Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Cautious skepticism. | |
| Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 5/13/11 1:38 a.m. |
|
: BungieCantTellGoodStoriesAnymore.net : Maybe 343 can? Hmm. At the risk of stepping into it, and sounding significantly more mystical and less skeptical than normal (or perhaps more of both) I think there's something on the part of a storyteller and their relationship with a setting that gives the teller the desire-- no, the need-- to tell a story. I think the story of H1-H3 tells that story. It's common to hear people say about a good setting that "there are lots of stories we can tell in this universe" and that's factually true. I think there's a distinction to be made between stories that can be told, and those that need, or want to be told, if I may be allowed to unjustifiably anthropomorphize stories themselves for a moment. ODST and Reach represent a sidestory and a prequel, respectively. Certainly one could do more sequels, more prequels, more sidestories, or even unrelated stories that occur within the same fictional universe. Are those stories that want, or need to be told? Or is the desire to tell them grown from the need to justify investment in intellectual property, or the need to remain in familiar territory? Bioshock was a game I liked a lot, and one of the reasons for liking it was the setting. It told a story, and by and large, that story didn't need a sequel-- but it got one. Did the story of Bioshock 2 need to be told? No. Which I suppose is more the pity, because a lot of gameplay issues that stuck out like sore thumbs in the first game were rectified in the second-- much like elements of Halo that got polished for Reach. I can see how and why the Bungie-MS relationship went the way it did, and why MS ended up with Halo. I can easily see them taking the position that this property cannot lie fallow, and I can easily see them finding people interested in continuing to work in that universe, or people who would like to begin such work. I can also see how this might not ever produce any work on a par with the first three games if there aren't stories that need or want to be told there, instead of just stories that can be told. If I had to sum up, I suppose I'd say that my default position towards Bungie is cautious optimism or better: I've liked their games, more often than not, over a long enough time that I believe their next project will be good until I see something that convinces me otherwise. Without meaning offense to any, I think I'd have to say that my default position towards 343i is more akin to cautious skepticism. If there are stories that need and want to be told, I'm waiting to see what they are. If 343i is a group that not just can-- but needs and wants to tell those stories, and can execute the way Bungie did, I'm waiting to see that be demonstrated. At this point I'd buy Bungie's next product sight unseen. I'd want to see a Halo title by 343i reviewed first.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |