Last Chance Leaving...

[IncarnatedDemon]

The Ace Attorney games are pretty much visual novels, then there'd be 999 and Virute's Last Reward for example, Saya no Uta and Dangan Ronpa are visual novels aswell. Even though these are still regarded as games, gameplay is almost non-existing. It pretty much only ivolves clicking text boxes to make decisions or to get to the next text box, in case of AA & 999 you'd also get to screens where you'd just click around in order to find items that help you progress in the story and/or sometimes solve little puzzles. The story really is the only driving force in those games.

I haven't played those games so i can not comment on them. But i have played this game

I loved the music and how the game challenged you. It was also a bit educational

, and even though it's not a AAA game or a game with a character being visible, its gameplay is still good. You click and solve puzzles.
And without puzzle solving, clicking (interaction) or finding a mistake in the game, there would be no game. Even simple games that are played by clicking here and there can be great game. Games are meant to challenge you.
So again story is not the driving force of a game. If it was you wouldn't be doing anything. Simplicity in gameplay does not equal poor one.

2. Then those characters are 'their' characters, in a way.

If PG had written the story, yes, but since PG made the designs and came up with the characters and Kojima writer breathed life into them through story, it is both PG's and Kojima's. And one can't reward one of them as it was a team effort.

3. Uh, then, in my book, "tweaking" characters can mean re-inventing them. For example, Dante has also been 'tweaked' for his DMC4 incarnation, but in this case, has not exactly been re-invented, as he was still supposed to be the Dante we knew from previous games. In DmC's case though, it is different. DmC Dante is not the exact same character as DMC1, 2, 3 & 4 Dante, he is his own character in a re-invented Devil May Cry universe, as a re-invented Dante. Not to mention that they did more than just tweaking, if you ask me, it was more like searching for the essence of what makes Dante Dante, take all of that and re-built the character from the ground up with a more realistic feel etc. to him. But ok, maybe re-invented is a word that might be misleading a bit, you could also say 're-imagined', but I feel like this isn't completely fitting here, as Capcom themselves often refered to DmC as a "rebirth", rather than a "reboot" - and a rebirth pretty much is a re-invention.

I don't see dmc2,3 or 4 Dante as having reinvented Dante. The only thing i will credit those characters is giving Dante a other perspective (TrollDante dmc4), and pushing the design of Dante (dmc2 design looks really realistic and not bad!).
But they didn't reinvent Dante. Neither did NT with their changed version.

NTDante is far from being his own character. He's not Dante but he pretends he is.
Let me give you a example, everything that Dante has done in 1, 2, 3 or 4 that is positive every NTDante fan expects him to do in the reboot.
Its just a NTDante, a NT version of real Dante. Nothing inventive about it.

 

[Lionheart]

How can NT own DmC? They didn't pay for first game, second, third , fourth NOR the reboot. And why do you trust Wikipedia more than what i linked to?

Because Wikipedia contains official information that's checked about once a week. It says NT is DmC's developer, and that's a fact. DmC has little to do with the DMCs, as it's a reboot. Reboot? Then new rules. Ninja Theory made the plot and supposedly most things in DmC, so that makes it mainly their game. Capcom knew that if they gave Devil May Cry up to NT, NT would become the developers, and they'd be getting many of the rights to the franchise. They thought it necessary to revive Devil May Cry.

And i think Lion your confusing a objective/motive with a story. Take chess in real life for example. You don't need a plot to play chess. It's game in real world, and it can exist in a viritual enviroment as well.
Imagine you and your team developed a adventure game where motive or motto of the game was "EXPLORE!", then you would use that motto to shape the game.

I never said you need a plot to be able to play a game. However, when you're talking about games that were intended to have a plot, the plot at least needs to be good, otherwise it's going to get a lower grade. I'm not going to compare a game of chess to a game that has a plot; they are two different things. One has a plot, the other does not. I agree that whoever made the 'gameplay' of chess is the owner, because there is nothing but gameplay; there is no plot/narrative in chess, at least not a true story like in DmC. Therefore you can't hold a game of chess to the same standards as video games like DmC (because those do have plots).

But one thing i am very adamant about, games most important aspect is interaction and it happens because of gameplay.

But we weren't talking about games in general, we were talking about DmC. DmC has a plot, not just gameplay. The gameplay is a means to convey that plot. The plot is always the result people strive towards with games like DmC. The gameplay serves to bring you from plotpoint A to plotpoint Z. The plot is the ultimate goal, therefore the plot is the most important aspect of those games. If DmC had no plot, there would be nothing to make the gameplay revolve around.

Games can have emphasize on storyline and cinematics but no videogame will ever be appropriate to call great game if it only has a great story but a shallow gameplay.

But you think games that have great gameplay and a crappy mess of a story deserve to be called great games? You can't be serious. This goes both ways, I hope you understand that. Besides, the question 'are games good if the gameplay isn't good' is not what we were talking about.

Ninja theory did not win a award because gameplay, but because of script. And you don't see anyone saying "Enslaved was a great game", at least not anyone that isn't biased.

That depends on who feels gameplay is more important and who feels the story is. I've heard people say MGS4 didn't have great gameplay, but that it did have a nice plot. In fact, I've heard people say it's more like a movie than a video game. Et voilà, review scores of 9/10 and stuff. I wouldn't agree with those reviews, though. Anyway, this isn't really what we were talking about, I think. We were talking about whether DmC is more NT's game or more Capcom's game. I'd say it's actually more NT's game, since there have been many games that were built around already existing gameplay but were made by different developers, just like DmC.

Though i dont think IGN is worth anything, i just think it's odd that if story is most important aspect that three known sites have given Bayonetta with it's unserious story a significantly higher score than HS that had a better story.

You have to weigh in what the developer's goal was, too. It may not have been Platinum Games' intention to give Bayonetta an 'awesome, deep plot'. If that was their intention (like you said), THEN you could compare it to other games' plots, because it would be unfair to use the same standards for something that wasn't intended to fit those standards. I mean, you don't compare apples to pears either, right?
Besides, I don't know what you mean by 'unserious story'. Stories don't have to be 'serious', they only have to be good. I thought Bayonetta did pretty well with its plot.
I get the sense that you might've misunderstood what I said, though. I don't think the plot is what determines the score of a game. It does influence it, but I think the plot determines whose game it is (at least in this case).

And with that, I really am done talking, sorry. I'm pretty busy at the moment, to prepare for a test. Gameplay is more important than plot, I agree. When I review games, I always count the gameplay twice, with the soundtrack, plot, and graphics counted once. However, when the question is ''whose game is it?'' I'd say it's mainly NT's, because they came up with the plot and were named the developer.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

Because Wikipedia contains official information that's checked about once a week. It says NT is DmC's developer, and that's a fact. DmC has little to do with the DMCs, as it's a reboot. Reboot? Then new rules. Ninja Theory made the plot and supposedly most things in DmC, so that makes it mainly their game. Capcom knew that if they gave Devil May Cry up to NT, NT would become the developers, and they'd be getting many of the rights to the franchise. They thought it necessary to revive Devil May Cry.

I am disappointed that you don't trust my word, that's all. But since i have to refer to Wikipedia to make you believe what i said, then here are extracts from Wikipedia:

...Capcom also assisted Ninja Theory in the making of the gameplay in order to be reminiscent to previous games.

Capcom became heavily involved in the combat system to ensure the character's responsive moves and add new air combos never seen before in the franchise.[20] The development team included over ninety members with nearly ten of them being from Capcom.

But it is not soley on basis of this that i say it's capcom's game. It is also because the gameplay was not invented nor standarized by NT but capcom.

I never said you need a plot to be able to play a game. However, when you're talking about games that were intended to have a plot, the plot at least needs to be good, otherwise it's going to get a lower grade. I'm not going to compare a game of chess to a game that has a plot; they are two different things. One has a plot, the other does not. I agree that whoever made the 'gameplay' of chess is the owner, because there is nothing but gameplay; there is no plot/narrative in chess. Therefore you can't hold a game of chess to the same standards as video games like DmC (because those do have plots).

DMC has always been for most part about the gameplay. It was the biggest thing with DMC. And the reboot was no different. However, the reboot aimed at making a better story but it did not go back on the primary goal of DMC.
So you can't possibly call DmC NT's game when taking into consideration:

1. What DMC is primarily about: gameplay
2. Capcom invented and standarized the gameplay
3. Capcom oversaw reboot project, taught and assisted NT with the gameplay

For most parts what NT was doing with gameplay was reproduce a gameplay that had been invented by other developers from capcom. They didn't invent stinger, high time, Devil trigger, or most of other concepts.
But i want to be clear, NT did invent things and reboot is partially their game. But...it is primarily capcoms game because of things i listed above.

But we weren't talking about games in general, we were talking about DmC. DmC has a plot, not just gameplay. The gameplay is a means to convey that plot. The plot is always the result people strive towards with games like DmC. The gameplay serves to bring you from plotpoint A to plotpoint Z. The plot is the ultimate goal, therefore the plot is the most important aspect of those games.

The ultimate goal for any game that aims to be a dmc game is the gameplay. That has never changed. The goal of reboot was to combine great gameplay that dmc is known for with great story to make a game that transcends a game that has only great gameplay.
The plot is there to be a supplement to the game. To give a purpose of why your fighting, not other way around where gameplay is supplement.
If Gameplay was the supplement then there would be no need to have a game, you could just do a movie or a novel.

But you think games that have great gameplay and a crappy mess of a story deserve to be called great games? You can't be serious. This goes both ways, I hope you understand that. Besides, the question 'are games good if the gameplay isn't good' is not what we were talking about.

I think a game that has great gameplay and a poor story deserves to be called great. Why? Because videogames are about playing games, not about watching a story, its about coming back and playing the game and enjoy it, more and more.
That being said, i think great gameplay combined with good-great story makes the game even better. I have no issue calling a game that has great gameplay and poor story for a great game, as ill keep enjoying the gameplay again and again. And i might skip the cutscenes /story alltogether if its a H&S game.

That depends on who feels gameplay is more important and who feels the story is. I've heard people say MGS4 didn't have great gameplay, but that it did have a nice plot. In fact, I've heard people say it's more like a movie than a video game. Et voila, review scores of 9/10 and stuff. I wouldn't agree with those reviews, though. Anyway, this isn't really what we were talking about, I think. We were talking about whether DmC is more NT's game or more Capcom's game. I'd say it's actually more NT's game, since there have been many games that were built around already existing gameplay but were made by different developers, just like DmC.

As i said above, gameplay is most important thing in a dmc game and that was invented by capcom plus they were there for reboot's gameplay.

You have to weigh in what the developer's goal was, too. It may not have been Platinum Games' intention to give Bayonetta an 'awesome, deep plot'. If that was their intention (like you said), THEN you could compare it to other games' plots, because it would be unfair to use the same standards for something that wasn't intended to fit those standards (Bayonetta's plot). I mean, you don't compare apples to pears either, right?
Besides, I don't know what you mean by 'unserious story'. Stories don't have to be 'serious', they only have to be good. I thought Bayonetta did pretty well with its plot.
I get the sense that you might've misunderstood what I said, though. I don't think the plot is what determines the score of a game. It does influence it, but I think the plot determines whose game it is (at least in this case).

Maybe in a game where the focus of the game is story that story would determine whose game it is. But in this case it's definetly the gameplay.

Anyway Lion i hope you dont take offense to my thoughts, i am just passionate about the subject of what defines a game and what a game is all about.
I think fundamentally games are about gameplay. But there are some games where the story is the focus and the fundament of videogames (gameplay) is made secondary priority.

 

[V's patron]

I wouldn't say NT owned DmC anymore than they own Heavenly Sword and Enslaved because all three games were work for hire gigs so they signed over the right to ownership.

Right now Sony and namco bandai could do xyz with the ips ninja theory created for then and not involved them because they have the right too which is the same with capcom.

you could claim NT did create heavenly sword and enslaved more than DmC because those two were new ips while DMC was already existing one.

NT is acreditted with a developer credit by capcom because they did most of the grunt work with story and also gameplay so as actually making the game as in the game we tangibly play.

Even if Capcom did tested the gameplay, checked it over and gave advised/criticism if needed, the main developer credit does go to NT because they were the one actually putting the game together with their grunt work.

Im not saying Capcom doesnt have input in story or gameplay because they do and some of the changes we see later on the game's development might be to their push but since we have no idea on what went on behind close doors its hard to say.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

I wouldn't say NT owned DmC anymore than they own Heavenly Sword and Enslaved because all three games were work for hire gigs so they signed over the right to ownership.

Right now Sony and namco bandai could do xyz with the ips ninja theory created for then and not involved them because they have the right too which is the same with capcom.

you could claim NT did create heavenly sword and enslaved more than DmC because those two were new ips while DMC was already existing one.

NT is acreditted with a developer credit by capcom because they did most of the grunt work with story and also gameplay so as actually making the game as in the game we tangibly play.

Even if Capcom did tested the gameplay, checked it over and gave advised/criticism if needed, the main developer credit does go to NT because they were the one actually putting the game together with their grunt work.

Im not saying Capcom doesnt have input in story or gameplay because they do and some of the changes we see later on the game's development might be to their push but since we have no idea on what went on behind close doors its hard to say.

I am talking about it from a creative perspective.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

But it is not soley on basis of this that i say it's capcom's game. It is also because the gameplay was not invented nor standarized by NT but capcom.

Keep in mind that even though some Capcom dudes were there to oversee things and give NT suggestions, that's as far as their involvement in the combat goes. Ninja Theory employees were the only ones touching that game's code. At no point were there Capcom employees in a studio sitting down at a computer and churning out portions of the game.

 

[V's patron]

I am talking about it from a creative perspective.

i covered it but i feel they wouldnt own it from a creator perspective since these characters and story were an already existing ip.

you could say its their take but you cant say they created it.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

i covered it but i feel they wouldnt own it from a creator perspective since these characters and story were an already existing ip.

you could say its their take but you cant say they created it.

Well thats what i mean that they didn't invent most the stuff, and therefor they are not creative owners.
Neither are they owners of the franchise through rights.

But they are very much creative owners of HS and Enslaved.

 

[Demi-fiend]

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Well thats what i mean that they didn't invent most the stuff, and therefor they are not creative owners.
Neither are they owners of the franchise through rights.

But they are very much creative owners of HS and Enslaved.

Ninja Theory are the creative owners of DmC and all the characters therein. It does not matter who originally designed them, because DmC is their interpretation of them.

 

[Demi-fiend]

It does not matter who originally designed them, because DmC is their interpretation of them.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

The comments...they're annoying.

 

[berto]

Ninja Theory are the creative owners of DmC and all the characters therein. It does not matter who originally designed them, because DmC is their interpretation of them.

I suppose that this is the most fundamental point. When people think of who made DmC they will always think of NT, irrelevant of who made what when and where, it's theirs and all the draw backs and benefits that go with that ownership.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

If people are gonna blame Ninja Theory for ruining Devil May Cry with DmC, they can't redact the statement in an attempt to disavow Ninja Theory's ownership of it

I'm surprised no one said "Good, let Ninja Theory have that piece of sh!t DmC." I mean, c'mon...the opportunity was right there.

 

[Demi-fiend]

I'm surprised no one said "Good, let Ninja Theory have that piece of sh!t DmC." I mean, c'mon...the opportunity was right there.

Yeah, but you have to remember -- fanboy logic. It kills braincells.

 

[IncarnatedDemon]

NT apologizing intiated?
F this...i dont want to waste time with this sh1t.

 

[Sunaka Marién]

I haven't played those games so i can not comment on them. But i have played this game

I loved the music and how the game challenged you. It was also a bit educational

, and even though it's not a AAA game or a game with a character being visible, its gameplay is still good. You click and solve puzzles.
And without puzzle solving, clicking (interaction) or finding a mistake in the game, there would be no game. Even simple games that are played by clicking here and there can be great game. Games are meant to challenge you.
So again story is not the driving force of a game. If it was you wouldn't be doing anything. Simplicity in gameplay does not equal poor one.

That game is a completely different case. I think those kind of games are refered to as "Point&Click Adventures", where the whole point of the game is to, as you said, click things to solve puzzles and overcome challenges. It's different with visual novels though - they don't really have any challenges, for the most part, some have puzzles, but in 999's case, those were hardly challenging (from what I've played. Still gotta unlock all the endings.), and they're in no way the main point of the game. Actually, the ones that involve puzzle solving aren't even visiual novels in the strictest sense, but as far as I know only the Japanes really draw that line, whereas here they're still regarded as visual novels in the west. The main point of visiual novels is to present a story to you, as the name of that genre already suggests, just in a more immersive way than most other media can, by sometimes giving you an option to choose from, and with that take the story in a different direction, but that's the only interaction in those games, yet, they're still considered to be games.

If PG had written the story, yes, but since PG made the designs and came up with the characters and Kojima writer breathed life into them through story, it is both PG's and Kojima's. And one can't reward one of them as it was a team effort.

That's why I said "in a way"

I don't see dmc2,3 or 4 Dante as having reinvented Dante. The only thing i will credit those characters is giving Dante a other perspective (TrollDante dmc4), and pushing the design of Dante (dmc2 design looks really realistic and not bad!).
But they didn't reinvent Dante.

I, uh, never said that...? You really need to learn to read other's posts more carefully :/

Neither did NT with their changed version.

NTDante is far from being his own character. He's not Dante but he pretends he is.
Let me give you a example, everything that Dante has done in 1, 2, 3 or 4 that is positive every NTDante fan expects him to do in the reboot.
Its just a NTDante, a NT version of real Dante. Nothing inventive about it.

DmC Dante does not pretend that he's DMCDante, because that would require him to know of DMCDante, which he doesn't.
Also the part I bolded in your quote. That's what I've been talking about the whole time, it is NT's version of Dante, their re-envisioning of him, their re-imagination of him, or their re-invention of him. You know what? I'll just give you the defintion of the word "re-invent", since you apparently do not understand what it means:
1. To make over completely
2. To bring back into existence or use

2. to remake or make over, as in a different form
3. to bring back; revive:


1.To make changes to an idea, method or system etc in order to improve it or make it more modern
(taken from thefreedictionary.com, dictionary.com and the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English)
And surprise surprise, that's exactly what NT did. Sigh. Hope everything's clear now?

 

[TWOxACROSS]

NT apologizing intiated?
F this...i dont want to waste time with this sh1t.

You're gonna have to point out some sort of apologizing, because I certainly didn't apologize for sh!t.

It really just seems like you took a sound verbal beating and can't find a way to bow out of the discussion...

 

[Lionheart]

But it is not soley on basis of this that i say it's capcom's game. It is also because the gameplay was not invented nor standarized by NT but capcom.

I really don't see how only the gameplay makes something somebody's game. Sure, they came up with the DMC series and its plot, and so it is theirs. However, the reboot's plot and some other major design and character elements were developed by Ninja Theory. It's their take on an old series. Since it's their take, and they got permission from Capcom to explore and develop that take, it's NT's game.

DMC has always been for most part about the gameplay. It was the biggest thing with DMC. And the reboot was no different. However, the reboot aimed at making a better story but it did not go back on the primary goal of DMC.

That seems like a cheap way of saying that DmC or DMC cannot be held to the same standards (plot-wise) as other games. I strongly disagree. In DmC, the plot does not take up a miniscule role. It's no less important than in other games. At least, NT made it so that it isn't. The DMC games arguably did not have excellent plots or extremely deep characters, and they got reviewed less favorably because of that, which is only fair. Ninja Theory set out to create a serious story that could be held to the same standards as other stories. Therefore, you can't minimize the role of the plot in the issue of ownership. Heck, even if the plot wasn't great, it would still be mostly Ninja Theory's game since the plot was their product and they got the go-ahead from Capcom.

Capcom oversaw reboot project, taught and assisted NT with the gameplay
Yes, but it's not like Capcom told NT to do everything exactly the way they wanted. They helped out and helped produce some parts of the game. That makes it partly their game, in my opinion, but definitely not just theirs.

For most parts what NT was doing with gameplay was reproduce a gameplay that had been invented by other developers from capcom. They didn't invent stinger, high time, Devil trigger, or most of other concepts.

So? If somebody took over the Castlevania games on the handheld, produced a completely new plot, but produced the same type of gameplay, would that mean it wasn't their property? Would that make it the property of the original (previous) owner? Of course not.

The plot is there to be a supplement to the game. To give a purpose of why your fighting, not other way around where gameplay is supplement. If Gameplay was the supplement then there would be no need to have a game, you could just do a movie or a novel.

I get what you're saying, and you're sort of right. The plot is there to give you a reason to play the gameplay, and the gameplay is there to serve as the element of interaction. So they're both important. But the gameplay is just a bit too ambiguous to connect to ownership. If an unknown developer decided to create a game that had gameplay very similar to DMC or DmC, would that make Capcom or Ninja Theory the entire game's owner? No. It would, at best, make Capcom/NT the gameplay's owner, not the owner of the entire game.

I think a game that has great gameplay and a poor story deserves to be called great. Why? Because videogames are about playing games, not about watching a story, its about coming back and playing the game and enjoy it, more and more.

I can't agree, because the plot is quite important. If it doesn't make much sense or lacks direction or is simply boring overall, that influences the entire game greatly. There are quite a few games I wouldn't be comfortable playing again if they didn't have decent plots. But it depends on what the game puts the focus on - gameplay or story. Say a game had gameplay of epic, groundbreaking proportions. Now let's say its plot sucked or hardly existed. In that case, I would be able to give the game a passing grade, but not much more than that, I think. Not when the emphasis is put on both gameplay AND story, like with DmC. Anyway, this is a wholly different matter, as this issue is about ownership. It's NT's brainchild, largely. That makes it their game.

Maybe in a game where the focus of the game is story that story would determine whose game it is. But in this case it's definetly the gameplay.

The plot always determines it, not the gameplay. Unless you're talking about games like Puzzle Bobble or whatever, because those can't be held to the same standards as games that were intended to have decent plots. In a sense, video games are indeed movies intertwined with games. And since movies are the intellectual property of the people who came up with their plots (i.e. the writers), this goes for video games as well.

Anyway Lion i hope you dont take offense to my thoughts, i am just passionate about the subject of what defines a game and what a game is all about.

As am I. I think you're correct that basic games like puzzle games and such - which don't have a plot - are owned by the people who created the gameplay and improved upon it. I suppose any type of puzzle bobble can be said to be owned by the person who originally invented it. But with games that also feature plots and strive to tell a story, this rule... does not compute

Last post for me. This thread doesn't even pertain to our subject. I greatly appreciate you were able to keep it civil! Many people can't, so I applaud you for that. Also, sorry guys - this got a bit too lengthy, I know.

 

[Chancey289]

You're gonna have to point out some sort of apologizing, because I certainly didn't apologize for sh!t.

It really just seems like you took a sound verbal beating and can't find a way to bow out of the discussion...