Kuuso on 23/3/2012 at 13:35
Well it had a better story. It was self-contained, un-contradictory and played well within the game world. In Deus Ex, the world is interesting, but the story itself is run-of-the-mill and meshes badly with the actual gameplay at certain points.
The very ending is the worst, why the fuck there is a room made for our protagonist that has 3 buttons and a suicide option? I mean, what the hell, someone might say that there's not much sense in that.
Sulphur on 23/3/2012 at 14:38
Oh look, it's like an Oscar debate but with GAEMS.
Anyway, it's way harder to do comedy in a game than make one that's all SRS BSNS. Portal 2 managed plenty of laughs for a lot of the right reasons, so yes, it earned it. DX:HR's story was nice, but the execution could have been better; I don't see many ways Valve could have improved on Portal 2's zany ridiculousness.
Briareos H on 23/3/2012 at 15:08
This comes from a lack of clear distinction between narrative and story.
DX:HR's story does its best to be in-depth, realistic and complex. The gameplay and narrative follows along, trying to convey the depth of its story, at times failing miserably. But take the ending for instance: it was rushed on EM's own admission. Had they had more time before release, they would have built much more interesting, branching gameplay and cutscenes around the ending. But the story itself wouldn't have changed.
On the other end of the spectrum, Portal 2's story fits in many less pages of light-hearted, over the top comedy. The narration is smoother, partly because it is purely linear, partly because some elements of story were probably changed to fit with interesting gameplay ideas.
A shallower, shorter and more malleable story allows for a better narrative to be spinned around it. And in the end, because of the structure of the medium, we gamers will rather judge on the "how it's told" than the "what is told". The "story" BAFTA category should be renamed.
Kuuso on 23/3/2012 at 16:38
Briareros makes a good point and sets the game apart just as I would have. I think it's given Deus Ex story or script involves themes that can be considered more complex and interesting, but as said, due to said complexness the narrative can't keep up. I still feel that the actual story is a bit too stereotypical scifi-story down to the utopian sea-city.
Portal is of smaller scale storywise, but I think, ignoring the shallowness of it's themes for a while, there's some credit to be given to it's characterization even if the protagonist herself is dissapointingly "Valved" mute. Glados and Wheatley are arguably funny and the dialogue is clever - something that is more than needed to make humour.
I think these two games are actually a great pair, since they, at least in theory, somewhat represent the opposite sides of storytelling.
Pyrian on 23/3/2012 at 17:45
I really don't think interactive storytelling should be judged alongside non-interactive storytelling at all. The story of Portal 2 should, if anything, be judged as a film, not as a game. What if somebody filmed the pages of a really good novel, being slowly turned on screen? Just because the book is really good, is it a good movie?
Thirith on 23/3/2012 at 17:51
I'm afraid you'll need to explain that, Pyrian, because right now it doesn't make any sense to me.
Ulukai on 23/3/2012 at 18:04
Yeah, in fact, it seems to contradict itself.
Interactive storytelling shouldn't be judged against non-interactive, yet Portal 2 should be judged as a film? Brain Hurty
nicked on 23/3/2012 at 18:40
I think it's meant to be a snide dig at Portal 2's linearity, but the point isn't very clear.
Pyrian on 26/3/2012 at 15:43
...Really, guys? :erg: That's just pathetic.
I wasn't trying to be snide, but yes, I'm criticizing the linearity of Portal 2's story. In Portal 2, like in most games, the story itself is not interactive (i.e. linear). So, bits of gameplay aside (and Portal 2 comes quite close to being bits of gameplay interspersed with essentially non-interactive story segments) you have sight and sound and story, but only token interaction. We have a word for that kind of storytelling, and that word is film. Or, if you prefer, cutscenes. (Which Valve prides itself in not using, while increasingly creating de facto cutscenes that retain many of the same problems while creating a few of their own.)
Now, I'm not against non-interactive elements in games. Art, linear story, some sound elements perhaps (though a lot of sound in games is often quite gameplay relevant, sometimes even when it's not supposed to be: "Battle music? I've been spotted!"). These things are important and should be recognized.
That being said, I think the interactive elements to games are fundamentally more important, more interesting, and more relevant to the gaming medium. So, I do not approve of overlooking achievements in interactive narrative in favor of finely polished non-interactive narrative. It's a film element guys, not a game element. Sure, it's film element in a game, but it's still fundamentally a different medium in itself. The gaming medium can't realize it's potential (with respect to narrative) while you're not using it's fundamental premise: interactivity (with respect to narrative).
