Gears of War: Horrible Plot

There are many good games that don't focus on the story, like for example one of my personal favorite game ever created - DMC3:SE has a ridiculously cheesy & simplistic story, despite that i love it.

I mean Gears has a horrible plot, but so does Uncharted - which is a walking mess of a cliche from its beginning 'till it's end. Doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be anyone's personal favorite game.

[QUOTE="rumbalumba"]funny, i didn't know humas as bad guys constitutes a good story. :lol:foxhound_fox

lol. so humans being evil contributes to a better story? don't make me laugh. it's not the situation or idea but the plot and how you present it are what makes a story good.

oh look, the humans are evil in Gears, which is not the norm so hurray it automatically becomes a better story than Uncharted! :roll:

Geow's story is good.. you have the good guys fighting an alien race in order to defend humanity.. it may not be 'original' but hey the sp campaigns were fun..

Imo Stories dont necessarily require to be complex to be good, specially for shooters were as long as the pacing is good and its action packed thats good enough..

Gears has a horrible plot and horrible storytelling. But the story lying underneath that mess is really good.

In fact, I think Gears is one of the best science-fiction universes created in the last decade, across all media.

You think they left it at simply that? How about the lambent... How about the imulsion and it killing the planet from the inside? Who is the queen? What are the locust exactly, and where did they come from? What about Niles and the Sires? Where's Prescot, why did he abandon the COG and finally cause the disband of the government? And that's merely the start, there's still questions to be answered, the whole plot isn't about finding Adam Fenix exactly. Crysis333

The truth is almost all games have bad stories except a few games like ME2 and Heavy Rain.

dovberg

You can sit and preach about what makes a "good" story all day but in truth it's all subjective. You believing it's a bad plot, doesnt make that a concrete, irrifutable fact. cainetao11

At all. As they should be, unless of course there's actual genuine informed discussion.

There's a discernible difference between good and bad, no matter what a thirteen year old kid who has played Final Fantasy 10 and thinks its a defining, brilliantly well told tale,let alone Call of Duty thinks.

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]No the plot was horrible, and the way it was told was entirely unremarkable. It was all context for the gameplay and character of the game. Not to say that the games *fiction* doesn't have anything going for it, but it's the games themselves which are being pointed out here.skrat_01

1.) Just because it doesn'tventure into new story materialin gaming, doesn't mean it can't still be regarded as being good. You're just churning up what I've already stated two times already, the games are bare-bones but there's still a goodexpanded universe you're trying to disregard.

2.)I said "a bunch", not all. I am able to recognize some games are able to avoid "plot working in conjunction with gameplay".

3.) Again, I've been able to note the difference between just the game's plot and the expanded universe created twice (now thrice). That doesn't mean you can completely disregard that books have been created. There are interesting concepts that Gears dawns on, but never puts them into practice (or they just fail miserably).

[QUOTE="Crysis333"]You think they left it at simply that? How about the lambent... How about the imulsion and it killing the planet from the inside? Who is the queen? What are the locust exactly, and where did they come from? What about Niles and the Sires? Where's Prescot, why did he abandon the COG and finally cause the disband of the government? And that's merely the start, there's still questions to be answered, the whole plot isn't about finding Adam Fenix exactly. skrat_01

The truth is almost all games have bad stories except a few games like ME2 and Heavy Rain.

dovberg

[QUOTE="cainetao11"]You can sit and preach about what makes a "good" story all day but in truth it's all subjective. You believing it's a bad plot, doesnt make that a concrete, irrifutable fact. skrat_01

Uncharted isn't any better besides having a one good character.

Sully.I can tolerate Drake though.

[QUOTE="cainetao11"]You can sit and preach about what makes a "good" story all day but in truth it's all subjective. You believing it's a bad plot, doesnt make that a concrete, irrifutable fact. skrat_01

At all. As they should be, unless of course there's actual genuine informed discussion.

There's a discernible difference between good and bad, no matter what a thirteen year old kid who has played Final Fantasy 10 and thinks its a defining, brilliantly well told tale,let alone Call of Duty thinks.

However, it IS totally subjective. Some people may love Gears's story over The Longest Journey and they wouldn't be wrong. Some people may hold the story in Transformers in higher regard than Shakespeare. And they're entitled to that opinion.

The difference between good and bad IS subjective. Where someone draws the line is totally a personal call.

Most people, myself included, will agree with you that Gears's story isn't that good. But now we're just talking consensus, which I think you're relying on.

This is directed to everyone....who here is expecting The Iliad or Gilgamesh when they play games? If that's the expectation, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment well before you pop the disc in your tray. Remember the medium we're talking about. Can't apply the all values of passive media to an interactive one. It doesn't work.

Feel free to point out which poster stated that.moose_knuckler

However, it IS totally subjective. Some people may love Gears's story over The Longest Journey and they wouldn't be wrong. Some people may hold the story in Transformers in higher regard than Shakespeare. And they're entitled to that opinion.

The difference between good and bad IS subjective. Where someone draws the line is totally a personal call.

Most people, myself included, will agree with you that Gears's story isn't that good. But now we're just talking consensus, which I think you're relying on.

This is directed to everyone....who here is expecting The Iliad or Gilgamesh when they play games? If that's the expectation, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment well before you pop the disc in your tray. Remember the medium we're talking about. Can't apply the all values of passive media to an interactive one. It doesn't work.

VoodooHak

Whether or not you love it is subjective, and that's just fine, I don't disagree at all personal value can be highly respected.

However no, whether or not you like something is a personal call indeed, however the merits of a piece themselves can be judged and discussed. Yes there is emotion involved (nothing is ever completely impartial) but there are discernable rules in the language of any medium which help us establish what is a better than another, not something that is more personal, or had more of an impression on you, rather a more informed perspective on why it did, against its peers.

The more you understand and learn, the better you know these, and are informed, the better you can properly debate and discuss and define what makes these successful - even games.

Now yes GeOW's story not being good has a popular concensus against it, but even in the language of games and the other mediums it dabbles in (it's still very transmedia with its cutscenes and writing), it isn't good at all. However in the context of games, we're weighing the mechanical function of it far more heavily - so this lack of plot doesn't bring down the rest of the game. It works, it fits.

Now I'm not saying tat these should be on some kind of literary totem - however we should demand something better in regard to literacy in games. Does that mean GeOW needs to explore complex boundaries or Uncharted? Hell no, that's completely out of place and character. Instead its a matter of compeling storytelling in their own merits, and unfortunately as convincing as both are, they have their own narrative flaws.

However does that mean Gears has a good story? Course not, but that doesn't mean the game is bought down by it at all.

And I really liked Gears and enjoyed the bare basic plot (bought the launch 360 bundle), as I said it worked. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of it.

Disagree. To decide what is "ggod or Bad" requires a measuring criteria which must have been created at some point by one or more people. To say those that disagree with this criteria are wrong or 13 year olds is ignorant and elitist. There are popular opinions of what is "good and bad" but they are not facts as long as human beings have different tastes. Hence, it's subjective. Or as Shakespeare said, "good and bad exist not, only concious thought makes it seem so".cainetao11

As I said here "Yes there is emotion involved (nothing is ever completely impartial) but there are discernable rules in the language of any medium which help us establish what is a better than another, not something that is more personal, or had more of an impression on you, rather a more informed perspective on why it did, against its peers."

Now the rules are always changing, or completely cast or revamped, perspective also changes in time.

We can sit down and establish that the original Star Wars - a defining for its own merits, film is far better than Episode One, not by popular opinion, but by how either uses the language of film to tell their own stories.

My point of thirteen year olds is that its a lesser informed perspective, not to say they shouldn't admire, enjoy or hell, love whatever they hold up, but that doesn't mean that what their heralding is of as much discernible quality as others that have been scrutinised, discussed and established as something better.

Should it someone have less value to that person? No, you can enjoy it for what it is. Yes of course there's always taste, and there's never a right or wrong - that's why there should be debate and discussion.

There's no such thing as 'everything's subjective', a writer evenn like Shakespear was successful, and still s highly regarded for very particular reasons; and in that quote he's right - its concious thought that makes us actually define what is 'bad' or good'

1.) Just because it doesn'tventure into new story materialin gaming, doesn't mean it can't still be regarded as being good. You're just churning up what I've already stated two times already, the games are bare-bones but there's still a goodexpanded universe you're trying to disregard.

2.)I said "a bunch", not all. I am able to recognize some games are able to avoid "plot working in conjunction with gameplay".

3.) Again, I've been able to note the difference between just the game's plot and the expanded universe created twice (now thrice). That doesn't mean you can completely disregard that books have been created. There are interesting concepts that Gears dawns on, but never puts them into practice (or they just fail miserably).

moose_knuckler

1. Indeed, and Gears plot isn't good. It's too simple even in execution, there's no character development etc. The fiction of the world however I'd say certainly is.

I'm not saying you can't like it. I liked it.

2. Plot should always work in conjunction with the gameplay. There's a reason in GeOW Marcus is an absolute tank of a fighter - he is a badass, it fits with the plot and the mechanics of the game. It's the language of games when it comes to storytelling - how writing, audio visual and mechanical function work together (in conjunction).

Not to all games should focus on plot, however having a good one helps if there's focus on it.

Take Serious Sam for instance - there's no characters except Sam, just monsters, it stripts itself of genuine plot almost entirely (aside from man with a gun kills monsters) and its better for it. Gears on the other hand actually invests time into developing and exploring one - which servers more of a purpose of providing context for the action.

3. The expanded universe is the games fiction. I never disregarded it at all (seriously quote me on it) and as I mentioned, its quite good in its own right. Does that mean the games have good plots or narratives? No, not at all, but it means the worlds are convincing (and I think the strong worldbuilding in Gears is the major reason why the plot isn't entirely unconvincing).

Seeing as how the thing that makes Gears of War popular is the fact that it attached a chainsaw to a gun, that's not much of a shocker.

DJ-Lafleur

The Uncharted series doesn't have stories. They have great storyTELLING. I enjoy the stories anyways. mrmusicman247

I think it has a very basic blockbuster story, but I really like how they tell it as you play. And the cutscenes have great direction. But overall, even among its comtemporaries such as Halo the universe isn't as impressive. The Halo universe is so good it has potential for endless spinoffs, not so much GOW.

I think it has a very basic blockbuster story, but I really like how they tell it as you play. And the cutscenes have great direction. But overall, even among its comtemporaries such as Halo the universe isn't as impressive. The Halo universe is so good it has potential for endless spinoffs, not so much GOW.

ChrisSpartan117

Uncharted doesn't have a good story, what are you talking about. :?

FoolwithaLancer

The problem here is that the rules that define language of games are still being written. I think it's unrealistic to apply literary standards of traditional,passive media to one that's interactive. The nature of the format changes those rules.

A higher level of literacy in games is great for games that attempting it.

What I don't understand is that in one breath you're saying game stories are ok in the context of games, but in the next breath you're want to judge the narrative outside of the context for which it was intended.

Even novelizations of games still have to fall back on some of the meat head canon of a game.

Or maybe we need people to just sit down and do some literary analysis and pull from game stories what we can. Maybe that analysis should take into account that narrative flaws are a result of the them being in a game. For example, the story of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell Conviction generally follows the epic hero template(http://www.themarriedgamers.net/?p=7138 ). Maybe Metal Gear Solid offers philosophical and social commentary worthy of discussion(http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/07/texas-professor-offers-metal-gear-solid-and-philosophy-course/). Maybe there's some literary value in merely recognizing something like that.

imo the story is decent enough for you to want to finsh the game. they could explore some of the back stories in future games like the pendolium wars. the universe they have created is decent enough but the story telling is quite bad but does it matter? no. gears of war is about multiplayer to me so i could care less

I think it has a very basic blockbuster story, but I really like how they tell it as you play. And the cutscenes have great direction. But overall, even among its comtemporaries such as Halo the universe isn't as impressive. The Halo universe is so good it has potential for endless spinoffs, not so much GOW.

The problem here is that the rules that define language of games are still being written. I think it's unrealistic to apply literary standards of traditional,passive media to one that's interactive. The nature of the format changes those rules.

A higher level of literacy in games is great for games that attempting it.

What I don't understand is that in one breath you're saying game stories are ok in the context of games, but in the next breath you're want to judge the narrative outside of the context for which it was intended.

Even novelizations of games still have to fall back on some of the meat head canon of a game.

Or maybe we need people to just sit down and do some literary analysis and pull from game stories what we can. Maybe that analysis should take into account that narrative flaws are a result of the them being in a game. For example, the story of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell Conviction generally follows the epic hero template(http://www.themarriedgamers.net/?p=7138 ). Maybe Metal Gear Solid offers philosophical and social commentary worthy of discussion(http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/07/texas-professor-offers-metal-gear-solid-and-philosophy-course/). Maybe there's some literary value in merely recognizing something like that.

VoodooHak

The thing is, there is a good array of games that are very successful in representing games in this respect, a wide one at that, and that's where we can draw comparisons to, we're well beyond an era of interactive toys.

No a higher lever of literacy should be something sought after in furthering games themselves, however it has its place, naturally.

What I'm saying is that in its own context the games narrative is serviceable, however the plot is damn stupid and the way its told isn't anything remarkable at all. That doesn't weigh down the entirety of the game. Furthermore its certainly not a necessity, however considering the game uses plot to further action sequences and characters to humanise the world, it would have been to the games benefit if it was stronger, and better written. They tried with the second, and that was even more muddled.

You would expect novelizations to fall back on the canon - it's the games overarching fiction, it's relevant to it.

There's literary value in *tons of elements and aspects in many games game*. I can sit down and write a 3000 word essay on how the mechanical functionality of Operation Flashpoint (2001) alone creates more convincing atmosphere of the authenticity, fear and dread of combat, then a hundred shlock war films; all in the language of games.

Does it mean it's suddenly high on the hierarchy of games that represent the capacity for stories to be told in games?

I don't think so, but there is value in it, and as in your examples there certainly up for discussion.

And that's what we should be doing, discussing. Does that mean we can't point at Gears and establish - well it has a really bad plot, and serviceable storytelling - but it works - why is that and what are we using to draw comparisons? Of course not. Also, most as in such a massive amount of games generally follow the 'Hero with a thousand faces' template of storytelling.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

The problem here is that the rules that define language of games are still being written. I think it's unrealistic to apply literary standards of traditional,passive media to one that's interactive. The nature of the format changes those rules.

A higher level of literacy in games is great for games that attempting it.

What I don't understand is that in one breath you're saying game stories are ok in the context of games, but in the next breath you're want to judge the narrative outside of the context for which it was intended.

Even novelizations of games still have to fall back on some of the meat head canon of a game.

Or maybe we need people to just sit down and do some literary analysis and pull from game stories what we can. Maybe that analysis should take into account that narrative flaws are a result of the them being in a game. For example, the story of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell Conviction generally follows the epic hero template(http://www.themarriedgamers.net/?p=7138 ). Maybe Metal Gear Solid offers philosophical and social commentary worthy of discussion(http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/07/texas-professor-offers-metal-gear-solid-and-philosophy-course/). Maybe there's some literary value in merely recognizing something like that.

skrat_01

The thing is, there is a good array of games that are very successful in representing games in this respect, a wide one at that, and that's where we can draw comparisons to, we're well beyond an era of interactive toys.

No a higher lever of literacy should be something sought after in furthering games themselves, however it has its place, naturally.

What I'm saying is that in its own context the games narrative is serviceable, however the plot is damn stupid and the way its told isn't anything remarkable at all. That doesn't weigh down the entirety of the game. Furthermore its certainly not a necessity, however considering the game uses plot to further action sequences and characters to humanise the world, it would have been to the games benefit if it was stronger, and better written. They tried with the second, and that was even more muddled.

You would expect novelizations to fall back on the canon - it's the games overarching fiction, it's relevant to it.

There's literary value in *tons of elements and aspects in many games game*. I can sit down and write a 3000 word essay on how the mechanical functionality of Operation Flashpoint (2001) alone creates more convincing atmosphere of the authenticity, fear and dread of combat, then a hundred shlock war films; all in the language of games.

Does it mean it's suddenly high on the hierarchy of games that represent the capacity for stories to be told in games?

I don't think so, but there is value in it, and as in your examples there certainly up for discussion.

And that's what we should be doing, discussing. Does that mean we can't point at Gears and establish - well it has a really bad plot, and serviceable storytelling - but it works - why is that and what are we using to draw comparisons? Of course not. Also, most as in such a massive amount of games generally follow the 'Hero with a thousand faces' template of storytelling.

I don't think we're disagreeing at this point. Discussion? Definitely. In fact, I love talking and writing about literary value in games.

No, we should not be content with what we get. But... baby steps. I'm a firm believer that discussion motivate people to do things better. I'm hoping the developers will look at our discussion and strive toward getting their work to be part of the discussion.

We are far from that point, but as long as we recognize the limitions a medium can have on a story, there's plenty of room for constructive criticism.

Speaking of which.... so what's needed to make the Gears of War universe relevant for deeper thought? What themes can we pull from the canon?

I'd say both UC and GEOW plots have been kinda mediocre. But I play them for good gameplay rather than story. For good plots there are my faves likes planescape torment, shenmue and silent hill series.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

The problem here is that the rules that define language of games are still being written. I think it's unrealistic to apply literary standards of traditional,passive media to one that's interactive. The nature of the format changes those rules.

A higher level of literacy in games is great for games that attempting it.

What I don't understand is that in one breath you're saying game stories are ok in the context of games, but in the next breath you're want to judge the narrative outside of the context for which it was intended.

Even novelizations of games still have to fall back on some of the meat head canon of a game.

Or maybe we need people to just sit down and do some literary analysis and pull from game stories what we can. Maybe that analysis should take into account that narrative flaws are a result of the them being in a game. For example, the story of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell Conviction generally follows the epic hero template(http://www.themarriedgamers.net/?p=7138 ). Maybe Metal Gear Solid offers philosophical and social commentary worthy of discussion(http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/07/texas-professor-offers-metal-gear-solid-and-philosophy-course/). Maybe there's some literary value in merely recognizing something like that.

skrat_01

The thing is, there is a good array of games that are very successful in representing games in this respect, a wide one at that, and that's where we can draw comparisons to, we're well beyond an era of interactive toys.

No a higher lever of literacy should be something sought after in furthering games themselves, however it has its place, naturally.

What I'm saying is that in its own context the games narrative is serviceable, however the plot is damn stupid and the way its told isn't anything remarkable at all. That doesn't weigh down the entirety of the game. Furthermore its certainly not a necessity, however considering the game uses plot to further action sequences and characters to humanise the world, it would have been to the games benefit if it was stronger, and better written. They tried with the second, and that was even more muddled.

You would expect novelizations to fall back on the canon - it's the games overarching fiction, it's relevant to it.

There's literary value in *tons of elements and aspects in many games game*. I can sit down and write a 3000 word essay on how the mechanical functionality of Operation Flashpoint (2001) alone creates more convincing atmosphere of the authenticity, fear and dread of combat, then a hundred shlock war films; all in the language of games.

Does it mean it's suddenly high on the hierarchy of games that represent the capacity for stories to be told in games?

I don't think so, but there is value in it, and as in your examples there certainly up for discussion.

And that's what we should be doing, discussing. Does that mean we can't point at Gears and establish - well it has a really bad plot, and serviceable storytelling - but it works - why is that and what are we using to draw comparisons? Of course not. Also, most as in such a massive amount of games generally follow the 'Hero with a thousand faces' template of storytelling.

1. Indeed, and Gears plot isn't good. It's too simple even in execution, there's no character development etc. The fiction of the world however I'd say certainly is.

I'm not saying you can't like it. I liked it.

2. Plot should always work in conjunction with the gameplay. There's a reason in GeOW Marcus is an absolute tank of a fighter - he is a badass, it fits with the plot and the mechanics of the game. It's the language of games when it comes to storytelling - how writing, audio visual and mechanical function work together (in conjunction).

Not to all games should focus on plot, however having a good one helps if there's focus on it.

Take Serious Sam for instance - there's no characters except Sam, just monsters, it stripts itself of genuine plot almost entirely (aside from man with a gun kills monsters) and its better for it. Gears on the other hand actually invests time into developing and exploring one - which servers more of a purpose of providing context for the action.

3. The expanded universe is the games fiction. I never disregarded it at all (seriously quote me on it) and as I mentioned, its quite good in its own right. Does that mean the games have good plots or narratives? No, not at all, but it means the worlds are convincing (and I think the strong worldbuilding in Gears is the major reason why the plot isn't entirely unconvincing).

skrat_01

1 + 3. "Games fiction" ? This is starting to stretch it a bit imo. Neither of us are going to go anywhere when it comes to the plot, which is good, so that will just fall into the opinion category. These books are directly connected to the game, which means they have a right to be counted. I'm not going to find a quote of you saying "I disregard them", only noticing the trend of cherry-picking aspects of the plot & narrative while seemingly ignoring any character development created outside of the games. They make it worth investing by delivering solid aspects to Gears story overall.

2. I do agree on how plots should work. I'm not sure what you're leading to with this part. Does Gears' writing often include stereotypes? Yes, I can agree with that.

Damn people, you really know how to make a thread expand.

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"]Feel free to point out which poster stated that.skrat_01

You should leave hyperbolic statements like that out of this discussion. I can't recall any poster insinuating the Gears plot was on award-winning levels (could be wrong though).

I really like the Uncharted stories. They are really good and what makes them really good are the characters. The characters in Gears Of War suck. Marcus is a 500 pound walking tank who shoots guys without any emotion and Gears Of War 2 tried to add emotion to the character Dom who has lost his wife, but utterly, UTTERLY, fails because there is no connection with any of these characters.

It's a game about chainsawing people in half. C'mon. AAllxxjjnn

[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]It's a game about chainsawing people in half. C'mon. clone01

I don't think we're disagreeing at this point. Discussion? Definitely. In fact, I love talking and writing about literary value in games.

No, we should not be content with what we get. But... baby steps. I'm a firm believer that discussion motivate people to do things better. I'm hoping the developers will look at our discussion and strive toward getting their work to be part of the discussion.

We are far from that point, but as long as we recognize the limitions a medium can have on a story, there's plenty of room for constructive criticism.

Speaking of which.... so what's needed to make the Gears of War universe relevant for deeper thought? What themes can we pull from the canon?

VoodooHak

Otherwise GeoW I'm not sure who I was quoting but I began typing I think in regard to relevance, so this is what I'd do:
Honestly it's so centred around its cast of characters in the squad it really needs to increase the character interaction and stakes, make camaraderie more integral and more character development - and anything but Dom's wife moments; you need to reflect it on the mechanics. So X character in the squad helps Marcus in Y combat scenario - as a result the player and the character develop more respect for that character, instead of telling joke then popping offscreen for a while, then reappearing again later.

The buddy character in Another World for instance has a hundred times more strong camaradarie attached to him, and there's never a spoken word between him and the protagonist Lester for the entire game; but they're always interacting and helping eachother escape after both being captured.

Another fault of GeOW2 was it was Marcus and Dom far too often, missing the variety of personalities (they were enjoyable stereotypes to have around) in the first (the introduced cast that was killed off didn't make up for it at all).

Make the Locust legitimately more threatening from a narrative perspective. I've heard about the end of Halo Reach - haven't played it, but from I know that's a brilliant example of using the mechanical gameplay to push home a finale of loss, Gears is a ripe for moments like these.

Less junk about Prescott and his woeful appearance in GeoW2. He was introduced briefly in a hoorah cutscene, then vanished for the rest of the game. Bad writing chaps. Either put him in and make him important or don't.

More alluding to the civil wars and the humans being responsible for sapping the planet of its resources -etc. Don't have it there as part of the fiction, do something with it and work it more into the plot,which brings me to another point -

Stop raising more question marks and introducing more characters, when nothing is ever resolved, and the characters never do anything outside of that single introductory moment. Same goes for more 'ooh mystery' plot points. GeOW 2 was notorious for this.

Don't stick to the book of action predictability in so many ways, because the audience can read what's going to happen. Don't try and make 'everything more epic', disrupting the balance, mood and atmosphere.

Remember the specific tone the first game made - which was fighting in the ruins of civilisation with a small band-of-bros, against an enemy which could appear anywhere. It was great, it was engaging and made for a lot of the games atmosphere

So here's a question, skrat. Do you think the world-building in Gears is as good as say, what Blizzard has done with WarCraft and StarCraft or what Bungie did with Halo?

DarkLink77

Starcraft I'd say quite good - mainly due to the between missions bits, where you could learn more and interact with your crew and cast, and characters were actually important to the story, protagonists journey and its arcs - they aren't just there. It humanised everything and bought it down to a personal level far more than any cutscene ever could, in an RTS it's quite rare.

Not to say SC2 has an amazing plot (still yet to finish it though), but it did do some interesting things, and isn't afraid to pull some moments using the mechanical functionality of the game to develop characterisation of its cast (like Kerrigan's reintroduction during gameplay), which helped these characters actually seem relevant in the game world during gameplay, than just making appearances in cut scenes - causing disconnect.

Halo's a mixed bag, a really mixed bag from top teir to messy.

I'd say Halo CE was wonderful in its world building, absolutely outstanding for most of the part, shame the Pillar of Autumn was so barren and void of a human touch (cmon guys even Half Life had vending machines and microwaves).

The other two were real hit and misses, and I never playd ODST and still haven't tried Reach. Coincidently that lack of human touch continued in the second and third, which really was detriment to the plot and atmosphere when you're supposed to be fighting for humanity - and there's no evidence of it in the world aside from your disposable squaddies.

Now Gears by comparison to SC2 and Halo CE isn't as strong in general I'd argue, however I do like it immensely for cutting to the chase, and throwing you into its abandoned civilization; it's excellent in that regard.

It hit the tone of the stakes perfectly, complimented the action and looked convincing as ever, but it's pretty damn solid - even running about with the squad characters, who aren't terribly useful mechanically and are more there for quips, or the off screen cast not being terribly purposeful. However Epic knew the audience wants to get straight into shooting things, and you pickup the details going from A to B, and while hiding behind walls. Worked very well.

Better than Halo 2 and CE honestly? I'd say so, hell I much rather its introduction to SC2's, as I said, it gets to the point fast in establishing what the game world is by putting the player in the protagonists shoes right away. Was stronger then 'lets burn billboards, down with totalitarianism (when we haven't experienced it in game at all it kind of loses its impact)', or 'humanity is under threat, here's the most inhospitably unhuman city to defend' and 'hello superman from the sky, here's a gun you know the gist of things, oh remember this guy, we're working together now and your unfriendly relationship will never crop up again'

You should leave hyperbolic statements like that out of this discussion. I can't recall any poster insinuating the Gears plot was on award-winning levels (could be wrong though).

moose_knuckler

1 + 3. "Games fiction" ? This is starting to stretch it a bit imo. Neither of us are going to go anywhere when it comes to the plot, which is good, so that will just fall into the opinion category. These books are directly connected to the game, which means they have a right to be counted. I'm not going to find a quote of you saying "I disregard them", only noticing the trend of cherry-picking aspects of the plot & narrative while seemingly ignoring any character development created outside of the games. They make it worth investing by delivering solid aspects to Gears story overall.

2. I do agree on how plots should work. I'm not sure what you're leading to with this part. Does Gears' writing often include stereotypes? Yes, I can agree with that.

moose_knuckler

Damn people, you really know how to make a thread expand.

TrapJak

Holy crap, this thread is still going strong, xD

Warcraft it's hard for me to say, I never actually played through the singleplayer of any of them and WoW is a mixed bag in introductions, but when it spreads its wings and introduces more of the game world, it's pretty compelling - but comparing to MMOs is tough.

Starcraft I'd say quite good - mainly due to the between missions bits, where you could learn more and interact with your crew and cast, and characters were actually important to the story, protagonists journey and its arcs - they aren't just there. It humanised everything and bought it down to a personal level far more than any cutscene ever could, in an RTS it's quite rare.

Not to say SC2 has an amazing plot (still yet to finish it though), but it did do some interesting things, and isn't afraid to pull some moments using the mechanical functionality of the game to develop characterisation of its cast (like Kerrigan's reintroduction during gameplay), which helped these characters actually seem relevant in the game world during gameplay, than just making appearances in cut scenes - causing disconnect.

Halo's a mixed bag, a really mixed bag from top teir to messy.

I'd say Halo CE was wonderful in its world building, absolutely outstanding for most of the part, shame the Pillar of Autumn was so barren and void of a human touch (cmon guys even Half Life had vending machines and microwaves).

The other two were real hit and misses, and I never playd ODST and still haven't tried Reach. Coincidently that lack of human touch continued in the second and third, which really was detriment to the plot and atmosphere when you're supposed to be fighting for humanity - and there's no evidence of it in the world aside from your disposable squaddies.

Now Gears by comparison to SC2 and Halo CE isn't as strong in general I'd argue, however I do like it immensely for cutting to the chase, and throwing you into its abandoned civilization; it's excellent in that regard.

It hit the tone of the stakes perfectly, complimented the action and looked convincing as ever, but it's pretty damn solid - even running about with the squad characters, who aren't terribly useful mechanically and are more there for quips, or the off screen cast not being terribly purposeful. However Epic knew the audience wants to get straight into shooting things, and you pickup the details going from A to B, and while hiding behind walls. Worked very well.

Better than Halo 2 and CE honestly? I'd say so, hell I much rather its introduction to SC2's, as I said, it gets to the point fast in establishing what the game world is by putting the player in the protagonists shoes right away. Was stronger then 'lets burn billboards, down with totalitarianism (when we haven't experienced it in game at all it kind of loses its impact)', or 'humanity is under threat, here's the most inhospitably unhuman city to defend' and 'hello superman from the sky, here's a gun you know the gist of things, oh remember this guy, we're working together now and your unfriendly relationship will never crop up again'

skrat_01

It's a shame Gears 2 largely pissed all over what the original did right.

I agree, largely. That's why I liked Gears 1's story, for all it's faults. it was largely a boots-in-the-mud, learn as you go thing, and I think it was better for it. It didn't throw it's plot in your face, but it wasn't afraid to tell you what you needed to know or throw out cool little hints to exactly what was going on.

It's a shame Gears 2 largely pissed all over what the original did right.

DarkLink77

since when did uncharted have good story? :lol:

MozartXVI

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

I agree, largely. That's why I liked Gears 1's story, for all it's faults. it was largely a boots-in-the-mud, learn as you go thing, and I think it was better for it. It didn't throw it's plot in your face, but it wasn't afraid to tell you what you needed to know or throw out cool little hints to exactly what was going on.

It's a shame Gears 2 largely pissed all over what the original did right.

skrat_01

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]It's a game about chainsawing people in half. C'mon. DarkLink77

It's not good, but atleast it's enough to justify awesome gunplay. UC2's gunplay, is so boring by itself that it NEEDS climbing and great animation to pull it through

It's a shooter. All that is needed is an explanation of why you're shooting who you're shooting. Sure, if you don't love the shooting elements, the game won't be fun to playthrough (I fall into the latter category. After beating the boss fight where you have to lead the blind monster through corridors I decided the type of shooting wasn't my style :P), but many people just love shooting and chainsawing monsters, and Gears provides that.