While I have not played the game I disagree with the people who argue that games like Bioshock and Half-Life 2 had far better story telling than games that use 'traditional' forms. Especially since the most popular moment from Bioshock was done using a cut scene. And I don't see many people discussing or praising the stories that were tape recorded. The use of scripted audio, video or written dialogue has its place when it comes to story telling such as when complex ideas must be explained or when the author wishes to convey something in a very specific way. Simply allowing player freedom during these events does not make them any better, hearing some of the characters talk in Half Life 2 was not the grandest of story telling simply because I can jump around and act like an idiot. What sets games apart is that they can use all the above mentioned techniques and their more interactive qualities at appropriate moments to convey a story, instead of just relying on one of them.
Nikalai_88
While I think Half-Life's experiment is a noble one, those sequences aren't the reason I like it. But it tells story better. Just compare the delivery of Half-Life 2: Episode 2's ending (almost entirely non-interactive) to any dramatic sequence in MGS4, and it seems obvious to me which one better evokes emotion.
Still, where I think Half-Life 2 and Portal truly succeed over MGS4 is in the ways they tell story outside of the cutscenes. The setting communicates a huge amount of background information in those games, and the characters never condescend to spell it out for you. Instead, the world itself tells you what has happened. Consider how Half-Life 2 begins, before you're even shepherded into a closed room at any point. The state of City 17, the people you see around you and their conversations, the constant propagandizing by Dr. Breen; these things fill in the history that nobody ever bothers to tell you, and they immerse you in the world without boring you.
Metal Gear Solid 4 dabbles in these sorts of things (there's a moment early in Act 1 where a militiaman is executed in front of you while you're crawling through a hole, and then a PMC ad plays over some speakers, which I thought was well done), but it generally is more content to introduce its world by telling you every exhaustive detail of what is happening. And as a result, the world itself plays less of a role. The places Snake sneaks through (some of which are supposedly cities) are barren and deserted, and while the PMCs don't need any motivation, it's unclear why the militias are fighting this losing battle against a vastly superior foe.
While the environments are more varied, the series has moved from the sterile corridors, or empty jungles of its past, and replaced them with battlefields. Neither communicates elements of setting that the series frequently feels the need to explain in huge cutscenes. The world is quite detailed, yet it still feels barren. Places like the Advent Palace Hotel, which ought to be brimming with setting, have nothing. The supposedly-inhabited Eastern European city is merely a network of buildings and roads.
The MGS series has long thrived on the intricacy of its plot. Yet other titles have been more powerful to me emotionally (such as Team ICO's efforts), without requiring epic cutscenes. And other games have created deeper worlds without ever removing control from me.
Log in to comment