quilandivy

[quilandivy]

Halo Story vs. Cinematics

Just recently I was talking with someone in a heated discussion over the original trilogy of Halo’s story vs. the ones that came after. The whole time their whole argument was completely convinced that the games after did not have the interesting storytelling the original trilogy did, and i couldn’t understand that. This basically inspired this article, in it I want to describe why I think the original trilogy doesn’t have a good story, but highlight a reason why it might’ve been viewed that it did, and talk about Halo 4’s story and how it tackles this reason.

Firstly I need to reiterate what the story of Halo consists of. Across all three games, the story of Halo is very much standard space soap opera fare, you have a clear good side (humans) and a clear bad side (The Covenant). This is the basic structure that the first game starts from. Over time, other factors are brought in: a completely eldritch abomination known as The Flood acts as another threat for the humans to fight as well as other twists and turns, like the elites turning on The Covenant after their fealty is thrown out to be substituted as the Brutes, as well as their realization that The Covenant by in large is an illusion, and that the Halo rings that they are pushing towards for their Sacred Journey will actually wipe out all life in the galaxy. It’s a very simple structure right? Humans (and then elites) good, covenant and flood bad. This is the main rub of Halo storytelling, this is all that it is. None of the characters have particularly interesting motivations or nuance to them, there’s a clear line of black/white. The Covenant is made up completely under the guise of religion creating this dumb populace. There’s no fact-checking, only serious devotion to a cause. The villains don’t have any interesting backstories or motivations, they’re one dimensional “I want to keep my power in this classist society!” For my example, I’m going to use what I’ve often heard is the best story of the trilogy, Halo 2. Halo 2’s Covenant story starts out with this literally who, the only thing you know about them, the only thing that defines him, is that he was in charge of the invasion that found the first ring and couldn’t stop the Master Chief from destroying it. He becomes the Arbiter, not for anything specific to him, but because he’s a stand-in of elite loyalty, so he decides to be one for redemption’s sake. He’s sent to kill a heretic, a person spreading “false information that could be destructive of the sacred order”, being that he knows that the Sacred Journey is a lie perpetuated to keep the power contained. He goes to stop him, but not before he shows a “oracle” that being 343 Guilty Spark who begins to explain what the purpose of the rings are before the heretic stupidly shoots at the Arbiter while his guard is down which is still probably one of the stupidest plot contrivances of his game. Literally the chance was there for the Arbiter to be convinced that the thing he is following is a lie and he dumbly decides to just shoot first, it doesn’t make sense. Anyway continuing on, he begins to doubt the Covenant internally (or at least I assume he is, because the game certainly doesn’t show it! It’s all implied), but still continues to work for the leaders of the Covenant. One twist is pushed when one of the leaders is killed, and the others decide to swap out the elites with the brutes, as they do not trust the elites to keep them safe when they failed to do so with the one killed by Master Chief. This increases the tension as the elites are angry about their loss of position despite being incredibly devout and loyal. This comes to a head where finally the Arbiter is betrayed by a Brute leader during one of his missions, and the Arbiter is then told straight up by the gravemind that the prophets are wrong and the Halo will consume all life. This is passed on, infighting happens with the Covenant, etc. etc.

The problem with this story is that it’s a tale of motivations, not characters, and those motivations are one dimensional. Everyone is a stand-in, it’s a simple tale told in an incredibly black/white manner. There’s no interesting thing being told about the elite’s blind obsession with the religious order, it’s just a very black “obsessive religion bad, second guessing what you follow good”. There’s no nuance, the arbiter’s motivation is completely flipped. I said earlier that he started to doubt the Covenant implicitly? He didn’t, in fact when talking with the Gravemind he refuses to believe what he’s saying. He’s just completely convinced in the end, there’s no fallout, no grand shock to him or the other elites, there’s just a complete motivation switch. Elites go straight from loyal to fuck you I’m joining the humans now just to stop you. Events happen with scapegoats and power struggle, no personal or interesting reasons for why anyone in the Covenant does the things that they do. The prophets see the humans and heretics as threats to their power, nothing more. The elites just want to keep their position of loyalty, and when that’s tested seek solace in a more accurate truth so that they can betray the Covenant. That’s it, that’s the story of Halo 2 with the Covenant in-fighting. This problem is endemic of Halo 1 and 3 as well, in general the whole trilogy doesn’t have any themes to share, it just has a very “epic” space soap opera with a decent structure. It has its twists and turns but in the end it’s a very simple motivation-run story for events to unfold.

If that’s the case though, why do people like it so much? That gets me into my reasoning for why, the theatrics. Bungie knows their story isn’t particularly interesting, they know that their writing isn’t very good. What makes the story stand so high up in people’s heads is the overall tone, heart, and cinematic feel the game holds. What do I mean by that? Let me give a couple examples. Let’s start with this cutscene from Halo 3: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlMvje_e3ko

This is from the second mission, its opening cutscene. It starts with a dramatic sting in the soundtrack as the tone is set, Master Chief is setting down in one of humanity’s hideouts on the planet as they prepare themselves to defend on their last bastion, Earth. Master Chief walks by and the injured soldiers notice that he’s here, and it gives them hope, they’re sure they’ll be alright. They walk up to Miranda Keyes, the Sergeant cracks a quick joke, there’s a heartfelt hopeful tone, with a little bit of camp off the bat. Master Chief walks down the hall while he follows Miranda, looking to the left and right noticing all the injured soldiers, a real war is hell but they’re still fighting. Miranda gives the rundown and sets the stakes, capped off by Master Chief saying with a blunt “The rings will kill us all.” Miranda talks with Lord Hood to tell MC about what they plan to do in response, when they are cut off. Complete black frame, whole power in the facility goes down for a little. Cut to the tvs, showing the Covenant’s Prophet of Truth on every single one. Creepy track plays in the background as he gives a super chilling and strong monologue, no thanks in part to the terrific voice acting by Terence Stamp, ending with “Your destruction is the will of the gods. And I? I am their instrument.” Power goes back up, sergeant makes a quip in as well as MC, before Miranda under the realization that they’re about to get hit tells the soldiers to get ready. Whole scene ends with “Squad leaders are requesting a rally point. Where should they go?” “To war.” All in all, it’s a very well done cinematic, it does a super good job selling the tone of the scene and it has a fantastic pacing. This coupled with a nice bit of camp and some solid quoteworthy lines. This is what I think people talk about when they think of Halo’s story, they don’t think of the underlying narrative, or the characters in detail. They’re thinking of how this story is told. Because despite being a super mediocre and underwhelming tale, the framing around it is well executed, Bungie is great at their craft of selling a scene.

But what about Halo 4? From the start, Halo 4 has an outright better narrative. The Didact has fully developed motivations, and the story has a theme to it, a message to take home. The Didact doesn’t want to kill humans for any sort of power struggle reason, he wants to use the humans as a tool to make an army, for him to stop the flood. It was an original plan he had before he was put into cryostasis, one he formulated around the humans because in short, he fought a war with huge amounts of losses that ended up with his children dying in the onslaught. He has no empathy for humans, he outright hates them, but he is using these humans for a greater good in his mind. As for the theme, the main concept is “letting go.” As I described above, this motivation the Didact has is one from a past now left behind him. He refuses to let go of this past, blindly continuing to follow it despite the fact he’s now in a reality where the flood threat, albeit a delayed not completely destroyed one, is no longer central and applicable. The Chief’s “letting go” is Cortana, his AI companion that he’s been venturing with for a while now that in the end, has to let go as she devolves due to rampancy. Where the Didact refuses to separate from his motivation, the Chief ends up having to give up his own, leading to a solemn ending of him overlooking the Earth he had to save while doing so. That’s great storytelling, clear theme, clear strong motivations to each character. Didact acts as a close parallel, and it leads to a satisfying conclusion. That being said, how is this story told? This is the cutscene that plays detailing the backstory of the Didact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-4r_5AE6D4 Compare this to the Halo 3 scene above, see the problem? The whole motivation behind the didact is given by a complete long exposition to the Master Chief, it’s not told naturally at all, it’s told as a backdrop to a cliche chosen one the MC becomes, being immune to the Didact’s machine’s power. All done in a TV movie like cinematic, no interesting framing or tone. The only strong framing I could even give as a benefit here is that the leitmotif of Halo 4’s soundtrack is done in the background for a minute of the scene. But overall this scene is absolutely flat and lacks any of the emotional core the series was heralded on. Now, I’m not going to say Halo 4 in general is like this, there are great scenes that do get close to the ones above, specific examples being the goodbye to Cortana, and the ending cutscene in general. But for the most part, the way the story was told took a significant hit. With that, I hope I got across a good understanding of why I think people see Halo OT’s story in the way they do. And I also don’t want to imply that Bungie doesn’t know how to do good storytelling either, 3:ODST serves as a good example of how they combine the emotion they’re so good at conveying with a more interesting story with a team of legitimate personalities and character relationships, despite also not really having a clear message to give either, other than a vague notion of “don’t just shoot everything becuz these Engineers are actually enslaved creatures guys.” Although I don’t understand at all how they fucked up Reach so badly as they did after this with its completely cardboard cutout Noble Team all wrapped up in shitty tragedy bait with an even weaker emotional core than even Halo 4. I have an axe to grind on Reach so I’ll make a write-up on the story at a later time but I just wanted to leave this with a hot take if you want to see more of this writing.

[quilandivy]

Ocarina of Time 3D Review: Industrial Snoozefest

On the topic of what’s considered the most influential game out there, Ocarina of Time is one oft referenced. What it has done for the industry as a whole cannot be understated, and is objectively evident. But most templates are just that, templates. When people defend Ocarina of Time, they’re quick to put up its feats and its legacy, rather than the game itself. Simply put the game isn’t good, and I’m going to explain why.

Firstly, some background knowledge; I played Ocarina of Time for the first time on 3DS, and then went back to play the N64 version of which the former I vastly preferred. This was about a couple months after it released on 3DS, and a few years back I would replay it again for a score. I ended up giving the 3DS version a 7.5/10 and the N64 version a 7/10, however this was right before I got involved in game design and before I had played many games period. This is a review from the perspective of my third time playing the 3DS version, no Master Quest or N64 version. I will highlight differences if they are relevant.

Since this will be a very critical standpoint, I would like to start with the positives. In general, the artstyle for the 3DS version is really great. Areas look nice and have a good color palette, and despite having several of the game’s key components iterated upon years later, it’s surprising how unique some of the areas still feel. The world that is highlighted by this artstyle is also a bit charming, although tone deaf, which I will get into. Scenes like the twin witch sisters ascending to heaven after their boss battle and waking up the dad with a chicken twice still makes me giggle. The camera movement during cutscenes is very nice, including some great shots that would look right at home in cinema. This is also helped by the system’s good lighting. The music is also fairly alright; although not particularly amazing in any area or a great soundtrack in general, there are a few standouts like Gerudo Valley, Market, and Zora’s Domain. The soundtrack does its job and suits the environment, with only a few rare occurrences where it seems completely out of place.

That ends all positivity I have with this game. Everything else is a hodgepodge of genuinely boring gameplay and repetitive structure. Starting with movement, Link is very stiff and movement is slow and not interesting. You run at a snail’s pace in any analog direction or roll by pressing A, which only serves to slightly speed up your movement for a couple seconds or get momentum to jump across a gap. This wouldn’t be that much of a problem if the areas weren’t so large; if timed, the game probably spends about three hours just walking, running, horseback riding from place to place at a lame attempt to exercise the extent of its world. The most glaring example is Hyrule Field, where before you get Epona (your horse) or warping, getting to where you need to go over the field is tedious. Sidehopping, which is a useless movement mechanic otherwise in combat, is pretty much your fastest way to travel outside some speedrun tactics.

The combat is also atrocious with this non-engaging puzzle-like waiting game. Link’s options are pretty much restricted to jump attack or slash for the majority of the time, none of which can chain together. Link eventually gets a spin attack as a basic extension but none of these options matter because the enemies have an almost indestructible defense. You’re encouraged to wait it out; the enemies always move first or attack first for you. Once they have, they either require an item to kill or just the most efficient way of killing them which is usually a jump attack. Examples include: Skulltula where pre-Hookshot you’re forced to wait for them to show their back before jump attack, Scrubs that shoot at you as you wait with shield up for their attack to be deflected before you jump attack, Lizalfos and Stalfos that you must wait for them to slash before you can make any damage on them. It’s sleep-inducing how you just sit and have your time wasted as if it’s a binary option turn based battle.

Minibosses and bosses aren’t excluded from this problematic combat either. In fact they are probably the worst examples of this. Almost every single one has the same exact item punish strategy of minimal engagement. The only enemy that stood out in my entire playtime was the Iron Knuckle, because while it played by this same extreme structure, you could attack first just fine while reckless engagement would be punished. The Iron Knuckle also was put in areas that had you watch the environment, as its heavy axe would take down pillars with hearts inside. As an aside, Ganon stands out by pure spectacle but goes down just as boring as the rest of them by a simple pattern. (Note: The 3DS version has a reduced spectacle due to the lighting being almost ruined, as the N64 gave a different atmosphere for Ganon by keeping to little lighting to make the beast look more frightening)

The items themselves are incredibly situational. They follow the structure of following one or more patterns which are: 1) Used against certain enemy, 2) Used against a boss, or 3) Used to solve a puzzle. Rarely do items break this pattern being utilized in very different ways dynamically, and instead follow this puzzle situation extensively. The only items I genuinely enjoyed more for their concepts were the Hookshot and Bow, since the Hookshot had extensive utility and the bow made the miserable combat shorter. Not even mentioning that a lot of the items are ignored outside dungeons barring secrets, or get rendered obsolete by better versions. For example, the boomerang is basically a replacement for your slingshot, and Farore’s Wind is almost useless. Other examples include the Megaton Hammer which is only used outside its bossfight for specific buttons in dungeons, or the boots which are only used in their dungeons regularly.

The way the combat is introduced to you, as well as gameplay in general, is also extremely handholdy. Navi holds your hand throughout all of the mechanics without any player exploration mid-dungeon (especially apparent in the first dungeon). There’ll always be someone in the dungeon to explicitly tell you in detail how to fight a certain boss/miniboss with exception of the Water Temple. An owl will halt your progress to throw tutorials/required information at your face. And if that wasn’t enough, Navi every half hour or so will annoyingly ping you and tell you where you need to go next, even if you’re already on that way. You are rarely ever left to figure out the problem yourself, and the 3DS version makes sure of that by its Sheikah Stone addition. This unnecessary guide shows you cutscenes that flat out answer dungeon or out-of-dungeon puzzles. Granted, it does serve as an optional help for children but it does push towards the idea that the devs don’t really intend for you to be mentally challenged.

Before moving on to other specifics, I would like to lay out the groundwork for the main structure of Ocarina of Time is. The game follows a very specific “Exploration” -> Quest for item -> dungeon -> story drops information -> repeat, and never goes out of this loop. Case 1: Adult Link ‘explores’ changed Kokiri Forest, finds he needs Hookshot to enter, goes to Kakariko Village to find Hookshot, enters dungeon, information is dropped about Saria post-dungeon. Case 2: Child Link ‘explores’ Zora’s Domain, finds he needs a message and a fish, goes to Lake Hylia to find message, enters dungeon, information is dropped post-dungeon. Case 3: Adult Link ‘explores’ Gerudo Valley, finds he needs Lens of Truth, goes beneath the well to find it, enters dungeon, Gerudo information dropped throughout.

With this groundwork, I want to target how each of these parts are very bland and mediocre, starting with the “exploration”. In general, ”exploration” is following a very linear pathway to a dead end, with the only time you have to pay attention to the surroundings and explore side areas when you need a required item, which in of itself is usually a straight path too. For example, the path to Zora’s Domain is very straightforward: one curvy path with a couple secrets littered on the main path reaching the dead end at Zora’s Domain, and then you explore by swimming in the water in Zora’s Domain to exit in Lake Hylia. To me, it’s ridiculous to call such a linear structure ‘exploring’ when you really are just following pathlines. You could very well split the pathways into a clean line chart that’s heavily scripted. And the game will parade you with information to make sure this discovery is not just your own.

The dungeon design is also by the numbers with one exception. Listing them off as: The Great Deku Tree is a handholdy introduction to new players, Dodongo’s Cavern and Jabu-Jabu’s Belly follow the strict simple but intuitive puzzles back to back of puzzle room to puzzle room, Forest Temple is a little bit engaging with one puzzle twisting the hallways in a 3D space but still following a puzzle room to puzzle room structure (just with a nonlinear start), Fire Temple and Shadow Temple have only one path throughout the dungeon still going puzzle to puzzle. Spirit Temple and Ganon’s Castle are just longer formats of the former but with more various puzzles. I label puzzle room to puzzle room as a problem, because it’s just not engaging to follow simple puzzles so ruthlessly back to back without end. If the puzzles were in anyway interesting and used the 3D space you travel effectively they would be engaging which is funny because that’s exactly what the Water Temple does. The Water Temple forces you to keep an eye on the water level throughout the dungeon hub, although not used to a great extent for all the puzzle rooms, the way to go is barred unless you keep an eye on how the water level effects specific entrances. This is engaging because going back and forth knowing which entrances are barred off keeps a map in your head of which rooms are open to which water levels.

Left for last and definitely forgotten is the story. From the beginning, the story seems intriguing and simple; it’s a coming of age adventure for Link as he sets off from Kokiri Forest to save Hyrule. However, Ocarina of Time lets down in every single avenue it opens up, forgetting almost all of its characters that aren’t important to the main story and lacks any emotion to deliver any kind of payoff. For example, in the beginning you meet Saria and she gives you helpful information and establishes her as a close friend to Link by giving him her ocarina. Other than your trip for Saria’s Song, she is utterly and literally forgotten about by the general story all the way until the Adult Link skip, where you then free her and never hear from her again before the finale. The entire harrowing concept of “Link grows up but the Kokiri don’t” is delivered in such a tone deaf way that you’d be forgiven for forgetting about it. This can be seen when Saria tells you after she’s freed to not worry about it, and how Mido doesn’t really care about you even after you remind him of your past, and that the Deku Tree sprout delivers the sad information about your lineage in a happy carefree style.

Similarly, the main story couldn’t care less how you feel. Link’s grown up but Hyrule has been left in ruins; what does the game tell you first? Rauru just drops the information, a medallion, and tells you to save Hyrule. No emotion, nothing. They’re just words of direction, and I doubt anyone remembers exactly what Rauru or any of the minor characters say about their situation post-Hyrule’s destruction. Why? Because they don’t. Sheik and Malon are the only two characters that genuinely feel bad about their situation, but the latter doesn’t really show it unless you ask them about it. The story serves as a framework, but it’s neither charming nor delivers great moments outside the final boss which is sold due to good cinematic/shot work that really emphasizes the scene and gives an actual impact.

The entire time skip in general is very selective about what it decides to change. The market is left in ruins, but Gerudo Valley is untouched. Zora’s Domain is frozen and Lake Hylia is without water, but the former is never unfrozen even after you finish the dungeon and the latter affects nothing to any of the characters. Kakariko Village is completely invincible to Ganon apparently until Link arrives three dungeons later to see a shadow beast come out and attack the village. This shows an apparent nature of how the game was written, as a product of what the player is doing and no respect for the actual world or characters in it.

While Ocarina of Time delivered Z-targeting, and a structure that several games later will follow, the game itself is nothing more than a template for games to work off of. As it is, it holds mediocre boring gameplay, a simple but scatterbrained story, and flat characters. That being said, I still recommend that people play this game to see where games have worked upon from as a historical timepiece. Otherwise don’t bother.

4/10 --- Meh

[quilandivy]

FAQ

Hi! If it wasn’t apparent from the blog title, I’m currently making game reviews and design articles as a hobby. By the publish of this FAQ, I’m just finishing up my first review which should be out within a week. This FAQ is to answer questions I would expect to be asked or any questions that get asked later. Ergo, this FAQ will be added to later if there are any amount of frequent questions.

What do you prioritize in terms of reviewing a game?

In terms of priority from most important to least important, i think this list below summarizes it well

1. Interplay between gameplay and story 2. Gameplay and Depth 3. Story/Setting/Worldbuilding/Characters/etc. (slight uptick for characters over story) 4. Game Feel/Kinaesthetics 5. Sound 6. Art Direction and Animation

7. Challenge (only applies to single player) 8. [none] 9. Graphics Quality/Performance

Priority system aside, i also keep in mind a feeling of game intent. If the game is practically devoid of gameplay then you can pretty much knock it off the priority list, and vice versa in regards to story.

That being said, if the game is completely lacking in any semblance gameplay or interactivity, then assume i won’t review it. This is not true for the opposite.

How do you make your score?

Honestly this is probably going to sound kind of bad structurally, but I don’t put much effort into making the score. Usually it’s a general feeling of how i felt once the credits are rolling and I’ve had time to think about it. It’s not like i do a point by point system that adds up to 10.

That being said, when i get into a game i always start out expecting a 5/10, and then anything i like moves it up, and anything i dislike moves it down.

That means a 6/10 is an above average game, in fact I have the score names down right here:

10/10 - “Perfect” (to not trivialize this score, I can’t give out more 10s than 5% of the games i’ve given a score)

9/10 - Amazing

8/10 - Great

7/10 - Good

6/10 - Alright

5/10 - Average

4/10 - Meh

3/10 - Bad

2/10 - Awful

1/10 - Shit

0/10 - Worst Thing I’ve Ever Played (there can only be one)

Note, i’ll recommend any game i give a 7 or higher but I am generally hesitant to recommend a 6 and can’t recommend a 5 or lower, if that summarizes how those scores feel for you.

Do you keep a list of your scores?

Yes, you can see them here

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WsNnxA2WzMGcq4I55JxUp5CPttncoZyBRpJi8gRCKCA/edit?usp=sharing

Note: If i haven’t made a review for it, the score is slightly tentative. Generally i’m clean cut about my scores, but there are exceptions that I’m unsure about (MGS4, Ninja Gaiden Black for example).

Do you take questions?

Yes. But in the meantime I probably won’t answer them nor do i expect many while this blog is not viewed at all.