Nobody questions that Chess has excellent gameplay/replay value but I doubt anyone has ever thought about how the poor pawns are being exploited and used for cannon fodder or wondered whether the queen was cheating on the king with one of the bishops or not. But then again that was never a part of the whole Chess concept.
What the Bioware Vision Statement and what the quote from Greg Zeschuk suggests, however, is that Bioware's focus in making games is not, I repeat NOT, on making a Chess killer but to make games where you DO wonder about the indiscretions of the queen or why the rook prefers to prance around outside instead of staying home with the wife and kids.
You can dispute whether they succeed or not and your own emotional complexity/simplicity may find the topics they treat fitting or trivial, but with a clear statement in place of what they were trying to achieve it is no longer valid to argue that ME2 should be more like Chess because that was never what they were aiming for.
Not sure what you are trying to say and seem to being missing the point here with that metaphor. What you are talking about is complexity of a story and divorcing it from gameplay. A movie or interactive movie can have a complex or satisfying narrative, but that is "movie" not a game. Narrative complexity or quality does not = game complexity or meaningful interactivity.
Well written stories are great and make great movies, but they don't by themselves make a great "game" or even a game at all. Using your metaphor, if the narrative demands only allowed me to move pawns to a limited number of squares and prevented me from moving certain pieces altogether, I would no longer be playing chess at all. Might make for a great story but a very, very limited game.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2006
- Messages
- 182