MY BRAIN HAD A THINK ABOUT A GAM3

A few with most notable being Retro who would be the big one, and then still not sure how many people would know it's them doing Donkey Kong Country and not Nintendo.

Next Level Games now, as well.

But like you say, once Nintendo does take a company on board they become part of that overarching Nintendo. In terms of quality and style, Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze and Luigi's Mansion 3 sit very comfortably alongside the rest of the library.

I thought about Retro, but nothing they've done since Prime 1 really got me that hyped. I'd take a Prime 2 now, natch.

I heard the The Back Page podcast for the first time, listening to their latest N64 Draft episode part-way through a mammoth Tetrisphere session. I thought it was all right, they’re clearly well-informed presenters with a lot of affinity for old and good gaming journalism.

I’ll never make time for a new one every week, but I know most of you do. Was there any-standout episodes I’ve missed? I know I’ve asked this before but I can’t remember when and where, and if there were any recommendations.

I also listened to this, and despite Matthew having the Nintendo background, I end up agreeing with Samuel more. There was an episode about magazine covers that I found interesting, as far as how they come together, and there are two episodes themed around Matthew being a judge and Samuel is on trial for buying games on Ebay. Usually good fun. Anything to do with modern gaming I largely skip, but that's more to do with my personal tastes.

Anyone who votes for Sam over Matthew is a disgusting piece of normie filth. Or maybe it's just that I hated N64 shooters because I couldn't aim. Or both.

I recommended a couple. Can't remember what they were now, or where I recommended them. GJones is right that the Games Court episodes are a lot of fun (even if he's very wrong about other things): Games Court 2 has a truly excellent line about Wario that made me snort with laughter. They review years of games too which are good for the retros, starting with 2007, and there's a fair bit about working in magazines at the time in each which I think you/Cappa would enjoy.

I'd vote Matthew over Sam in the N64 draft, but I missed Goldeneye and PD at the time. I can totally get it from other people though.

I listen all the time, but I also spend a lot more time walking and potentially listening to podcasts than most. The episode titles will tell you which ones are mag-centric, and those are definitely the places to start.

Balladeer wrote:

Anyone who votes for Sam over Matthew is a disgusting piece of normie filth. Or maybe it's just that I hated N64 shooters because I couldn't aim. Or both.

I mean... there are some interesting titles on Matthew's, but no

Spoiler:

is sacrilege.

Right, going to tear those down.*. *Your mileage may vary on the amount of tearing done.

Spoiler:

In general though, I think my tastes are just so far away from Sam's. He never seems to play anything interesting or colourful apart from the big, mainstream games, and all his draft picks are big and mainstream likewise: even his wildcard was, relatively speaking. That makes them dull for me. See also 2010, when he was ticking off the massive mainstream hitters while Matthew went for Trauma Team and Last Window. They're dull because everyone's played them because they're good, natch, and I think that's probably just the difference between being a BBoP mainliner and a Nintendo one; but it does mean I barely agree with him about anything.

I've got no idea what you're all on about, but I see the spoiler MK64, OoT and Goldeneye along with something about a N64 Mini those surely would need to be on it be like a SNES Mini without Super Mario World or a PS1 Mini without Final Fantasy VII.

I don't know if this makes sense, I've just started writing now - but it's been bugging me as I am a completionist but also have a big backlog of free/almost free stuff that gets shunned because I bought something for £50. I know stories in games are a lot better than they were 20 years ago, but I still hate them! There was a big probably a few years back where a lot of people were still trying to make games like films - pausing for 20 minutes of dialogue between doing things. I don't want that, just let me press the buttons so I can run around. Dark Souls gets a big thumbs up because you can discover things; Portal's story happens as you're playing so you're never stuck; Return of the Obra Dinn is a story but again it's one you interact with for it to happen. I'm a bit nervous, as I think I liked Horizon Zero Dawn, and it's been heavily suggested I play Horizon Forbidden West, but from what I've heard from reviews, the game is even worse than the original, in that side quests start with 10 minutes of (very good and well acted to be fair) dialgoue trees and exposition. However, I bet that none of what you are told is relevant, because you go to arrow on a map and pick up the thing where the arrow is, stopping to bash a dinosaur for 3 minutes. Does this make sense? Is this not a problem for anyone but me?

Horizon is a Action-RPG, so things like the dialogue tree should be expected.

Maybe Kirby a better bet for you me thinks.

Jimbob wrote:

I don't know if this makes sense, I've just started writing now - but it's been bugging me as I am a completionist but also have a big backlog of free/almost free stuff that gets shunned because I bought something for £50. I know stories in games are a lot better than they were 20 years ago, but I still hate them! There was a big probably a few years back where a lot of people were still trying to make games like films - pausing for 20 minutes of dialogue between doing things. I don't want that, just let me press the buttons so I can run around. Dark Souls gets a big thumbs up because you can discover things; Portal's story happens as you're playing so you're never stuck; Return of the Obra Dinn is a story but again it's one you interact with for it to happen. I'm a bit nervous, as I think I liked Horizon Zero Dawn, and it's been heavily suggested I play Horizon Forbidden West, but from what I've heard from reviews, the game is even worse than the original, in that side quests start with 10 minutes of (very good and well acted to be fair) dialgoue trees and exposition. However, I bet that none of what you are told is relevant, because you go to arrow on a map and pick up the thing where the arrow is, stopping to bash a dinosaur for 3 minutes. Does this make sense? Is this not a problem for anyone but me?

I get this too. I dug out some old games yesterday and saw Grand Theft Auto IV - a game I completed in 2008 and really enjoyed. Supposedly one of the best games of all time, according to Metacritic. I have zero intention of starting a 30 hour open world story-driven game. The same with Assassin's Creed games - am I ever going to play them again? A lot of these open-world storydriven games feel disposable, one and done, and a lot of that is down to the focus on narrative and time spent talking to NPCs.

Saying that I love the Yakuza games and they have cut scenes stacked on top of each other, so I am a huge hypocrite.

I've liked games' stories but usually, like yourself Jim, because they're tied to the gameplay or expressed through the gameplay or whatever.

If a game feels like watching a TV show or reading a book, I'd usually rather actually watch a TV show or read a book. For one thing, they're different headspaces and when I'm up for one I'm not necessarily up for the other.

Also, though, most game stories aren't that good. People get excited about a game having good acting and writing, but it's only good for a game - usually it would be middling at best anywhere else. Take the golden child: The Last of Us is a huge step above most other videogames, but it wouldn't win any awards if it was a TV show or movie. People would say "you seen that?" and you'd go; "yeah, it's alright."

Well we find out when the show comes out on HBO.

See if you go look at my Top 50 list it is heavy on the story driven games, ohh hi Kojima, but as I said in my little bit about Death Stranding it is what I want from games for the most part or I do enjoy a RPG because that genre often story focused.

As spend my time with a interactive experience (EofGiz was physically sick) then watch a film or show.

Plot / story / writing / performance are all separate things even before the complication of videogame specifics. The Last of Us I would praise for its performance, the sequel for both its performance and story, but neither particularly for their plot. I think the difference is relevant.

It's the pacing in Naughty Dog games for me. The writing is never good, but the pacing always kills them. That and the fact that characters like Nathan Drake isn't a loveable rogue but a butcher.

I've always found that Naughty Dog simply aren't bold enough to really build a game around the story they want to tell - or perhaps, to tell a story that befits the mechanics they want to put into their games.

You might say an Arkham Knight/City doesn't have the best story in the world, but it's a game that captures the feeling of Batman and which also comes with a satisfying enough ratcheting up of the stakes throughout the game, which is pretty impressive given that there's a near perpetual sense of urgency conveyed by the main story. It does the job, and it's capped off by memorable moments like the covering of Gotham in Scarecrow smog to give it those memorable moments of cinematography.

Meanwhile TLOU had a really good segment where you played as the girl, but was otherwise fairly dull. How many times did we have to move ladders and boxes around between action sequences because Naughty Dog are incapable of making a decent 3-D puzzle? There's such a massive juxtaposition between the way the game flows, and the heavy-handed cutscenes. That dissonance makes the whole feel like a disjointed blockbuster with some good ideas but ultimately not enough for it to be considered good. At least, that's how I feel about their work typically.

And if it does make for a good HBO show, it won't be because the writing in the game was any good, it'll be because the scripters/director put their own stamp on the world building behind the game.

What you're saying about The Last of Us Part I, is why I've never been super high on it because of the gameplay you mention but Part II nails it though and why a Top 10 game for me.

Where the show won't have (maybe a winky nod to move a ladder) the game parts that drag it down. A bit like how Indiana Jones or Mal can be a loveable rogue over a Nate (he is to me, though) as not got to fill a game with game stuff.

If Muss has only played TLOU I can see where he is coming from (even though I love that game). The above just doesn't match up with TLOU Part II though!

Also very much ignoring the incredibly good world building and plotting of Jak and Daxter B)

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Plot / story / writing / performance are all separate things even before the complication of videogame specifics. The Last of Us I would praise for its performance, the sequel for both its performance and story, but neither particularly for their plot. I think the difference is relevant.

I agree with this for the most part, but what's the difference between story and plot?

For me, you can break writing down into story / writing / characterisation / worldbuilding, and maybe also performance? Characterisation and worldbuilding have substantial overlap with the others but are their own things. If the writing and characterisation are good I usually don't care how bobbins the other points are. If they aren't that can break a game for me.


Going back to the original point though, in general - nah Jim I don't agree at all. I like having context to my actions, I like the world being fleshed out, and while having bits hidden away is nice I also like it being presented to me on a platter. Every game should have a writing fast-forward function, particularly to aid replayability like GJones touches on - but 'writing bad' feels a bit like 'retro gamer yells at script' to me I'm afraid! Especially as I know Celeste has this issue for you, and to me that's a game that mixes the two unapologetically and well.

Balladeer wrote:

I agree with this for the most part, but what's the difference between story and plot?

As I understand it to be usually differentiated, plot is the series of events, the logical cause-and-effect, the bullet point list of scenes that objectively happen. Story is described in themes, it's the message, the moral, the Point with a capital P. Plot serves the story. Something can be well plotted without any substance, or conversely full of plot holes (logical errors in how events unfold) but with a compelling story.

The Last of Us Part II has a very compelling story about the futility of revenge, the cycle of hate, and the effect of perspective on empathy. It's plot is full of contrivances in people just happening to bump into each other so that events can play out. That's what I am meaning!

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Also very much ignoring the incredibly good world building and plotting of Jak and Daxter B)

And as for TLOU2, the opinions of critics whose opinions often align with my own doesn't suggest that anything's changed - at least in so far as the writing of it. I value pacing and character development nine times out of ten when it comes to storytelling. There's some hard sci-fi that I can stomach if it's really clever, but typically it's the characterisation and tempo of a story that matters the most to me. As I understand it, TLOU2 still has terrible pacing.

I don't know if it is or will be in PSNOW and people more likely to have the service come June, ad be a opportunity to be play one of the best games ever from the best studio around.

Muss wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Also very much ignoring the incredibly good world building and plotting of Jak and Daxter B)

A fortress city under siege by an alien race, ruled by an authoritarian leader who took over in a military coup and who deliberately sustains the war by dealing with the aliens as a pretext for his continued rule while searching for artifacts from the mythic precursors so that he can end it with decisive victory. At the same time the city is torn between organised crime and an underground rebellion, which eventually succeeds in overthrowing the dictatorship but leaves the city as a war zone, divided in three between the remnants of military rule, the rebellion-turned-government, and the alien invaders. Also time travel, and those mythic precursors aren't really gone, and the previous ruler of the city before the military coup has formed a warrior-tribe city of outcasts in the wasteland.

Yeah it's good B)

Also time travel and mythic aliens that haven't really gone is famously, of course, the mark of good plotting.