I expect DayZ is better for that. Except it's real people being dicks to each other rather than scripted characters.
... Alternatively, what I said holds: Ubisoft has the better idea, so go with ZombiU.
-
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
... Alternatively, what I said holds: Ubisoft has the better idea, so go with ZombiU.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
lol. I get you, I was quite keen to stomp some slugs after HL2:EP2 and actually hope that certain events in Halo 4 aren't exactly what they seem, but it's hard not to feel this to some degree after being exposed to characters for the length of times you are in games. However there is quite a difference when it comes to making a player feel this variety of emotions during the actual playing of the game: as the article implies, no matter the genre, the overriding imperative of the gameplay is "win".
Karsticles
Member
Spoilers for FFVII and Chrono Trigger ahoy.
Hmm. I don't agree with him. I didn't play any of those games, but many of my most memorable moments this generation are entirely gameplay-based. Hunting monsters in Monster Hunter, killing angels in Bayonetta, pounding mutants into the ground in UMvC3, gunning down tanks in Valkyria Chronicles. I loved it all.
If a non-gameplay moment is my favorite moment of a game, that's not because the gameplay isn't important. The excellent gameplay is what makes the break in gameplay so appreciable. You're coming off a high of doing crazy stuff and experience a moving scene that you worked hard to get to. It's just not the same if you skip the gameplay and go to the moving scene - it's not moving anymore, it's uninteresting. I become involved with the game through my struggles with the gameplay.
I want to think I'm not in the minority here. A classic example: Aeris' death in FFVII. Would it have been nearly as moving if we didn't fight with Aeris on our team in a series of difficult battles before that point? Would it have mattered if she were killed after watching her interact with the other characters for a while? I don't think so, at least not as much. What makes a character like this so impactful is that you feel Aeris to be a part of your team in the game, a team that has fought and won a lot of hard battles. Aeris dying is losing a part of your team, losing someone who you relied on to win fights. And in a game where you survive based on character cooperation and healing, it's an especially difficult situation to be in when a character is attacked and you can't help.
I won't rant on about this, but isn't it obvious? Who would give a crap about getting Magus on the team in CT if he weren't one of the game's hardest bosses at his respective point, and was a mere QTE series?
Hmm. I don't agree with him. I didn't play any of those games, but many of my most memorable moments this generation are entirely gameplay-based. Hunting monsters in Monster Hunter, killing angels in Bayonetta, pounding mutants into the ground in UMvC3, gunning down tanks in Valkyria Chronicles. I loved it all.
If a non-gameplay moment is my favorite moment of a game, that's not because the gameplay isn't important. The excellent gameplay is what makes the break in gameplay so appreciable. You're coming off a high of doing crazy stuff and experience a moving scene that you worked hard to get to. It's just not the same if you skip the gameplay and go to the moving scene - it's not moving anymore, it's uninteresting. I become involved with the game through my struggles with the gameplay.
I want to think I'm not in the minority here. A classic example: Aeris' death in FFVII. Would it have been nearly as moving if we didn't fight with Aeris on our team in a series of difficult battles before that point? Would it have mattered if she were killed after watching her interact with the other characters for a while? I don't think so, at least not as much. What makes a character like this so impactful is that you feel Aeris to be a part of your team in the game, a team that has fought and won a lot of hard battles. Aeris dying is losing a part of your team, losing someone who you relied on to win fights. And in a game where you survive based on character cooperation and healing, it's an especially difficult situation to be in when a character is attacked and you can't help.
I won't rant on about this, but isn't it obvious? Who would give a crap about getting Magus on the team in CT if he weren't one of the game's hardest bosses at his respective point, and was a mere QTE series?
/SIGNED
Please, this is starting to get ridiculous. Interactive stories do not belong in video game discussions/part of a selection of video games in a store/advertised or described as a video game etc simply because they share a few traits.
The "adventure" type games, or hidden object games shouldn't be part of gaming either. Same goes for "Chat" room games (Virtual avatar type of stuff.)
Uhhh, there's a legitimate point to whether or not something like Walking Dead or Heavy Rain really qualify as "games", but ruling adventure or hidden objects out is just stupid. You're presented challenges that you're overcoming, in the former figuring out how things fit together (I'm assuming more Sam and Max and less what I hear Walking Dead is like) whereas the latter is about finding objects you're told to look for in a picture. Those are absolutely games, they're just closer to the likes of Scrabble than Mario.
Actually, that logic reminds me a lot of when a computer teacher I had in Middle School swore The Incredible Machine wasn't a video game. Except that seems more to justify it in a school setting rather than this warped perspective of what a "game" is.
Kageshinzo
Member
Please clarify what you mean by "adventure" type games. Because if you mean those PC point-and-click adventure games from Sierra or LucasArts, I already have a rebuttal typed and ready.
Probably the worst use of words and idea I've heard all week. To create a "deeply emotional experience" you simply need to think outside the box and use the mechanics and gameplay experience as the metaphors, intermixed with a sense of place through visuals and sound. But "cutting gameplay" is just a further fall down the shithole of cinematic games. How much more gameplay can you cut before the player is just waiting for the next cinematic?
Riposte
Member
Striving to feel pleasure trounces your list of noble, holy duties and most of those are best accomplished outside of videogames (which is escapism, an illusion). Why wouldn't you just read/listen to someone smart CLEARLY discuss societal standards (lol) and then think about it?
You calling those emotions "run of the mill" is just unapproachable, as is your attempt to bring up "lasting impact" (think for a moment of a little thing called "taste"). Here is what needs to be said though: Power, whether struggling to gain it or expressing it, provides the ultimate stimulation and this it is how we live our lives and shape our fantasies. This is what fun truly is. Whether it be sorrow (which is simply a form of frustration, feeling the lack of power) or triumph, these emotions are tools are there to stimulate us and it is that stimulation that matters.
All interactive stories are (video) games.
That's no true. The most basic definition of gameplay is that it is a result of action and challenges.
Games already do this
Games are not the right medium for this type of thing.
Games already do this
Games have been doing this for years.
I'm not seeing the issue here?
Secret Fawful
Member
Adrian Chmielarz is a good example of something that is wrong with today's video game culture.
TUROK
Member
This is hilarious, considering the most emotional moment in Super Metroid is a moment in which control of Samus is taken away from you.
Edit: Gotta love people who post things without reading the thing they're posting about.
Honestly, I think the bigger problem is when you decide BOTH are necessary but can only do a good job with one of the two. Or someone above you decides, whichever, at any rate it's really frustrating for games like NiGHTS Wii to bog you down with its shitty unskippable story when you just want a solid followup to the Saturn game, whereas something like Fragile would be better off without it's half baked combat that Namco deemed necessary.
dragonelite
Member
Skyrim >>>>>>>>>> whatever those designer wants to make with deep emotional impact.
Slice out Skyrim and replace it with Dark Souls for me. Absolutely gameplay driven, but far bleaker and harrowing of a setting than most games that try to be dark.
yeah, and what people love about Skyrim? "Gameplay"? loooooooooooooool
Gameplay doesn't have to involve some great struggle.
It can be slow and methodical, like a point-and-click adventure game.
Gameplay doesn't have to be challenging.
It can be relaxing, like Animal Crossing.
But gameplay does require input on the part of the player. With that, it's just a movie.
And for those who named Journey, you have full control over a character in that game from the beginning to the end. It's as much a game as anything.
It can be slow and methodical, like a point-and-click adventure game.
Gameplay doesn't have to be challenging.
It can be relaxing, like Animal Crossing.
But gameplay does require input on the part of the player. With that, it's just a movie.
And for those who named Journey, you have full control over a character in that game from the beginning to the end. It's as much a game as anything.
this too. But there can't be a reasonable discussion on GAF about this because of its aging population who grew up on arcade games and 2d platformers.
Secret Fawful
Member
Yes, that's true. Maybe he didn't mean all games should cut gameplay...but it comes across that way.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
As I said in my post on the last page, I honestly think this is what he's arguing for, there was just a poor use of the word gameplay. Unless it was deliberate, in which case it worked for generating heat but failed in getting most to understand his point. If you look at the examples in the article's list, they aren't cutscenes but player controlled moments outside of the usual gameplay experience of the games, invariably combat. Whilst the examples are mostly scripted, that they stood out so much shows that there is interest in games breaking out of the combat/cutscene/combat mould. The GTA example is notable in that it is an element of the game that is totally player controlled, yet involves numerous mechanics and is outside of the game's main progression.
Riposte
Member
Next time you dare want to say something negative about a game, tell yourself "There's room for all kinds of games" and don't.
You crack me up lol.
You crack me up lol.
It works so great, since it is an contrast. You never get your controls taken away in Super Metroid, except in this one moment to show how hopeless the situation is. Take away options and controls can be part of the gameplay and story, if the developers want to create a specific emotion.
Animal Crossing has both a meta challenge, you're collecting bells to pay off your debt and a moment-to-moment challenge (collecting stuff).
My definition of what a game is -- "it must have a tangible conflict presented by a defined ruleset that is resolvable by a decision made from an independent user."
Books and film have conflict, but required zero decision making (choose-your-own-adventure books are definitely games.)
Dear Ester has no conflict or decision making. It's interactive art, not a game (and this is perfectly ok).
Input is a poor measure of what a game is. Flushing a toilet requires input from a user, but there's no conflict unless you make a resolvable conflict that requires a decision out of the act, then you made a new game about flushing!
Journey requires decision making and has conflict, it's a game.
Though I'm pretty happy with my definition, it still has holes... Cooking, for example, has a conflict (make a cake) a defined ruleset (ingredients and baking times) and requires an independent user (ingredients won't bake themselves).
I'm sure Cooking Mama qualifies, while something like Personal Trainer: Cooking is really just an interactive recipe book.Though I'm pretty happy with my definition, it still has holes... Cooking, for example, has a conflict (make a cake) a defined ruleset (ingredients and baking times) and requires an independent user (ingredients won't bake themselves).
It doesn't mean gameplay should go, it means gameplay should be better.
And seriously with this kind of opinions I'm glad he's no longer making games, it's not like we need more shitty films dressed up as games anyway.
Oh and Super Metroid best moment was the final boss? I thought it was the parts before that...the whole game parts.
CecilRousso
Member
I can see the point he´s making based on the games he mentions as examples, but he should maybe have mentioned this in 2010 instead of this year where have all these games like DayZ, Spelunky, XCOM, FTL and more, where the gameplay is the one thing creating the memories.
Even so, I rather see these people trying to do The Walking Dead instead of Bullestorm.
Even so, I rather see these people trying to do The Walking Dead instead of Bullestorm.
dragonelite
Member
Who doesn't love masochist 2D platformer.
Instead of the hand holding bullshit we have now.
Examples of gameplay driven games that create an immersive player experience:
- Minecraft
- Amnesia
- DayZ
All these games are open in terms of what you see and what you can do - they allow to let the player control the pacing of their experience and also to have access to nearly everything in the game's world. On the other side, games like Crysis2 pretend to play in a large city while you are forced to only play what game wants you to play.
Let the players create the story - I guess that is the main reason for Minecraft and DayZ being so successful.
Disclaimer: I'm tired and lost my english skills over night.
- Minecraft
- Amnesia
- DayZ
All these games are open in terms of what you see and what you can do - they allow to let the player control the pacing of their experience and also to have access to nearly everything in the game's world. On the other side, games like Crysis2 pretend to play in a large city while you are forced to only play what game wants you to play.
Let the players create the story - I guess that is the main reason for Minecraft and DayZ being so successful.
Disclaimer: I'm tired and lost my english skills over night.
That really is case by case though. If they're not trying to make something about traveling through post-apocalyptic ruins rather than FIGHTING to survive in them then it's probably better to not force combat in, nevermind that it could probably play very similarly to a point & click adventure instead. Though in the case of Fragile a few simple changes would've made the gameplay serviceable, IE durability meters with a reasonable length versus a random chance of weapon breaking, or just not letting weapons break at all. At any rate play to your strengths, if they're not going to do a good job at gameplay, or a certain type of gameplay, then it really shouldn't be forced if they can make the experience stronger on a whole without it.
I think the Super Metroid example is more that while the whole game did it well, Super Metroid showed one of the best uses of wresting away player control. Probably helps it's a situation where the game isn't going on auto pilot but more that Samus is actively too weakened to even MOVE. I imagine that's the kind of situation you could find yourself in real life once hurt badly enough.
You can make a game that is narrative driven, has no "combat" at all and still contains a lot of gameplay.
Just inlcude a lot of mechanics to interact with your narrative, and by mechanics i mean stuff like conversations in alpha protocoll, interrupting conversations to include your own conclusions like in ace attorney or just the general choice tree in planescape. There are lot of ways of making the conversation/narrative parts interactive. They do need effort though and the cinematic approach a lot of games take prevents these kinds of interactions as they often cost too much to make with standart cutscene production values.
However making long cutscenes with meanlingless interaction like quicktime events will at best evoke the same emotions a movie does. They will never lead to a good game and be relegated as window dressing.
Just inlcude a lot of mechanics to interact with your narrative, and by mechanics i mean stuff like conversations in alpha protocoll, interrupting conversations to include your own conclusions like in ace attorney or just the general choice tree in planescape. There are lot of ways of making the conversation/narrative parts interactive. They do need effort though and the cinematic approach a lot of games take prevents these kinds of interactions as they often cost too much to make with standart cutscene production values.
However making long cutscenes with meanlingless interaction like quicktime events will at best evoke the same emotions a movie does. They will never lead to a good game and be relegated as window dressing.
Still there needs to be gameplay because I mean if the point is travelling post-apocalyptic ruins there needs to be some kind of immediate danger or it's a fancy dressed edutainment about archaeology (like there needs to handle hunger and all that if you want to get rid of the monsters).
Heck something like Style Savvy is more a game than most of the trash that is out today because it's really just a game about handling a cloth shop (well made too) and there's actual tension.
Heck for the most part of Heavy Rain or Uncharted X (really 2 or 3), there was less tension than I had in Sim City or Civilisation! Let's not even compare that to Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem or the best sidescrollers out there.
Even then the intro sequence could have been done entirely scripted but it's still miles better when you're actually in control!
The escape sequence at the end really does ramp up the tension BECAUSE you're actually doing that. That was actually better than the 5 sec where you actually see a space blob change side and give you a powerup.
fabricated backlash
Member
I think he completely misses the definition of "Gameplay" His whole argument is based around a fallacy.
growing up with PC I always hated platformers with some very rare odd exceptions. Platformers are as handholding as it gets.
No, a lot of platformers have no handholing at all. Platformers are simple but they are not handholdy.
Handholdy - you are told what to do in any kind of way and platformers are so restrictive that they don't even need to tell you what to do, it's obvious. I always hated platformers because of their restrictive repetitive nature. The game told you what to do, there was literally no room to sidestep and do your thing. Even in Doom I could strafe, hide behind corners, go back, explore the labyrinth, etc. So platformers were always stupid button mashers for me which honed reflexes over brain too much for my liking. Shmups go the same way.
When I grew up I understood why people love them but back then I just couldn't comprehend it.
Speedrunning, man. But you have somewhat of a point about the A to B nature of it, but mastery of the systems and gameplay mechanics are where platformers and shmups do it best.
Canis lupus
Member
Journey was an emotional journey with gameplay, games need not to be the way he describe it in order to be "deeply emotional".
Wow, sorry man, that is some wacked definition you have for "handholding". And your interactions with platformers is super shallow. Kind of goes also with one of the themes of this thread. Some people have a super loose definition of gameplay. Game....play........ummm gameplay! And honed reflexes? They are so much more than that. Get some history on Mario anything and get back to us.
That wouldn't really fit Fragile, and at worst it'd be simulation. Oregon Trail's edutainment due to simulating journeying out west, but Fragile would probably be more gamey and friendlier about it, plus I was getting at how it could've been more like a point & click adventure instead: find items needed to progress and figure out how they work together.
While I grew up and enjoyed a lot of platformers I think I might feel similarly though I'd describe it differently. It's why power ups excited me along with multiple goals and branching paths in the likes of Super Mario World, or the choose-your-order setup of Mega Man, and why Kirby's Dream Land bored me but Kirby Adventure was AMAZING. I tend to care for platformers most with some sense of freedom or at least abilities to suit playstyles or force it to change at any moment (well, as a kid I mainly just thought it was cool), versus something like Kirby's Dream Land, SMB1, or Sonic 1 being a largely frill-less run to the end. Super Meat Boy fits there too, it may be hardcore challenging but it's not what I really want out of platformers.
He's probably right - but TBH I don't turn to games for deep experiences; there are better mediums for that to be blunt.
I don't mind Uncharted level mix, and I do love the games I really see as cutting gameplay to a minimum to deliver this like Walking Dead or Journey but there is a clear point where a game ceases to be a game.
So long as there's a nice balance across the board from pure games to the more "experience" orientated stuff I'll be happy.
I don't mind Uncharted level mix, and I do love the games I really see as cutting gameplay to a minimum to deliver this like Walking Dead or Journey but there is a clear point where a game ceases to be a game.
So long as there's a nice balance across the board from pure games to the more "experience" orientated stuff I'll be happy.
First of all, a lot of you guys should learn to put things in context before passing judgement.
I kind of agree with what he's saying. Gameplay as we know it is antithetical to storytelling as we know it. Storytelling is not merely about putting a plot out there and delivering it piecemeal to the player. There's rhythm involved. There's timing. There's psychological manipulation. There's transferense of the author's sentiments to the "consumer." Player agency messes this up. Take the ME 3 brouhaha. It was all about gameplay choices conflicting with authorial intent. The Gameplay Shepard, the one you created after dozens of hours and hundreds of choices clashed with the Story Shepard.
What we have right now in gaming is a bunch of people using tools developed for delivery systems like books and movies, which depend on the "consumer's" passivity to work and trying to shoehorn them into a medium that requires active engagement. At best they will work well independently of each other but they will never work together.
But what I would prefer is the opposite of what he suggests. We should rip out traditional story from games. At least initially. That way we will naturally develop techniques for storytelling that complement player agency and gameplay. At first this will lead to more games like EVE and Day-Z where the stories are emergent and player driven. Further down the road new storytelling techniques will enable more guided experiences without taking away player agency. Maybe wordlbuilding techniques will develop a toolset varied enough. Maybe something else will.
I kind of agree with what he's saying. Gameplay as we know it is antithetical to storytelling as we know it. Storytelling is not merely about putting a plot out there and delivering it piecemeal to the player. There's rhythm involved. There's timing. There's psychological manipulation. There's transferense of the author's sentiments to the "consumer." Player agency messes this up. Take the ME 3 brouhaha. It was all about gameplay choices conflicting with authorial intent. The Gameplay Shepard, the one you created after dozens of hours and hundreds of choices clashed with the Story Shepard.
What we have right now in gaming is a bunch of people using tools developed for delivery systems like books and movies, which depend on the "consumer's" passivity to work and trying to shoehorn them into a medium that requires active engagement. At best they will work well independently of each other but they will never work together.
But what I would prefer is the opposite of what he suggests. We should rip out traditional story from games. At least initially. That way we will naturally develop techniques for storytelling that complement player agency and gameplay. At first this will lead to more games like EVE and Day-Z where the stories are emergent and player driven. Further down the road new storytelling techniques will enable more guided experiences without taking away player agency. Maybe wordlbuilding techniques will develop a toolset varied enough. Maybe something else will.
Don'tBeWeird
Member
There is room for all kinds of games.
This medium allows creative freedom. Variety is a very good thing, and developers who want to experiment and try new things should have every right to do so. If someone wants to make an interactive movie, let them. That doesn't mean they're exempt from criticism, not at all. But there is a huge difference between saying 'I don't like this game, I find it incredibly boring' and saying 'these types of games need to die, every time I see someone play these games, I cry a little inside'.
If developers, or indeed anyone, claim that all video games need to follow a certain path or suggest that we need to kill an element of video games, whether it be gameplay or story, then I would find it extremely hard to agree with them. One size does not fit all and both story and gameplay can happily coexist in a game without holding each other back.If a particular game wants to focus on something specific, that's fine too.
I can be playing Heavy Rain one minute, Mario Galaxy straight after, and then play a casual party with some friends later. That's the beauty of video games. Hell, I'm not saying I enjoy them equally, but they all have every right to exist. Nothing needs to get killed off.
Oh, and Journey is more of a game than 90% of games released this year.
This medium allows creative freedom. Variety is a very good thing, and developers who want to experiment and try new things should have every right to do so. If someone wants to make an interactive movie, let them. That doesn't mean they're exempt from criticism, not at all. But there is a huge difference between saying 'I don't like this game, I find it incredibly boring' and saying 'these types of games need to die, every time I see someone play these games, I cry a little inside'.
If developers, or indeed anyone, claim that all video games need to follow a certain path or suggest that we need to kill an element of video games, whether it be gameplay or story, then I would find it extremely hard to agree with them. One size does not fit all and both story and gameplay can happily coexist in a game without holding each other back.If a particular game wants to focus on something specific, that's fine too.
I can be playing Heavy Rain one minute, Mario Galaxy straight after, and then play a casual party with some friends later. That's the beauty of video games. Hell, I'm not saying I enjoy them equally, but they all have every right to exist. Nothing needs to get killed off.
Oh, and Journey is more of a game than 90% of games released this year.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll