SureAI

Ragnarok wrote:

<SNIP>

In a different thread (http://forum.sureai.net/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=11274) I had stated:

«A true artist does not provide the people with what they want. A true artist offers the people what they need.
In general, the people do not know what they need, but they sure think they know what they want.
The artist is the one who, among them, knows better.»

I guess it's as you say, indeed: «it depends on what you personally look for in games, and what you expect to get out of them as a result».

Moirai wrote:

In which case I probably need sunny days and fluffy bunnies.

Being serious though, that may be true in some instances. However, there is a certain amount of pretension associated with artistry that cannot be ignored.

But perhaps, 'positive' is a better word than 'happy'...

Braescher wrote:

This is the part I disagree the most. I am an artist myself (music) and I never seen art with this goal.

In my opinion,

Knowing what people "need" is the job of the marketing department, focus testing etc. Sure, most "entertainers" perform with the audience preferences in mind. But saying that a true artist knows what his audience needs would be too much presumption. Art is expression, expression is personal most of the times. The artist is not expressing what his audience needs, the artist is expressing what he feels regardless of the audience. It is as simple as that. Selfish? Yes.

Also, transcendence is not the real trait of art, is another component. Because every artist express in a different way. Sure, it might come down to personal taste but you can enjoy art and appreciate its quality even when it is not transcendental. I transcend listening to a Pink Floyd album for instance, but when I watch Pulp Fiction I do not transcend nor do I want to. However I consider Pulp Fiction to be in the same level of quality than most Pink Floyd albums. Sometimes art is not trying to achieve transcendence, but introspection instead.

That being said I think Enderal tried to achieve something in the wrong media/genre.

And this is the original point of this thread. At one point the story does not match the engine and mechanics. This is the unique trait of games as a form of art. Each form of art relies on its own mechanics. For music you engineer the sound, for acting you design the feelings, for photography/painting you design the image and every one of those forms of art is coherent with its mechanics. It is the reason why most of times you don't play samba with an accordion or metal with a bongo. You can fit those instruments in those styles but if you might need to adjust the original style of the song to accomodate those instruments.

Games have to be coherent with their engine and mechanics. That is the reason you don't see for example a text based shooter or a real time strategy dating simulator. You could create those games but you would have to adjust the mechanics. The ending is well written. The game story in general is amazing. But I believe the game engine, gameplay mechanics and all the freedom you have in game do not match with the type of story the writter is trying to tell. Such downer ending that strips you of all the power you had during the journey would better fit non interactive media or at least games with that have more restrained mechanics. An open world western rpg (even if the mod is designed to be different the engine still feels like it) that you are free to do whatever you want feels frustrating when it decides at random that you have no power at all.

Take the vanilla game, Skyrim for example. Sure, the story could be deep, emotional, sad and the story could end with Alduin devouring Tamriel while the Dragonborn remains sole survivor to repopulate Nirn. Sure, the writters could do something like that, but what would be the point to do so in an open world RPG? Skyrim engine is built for a power fantasy with happy ending. The engine main selling point it is the infinite radiant quests and that made Skyrim a juggernaut top selling RPG. The engine matches the story in such a way that you can achieve total immersion because you cannot detach the storytelling from the game mechanics and visuals.


Another example would be the Witcher series. Sure, you can make crucial decisions on that game and you have, specially in the third game a LOT of freedom. But you know from the start that you are Geralt of Rivia. Your decisions are based on Geralt's personality. The game will not give you the freedom to be chaotic evil because Geralt is not evil. You are not 100% free and you know that from the start. Even when you choose something that can be considered a bit mean, the dialogue and voice acting are tailored in such a way that you feel like Geralt really believes that is the best option available.

Enderal would be much more consistent if we did not have that much freedom to begin with or if it used another game engine. I cannot deny the history the SureAi team has with modding Bethesda games, but something tells me that if they told the Enderal story on another engine, maybe a whole new indie game this dissonance would disappear provided the mechanics were adjusted to the story.

Moirai wrote:

While Enderal's story is well written and paced, with some excellent dialogue, it's core plot concept and sub elements are not unique or fundamentally original. So I think that potentially discussing it in terms of transcendent art may be overstepping the mark slightly. It's a game story.

Braescher wrote:

That being said I think Enderal tried to achieve something in the wrong media/genre.

And this is the original point of this thread. At one point the story does not match the engine and mechanics. This is the unique trait of games as a form of art. Each form of art relies on its own mechanics. For music you engineer the sound, for acting you design the feelings, for photography/painting you design the image and every one of those forms of art is coherent with its mechanics. It is the reason why most of times you don't play samba with an accordion or metal with a bongo. You can fit those instruments in those styles but if you might need to adjust the original style of the song to accomodate those instruments.

Games have to be coherent with their engine and mechanics. That is the reason you don't see for example a text based shooter or a real time strategy dating simulator. You could create those games but you would have to adjust the mechanics. The ending is well written. The game story in general is amazing. But I believe the game engine, gameplay mechanics and all the freedom you have in game do not match with the type of story the writter is trying to tell. Such downer ending that strips you of all the power you had during the journey would better fit non interactive media or at least games with that have more restrained mechanics. An open world western rpg (even if the mod is designed to be different the engine still feels like it) that you are free to do whatever you want feels frustrating when it decides at random that you have no power at all.

Take the vanilla game, Skyrim for example. Sure, the story could be deep, emotional, sad and the story could end with Alduin devouring Tamriel while the Dragonborn remains sole survivor to repopulate Nirn. Sure, the writters could do something like that, but what would be the point to do so in an open world RPG? Skyrim engine is built for a power fantasy with happy ending. The engine main selling point it is the infinite radiant quests and that made Skyrim a juggernaut top selling RPG. The engine matches the story in such a way that you can achieve total immersion because you cannot detach the storytelling from the game mechanics and visuals.

Enderal would be much more consistent if we did not have that much freedom to begin with or if it used another game engine. I cannot deny the history the SureAi team has with modding Bethesda games, but something tells me that if they told the Enderal story on another engine, maybe a whole new indie game this dissonance would disappear provided the mechanics were adjusted to the story.

Cassiopeia wrote:

I disagree. Ultimately art is subjective

Ragnarok wrote:

Moirai wrote:

While Enderal's story is well written and paced, with some excellent dialogue, it's core plot concept and sub elements are not unique or fundamentally original. So I think that potentially discussing it in terms of transcendent art may be overstepping the mark slightly. It's a game story.

Where exactly have I mentioned originality or uniqueness?

If there is one trait to archetypes (which is a strong tool and theme in Enderal's story) is its repetitiveness, its ability to emerge from (apparent) nowhere and influence the "now" as it had influenced the "back then"! Transcendence has nothing to do with originality or uniqueness. I have stated in my post that «a true piece of art will also transcend that language, that style, that technique, that superfluous appearance (and even that game engine) and have a deeper code that speaks to us without words», which implies that it relies on the technique, on the language, on the styles, on the social context, etc - and yet it surpasses them, it becomes universal and transcends human experience.

There is nothing original about this, nor should there be. That is not what I've been saying.
In any case, like I said, I am perfectly fine with whatever other people prefer or interpret. I just ask that what I am trying to say is not undermined if there is an attempt at trying to understand what I want to convey. I surely don't ask to be understood. What I am trying to do is to show the value I found in this magnificent piece of art (particularly the writing). I don't care much for razzle dazzle.

Moirai wrote:

It is certainly not my intention to undermine others perception of the game. I simply don't understand where you are seeing this transcendent nature within the Enderal. However, if you've no requirement to be understood on the matter, then I shall respect that and not inquire further. *bows*

But on the matter of uniqueness and originality, perhaps I should be a little more clear. I'm not talking about this in general story telling terms. I'm talking about the fact that the core plot framework of Enderal and its related sub elements are a close mirror to those of Mass Effect 3. Anyone who has played the latter and then Enderal should not fail to see the many striking similarities between them. If you want more clarity, I'm happy to list some of them.

Now, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, and I don't have an issue with it. However, from my personal perspective, other than the specific setting, characters and unique dialogue (which are all exceptionally well done), I've effectively experienced this 'story' before in variation. So, in that respect, I guess it most likely has way less impact on me than it would on someone who was experiencing it for the first time. It's a 'YMMV' kind of thing.

Braescher wrote:

Take the vanilla game, Skyrim for example. Sure, the story could be deep, emotional, sad and the story could end with Alduin devouring Tamriel while the Dragonborn remains sole survivor to repopulate Nirn. Sure, the writers could do something like that, but what would be the point to do so in an open world RPG? Skyrim engine is built for a power fantasy with happy ending. The engine main selling point it is the infinite radiant quests and that made Skyrim a juggernaut top selling RPG. The engine matches the story in such a way that you can achieve total immersion because you cannot detach the storytelling from the game mechanics and visuals.

Wigbold on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=11087 wrote:

Link to the AMA on Reddit


Did you get inspiration from Mass Effect 3? Some people see a lot of similarities between the two plots.

As for the Mass Effect similarities, no, not really. While I loved the Mass Effect franchise (Even the ending, don't hit me!), the third part came out when the fundamentals of our story had already been set for over half a year. Funnily enough, the first thing I said to Johannes after finishing Mass Effect 3 was that now everyone is going to tell us that we copied them. However, I never saw it as that much of a problem: I thought that it becomes very clear that the core themes of our game are VERY different from Mass Effect: Mass Effect is about survival and interracial conflicts, Enderal is about mankind's inner demons, the free will, and loss - at least that's how I see it. It's only similar on a superficial level, and then again, the fact that the world is threatened by an "evil" species and is trying to save itself by building a machine isn't something Mass Effect invented after all.

simtam wrote:

That infinite radiant quests sold Skyrim? A bold proposition. Nevertheless, Enderal the total conversion makes little use of that part of Skyrim engine. Whether it was a conscious author's decision, or just a concession made in the development hell - I won't tell.

So what would be the "point to do so in an open world RPG", you asked? Why, to have the story improved, of course! or at least make it last longer... Now I am not particularly into that "sad story is good story" thing, and while I appreciate Enderal for being the "Watchmen" of Skyrim-engine quest mods, I imagine the ending ultimately a happy one possible. After all, the Ragnarok myth ends with a pair of survivors: Líf and Lífþrasir. Aure entuluva!