Slashdot Mirror
Revisiting Sly Cooper
1up is running a feature about the previous two Sly Cooper game titles, underappreciated classics for the PS2. They're examples of truly great platforming for this generation of consoles. From the article: "Sly's emphasis on plot and continuity is one of its greatest strengths, which may be a pleasant surprise for gamers weaned on old-school platformers whose story lines rarely strayed from such gripping territory as 'Bowser kidnapped the princess again' or 'Dr. Robotnik is probably up to no good with those Chaos Emeralds (again).' Unlike the unambitious premises of action games gone by, Sly's narrative feels like a crucial component of the series."
The Jak and Daxter games tell a decent story and are fun along the way as well. Why are we rewarding that which ought to be standard in a game (decent story) anyway?
e2 | LJ
The Sly Cooper articles on Wikipedia could use some love. 1, 2 and 3
Hey, don't rag on Mario, it's still one of the greatest platformers of all time.
--
The best free Palm games
Comparing video game plots from the Nintendo and/or SNES/Genesis era is like comparing the standards of living from the Middle Ages to the 21st century. A fairer comparison would been to compare Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga or even Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. (Neither of which revolve around 'Bowser kidnapped the princess again'.) And playing either of the Sonic Adventure games reveals the same thing.
I think the fact that they chose to put-down the plots of two of the most highly regarded platformers ever just shows that plot does not make the game. Having a decent plot is a nice feature but that's not what I look for in my games.
Last time I was doing ninja wall jumps around the levels in mario64 I wasn't thinking about character motivation or plot. I do however have several well written movies in the bookcase which don't get nearly the same amount of time on screen as my favorite games.
Rats would be more funny if they could fart.
Yes, for _you_ (and for a lot of other people), the plot and story doesn't matter. In fact, I know a couple of people who are outright opposed to having their time "wasted" with any kind of narrative.
But then for a helluva lot of us, it does matter. Me, I found Mario 64 (and Donkey Kong 64 and various other platformers) to be more boring than watching paint dry. I've had more fun in a RL dentist's chair than jumping around like an idiot for no good reason or purpose in those games.
For _me_ the story and plot are the _main_ attraction in a game. I couldn't care less about score or showing off my l33t reflexes. Why I play is to see what happens next, and it damn well be a good piece of story.
If I have to do some ninja wall jumps, damn right I'll want it to be a part of some story. I'll want some damn good reason why my character is doing that, and I'll want to know what's he/she/it trying to achieve, and why couldn't it be achieved otherwise. (E.g., why can't he take the stairs instead of jumping his way upwards.)
And btw, by "damn good reason", I don't mean "the generic non-descript princess was stolen by generic villain #3, now go save her". Why is my character trying to save the princess anyway? Did he know her? Was he her body-guard maybe? Was he hired by someone to rescue the princess? How did that happen, then? Why did they choose him for that task? E.g., I can understand why someone would hire a well known mercenary or bounty hunter for that, but if it's the palace's plumber, there damn better be a good explanation why's he hired to rescue anyone.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your favourite games are bad as such. But like any game, some people like them, some people don't. I'm just giving you a glimpse into the mind of someone whose tastes are the exact opposite.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Well, you just illustrate (sarcasm or not) what's what starts to seriously annoy me about Slashdot's Nintendo fanboy community: that everything has to be turned into a Nintendo-vs-someone thing, and a reason for all true believers to rally in defense of it against the heathen hordes of Sony. And that only pollutes any attempt to have an intelligent conversation.
In this case I don't even see it as Nintendo-vs-Sony, but simply story-driven games versus basically arcade games. Some people like the former, some of us like the latter. And as with any two fundamentally different kind of games, some people like one and hate the other.
It's not even a Nintendo issue as such. It's not like Nintendo are the only ones who made games where you jump around for no obvious reason, other than some generic 'save the stereotypical princess' excuse. And at least I didn't like those either. I used to be a Sega fan, but trust me, Sega's Sonic games didn't do anything for me either.
It only becomes a sort of a Nintendo issue in that Nintendo pretty much doesn't produce seriously story-driven games. So for those of us who are into those, well, Nintendo's lineup doesn't do anything for us. But again, let's not lose sight of what's cause and what's effect. The real cause and issue is simply whether or not they fall in the genres that a given person likes, that's all. Turning it into some Sony-vs-Nintendo conspiracy theory is getting it all wrong.
Basically: I don't shun their games because they're Nintendo, but simply because they're not the kind of games I'm looking for. And I don't buy my PS2 games because they're Sony (actually, in most cases it's Square-Enix or some other third-party), I buy them because they have that complex story and plot which I'm looking for in a game. That's all. It's really that simple.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
...Sly is dead sexay!
Story-driven games?
I'm sick and tired of seeing this pretentious bullshit all over. If you liked the backstory, fine, if you liked the backstory to the final fantasy series or any other console "RPG", fine! (don't even get me started on these linear, non-tabletop pieces of shit you dare to call "Role-Playing-Game". Change the name to "Linear Story-Driven Experience Point Treadmill", PLEASE.)
Ooh, the stories are so deep and poignant. I can't for the life of me remember more than a handful of truly gripping story-driven games, but hey, this one's got the gritty, brooding, dark hero, the even darker, broodier, grittier sidekick, the female love interest sidekick, it's SO original!
But, come the fuck on. Video game characters now need a sensible reason for jumping on mushroom heads or blasting aliens with their rocket launcher?
WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED?
In the olde days, we played GAMES. We didn't ask for a backstory, because there was no need. There were only RULES to the game.
You know. Chess? Monopoly?
Why do you want to treat "save the princess", "shoot the target", "mass produce farms and send zerglings against enemy camp" or "fantasy football" differently? It's still a TOY we are talking about.
Repeat after me : A FUCKING TOY, EVEN IF MOST OF YOU WILL BASE YOUR VIRILITY ON WHAT KIND OF TOY YOU OWN!
This kind of reasoning is what turned many video GAMES into "interactive full motion video experiences".
View pre-rendered cinematic. Hit square. Rummage about for experience points/bonus/item.
Mod me as trollish as you can, but this is the most pretentious bullshit I've ever heard of.
Post #13672602 is the truth that rings down from the mountain!
"Would a complex relationship between Mario and the Princess make the game any better?"
For me, yes, it would.
"Does anyone play Street Fighter for the endings?"
No, but then I don't play Street Fighter at all. On the other hand, Shenmue was just that: Virtua Fighter with a lot of story, and in fact a whole adventure game, in between the fights. Guess what? I liked it.
"Would Contra be any better if the aliens went on rants about why they were trying to take over the world?"
Well, see, there's a difference between a good plot and just some rants out grafted on top of it. More to the point, there are plenty of sci-fi movies about fighting some aliens, which nevertheless have some plot and character development in between the fights. And guess what: that's what we watched them for.
E.g., if Star Trek was _only_ a continuous slug-fest (or phaser fest) between the humans, romulans and klingons, I do believe it would have never gained much of a following, or even a sequel. You may in fact notice that au contraire, the first Star Trek had no combat (or I don't remember any, so it couldn't have been important). And even in the later sequels and series, the focus was on using the brains, and that's how all situations were eventually solved. Even if the ultimate solution involved firing a weapon (e.g., firing the ship's phasers at that greek god's temple in one episode), the key was figuring out _what_ to use, _how_, and _where_, not just sending a lone hero to machingun everything and jump on crates.
Even movies that were somewhat lighter on story and heavier on combat, like Aliens or Stargate, nevertheless did weave it all into a coherent story, and used various storytelling devices (e.g., the suspense of not knowing wth is that parasite on that guy's face going to do) to deliver that story. They didn't start with the hero or heroine with a gun, shooting aliens for 90 minutes straight and then getting a high score table.
"Would giving Little Mac a backstory make you more likely to want to beat Mike Tyson?"
Yes.
"More often than not, complex stories just drag a game down. They force a game into a linear progression and usually just result in a lot of gameplay sacrifices to meet the demands of the story."
No, all you're telling me there is what kinds of games _you_ like. Now I won't tell you that there's something wrong with it (it would be silly to proclaim that there is "right" and "wrong" in a matter of purely personal taste), I _am_ saying that a whole bunch of us have the exact opposite preferences.
A lot of us play a game _for_ the story, as a (semi)interactive movie if you will. The rest of the game exists for us for one sole purpose: to deliver the story. And if the gameplay has to be tweaked to better deliver that story: GOOD! That's just what I'd expect in a heavily story-driven game.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
They had a game for the Nintendo 64 called Rocket: Robot on Wheels that was just a great platformer. It was a lot of fun, and very clever, and the physics engine was just amazing. I wonder if Sly would have been considered a "kiddie game" if it had been developed for the Cube. Rocket was underappreciated in such a manner as that.
I just bought the first Sly Cooper game a week ago for cheap on a whim. It's a platinum title so it's only $20. The second Sly is also only $20 but I haven't picked that one up yet.
/. - it's not a game for the hardcore. It's not very difficult and doesn't involve much other than jumping and swinging your cane. Now, I'm not a hardcore gamer so I thought it was a lot of fun. It's like Crash Bandicoot (except without the insane loading times) where you have an area that contains levels, and you need to collect a key from each level. In each level you also need to collect bottles that have clues which will open a safe which contains a page of your ultimate goal: the competion of the Cooper family thieving book - The Theivius Raccoonus. The story behind it is that 5 bad guys killed your father and divided the book amongst themselves, and you want revenge (and the book).
I'll be honest to the folks at
First, the game is pretty. The levels themselves are standard 3D you'd find in any game but the characters (Sly and other NPCs) are all cel-shaded to give them the 3D but animated look. The levels are interesting overall and run particularly smooth. There's a few interesting challenges to overcome and a couple of the levels contain scripted events which really liven things up. The bosses were really easy however. When I go into a boss fight I expect difficulty and it wasn't there. Another problem I had was the idea of 'lives' in the game. You don't have health but can get 'hit' or damaged if you have a 'charm' (a horseshoe, which you can pick up for collect 100 coins). But you can also collect lives but there really isn't a penalty for running out. If you run our you are just asked if you can continue. It's odd.
Apparently a lot of these things are fixed in the sequel, from article it says there aren't really levels and there's a lot of free-roaming areas. I'm probably going to pick it up soon and then get the third installment when it comes out.
Great game. Definitely memorable.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
At least in the first one. It's why I put the controller down, calmly, and turned the player off. I'll be damned if I was going to be forced to suffer through anymore of that terrible dialog voiced by someone from an MT3K parody.