three games part of the Operation: Rainfall movement. The Last Story is the next game to get a European release only.Other than Skyward Sword and apparently Xenoblade, can you name many other high quality major releases this year for that console? I'm having trouble.
BTW: I love the rest of your reply. Especially the part where the lack of a vacuum mentality, can be also be a positive outcome.
Nothing really else to add on-to that, except for a lot of head nodding in agreement. I'm curious about the underlying mechanics of internet revisionism, yet at the same time a bit lost on how to apply that into a blog. It seems like such a thought-provoking concept, there's a part of me that has trouble trying nail-down specifics on how it would work, if there is a social formula that can be applied to it.
The problem is, again, that I don't think there is an absolute answer that can be applied in general. Which is fine, but that doesn't stop me from trying! :P

Oh, it's been a while. Thought I'd just dump out some thoughts this Thanksgiving seeing how I have a little time.
Have you ever hated yourself for liking something/someone, because of the context surrounding said object of your affection?
You know: The thing that makes you go eat fast-food late at night to make the conflicted feelings go away, and then you realize that it's a futile concept, so then you drive to a pub only to find they're not open, so then you hit the grocery store and get some beer and you come home late, crash on the couch because you're too lost in thought to focus on one specific thing about your situation and you wish someone could spell it out for you, but you don't want to diminish what you might have and you gave yourself an oath that you would never be in a situation that even might have a passing resemblance to any previous situation that messed you up mentally and you want to do the right thing and not wish what happened to you happen to someone else?
C'mon, you know, that thing.
I'm talking about games, of course.
Usually when I've written about context in the past, it's been associated to a game's narrative structure. In this case I want to talk about something mostly unrelated to the game itself, context surrounding a game.
Following the Link
I'm enjoying Skyward Sword.
The issue with such devotion is the lack hindsight regarding certain concepts such as time, or social context. To apply the same expectations to games from 1998, is a bit lacking, unless the game isn't capable of meeting bare-bones standards that were laid down previously.
Unless were talking about The Bible. Everything in that book is relevant today, and should be taken literally. *
I'm not diminishing what a great game Ocarina of Time is, I just find that we appreciate an older game more after we untie it from it's fanboy pedestal, and apply it to games today. It's one thing to say in conversation:
Versus:"OMG OCARINA OF TIME IS THE BEST GAME EVER!" (<-You deserved to be slapped if you use internet acronyms out-loud in real life.)
"Ocarina of Time was instrumental in laying down a foundation of game design in both exploration and combat, that has permeated with many games years after it's release and it's effect can be still felt today."
Ya'know, like the Bible. **
...
...
...Moving on...

Paramount to those new changes is it's control scheme, something I have enjoyed immensely. It's gotten a lot of traction online that the control scheme is fantastic, and while it doesn't work 100% of the time it works when it's pretty impressive. It's shinning example that motion controls have a place among what's considered "the main-stream."
Breaking the Link
At the same time, I can't stand Skyward Sword and my reasoning illustrates the subject of this blog: Trying to judge a game based on it's own merits, versus the, lack of a better term: Bullshit, the game has the "privilege" of having to deal with.The context surrounding Skyward Sword is terrible. Does anyone care that Skyward Sword, shows that motion controls can be done correctly? More importantly: Are you using your Wii? Is it on? When was the last time you played anything on it? Or does it sit in a closet between the small pile of miscellaneous old consoles you've neglected.
Sure, the Wii-Motion Plus wasn't around at the systems launch, but that's not the point. Why now? Why at such a all time-low?
To be fair, and I can't repeat this enough: It's not Skyward Sword's fault. But I can't stop myself from holding back, and not appreciating the game to what I feel would be it's fullest. I feel sorry for it, and it seems every aspect of this game has to go through some cross-filter that has nothing to do with Skyward Sword. The art style looks like a water color painting, but seems like a technical concession to the hardware, thus causing an issue from time to time when these limitations rear their ugly heads.
Is Skyward Sword to blame for this?
Trying to break context surrounding a game, to the actual game itself is difficult for me.
A better eample: What's the first thing you think of when you think of L.A. Noire? Is it the actual game, or the torrent of absurdity that was unleashed onto the internet regarding the lunacy of how that game was made?
Mending the Link
Perhaps the best example of me personally dealing with this concept, was that old review I did for Yakuza 3. I normally don't review games, probably for the reason that review illustrates. I was inspired to write about Yakuza 3, primarily because (at the time) the sheer absurdity that surrounded the franchise and it's release out-side of Japan.
For me my feelings back to Skyward Sword is perhaps more muddled. You see, I've played Xenoblade this year: One of the best JRPG's this generation. While my appreciation for Skyward Sword is high, my unwavering appreciation for Xenoblade is still high as ever. One has to ask themselves why Skyward Sword get's the ability to be released in North America, but the equally excellent Xenoblade has to hide in Europe. "Franchise appeal" should be the first response one should give, but in terms of general quality? It's infuriating that it feels like Skyward Sword is being made into a final swan-song, versus actually being one.
So what's to be taken from all this?
I'm not 100% sure to be quite honest, but I do have the threads to something akin to a stable conclusion. At first I thought it was a new form of my cynicism had finally awakened. But perhaps this is a reminder regarding how we appreciate games, that we we should appreciate them for what they are. A simple reminder that perhaps needs to be repeated. It's a difficult proposition that's not absolute to every situation, but perhaps we should better ourselves this holiday season to remind ourselves of this very basic concept.
That it helps when we reflect on the game years later, and give a higher appreciation for it.
That it helps bring the negative appendages and baggage attached to the game, out to the forefront of your opinion, and we enjoy the game more.
That a similar way of thinking can work both ways, and expand upon a games fundamental faults.
"The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword is a brilliant game, and it's even more amazing for having to deal with the rocky foundation surrounding the game." Doesn't that sound nice? Go give it a check when you have the chance.
Hope everyone has an excellent holiday season.
Happy I was able to toss out a blog during my time off.
I MISS YOU GUYZ!
*These statements might be sarcastic, unfunny, and not serious*
There's a multitude of reasons, so I guess we will start with the basics.
The project was headed by Sakaguchi from his MistWalker studio and it is regarded by many to be a spiritual successor to Final Fantasy X, if not the Final Fantasy series in general.
The reasoning for the higher than average reviews is due to the fact that it's essentially a very traditional JRPG. In regards to mechanics, design and even story it plays it quite safe. The game also has difficulty with loading times, installing the game cuts down on these problems.
That being said, everything about the game evokes a strong appreciation to the first PlayStation's era. If you're down with that: You're going to really enjoy it.

Log in to comment