Mario, Storylines and other random crap

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

- Okay. So we got Chip N' Dale Rescue Rangers 1 & 2.

And, I mean.. I played a LOT of NES games. Of course, I was 7 - 9 years old at the time, so you can't expect me to remember all of them. But considering how huge NES's library was, I'm sure it had its share of co-op platformers.
Still, yes, Chip N Dale 2 was one of my favorites, and it was co-op. Though my #1 favorite platformer on NES would have to be "Rockin' Kats" or as the Japanese version that I owned was called, "NYankies", which is a pun because the game happens in New York, and because in Japan, the word they have for a cat's cry isn't "Meow" it's "Nyan". It's an awesome game.

Thee Stranger

- I sure as hell wouldn't pay $60 for it, either. The top price a Wii game sells for here in the States is $50. And I got my copy for $40. And it's going for $35 right now on amazon.com

Well, I was at EB games the other day, and they had it for $60.

Thee Stranger

- Yes... and potential to hinder a game on another platform which doesn't feature the motion controls it was designed for.

Hey, man, graphics aside, I'd say the PS2 version of Shattered Memories is better than the Wii version because not only does it not have motion controls (which, two of my friends confirmed is troublesome when you're trying to shake off an enemy, and accidentally get turned around), but also, since there's no remote, there's no cursor. That's one thing that bothers the hell out of me is that they think you need a cursor on the screen, which only adds more unneeded HUD elements. Zelda didn't need one, RE4 didn't need one, and Silent Hill doesn't need one. I remember playing RE4 on the Wii, before I even owned a Wii. And I knew there was gonna be a cursor in it, but I thought it was for AIMING. So, when I let go of the aim button and start running around, I'm thinking, "Why is the cursor still on the screen? You mean it's on the screen ALL the time!?" It bugged the hell out of me.

Thee Stranger

- Okay. So Rare became Microsoft's b***h. As opposed to the days when they were Nintendo's b***h and golden. What does it matter? It doesn't change anything.

Yeah, but Nintendo didn't OWN them. They didn't HAVE to be Nintendo's b***h, they CHOSE to be. Then Microsoft bought them out. Either way, point is, they kinda suck now.

Thee Stranger

- Yeah, Naughty Dog likes the hybrids. Like I said, I will give it a try soon. But I doubt it's gonna kill Mario for me.

Insomniac made Ratchet, actually. But alright. I'm not saying you're gonna like it better than Mario (though I do), but I don't think I've met anyone who played a Ratchet game and didn't like it. And honestly, the newest one is the best one since #3.

Thee Stranger

- Nintendo is teh kiddie! And maybe that all has to do with the fact that Sony and Microsoft ARE electronics companies. Whereas Nintendo has pretty much always been a game company. And games are pretty much toys, whether that makes you feel insecure or "un-adult" or not. Nintendo isn't Sony and Microsoft, and their approach to the gaming industry is never going to be that of Sony or Microsoft's. They're a very anti-social corporation. They're not in the war to be your all-in-one entertainment center like Sony or Microsoft. They are a creative company, interested in making software for family entertainment and their fans. And they're not going to waste anymore of their time trying to make adult-oriented software to appeal to the Sony/Microsoft crowd (who won't buy their adult games anyway), especially when it's losing them a lot of money and market share, and distracting them from making the kind of software that made them so successful to begin with.

I'm not gonna dispute how Nintendo runs things with you. But to call games "toys" is exactly the kind of mentality that still ties gaming to the stigma of being "Nerdy" or whatever. At their heart, as far as sheer content goes, video games have reached, and I would say in some cases, even surpassed all the other examples of home entertainment such as movies, TV, etc. Games should be considered a part of every family's home entertainment just like DVD players and DVDs, and not just something that keeps the kids occupied. And sure, you can say that the Wii has promoted that some, with old people owning Wiis now, because of Wii fit and whatnot. But you're still not gonna see those old people play Mario or Zelda or whatever. Why? Because THOSE are the toys and are not to be taken seriously.
Honestly, I'm just sick of that mentality. Games are media, just like movies, books, music etc.

Thee Stranger

But they are interested in providing a range of content for their consoles, M-rated and otherwise. And I don't know if something like No More Heroes alone would sell me a Wii, but maybe to someone like Chase, it would. But No More Heroes was a good game on the Wii. So was MadWorld. So was Cursed Mountain.

I have no doubt they were. But saying, "they are interested in providing a range of content for their consoles, M-Rated and otherwise" is a statement that is true (and SHOULD be true) for all the consoles. To say that Nintendo only caters to kids is like saying that Xbox360 only caters to adults. Is it true? No. But is that the general idea that the public has. And it is gonna bring more kid-oriented games to the Wii, and more adult-oriented games to the 360 or the PS3. And I honestly don't believe there's ever gonna be true balance to any console in that respect. I could be wrong but I can't think of any console since the days of PS1, where the ratio of adult games and kid games was roughly the same.
The PS2 maybe, but even then, most QUALITY games were T-M rated.

Thee Stranger

- No, creating hype is fine. But when you DO create a huge amount of hype for your console, try to make enough of them available to the legions of hungry consumers you created. That way, store owners won't be forced to set-up a lottery systems to raffle off the very few they have, and fights and riots and shootings won't be breaking out in the middle of the stores. I would ask that you at least have some respect for the SECURITY of your paying costumers and retailers. But I guess that's just too much to ask Sony, and God forbid I critisize them for it. Say what you want about the Wii, but like I said, it was unexpected, and I didn't hear anything in regards to raffles and riots and shootings, and didn't see any scenes like this:

Well, I dunno. I've only been told that Nintendo deprived its customers on purpose, of games at least. And when I was told this, it wasn't like a big deal. It was like, "That's just their marketing strategy. No big deal."

Thee Stranger

- I would.

Well, I guess I'm just more apathetic. I mean, I also hear some freaky stories about Black Fridays in the US, where people getting stomped on and carried away to the hospital. And yes, that's ******** sick. But I'm not gonna say that the retailers should hold any responsibility for actually having Black Friday. People should just calm the ******** down and stop being such greedy bastards. That's on the customer, not on the seller.

Thee Stranger

- Yes, they are companies. Yes, they are in this to make money first and foremost. That doesn't mean I'm just going to accept every shitty thing they do just because they're a company. And yes, I do expect these companies to have some integrity. I do expect them to care about their customers, as I support all of these companies by buying their s**t.

Well, I'm sure Sony didn't say, "Hey, if people will get hurt and/or killed, it could be considered publicity. Let's instigate it."
And I'm not saying that Sony's done everything right. I just don't think they should be held responsible for the casualties.

Thee Stranger

- Yes, I know it's vice-versa for you. And regarding RE, yes, the controls and story weren't right for RE. But neither was the atmosphere, pacing or anything. I felt like I was in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre setting, not Resident Evil one. Gameplay was not survival horror, but admittedly, I could have lived with the switch had EVERYTHING else not changed too. Yes, the story is a huge part of it. But look at that, I still played RE5 when it came out. And I didn't hate it either.

Well, see? The storyline alone was enough for me to say, "To hell with this series. RE4 is a piece of crap game, and so is every RE that came after it." And that's how I feel. Like, I sucked it up, I said, "Well, this sucks, but whatever, the next one will be better." But with Umbrella Chronicles, and RE5 on the horizon, I saw that the storyline was NOT going to fix itself. And that was reason enough for me to eject myself from the series.

Thee Stranger

And I hate to keep going on with this debate, but the big difference I see in terms of cartoons VS interactive cartoons or movies VS interactive movies is that, for the most part, with very few notable exceptions, a videogame has to be constructed around the action and objectives. Whereas a movie or cartoon doesn't always have to be centered around action. It could just be drama or comedy, with little to no action at all. You can't really do that with a videogame. Or else it's not going to be much of a game; it's going to be more of a movie.

Still, imagine a game like Indigo Prophecy, if it had no action at all... In IP's case, I'd say it would be better. Because putting all that action into it, they eventually turned it into The Matrix. But they could have just as easily kept it a crime drama and it would've still been awesome. But even still, HALF of it was conversation. Conversation that you steer. And that was the fun in it. Sure, it's a niche genre, but I think it deserves to be a lot more. And either way, it proves that non-action oriented gaming can be done, and can be thoroughly entertaining.

Thee Stranger

And as I've already said, the majority of storyline, dialogue, character development, etc. in videogames is told through the movie clips.

But those movie clips are still a part of the overall experience. I don't look at a game like, "Start Menu, Cutscene, Gameplay, Cutscene," etc. I look at it as a whole.

Thee Stranger

And I do believe that videogames can tell stories in certain ways in which movies can't. BUT, a videogame is a game. It's about playing the game. And if a game has great gameplay, then not having a complex storyline isn't going to make it any less of a viable game in my book.

But look at Metal Gear Solid. Yes, it's a game, and gameplay is the most important part, etc. etc. etc.
But just think about MGS1 as a whole... Would it still be as great of an experience if it wasn't for the storyline?
Quite frankly, I think the core gameplay mechanics of MGS1 weren't that great. They were good, but it wasn't thoroughly fun like MGS2 or 3. But it's that storyline and voice overs that made it so much more than just another action shooter.
MGS1 is considered a better game than MGS2, in spite of MGS2 having clearly superior gameplay.

Thee Stranger

Obviously you do not feel the same. But we aren't the same person, and we aren't the same type of gamer. So there's no point trying to argue any further on this particular issue. You've made your points; I've made mine. We don't see eye-to-eye.

Yeah, but the whole reason why this topic was even brought up is because you told me to stop comparing movies to games, or something of the sort, I believe. And I don't see why. As far as a storytelling medium goes, they're totally comparable.

And yes, a game has gameplay, but even gameplay tells a story.
Let's say you have a movie like The Terminator, and The Terminator steals a car and chases after Reese and Sarah, and they exchange gunfire, and eventually, they give him the slip. That's a significant part of the storyline.
In a game, it would be played out, probably, rather than just watched. But they can still be talked about the same way. There's still a journey there.
So I can easily describe a game, and then describe a movie and say which one is better. Just based on the overall journey of the protagonist.
And yes, you can't do that with every movie, and like you said, a comedy could have no action in it whatsoever... Now, I believe that a game can too. The only problem is that nobody has taken the effort to do it right, or nobody that got noticed at least.
But look at Phoenix Wright, how much action is in that? Or Harvey Birdman, which if I understand correctly, is pretty much Phoenix Wright with different characters. It's a great example of a game that's pretty much completely about conversation and observation, rather than "action."  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

Well, I can't claim to have played through the entire SNES library either, but I don't remember any co-op platformers. Chip N' Dale is the only one I know of now, and it probably wasn't the only one. But I seriously doubt there was very many. Either way, I'm not gonna bother to look too deep into it. If you want to, and want to shove a huge list of co-op NES platformers in my face, I'll retract my statement. But I seriously don't believe you could produce that list even if you looked. And you say Rocket Kats is an awesome game. Not that it was an awesome game, but is. And say they made a new oldschool platorming Rockin' Kats, with updated graphics and some modern day game design philosophy, with lots of content and 4-player co-op. You wouldn't be interested in it? Don't answer that, I know what you're gonna say. I just don't see how being an oldschool side-scrolling platformer would make Rockin' Kats any less of an awesome game, even in this day and age. I never played Rockin Kats myself, but I was particularly fond of Bonk on Turbografx 16. And they're making a new oldschool side-scrolling Bonk platformer for the PS3. And you can bet your a** I'm excited for that. And you can bet your a** I would pay upwards of $40 for it, too. Unless I hear it really sucks or something. And I couldn't even tell you what the ******** Bonk's storyline was. It doesn't end with Mario.

Rockin' Kats actually had some pretty cool characters in it though. The storyline was fairly simplistic, but it was still more intriguing than "Your princess is in another castle."
But here's the thing, if they did remake it I would imagine either one of two scenarios. They would either upgrade the storyline, add voice overs and everything OR, they'd make it a $15 downloadable. But if they remade it and simply expanded on just the gameplay itself, added co-op and crap like that, there's no way I'd pay $50 for it.

Thee Stranger

I would consider videogames media. But I would also consider them toys. And when I say toys, I don't mean that in a derogatory manner. I would consider them toys in the same way I would consider a board game a toy. And yes, board games do have storylines too. And no, this isn't just limited to Clue, or Monopoly, or Life, or Mouse Trap. Try some of the Games Workshop s**t, like Space Hulk. The storyline for those games are pretty involved, and each scenario in Space Hulk has a storyline to it. Just look at the manual book for that game. They got well-written, fleshed out characters that you end up taking the role as in these scenarios. Well, you could tell me that that's just the manual/book part and not part of the boardgame, and I would agree with you. Just as I say the movie sections of videogames are the movie part. But if we're going to take it all in as one, in that case, board games are interactive books. Same thing with roleplaying games like D&D. Yes, they have very involved storylines to participate in, with characters that you create and flesh-out, but they are still games with rules and dice, etc. that you play. PLAY. What do you do with a toy? Play with it. Is that bad? No. It's fun.

I dunno, man. I look at things like... Even things like Mad Gab or Cranium, and I don't see toys. To me "Games" and "Toys" have two completely different meanings.
Here's the thing about games, games have rules, first and foremost. The thing about toys is, when I was a kid, toys had no rules, I played out my own scenarios with my action figures, I made up what I wanted to and in the end, whoever I wanted to would be the good/bad guy, and whoever I wanted to would win. The whole idea of playing with toys to me is that I make all the rules. And yes, it was a beautiful part of my childhood, which I have outgrown.
The idea of games is that I follow a list of preset rules which make the experince not only fun, but challenging as well.
That's just how I see it. So yeah, whenever someone says some s**t like, "What's this movie on TV? Oh, it's not a movie, it's just a toy," it pisses me the hell off.

Thee Stranger

And in regards to the rest of your issue, I found this article on the subject pretty insightful.

#2 is just ridiculous. People like that should have games revoked from them period.
And yeah, stuff like that is clearly not helping, but even if we didn't have retarded issues like that, the people outside the gaming community still wouldn't meet us halfway? Most of them are so sheltered, that half the issues mentioned in the article they're not even aware of. They just don't bother paying attention.
I mean, you got your Metal Gears, Silent Hills, and other truly deep gaming experiences with mature storylines, and they hear it and it's like, "What's this? It sounds smart and intrig-.. oh wait it's just a toy, nevermind."

Thee Stranger

Couldn't tell ya, because I never played Indigo Prophecy. I did play the demo of Heavy Rain, though. And from what I played it was like one huge QTE game for the most part. I didn't find anything wrong with that or anything, the demo just wasn't very exciting. It seemed like it could be pretty cool, though. It was the reviews I read that prevented me from buying that game at launch. Nothing to do with their criticisims of the gameplay, mind you. It was more of what I heard about its story, and how it doesn't actually do what the game advertised it was going to do in many areas. And for an interactive movie game such as Heavy Rain, I'm not gonna plunk $60 down for something with so-so gameplay and a storyline that's going to feel like a cheap sellout and piss me off. MGS can get away with that, because it's got awesome gameplay. Heavy Rain is something in which its storyline really needs to carry it. I'm going to get it. But I'm waiting a while.

Well, it's amazing. ******** what the reviews say.

Thee Stranger

Well. Guess you got me there. But the original MGS had good gameplay for its time, and I had a lot of fun with the gameplay. Hasn't aged well in comparison to its sequels, but overall, I was much more satisfied with the original MGS than its sequel at the time of my first playthrough. Thanks to its storyline. However, I played MGS2 just as much, thanks to its gameplay. Its gameplay carried it. Certainly not its story. Yes, the storyline of the original MGS was very important to the overall experience. But that doesn't apply to all videogames.

Well, it sure as hell applied to Resident Evil. I mean, when I first picked it up, I was just as disoriented with the tank controls as any noob who bitches about it. But the storyline intrigued me so much that I forced myself to learn the controls, which probably took like an hour. And hour of me stumbling about like an idiot. But it was worth it.
And games like RE3 are barely 3-6 hours long. But I beat it 30 times not for its amazing replay value, but because I wanted to experience the story again.

Thee Stranger

Well, I didn't tell you to stop. But I did say that videogames were videogames and that movies were movies, and Mario isn't any less of a game because it doesn't have a complex storyline to it. And I stand by that statement. As far as a storytelling medium comparable to movies... I would agree. In the case of the cutscenes. Not the actual game part of it. Which, yeah, is kind of the point? Not just watching it. You watch movies.

Hey, if the right person is playing a game (someone who doesn't suck at it) it can be fun to watch someone play a game too. When my friend brought his GameCube to my place and I played Remake for the first time, he said, "I don't usually like watching people play, but you made the experience actually enjoyable."
And hell, Heavy Rain is the perfect example of it. It is a story, and yes, it is intense to play, but because it doesn't have long periods of walking around and shooting stuff, or searching, it makes it very easy to watch. Sure eventually you're gonna want to play it, but that's not the point. The point is that either way you experience the storyline, and either way it can be very intriguing.
I wouldn't say games are games and movies are movies. Yes, games are games, but I'd even go as far as to say that games are movies+. In my eyes, a great game has pretty much everything that a movie has, PLUS the gameplay which distinguishes it as a game.

Thee Stranger

Yeah, in context. But the gameplay by itself isn't a comparable storytelling medium to movies. You don't get all your exposition, character development, etc. from the gameplay part. You get that stuff from the movie part.

But even then, the medium is evolving to such levels that even the "Movie" parts are becoming interactive. Metal Gear, God of War, even RE4 are perfect examples of that. You no longer sit there watching, you have to be ready to push something during the movie.
Or, look at classic RE games. Half the exposition came from reading notes. Which can pretty much be classified as "books" within the games. That's what makes games so awesome, yes they DO encompas elements of movies, but they also encompas elements of every other medium out there. And it's things like that that make the game complete.
It's like... Okay, so let's say the storyline is portrayed through a noninteractive cinematic. But if that storyline is intriguing enough, it can supplement the gameplay a lot. It can make the experience so much more enjoyable. You're no longer blindly getting through obstacle after obstacle... The cinematics are essentially rewards for your hard work.

Thee Stranger

And if The Terminator were a game, and you played as Reese or something, you'd have, what, like, two action sequences facing off against The Terminator to play through? And two more running from him in your car. I don't think most gamers would be satisfied with the amount of gameplay there, to tell you the truth. And yeah, I won't argue that they both have a journey, and that they're both storytelling mediums and all, but again, the only reason videogames are comparable to movies at all is the movie aspects to them, not the actual game part.

Not necessarily though. Look at games like Earthworm Jim, it doesn't really have any dialogue, or cutscenes. But it still tells an interesting, incredibly weird, story. You can deduct what's going on just from the moving pictures.
And again, games like Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain, the whole point of the gameplay IS the story. And it's even true for games like Mass Effect, and Fallout 3, where the dialogue falls into the category of gameplay itself.
And yeah, maybe one wonderful day, every single video game will give you the options for dialogue. Maybe we'll be playing Uncharted 5, and we'll get to choose WHICH sarcastic remark Nate is gonna say to the bad guy. And every single choice we make will have actual consequences to what happens next. We might not be there just yet, but more and more games are going in that direction, and the cases which I mentioned above are already there.

Thee Stranger

Well, like I said, there's a few notable exceptions. But Phoenix Wright is still a game. It's like an oldschool PC adventure game, with puzzles to solve and whatnot. Yeah, there's still a story there. But I wouldn't compare it to a novel or anything.

Maybe not to a novel, but you can at least compare it to a comic book. Except one where YOU make the decisions. Where you've assuming the role of the character and experience the story for yourself, but are STILL on the outside of the screen. You're not actually possessing the body of the character. And the thing is, the closer we get to virtual reality, motion controls and all that. Yeah, those things are actually putting YOU that much more into the game, and honestly? I actually don't like that. I like being on this side of the screen. I treat games like movies that I'm controlling. That's partially why I don't like FPS games, and why the dynamic camera angles in RE games were so important to me.

Thee Stranger

Fighting games have storylines too, but they're not comparable to movies.

Well, that's not entirely true either. Look at games like Def Jam, Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe, or what they're doing with the new MK game. You basically got the story mode in which fights are separated by cinematics which carry the plot along. And yes, we're still talking about "movies" between the gameplay bits. But you could just as well call the gameplay sequences "action sequences". There were fight scenes in Bruce Lee movies.
And yes, MOST fighting games aren't like this. But frankly, as far as I'm concerned, THAT'S what makes those particular fighting games that much more awesome than the other ones.

Thee Stranger

They are videogames. And what's wrong with that? Why do they have to be something more? So some pretentious, self-important dickheads can look upon our hobby seriously? I could give a ******** class="clear">

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

- Well, toys. Often the videogame medium is referred to as "interactive entertainment". I'd say the same thing for action figures. Or a little girl's tamagochi pet or something. Hell, if you saw some little 6 year-old girl playing a Barbie videogame on the Wii or something, would you not call that a toy? Just because it's a 'toy' per se doesn't mean it's not adult. And not all videogames really have rules that you need to follow. Take GTA, for instance, with it's "sandbox (haha)" gameplay. You can pretty much go anywhere and do anything. You got codes to give you all the weapons and vehicles and character skins you want. Plus, you've said so yourself that when playing Fallout 3, you make up your own story and such. I wouldn't call that too far removed from playing with your action figures and acting out your own stories as a child.

I guess. But still, the bottom line is, the word "toy" is often associated with kids, which makes non-gamers say, "Why are you playing video games, they're for kids" despite God of War, Heavy Rain, etc. And as long as they have that state of mind, we're that much further away from having games accepted as a form of media equivalent to that of film, music and literature.
Which is why I refrain from calling games 'toys' and if someone does, I usually get pretty pissed. Cause pretty much every time I hear the term, "toy" being refered to a video game, it's usually in a very derogatory manner.

I guess it could be compared to the term "Addictive" sure it gets used a lot by journalists and whatnot. But as far as developers go. We were taught at school to never use the term "addictive" when describing our gameplay, because it's a term that gets associated with drugs and stuff. So if we're pitching a game idea to a publisher, for example, to use "compelling" instead. It's just the stigma that comes with that particular term.

Thee Stranger

- Look, I'm not denying that videogames can be a storytelling medium. Yes, they can. That's quite obvious. What I'm saying is that,
1.) They do not have to be. Cinematics and storytelling are not intrinsic to the videogame medium, despite what you would like to believe, and a videogame doesn't need them in order to be a good, great, or viable videogame. Even in this day and age.

Well, that's opinion. I can enjoy a story-free video game. But the ones that I consider truly great, pretty much all have a deep and involving storyline to them.

Thee Stranger

2.) Videogame conventions and movie conventions do not exist on the same plane. Videogames are videogames; movies are movies.

What exactly do you mean by conventions?

Thee Stranger

And when you say that videogames are movies+, I would agree in the case that some videogames are movies + gameplay. Not that videogames have surpassed movies as a storytelling medium. Not by a long shot. Especially when you take into consideration that the bulk of the storytelling in these games is the movie clips. Now let's take one of my favorite movies for example: Clerks. It's a comedy about two store clerks and trivial job/life s**t, and the characters pretty much sit around the store and talk for the entire movie. A videogame couldn't give me a story like Clerks. Or Planes Traines and Automobiles. Or Glory, for that matter. Sure, Glory is a war movie. And sure, you could throw in the whopping two battle sequences in the movie as gameplay parts, but that would require focusing on one character, when that movie has a number of main characters in these battles.

Well, maybe you can't deliver the SAME story in a video game format, but so what? I can say that it's impossible to take Metal Gear Solid and make it into a movie. Why? Because gameplay (action) aside, there's 4+ hours of dialogue in it. And movies aren't allowed to be that long.

Or look at Resident Evil. I mean, In terms of Narrative, it might not have been that big. But in terms of storyline. In the movie, you can't just have characters sitting around reading files and diaries. But in the game, you are allowed to do that and as a result, it helps to really fill out the universe, and really flesh out WHERE it is they live, what kind of world it is.

Personally, when it comes to movies and even TV shows, I have a difficulty "discussing" them the same way I discuss games. Like, I remember back before RE sucked, we used to have discussions on different aspects of the storyline, things like, "on what date did the outbreak occur" or "when did Birkin get 'assassinated'". Pretty much, if they wanted to, every single corpse that you see in the game COULD have had a journal on them, and you could learn about the backstory of everyone and how they got there.

So no, clearly the storyline in video games isn't JUST conveyed through cinematics.
And either way, you usually get a lot more of a feel for your setting and your given circumstances in a video game. Both are very important aspects of storytelling.

Thee Stranger

And yes, I could compare Phoenix Wright to a comic book. I could definitely say it's an interactive comic book of sorts. Like Snatcher. But it's still a game with objectives, puzzles, a life bar, etc. Comic books don't always have objectives for the character to solve or overcome. All videogames have objectives. They need them. Because they are videogames. Therefore, the story is going to have revolve around getting to the next of those objectives. Whether the next one rewards you with simply being able to progress, an acheivement/trophy, or a cutscene. It doesn't matter.

First of all, going back to the previous topic, if all games have objectives, they they aren't toys, are they?

Second, again, maybe this is where the line is... You say all games need an objective, but dude... You're talking to an actor here, my JOB is to figure out what my characters objective is. And every character (let alone the protagonist) has to have an objective, otherwise they'd have no reason to be in the movie. That's the idea behing "motivation" what are you fighting for. Take Dumb and Dumber, their objective is "Get to Aspen, return the briefcase."
And even during that time, they have a whole bunch of immediate objectives, like, talk your way out of getting beat up by a trucker.

And you could apply the same formula to video games. Okay, so I'm playing Ratchet and Clank, what's my objective? Well, my long term objective would be to stop Chairman Drek from completing his planet. My short term objective is to, let's say, obtain the gravity boots so that I can get to my next objective. So I'm on my way to obtain them, and then I get to a door, and there's a puzzle.
Okay, so there's a puzzle, but WHY am I doing this puzzle? To get through the door. So there IS motivation behind those objectives.
Most of the time you get through a puzzle in a non-puzzle game, one of two things happens. Either you can keep progressing through the storyline. Or you get rewarded with something cool. Though techincally, continuing to progress through the storyline can be considered the reward.
But the point is, movies are just as objective oriented as games. It's just that in movies, you're a passive participator, whereas in games, you're active.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

- Well, what happened to this conversation having nothing to do with "people taking gaming seriously"? So basically, the terms "toy" and "addictive" aren't poltically correct terms in the world of gaming. So we'll say "compelling" instead, because it sounds better. Even though developers often intentionally make their games addctive. Take a look at Trophies, and the psychology behind it. Take a look at World of Warcraft.

Well, yeah, but those developers aren't saying, "We hope all our audiences will lose 100% of their social lives and their jobs." They're just saying, "We hope they keep paying for our stuff."
I wouldn't have such a problem with the term "toy" if most people didn't associate it with "children", and looked at gamers as adults playing with childrens' toys.
And yeah, those same people CAN associate games with drugs, saying crap like, "He needs to stop playing games, because they're like drugs. He plays them every day," about ME, even though as you probably suspect, I don't let games get in the way of my personal life.
My point is, that yes, I also have a problem with calling games "addictive" and yes, WoW is addictive, but I don't exactly support WoW.

Thee Stranger

- Well, that's your opinion and all, and you're entiltled to it. But I really don't get how you could consider a movie like Commando, which is pretty bankrupt in the storyline department, great.

Because I don't go see it for the story. That's why there are genres. If I want a good story with character development and great acting, I'll go see a Drama film. And you know what? Most films like Enemy At The Gates, or even Full Metal Jacket. Yes, they might be War movies, but I don't honestly consider that a genre. I consider that a classification like "Zombie" movies or "Mafia" movies. But all in all, movies like that ARE Drama films. And yes, you can have a War movie that's in the Action genre.
But films like Commando, I WANT over the top explosions, I WANT cheesy one liners. That kind of stuff makes my day a lot happier. And if it's done well, then it's a great movie.
I just don't think a great movie has to be an Oscar Nominee. As long as a movie succeeds at what it's set out to do, I consider it a great movie. Unless I don't like what it set out to do, then it's a s**t movie, but you get my point. Mortal Kombat, I think is a great movie. Does it have amazing character development, great acting or a deep storyline? Not really, but it's got memorable characters, exciting fight scenes set to awesome music, and great art direction, which make it a great experience, which makes it a great movie in my eyes.

Thee Stranger

But couldn't consider a videogame, which may not have much story, but is a fun and entertaining GAME, which is the POINT, not great. I don't get it. I really don't.

I'm not saying that's always the case. But it's replay value. Usually, if a really fun game has no storyline, I'll beat it, and enjoy the hell out of it, and then never bother picking it up again. When a game has a great storyline, it's that storyline that I want to re-experience. An this is recent, mind you. I'll still gladly play a story-less game from my childhood if I got nostalgia associated with it.
But look at games like LocoRoco or Patapon, they've got great design, and there's definitely something incredibly charming about them... But beond trying out the demos, I haven't been compelled to pick them up at all. I consider them great casual titles and they're definitely a lot of fun, but I wouldn't say, "It's as good of a game as Uncharted 2, just different." or whatever other big budget title you can name.

Thee Stranger

- Movie conventions and videogame conventions. They're different. And I'll be getting to that in a minute. And yes, they can often co-exist, but not on the same plane, and they are not one in the same.

- lol, mini-series. xd Just kidding. Of course they couldn't fit every codec conversation in, but I think they could make a movie adaptation out of MGS, not that there would be much point.

Yeah, but do you think it'll be anywhere nearly as fulfilling as the game? Yes, you're right, I don't think there is a point of making it, or Uncharted movie for that matter. And guarantee you that those two films will NOT be taken well by fans. I can almost see it now, "HYPE HYPE HYPE! IT LOOKS AWESOME!" then after seeing the movie, "IT'S THE BIGGEST PIECE OF s**t EVER!" Of course, we see this on a consistent basis.
And I don't think it's because of writing, or acting, or whatever other reasons they bring up. I think it's because they're expecting the movie of the game to be as deep and involving as the game itself, but it just can't be.

Thee Stranger

And hey, you seem to think they did a great job with those RE movies, whereas I thought they all sucked total balls.

I still have to watch them in a completely different context. If Anderson tried to make the movies as they are, and tying them into the video game canon, I'd probably denounce the movies faster than RE4. I just think they're good zombie action movies on their own. They're not a replacement for the games, they're just good movies, and the "Umbrella, T-Virus, Zombie, Tyrant, Nemesis, Licker, etc." of it all simply gets my fanboyism going, which only adds to why I like them. But unlike the people I mentioned above, I was never expecting to get the "Game experience" out of the movie.

Thee Stranger

And yes, in addition to telling the stories through movie clips, videogames can also often further tell it with in-game books and files. And yes, that brings more detail to the world and the story. But again, that's not the game part. That's the book part.

Yeah, but that's like, if I praised a game for its amazing soundtrack, saying, "That's not the game part. That's the music part."
It all comes together to make the game what it is. It's not about pushing buttons and getting on screen feedback. It's about the overall experience.

Thee Stranger

And I never said that the storyline in videogames is told PURELY through cinematics. Just that usually the overwhelming majority of it is. In most cases. MGS being a prime example. I also said that videogames can tell stories in some ways in which movies can't, and that's because games can have both MOVIES and BOOKS within the game environment. In addition to it. But the only reason they can be compared is because of the movies and the books. Not the actual game part, which is what makes it a videogame to begin with.

But those aspects are still significant to the game itself. Like I said, would Resident Evil or Metal Gear be as highly rated if it WASN'T for those little things that supplement the backstory and make you feel like you're in that universe, rather than just running around a CGI picture on a screen?

Thee Stranger

- Um, no? That's by your logic. I'd still consider feeding your digital tamagochi pet playing with a toy.

But the toy would be the device itself. By that logic, Video Games aren't the toys. The systems are the toys. The PS3 is the toy, Uncharted 2 is just what that toy plays for you, so to speak. But still, the PS3 isn't a toy, it's an expensive piece of home entertainment equipment.

Thee Stranger

I'd still consider getting Barbie's nails done for her big date in a videogame playing with a toy. I was simply pointing out that even by your logic, certain videogames, and the way you play certain videogames, could still be considered toys.

Yeah, but just the same, Risk can be considered a toy if you take the soldier figurines and go, "Pew, pew, pew!" And honestly, I don't even consider board games toys. Not Monopoly, Not Risk, not even Life. MAYBE Snakes and Ladders, but I haven't actually played that one to judge properly.

Thee Stranger

It's the videogame conventions themselves incorporated into the story, which is the big difference I see. Let's look at your Ratchet and Clank example, for instance. They need to find gravity boots to get to their next objective and now they have to solve a puzzle along the way, which, let's say, rewards them with a power up of some sort this time around. How relevant is that to the plot? Again, it's the issue of pacing. That entire instance would have no place in a Ratchet and Clank movie. It would be completely pointless and irrelevant to the story, not to mention probably not very entertaining to watch. It is, however, revlevant to the gameplay. And yeah, movies have little irrelevant things like that sometimes, too. But nowhere near as much in abundance.

You're right, it is the issue of pacing. But either way you put it, games give you a LOT more for your money in terms of how much time you spend on them. And yes, maybe doing those relatively irrelevant tasks would take only like 5 minutes on the hour if Ratchet was a TV Show, and yes, that's where the gameplay does make things fun and stretches out the otherwise short insiginificant task that could bore a person. But that's not always the case. It's all about learning to do things right. Look at Resident Evil 1 for example. Hell, 1, 2, 3, Code Veronica and Zero, have all been turned into novels. And some of them, 1 specifically, follows certain "gameplay" pieces of the game pretty close, even though there's no dialogue, just a mundane task of, I dunno... Finding a crest or something. And Resident Evil isn't the most narrative heavy game out there, even for its time. But still, it can be turned into an entertaining novel. And you can easily compare the two. They both tell the same story, and one could say, "Which did you like better? The game or the book?" And honestly? If we're talking about the ORIGINAL game, I'd say, "I prefer the book." If it wasn't for Remake, I'd pretty much consider the novel to be the official canon version of the Mansion Incident.

Thee Stranger

Take Alan Wake, which I just finished. Basically, when I'm not watching the cutscenes and reading the files, I'm running around through the forest powering endless amounts of generators, shooting endless amounts of demons, and constantly being detoured from the original path to my short-term objective, giving me a bunch more even smaller, immediate objectives on top of my original short-term objective, which I need to get to in order to advance the plot. And the objectives usually involve the usual survival horror videogame conventions, such as solving a puzzle, or finding a key, or dispatching some more monsters, or finding my way through some type of maze to hit a switch, so I can gain access to another area on the way to my short-term objective which will have yet another smaller, immediate objective or detour to overcome. In a movie, all this would just be pointless noise distracting from the narrative, as it just eats time and does nothing at all to really tell the story or enhance it. Not only would those be the first scenes shredded apart and left on the editing room floor, but the producer would probably be asking the director, "why did you waste so much of my film with this pointless, repetitive tedium?" And that's the gameplay part of it. Not the movie part; not the book part.

Okay, but take games like Uncharted 2 (which you've beat, right?)
Take the scene where they're in the city and they have to run from the helicopter, that hole bit with the collapsing building and all that... You play through it and it's fun as hell, but at the same time, it would make one hell of an action sequence in a movie.
That's what gameplay also is, it's taking the exciting action sequences and putting you in them.
Like I said, maybe someday, all games are gonna have dialogue like Heavy Rain or Mass Effect, where you also directly effect every piece of dialogue in ADDITION to the action.
Games are still a developing medium, and they're slowly working to make them have deep storylines as well as maximize interactivity. But the only way we can achieve that, I believe, is if more developers actually take their storylines SERIOUSLY, and not just use them as segways between levels.

Thee Stranger

But name me one videogame that works like Phoenix Wright does, or any other game genre for that matter, that doesn't require detective work or a mystery to solve, or killing a bunch of s**t. Like a simple comedy or a drama or something. I think you'd be hard pressed to make something like that work in a videogame.

Like I said, games are still a growing medium, and sure, maybe they haven't matured to that level quite yet. But I think they can, and are in the process of working toward that.

But okay, if you want me to dig deep and name you a couple of titles, let's take...
The Sims, for example... Sure, you do spend a good amount of time doing mundane every day tasks. But IF you were to compare Sims to any kind of noninteractive medium, I'd say the closes would be a Soap Opera. And yes, I know with the Sims, you don't actually hear what kind of stuff they talk about because it's all jibberish, but that's why we have our imaginations. The point still remains, it's a game about living a character's life. And as boring as it may sound, it's a compelling game. Every time I pick it up again, I find myself losing a good chunk of the week or two before putting it down again.

Another example would be dating sims. And sure, you can say, "Dating sims are for losers" or whatever. But again, the fact remains, the content of the game is based around character interrelations, and it can get very interesting. And I will say this, it's unfortunate that they haven't caught on as much in North America as they are in Japan. Because they ARE fun.

And sure, you might say they're the exception to the rule, but so were "Cartoons for Adults" at one point. It used to be that all cartoons were intended for children. Now animation in the adult world isn't a new concept. Shows like Family Guy, South Park, etc. are pretty much a part of our adult culture.
Maybe with time, Video Games with the main gameplay features being Drama and Comedy will be too.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

- Well, either way. It is what it is. And I could see your point in regards to the children's toy thing, I guess. But I don't know of too many people who still associate gaming purely with kids. Afterall, we have ratings now.

Yeah, but unless we're talking about a person who has yong kids now, and has to pay attention to these ratings... Like, take all the people whose kids already grew up. Like, the parents of our generation, who don't have to worry about that stuff anymore. They don't have to pay attention to ratings, hell, they never even have to set foot into a gaming store period. They just don't take it seriously at all, and consider them toys for kids. And you try explaining to them, "Well, this game has violence, nudity, mature and complex storylines," you think they'll listen? They'll just say, "You're making it up. It's just toys. You run around with a gun, "bang bang" shooting things senselessly, and get nothing out of it whatsoever." Which, Quake and the like aside, is not the truth.

Thee Stranger

WoW is addictive, and I do not support it at all. It is designed specifically that way. I've lost two friends to that game. One finally quit, and came back to the real world. And the other... well, I don't know as if he's ever gonna leave the matrix. He's pretty much gone. ******** WoW.

Yeah. But you're not gonna catch Blizzard advertising it like, "Our gameplay is so good that it's addictive!"

Thee Stranger

- Well, again, that's exactly how I see games. I don't play Mario for the storyline, purely gameplay. There's many games I enjoy which don't have storylines, but they are great games.

But no, there is a lot more to those games than just gameplay though. I mean, honestly, Mario Galaxy, I don't know if it's as awesome as people say it is, but the graphics on it ARE top notch, that's something I can clearly see. It's very eye catching, for sure, and that alone can draw a player in. Things like that, you take Silent Hill for example, take the storyline away, and you still have a game with a hell of an atmosphere (no pun intended). And it would be just as scary. So even when you throw away the storyline, games are still about a lot more than just gameplay.

Thee Stranger

And I would consider Commando good for what it is, but not on the level of action movies like Aliens or something. Which I consider a great movie, even beyond its respective genre or category. And I don't believe that won any oscars or anything.

Well, I dunno, man. I have a hard time comparing Aliens to Commando, because sure they're both "action," but they're very different kinds of action. It's like comparing Medal of Honor to Bad Company because they're both First Person Shooters about war. And even that's difficult to do, because Medal of Honor does take its storylines a lot more seriously, and tries to create an artistic experience on top of a deep First Person Shooter. Whereas Bad Company is a lot more about the sheer action and explosions of it. It's there to impress us with how much "war" you can actually put up in its deep multiplayer mode. They're both War First Person Shooters, they're both very different, but they're both great games because they accomplish what they set out to do.
Just like Aliens and Commando.

Thee Stranger

And regarding the MK movie, I didn't hate it. It was nothing spectacular or anything, but it certainly wasn't bad either. Because it delivered pretty much everything any fan could have possibly wanted from a Mortal Kombat movie.

But that fact alone makes it a great movie. That it fulfilled exactly what it was supposed to. You say, "I'm gonna go see Mortal Kombat for the first time. I hope it's got ninjas and cool fights and special moves from the games and stuff," and it did, in addition to kick a** music, beautiful sets and atmosphere, and some very memorable characters. Not necessarily the deepest or most crafted actors, but genuinely likable.

Thee Stranger

It's a shame that guy didn't give RE the same treatment. Or AvP, for that matter. Which was also horrid.

I dunno about RE. Yes, it delivered a different experience from what I had in the games, but at the same time, I don't know why I had no "expectations" from it. But still, when you compare the first RE movie (or even the second one) to, say, Code Veronica, they're pretty consistent as far as, "What kind of experience will this movie provide based on the game?"
And at the time, Code Veronica was the latest hottest thing from Resident Evil.

Thee Stranger

Top that off with horrible acting, a horrible script, unlikable and unmemorable characters, and you got a soulless cash-grab s**t sandwich on your hands.

Say what you will about the plot, or the writing or whatever, but those other things aren't true, man. The acting, while not Oscar material, is as good as any action movie of the early 2000s. Take your Blade, Underworld, hell, even X-Men with certain characters, it's not like their acting is the most deep and heartgripping in the world either. It's just as good (or bad if you want) as Resident Evil, and they're still very well acclaimed.
And Alice might not be the greatest character ever, but the supporting cast in RE movies has always had at least two very memorable and interesting characters. Rain, Kaplan, Matt in RE1. Jill, Carlos, LJ in Apocalypse. And hell, Extinction had the biggest amount of likable characters, it was fairly sad to see some of them die.
Disagree if you want, but I'm only gonna chalk it up to hater goggles.

Thee Stranger

- Well, you can very well praise a game for its great soundtrack, just like you could praise it for its great cutscenes and storyline. And yes, those are all elements that contribute to, and make up the game as a whole. BUT... when I hear that videogames are movies, supposed to be movies, or the equivalent of such, I can't quite swallow that. Because, to me, that's kinda like saying "videogames are music". Well, yeah, they have music in them... but that's not the videogame part. And yeah, you could call Guitar Hero interactive music or something, just like you could call Uncharted 2 an interactive movie, but that's not the be all end all of videogames either.

Okay, fine, but you can still compare them. Just because the main part of a video game is the gameplay, doesn't mean that the other parts are unimportant. Look at Metal Gear... You can easily compare it to movies like, I dunno, Bourne, James Bond films and stuff like that, and analyze their storylines and talk about character development, and stuff, and in many cases, Metal Gear Solid will beat out many famous and acclaimed movies in terms of storyline. But yet you have another game with a half assed storyline, and I say, "Well, this game had crappy character development, and bad writing," and they say, "Well, it's got good gameplay, that's all that matters." But it's not ALL that matters. Why should we let it go? I'm not saying that the game should be shunned or whatever. But look at Resident Evil 1. People talk about it it's like, "Yeah, it's a great game, but the voice acting is horrible, it's actually kind of funny." And that's one thing. And yes, people do go out of their way to mention that. But then you take games like, I dunno, let's say Syphon Filter. And they say, "What's this game like?" And I say, "Well, the gameplay is similar to Metal Gear Solid, but it's got a really cool and well written storyline, with great characters." And they'll say, "Who cares about the storyline? I already have Metal Gear Solid to play, so I'm not gonna get this one."
And why? Sometimes a storyline is well worth playing the game for. And yes, if the gameplay is attrocious, it could ruin the experience. But, what if the gameplay is the same as another game. What if you really like GTA, and there's a game that's a GTA clone that maybe doesn't quite have such extremely tight controls or whatever, but it offers a serious and immersive storyline with great character work, is it not worth playing just because you have the thing that plays slightly better?
I say that's bullshit.

Same with soundtracks. Yes, there's more to a game than just "music" but let's say you take a game like God of War, and the movie like 300. Why can't we compare their soundtracks? Now, to be fair, I haven't watched 300, so I can't comment on its soundtrack, I simply brought it up because of the subject matter. But let's say a statement is made that says, "300 has a much better soundtrack than God of War," and the response it, "Yeah, but who cares? God of War is just a game. Music isn't important in it."
That's bullshit. To say that music isn't important in a game is like saying music isn't important in a movie. It has nothing to do with the plot (or gameplay) at all, sure. But music is there to set the mood and the atmosphere. Imagine if there was a Heavy Metal soundtrack to Mario. It sets this badass mood, and you're playing like, "Man, this music got me all pumped up, but this game just isn't brutal enough for this music."
Or vice versa, imagine Mario music in a game like Manhunt, it would totally kill the mood that the game is supposed to set for you.
Take Mortal Kombat, for example, I thought MK1, 2, 3 and 4 had great music. But no MK game since has had really notable music. It's not bad in the recent ones, it just doesn't stand out. So, while I still love the games in spite of that, before it was like, that fast paced music starts and I get all pumped up like, "Oh yeah, let's fight! Bring it!" now it's like, I barely hear the weak tribal drums and woodwind instruments faintly in the background, it does nothing to get me excited about the fight.
Do I still enjoy the gameplay? Sure. But it doesn't get me pumped up for it, and it SHOULD.

So you can still say, "How does the Silent Hill game compare to a movie like Drag Me To Hell?" And the answer isn't, "One's a game, the other is not." You could still compare them, saying, "Well, Silent Hill is a lot more atmospheric, whereas DMTH relied a lot on the startle scares. Silent Hill also has a more unique mythology behind it, but DMTH still had some interesting roots in certain folklore. Overall, I enjoyed Silent Hill a lot more, because I found it was more scary and had better atmosphere, and its unique soundtrack really set the mood." Without including the gameplay at all, I would say that Silent Hill is better. The gameplay COULD be s**t, and it would still be better just based on THOSE facts.

Thee Stranger

Videogames are videogames. They span many genres and types, and bottom line, are about interactivity and playing a game. I realize that the storylines are very important to you and other gamers in particular, and I enjoy them very much too, but that's not what videogames "SHOULD" or were always "SUPPOSED" to be. And in the case of cutscenes in particular, the transition from game-to-cutscene isn't very seamless. It's quite apparent what the movie parts are and what the videogame parts are in most cases.

Still, even if you take the cinematics away. As far as I'm concerned, video games aren't simply "electronic challenges", they're interactive adventures. And adventures tell a story.

And yes, I realize that certain games like Tetris are an exception, but here's what I realized about Tetris though. Tetris was largely popularized by those stand alone "Tetris" handhelds. And as far as I'm concerned, that's a completely different thing from actual Video Games. It's like an electronic puzzle. And sure, you can up and put Tetris on the NES, but as far as I'm concerned, that would be almost the same as putting Sudoku on NES. Is Sudoku a video game? No, put you can put it on the DS or PSP, and basically have a digitized version of your favorite brainteaser activity. Same thing with Tetris, the only difference is, Tetris is a brain teaser that has its origins in digital media simply because the logistics of having Tetris on paper are impossible.

Thee Stranger

- Um, not by my logic. The hardware and the software are both toys. Just like any cellphone that has apps. I pretty much consider those toys, too. I don't straight-up call them toys. But they're toys with a phone feature.

See, I wouldn't say that. Cause I mean, in that respect, then a Gaming PC could be called a toy even if it still has the functions of any other PC. Persona Computers are not toys, even if you use them to mainly play games.
And games I consider media. Like movies. Like music. Not toys.

Thee Stranger

- lol, um, well, I guess you consider anything you apply imagination to a toy then?

But Risk still isn't a toy. See, to me, Toys are like tools of the games. I would almost consider 3D models digital toys. Because if I build a 3D model, I could do what I want with it. If I recreate Mario in 3D, or, say, rip him straight from the game disc, I could pretty much move his arms and legs around the way I want, put him on a weird backdrop. That I would consider playing with digital toys, even if through a means of some very expensive programs. But once you take that 3D model and place it into the programming, sound design, etc. etc. etc., the whole thing is not a toy. It's a game. Like Risk, like D&D.

Thee Stranger

- Blasphemy. I actually read the Umbrella Conspiracy. xd And the original RE is still my favorite, even over REmake, and it far surpasses the novel. And yes, the worst parts of the book were the puzzles and stuff that worked fine for the game, but were just boring in the book. The best parts were the characterizations that you didn't get in the game. Like some behind the scenes stuff that happened with Wesker and Barry and the like. Can't say I cared for the mysterious "Trent" guy or whatever his name was, though. And I definitely wouldn't consider that bullshit canon. That's the only one I read, but I'd prefer any of the games to any of the books or the novels.

Well, since you'd prefer the original over the remake, I can't really argue that point with you, because Remake pretty much instantly trumped the original and the novel for me.
I'm not saying the novel was perfect, but it did a hell of a better job telling the story of the mansion incident than the game did. And that's what's important. The story.... ninja

Is the game awesome? Sure, but as far as I'm concerned, the game is just an interactive and immersive way to convey the story. Maybe not in EVERY case. But for this particular instance, as far as Resident Evil goes, that's how I see it. Same with Metal Gear. Same with Final Fantasy.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

- Eh. I could care less what those people think, like I said. If they're going to refuse to believe anything you say, there's no point. I don't see the point in defending the validity of videogames to people who don't really give a s**t about videogames to begin with. It's a generation gap. We, however, will know what's up when our grandkids start talking to us about it.

Yeah, well, I don't care what they think personally. But it's that kind of mind state that's contributing to Video Games being stuck in their little stigma of children and nerds.

Thee Stranger

- No. But it IS. The facts and statistics speak for themselves. The fact that they actually have rehab programs and clinics dedicated to WoW speaks for itself.

Yeah, but the point is, the term "addictive" has a very negative stigma that comes with it.
And the term "toy" while not negative per se, does have a bit of a child-assiciated stigma. I mean, how many people our age you know tell you, "Man, I have so many Resident Evil toys!" And how many of them say, "Action figures" or "Collectibles"? Why? Because those terms are a lot more mature than just saying, "Toys."

Thee Stranger

- Um... I'm not sure what to come back with, because it doesn't appear that anything you've said really contradicts that quote of mine at all. Haha, and I just find it kind of funny how you just now pretty much said that Silent Hill could work without its storyline. xd

But without its storyline I wouldn't be replaying it over and over. I still love Silent Hill 2 and I still consider it the best Survival Horror game ever. But after beating it the odd 10 times, no, it's not scary anymore. Neither is Resident Evil. And I know you say you've never been scared from playing a video game, but I have. And many other people have. And the fact is, that fear goes away with multiple playthroughs. But the storyline, the voice overs, memorable characters, that's all still there. And those aspects I appreciate every time.

Thee Stranger

But yeah, there's more to games than gameplay, sure. Not disputing that. There's graphics and art style and sometimes, storylines. Not disputing that. And sure, Mario Galaxy has good graphics, and that helps. But if the gameplay sucked balls... then there'd be no reason to play Mario. Because I don't play his games for the compelling narrative.

Well, I don't play Silent Hill for its smooth and intuitive gameplay. In Silent Hill, for example, my list of priorities is as follows: Story, Scare factor, Graphics, Music then Gameplay. I thought Silent Hill Origins had the smoothest, tightest battle system in any Silent Hill game to date, but it's still my least favorite Silent Hill game.
And hell, I would never have even picked up Metal Gear Solid if it wasn't for the storyline. Even before I played it, I already knew that this narrative kicked a**, and that's why I wanted it.

Thee Stranger

- Yes, they are very different. And they both do accomplish what they set out to do. But I don't consider what Commando set out to do, or does, great like Aliens. Why? Because I think Aliens has a much more intelligent and entertaining storyline, characters, etc. And I think that makes for an all-around better action movie than Commando. Likewise, I know you'd feel the same way about Mario VS Jak & Daxter, even though they both accomplish what they set out to do.

Alright, fair enough.

Thee Stranger

- I liked the MK movie for what it was. But it's nothing that I'm ever gonna go out and buy or have to add to my DVD collection or anything. And MK actually had one legit actor in there, in the form of Raiden. My favorite dude in the movie. And Johnny Cage made me chuckle a few times. So yeah, MK DID have likeable characters. And Goro looked cool. Kano was my favorite guy in the game, though. And he was kind of a douche in the movie, and gets killed by Sonya of all people.

Trevor Goddard who played Kano did a kick a** job. And yeah, of course he'd get killed by Sonya, they're like, worst enemies. It would be kind of anticlimactic if Johnny killed Kano. But in any case, yes, Mortal Kombat is in my collection, and is one of my favorite Martial Arts movies, right up there with Enter the Dragon and Bloodsport.

Thee Stranger

- I don't find the RE movie consistent with Code Veronica at all, sorry. I assume you're referring to Wesker's super powers with this whole thing. Well,
A.) At least he was a bad guy. Unlike Super b***h. And a cool character. Unlike Super b***h. The good guys still had to use their wits and limited bullets. And there was no smashing flower pots over zombies heads and knocking them out.

Yes, but the point is, it's more of a, "Would something like this be in the game? Would the game have a super powered human being?" And Wesker makes it a yes. Sure, Alice is a good guy and that makes the context a bit different, but the point is, the movie didn't do anything that the games didn't already do beforehand in terms of how far they took it.

Thee Stranger

B.) I always thought it was silly. But Wesker was a popular character among the fans, and so they decided to bring him back. And silly as it was, it was much better than something like, I don't know, Birkin attaching Wesker's right arm to himself, and then the arm takes over his personality. That was just COMPLETELY retarded.

Well, your gripes with MGS2 have nothing to do with RE movies, now, do they? lol

Thee Stranger

C.) Resident Evil was always kind of cartoonish to me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the plot very much, and I was very into it, but since I don't take stuff like the RE games or comic books completely seriously, that stuff doesn't really bother me. And ultimately, they were fun and entertaining games. And yes, I actually did enjoy RE's gameplay. Story was important, but they were games, and good ones. And with long-running series' like Resident Evil or X-Men or something, that kind of stuff is to be expected from time to time.

Well, that's kind of a weird statement, since Resident Evil has always been one of the most photorealistic games of its time. Even when RE1 came out, those environments looked SICK, and those zombies were so grotesque. Same with RE2, and RE3. And s**t, look at Remake. In terms of the backgrounds, the colors, and the character biomechanics, I still consider it to be the most realistic looking video game to date. So I never associated Resident Evil with "Cartoonish". Until I actually stopped and reflected on Code Veronica, that is.

Thee Stranger

- lol. I disagree. And are we are we seriously comparing the acting in the RE movie to the X-Men movie? X-Men actually had some actors in it. Who could act. And give their characters personality.

Well, I'm assuming you're talking about the likes of Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart, and yes I do agree with that.
But honestly, Cyclops, Storm, The Toad... All those side characters, they were... I dunno... Unimpressive.

I have nothing to say about your big rant there. Again, I'm just chalking it up to Haterade.

Thee Stranger

- Sure, you can compare them. But in MGS in particular's case... again... mostly what you're comparing is the movie parts of it. And yes, they're quite comparable... because they're both movies. And yes, sometimes a game's storyline can carry an otherwise mediocre game. Deadly Premonition is a perfect example of that. The graphics are dated, the controls aren't the greatest or most fluid, but it's the story and the characters that really pull you in. It features an open world similiar to GTA, but unlike GTA, everybody in it is an actual person, who lives out their own everyday routine. Not just some random pedestrian there only to be run over or shot. If you take on all the side quests, you get to know more about each character and more history insight about the town and the murder case you're on, which yes, further fleshes out the story and the interactive game world and all that. Making it feel like a real living, breathing place that you're actually living in. But THAT, I wouldn't even compare to a movie. That is something that ONLY a videogame could do. That said, that is only one particular game experience. Often the gameplay itself can carry a game that has little-to-no storyline at all. And Mario doesn't have any story to speak of to critique. Neither does Guitar Hero. If a game is trying to have an interesting story and fails, then those are legitimate criticisms to point at it. But what you were basically saying is that that's what videogames SHOULD be. And I'm saying that, no, not necessarily.

Okay, maybe not. But if someone DOES try to implement a storyline into a game, they SHOULD put effort into it. Like, there are so many meidocre games out there that if they had some really good storylines, they'd probably be some of my favorites. If only the developers took their job a little more seriously and not just said, "Okay, let's make some cutscenes to segway between our very awesome gameplay, because that's the only reason to have a storyline in the game anyway. And then hire some local Community Theater actors to do the voice overs for them. It's just storyline, it's unimportant, right?"
And then time constraints and possibly inexperienced programmers make that amazing gameplay 'only okay,' and now they're left with a mediocre game that has nothing impressive to show for it whatsoever. But if they put that effort into the storyline and the narrative, the voice acting, etc. then that mediocre game could still provide for a great overall experience.

And even if the gameplay is tight and deep, etc. etc. etc. I know you like Dead Space, but like I said, without a good narrative, it was such a damn grindfest. Does it have good gameplay? Sure it does. Do I consider it a good game? Hell no.

Thee Stranger

- 300 sucks, don't watch it. Yeah, you can compare the music, and you can compare the storylines. And I never said you couldn't. What I said was, videogames are videogames; movies are movies.

Yes, which I recall followed by, "you can't compare them."

Thee Stranger

- lol. Tetris is a videogame. Whether it's on a stand alone handheld, or on a Nintendo Gameboy, or on a computer. It's a videogame. And I think you're severely undermining the Gameboy's impact on Tetris' popularity, by the way, and vice-versa. At least in the States. And last time I checked, the Gameboy was a portable videogame console. Which played videogames. Much like your PSP.

Yes, but the Gameboy isn't called, "Portabke Mario" or "Portable Pokemon" the hardware itself doesn't define the software that's on it. It's a system. Whereas the Portable Tetris, or "Brick Game" as I often see it labeled, the hardware is custom railored for the one piece of software that it's got. Even when it's got other things on it like centipede type games. It's still essentially a portable tetris game, which I don't consider a video game system.

Thee Stranger

- The rest of the stuff: I don't know. I'm not sure I'd call Chess a toy, either. But I'd definitely call a gaming PC a toy. I'd call Space Hulk a toy. I'd call cellphones toys. And I'd call videogames toys. Some are toys for kids. Some are toys for adults. And some are for kids and adults alike. And don't try to tell me that you don't got just as much kids out there playing MW2 and God of War as you do Mario Kart and s**t.

Yeah, and? I don't consider Mario Kart a toy either.

Thee Stranger

RE1, it's mainly got to do with the nostalgia and cheese-factor, and the first-time experience I had with it, when my brother brought it home on that fateful day. And there's a lot more to it than just the storyline, thank you.

Yes, there's a lot more to it than just storyline, but if it wasn't for the storyline, I probably wouldn't have become a fan. I brobably would've said, "These controls suck. Up should be up and down should be down," and never played it again. But the storyline was so intriguing that it really compelled me to keep playing. And until RE4 came along and completely derailed the franchise, I considered myself one of the biggest fans of RE ever. Not because I owned all collectible merchandise, not because I got an S rank in every game, but because I knew all the smallest details of its mythology, of its storyline. I knew all the names in the files, the timelines, etc. etc. etc. And to me, that's what defined a true RE fan, someone who was the most familiar with the main storyline.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

Hah. I was meaning to get back to you on this a looong time ago. But July 5th, the day of these posts, was the very night that whole car accident s**t happened, and I kinda forgot about it. Update on that, the girl made a full recovery and she and my friend got back together. Don't you just love happy endings? Well... semi-happy endings. The other guy's wife is still dead.

Well, it's good that things worked out for her at least.

Thee Stranger

Well. I'm pretty sure you're a nerd, Bio. And I know I'm a ********' nerd. Matter of fact, ******** being anything else.

Well, I don't really like to be defined as much.
I mean, I wouldn't be caught dead playing an MMO or DnD. I go to concerts, clubs, and just outside in general, lol. Do I have a nerdy side? Of course I do. But it's the side that takes a franchise like Resident Evil, and makes an education out of it, comitting every file, monster, concept, password, etc. to memory.
But the very act of playing a video game itself, I don't consider it any more nerdy than watching a movie on DVD.

Thee Stranger

Alright, again. I have different priorities depending on the game. I play Mario for the great, classic platforming gameplay; I play something like Deadly Premonition mainly for the characters and story. Because in that game's case, those are more remarkable than the gameplay mechanics themselves. Something like Shank... it's got a plot and plenty of cutscenes, but nothing I find really remarkable storyline-wise. Gameplay-wise, it's a ********' beast of a game. I play Shank strictly for its awesome gameplay. Gameplay is never a factor in movies. If Shank were a movie, I would find it very derivative and unremarkable.

Or would it make an awesome action movie? Like Commando?

Thee Stranger

Oh no? Laser halls, anyone? Would this be in the game? Well, there never was prior to the film... but there was after. Yet, you hated that s**t in the games. xd lol, it's just that easy. And there was no super-powered beings in the games until Code Veronica, the fourth installment in the series. Not the original. So why should the first film start right out with that s**t? And again, in the games, it was the bad guy. The protagonists weren't godmodding all the friggin' zombies and monsters and karate-kicking 'em and s**t like they were nothing. Even with his powers, you didn't see Wesker doing that s**t. Even with his powers, he still got b***h-slapped by Alexia.

Yeah, but just because Resident Evil didn't have laser halls before the movie, doesn't meant that it didn't dabble in the sheer concept of technology that's way beyond us. Look at the Linear Cannon in Code Veronica. It's essentially a lame plasma cannon.
And I didn't hate the lasers in the games, I hate what they did with them. Like I said, when I was playing Umbrella Chronicles, and they stepped into that laser hall. I thought it was the greatest thing in the world. It looked identical to the one in the movie and I loved it. And then Chris did a backflip to avoid it, and killed the whole experience.

Thee Stranger

Well, s**t like the Tyrant/Nemesis. The cheesy voice acting... Leon's cop outfit. s**t like that gave it a kind of cartoony feel to me. And REmake is without question the least cartoony of the series. But that's REmake. Let's not get into RE0.

Well, when I first played RE2, it was one of the most photorealistic looking games I had ever played up to that point.

Thee Stranger

Well, in the case of Cyclops and Storm, it isn't the fact that they aren't good, capable actors. It was the fact that their characters were short-changed in favor of the likes of Wolverine, so they didn't get a lot of screentime to shine. With so many characters, some are bound to be short-changed. In the case of Toad... the guy who played him was just a stunt man. He was basically just there for a fight scene. And who cares? He's ********' Toad, nobody even gives a s**t about him in the comics. But in the case of X-Men, at least you did have some great actors/characters with a lot of screentime. There isn't one likable character in the RE movie. I could have cared less what happened to any of them.

Michelle Rodriguez, James Purefoy, Eric Mabius are all fine actors, and made for some memorable characters. I don't know what you're talking about.
And there were plenty of good actors playing awesome characters in the sequels too. If you disagree, then I can't really do anything about that. But I stand by my statement.

Thee Stranger

Well... yeah, I can't really argue with this. If you're gonna put a story in your game, make it a good story. Yes, I do enjoy storylines in my videogames, especially good ones. Like I said earlier, it really depends on the type of game whether or not story is a big deal to me. Some s**t I play strictly for the gameplay. But again in defense of Dead Space... yeah, it doesn't have the best narrative in the world. Yes, your character is a mute. A lot of it is a grind through objectives, and doors, and switches. But there are also a lot of great set pieces, and surprises, and gameplay variety. And there were some interesting story elements. Basically, the bulk of the story is told through the voice logs you find throughout the ship from the former inhabitants. And eventually as you progress, you begin finding a series of these voice logs from this same engineer who was basically going along the same path that you're going through now before you got there. He's done a lot of the same tasks you're currently doing, kind of guides you through a few things, and is also trying to find his girl. You also find a few voice logs from her. You come to identify with him, care about him, and really want to find out what happened to him, and if he made it. And you do eventually find out.

Well, the thing about games like Resident Evil... The files that you find in them, in addition to helping you out with puzzles, what they do is help flesh out the artificial universe you're playing in. There's still the main plot that makes me interested in what happens to Jill, not to Trevor.
Dead Space has about as much story development as Metroid Prime games. And while that's all good and fine for those who liked that kind of narrative, when I play a Survival Horror game, I'm looking for a more of a "Movie" feel to it. Which is exactly why I loved the independent camera angles.

Thee Stranger

Well, I knew all the storyline s**t too. I was a huge fan, too. But the story wasn't the whole reason I was compelled to play through RE1. The gameplay, atmosphere, etc. also compelled me to finish it. Keep in mind, I started with Alone in the Dark on 3DO, so I was already broken-in to the whole control scheme. And comparatively, RE's controls were like a dream. It controlled practically identically of course, but just a lot more smoothly and fluidly, with better combat. Go back to the original AitD, and you'll know what I'm talking about. But really, was RE1 really story-heavy? I mean, it really wasn't. There wasn't a whole helluva lot of cutscenes. Yeah, there were files... but you really didn't get to the bulk of the revelations or the storyline until you got to the lab at the end of the game.

Yeah, but Resident Evil was released in 1996. And back then, or even in 1998/1999 when I first truly experienced that generation of gaming, there weren't that many games with storylines, dialogue, cutscenes, that were put together as well as RE2, which was my first Resident Evil. See, when I first played Resident Evil 1, I already had that whole, "Chris and the other STARS members discovered that Umbrella was behind everything" backstory that I knew very briefly. And to live it out was legendary for me. But my point is, back then, most games weren't dialogue heavy, other than JRPGs, which didn't have voice overs.
I mean, when I first beat the Arcade Mode in Mortal Kombat 4, and to my surprise, it had voiced over cinematic endings for the characters, I damn near creamed my drawers. It was the most I've ever been impressed with a video game at that point in time. That was on N64. When I got my PS1, and played FF8 for the first time, holy s**t...
But back to the point, at the time, having voiced over cinematics in a video game was very impressive, and to actually have some kind of story development, that was as intense as the one in Resident Evil, the mystery of it and everything, it kicked a**. It kicked storyline a**.