This is the first Extra Credits that I've out and out disagreed with (other than one item, which I'll cover).
Cool..
To top it off. you only covered the first two minutes and thirty seconds of the Skyrim intro, which is unfair, to say the least if you're here to talk about the first ten minutes (and of minor note you included the title and loading screen of Skyrim, but did not for CoD4).
Yeah but take into account the start-up menu as well as the character creation. It still seems to be off by a few minutes but they also mention (or is hinting at the correct expression) the minutes spent after the execution. [s:2gc72jyu]Also if you say that the character creation can take less than a minute if you're a veteran then you clearly aren't taking into account that some people like to take time to create their characters and that a rushed character creation (say the person wanting to jump in to the action) is still bad regardless.[/s:2gc72jyu]<---(But you address this later so who cares really.)
I actually really do not like the execution of the credits cut scene that CoD4 has at all, in fact I find it one of the more lacking versions of this type of cutscene. It makes me feel very disconnected from the world and events taking place in the game when there is nothing for me to connect with as a player. There's no one addressing me to keep me from feeling like a prop or mere cameraman. Some of the scenes feel over crowded with events that feel random instead of as though there is narrative behind them, yet there is story related dialogue during these moments. With no one communicating with me directly while so much is going on it becomes harder to retain and understand what is being said — eye-contact plays an active role in information absorption. I would have rather the camera been restricted too.
This is an opinion. (As in, "don't force it but it will be accepted.")
— eye-contact plays an active role in information absorption.
I don't think it works with a digital image though. Most likely, keeping close eye contact with a character during an image or animation can be visually distracting from the details within the peripheral vision. (Yes they are supposed to go unnoticed to an extent.)
Skyrim's intro is actually one of the first game intros to truly engage me in a long time and I appreciated how carefully constructed it was. It spent time making sure I was actively involving myself by looking at the people talking, which made me pay more attention to the things they were saying and absorb them. By placing the characters further apart from one another I had to actually look between them, which made me feel more like I was a part of what was going on, instead of a prop. It didn't treat me like an idiot by assuming that I can't grasp what's going on through the context of the conversation (as most games clumsily do), something I was extremely happy with (it helps estab...
Again, opinion.
It spent time making sure I was actively involving myself by looking at the people talking, which made me pay more attention to the things they were saying and absorb them.
Was the game forcing you or persuading you to look at the NPC's and pay attention?
For me, Skyrim's intro was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise very very stale format. It felt like they put more thought into it than most, other than the clunky placement of the character creation.
Almost all of the Elders Scrolls games start out the same way. Same goes for Fallout and a lot of sandbox game and non-sandbox games.
1. Opening (peaceful; calm before the storm.)
2. Build-Up
3. S**t happens
4. Free control, continued storyline with correct characters, setting etc.
Stale format, yes.
Complete deviation from the rule, no.
Actually I was more engaged by the characters in Oblivion's opening and main storyline than Skyrim's.
Disk333, that's basically the hero's journey plot, which is divided into three acts. Everything starts out peaceful, then it all goes to shit. Then the hero must journey around gathering resources and whatever to take on the antagonist. Then he takes on the antagonist, beats him, and spends the rest of his life bedding the princess he saved.
I've been reading some of the points comparing the intro of Skyrim to Oblivion and Fallout 3, and I think a lot of people are missing some rather crucial distinctions between them. There is nothing inherently wrong with starting the player in a very limited space--the way this was done in Fallout 3 was amazing, and in fact the intro section in the vault is probably my favorite part of the entire game. But the claustrophobia of the vault was the entire point, and it all built up to that glorious moment when you finally got out and saw an entire world stretched out before you.
This was also true of Oblivion--the opening dungeon section, while not nearly as good as the vault part of Fallout 3, was very claustrophobic. You started out being crushed by the walls of some huge stone tomb and being told that you were going to die in there. Then you were able to leave, and escape became your motivation, making the moment you emerged that much more satisfying.
But in Skyrim you start outside. There is no claustrophobia. Therefore the idea of building up to the moment of escape doesn't make sense. It is a mis-application of a formula intended for a different purpose. It would have been much better if the cart were winding its way along a precarious path along the edge of a cliff, stunningly beautiful vistas in all directions. They could have had the cart almost go over the edge, maybe even lose one of the prisoners to show off the high and deadly cliffs. Perhaps one of the NPCs in the cart could have saved the player's life by keeping him/her from going over--that would have given you more of a connection to the NPCs in the cart and given you a reason to care what they have to say, particularly if the NPC who saved you ended up being killed at the execution site. Perhaps the castle you end up being told to head to could have been visible in the distance.
I also agree that the game crammed way too much exposition into the cart ride. People heading to their execution would not be talking like that. It would be simple stuff--stories about loved ones, denial-laden remarks about things like the weather and future plans, etc. With good writing they might have been able to convey some exposition, but it should have been much less direct, more evocative than instructional. They should have saved the bulk of the exposition for the first quest marker--after all, the whole point of an Elder Scrolls game is that you can completely ignore the main quest if you want, so they shouldn't have saddled your character with anything other than a lead on where you could go if you cared. If you cared, then you get the exposition. But otherwise you could just be a felon who managed to escape during a disaster.
OMG…Thank you. Because that's exactly how I felt when I started playing Skyrim. I was bored inside of 15 minutes and haven't gone back to it since. And yes, I know the game is supposed to be great, bluh, bluh, bluh. Still as someone who had never played an elder scrolls game before that point I was a bit underwhelmed that THIS was my first introduction to a game that had gotten such rave reviews. I've seen game opening that were stellar or really amazing, and this was....sub-par. I'm just glad that someone actually said it.
Because of that opening scene, I actually turned the game off (and played something else). It looked ugly and boring. I honestly thought that the rest of the game was going to continue on like this for 10+ hours before the "good part showed up". Just like Final Fantasy 13 -- all over again. (oh god, no. Not again.) But now that I know, that's not the case, I'll go back to the game….as some point. After Mass Effect 3, of course.
After taking some time to re-evaluate my stance on this, I can't help but feel that ultimately, this episode more or less missed the point.
I've mentioned before that James either worked on COD:MW or knew the people who worked on it well. That is to say: James left the company the same year the specific game that's put across Skyrim came out.
Earlier in this thread I pointed out that this would make him biased (I didn't intend to accuse him of bias, mainly because bias isn't in an of itself a bad thing unless it's unfair and you can't accuse people of something that isn't bad. But that may still be what I ended up doing).
Thing is though: It doesn't just make him biased, it makes him knowledgeable too. James probably knows every reason why the Modern Warfare example did what it did, every decision behind it and every intention that the people who made it had for it.
But for Skyrim, he doesn't. So when he wrote this episode, he was looking at the Skyrim intro from the context of the Modern Warfare bit.
The problem with that, however, is that the goals behind the two sequences were vastly different.
Skyrim's intro isn't intended as an 'infodump' or something to familiarise you with the setting. Skyrim's intro is a case of 'Show, don't tell' gone horribly, horribly right.
The whole conversation that happens on the cart ride? That's not something you need to listen to, it's just there to give you something to pass the time.
The point of the intro instead is to evoke a feeling of restriction, a feeling of 'help, I can't do anything but sit here, waiting for what comes next.'
It addresses a long-standing complaint by people who played Morrowind and Oblivion: That the start of those games merely told you your character was a prisoner, with very little to actually show it. Sure, in both cases you start off in a confined space, but you still have freedom of movement. You spend less than a minute 'unable to go anywhere' before the games make you start walking around.
The dungeon start from Oblivion, for instance, isn't claustrophobic specifically because you are in control of your character.
The problem with Skyrim's intro is, however, that it's too good at what it's supposed to do for most people. The entire sequence is intended to make you want, even hunger for, that moment where you escape/are set free and walk into the world. However, that moment takes a long time to arrive. Specifically because the conversation between your two (speaking) fellow prisoners is fully voiced and therefore the ride needs to last long enough for them to finish it.
Ultimately, if it's intention was to involve players in the setting and show them the sights, the way that Modern Warfare bit it's put opposite is supposed to do, it would be a horrible intro. But it's not. It's supposed to show that you don't need to be in a closed off space to feel claustrophobic and trapped. It's supposed to make you want to get out there and explore. It goes against the expectations people have of what they're going to do in the game, but it does so specifically to increase the player's desire to do exactly that.
It's just so effective at evoking that desire and giving off that feel, that most people can't help but feel that it takes too long before you get the chance to do that.
Cool..
Yeah but take into account the start-up menu as well as the character creation. It still seems to be off by a few minutes but they also mention (or is hinting at the correct expression) the minutes spent after the execution. [s:2gc72jyu]Also if you say that the character creation can take less than a minute if you're a veteran then you clearly aren't taking into account that some people like to take time to create their characters and that a rushed character creation (say the person wanting to jump in to the action) is still bad regardless.[/s:2gc72jyu]<---(But you address this later so who cares really.)
This is an opinion. (As in, "don't force it but it will be accepted.")
I don't think it works with a digital image though. Most likely, keeping close eye contact with a character during an image or animation can be visually distracting from the details within the peripheral vision. (Yes they are supposed to go unnoticed to an extent.)
Again, opinion.
Was the game forcing you or persuading you to look at the NPC's and pay attention?
Almost all of the Elders Scrolls games start out the same way. Same goes for Fallout and a lot of sandbox game and non-sandbox games.
1. Opening (peaceful; calm before the storm.)
2. Build-Up
3. S**t happens
4. Free control, continued storyline with correct characters, setting etc.
Stale format, yes.
Complete deviation from the rule, no.
Actually I was more engaged by the characters in Oblivion's opening and main storyline than Skyrim's.
Edit: HOLD UP I MISSED SOMEBODY.
@ThreeEyedGarlic: Most of the stuff I said here applies to you too.
Disk333, that's basically the hero's journey plot, which is divided into three acts. Everything starts out peaceful, then it all goes to shit. Then the hero must journey around gathering resources and whatever to take on the antagonist. Then he takes on the antagonist, beats him, and spends the rest of his life bedding the princess he saved.
I've been reading some of the points comparing the intro of Skyrim to Oblivion and Fallout 3, and I think a lot of people are missing some rather crucial distinctions between them. There is nothing inherently wrong with starting the player in a very limited space--the way this was done in Fallout 3 was amazing, and in fact the intro section in the vault is probably my favorite part of the entire game. But the claustrophobia of the vault was the entire point, and it all built up to that glorious moment when you finally got out and saw an entire world stretched out before you.
This was also true of Oblivion--the opening dungeon section, while not nearly as good as the vault part of Fallout 3, was very claustrophobic. You started out being crushed by the walls of some huge stone tomb and being told that you were going to die in there. Then you were able to leave, and escape became your motivation, making the moment you emerged that much more satisfying.
But in Skyrim you start outside. There is no claustrophobia. Therefore the idea of building up to the moment of escape doesn't make sense. It is a mis-application of a formula intended for a different purpose. It would have been much better if the cart were winding its way along a precarious path along the edge of a cliff, stunningly beautiful vistas in all directions. They could have had the cart almost go over the edge, maybe even lose one of the prisoners to show off the high and deadly cliffs. Perhaps one of the NPCs in the cart could have saved the player's life by keeping him/her from going over--that would have given you more of a connection to the NPCs in the cart and given you a reason to care what they have to say, particularly if the NPC who saved you ended up being killed at the execution site. Perhaps the castle you end up being told to head to could have been visible in the distance.
I also agree that the game crammed way too much exposition into the cart ride. People heading to their execution would not be talking like that. It would be simple stuff--stories about loved ones, denial-laden remarks about things like the weather and future plans, etc. With good writing they might have been able to convey some exposition, but it should have been much less direct, more evocative than instructional. They should have saved the bulk of the exposition for the first quest marker--after all, the whole point of an Elder Scrolls game is that you can completely ignore the main quest if you want, so they shouldn't have saddled your character with anything other than a lead on where you could go if you cared. If you cared, then you get the exposition. But otherwise you could just be a felon who managed to escape during a disaster.
OMG…Thank you. Because that's exactly how I felt when I started playing Skyrim. I was bored inside of 15 minutes and haven't gone back to it since. And yes, I know the game is supposed to be great, bluh, bluh, bluh. Still as someone who had never played an elder scrolls game before that point I was a bit underwhelmed that THIS was my first introduction to a game that had gotten such rave reviews. I've seen game opening that were stellar or really amazing, and this was....sub-par. I'm just glad that someone actually said it.
Because of that opening scene, I actually turned the game off (and played something else). It looked ugly and boring. I honestly thought that the rest of the game was going to continue on like this for 10+ hours before the "good part showed up". Just like Final Fantasy 13 -- all over again. (oh god, no. Not again.) But now that I know, that's not the case, I'll go back to the game….as some point. After Mass Effect 3, of course.
After taking some time to re-evaluate my stance on this, I can't help but feel that ultimately, this episode more or less missed the point.
I've mentioned before that James either worked on COD:MW or knew the people who worked on it well. That is to say: James left the company the same year the specific game that's put across Skyrim came out.
Earlier in this thread I pointed out that this would make him biased (I didn't intend to accuse him of bias, mainly because bias isn't in an of itself a bad thing unless it's unfair and you can't accuse people of something that isn't bad. But that may still be what I ended up doing).
Thing is though: It doesn't just make him biased, it makes him knowledgeable too. James probably knows every reason why the Modern Warfare example did what it did, every decision behind it and every intention that the people who made it had for it.
But for Skyrim, he doesn't. So when he wrote this episode, he was looking at the Skyrim intro from the context of the Modern Warfare bit.
The problem with that, however, is that the goals behind the two sequences were vastly different.
Skyrim's intro isn't intended as an 'infodump' or something to familiarise you with the setting. Skyrim's intro is a case of 'Show, don't tell' gone horribly, horribly right.
The whole conversation that happens on the cart ride? That's not something you need to listen to, it's just there to give you something to pass the time.
The point of the intro instead is to evoke a feeling of restriction, a feeling of 'help, I can't do anything but sit here, waiting for what comes next.'
It addresses a long-standing complaint by people who played Morrowind and Oblivion: That the start of those games merely told you your character was a prisoner, with very little to actually show it. Sure, in both cases you start off in a confined space, but you still have freedom of movement. You spend less than a minute 'unable to go anywhere' before the games make you start walking around.
The dungeon start from Oblivion, for instance, isn't claustrophobic specifically because you are in control of your character.
The problem with Skyrim's intro is, however, that it's too good at what it's supposed to do for most people. The entire sequence is intended to make you want, even hunger for, that moment where you escape/are set free and walk into the world. However, that moment takes a long time to arrive. Specifically because the conversation between your two (speaking) fellow prisoners is fully voiced and therefore the ride needs to last long enough for them to finish it.
Ultimately, if it's intention was to involve players in the setting and show them the sights, the way that Modern Warfare bit it's put opposite is supposed to do, it would be a horrible intro. But it's not. It's supposed to show that you don't need to be in a closed off space to feel claustrophobic and trapped. It's supposed to make you want to get out there and explore. It goes against the expectations people have of what they're going to do in the game, but it does so specifically to increase the player's desire to do exactly that.
It's just so effective at evoking that desire and giving off that feel, that most people can't help but feel that it takes too long before you get the chance to do that.
Join The Discussion:
Leave a reply in the forum...