Cliffy B calls MGS4 "passive entertainment"

[The Author]

A good example of games with passive storytelling with engaging gameplay are Tactical RPGs.

Those I played had the story happen in cutscenes between battles, but battles were the main part, and well, I think the genre allows it more. 3 minutes of plot followed by a 15-30 minute battle.

Even a simplistic game like FFTA is deceptively complex and the plot includes many elements that add to the story without detracting from the gameplay.

[lazygecko]

I didn't say passive storytelling is inherently bad, it's all about the balancing. I love the FMV cutscenes in Command & Conquer, but when you start spending more time just staring at the screen rather than pressing buttons, something is wrong.

[Triad Orion]

I didn't say passive storytelling is inherently bad, it's all about the balancing. I love the FMV cutscenes in Command & Conquer, but when you start spending more time just staring at the screen rather than pressing buttons, something is wrong.

QFE.

This is why a lot of modern JRPG games (Final Fantasy and Tales Of, in particular) get on my nerves. There's lots of dialogue and cutscenes, and it frequently gets to the point where you're spending what feels like as much time watching the characters talk as you are actually interacting with the world. I love a great story in a game, but frankly, if I wanted to watch a movie, I would. A well-written story can make a game, but its delivery is almost as important as its contents.

[Avatar of Justice]

Yeah, I couldn't care less what this guy has to say. There were about 5 times in Gears of War where I had no clue why I was doing what I was doing. He can come back and talk some more after he makes a game that has a story where I actually have a clue as to what is going as opposed to mission objectives coming out of nowhere for seemingly no reason.

http://kotaku.com/5019841/metal-gear-solid-is-what-the-cliffster-is-not-doing-dude

The fact that he compared entertainment with Web 2.0 makes him a dumbass. If he was really into Web 2.0, he'd be talking about gamers making their own games, submitting them online, and being modified (like a remix) by other gamers (like Youtube videos). He fails to understand what Web 2.0 (a term I admittedly hate) actually means. If he wanted games to be like Web 2.0 he should be advocating open source games, something he would never do.

Yup, passive entertainment is on its way out. No more movies, TV, or books. It's all video games from herein. I sometimes turn to "passive" entertainment because games require more effort. In a book, all I have to do is read. In a video game, I actually have to have skill and make permanent decisions about skills or weapon acquisition.

[Shadix]

I don't know if I'd go that far with MGS4 (still need to play it), but recent Final Fantasy games have given me that impression. Actually, most JRPGs after Golden Sun have done that for me. *Shrugs*

There were quite a few before Golden Sun as well. Valkerie Profile... Xenogears... :\

I don't know though, like, the cinematic aspect of MGS4 was what I loved most about it. I kindof like the whole "interactive story" style of gameplay.

[Dhsu]

Characters inspire other characters as well, so it's not like the world is alone in that regard. At any rate, irrespective of what inspired what, whatever universe comes out is still subject to what I indicated above. The Star Wars world has expanded exponentially since the original film releases, but all the stories which added this background involved characters and events.

Sure, but people wouldn't give half a care about the stories if they didn't involve lightsabers, X-Wings, Wookiees, The Force, etc.

[Nulion]

OF COURSE NOT! Why would anybody post opinions on something they haven't played yet?

Unlike GameFAQs or most other places, the general population here can make opinions and statements basd upon actually having done something. Pretty much anyone posting here has played it or played the series, or something that gives their statements validity. Don't lump us in with the rest of the ignorant childish internet, please.

Yeesh, don't get offended, I meant no harm. As long as you've played the game, then that's cool. No offense

I still can't understand why anybody would hate the gameplay so much, but....oh well.

[sephfire]

I feel the same. I think MGS4 has really refined Metal Gear stealth experience. There's still room for improvement, definitely, but I thoroughly enjoyed the sneaking experience.

[Dyne]

Honestly, I have to agree that Cliffy B has come out of left field with this comment. Any intelligent person knows that you don't knock your competition, because they'll run right over you. So really, his comment is just an unfounded jab at Konami.

On the other hand, I've actually played MGS4, and beaten it (though I don't know if Cliffy B has done so). MGS4 is, to me, the culmination of every MGS game thus far, rolled into one, and punctuated with improved movement, stealth and story. I understand some people may not enjoy sitting through long cut scenes, but that's just tough. What's a game going to be like without a structure set forth by a story? What, are we all going to be playing shooters and puzzle games without stories?

Anyway, not to get off point, but I think MGS4 was innovative as far as the series is concerned. There are definitely some things it could've done without. I won't go into specifics, because I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who's not played the game yet. What I will say is, if you haven't played it, but you already don't like it, I suggest you rent it and play it for a few hours. Give it an honest shot. If you still don't like it after that, well, at least you know for sure. For those who haven't gotten it, but love the series, GET IT. You won't be disappointed.

[Strike911]

... but when you start spending more time just staring at the screen rather than pressing buttons, something is wrong.

That seems like a really subjective issue to me. In any case, you'll be staring at a screen either way; it all comes down to whether you want the story told to you similar to a movie, or experienced. I don't think either is wrong in this case.

My point is that, in theory passive entertainment is not the way to go, because as gamers we want to experience everything and feel like we're in control, but then a game like Metal Gear comes out, and though there are a hell off a lot of cutscenes, it works. I've played through MGS4 a few times, and the experience was very entertaining, which is the point of playing a commericial video game.

And in Metal Gear's case, specifically, it's been a long tradition of text based storytelling. MGS1 took that and turned the text into long codec scenes. Since then the game has been featured more Hollywood style cutscenes, which led to MGS4, which had really minimal codec conversations (compared to the other games) and more on-screen cutscenes.

Cliffy though... for someone to really complain about passive experiences in Metal Gear is really someone not understanding the Metal Gear series (and styles of genres) in general and MGS's long running tradition of Hollywood mimicry. Did anyone expect the game NOT to have long cutscenes full of story elements? Of course not, this is Metal Gear. Half of the enjoyment is the movie-like presentation, which they've advertisted the game as. The story is one of the series strong points and so is the movie-like presentation.

It wouldn't work for most games, but it works here to make the game very entertaining.

Again, it is a subjective issue in the end. It all matters about what you're playing games for... you want something similar to watching a movie, then playing in some of the scenes then Metal Gear will take care of it. Want to be involved in the story and make choices to determine stuff? Play Oblivion or something like Fable.

Gears of War 2 is not aiming to be MGS4. Understandable, but to take some kind of a jab at a completely different style is almost saying something similar to this: "OH, Hi, My name is Kojima. I'm not making some pithy real-time strategy. I'm making a stealth game!" Do you see how arbitrary that is? It's comparing apples and oranges; two completely different experiences.

Epic should be more concerned with people NOT playing a triple-A game like Unreal because of lag and generic gameplay... just saying. I saw that news story today. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Yeah Gears of War was fun, but none of the missions had any rhyme or reason. It was get to from point A to point B. The levels (with a few exceptions) could have been mixed and matched in almost any order. I know they're attempting to add story elements in Gears2, but come on... it just sounds like a little kid arguing that his product is better than his competitors... makes him sound childish.

[Triad Orion]

There were quite a few before Golden Sun as well.

This is very true. There were a number of long story breaks in both GS titles, but a substantial difference is that the really lengthy cutscenes were few and far between in the first game. Moreover, you didn't get a chatty cutscene every time you reached a new area. A few were overlong, but there was so much gameplay in between these long breaks it was more forgivable. GS: Lost Age suffered more from these long cutscenes than its predecessor, but I have a whole list of other reasons for not liking it as much as the original. Modern FFs and Tales games tend to interrupt you whenever they bloody get the chance, though.

Tales games arguably interrupt you more with the side conversations and skits, though most of those things are purely optional. It's still an aggravation, considering sometimes those little conversations can hold relevant information to your current situation, and really, you end up having to check every single one lest you miss something that was actually important. It's only a hair better than Final Fantasy which often sticks that information in frequent cutscenes where you have to listen to the characters yammer on for a good few minutes before they finally get to the point.

In my opinion, that's pretty bad use of storytelling. If you have frequent cutscenes or dialogues, they're best served to be short, concise, and relevant. Tales does have a good idea in making the "filler" optional, but it needs a better way to differentiate the important points from the useless fluff. Also, it would be wise not to have them every five frickin' steps. I think having this improved option would go a *long* way to streamlining storyline, cinematics, and gameplay.

[Necrotic]

Tales does have a good idea in making the "filler" optional, but it needs a better way to differentiate the important points from the useless fluff.

Like reading the in-game journal?

[The Mutericator]

Yeesh, don't get offended, I meant no harm. As long as you've played the game, then that's cool. No offense

I still can't understand why anybody would hate the gameplay so much, but....oh well.

He reacted that way because you sounded really, really defensive with your post challenging if anyone had played it.

And yes, newsflash: for every game out there you love to death and get fanboyish about, there's a person who intelligently dislikes it. Same holds for vice-versa.

Also without playing MGS4 and just watching a video of someone hurrying through, I noticed he had to stop almost every ten-fifteen seconds of gameplay to skip a cutscene, and only got about twenty-thirty seconds to actually play it before he hit another loading screen. That's just bad design.

[Strike911]

... without playing MGS4 and just watching a video of someone hurrying through, I noticed he had to stop almost every ten-fifteen seconds of gameplay to skip a cutscene, and only got about twenty-thirty seconds to actually play it before he hit another loading screen. That's just bad design.

I don't know what area you're talking about. That sounds like dramatic hyperbole to me. I played through MGS4 as well, but cannot for the life of me remember any areas where that occurred... with the exception of two short segments. In any case, from personal experience, I can guarantee you that whatever area you saw is not indicative of the entire game's experience or load times or anything else. Again, I don't know exactly what you saw but nothing about cutscenes/load times screams bad design to me, especially now that I've finished the game. However, there are other things that do scream bad design to me... but in the case that you're talking about, I will argue against that. Load times really aren't an issue, with the exception of the installs.

I don't really get it though. MGS4 isn't perfect (no game is, although it is one of the best in the series, and one of the better games to come out recently) but I don't understand the overall hate that it has been recieving since it was released... unless it's some kind of after effect from all the PS3 hate. *shrugs* Weird. There are far worse games that don't seem to take as much crap as MGS4 has though.

Everyone I know that's played the game has thoroughly enjoyed it. Of course, using the press as a transmission medium, people will try to use shock tactics to get people to read/listen to what they have to say (*cough* Cliffy *cough*), but ... pretty much everyone I've talked to has really enjoyed Metal Gear Solid 4 that have had the chance to play it. Most of the people REALLY complaining about load times, cutscenes, and anything else along those lines usually haven't played the game... at least in my experience in dealing with folks.

Anyway, Whatev.

*goes back to playing MGS4*

[The Pezman]

We wanted a blockbuster pace [in Gears of War 1], and in doing so, we lost the story a bit. So that's one of the lessons we learned. This time round there's more repetition. Games aren't movies and aren't consumed in a single sitting. So secondary characters will remind you about stuff, which is re-established in plot cues. Metal Gear Solid is our example of the game we're not doing. Passive entertainment is on its way out — you need to hook up with this web 2.0 stuff.

I just got a look at this actual quote. Pure garbage. He doesn't seem coherent in his statement and is going all over the place. Web 2.0 has nothing to do with that he's saying. "Second characters will remind you about stuff"? WTF?

Sure, but people wouldn't give half a care about the stories if they didn't involve lightsabers, X-Wings, Wookiees, The Force, etc.

I'm not saying that the universe or world itself can never be compelling, even critical, factor in storytelling. But just a world won't do.