-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
We need to kill gameplay says Ex-People Can Fly dev
- Thread starter BlackJace
- Start date
Oh yeah, that is games we are talking about. You are supposed to be good at them. Adrian wasn't talking about games, he was talking about interactive experiences. I shouln't be good in order to watch a movie or read a book. Same with interactive experiences. But I should be good enough in order to play games but that is GAMES we're talking about.
Yep
Ohmy oh my O_O
But the amount you pay that route depends on your skill, it's the key determining factor here. Experienced STG players can 1CC (relatively) easy new releases on their first or second try.
Fried Food
Banned
I like this Adrian fellow. I want more experiences in gaming. I'm a perfect gamer; I want games to always be trying new things and creating better experiences. I'll try any game. No game concept is stupid.
Play Frog Fractions. Right now. Drop whatever you're doing and play the best game of 2012.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Everything you do in video games is an interactive experience whether you are playing ninja gaiden black or bad games like journey. Stop using vague terminology.
You don't just combine items until you get to the solution. The game is mostly about a lot of little (and sometimes bigger) choices that you have to make.
This creates a narrative driven game with the illusion of personalization.
The lot of cause-effect generated by my actual actions.
Is how videogames should work from a 'narrative' perspective.
In this media considering "story" just as a matter of synopsis is bullshit.
Graphics Horse
Member
If they finish it on their first try the difference becomes even more meaningless!
The end of the day quarter munchers are designed to munch quarters, it's like the F2P 'whale' strategy turned on its head. There might be a few experts who pay virtually nothing but the arcade survives on (or dies on the lack of) the majority of people paying money for the shortest amounts of playtime.
Conciliator
Banned
It has very little gameplay in general and is very effective at what it does. Other than that, there's no new mechanics there. There are barely any mechanics at all, and what is there does not exist to be independently fun, but only to serve the characters, story, tone and atmosphere(with mixed success).
It comes up a lot in discussions of what constitutes a video game and in what ways a game can be 'good'. I think The Walking Dead is a pretty great game, but not because it has great, or even good, game mechanics, rather because it tells an engaging story with engaging characters and is technically a game.
I think it's a strong format and I wouldn't mind seeing more games like it.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Free to play multiplayer games rely on persistence and grinding (or paying) to get through that persistence. F2P games have nothing to do with good arcade games (everyone is on the same equal ground whenever you put in a credit). Quarter munchers imply unwinnable or cheating arcade games. There are some of those for sure - we call them bad arcade games (or at least, you should).
Graphics Horse
Member
Ah so you use 'Quarter feeding' as a term that applies to people playing 'good arcade games' wrongly, but a 'bad arcade game' is a 'Quarter muncher'. Sorry if it's taking me time to get used to the terminology.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Quarter feeding is a term for when you continually put credits into a machine (effectively giving you infinite continues). You really don't learn anything from playing a game this way.
Good arcade games are games that you can 1CC or can play near infinitely (for infinite style games) on a credit.
Bad arcade games are the opposite of that.
I have that one! Spoiler: the guy dies at the end.
Graphics Horse
Member
As a tabletop roleplayer, I don't think glorified choose your own adventure books are the way forwards either.
I might have had that one. The Fighting Fantasy books were better and more roleplayery.
Thanks I know where you're coming from. I'm just talking from the design side, which absolutely wants most people to put lots of money in every few minutes or the machine will struggle to be valuable to an arcade operator.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
because not everyone in the world needs to sit around and listen to someone smart to get something "useful" out of an experience. there are also varying ranges of that, and it doesnt account for the interactivity that you get for games if you just sit and read something.
ok, and? what kind of lessons can I learn from a fighting game other than "I suck at fighting games." that's pretty much what i've learned from them. I still have/had fun with them. But deeper it teaches you memorization skills and how to do things in order, etc. But nothing specifically that adds to my outlook on life or feel like there was an experience worth applying to any situation
its not a matter of if they "already do it" its if they will "CONTINUE" to do it and on a wider basis.
why aren't games not the right medium for questioning societal standards? Any number of RPGs out there can have questions in them (whether or not they're worth asking) that can be applied to our lives and society and ask "why" its like that. There's usually at least one main "thing" to learn from any story, and that's what makes a story, typically. Unless you're making an anti-story.
So do I! It is why I chose it. :0)
I'd swear those damn things had a nihilistic streak.
My opinion:
The idea of games requiring a "challenge" stems from the need to limit player interactions to the existing gameplay mechanics. Not all challenge exist for this reason just the idea that some people might require games to have one. He may enjoy playing Skyrim on God Mode but for a large group of players it will just feel like a broken game. If you remove the challenge you'll need to replace it. The best way to do that is to build a world simulator that allows for any possible interaction and has an outcome for each of those actions. That takes enormous amounts of time and effort from the developers and likely requires huge technical advances. It also ultimately eliminates authored narrative.
Another way is to guide players towards a limited number of interactions with predetermined outcomes for both success and failure so that they maintain a sense of player control while still following an authored narrative. There's some huge problems with this though. What if I'm smarter than you? What if the choices you've given me are not choices that reflect the decision I'd actually make? Then "my" decisions result in an unsatisfactory outcome that gets amplified as each new interaction betrays my true intentions. A large group of players will be put off simply because their play style isn't being reflected in the interactions and outcomes. When character's in books or movies make stupid decisions it can ruin the story, in a game you end up "punishing" the player for making a stupid decision when they didn't want to do it in the first place. Any attempt at the illusion of player control in an authored narrative will eventually fall apart. Invisible walls destroy immersion. It's possible you could try tricking players into believing that the choices you've made for them are actually their own but that would only work on some of the players. If you want to tell a structured, authored narrative without destroying immersion you need fail states. There has to be a logical reason for players to perform the actions you're requesting and the outcomes too need to be logical.
Gameplay and story should compliment each other. Gameplay alone can be fun but it can't tell a specific story, only abstract narratives. Story alone can be immersive but it can't give you the truest sense that you're actually a part of it. Game designers need to pick one or the other and build it solidly. Once you have a solid gameplay foundation find a story that is informed by the players interactions. Chess becomes a war game, Portal becomes a series of tests in a lab. If you start with a story do the opposite. Mysteries might be best suited by Point and Click or Hidden Object games, Romance might be better as RPG's or Dating Sims. There's no hard and fast rules and it's not exclusive to just these two elements but games need a foundation. If you want to tell a story and you want to do it through games you need a solid story first and then you need to pair it up with solid gameplay and mechanics that truly suit it. The fewer options you give players the less it feels like a game and as the number of options increase you're ability to maintain a structured, authored narrative (specific story) decreases. Developers need to find the point on that line that best suits the story they'd like to tell or the game they'd like to make.
The idea of games requiring a "challenge" stems from the need to limit player interactions to the existing gameplay mechanics. Not all challenge exist for this reason just the idea that some people might require games to have one. He may enjoy playing Skyrim on God Mode but for a large group of players it will just feel like a broken game. If you remove the challenge you'll need to replace it. The best way to do that is to build a world simulator that allows for any possible interaction and has an outcome for each of those actions. That takes enormous amounts of time and effort from the developers and likely requires huge technical advances. It also ultimately eliminates authored narrative.
Another way is to guide players towards a limited number of interactions with predetermined outcomes for both success and failure so that they maintain a sense of player control while still following an authored narrative. There's some huge problems with this though. What if I'm smarter than you? What if the choices you've given me are not choices that reflect the decision I'd actually make? Then "my" decisions result in an unsatisfactory outcome that gets amplified as each new interaction betrays my true intentions. A large group of players will be put off simply because their play style isn't being reflected in the interactions and outcomes. When character's in books or movies make stupid decisions it can ruin the story, in a game you end up "punishing" the player for making a stupid decision when they didn't want to do it in the first place. Any attempt at the illusion of player control in an authored narrative will eventually fall apart. Invisible walls destroy immersion. It's possible you could try tricking players into believing that the choices you've made for them are actually their own but that would only work on some of the players. If you want to tell a structured, authored narrative without destroying immersion you need fail states. There has to be a logical reason for players to perform the actions you're requesting and the outcomes too need to be logical.
Gameplay and story should compliment each other. Gameplay alone can be fun but it can't tell a specific story, only abstract narratives. Story alone can be immersive but it can't give you the truest sense that you're actually a part of it. Game designers need to pick one or the other and build it solidly. Once you have a solid gameplay foundation find a story that is informed by the players interactions. Chess becomes a war game, Portal becomes a series of tests in a lab. If you start with a story do the opposite. Mysteries might be best suited by Point and Click or Hidden Object games, Romance might be better as RPG's or Dating Sims. There's no hard and fast rules and it's not exclusive to just these two elements but games need a foundation. If you want to tell a story and you want to do it through games you need a solid story first and then you need to pair it up with solid gameplay and mechanics that truly suit it. The fewer options you give players the less it feels like a game and as the number of options increase you're ability to maintain a structured, authored narrative (specific story) decreases. Developers need to find the point on that line that best suits the story they'd like to tell or the game they'd like to make.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Pretty narrow viewpoint of video games you got there
I do think it is worth noting that even self professed experten like yourself get pissy and start blaming the game for being crap if it differs from their expectations and is hence outside their comfort zone.
You sure are bitter about that RE6 thing. It's bad sorry.
The hypocrisy of lecturing people on learning how to play, and not taking the same advice (and indeed not even entertaining possibility that one should) is most irritating.
I learned to play it while the demo was still a thing. It was bad.
Just the demo?
AcceptableGhost
Member
How is ErikB not banned yet? He derails literally every thread with this nonsense.
Riposte
Member
The 1CC rule exists mostly in Japan, where arcade cabinets hold their value the most. Someone who plays by 1CCs is more likely to play that game multiple times for several weeks (depending on their schedule) than someone who binges and rushes through the game in an hour or two. Moreover those who do not treat a game like a time-waster/buffet will come to appreciate the experience more and will be more likely to return for similar high quality experiences (they have been disciplined).
@davepoobond: "Lessons" lol. "Change outlook for life" lol. Just tell me again, why wouldn't you want your information presented with as much clarity as possible?
@subversus: Are/were you drunk? I never thought you were insightful, but you are giving ErikB company at the moment. Btw, where is this twitter conversation?
Weltall Zero
Member
What a little demented, random game. I can't believe I played through all of it,
text adventure, "presidential" emulator
dive into the pool at the beginning
go up
SatelliteOfLove
Member
One of these days, we as a gaming public will begin tar and feathering these astroturfing prostelyzers instead of letting it manipulate our purchasing decisions. Maybe then they'll go back to making games that do the talking.
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
Well I mean Interactive Fiction is already....you know a thing
If people wanted to make something like that it's not exactly blazing new trails
The whole idea sounds silly. Games are interactive, the entire concept is built around them being some form of a challenge.
We should instead look to find new ways to challenge a gamer that isn't tedious, mediocre, boring, repetitive, or hand-holding. Find more depth in gameplay. Not kill it.
We should instead look to find new ways to challenge a gamer that isn't tedious, mediocre, boring, repetitive, or hand-holding. Find more depth in gameplay. Not kill it.
HyperCubed4
Member
...what the fuck did I just play
Empyrean Heaven
Member
Did I say that? I'm not saying a game can't have cinematic elements, as long as the gameplay comes first and foremost. A lot of games create a very good balance (Assassin's Creed, Bayonetta, Dishonored, Uncharted, GTA) between pretty graphics and fun gameplay, making them cinematic and story-driven, but still ridiculously addictive and fun to play. I'm mostly pointing at games that seem to place a cinematic style as PARAMOUNT to gameplay (MGS4, Final Fantasy, Heavy Rain), which is what this guy seems to want.
In short, step off, homeboy.
Basically if you want to tell a specific story with a clear an focused narrative while giving the player at least the illusion of agency to enhance the experience then just make a VN and be done with it. At least then the intent of the experience is transparent from the start. You could argue stuff like Heavy Rain actually did do this, although in that case the story and characters were a complete catastrophe which made the entire product worthless.
JasonUresti
Member
People need to realize what a game is, and that "playing" something doesn't mean it's a game.
Kids play cops and robbers, but it's not a game. Kids also play tennis or basketball, and those are games.
Both are valid activities, but they aren't the same thing. Playing The Walking Dead or Heavy Rain or Journey is more like cops and robbers, things like Go, multiplayer RTS and FPS games, fighting games, are games in the more recognized sense.
Too many video games fuck up and end up tripping and face planting when they forget which one they are trying to be, or trying to be both at once. That's why puzzles are typically the easiest thing for the art games, experience games makers to try and implement as the "gameplay" in their designs, as it minimizes player choice down to one intended solution and experience, a controlled, one path possibility disguised as player control.
Kids play cops and robbers, but it's not a game. Kids also play tennis or basketball, and those are games.
Both are valid activities, but they aren't the same thing. Playing The Walking Dead or Heavy Rain or Journey is more like cops and robbers, things like Go, multiplayer RTS and FPS games, fighting games, are games in the more recognized sense.
Too many video games fuck up and end up tripping and face planting when they forget which one they are trying to be, or trying to be both at once. That's why puzzles are typically the easiest thing for the art games, experience games makers to try and implement as the "gameplay" in their designs, as it minimizes player choice down to one intended solution and experience, a controlled, one path possibility disguised as player control.
I thought cops and robbers was a game?
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
fuck fuck fuck. AWSD...
don't know how to move past the wire thing though, atmosphere has been cleaned...now what?
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
bigboss370
Member
could you elaborate why?
The same thing happened to me, but it was still a pretty good time.
There isn't a whole lot of "challenge" in that game, though.
i'm sorry but playing something when it has a ruleset (and cops and robbers does, even if they are often invented on the spot) is most definetly a game.
Lots of "gameplay" games are deeply emotional because of their gameplay. Majora's Mask, Metroid Prime, Shadow of the Colossus and Demons/Dark Souls all spring readily to mind (the latter not merely due to difficulty, and none due to nostalgia). Each stirs up different emotions as rich and powerful as any achieved through music, film, etc, and it's achieved primarily through gameplay and rich world design. The games are fun, but they resonate on a deeper level as well.
Wiktor
Member
I don't have anything against "experiences"..heck...I play (or rather read) visual novels and love them.
That said, a lot of emotions can be experienced through gameplay, or at least enchanced by it. He cites BioShock as example, but he completely misses the mark here. Because the initial ride isn't what most people remember from that game. Instead it's the "would you kindly" revelation and that moment would be pointless if you wouldn't actually do all the gameplay they kindly asked you to before.
That said, a lot of emotions can be experienced through gameplay, or at least enchanced by it. He cites BioShock as example, but he completely misses the mark here. Because the initial ride isn't what most people remember from that game. Instead it's the "would you kindly" revelation and that moment would be pointless if you wouldn't actually do all the gameplay they kindly asked you to before.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll