Well no. I think Pan's Labyrinth is just a great example of a story that relies on visual and sound to create a psychological effect, rather than just tell you what is happening(Like Warcraft does).
I could have also used the Metroid Prime series, or Zelda
Well, I see your point there; no denying that. But you used it as an example of something you'd like instead, which, as I go on to try and say, we just won't get.
Gameplay first is a fine motto for Blizzard to have. It's the idea that they think "Gameplay" and "Story" have to fight each other to co-exist that seems a little weird.
Also, Samwise just liked drawing Panda's. They weren't expecting fans to actually like the idea when they put it up as an April Fools joke. The idea snowballed--so it's not fair to just say that Blizzard is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on Pandaren to appeal to one employee's child.
Well, I heard the story wrong then; my bad there. <_<
Gameplay and story do have to fight for importance when the Game Development and Creative Development are two utterly seperate departments - Omacron can chime in and correct me if he wants - and with the Game Development team now being full of new people who don't know all the old-timers, things might be a bit confusing. Plus, there's also deadlines they have to meet and they have to keep in mind all the people on General Forums just slamming their heads on the keyboard who are more frustrated over lack of content than what our complaints are who, to be fair, are the majority.
But I agree with a stance you held a long while back, that, if WoW did have a cohesive and engaging narrative, more people would want to pay attention to it.
Funny thing: People tend to get this idea that just because LoTR had a pretty straight-forward idea of "Good vs Evil" that that is what it was all about. It's like they forget that the books were full of many of the aspects that make for an amazing story. It wasn't just about the Battle for Helms Deep or convincing the Undead Guys to fight for Aragorn. It was about mortal vulnerability, resisting temptation, and a whole plethora of other great themes.
Themes that could all fit into Warcraft, if Blizzard had the inclination to do them well.
I didn't say it was just about "Good vs. Evil" at all, did I? I said it was about how the sufferings of one person could make a difference no matter how futile or small it seemed. Of course, your other statements are completely valid literarly analyzations(SP?).
Furthermore, I hope you realize the distance we feel from the story now is because people kept equating the Lich King and the constant presence of other title villains as being too "Comic Book-ish", which is why we now know next to nothing about what goes on unless we spend $20+ on a book that is really just truck-loads of exposition with some nice artwork in the middle.
You know I hear this a lot but I don't think anyone has actually given me a real source for it.
Regardless, Warcraft didn't really become what it was until Chris Metzen got on board in WCII.
I'll find it for you when I'm not strapped for time; like now. I won't argue with your second sentence.
08/07/2012 03:15 PMThis is where you're wrong. Blizzard has said time and time again that they prefer the "Shades of Grey" approach to Warcraft. Which is something I am behind them on.
Posted by Drailen
This whole concept, however, is flawed for the same reasons you don't like lack of choice; forcing my character to do things they simply don't want to do or wouldn't do, was there any choice at all. They can color the other characters and factions with ridiculous amounts of grey to sell their political ideals IRL all they want; don't get any of it on my character, though; he has a choice and I've yet to see ICly where exactly my character is the exclusive property of their faction and we only do what we're told because we have
to. I still have a "Decline" button on my quest text, last time I checked, and I don't get hurt for pressing it.
That's the problem. The only choice in the game is either you do the quests or you don't. That's all.
In Final Fantasy XI, I may have been a healer but my good friend was a fisherman. He knew how to heal too, yeah, but mostly he just fished because there was an entire meta-game behind it.
I also knew a guy who was an ordained Knight--a Paladin. But his wife was a miner and all she would do when she played was don her mining outfit and traverse various mines, protecting innocent wanderers who travelled too deeply. It didn't have as much depth as fishing, no, but she sold the ores and made a lot of money off it--which was a huge part of playing Final Fantasy XI, because the economy was everything.
Good fantasy by no means has to be about heroes doing heroic things. It can just be about the common person who makes a living in a fantastical world. It's not boring by any means, because there's gameplay to it as well as danger...and reward.
People vastly under-rate games like Harvest Moon, but hey, look at Farmville. People love this kind of simple stuff.
I don't see what any of this has to do with my challange you quoted, although you're right; another example is Minecraft.
Aside from the fact that that is just role playing, it's also BORING role playing.
The only motivation you need in an RPG to do a dungeon is that it has loot and threats. It doesn't matter where your morality lies. It has stuff you want to take and things that need to die. Obstacles.
The GAMEPLAY can be much more engaging here, especially in regards to questing.
I don't remember being told by a quest-giver, ever, what my character's motivation was for doing anything and then being forced to accept that as canon.