Sure thing. What I mean by it looking ridiculous is largely to do with the impatience of a lot of players these days. There is no reason that the main character would be running around, jumping or smashing shit up while Plot Is Happening, but some people just can't resist doing that. It detracts from the gravitas of the situation. Sure, it's funny. But you don't always want your games to be funny, and developers sometimes don't want the stories they're telling to have even the slightest opportunity to be misrepresented as "silly". It's also the reason why narrative-based co-op games are pretty flawed, because when you're playing with a buddy you usually want to talk shit with them and dick around. Again, not the best environment for SRS PLOTZ.
This is one of the things that bugged me about Fable II in particular -- someone can be having SRS CONVERSATION with you while you're Cossack dancing in front of them. A lot of Fable is about the silliness, but there is a plot there, and I can't help thinking that the plot of Fable II would have carried more weight if it were a more "directed" experience. That's not to say it should ditch the relative freedom that Fable's gameplay typically offers. But I believe there is a time and a place to wrest control away from the player, however temporarily.
"
Personally, I disagree, though opinions are mixed on this issue for many people.
For me, cutscenes are a reward. They offer you the opportunity to sit back, relax and enjoy the fruits of your labours -- the difficulty you may have had getting through a level, or a particularly tough battle, or whatever. I like having opportunities to let the story unfold. And in certain types of game, it makes no sense to keep the player in control as it would look ridiculous. This is also the reason that a lot of cutscenes use moves that aren't possible in normal gameplay -- animations optimised for gameplay and motion-captured animations optimised for cutscenes are very different beasts. Yes, the difference is jarring sometimes, but it's there for a reason.
You note Half-Life as an example of keeping the player in control; yes, kind of, but in fact, all Half-Life does is lock you in a room while Plot Is Happening and then let you proceed. It's still a cutscene, and Gordon Freeman's muteness means that he's not actually interacting with anything. All you're doing is controlling the camera's position.
Fable II and III also have scenes where you can continue to control your character. I find this tremendously distracting -- it makes it harder to concentrate on what the person is saying. Jumping to a cutscene for exposition or explanation may take the player out of control for a moment, but it allows the developers to direct the scene in the way they want, and the player to concentrate on the information that is important.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Heavy Rain -- a game that is one long cutscene/quick-time event. That wasn't to everyone's taste, but offered a good balance between interactivity and cinematic direction. It wasn't perfect, but it showed that having an almost completely-directed experience can still offer people the opportunity to make significant, game-changing choices throughout.
"
Gonna have to disagree with the whole internet on the subject of Castlevania. I ploughed upwards of 15 hours into it in single player and, while it is fun in multiplayer, I maintain that it is also fun in single player for a certain sort of person. That is to say, weird people like me.
For me, Castlevania HD provides an experience akin to something like Diablo or World of Warcraft's instanced dungeons. You may know the structure, but each time you play you'll get new loot and have the opportunity to better your own skills. I've found it a lot of fun trying to speed-run each level, or beat each level with the highest possible score.
A lot of people also claim it's impossible in single player. It's not. It's just very challenging, particularly the second boss. But it's not impossible. And I don't consider myself to be a particularly abnormally good player of most games. Apparently I am the super-Castlevania player, though!
You're right in your general points in the article, though, Maleficent. I do believe that "multiplayer" is seen as some sort of magic panacea that causes a game to be awesome despite it actually being a festering turd. It's not. I'd much rather a game focused on whatever it was trying to be good at.
We actually discussed this a little on a recent podcast (which I am resisting plugging) - in the future, what if currently-$60 games were split into smaller, individually-downloadable chunks? Players would be able to choose their experience. If someone doesn't give a toss about the story of Call of Duty 35, they don't buy the single player pack, and get just the multiplayer pack for, say, $20-30. Similarly, this would make 60+ hour epics like Dragon Age more palatable to those of us who are becoming "grown ups" and have less time than we'd like available.
It's episodic gaming again, I know. But I think someone out there has the potential to get it right. And I think with the rise of popular, high-quality $15 games like DeathSpank and Lara Croft and the Goolagoolagoool, we're in a good place for someone to try it out.
"
I agree that online co-op would be nice, but I don't think it's a reason to deliberately deprive yourself of an excellent game, which is what Scott Pilgrim is.
I actually prefer local co-op as an experience to online co-op. I know it's not always as practical to get people together in the same room. But there's something far more rewarding about sitting down with a buddy in the same room and playing something together. With a retro-styled title like Scott Pilgrim, it creates a more authentic experience. Sure, online co-op would be great. But I'm not shedding any tears over its lack of inclusion—online play is challenging to get right and Scott Pilgrim already had a ton of cool stuff cut out of it due to lack of development time. I'd much rather have the game we got with no online play than a gimped version with other features cut because they needed to focus on optimising network code.
I know in an ideal world they'd have had a bigger team and more time to work on it. But we don't live in an ideal world.
"
Mike, you're a legend among men.
"
"Let me heal you with Magic!"
"Yes please."
That was awful, even for a JRPG.
It's a shame, cause there are some genuinely good examples, even in JRPGs. I remember the Lunar games on the PS1 were both pretty good. And, err... I'm struggling to think of more right now.
"
Mike. I love you.
I also managed to bastardize that whole speech for the intro to a news story the other day. Be very proud of me.
"
Thanks. You've just removed any guilt I may have at not playing Starcraft 2.
"
Bayonetta's story was utter nonsense but it was handled in such a cartoonish, over-the-top way that the fact it didn't really make sense ceased to matter; it was all about the spectacle. For some games I think that's okay. Look at the number of films that do well that are pure eye-candy. I'd argue that it's perhaps more acceptable for a game to be nonsense in the story department—but only if the gameplay is up to scratch. Bayonetta delivered on that front, so the fact that it was nonsense was less important.
I think we are starting to see more and more in the way of good stories. The examples you cite are all great ones. I'd like to draw particular attention to Dragon Age for having a relatively simplistic story, but one of the richest settings I've ever seen. It's one of the only RPGs I've ever played where I actually read every book and codex entry. They're all optional, but knowledge of each gives the player a greater understanding of the game world and the characters. Little references that characters make suddenly make sense. It's extremely well handled.
Can't beat a bit of Uncharted, though.
"
Indie (or downloadable, at least) games are the place to go to still find great character design. Check out Aquaria, for example. Or Blind Girl on Xbox Indie Games. Braid. Limbo. I could go on but that would demand doing research beyond what's in my head right now. :)
I agree, though. As graphics get more realistic, characters become more generic because they're closer to what we see every day. Nathan Drake at least has the iconic half-tuck to identify him, but that's not the same as having bright green floppy hair and blue robes. :)
"
Can't believe you missed two of the best Atari songs ever:
"We know deep inside of every man
There's a little boy, an Atari fan,
And without any doubt,
That boy will break out!
And he plays the games of Atari,
Have you played Atari today?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5PA1ppJDgY — warning, features terrifying artwork
And to the same melody:
"Berzerk inside an electric maze,
Where robots shoot, with electric rays,
(Take that, turkey!)
Oh look out, don't get trapped,
Or you might get zapped!
Berzerk is here from Atari,
Have you played Atari today?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0kWqjDUu7o — warning, features terrifying grandmother
"
Yes! I agree with this. When your cutscene reaches double-digit minutes territory, that's too long.
"