Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
Fallen Order has dialog choices that don't mean anything. It also has one action-based choice (meaning what Cal does or doesn't do rather than what Cal says) that ends up being decided for you regardless of what you did.
Survivor has dialog choices that resurface as referenced dialog later but affects nothing of the story. Action-based choices decide what rumor options are available, and there's a spoiler of why none of those action-based choice matters.
There are many times where you might want your Cal to do certain things, but the game forces you to do something you'd rather not do. Fallen Orded has two that come to mind. Survivor has several. The fact that your dialog can set a stage for how your Cal is progressing makes these forced character development scenarios more striking.
HOWEVER!!!
A stage has been set by all of this, priming the next game to be a conflict of choices and consequences because this game ends heavily on personal conflict.
The fact that they toyed with the idea in Fallen Order and messed around with it more in Survivor, I'm holding out hope that they'll go all in with branching stuff based on dialog and action... the stuff I liked in the older, far-fewer-polygons games. Their hands will be untied regarding a set starting point for another game (if this Jedi series is indeed a trilogy as they claimed). It can end 10+ different ways without worry (and will be Chee's problem to solve for his official Holocron).
Of course, that's also 10+ different ways for things to go wrong, but if they go all-in, it'll show on this side of the display, too, regardless of any problems.
Relationship scores between characters isn't something I enjoyed all that much, but it would make sense, I suppose given the history of several SW games. They haven't messed with that aspect in Fallen Order or Survivor so far. I'm hoping they leave that out. (Again, I'm still looking at you Bioware with your +/- influence on everyone making nobody happy if you try to keep everyone happy. Obsidian made a mess of it where I just stopped trying. ME3 made another mess where things that should upset companions had zero consequences. Either implement the influence system or don't. Preferably don't, but if you do it, don't half-do it.)
I don't know about that. KOTOR is a high bar, and for many KOTOR II set the bar even higher. Don't knock the stories in the X-Wing and Tie Fighter series games. Shadows of the Empire had a decent story. Before KOTOR was the Dark Forces series, of which Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight is a standout.
I would place Survivor at a higher rank than Force Unleashed.
But I don't think it is as good as KOTOR. Bioware had to create the Mass Effect Trilogy to surpass KOTOR.
Admittedly, I do see where comparisons between Survivor and KOTOR can be made. However, KOTOR builds a larger universe with its cast of characters, and then follows up on that cast of characters with a very strong sequel.
In video games, cutscenes are typically tiktok length. You don't typically want to take control away from the player.
Make the cutscenes too long and many individuals would rather just watch a movie that is not interrupted by having to pickup a controller to unpause the movie.
Story rich games either need to be long enough to not be dragged down by cutscenes, or have the story unfold more during gameplay than during cutscenes.
To be a good story, the main criteria is that it is entertaining. Jedi: Survivor has a few interwoven stories. Your "A" plot, and "B" plot, and "C" plot,... Individually, those plots may not be good on their own, but collectively I think they make a good story.
Jedi: Survivor takes you on a journey through the present, past, and future.
No not really.
In Action Adventures they are, but that is not the only genre, my point is that there is not really a interaction feature, this is just a cutschene, fight 3 enemies, cutscene, do jump and run puzzles, fight 3 enemies, cut scene, do puzzle, fight 4 enemies, then boss fight, then cutscene.
But the story per say, is only used to get you to the next section, its not interactive, no player agency and not really there to make an epic story. It is a way to connect the gameplay and what happens next.
Don´t get me wrong, this is decent in terms of what it does and how action adventures play out, but its not really a deep story or has that much of a focus on it.
Think that working for Lucas CGI or "The Volume" was bad? (The Volume is impressive but, like CGI, should be assisting the scene and not be the scene. Looking at you Obi-Wan.)
This motion capture stuff is insane to act against. Nothing is there but a bunch of dots and leotards. No in-scene outfits. No sets. Often, some video capture contraption strapped to your head. Mark Hamill throwing popcorn at you.
...and they still manage to make it look great despite all that immersion-destroying stuff they use during "filming".
I disagree. its not deep. It is rather basic and just your avarage cutscene shifting.
Give me examples of what you find deep.. is it because there is emotional scenes? everything has that, even Super Mario, but I am certain most people would not call Super Mario deep, nor claim it has player agency
The other story elements are more subtle.
For some, you don't realize that it is progressing the story, because it is gameplay and not a cutscene.
For other elements, it can be chalked up to "atmosphere". The setting and circumstances tell a story also. A "silent film" as it were.
I'm picking up on depth in the story.
It may be that the depth of the story is dependent on the larger Star Wars story. Jedi: Survivor's story is one that carves its depth out of the Star Wars universe. It is not a self-contained story that creates its own depth from scratch.
I agree with the vast majority of your opinions, but opinions ain't objective.
People won't see what we see and that's fine. I often state: "My opinions don't mean you're wrong." (It's in my signature in many a forum.)
My opinion is that it does focus on narrative, but that's where it ends... just like my opinion.
If someone doesn't see it that way, I can't make the claim that they're wrong. Maybe they're seeing something I don't.
I don't think so.
Unless I am missing something, one of the key constraints placed on the franchise is that it takes place in the "Dark Times" where nothing important can happen.
And the depth I found in the story is the depth of Star Wars at this point in time. Aside from Oggdo Bogdo and Ponchos, what does Jedi: Survivor really add to the Extended Universe?
Jedi: Survivor is like a single firework. It is big, loud, bright, but exists only briefly and then will just fade away.
My argument is that story is not really the main part of this game, combat is. Story is tailored to fit into the combat sequences and pauses that are needed in these games.
Again there is no player agency, there is no deep story, where you can really dig deep into it and learn about the universe (par a few regular action adventure popups, that are short)
I understand why some people like this type of story, its simplistic, easy to follow and is set and done. But its not winning any writing awards in my book, its overly simplistic.
Again its important to note, that it depends on ones bias and it is decent in its methodical implementation if we think about that this is an Action Adventure.
If the story is "good" as in the overly theme and what plays out, that is very subjective ofc, that is not what I am taking about.
The story and combat are two separate ingredients in this game. Neither is really stronger than the other.
We're going into spoiler territory here:
The depth of the story is about personal attachments. This is juxtaposed against the Skywalker saga, Vader's story arc.
The story is another take on why Luke tosses his lightsaber in the Sequel trilogy. Why Yoda burns the Jedi Archives.
It is a game that is tied to the core of Star Wars, the failure of the Jedi Order.
Story often have player agency in other genres and even some of the best Action Adventures. It is mostly not the case with console action adventures, but some do have it.
Again. I think the techicallity of how its showcased, how its implemented and the way it works is simplistic and lackluster. But I am biased, thus the reason I say its a matter of subjectivity (everything is) but most people don´t seem to play this for the story elements, most I know that like this, plays it because of its combat system.
Combat is in focus, story is to tie elements together and help the combat along. I like it when its vice versa, but again its a subjective matter. The player agency is also a subjective matter, this has none, some of the games I play have lots of it... So we have to judge it from that perspective as well, is the story (cutscene movie series) great? it depends on whom you are.
KOTOR only has so much player agency, it doesn't really affect the overall narrative. Which is why the player's agency matters so little in KOTOR II, and it doesn't affect the series as a whole.
Mass Effect has a stronger sense of player agency in its narrative.
I didn't play the game for the story elements.
Jedi: Fallen Order didn't get my attention, so I did not start with any prior history of the characters or lore.
I just wanted a modern Episode 1: The Phantom Menace tie-in to appeal to childhood nostalgia. Something more substantial than a Lego game.
The story of Jedi: Survivor won me over. The final plot twist, while at the surface level seems painfully simplistic and lackluster, did trigger some connections within my fan-brain.
Upon closer examination, the ending is not quite what it seems when taken at face value. And for me, that elevated the game above the truly simplistic Force Unleashed.
FF is a JRPG, they are rather different from ie. cRPG´s and ARPGs. The first of these two, often have player agency.
But that is not the point here, the point was that I think the technical aspects of doing small cutscenes at x or y point, becuase it needs to drive the combat, is not as fun, as if the story is in focus and more fleshed out.
I agree that SWJ:FO had an awful story.. But I got it for 5 euro, so for that amount it was a decent experience.
I think the Force Unleashed is the ultimate awful in SW.. I rather play a Lego Star Wars game, but again, I am biased against all of these genres, so that is a reason.
From a somewhat more objective pow, I still think that this game is focused on the combat and has next to no story elements.