No, this isn't going to be one of those "Games R ART" blogs. This is just an idea that occurred to me while playing MGS3.
Imagine, if you will, a game that has no intro, no ending. Just a single piece of a much larger experience, ideally the "Peak," where all the build up ends. A game that skips past all the nonsense, and just delivers that one single moment that you would otherwise spend 4-5 hours working towards. Note the use of the term "Work."
The idea occured to me, as I said, while playing MGS3. Even while I was having fun with the sneaking and item collecting, I still kept thinking to myself "Can't wait till I get to the fight with Boss." The more I thought about it, the more I realized. The only reason I was playing through MGS3 was so I could fight Boss. Thats it. Much like the only reason I will play through MGS4 is just so I can participate in that *spoilers* Metal Gear on Metal Gear rumble.
So then why have all this extra fluff. Is the experience of getting to that peak really necessary? Does it really add anything to that peak? Before you answer, first try thinking of your favorite games in a new way.
Imagine Bioshock if it were just a single battle with a Big Daddy, followed by a scene with the Little Sister.
Imagine GTA4 as just the bank robbery mission.
Imagine Kane and Lynch: 10 out of 10, GOTY -Gamespot
Imagine MGS2 as just that epic battle with, like, a thousand Metal Gear Ray's.
Imagine any Pokemon game as just your battle with the Elite Four.
Members of the "Retro Revolution" (In the interest of pissing off more than one member of the D-Toid crew: NEXT GEN NEXT GEN NEXT GEN) should automatically recognize this style. This is the way games were made BEFORE they had the technology to press a Tiny Epic onto a plastic disc. Guy in Spaceship shoots rocks, Guy in tank kills aliens, Guy disguised as a paddle hits a ball into stuff, Custer gets his "revenge."
|
SunTzu's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
Without the beginning and middle, there would be no reason to be fighting Boss, hence, no game. Your logic is flawed, and if all you care about is the big kill, then perhaps MGS isn't the game for you, and you should probably stick to whatever game it is you're trying to compare this rediculous assertion of taking out the exposition of a story. I mean really, what would Hamlet be without the first 4 acts? A giant bloodbath between a really dysfunctional family in Denmark, and who the fuck cares about that. The reason that Metal Gear Solid is so good is because of it's characters and the story that leads up to the final showdown at the end. Find another example, please.
It's just an example, chill out. Now, if there were a game that was "just the big kill," the kind of game I want to see, the begining and end/middle (depending on where the peak exists in the story) would be only exist in the mind of the player. And by that, I mean the player would look at the situation, and come to his own conclusion on what caused it. It would force the player to rationalize whats going on for himself.
In the case of a missing ending, once again the player would be expected to figure that out himself. "So, you've defeated that Guy. What do you think happens next?"
Bioshock actually did something like this with its audio logs. It presented you with a single chuck of a much much larger story, and expected the player to fill in the blanks. I'd just like to see this idea expanded upon.
It works in some places and not others. CrackDown, for example, was wicked fun because they went for a premise and, ultimately, it becomes a game of padding your stats and getting completely buffed out, allowing you to bust more heads - both simple and clean in execution. On the other hand No More Heroes pads killer boss battles and levels with what ends up being superfluous filler. At times charming, ludicrously non-sequitorial, cute filler, but filler none the less.
God Damnit, I don't mean we should Re-make any current game in this manner, I don't even recall SAYING that. I just think it would be a good idea for future games. Future games built specifically for this concept.
Holy Shit
Yes, and thank you. SotC is an excellent example, but what I'm thinking of is if SotC was just one boss fight. There's a chunk of narrative to go along with that boss fight, which hints at events that had happened earlier, but this short narrative never actually says, "Kill the colossus to save that girl."
So, I like the idea of the "chunk" having a bit of story, just not the whole story. Just enough to get the player interested in the story that isn't there.
Exactly! "You have to burn the rope" is exactly the kind of game I'm talking about. Thank you thank you thank you.
One could definitely make a case that the journey gives context to the climax, and make sit a much richer experience, but we've see a recent example of this, which I'm gritting my teeth through and playing for the nifty mechanics and pretty 1080i graphics: Assassin's Creed. If I could have an Assassin's Creed experience with the brevity of setup that, for example, and N+ provides, I'd probably be pretty stoked about it.
Precisely. And while I don't dispute that a setup is necessary for some payoffs, I feel that most of the time the setup either tells you too much, so by the time you finally reach the climax you already know; How its gonna happen, Where its gonna happen, and why its gonna happen. And by then, you probably don't care. Or, a setup is used merely to deceive the audience CONSTANTLY in an effort to keep them from guessing how it all comes to an end. Twist endings, meh.
@ Anthony
Where *Spoilers* would you *Spoilers* like me to *Spoilers* put the spoilers *Spoilers* tag?
Spike Dies.
Kamina Dies.
L Dies.
And Jacob was dead all along.
I put it directly in front for a reason