|
 On 11/26/2013 at 03:39 PM by Casey Curran See More From This User » |
I wanted to write something on why exactly I hate the game Beyond so much. In a year I wasn't reviewing games it would easily be on my list of worst games that year, but now that I'm playing some real shit year round, I'm not even sure if it will make my bottom five. Yet in the same way I thought Assassin's Creed 3 represented everything wrong with AAA video games, Beyond: Two Souls does so in a different way. And let me be clear: The low interactivity has nothing to do with it. Ace Attorney became one of my favorite series this year and save Miles Edgeworth (which ironically is one of the weaker entries), they have even less interactivity than Beyond. Yet they are still infinitely better games than Beyond.
Many would say that Ace Attorney is a visual novel. These people are full of shit and have never played the game. Ace Attorney would not work if it were not a game. And the reason for this is because everything about Ace Attorney is very gamey despite its lack of, well, gameplay.
First off, the overall setup. Ace Attorney's setup. The game is divided into two sections: Investigations and Trials. The investigations, while stronger on stories and lighter on gameplay, serve one purpose: To prepare you for the court. You gather pieces of evidence as the story plays out, each of which is used for the upcoming court battle.
The courtroom meanwhile plays out much like a boss battle. Thought of in Zelda terms, opposing lawyers are bosses, witnesses are their minions, and evidence are your items/weapons. Like in Zelda, beating an opponent requires the right tool, and using the wrong one drains your life bar, which the game does indeed have. It's a very gamey setup that the game runs with.
See, Ace Attorney embraces this gaming setup to bring you the most satisfying outcome possible from presenting evidence. Lawyers and witnesses give incredibly exaggerated reactions when you find a clear, unexplainable hole in their logic. Just look at a couple here.
These lawyers do not do this every time you find a contradiction either. Often they remain their usual smug self, showing how you are either not going anywhere relevant with your point or that it is explainable. But if you keep on proving contradictions in testimonies, eventually they find something they cannot explain and these are a visual example of them "taking damage." In this sense, it is very much like hitting a weak point. Issuing an objection to contradictions they can explain will set up a new contradiction often, which leads to them and the witness exposing a weakness very much like Nintendo bosses.
Unlike Ace Attorney, however, Beyond does nothing to acknowledge that it is a game. In fact, I have never seen a game go this out of its way to prove it is not a video game. Rather than give the complex quick time events of Heavy Rain, for example, Beyond's quick time events are simply moving the right analog stick in the same direction as Ellen Page's arms. No prompts means that it removes what little complexity Heavy Rain has. Not only this, but the camera is set up in a way where it is hard to tell whether to tilt in the direction of her arms from Ellen Page's point of view or the camera's point of view.
Beyond: So boring that it's at its most fun imitating Warfighter
This is just an example of how Beyond will try to hide that it is a video game in a way which makes it a poorer video game. The emphasis on Hollywood actors in a Hollywood story over a plot that embraces it's a video game is an example of this as well. The game has you jump randomly from different points of Ellen Page's life, one second you'll be training for the marines the next you'll be her as a little girl.
The biggest issue with this is some of these are just not interesting as a game. Ellen Page going through a typical day as a teenager could be interesting as a movie, but as a game, it just sets in how there is little or nothing to do. That these segments are in a random order only hurts this futher. They are clearly trying to add action like a parent dangling their keys above an infant, just something to keep the player from turning off the game out of boredom.
What this random order really only allows is the game to pad itself. Ellen Page's emo phase adds nothing to the story. Yet it occurs before any kind of real action takes place, which would make half of the game an absolute slog and the other half almost nothing but action. Mixing it up solved this, as well as a way to keep the game from being too short. Yet adding filler to a game which provides nothing engaging only makes the game feel padded. The first three Phoenix Wright games each have at least one filler case, yet the game makes them exciting so the player is glad that filler is in there. Beyond's filler is boring and unengaging, which again hurts the game as a whole.
WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
Phoenix Wright's plot is just set up so that you are always reminded this is a video game. It is about beating the other lawyer in court. It always sets up the lawyers as smug, calm, and collected, which makes their downfall that much more satisfying. It makes the real criminal out to be an asshole or douchebag or at the very least a flawed character, which makes their breakdown incredibly satisfying.
Satisfaction is the basis around Phoenix Wright, something which Beyond sorely lacks. There's no real failing in Beyond, it is set up to be so forgiving that no matter when you fail in a scenario, it will lead to the same outcome in the end or a different outcome which does nothing to change the overall plot. Without this there's no real challenge and the game does absolutely nothing to hide this. Without challenge or even the illusion of challenge there can be no satisfaction.
Who wouldn't want to take this guy down a peg?
One final point is Phoenix Wright allows you to have fun with what little environmental interaction you do get. Observing a ladder, for instance, always leads to a hilarious argument on whether it's called a ladder or step ladder. It's ultimately pointless, but that it exists gives both the characters and story a little extra charm. Playing as Aidden does not do this at all. He can manipulate the environment, but only in ways which affect the story, no fun dicking around to scare the shit out of people unless you're supposed to do that. Games should encourage the player to experiment and explore, no matter how little it can allow. Discouraging experimentation and interactivity only takes away from engagement.
Ace Attorney's better written characters and plots are also a huge point of why every installment is better than Beyond. But the main thing that makes Ace Attorney a great series and Beyond a bad game is their stance on being a video game. Ace Attorney is proud to be a video game and embraces everything around it to turn what would be a visual novel into a real video game. Beyond is a product of a hack writer who lacks the direction and talent to make a good movie, so he chose video games where we're more accepting of shit stories. Yet the only reason we accept shit stories is because they are something between fun and engaging gameplay, which Beyond lacks.
Based on your analysis I'd prefer ace attorney over two-souls as well. That and I appreciate the artistic style more in the Phoenix Wright games. Most people probably don't care each character is painstakingly drawn with so many facial expressions and physical gestures but for me that's something special that 3D rendering can't quite compare with.
Lastly yes, I prefer at least a slight challenge and seeing jerk-bags break under pressure is always fun!
I'm not a fan of the anime artstyle, but the amount of expressions it's allowed does add a lot even if they do repeat a little too often.
I have deep respect for the Phoenix Wright games, but they've never really appealed to me. I'm sure they are cool though.
I enjoyed Heavy Rain a lot, but I am well aware of its flaws and have mixed feelings about David Cage. I did like it though, contrary to popular sentiment.
I don't know how I feel about an Ellen Page simulator though!
I do have to disagree about risk and reward being integral to the enjoyment of a game. I think often times this is the case, but a lot of other times, the risk is only an illusion: health regenerates, endless lives, etc. I enjoy all sorts of interactive media, and I seldom enjoy it because there's simulated risk. For some people, that's obviously the thrill, but I get different things out of games.
I like Ellen a lot. So far what has me apprehensive about two souls is many of your supposed choices lead to the same outcomes. I don't mind what is essentially an interactive visual novel but it's still a treat when there are multiple paths leading to multiple endings and varied character interactions. However, because I have not played the game all I have is speculation,Matt! It might be better than it seems!
Yeah, I'm reserving my judgment until it drops in price myself! I like multiple paths and endings and stuff too, but I also try to appreciate things for what they are rather than what they're not. I've been thinking about Casey's thesis that risk equates a game, and I just don't think that's true. I mean, if you put on god mode in Quake, that doesn't automatically not make it a game. IT might not be a GOOD game, but it's still a game. Then there's "Lilly Looking Through", an adventure game I reviewed recently (coming this week). There's no risk in that, other than wasted time, but I still enjoyed it and it was definitely a game.
I think it's a complicated matter, and there's a lot of different perspectives on this. Casey and I disagree on what games we like and what games we think are good, but we both have a love of the medium which is unwavering.
I partially agree. For example,the "risk" in Persona 4 is usually artficial. Having a tough time? Simply grind a bit to level up. Did someone fail to be saved when the time ran out? The game rewinds the clock a week to before it happens. The only true danger was taking the investigation in the wrong direction. My friend and I got "The bad ending" our first time through. However,it was pretty easy to guess where we had been lead astray.
Mostly I played Persona 4 for the characters. Had it simply been a HS friendship simulation mixed with an overarching investigative mystery minus the combat I probably still would have enjoyed it on some level. lol.
yeah that's true. I love the combat in Persona 4 though! I hope I don't get a bad ending honestly.... I'm playing it on Vita now and I really like it. I like it better on a handheld than I did on PS2, for a lot of reasons.
I think a lot of games have the illusion of risk, which people find enjoyable. Then there's roguelikes which are a little more serious. I like the occasional roguelike like FTL, etc. but mostly it's too much for me. I enjoy games for the story, the immersive qualities, and other reasons. I don't think death is important to the experience anymore, at least for some games.
Don't fret. It's not too difficult to get the best ending in P4. You just have to make sure you pay attention to how you answer certain things. My friend and I knew who the culprit was but we mistakingly chose the wrong choice at a crucial moment. In other words,it was more of an over-sight than us having been completly confused.
I like the dungeon crawl elements in P4 as well simply because even the labyrinths have symbolism tied to each character. That was a big draw for me!
Well I actually did acknowledge that a game could remain engaging with the illusion of challenge (and never hinted that it couldn't be a game without it). Uncharted for example does a fantastic job presenting the illusion of risk as Nathan Drake will lose his grip on an object or something will come crumbling down. Is it challenging? Absolutely not. But without these little bits Uncharted would be worse as it would only make you focus on how basic it is.
Beyond just does nothing to hide that there is no challenge or risk. It makes it clear early on that even if you fail the outcome will remain the same. Heavy Rain bypassed the story goes on conundrum very well by having the character stay dead. Beyond, no matter what you fail at the story remains largely the same, there's next to nothing that keeps it a game.
Persona 4 is an exception however. Yet it made social links engaging thanks to sharp writing and knowing to balance seriousness and lightheartedness. Beyond lacks both of these without anything compelling to make up for it.
Two souls does seem to take itself "too seriously". I know that's just an impression from trailer and review footage but it is the strong feeling I get in my gut. Maybe they should have based a game more around "Juno" and less on "Tracey fragments"?
Persona 4 is more like the movie "Stand by me". It has really funny humor but there's also the seriousness of a "coming of age story" as well as the creepiness of a murder mystery hanging in the background. Some may think I'm off for saying so but for me P4 was Japan's version of Stephen King's "growing up tale". It also has some rather weird nods to Scooby Doo if you look at some of the rough concept art. lol.
Luckily fusing personas,advancing social links,and exploring dungeons kept things as engaging as the basic plot.
By the way, sorry I misunderstood you a bit,Cas. I guess we're all agreed even "the illusion of challenge" can be enough sometimes and I guess you felt as if Two Souls didn't even have that going for it. It's kind of sad the games presentation is so dour and drab on account Ellen can be funny,mirthfully insighful, and cheeky when she's allowed to be. That and I'm usually for more gameplay and less CGI.
ug, the more I hear about Beyond the more I'm turned off about it. I still want to play it though, but I'll wait until it's $20. It's really too bad though, as I really enjoyed Heavy Rain. IF David Cage wants to make "games" like that, that's perfectly fine, but maybe he should do it on a different system, as people who play PS3 expect more interaction.
I think there's a place for what he's doing, but we're the wrong audience. Maybe something like that would be better off on mobile as a casual game.
I don't think the problem is the place, the problem is the writing and execution. Cage has the vision, I'll give him that, but he needs guidance to realize it. Heavy Rain was still a very flawed game, but it's ambition made it easy to overlook many of it's flaws. Beyond has nothing we haven't really seen before. Without that, it's a lot easier to see the flaws, which are also much more numerous.
I would say Phoenix Wright is like a interative novel. But that's not a bad thing. The Ace Attorney games are my favorite series on the DS!
I still have yet to find an interactive novel with a health bar. PW just has a few too many gamey things for me to see it as anything other than a game even if it has the same draw that an interactive novel does.
I like story in games but when it becomes almost the only thing in the game, then I'm watching a movie. That's why I've been reluctant to play games like Heavy Rain, Beyond Two Souls and "experience" games like Journey. I like interacting. That's why I play games. I'm not interested in another passive medium like film or being force fed some experience. I like to make my own stories in games. To heck with the movement to make games like film and TV. I don't know why people have to convert a unique creation like games into the same old thing. Phoey!
I think you have the wrong idea about Journey. Personally, I enjoy games of all types, from the most interactive to the least. But Journey is absolutely nothing like Heavy Rain, Beyond Two Souls, Ace Attorney, etc. It's purely interactive.
That's not to say you might still not like it. There are plenty of people that don't enjoy it. I liked it, but didn't think it was nearly as great as some others did.
I may try it one day to see what it's all about, but it's description and all the talk I've had to listen to on podcasts about it sound so unappealing to me. The idea that a game like Journey wants you to feel an emotion, is just another filmic concept. I like the physical or mental challenge presented by games and the stories that inadvertantly happen. I don't want to have an experience forced on me or be manipulated to feel something. I do the manipulation. That's games to me.
Yeah, I wasn't a huge fan of Journey. Felt mostly like an interactive screensaver to me.
Yeah, when I saw the trailer for Beyond Two Souls, I breathed a heaving "sigh". I'm not into the super serious, emotional story line, and it just comes off as a game that says "no...these aren't CG models-- it's the real Ellen Page and William Defoe".
I never cared about hollywood stars being in the game. I just want it to be fun and leave me feeling good at the end.
Well then skip Beyond is all I have to say.
I haven't played either of these, but it seems to me that Pheonix Wright provides some kind of intellectual engagement and Beyond does not. One is a story about 'big ideas' the other actually requires you to think about what you are doing. It's like comparing a film about science to participating in scientific process yourself. No matter how simple the science project, it still requires more active thought than watching the film. Video games don't have to be hard, they just have to actively involve the player. Looks like Pheonix does this significantly better than Beyond.
this write up alone just goes to show that I really need to try out these Phenoix Wright and this Beyond: Two Souls if only to fully understand the context you speak of with the boss battles of the one game and the random lack of interest in the other. Beyond still looks captivating to me but I don't think it's $60 captivating right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments