Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The idea that Skyrim and Skyward Sword are 'dueling games'
just because they came out along the same time.
Fuck by those standards, The Old Republic, Sonic Generations, and Assassin's Creed: We're still on fucking Ezio could be considered dueling games.
They only similarity is that they both have the word 'sky' in the title in some form.
Comments
but they don't have the right sword mechanics to be dedicated duelling games
sorry, i'll be quiet now
I'll say this about SS (damn that acronym makes me uncomfortable) sword mechanics: I'm still amazed they work as well as they do. It makes me hopeful for future motion control games.
@Alex
Actually the same thought that I had when I saw the title.
...Now I want an actual dueling game...
Isn't that what Soul Calibur V is?
>=D
I'm still sad that there haven't been any good duelling RPGs since Dark Messiah of Might and Magic or Jedi Academy.
The Force Unleashed was originally meant to be a revival of the Jedi Knight series of games.
Look at what we got instead.
My rage is as eternal as the endless void.
I don't really like the concept because I like my Jedi erring towards the subtle end of the spectrum.
>Star Wars
>Subtle
You can have one or the other.
Pfft, you know exactly what I mean.
I feel as though the exaggeration of a Jedi's force powers has brought with it a strong diversion from the original concept. As Jedi become more and more overtly powerful, media will be created in such a way that showcases those powers. You'll note that via the games and whatnot that the powers of the Jedi are used for increasingly warlike purposes. It's surely impossible to have an action game without violence and bloodshed (or nearly impossible), but The Force Unleashed represents a level of mindless ultraviolence that runs entirely contrary to the concept of a Jedi.
Consider that a lightsaber, for all its deadliness, is still a merciful weapon. It can kill in one hit as soon as a technique is completed, but if it doesn't, it cauterises the wound. In a setting where ranged weapons are dominant, it has no more than four feet (thereabouts) of range, but can deflect ranged attacks. It's entirely practical in context of the Force, and certainly deadly, but merciful and protective as well. The lightsaber is the core symbol of the Jedi for good reason; a Jedi is likewise deadly, but biased towards mercy and protection.
When the Jedi are repurposed to the extent they are in more comparatively recent media, that symbolism counts for nothing. There are a thousand settings and stories that have swordsmen with the capacity to shoot lightning bolts, jump high objects and jump around like mad, but the Jedi were never about any of that. They were an older sort of mystic that used subtle, invisible powers in such a way that an uninformed onlooker couldn't be sure they had done anything at all. In a general narrative sense, I think it's just far more interesting when a Jedi's powers are understated and their swordsmanship limited by practicality.
One of the things I think plagues Jedi-centric Star Wars games in general is that they're primarily action games to begin with. BioWare probably did best with Knights Of The Old Republic, which was an opportunity to take on the role of a Jedi outside of combat scenarios. It certainly still had lots of action, but the action itself was only one element of the experience. Taking peacable options when a lightsaber or Force choke could solve a problem is one of those considerations that any "Jedi experience" game should seriously consider using.
Applying Devil May Cry game mechanics to Star Wars is exactly the kind of thing the franchise needs less of, in my opinion. Sure, it could be fun, but Devil May Cry already exists. Why use those mechanics when a Jedi game is more thematically suited to a completely different set? In fact, that's one of the things games in general need to take into account. Games are interactive, which means that if at all possible, the core themes of the game should have some kind of interactive element. This is one of my issues with, say, God of War as well. They're fun enough beat-em-up games, but the gameplay mechanics really have nothing to do with Greek mythology. The games are a pretty fun combat system with the framework of Greek mythology but little else.
Basically, what I'm saying is that games should match themselves to the concepts they aim to represent. The Force Unleashed was a total failure in that respect; it had too much brutality from the perspective of a Jedi and too little subtlety from the perspective of a Sith. There's some excellent game experiences waiting to happen, but as long as game designers are happy to match the square peg to the circular impression, they're never going to happen.
>but the Jedi were never about any of that.
Were I a more diplomatic man I would call this a misplaced pronouncement, but instead I'll just call it what it what it is: utter delusion.
Star Wars films have always been about spectacle and the force, while it has roots is pseudo-mysticism and spirituality, is a catch-all justification for superpowers.
The shooting lightning is a product of the original trilogy, as is choking people to death, as is telekinesis, as is mind control. Let's not even getting into the prequels or the clone wars cartoon.
The limitations of the Jedi (which really aren't many even then) in the original trilogy are clearly limitations of film-making technology. The Obi-wan vs. Vader fight looks like a pair of geriatrics slapping boffer weapons around because that's what it is and if Lucas could have brimmed it up with backflips and CGI he would have.
I'll agree that the complete lack of the spiritual element (among many many other things) is what led to the mediocre game, and in fact their use of trying to do cool things backfired more often than not (that stupid star destroyer sequence) but pretending the Jedi were originally supposed to be vague and under the table is absolutely ridiculous.
Also, all you need for a game's gameplay mechanics to be about Greek mythology:
>Greek mythology monsters
>Greek Gods
ITT Alex and Malk are at it again.
Lightning was the BBEG's hidden power, and served as an example of the "end point" of the Dark Side of the Force. Choking people to death was primarily under the purview of Vader and helped to characterise him (and besides that, still falls under some of the more subtle powers). Telekenesis was limited; even Yoda took time and focus to move the X-Wing, Obi-Wan used once to create a distraction and Luke sucked at it. There was no mind control, as the Jedi mind trick plants a suggestion in the weak minded. If it were mind control, then there'd be no issue with Luke controlling Jabba.
That is not, however, what we got, and probably for the best. Lucas isn't the sole creator of the original films (and didn't even have that much to do with eps. V and VI), and filmmakers with a more even-minded approach were major forces in what made the original films so excellent. If Lucas did exactly what he wanted, Star Wars would've never been more than a niche film. It was other creative minds that moved it from an interesting concept into actual greatness.
This is very evidently not the case. Compare how the Jedi are introduced in Episode I and Episode IV. In the former, we have no conceptual introduction to the concept despite it being the official beginning of the story. We're told they're warrior peacekeepers via the introductory crawl, there's a bit of dialogue and then it's straight into the combat sequences. In the latter, we're introduced to the concept of a Jedi through the character of Obi-Wan Kenobi. The term is introduced independently of an explanation exactly in order to give the audience cause for curiosity, and Obi-Wan's definition of a Jedi is vague at best. From that point on, Luke's character is an exploration of what it means to be a Jedi Knight, and it's not until the end of the series that he reaches that end goal. Remember, we have a lot of assumed knowledge because we're so familiar with Star Wars and have been for a long time. To an audience for Episode IV on release day, the concept of a Jedi is new. Obi-Wan gives us a general idea of what a Jedi is without providing a proper explanation. We have to piece it together because there is no single infodump that defines the concept, so instead we get exposed to a Jedi's spirituality, powers and weapon separately while Obi-Wan serves as a character example.
I think it's self-evident that leaving the culmination of the Jedi concept and all the most impressive powers and such until ep. VI proves that the Jedi concept was meant to be one of mystery, being a slow journey for the audience just as it was for Luke. It's sharing this slow discovery with Luke that helps us sympathise with him and share his wonder. That is, the mystery of the Jedi is a conscious choice that not only provides some narrative tension but supports the character development of Luke. The Jedi are most definitely and obviously meant to be vague and mysterious, otherwise the story as-is wouldn't work at all.
I know this is probably humour, but Greek mythology is generally based on the tragedy of a selfish hero, where I use "selfish" to contrast them with the post-Christian "altruistic" model of heroism. They're rises to glory reversed by a single affront against the gods. The overarching theme is essentially punishment for arrogance. What we get in God of War is a revenge quest.
>I know this is probably humour, but Greek mythology is generally based on the tragedy of a selfish hero,
I'll get to the rest of this but if you think this doesn't fit Kratos to a tee you haven't played God of War.
>Choking people with magic powers
>Subtle
Yeah, I'm gonna stop you right there because that isn't subtle. Twin Peaks is subtle. Philip K. Dick is subtle. Choking someone with Blackguard dailies is straight-up superpowers. The thing about the force is that from the very beginning it was a catch-all. The first movie provides a whole shitload of different things it can do. While the Jedi themselves are a mystery, the force itself is not. It's vagary is an excuse to be whatever it needs to be. In fact it's pretty clear that the force can do whatever the writer wants it to be.
The idea that the escalation was a planned happening, rather than the fact that the films got bigger budgets and technology improved is also kind of silly, especially since Lucas has admitted he was making it up as he went along.
How fair would you say this is?
It fits Kratos for the first game, after which the series quickly loses the plot and any semblance of thematic connection to Greek mythology.
As for the Force choke, you might recall that when it first happens, we're not as an audience supposed to be entirely sure what's going on. Vader doesn't even physically gesture for that one -- the cinematic atmosphere just thickens and the officer begins to choke. Our period of ignorance is short-lived but important, since we're still getting used to the Force.
Legitimate points, but my argument is less about what the Force could be or was supposed to be, and more about the virtues of what we got and how those contrast with what the Force is today. We can "maybe this" and "maybe that" all day and night, but what we got in the original films is the "reality" of the Force's capabilities and what worked for the story.
The first paragraph is basically what I was talking about which is God of War 1, which is the one that is distinctly in the vein of a Greek tragedy.
The others... not so much.
>It fits Kratos for the first game, after which the series quickly loses the plot and any semblance of thematic connection to Greek mythology.
Okay, this is true. The first game, however, is still a Greek tragedy.
The force choke is about as confusing as Peter Parker shooting webs in Spider-man to someone who's never read the comics. It might be a surprise but you'd have to be dense to not understand what's going on.
And the realities are the force isn't subtle. Lifting x-wings, using mind powers to get past guards, and doing a straight jump 30 feet up aren't subtle. At all. They are superpowers. The jedi are and always were superheroes. Superheroes with mystical mumbo jumbo a la Doctor Strange but superheroes nonetheless.
If the other paragraphs are correct, I cannot say that Kratos, over the course of the series, is a tragic hero. Perhaps in the first game, but after that, no.
Yes, but Alex's point was that the game didn't fit into the scheme of Greek mythology which is kind of silly to say for something as vast and conflicting as Greek mythology, especially when people like Odysseus and Perseus did get happy endings. Greek mythology is many things, as most mythologies are and it's not just tragedies. Even accepting Alex's premises, when conceptualized, the Greek mythology setting was a perfect fit.
In any case, I think it's perfectly valid to separate GoW 1 from the sequels, due to different writers and obvious tonal differences.
^^ He certainly isn't a "hero" in the modern sense of the term. He's an asshole (and would totally lose against Beowulf in a cross-mythological throwdown anyway).
^^^ As for Jedi and superpowers, that's arguable. But they're superpowers with a leash. The Force takes skill to draw on, and Obi-Wan Kenobi makes clear in the originals that even his experience hardly allows him to perform superhhuman feats. And used wrongly, the Force is a corruptive, thereby requiring both skill and restraint. It's a resource that can't just be thrown around. With that in mind, I'd say it occupies a different place than the general concept of a super power. A super power is traditionally a physical attribute, whereas using the Force is a skill that can aid physical tasks.
^ You'll find that the majority of Greek myths have pretty severely crushing endings. They're moral tales as much as anything, but are written in the negative; where a post-Christian story rewards a protagonist for righteous actions, a Greek one focuses more heavily on punishing the protagonist for wrong ons. It's a matter of positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement.
I have not played the games, so I can't really comment.
That said, a game in which even the Wikipedia article says is "Loosely based on Greek mythology" cannot exactly claim to fit into the scheme of Greek mythology.
From what RotJ and Sith have shown I'd say turning to the dark side was never meant to be out of overuse or misuse of the force but rather just acting out of anger/fear which could lead to that, I guess, but that's never shown. In fact, I never got a sense of a leash. If anything, the movie all but confirm that by channeling into the force a Jedi's power is boundless. After all:
"I don't believe it."
"That is why you fail."
^All you need to fit in the scheme is the monsters and the gods. It's not like it adds Carl the god parking lots or anything.
Also the majority of the myths do end badly, but many are also just humourous and some do have happy endings. To say that Greek myths were unilaterally about punishment is just as silly as saying christian tales were unilaterally about rewarding goodness. Both had the presence of the opposite.
No, that is not right. The Gods of Greek mythology, the demigods, the Titans, the creatures, the people- they all add up to form a coherent whole that has come to be known as 'Greek Mythology'.
Taking just the monsters and the gods, and not taking into account how these interacted with the world in Greek mythology, is paying only lip service to it; taking only the most superficial aspects of a setting, painting a Greek backdrop and claiming it as Greek Mythology is dishonest, as it's not, it's just superficial aspects of it.
>Mythology
>Coherent
Yeah, no. Mythology is not meticulously crafted and there's very little consistency in how the Gods necessarily act. Zeus in some stories is benevolent, in some is uncaring, in some is a goofy guy, and in some is an outright evil bastard. These were many stories told by many people who were more concerned with getting their point across than actually building a consistent world view.
^^^ That's true, but the trends are obvious. If you want to make a modern media production in the style of historical works of literature, those guidelines are an excellent place to start -- and where the GoW sequels failed pretty horribly.
Forgive any forthcoming pedantry, but I'd argue that acting out of anger or fear is one definition of misusing the Force. Since anger and fear are natural human emotions, and any given person will find it hard to resist at least one of those, the Force is inherently dangerous. Thus the indoctrination of youths from a few years of age against such emotions.
The leash the Force works on is essentially inherent to being human.
Although the Force clearly has some limitations, even for ancient masters. If not, why didn't Yoda simply begin crashing Star Destroyers into one-another from half a galaxy away? If the Force is truly of unlimited power (or, rather, if such skill can be gained by organisms with a finite lifespan), how did things ever come to that? Obi-Wan should've been able to wipe out half the garrison of the Death Star on his own. This isn't a physical actor limitation -- all that needed to be shown on camera was Obi-Wan using telekinetics to crack Stormtrooper skulls.
I suspect the answer is essentially that the Force is limited because it makes for a better story. When the hero can solve all ills with violence alone, what tension is there? The Force has practical limitations because the narrative demands it, and that's what we got as evidenced by the limitations of exceptional and great Jedi like Obi-Wan and Yoda. Only Palpatine was capable of harnessing the Force to generate a non-kinetic form of energy.
Not in a narrative sense. More like... a coherent mass of sticky candies.
The parts do all feed into each other. In a narrative sense, they are very incoherent; but the elements that make Greek mythology what it was, such as the actions of the gods, the afterlife system, the Titans and creation system and all that, were informed by how society was that day; and as such, any setting or game worth its' salt that honestly attempted to use Greek Mythology would take into account how the mythology actually affected the world around it and vice-versa, and from that would extrapolate something that is actually reminiscent of Greek mythology, instead of sticking a bunch of creatures in front of you and calling them Greek.
Zeus, for example, is a god that is full of many contradictions. Zeus is the god of law and social order, and yet he rose to power through violent, anarchic means. He is a patron god of marriage and the household, yet he is extremely lustful and is repeatedly unfaithful to Hera, fathering many children out of wedlock.
I guess the internet put it better than I can.
>That's true, but the trends are obvious. If you want to make a modern media production in the style of historical works of literature, those guidelines are an excellent place to start -- and where the GoW sequels failed pretty horribly.
I'd say it less that they fail to present a Greek Tragedy in the sequels as that there were sequels in the first place. You could still have a story of redemption like the Twelve labors of Hercules or The Odyssey with a happy ending and have it fit into Greek traditional storytelling so long as there were heroes and declarations and mortals learning to respect the gods and whatnot.
If it were me I would have ditched Kratos and found another character to play around with. Hell, with minor tweaking the Odyssey would make a bitchin' adventure game.
>Forgive any forthcoming pedantry, but I'd argue that acting out of anger or fear is one definition of misusing the Force.
That could be argued but it's never shown explicitly like that in the movie. The closest we see Luke come to the dark side is when he tries to hit the Emperor and Anakin's turn is just from killing Mace (one that you could argue wasn't even that evil as Mace was intending to kill him without proper trial) Whenever people are actually using the most incredible aspects of the force they're just fine.
Obviously there are some limitations to the force for the simple reason you stated, but for the same reason the force is also there to make action and accomplishments more exciting.
^Except the first God of War does do that. Design and narrative to tend to the Gods, albeit a very dark interpretation of them.
But even then, it's not very hard to do that so long as you do your reading. I'd say even the campy super-anachronistic Hercules: The Legendary Journeys does that.
I am not even talking about the first game, I am talking about the entire series as a whole as the entire series is marketed as being set in Greek mythology.
But, okay. How, then, did all the elements of the setting inform each other in the first game?
I've already agreed the sequels don't work in that sense. I'm simply speaking of the first. None of my statements of defense extend past it.
And I really don't feel like giving you a list by list run down of how the gods and creatures are presented, especially since it's been I think half-a-decade since I've played it.
Also, goddamn why do I always get dragged into discussions about Star Wars.