As a gamer, or someone whom I presumably think likes playing games, why would you want to experience this?
I wouldn't. I don't agree with him at all, I'm just saying, someone's gotta be the one pushing the envelope. I'm gonna pass, but the two possibilities of this are a) a dismal failure that supports my opinion that a game experience should be built from the game part up not imposed from the top down, or b) a complete surprise that may be a breath of fresh air worth playing.
Superficially anyway, that sounds like a win/win.
''We need to kill gameplay.''
. Sony would love this guy.
I prefer Carmack's view
"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."
The problem is that his idea of a "better game" is one that delivers an "emotional experience" at the expense of "gameplay" when the two doesn't need to be mutually exclusive. Case in point: Shadow of the Colossus.
For most of the game, you are basically going from point A to point B, figuring out how to kill each colossi, and not once is the story intruding into this gameplay. But after each colossi, something happens to you that is only shown in a couple of seconds, when shadows from the colossi get into you and, unless you're unobservant, you would notice that Wander's physical appearance and demeanor changes throughout the game in subtle steps: he becomes much less active, as if each ordeal has taken something from him, he looks much more unkept and pallid. You don't notice this because you're so engrossed by the gameplay of killing colossi until it hits you in the end, when the ending happens. And BAM, you're watching, emotionally stirred, as Wander tries his best to hold on. And what's more, you control him at this point, and this only makes everything that much more bleaker.
All of it wouldn't have the same emotional impact if you were only watching Wander killing the colossus, or just pressing stupid buttons in QTE style every now and then. No, you felt that resonance at the end simply BECAUSE you were an accomplice in what happened to him. You were not just a spectator. YOU were responsible.
Time was when a game used to be all about overcoming goals to save the princess at the end of the castle, or save the world, or get some stupid banana at the end. The ending was a reward for a job well-done. Story was just a background to the gameplay and all this happened because developers did not have the technology to join both in a seamless, equal way. That's not the case now, but to imply that we have to remove one in order to get a "better game" is just idiotic. Any game developer who needs to sacrifice one over the other and trying to justify it is just covering up for the fact that he's bad at creating games. Nothing more, nothing less.
Adrian Chmielarz can still get what he wants and still brand himself as a game developer though. He can create his vision of this game and then market it as an interactive movie. Then let the market decide. Let the gamers decide. There's no need for him to preach that gameplay needs to go. The video game umbrella is wide enough for lots of genres, and one more couldn't possibly hurt.
This is the main reason i don't play indie games. They all reek of this art crap.
This is the main reason i don't play indie games. They all reek of this art crap.
Didn't see anything on this. It's my second thread ever, wooo.
NOVEMBER 8, 2012
The Astronauts developer Adrian Chmielarz, former dev of People Can Fly, explains why developers should kill gameplay in order to create a more memorable experience in videogames.
Source: http://beefjack.com/news/we-need-to-kill-gamepay-says-ex-people-can-fly-dev/
Primary Source:http://www.theastronauts.com/2012/11/why-we-need-to-kill-gameplay-to-make-better-games/
What do you think, GAF?
I can't believe this is coming from the developer of Painkiller, going big-time must have warped their minds.
There's room for all kinds of games.
People are not understanding what he is saying I guess.
He is trying to say in most modern shooters for example, instead of moments you are walking from point a to point b with nothing going on a cutsceen will be there instead, and when the shit hits the fan again BAM right back to gameplay....
Actually sounds like he wants all games to be mgs4 :lol
Holy fucking shit does anyone here have reading comprehension skills
I can't believe this is coming from the developer of Painkiller, going big-time must have warped their minds.
As an aside, this is actually an interesting indicator of how divergent Splinter Cell and Metal Gear really are. Metal Gear took this is as a way to create an action game on a platform not really suited for it (MSX), and de-emphasized killing for the most part. Splinter Cell it seems now IGNORES they are in a position to create gameplay without killing (focusing on how to get around enemies without detection) and instead uses it as a way to get the drop on enemies. I'd go so far as to say that Splinter Cell's missing the point entirely in order to appease the LCD, especially given how absurdly brutal it is even compared to most violent games that aren't designed around a potentially non-violent core idea.2. A Splinter Cell dev recently commented (something along the lines of) how violence is games is different to violence in films because it's not there for moral reasons but instead is a core gameplay component. Remove the violence (try turning off the AI using the console in a PC game) and you're left with very little.
If we understand gameplay as something that a challenge is a crucial part of...
i think he is right in some regard. but at the same time there is enough room for all sorts of experiences.
people who "just want fun" from games aren't people who are looking for an emotional experience from video games for whatever reason, and that is where "cutting out the gameplay" would benefit -- because people who "just want to have fun" are not treating the medium as an art form.
Activision will satisfy you there (though I imagine Ubisoft has the right idea here).Walking Dead needs some gameplay.
Activision's Walking Dead sounds like shit. Just let me roam around places like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and shoot things between scenes of characters yelling at each other.Activision will satisfy you there (though I imagine Ubisoft has the right idea here).
According to Wikipedia, there are a lot of emotions - and I am pretty sure that games cover a lot of them. Do tell me what emotion in particular you are seeking?
What emotions do games commonly evoke when actually playing them (crying because Aeris died doesn't count!)? There are those caused by this article's definition of gameplay (something like combat, platforming or tetris) which would commonly include tension, panic, challenge, adrenaline, frustration, resolve and accomplishment. Beyond that though, what emotions do games cause people to feel regularly? Maybe fear (horror titles/levels), awe (impressive vsuals) and sometimes humour. The titles that go beyond this usually stick out. New Vegas made me feel responsibility for the outcomes of my player agency far more than Mass Effect ever did due to the way it integrated that agency into the gameplay.
According to Wikipedia, there are a lot of emotions - and I am pretty sure that games cover a lot of them. Do tell me what emotion in particular you are seeking?
Or, just learn how to tell stories within a video game world. We need people that detest movies making games.