Discussion in 'Gaming' started by SanoBaron, Sep 13, 2013.
Pretty sure selling the game is sufficient grounds for divorce.
You told me it had no gameplay, I guess you don't consider making choices gameplay but that's what it is (I believe someone has previously mentioned the point and click genre).
Secondly, if the only choice you make in the game is literally just "do you save this person or that person" then this is what I'd call an 'easy' game, there's no way to mess up. I think, unless it contributes significantly to the outcome or execution of the plot, then the game may as well have just been a movie as nothing has been effected other than who survives. Conversely, if it does influence the outcome or execution of the plot then the choice of who to save is a difficulty matter as the decision you make will determine whether or not events unfold favourably, just as they would when you make the decision for your next move in a fighting game for example.
Also, reading from Wikipedia about the game:
This is not something I would enjoy, and it was one of the problems a lot of people had with Mass Effect 3's ending; that it was pretty much unaffected by any of the prior choices players made. Mass Effect changed the execution of the larger plot a lot depending on the choices made, though and I had assumed this was the same for The Walking Dead, but reading the Wiki page it sounds a lot like all it does is explore specific characters a little more. One thing that does catch my eye though is that the games give you 5 significant choices per game, presumably this is why you are saying it's better as a game than a movie, in which case you are outrightly admitting that it is the gameplay that makes it worth being a game instead of a film as these choices are the gameplay.
...OK that's enough.
I am tired and worn out by this crap and I am sick of trying to explain to these types of people an idea that they don't seem capable of understanding. The only way I'm going to continue this is by taking some serious shots at people and exposing significant flaws in their argument that would explain why they can't accept that all elements of a Video Game are equally capable of defining it. That interactivity is not most important. That many games without their art, music, writing, etc. would be absolute shit as barebones "gameplay" and vice versa.
But I don't want to do that, I don't like turning debates into fights, so I'm going wait.
@Horseman You are much better at eloquently explaining our side of the argument than I am. If you can keep it up and stay strong against this outdated mindset I won't continue any further, But the gloves are off if you can't.
Denizen you seem to be taking this way too directly. But the reality is, if the interactivity is unimportant, then why make it a video game in the first place? If interactivity is important, and just not the most important, then shouldn't the interactivity still be good on its own? You're on a site for a FIGHTING game, the sole reason that most people play them is for the gameplay, and if we were to strip it down to just the mechanics that is why people would play it. The addition of story, pretty graphics, what have you is just the cherry on top. Regardless if people want to face roll their way through games so be it, but don't get defensive when people question why you do that when you can just watch a movie. If it is something like Mass Effect, or similar 'choose your way' games then that is different, but leads back to a core GAMEPLAY mechanic. Not any other aesthetic piece of work. Choosing 'paragon' or 'renegade' is just like choosing 'reversal' or 'chicken block' just in a different context.
I don't disagree with anything horseman said, he spoke of how getting the balance was the best thing to do and that giving actions meaning is what game design aims to achieve, I was under the impression that you were saying a game doesn't need any gameplay to succeed and that is what I've been arguing against. This makes me think this is less of a disagreement and more of a misunderstanding of what one another have been saying.
I'm fighting against the idea that writing, art, music, etc. are disposable...
I'm fighting against the idea that Alex Ahad, Mariel Cartwright, Michiru Yamane, etc. are disposable...
These elements, these people, they are more than just icing on the cake...
It's not always the cherry on top, though. Gameplay can be used to support Story or even Music if the game so desires. Interactivity is at the core of a game, but what the game does with its interactivity does not limit itself to producing fun.
And I really shouldn't have to give examples of these sorts of games either, they've been made for 20+ years! The aforementioned The Walking Dead uses its interactivity to reinforce the story and put you in the role of the protagonist by giving you difficult choices, The Secret of Monkey Island really only brings you puzzles for jokes and characterization, with the focus being on the comedy (and this is a 90's cult classic), Papers, Please is a game that puts you in the shoes of an immigration inspector who only really reads through information and then chooses whether to grant them entry to the soviet country of Aristotzka, The Stanley Parable is a game in which the only choice you make is whether to obey a narrator in your head by moving in the direction they tell you to, Proteus is a game in which the only way you can interact with the system is simple movement in a perfectly safe world, every horror game worth its weight will try its hardest to give you the least agency and power over your situation it can because a situation in which you are powerless to stop your fate is the only thing that's going to truly terrify you, Audiosurf is basically gameplay slapped on top of your music...
And all of these games are just that: a game; they are not a movie or a book, and they would all lose a significant element if you tried to stuff them into a movie.
Yeah, see, I'm fine with this. I do feel that gameplay should be the top priority as, in the cases of the greatest stories told through games, the gameplay has always complimented the plot and, in most of these exceptional cases (which are the cases that I play games in order to encounter), been a part of it. A lot of indie writers have most likely only turned to games because of the bias brought about in the current movie industry that has led to a giant wall between different classes of people managing to get in, but that doesn't mean the programmers or the gameplay designers can just say "fuck it, we have an excellent story and everything else is fine so let's just cram in some gameplay even if it sucks hard". I'm not saying the gameplay can't be disjointed from the story (within reason of course; a game with Halo's story wouldn't quite suit a Bubble Bobble gameplay style), but to say that gameplay isn't what makes a game good is wrong. A game without gameplay is no longer a game, a game without a story any deeper than "save the captive" can be good enough to become the most well known video game on the planet.
On the topic of Alex, art and other such things, Skullgirls serves as a case where the gameplay and story intertwine. In an interview Alex was asked why he wanted Skullgirls to be a fighting game (a genre generally renowned to be lacking in story) instead of something like an RPG and he said it was because he liked how you could show so much about a character through the way they fight (a very interesting article about a similar concept in Darkstalkers' animation can be found here, although it's not a necessary read to understand the rest of what I'm talking about). Despite having a story that we can assume has a vast level of intricacy simply from the sheer abundance of lore we've attained from 9 non-canonical stories he went for a game because of the gameplay and, as you can see just by playing the game, the gameplay is far from forced in, so there's no reason to question why he didn't just make a comic (as he has proven is something he can do through the Black Torch Anthology he was involved in) or something else. Likewise the music and sound wasn't just something that was settled for, instead getting a great soundtrack to accompany the gameplay. In an instance like this, removing any single part of what we have shakes the foundations a bit and, because everything's tied together to tightly, a hefty chunk of the quality can end up crumbling away, but if you remove gameplay which is at the centre of it all, linking everything together, the entire concept of it being a game just collapses.
If any of that came across as argumentative, it wasn't. For the most part I'm agreeing and the rest is just me rambling about stuff related to the discussion.
And none of them would be what they are with out their gameplay aspect. Remove that and you destroy what they are, regardless of what else was put on top of it. Audiosurf is gameplay that adapts to music you put on top of it, it wouldn't be what it is with out the gameplay, not the other way around. Monkey Island had a lot of charm outside of its gameplay, but I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much if it were not for the gameplay aspects which had me dig deeper myself, over come the small puzzles and explore the world, because of gameplay. The characterizations and comedy were rewards for my persistence. Gameplay is the most important factor because with out it, it isn't a game. Without art, its a text based game. Without music or sound its just a silent game. Without story it can be such a wide variety of things. The game is what defines it, the other factors just give it more character.
Edit: Disposable? No. Don't twist my words, thank you. What you're saying is that gameplay is not important because of the development of technology, when it is what defines the medium. All this other stuff is the icing, not because icing is bad, but because with out the bare structure there would be nothing for the icing to adhere to. I've seen beautiful games marred by terrible gameplay, and you're going to say that's okay?
Well, first of all, you pretty directly called everything but the gameplay of a game disposable. Both in this post and in your last one. That's what the idiom "the cherry on top" means; it's an element that makes something better as a whole but can't be the difference between that thing being good or bad. So I gave you examples of games where the gameplay took a backseat to another element, and wasn't used as the main method of engaging you. While there were puzzles in Monkey Island, it would have been boring without the comedy. It was the main draw of the game, and the puzzles supported it. Audiosurf has some good gameplay, but it would suddenly be incredibly boring if you muted your computer.
(For this next part I'm totally stealing an argument from Campster on youtube, you should look him up.)
I think the problem you're having is trying to describe what a game is. There are games that are extremely minimalistic that I brought up before, like Proteus, but I didn't get further into the deeper ideas of what a game is. So here's the question: What is a game without interactivity? To answer this, well... Do you remember The Game? That game that you just lost because I brought it up? That's a game with no interactivity. The entire goal of the game is to not interact with the system at whatever cost. The failure state is actually playing the game. But no one refuses to call The Game a game, and it even proudly dubs itself a game with its own title.
When you get too broad with your definition of a game, and you say that games are interactive systems, you're counting your job, cross-walks with buttons, microsoft word, et cetera as games. They're all interactive, but none of them are games. But anything that's tighter than that leaves things that are and deserve to be games outside of your definition. So games, like art, have a largely contextual definition. It's difficult to simply say that this is a game and this isn't, because the meaning of a game is completely different to you when you're playing a First-Person Shooter than it is when you're playing Dear Esther.
I agree with everything Horseman says.
Eagle I believe we are finally coming to some sort of agreement.
I don't know what Squire thinks but I'm sure he would agree that we are almost at the end of this debacle.
Crooky I don't even know what to say to you, except don't say that I'm twisting your words around and then do the exact same thing to me. Also you're fanning the flames of something that's coming to an end.
I already said what I thought. I thought that the "fun factor" of gameplay is not increased by story/art/music, and that those elements simply add additional emotional aspects to the experience.
Which is always better.
But still, if Skullgirls was just stick figures, I would still find the moment to moment gameplay exactly as fun. Would I have the additional benefit of being able to sit down and admire the lore and character art? No, and that would be a loss. But the visceral aspect of the gameplay is a constant factor that is not increased or decreased by the addition or lack of other aesthetic elements.
And yes I agree, we are at about as far as this goes.
I just have issue with people claiming today's games are better, because 'they're better'. It is kind of an insult to some great classics, sort of like saying Citizen Kane just doesn't stand up to current film. Which is kind of what Denizen said a few pages back.
I would be upset if my sundae came without a cherry on top and would demand a refund. But its whatever, Squire is making my point, without the art I can enjoy the game. The art adds to the atmosphere, the gameplay is what it sticks to, just like in Dear Esther. If it weren't for the human control aspect there wouldn't be nearly as much value to it, and maybe there wouldn't be without the art or atmosphere either, but with out the basic groundwork there would be nothing. Which you have made a point yourself, the medium gave these certain games life, and what does the medium hold? Gameplay. Regardless, I suppose this is done now.
Crooky, everything that you say that I am saying, I am not saying. Mine and Horseman's argument are the same and you're completely misunderstanding it. At least Squire and Eagle understood us before they started talking.
I recommend you stop before you embarrass yourself.
Well after literally DAYS of discussion I can safely say that all that was accomplished was that some opinions were stated. We made our point and whether any minds were changed doesn't matter to us. All that matters is that mine and Horseman's opinion is heard and respected as much as we respect Squire's and Eagle's opinion. There's really no winner here, but since when is there ever a winner in talks like these?
I think I can declare this discussion dead by now.
This is what I had issue with, if you're saying that isn't what you meant then so be it, I'm not embarrassing myself here, nor am I trying to push buttons.
I've never seen someone say that modern games are better "because they're better." I don't mean to disrespect classical gaming, it's just less like the Citizen Kane of gaming and more like the Charlie Chaplin or the Marx Brothers of gaming. No one is contesting that they probably made the some of the best sidescrollers we'll ever see (Or at least I hope they're not), but they were almost entirely producing games aimed at lighthearted fun. They did some other stuff here and there, but The modern industry, while admittedly dominated by shooters in a somewhat similar vein, is definitely more innovative in what you can do with a game. Despite what people say about the industry's modern shooter infatuation, it's still producing a way more varied group of games than it was in the 90's, and we even have some independent developers that are experimenting, etc.
...and after seeing that, ummm... well...
I don't know how that is why games got easier, but he's right that modern game design definitely has better graphics, programming and storytelling. I have no idea why you're offended by that, all the areas he said were better are pretty objectively better now. It's not like he said that modern games are better overall.
Also, for the record, the reason games are easier now is because games back then couldn't afford to make a lot of content, but they also had to last you a while, and challenge is by far the easiest way to stretch out your content. AAA games have the budget to make an 8+ hour single player story that doesn't need to be challenging, while Indie games are allowed to get away with 4 hours or less since they're rarely more than $15. So now we're in a nice comfortable situation where the only people that have to make challenging games are the people who want to and are good at it.
...Is this still about game difficulty 03o;?
i wanna talk about citizen kane and charlie chaplin more
I hate how some people refer to their favorite art game as the, "Citizen Kane of gaming." There is no Citizen Kane of gaming. We're not even close, yet.
I didn't intend to state that there is a Citizen Kane equivalent. The mediums are far too different for that to be a possibility anyway. Sorry for joining in on the conversation late and being the 'embarrassment' though.
I think when people talk about the Citizen Kane of gaming, they mean a game that's so good in an artistic sense that it changes how games are made. At least, that's what it means to me.
Although I don't know why you see yourself as the embarrassment of this thread...
I think that's what it would mean to most people. We've just not had that, yet, is all.
Oh, no, definitely not. We're definitely moving in that direction, but we're not quite there yet.
not sure if I would agree if games are moving in that direction, due to the way game studios work and the way games as a medium seem to work in general (i.e. games seriously lack "auteur" driven games, particularly on the larger scale)
That reminds me of an Extra Creditz episode "if someone on the team calls themselves an auteur, chances are it's an indie studio."
The independent/experimental scene is growing rapidly and the tools to make video games are becoming more readily available to those running on a low budget.
Also, a big part of indie games is that they're usually "auteur driven" which is why most of the famous game designers that you hear about are independent, (Markus Persson, Jonathan Blow, Edmund Mcmillen, Tim Schafer to a degree, etc.) and as these independent games get more agency in the industry this could easily change.
The AAA industry certainly needs to follow them for us to be moving full-speed in that direction, but the conversation on games needs to change before they really have the ability to produce this stuff constantly and not just every so often like with Spec Ops: The Line or something, considering what happened when someone tried to publish Psychonauts. And there are definitely massive amounts of people trying to change that.
We aren't moving as fast as we could be, but we're still moving in the right direction.
Difficulty can make a game more satisfying for example a game I love called Gunstar Super Heroes I could beat it on normal without dying one, but once I played on hard I died more than 20 times, beating a game like that is extremely satisfying and I feel proud to have done it.
Ehck, that is my reasoning.
I have become a guy that plays games at the hardest difficulty that I can get away with. Because games, specially AAA big studio games, have been getting easier and easier. It's like being in kindergarten and playing games where you win for participating.
That isn't fun for me. It's boring.
Why play on "hardest?" Because it's a challenge and that is fun.
Why climb a mountain? Because it's there, a challenge and fun.
Why swim the English channel?
Because you can't speak Spanish?
DDB, your jokes are painful to read
Nadia would be so disappoint....
I play games on hard because of my gaming background and maschocistic tendencies regarding gaming in general. That started as most things in my life, with Armored Core...
I have been doomed ever since.
I love DDB's jokes, not only are they funny, they also have the effect of shutting people up.
DDB's jokes are more like Vogon poetry if you ask me. As a result of that they most certainly do shut people up after a few moments of screaming in agony.
The way I see it, everyone who is a victim of one of DDB's jokes is so stunned by what they just read that they are incapable of continuing with whatever dumb thing they were just saying, for better or for worse. In this case it's better because I actually found his joke funny.
-Equip Sword of DDB
-100% chance of Silence
-99% chance for CritHit
-Secret Strike: DDB Starstriker, dazzles all foes and switches their minds to Annie related things
Separate names with a comma.