[QUOTE="xTHExJUICEx"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"] I don't think it's the fact that you can't skip them. It says:
Cons: more cutscenes than gameplay!
That's completely different. There's ways to tell stories without cutscenes. Some of the best games told stories without constant cutscenes.
Zeliard9
Yeah. Half-Life introduced the idea of interactive storytelling a decade ago and some games have yet to catch up. If anyone thinks you can't tell a great story while keeping everything strictly in-game and rarely ever taking control from you, look no further than that series.
What worked for Half-Life would not work for the MGS series.
Why should that mean a game should have interactive storytelling? Yes, Half-Life is one of the best stories, and one of the best way of telling it, but that doesn't mean MGS can't be a cutscene-focused game. There's a huge difference - one is from America, the other is from Japan. If people have a problem with cutscenes, why would they buy the game?gasmaskman
It would work for any series. Some MGS purists used to say that full camera control wouldn't work for MGS because a fixed perspective is "its thing". This is sort of the same thing. I'm not at all saying that there needs to be less story or anything like that.
I just think there's a different and much more effective and immersive way to deliver a story in a game nowadays, and when you consider the fact that the cutscenes in MGS4 are actually in-game and often transition directly to or from gameplay, it's sort of mind-boggling that they would limit the player's involvement so much. Why go through the trouble of making the transition seamless, when by taking control from the player so often, you're just shattering the illusion?
there is a problem though. solid snake would not be the character he is if he were not seen from the omniscient third-person perspective at times. he is not by any means a silent protagonist like Gordon.
Log in to comment