43 replies to this topic

[furrykef]

I think you're exaggerating the extent to which Windows is holding back PC gaming.

[RedAuthar]

Facts and Figures right?  Here is a theory to consider.  

[TheRedStranger]

I think this guy is a complete quack most of the time...

 

Red, you are smart fellow, I bet you can guess what was wrong with his Sonic video (besides it being a bit rude to Vsauce). Hint: it has to do with art.

[RedAuthar]

Yeah I can guess a lot of things wrong with the Sonic video, but he has an indisputable point here. While everyone claims to want Nintendo (or any other company for that matter) to try something new and original, the money isn't going into those games.  

[TheRedStranger]

Yeah I can guess a lot of things wrong with the Sonic video, but he has an indisputable point here. While everyone claims to want Nintendo (or any other company for that matter) to try something new and original, the money isn't going into those games.  

 

Now that is true.

 

You can dismiss his arguments with this painting that really helped develop the art world: http://en.wikipedia....chery_of_Images

 

His Sonic video is erroneous because it fallcious assumes the subjective, artistic depiction empircally dictates some mathimatically objective form. This is like measure the dimensions of a territory on the basis of the depth of it's map.

 

_______

 

Now, After a nice talk with Kef. I would like to discuss the future of stratagey games. Because  it fits with the above qouted statement when comes to their future (especially for Civ 5 and the upcoming spirtual sucessor to Alpha Centari.

 

Personally I want to see more inovation in RTS/TBS games. I think this game, once a casual app-based game gone viral (*rimshot*), looks very promising and innovative (even though the ripped the idea of someone else, they perfected it).

 

 

(And yes this is the doctor from that game everyone knows and loves...)

[RedAuthar]

Personally I think social games have hurt strategy games. When push comes to shove most of the mobile strategy games are just reskins of each other and only strategy is spam up troops or cheat by paying out money.

[TheRedStranger]

Personally I think social games have hurt strategy games. When push comes to shove most of the mobile strategy games are just reskins of each other and only strategy is spam up troops or cheat by paying out money.

 

You make a good point and I think it's more than your personal opinion...http://www.destructo...t--243757.phtml

 

Moreover, it's not just mobile games. It's all casual RTS games...The crappy flash games and facebook games especially. People new to the market think that is all RTS has to offer, chincy products with conning market schemes.

 

Here however show inovation on the forumla. For one this is not about war, it's about something fresh to RTS. And, and, it's subverting expectations and going against the flow of the current market trends of mobile and casual games. This shows RTS can innovate to survive. This is a ray of hope. This has gone from Mobile to PC and it's a very well selling and critically acclaimed game.

[TheRedStranger]

 

 

Thoughts?

[RedAuthar]

Interestingly I had also watched a video by Extra Credits and found it a bad innovation for video games:

 

He talks about designing a game where the player feels like they have no control, and that in itself ruins any video game.

 

Players play games because they want to control the character or protagonist.  That's what separates games from movies.  When you take control away from the player, you stop being a game and become a movie. 

[TheRedStranger]

Interestingly I had also watched a video by Extra Credits and found it a bad innovation for video games:

 

He talks about designing a game where the player feels like they have no control, and that in itself ruins any video game.

 

Players play games because they want to control the character or protagonist.  That's what separates games from movies.  When you take control away from the player, you stop being a game and become a movie. 

 

Actually this is a good innovation in that it makes us deconstruct video games to see what they are made of, what's key to them. You see he brings up Slender and Amnesia and all those great games that subvert our expectations and  how to bring in the element of existential horror into video games. His ideas wold definitely benefit the dying AAA survival horror genre.  You see we have an ingrained bias in video games of agency and empowerment that has just been radically questioned in the Slenderman games. Look at it - it is the anti-FPS. You are wondering around with only a flash light, the cardio of a chain-smoker, and a slim hope to survive. Compare that with COD and KoTor where all your choices are meaningful and you have the ability to overcome. He bring in a grand solution to why "Cuthulu" doesn't work well in games as is and points out our unquestioned presuppositions we have in games about agency and empowerment. Now, yes, you are right if all your choices are meaningless or uncertain then you have no true interaction (a degree of certainty is necessary to make a meaningful decision - if you don't have that you are essentially playing enney-meany-miney-moe) and thus it's not even a game at all (which is a form of interactive fiction). He still has a great compromise here - give out dead ends, a bitter-sweet 'best-ending', and a feeling of dread and hopelessness that makes you scrabble for the light. What to watch out for is this though.

[RedAuthar]

Except that's the exact problem with games like Slender: You. Can't. Win.

 

This isn't a game.  It's and interactive movie.  You'll either die early because he caught you, or you die later when "win".  Either way you have no control of the outcome.  As a horror piece, you could argue that this is good, but as a game (which by definition is: a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck) if you can not win it, it fails horribly.  If you can not achieve your goal (save the galaxy, rescue the princess, escape the monster, fish) because the game doesn't allow you to, it isn't a game at all.  

 

And no a bittersweet ending is not good enough.  To keep a player invested, you have to feel like you're making progress.  If the game takes away your feeling of control, and the best you can hope for at the end is a bittersweet ending are you really achieving anything? You don't feel like you're in control of the game so any potential outcome feels like it's randomly selected, which means you don't even have to touch the controller to get it.  

 

All games with multiple outcomes are dependent on your in game choices, and though you may not always see which choice gets the best outcome, you feel like you earned it by the choices you made because you were the one in control of your actions.  Again, it's not a game but an interactive novel or movie instead when that feeling of control is taken away from the players.  

 

If your actions feel meaningless you aren't invested, if you aren't invested you aren't having fun, if the reward you receive doesn't feel earned, then what was the point?

[Prince ByTor]

I've noted that my tastes have changed out of apathy, but not towards horror, but towards many other things: I just can't get into some games. For instance I tried hard to get into Killzone: Shadowfall, but just couldn't; I would rather be working at my job than playing that game because I feel I was actually doing something that had a point and was also more fun, and the same goes for most other AAA and FPS game; I just don't care, there's only a rice paper thin story that you can figure out from the first mission and so the rest is aim, shoot, repeat and every now and then you get a horde of millions of things that try to kill you, whoopty-freaking-do. Then, as for the ending it always ends wanting and "to be continued" in the next $60 iteration that is exactly same as this one.

In the last few years the only ones I really like are sandbox games (Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, and Red Dead Redemption, etc.), where I can just mess around and let my creativity soar outside of the storyline. Sure, I also love Uncharted series, The Last of Us, and the Bioshock series, and those are great games that I love to play. Heck, I love playing the Lego games with my son more than many of the AAA games that have come out thus far this year.

[RedAuthar]

I'm on the opposite boat. Sandbox games are boooring to me. I don't feel obligated to mess around in the world and their stories are too short for me to acknowledge the popularity or price. GTA I interests me because all the fluff that people enjoy isn't interesting to me. I still haven't beat inFamous because everything I can do only the story events matter and all the side quests are just filler.

[Prince ByTor]

I agree on inFamous, the only reason I have the first two is because I got them for free; they're fun for a while, but for me, again the game starts to feel more like work than fun. If I want to work I'll go and punch in and make money, when I sit down to play a game I want to have fun and be challenged not mindless grinding or running around having to listen to testosterone-fuled bantering while I point, shoot, rinse and repeat.

[TheRedStranger]

Except that's the exact problem with games like Slender: You. Can't. Win.

 

This isn't a game.  It's and interactive movie.  You'll either die early because he caught you, or you die later when "win".  Either way you have no control of the outcome.  As a horror piece, you could argue that this is good, but as a game (which by definition is: a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck) if you can not win it, it fails horribly.  If you can not achieve your goal (save the galaxy, rescue the princess, escape the monster, fish) because the game doesn't allow you to, it isn't a game at all.  

 

 

In the later patches of the game you are awarded new game modes and bits of narration. I think you get caught now, but wake up to find yourself alive during the day (I will need to check on that). Remember Slender was indeed an experimental indie work originally made in the span of only 48 hours for a contest. It was more about exploring new game concepts than anything. I mean it's free to play... The beauty of Slender is not exactly what it was but it has lead to. I am thankful for games such as Slender, Amnesia, Prenumbra, and Outlast for bringing back survival horror and sense of desperation and challenge in games. A game needs challenge to be worth anything, there needs to be an obstacle to overcome or you might as well not play. You see that this is balancing act between making a game punishing, challenging, or boringly easy; it is that gray area we strive for.

 

 

 

And no a bittersweet ending is not good enough.  To keep a player invested, you have to feel like you're making progress.  If the game takes away your feeling of control, and the best you can hope for at the end is a bittersweet ending are you really achieving anything? You don't feel like you're in control of the game so any potential outcome feels like it's randomly selected, which means you don't even have to touch the controller to get it.  

 

All games with multiple outcomes are dependent on your in game choices, and though you may not always see which choice gets the best outcome, you feel like you earned it by the choices you made because you were the one in control of your actions.  Again, it's not a game but an interactive novel or movie instead when that feeling of control is taken away from the players.  

 

If your actions feel meaningless you aren't invested, if you aren't invested you aren't having fun, if the reward you receive doesn't feel earned, then what was the point?

 

 

 

 

 This is a matter of opinion, especially when it comes to the genre at hand. People who love this genre want a hard story and hard game mechanics - the goal is too survive and see the light at the end of the tunnel, hopefully with some interesting insight to come out of the darkness with. You do feel like you have made progress if you survived an existential horror. You overcame a great challenge, and overcoming a challenge is what games are all about. Now note that the above video is discussing giving people the impression that their choices are meaningless in a low point in the narraitive, much like the moment of desperation in many horror movies and literature. That low point in itself would be part of the challenge to push through. However, you would indeed  need a light at the end of the suddenly bottle-necked tunnel and then a few more choices at the end to make to make this work. And there should be other  beat the game style rewards to spice up the story. The Silent Hill series was critically acclaimed for doing just this, even giving a comedic option to the end narrative that carries on in future games.

 

 

[RedAuthar]

 

Except that's the exact problem with games like Slender: You. Can't. Win.

 

This isn't a game.  It's and interactive movie.  You'll either die early because he caught you, or you die later when "win".  Either way you have no control of the outcome.  As a horror piece, you could argue that this is good, but as a game (which by definition is: a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck) if you can not win it, it fails horribly.  If you can not achieve your goal (save the galaxy, rescue the princess, escape the monster, fish) because the game doesn't allow you to, it isn't a game at all.  

 

 

In the later patches of the game you are awarded new game modes and bits of narration. Remember Slender was indeed an experimental indie work originally made in the span of only 48 hours. The beauty of Slender is not exactly what it was but it has lead to. I am thankful for games Slender, Amnesia, Prenumbra, and Outlast for bringing back survival horror.

Don't get me wrong (wow I say that a lot).  I'm not saying Slender is bad....but I'm saying it isn't really a game.  

 

Also I have never felt that a new game mode or difficulty was really a reward for beating a game.  Also the rewards include playing with "the lights on" which ruins the whole experience, and 20 Dollars mode, which is funny for about 20 seconds then is just weird.  Also Slender the Arrival or the Final version of the game ruins all of that by again, everything you unlock just adds more to the "Slenderman is scary" but not actually anything making the game better.

 

 

 

 This is a matter of opinion, especially when it comes to the genre at hand. People who love this genre want a hard story and hard game mechanics - the goal is too survive and see the light at the end of the tunnel, hopefully with some interesting insight to come out of the darkness with. You do feel like you have made progress if you survived an existential horror. You overcame a great challenge, and overcoming a challenge is what games are all about. 

 

Again the goal is to survive, and if the game doesn't let you for whatever reason, it ruins the experience. 

 

It's not just my opinion.  Many players hate Quick-Time Events because they find them unfair, hard, or just downright used wrong because it shatters the feeling of control.  Many players don't like cutscenes because they feel like it takes the control of the game from them too often.  

 

In survival horror games you should feel that your choices have weight, that if you make a mistake you'll face a consequence.  However if you feel like you have no control of the game, you feel that you are being punished for the game's actions not yours.  Good Horror Games make your feeling of control less on having the control of the situation, but that your actions can have dire consequences to you or someone else.  That's why The Walking Dead Season 1 (video Game) did so well, you felt that you had control over your decisions and that made and mistakes you made feel like it was your fault. 

 

You take that feeling of control away and you're basically watching the game play itself.

 

 

Now note that the above video is discussing giving people the impression that their choices are meaningless in a low point in the narraitive, much like the moment of desperation in many horror movies and literature. That low point in itself would be part of the challenge to push through. However, you would indeed  need a light at the end of the suddenly bottle-necked tunnel and then a few more choices at the end to make to make this work. And there should be other  beat the game style rewards to spice up the story. The Silent Hill series was critically acclaimed for doing just this, even giving a comedic option to the end narrative that carries on in future games.

Note that I specified earlier the "Feeling of Control".  Mass Effect, when push comes to shove in the first game, your choices are meaningless.  They don't affect the outcome of the game.  You didn't see some of your actions' results until the third game.  But as you play the game you feel that every choice matters.  You feel that your dialog effects those around you.  That's why the ending was so bad, that feeling of choice was taken away and you were forced between three "could be worse" endings.

 

Silent Hill doesn't take away your feeling of control, it moves it so that you feel your control is NOT making wrong choices rather than seeing what the results of a choice are.  Your sense of control is that any mistakes you make have dire consequences, but you still feel like it's on you to make the choices not the game itself.  

 

Again the illusion of control is what matters.  Having a bittersweet ending isn't the problem, the problem is that you don't feel like you've achieved anything with any ending (specifically if they are not positive) if you felt through out the game you had no control or impact on the ending.  

[RedAuthar]

I agree on inFamous, the only reason I have the first two is because I got them for free; they're fun for a while, but for me, again the game starts to feel more like work than fun. If I want to work I'll go and punch in and make money, when I sit down to play a game I want to have fun and be challenged not mindless grinding or running around having to listen to testosterone-fuled bantering while I point, shoot, rinse and repeat.

I agree. But I don't enjoy mindlessly driving cars or playing sports in games. I can't enjoy a game if I have no incentive. I need to feel like saving the princess has purpose.

[Prince ByTor]

 

I agree on inFamous, the only reason I have the first two is because I got them for free; they're fun for a while, but for me, again the game starts to feel more like work than fun. If I want to work I'll go and punch in and make money, when I sit down to play a game I want to have fun and be challenged not mindless grinding or running around having to listen to testosterone-fuled bantering while I point, shoot, rinse and repeat.

I agree. But I don't enjoy mindlessly driving cars or playing sports in games. I can't enjoy a game if I have no incentive. I need to feel like saving the princess has purpose.

 

 

My incentive in sandbox games is making my own game inside the game and seeing what happens. I agree with sports games; they're fun for a bit, but lose their luster. And race games like Gran Turismo it's all about collecting cars and after I do that it loses its luster too, but I go back and play it when I feel like playing it again. I guess I'm one that likes to push the boundaries and make a game glitch to see what happens. It's like finding a hornet's nest and throwing a rock at it.

[TheRedStranger]

Don't get me wrong (wow I say that a lot).  I'm not saying Slender is bad....but I'm saying it isn't really a game.  

 

Also I have never felt that a new game mode or difficulty was really a reward for beating a game.  Also the rewards include playing with "the lights on" which ruins the whole experience, and 20 Dollars mode, which is funny for about 20 seconds then is just weird.  Also Slender the Arrival or the Final version of the game ruins all of that by again, everything you unlock just adds more to the "Slenderman is scary" but not actually anything making the game better.

 

Again the goal is to survive, and if the game doesn't let you for whatever reason, it ruins the experience. 

 

 

Much like how the end game rewards you get in other games emphasize traversal and combat, the selling points of the game...The Day Light mode seems easier, but actually it is daunting to many as Slender Man has more of his dangerous visual pull on the player and allegedly attacks you more (but the best way to play is like this). There is also Marble Hornets mode. But yes, there is problem here that the new Slender Man game made and faltered for it's nebulousness. Compare it to games like Amensia, Prenumbra, and Outlast. I agree with Moose - it's a waste of a lot of wonderful potential. The copy-cat The Slender Shadow Series actually gives you a chance to survive and escape Slendy and even shoot him in one with a surprise ending.

 

 

It's not just my opinion.  Many players hate Quick-Time Events because they find them unfair, hard, or just downright used wrong because it shatters the feeling of control.  Many players don't like cutscenes because they feel like it takes the control of the game from them too often.  

 

In survival horror games you should feel that your choices have weight, that if you make a mistake you'll face a consequence.  However if you feel like you have no control of the game, you feel that you are being punished for the game's actions not yours.  Good Horror Games make your feeling of control less on having the control of the situation, but that your actions can have dire consequences to you or someone else.  That's why The Walking Dead Season 1 (video Game) did so well, you felt that you had control over your decisions and that made and mistakes you made feel like it was your fault. 

 

You take that feeling of control away and you're basically watching the game play itself.

 

 

I'm saying that it is a matter of opinion, not just yours. Many want a game that gives them a feeling of dread, that there is more ways to screw up than get things right. And what I'm talking about is a moment of hopelessness, of existential desperation. But this is just a moment in the climax of the story. You couldn't have this at the beginning of the game and I think the guys at EC know that. They are mentioning a brief moment and a series of possible ending that are bitter-sweet but not hopeless (yet if you screw up you deserve a bad ending just to fit the story). 

[ZealousFoX]

OH boy a discussion that I could really get into. Now I'm not going to cover what has already been said, as in my honest opinion, there has been somethings brought that I don't even agree with like some of your thoughts on Greenlight and Steam Early Access. Or what makes or breaks a game. For the longest time I thought what makes a game replayable over and over was that it needed to have solid game mechanics and and game play, and it did not need to have a in-depth story or flashy graphics. But my thoughts on that changed when I played, and which does't happen very often with me beat a so called title I can truly call a Beethoven's 5th, or Stravinsky's The Firebird Suite among video games. That game is called Dust: An Elysian Tail, and while not going to deep in why I say that. Dust:AET is a game the is story driven thought provoking has many morals and is beautiful in aesthetics not flashy graphics but to me it was the gorgeous game I have ever played. When it comes to being made almost entirely by one man with a an Idea that he has been cooking for years and this being his first game project, and how big it blew out and in-terms of indie games overtook the AAA in quality and execution. Oh and on top of that it had barely and bugs on release.

 

Now on to my favorite genre in games and one that like Stranger put has lost its fame and glory. That genre is strategy games, and when it comes to indie in that genre I am really happy that its finally having a rise up again while slow I feel games like Planetary Annihilation can change how we perceived RTS status quot. As it as very new Ideas and mechanics to freshen up what was once a dying genre. Another strategy is the dynamic TBS called Xenonauts which is a true successor to Xcom back in 1994 and arguably the best TBS out in the market right now. While yes it has its bugs and glitches, I can't call out on that as it was built from the ground up, and coming from a small dev team, and trying to pull off that, and succeeding in more ways than can be noticed at first glance hell even maybe 30 hrs of playtime. A good example for me was I was on a ground mission and finally my squad of sodiers was inside the crashed UFO and had my rocket recruit who got a little smarter after getting the most kills in the previous mission, no surprise he had an AOE Bazooka so blowing up hostiles was a piece of cake. Thought it was in this mission I made a critical mistake that not only killed him but four of my men, through a game mechanic I didn't think was going to exist in the game. What happen was there was a alien hostile in the core of the craft and I thought he was the last hostile, so i wanted to go back to base with a bang, and gloat to the lower ranks in cafeteria. I got my rocket guy and fired into the core room and not only destroying the core but also the hostile in the room. Now the effect of this was a fire started and grew each turn. which made me try and get out before my men were engulfed in flames. only to find out that machanic I was not expecting. The door to the outside world and my ticket to promotion, was locked due to my act of blowing up the core thus taking away the power of the craft. and I watched hopelessly as my men turn by turn burned alive as the fire broke into a blaze of reaping. I however beat the mission with my one other soldier outside the craft he was inexperienced and a rookie and yet as luck would have killed the last hostile. I was very proud of that rookie, but was still morning over the guys I lost to the blaze as if they were flesh and blood. I will never see those men again and I felt sick inside as I watch them die, and this is a game at an isometric view. I think when it comes to indie games even the bland or the lack of game and more art there still is a moment of prays as at least the game took the attempt weather it failed or not does not matter as at least it tried and most of the time with out if any, a budget.  

 

Now I'm going to shut up and see how this develops after.