Games With Deep Complex Stories?

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="BigBoss154"]

I wouldn't call objectivism that complex. No more so than say, existentialism.

And convoluted=/bad. Some people, such as my self have no problems with convolutedness, and don't see it as a bad thing at all.

BigBoss154

It's not the concepts themselves that are labeled convoluted. It's the way those concepts are presented that can described as such.

That could be said about anything, could it not? :P

That's right. In this case, we're talking about the writing, which is pretty much, part of the presentation. If the writing's bad, then whatever concept, no matter simple or complex, will be incomprehensible or misrepresented or unnecessarily drawn out..... in my book, that's convoluted.

You could have walked, as snake, to the bench. Sat down, pressed x to smoke. But to what point? It wouldn't have looked "badass," because it would be done from a gameplay perspective. It wouldn't have ethe same level of anticipation and impact. It wouldn't feel cinematic without special camera angles being employed.

There's no reason why a game has to make the player feel that they are the protagonist.

I think for some games it's appropriate to tell the story in other ways other than cutscenes; even beneficial. But I think in other cases cutscenes are best OR that the benefits of having a scene play out in game time are nil.

hakanakumono

I tend to agree with TheGrayEye even though I agree withmuch of what you're saying. In the case of MGS4, within the first 10 minutes of the game, when the gears are leaping at you from building to building, much, if not all of the control is taken away in favor of a cutscene.

No, the game does not need to feel like you're the protagonist, but it should make you feel connected to what's going on the screen and clearly call out that one part is passive while another is interactive. This was not the case in MGS4. Although the game corrects this near the last half of the game, it already left a bad impression with me.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

There is no real difference between movies and cutscenes besides the graphical fidelity and the way in which the game handles them. The sneaking around is part of the story int he same sense that a novel regarding a spy would describe the sneaking. Without it, the game lacks framework.

It may have worked just fine in HL2, but there are a lot of stories where it would not work. A lot is dependent ont he story content. Abstinence from cutscenes is an unhealthy restriction to place upon oneself, imo, because it limits what you can do.

That sounds like backstory, but it's not a narrative. Those kind of things are great complements for a narrative, but they cannot substitute for a narrative itself. It should be noted that this is typically done in Japanese Survival Horror games.

xYamatox

"same sense that a novel regarding a spy would describe the sneaking"- Ah, but when a novel is both describing scenes of dialog between characters, and someone sneaking around a base, it is seamless, there is no medium-level distinction in between it. Reading can only be based around our ability of sight, there is no sound or real level of interaction. There is in a game though, and when you take that interaction away, it ceases to become a game, even if it is just for a minute or two.

I think it's the opposite, cutscenes (for video games) limit what you can do. If I want to sit down on that chair while talking to a character, I can't because the cutscene is fully scripted, and out of my hands. Cutscenes take away the player's ability to make choices, and most of all, to interact- which is a staple of video games. Imagine if you were watching an actual movie at the theaters, and then all of a sudden one of the characters in the film pulled out a book, and then the only thing that was on screen were pages and silence for ten minutes, as the shot consisted soley of pages from the book (ones that the audience were expected to read)...

Also with System Shock 2 (and Bioshock), it actually managed to take audio diaries, which are often used soley for collectible bits of simple backstory nowadays, into a front that can actually be used to discover the reality and secrets of the actual story. You could play through Bioshock without really listening to the diaries, and understand the story at a basic level, but the audio diaries were the actual star of the narrative, they allowed you to discover entierly new levels that the plot had existed on, critical storylines that were central to the main plot, making it more than just backstory material. It's the type of story that works in a video game, the way 2001:a space odyssey works the way it does as a movie.

It also allows for a great level of subtly, because with Bioshock, so much of the environment and art deco (statues, etc) speak volumes about the mindset of Andrew Ryan and the characters in Rapture, without needing to have a huge cutscene explain all that in flashbacks (like Metal Gear would do).

I think you're confusing opinion as fact. IN YOUR OPINION, Half-Life's method of telling a story is better for you. For quite a few (lots) of people, cutscenes work just fine. There is no way a game could implement some scenes the way they do if done through pure gameplay. You mentioned the scene in MGS3 where Snake does the HALO jump out of the plane. While you could very easily implement that scene as gameplay, it would not have the same effect for setting up the mood for that portion of the game.

You ask for innovative ways to tell stories, yet completely forget about Quick-Time Actions, and interactive cutscenes that Metal Gear has added in since MGS3. I feel you simply like one method over another, but just because you like the HL2/System Shock story telling doesn't make it superior.

Of course lots of people are comfortable with cutscenes- they are movies, and everyone loves movies, because movies have already gone through the stage were they have defined and explored it's own narrative possibilites (Citizen Kane, 2001). Movies are already established for the most part, while the rich potential for new narratives in video games is still largely untapped, cutscenes/movies are the "safe" way out (which isn't a bad thing in it's own respect, but it's not innovative).

Like I said, I think the HALO jump scene could have been made in a way that felt just as cinematic, except that you would be Snake. I wouldn't have minded if they had controlled the camera a bit, as long as we felt like we were still in control of Snake, flying down back to Earth. QTAs aren't bad, they give it a cinematic look, and you still control the action, so you still have control over your character. Also I wouldn't call those MGS cutscenes "interactive", all you can really do is zoom the camera in and out, like you're Tony Scott on crack. Hl2's narrative may or may not be superior, but for a game, it's a hell of a lot more innovative.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

It doesn't have much to do with FF itself as much as it has to do with cutscenes coming directly after battles with no loading (boss fights).

Why does the player need to do everything? I understand that games should engage gameplay when possible, but I think it should also be reasonable. Is taking Snake, walking 3 steps to the edge of an aircraft and pressing "x" to jump off really adding something to the game? In Xenosaga Ep. II there is a sword fight between two characters directly followed by a boss fight. Yes, the sword fight could be handled with an in game battle, but the in game battle wouldn't offer the same type of scene and it would be redundant with another fight to follow it.

There are different directions you can take games. There is no one true way to tell a story in a game. I think the problem here is that I haven't played these games so it's difficult for me to discuss them.

hakanakumono

They could have easily made it so you were Snake in that plane, in control of him, able to sit down and smoke your cigar, looking badass while your commander talks to you over your radio. The exciting music is still playing and the whole experience still feels cinematic, except that you are the star, and that is the strength an interactive medium like this provides, we don't have to watch the protagonist like a movie, we ARE the protagonist.

I think you should try games like Half-life 2 or Bioshock, because they represent all new directions that gaming can go, and it's the only way you'll have a real insight to what I'm getting at. I'm not saying cutscenes are evil, sometimes they can be quite useful, but I think developers should make more of an effort to explore new ways to tell their story, ways that are exclusive to this medium, and not just animated movies.

You could have walked, as snake, to the bench. Sat down, pressed x to smoke. But to what point? It wouldn't have looked "badass," because it would be done from a gameplay perspective. It wouldn't have ethe same level of anticipation and impact. It wouldn't feel cinematic without special camera angles being employed.

There's no reason why a game has to make the player feel that they are the protagonist.

I think for some games it's appropriate to tell the story in other ways other than cutscenes; even beneficial. But I think in other cases cutscenes are best OR that the benefits of having a scene play out in game time are nil.

I wouldn't have a problem (given the plane is a small area) if they had used unique camera angles while we were in the plane. If it were done in gameplay, they could have further expanded the scene as well, they could have added lots of other interactible things (all at the player's own will), all while the exciting music and commander's dialog is playing over, thus making it still feel cinematic.

Why make the player feel like they're the protagonist? Because we can, that is what is possible with video games.

The reason why one would feel movies are the best way to tell a story in a game, is because we love movies. Most people (including myself), probably feel the film medium is the best way to tell a story, or at least the most exciting way. When I play a game though, I want to see a story told through the game medium, which is not actually done that often at all.

It seems to me like you need to have more faith in what video games can do, rather than rely on the old and proven cutscene. I think games will evolve in time, just like how movies started out with a very play/stage like presentation, with one simple camera angle capturing the set and action- this is because plays are what had worked before hand (much like our cutscenes). 90 years later, and it's safe to say film has found it's place and own identiy, filmmakers have captured what is possible to do, in both a technical, and narrative sense with film, utilizing it's possiblities to an amazing extent. I think games will evolve in a similar way.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

They could have easily made it so you were Snake in that plane, in control of him, able to sit down and smoke your cigar, looking badass while your commander talks to you over your radio. The exciting music is still playing and the whole experience still feels cinematic, except that you are the star, and that is the strength an interactive medium like this provides, we don't have to watch the protagonist like a movie, we ARE the protagonist.

I think you should try games like Half-life 2 or Bioshock, because they represent all new directions that gaming can go, and it's the only way you'll have a real insight to what I'm getting at. I'm not saying cutscenes are evil, sometimes they can be quite useful, but I think developers should make more of an effort to explore new ways to tell their story, ways that are exclusive to this medium, and not just animated movies.

TheGrayEye

You could have walked, as snake, to the bench. Sat down, pressed x to smoke. But to what point? It wouldn't have looked "badass," because it would be done from a gameplay perspective. It wouldn't have ethe same level of anticipation and impact. It wouldn't feel cinematic without special camera angles being employed.

There's no reason why a game has to make the player feel that they are the protagonist.

I think for some games it's appropriate to tell the story in other ways other than cutscenes; even beneficial. But I think in other cases cutscenes are best OR that the benefits of having a scene play out in game time are nil.

I wouldn't have a problem (given the plane is a small area) if they had used unique camera angles while we were in the plane. If it were done in gameplay, they could have further expanded the scene as well, they could have added lots of other interactible things (all at the player's own will), all while the exciting music and commander's dialog is playing over, thus making it still feel cinematic.

Why make the player feel like they're the protagonist? Because we can, that is what is possible with video games.

The reason why one would feel movies are the best way to tell a story in a game, is because we love movies. Most people (including myself), probably feel the film medium is the best way to tell a story, or at least the most exciting way. When I play a game though, I want to see a story told through the game medium, which is not actually done that often at all.

It seems to me like you need to have more faith in what video games can do, rather than rely on the old and proven cutscene. I think games will evolve in time, just like how movies started out with a very play/stage like presentation, with one simple camera angle capturing the set and action- this is because plays are what had worked before hand (much like our cutscenes). 90 years later, and it's safe to say film has found it's place and own identiy, filmmakers have captured what is possible to do, in both a technical, and narrative sense with film, utilizing it's possiblities to an amazing extent. I think games will evolve in a similar way.

I just don't see the point in playing out something so small in gameplay. There's no point imo.

I understand and I think it's a great thing; I just don't think all games need to do it.

I disagree. I think the reason why cutscenes are in games is the same reason why movies are basically cutscenes; our lives play out in motion. Why shouldn't games play out story events in motion?

It's not that I don't have faith in what videogames can do and I agree with you that things like archiving to discover plot are great devices. But I don't think we need to completely disregard cutscenes just because there are other ways to communicate storyline, especially when gameplay and archiving may be inadequate in depicting certain scenes. For example, in FFX you can tell a lot about what Yuna is thinking by her expressions and body language (a skill Square seems to have lost in the past 10 years). How are you supposed to communicate this with gameplay? If you have her outright speak everything, then it ruins the subtlety. On the other hand, FFXIII implemented a system where the characters can talk and interact with each other as they progress through the game's various locations. The story of the game was hardly impressive, but it was a system that could have been utilized in gameplay to deliver dialogue through locations and it was underutilized.

There is a time for gameplay and there is a time for cutscenes.

[QUOTE="devious742"]

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

No. No it doesn't. It's a poorly written incoherent pre-teen mess.

Indie_Hitman

I think the saving grace of that development was their connection to the Matron (giving way to the basis for the plot, connecting them to the villain, and creating a sense of doubt) and to Ellone (clearing up a potential plot hole). It wasn't really all that bad.

I think the saving grace of that development was their connection to the Matron (giving way to the basis for the plot, connecting them to the villain, and creating a sense of doubt) and to Ellone (clearing up a potential plot hole). It wasn't really all that bad.

hakanakumono

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I think the saving grace of that development was their connection to the Matron (giving way to the basis for the plot, connecting them to the villain, and creating a sense of doubt) and to Ellone (clearing up a potential plot hole). It wasn't really all that bad.

Arach666

I dislike FF7's because of the sheer volume. No, I will not watch your movies and anime and whatnot, SE. Compilation Of FF7 pretty much made me give up on following the plot.

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I think the saving grace of that development was their connection to the Matron (giving way to the basis for the plot, connecting them to the villain, and creating a sense of doubt) and to Ellone (clearing up a potential plot hole). It wasn't really all that bad.

felipebo

I dislike FF7's because of the sheer volume. No, I will not watch your movies and anime and whatnot, SE. Compilation Of FF7 pretty much made me give up on following the plot.

FFVII was a product of 1997. It was when JRPGs were just transitioning out of the SNES era, and it was able to have a surprisingly good story for the time. It was a self contained package and ended beautifully. Just ignore the compilation, because it does the game a disservice.

I like FFVIII and FFX because they feature immature characters but the story knows that they are immature and plays upon that. FFXIII on the other hand features immature characters and glorifies them. FFVI and FFVII have trouble realizing their characters as unique individuals. Despite having backstory and internal conflict, they seem flat.

Gears of War 2

(j/k)

FFVII was a product of 1997. It was when JRPGs were just transitioning out of the SNES era, and it was able to have a surprisingly good story for the time. It was a self contained package and ended beautifully. Just ignore the compilation, because it does the game a disservice.

I like FFVIII and FFX because they feature immature characters but the story knows that they are immature and plays upon that. FFXIII on the other hand features immature characters and glorifies them. FFVI and FFVII have trouble realizing their characters as unique individuals. Despite having backstory and internal conflict, they seem flat.

hakanakumono

Planescape Torment, Xenogears, Silent Hill 2, Dues Ex 1, SotC, Witcher, Alan Wake, Max Payne 2

3 that come to mind

COME ON GUYS! DID NO ONE mention THIS?

Anyone wants to know, click the image :)

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

You could have walked, as snake, to the bench. Sat down, pressed x to smoke. But to what point? It wouldn't have looked "badass," because it would be done from a gameplay perspective. It wouldn't have ethe same level of anticipation and impact. It wouldn't feel cinematic without special camera angles being employed.

There's no reason why a game has to make the player feel that they are the protagonist.

I think for some games it's appropriate to tell the story in other ways other than cutscenes; even beneficial. But I think in other cases cutscenes are best OR that the benefits of having a scene play out in game time are nil.

hakanakumono

I wouldn't have a problem (given the plane is a small area) if they had used unique camera angles while we were in the plane. If it were done in gameplay, they could have further expanded the scene as well, they could have added lots of other interactible things (all at the player's own will), all while the exciting music and commander's dialog is playing over, thus making it still feel cinematic.

Why make the player feel like they're the protagonist? Because we can, that is what is possible with video games.

The reason why one would feel movies are the best way to tell a story in a game, is because we love movies. Most people (including myself), probably feel the film medium is the best way to tell a story, or at least the most exciting way. When I play a game though, I want to see a story told through the game medium, which is not actually done that often at all.

It seems to me like you need to have more faith in what video games can do, rather than rely on the old and proven cutscene. I think games will evolve in time, just like how movies started out with a very play/stage like presentation, with one simple camera angle capturing the set and action- this is because plays are what had worked before hand (much like our cutscenes). 90 years later, and it's safe to say film has found it's place and own identiy, filmmakers have captured what is possible to do, in both a technical, and narrative sense with film, utilizing it's possiblities to an amazing extent. I think games will evolve in a similar way.

I just don't see the point in playing out something so small in gameplay. There's no point imo.

I understand and I think it's a great thing; I just don't think all games need to do it.

I disagree. I think the reason why cutscenes are in games is the same reason why movies are basically cutscenes; our lives play out in motion. Why shouldn't games play out story events in motion?

It's not that I don't have faith in what videogames can do and I agree with you that things like archiving to discover plot are great devices. But I don't think we need to completely disregard cutscenes just because there are other ways to communicate storyline, especially when gameplay and archiving may be inadequate in depicting certain scenes. For example, in FFX you can tell a lot about what Yuna is thinking by her expressions and body language (a skill Square seems to have lost in the past 10 years). How are you supposed to communicate this with gameplay? If you have her outright speak everything, then it ruins the subtlety. On the other hand, FFXIII implemented a system where the characters can talk and interact with each other as they progress through the game's various locations. The story of the game was hardly impressive, but it was a system that could have been utilized in gameplay to deliver dialogue through locations and it was underutilized.

There is a time for gameplay and there is a time for cutscenes.

It's not that I am against cutscenes entirely, there are uses for them, but my main point is that developers seem to be neglecting the immersive and interactive possibilites by being overly dependent on cutscenes all the time for stories. There are places for "cinematics" of sorts though, look at Mass Effect for example. It's a pretty dialog-heavy game, so the cutscene-like dialog scenes are pretty important, and probably work best the way they are, but it's also important to note that even though they have a cutscene-like persepctive, you still interact with them, which is important and is what gaming is all about.

In Half-life 2, you can look at the characters faces to see their expression, there is no designated camera angle pointing it out. I don't think cutscenes are exactly a bad thing (as long as the story itself is good), but I do have a problem when they start taking up more time than they should. This is the case with Metal Gear, the length of the cutscenes are ridiculous, it becomes a case of the story not only having too much fat, but the game instead becoming an animated movie, with playable action scenes.

Someone mentioned this earlier, and I agree with it- Splinter Cell Conviction actually handled the story through actual gameplay quite well. They had scenes where Sam would be interogating a bad guy in a bathroom- normally this would be handled with a cutscene, but it was playable here, and it really added to the game by making you actually able to play out Sam's aggression, instead of spectating. Not only that, but the game made it so things that may have normally been a cutscene, were instead projected onto the actual environment, like a memory playing from Sam's mind, it was very effective and kept you in the experience. Also, there were moments were Sam would be talking or doing something (cutscene-like), but it would still be taking place within the gameplay, and you had camera control (even though Sam may have been moving by himself), thus still giving you a kind of very natural and in-game cutscene-like approach (incredibly seamless, and more natural than a cutscene would have been).

My personal favourite?

FEAR

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

FFVII was a product of 1997. It was when JRPGs were just transitioning out of the SNES era, and it was able to have a surprisingly good story for the time. It was a self contained package and ended beautifully. Just ignore the compilation, because it does the game a disservice.

I like FFVIII and FFX because they feature immature characters but the story knows that they are immature and plays upon that. FFXIII on the other hand features immature characters and glorifies them. FFVI and FFVII have trouble realizing their characters as unique individuals. Despite having backstory and internal conflict, they seem flat.

Arach666

I think you must have misunderstood me; When I first played FFXIII it was in Japanese. I was thrilled with the battle system int he game, but the direction frustrated me throughout. I knew after playing the game that the story would rest on the story elements I wasn't able to fully pick up on in the Japanese ver (although I picked up on more than I realized), or the plot would fall apart. Replaying it in English, it was clear that the story did in fact fall apart where I suspected it would, but the game was thoroughly enjoyable for me due to the battle system, coming from a series that has been historically lackluster int he battle department, which I view to be the most important part of the gameplay.

It's probably not that I was actively praising it as much as you noticed me defending certain aspects of it.

The OP thought Bioshock and inFAMOUS had shallow stories, so you might as well just quit listing games. He wouldn't know a good story if it punched him in the eye.

Silent Hill 2

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories/ This one was done very well considering the title itself now looking at it makes me chuckle just a bit.

Convoluted is just a word used to describe complexity in a negative light. Complexity in of itself isn't always going to bring a story to greater heights, but games that discuss and explore a number of complex subjects are going to be complex and this will always lead those who don't want to deal with complexity discarding it as "convoluted." Not to mention the fact that "convoluted" is used to describe a wide range of complexities in storytelling.

hakanakumono

It's not just the convoluted part that's bad in MGS, it's the poor writing and acting.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Convoluted is just a word used to describe complexity in a negative light. Complexity in of itself isn't always going to bring a story to greater heights, but games that discuss and explore a number of complex subjects are going to be complex and this will always lead those who don't want to deal with complexity discarding it as "convoluted." Not to mention the fact that "convoluted" is used to describe a wide range of complexities in storytelling.

goblaa

It's not just the convoluted part that's bad in MGS, it's the poor writing and acting.

I'm not really a huge MGS fan.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Convoluted is just a word used to describe complexity in a negative light. Complexity in of itself isn't always going to bring a story to greater heights, but games that discuss and explore a number of complex subjects are going to be complex and this will always lead those who don't want to deal with complexity discarding it as "convoluted." Not to mention the fact that "convoluted" is used to describe a wide range of complexities in storytelling.

goblaa

It's not just the convoluted part that's bad in MGS, it's the poor writing and acting.

[QUOTE="Megaman5364"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

So what? There's no reason for every single moment of the game to be spent battling. FFVIII wouldn't be able to tell the story that it did without cutscenes.

JangoWuzHere

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"][QUOTE="Megaman5364"] Final Fantasy 8 is the only good Final Fantasy so don't hate on it haters :( !!!Megaman5364

lol at mass effect, mgs, ff, bioshock, alan wake, hf and all the other crap.  almost all of them are immature, convoluted and full of cliche. hf is not actually that bad. nothing revolutionary but not bad. i'd rather play the hobbit than all of these, since i know that the story is good. it sickens me to that these games get all the spotlight! i hate what gaming has turned into.

the best story (and generally the game) is imho planescape: torment. it has an amazing story that is personal, not some save the world crap. the premise is actually tipical: a man wakes up with no memory of who he is, and he tries to find out who (and what) he is. but the story gets from that to an existential quest on finding out if it is possible that a man changes his nature. the only problem is that to some the big amount of text may be tedious. but keep in mind that it's not the kind of text which you just scroll down, but an interactive text which defines the course of the game.

besides ps:t, i would suggest god of war, the longest journey, thomas was not alone and lotro and gabriel knight series, sanitarium, braid and i have no mouth and i must scream. the last four i haven't played but they seem quite good. the first four are great but aren't as deep as ps:t (you won't find anything like it). god of war follows the greek mythology and keeps true to the style of ancient greek stories. the longest journey gives an interesting story about the confrontation and connection between magic and science. i'd also suggest ico and shadow of the colossus. they're not deep in story but in emotions. try thomas was not alone. it's a tipical side scrolling puzzler. everything is actually incredibly minimalistic and simple, to an extent where the game would be dull and just squares jumping around, if it weren't for an amazing  narration. that game is a piece of art. such simplicity turned into something deep with just one great narrator. if you want an online game, try lotro it follows the original lotr story but from a third party, which makes it quite interesting.

hope i helped, and please excuse my bad english.

Complex is good now? 

Something doesn't need to be deep to be interesting. The most interesting stories are the easiest to understand. Just because MGS has 5 hours of cutscenes with bloated and repetitious dialogue doesn't make it good, it makes it confusing. How much of that is down to loss-in-translation' is hard to gauge.

Just realised this is a thread from 2010, lol...

While not necessarily complex, the stories of Silent Hill 2 and Shattered Memories are some of the deepest and poignant in gaming.

Metal Gear Solid the thread

bioshock infinite also mgs series

read a ****ing book you illiterates.

Planescape: borement, there's a strong story there if you can get past the awful combat.

EDIT: nm necro thread.

EDIT: nm necro thread.

BeardMaster

Not again, getting sick of this >.>

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Then it's probably not a narrative. I've never played Half Life 2, but I've once been told that Metroid Prime had a good story because of all the background information you discover. And while it may be interesting, it's still not a narrative.

Games like Siren have a lot of story that is not told through cutscenes, but through archive files that the player stumbles across. But it also has cutscenes, which both come together to become a narrative. If it did not have cutscenes, it wouldn't have a narrative and I wouldn't consider it to have a "good" story.

 

hakanakumono

That is complete bull ****. Games like Half-life 2 and System Shock 2 not only have a better narrative than 90% of the video games out there, they are actually some of the most innovative as well. Cutscenes (aka movies) are NOT video game medium, when a developer uses cutscenes, they are using movies/cinematics to tell their story, NOT video games as a medium itself.

Games like Half-life 2, or even Bioshock are some of the few games that are ACTUALLY pushing this industry forward in story-telling, using cutscenes is pushing it backwards in many cases. Telling the story within the gameplay, and by using the strengths this medium can provide (as said games do), are the only way video games can evolve.

Bull. Videogames can employ a multitude of ways in which to tell a story, which may involve reading, watching, and actually playing. It's silly to make arbitrary lines on what constitutes "real videogame storytelling" and "fake videogame storytelling" when all of these things can be done within the game.

Videogames are visual media. That is why cutscenes are used. It's not because of some sort of identity crisis; it's in the nature of the medium.

No video games are an interactive media. People watch TV shows and movies if they want a visual media.

Favorite All Time Video game story goes to Final Fantasy X. To this day, it is still my favorite, replayed it so many times I lost count and willb e enjoying in HD at some point this year :). The story was fanstastic, I loved the characters and Tidus is still my favorite FF lead. Say what you want, but I feel like he's the most relatable. People call him whiney, but in all honesty, isn't that how most of us would act if we were stranded in some strange world thinking I was in the past, not knowing the customs and making social interaction unconfortable. Not understanding the ways, thinking it's unfair. One of the very few game endings that was a tear jearker. 

But as for this gen? I would say Mass Effect, yeah it had to do with an invasion, but the twist sent chills down my spine during the scene in ME1 when Sovereign revealed it's purpose and it was essentially that universes cycle of life. I also liked it had a semi happy but gloomy ending.

I did enjoy Bioshock Infinite's story as well, it got a little wierd at the end, and I liked that. Very enjoyable.

Tales of Xillia's story is also starting to shape up pretty nicely. I don't want to reveal spoilers for it since it's a newer game, but It doesn't feel like it follows the standard plot of alot of games.

There alot of games that will use Good vs. Evil conflicts and thats ok. That theme has been around since the dawn of time. Some of our greatest stories are based off Good Vs. Evil. Alot of the times it's the inbetween stuff and the characters that set others apart from each other. 

There are many other games that I probobly haven't played or am just not thinking of at this second, but these are some that I will always remember fondly. 

FFT has a fantastic, deep story.

Assassins Creed III :cool:

The witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR, Metro 2033 ( I just really liked the moral points system).GuNsbl4ziN

Oh man, I can't believe I forgot to add the witcher series when I posted, Good Choice

FFT has a fantastic, deep story.

AdamPA1006

Assassins Creed III :cool:

PhazonBlazer