“We need to kill gameplay” says Ex-People Can Fly dev

Dec 5, 2008
15,307
0
730
Hungary
It should be mandatory that before someone says something about elimintating gameplay in favor of powerful moments, he needs to play through Dark Souls properly.

One particular bossfight there will turn their world upside down, and bring a range of powerful emotions while maintaining gameplay.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
Oct 30, 2007
12,843
1
0
I agree all different types of games should be explored. From linear interactive stories to nonlinear open world games and from story centric games to puzzle games.

But the idea that you need a story to create an emotional experience or heck to even deliver a narrative is simply BS.

Many people have mentioned SotC and it is a great example of a game that created a big emotional response with very little story telling in the traditional sense. You feel a sense of guilt and sadness for taking down these beasts, yet you are compelled to do so anyways.

We can also look at metroid prime as an example of a game delivering narrative not through cut scenes but through the environmental detail and design. You get a sense of what happened in the world, from the crashed space frigate to the fearful messages you read on the space pirate base.

Playing Mario Galaxy creates feelings of awe, joy, and wonder.

Playing as Kratos in GOW makes you feel powerful, ruthless, and brutal.

Playing Resident Evil makes you feel helpless, tense. The game makes you make tough choices about what gear to carry, when to save.

ALL THROUGH GAMEPLAY.

Interactive stories and cinematic experiences are fine, BUT NOT ALL GAMES NEED TO BE LIKE MOVIES. You can create emotion and deliver narrative through gameplay, and the games that do so are the best games in the medium, because they deliver experiences that can't be replicated in books, graphic novels, movies, or even real life.
 

subversus

I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
Oct 26, 2009
24,268
0
0
Jul 26, 2005
6,029
0
0
Europa
This guy sure is high-minded/preachy considering Bulletstorm is the biggest thing he's done.
And considering Bulletstorm is 100% gameplay...definitely a weird comment coming from an ex-PCF dev.

The funny thing is that when some devs like the guy that "he needs to kill gameplay" left PCF to make The Astronauts studio people said R.I.P. for the rest of the team that stayed back making Gears: Judgment. :p
 
Sep 23, 2010
5,796
0
0
And considering Bulletstorm is 100% gameplay...definitely a weird comment coming from an ex-PCF dev.

The funny thing is that when some devs like the guy that "he needs to kill gameplay" left PCF to make The Astronauts studio people said R.I.P. for the rest of the team that stayed back making Gears: Judgment. :p
60% of that gameplay is scripted, and 15% is just you walking slowly while the characters deliver the terribly uninspired script.
 
Jul 8, 2007
1,297
0
0
I think it's actually the other way around, gameplay needs to be expanded a lot more. If the gameplay consists of only killing enemies, then the parts where you're not just doing that obviously stick out because they're so different.
I've had my most memorable gaming experiences while playing DayZ, a mod that is pure gameplay without any storytelling at all.
 
Jan 27, 2012
2,765
0
0
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.
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.
Ok, they might be considered games, but they are cluttering up game sites I visit occasionally, so I'd prefer them to join the likes of interactive media as opposed to "games". Some of the games' gameplay revolves around clicking around the screen until you hit something interactive (Very bad adventure games, of course.).

Many of them seem to have some "type" of "gameplay" just to classify it as a game, and not a story/short movie. Those are the types of games I'm talking about when I mentioned adventure/point and click games. Might not be the right thread for it, but the quotes in the OP reminded me of those types of games.

More specifically: The type of "games" that are made up of a couple of pictures with a couple of dynamic/interactive objects/links placed around.

There are awesome adventure games too, and they really shouldn't be part of the same genre as those other "adventure type games". Gemini Rue, for example, is awesome.
 
May 25, 2007
25,537
0
0
I get where his coming from by describing 'gameplay' good article. Along with his rebooting one.

What I don't like is lame OP's with tabloid sensibilities.

I mean most people don't read linked articles and just go by the thread title.
 
Aug 2, 2011
2,529
0
0
Ok, they might be considered games, but they are cluttering up game sites I visit occasionally, so I'd prefer them to join the likes of interactive media as opposed to "games". Some of the games' gameplay revolves around clicking around the screen until you hit something interactive (Very bad adventure games, of course.).

Many of them seem to have some "type" of "gameplay" just to classify it as a game, and not a story/short movie. Those are the types of games I'm talking about when I mentioned adventure/point and click games. Might not be the right thread for it, but the quotes in the OP reminded me of those types of games.

More specifically: The type of "games" that are made up of a couple of pictures with a couple of dynamic/interactive objects/links placed around.

There are awesome adventure games too, and they really shouldn't be part of the same genre as those other "adventure type games". Gemini Rue, for example, is awesome.
A typical point-and-click adventure game presents the player with a problem: how to proceed from one place to another, how to get an item, how to advance the story, etc. This typically involves solving a puzzle or using Item A in conjunction with Item B that will result in the solution of Puzzle C. At it's most basic premise, a point-and-click adventure game is just a puzzle game utilizing the use of abstract or logical reasoning instead of, say, reflexes. This is very much in line with any definition of a game, and the fact that it uses video for visual interaction reference firmly puts in the category of video games. Point-and-Click Adventure games used to be a very popular category of video games in the 80s and 90s, long before genres like 3rd Person Action Games came into existence.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you have not played a typical point-and-click adventure game like, say, Monkey Island or King's Quest. If so, I would recommend doing so. You'll be surprised to know just how much of a unique game experience it is. It forces you to use your brain instead of your twitch reflex. It is NOT comparable to an interactive movie or, as some people would tend to do, a visual novel.
 
Feb 22, 2006
14,516
7
0
37
Hell's Ditch
As with everything, it depends on the game. I can hardly call Walking Dead a game, but rather an interactive story. The main goal of that game is to tell a story in which the player (or participant rather) makes the occasional choice which impacts certain aspects of the story.

But of course a more traditional game is only as good as its gameplay. Scripted events have to go the way of the Dodo though, I'd like to feel I'm in charge of what happens and I want to feel responsible for when I fail or win.
 
Yeah, we all read those really clever articles that spread the 'GAMES SHOULDNT BE MOVIES, IF YOU TRY TO CUT GAMEPLAY FROM A GAME YOU R DOING IT WRONG!!!!1111' idea. Yet, let's not forget that none of this stuff is written by people in the trenches that actually got it working.

Cause nobody has. Story departments in the games industry still get the least amount of attention precisely because everyone is first and foremost focused on making a 'good game' by focusing on the gameplay aspects. We only very, very recently have seen moves towards crafting an 'experience' instead of just a 'good game'.

The only true thing that can be stated as a fact is that 'videogaming' is an interactive artform. So you can do whatever the hell you want with that. Not all games need to have amazing gameplay to be enticing - As long as you give players an interesting experience, you're all good.

I've been recently researching a bit on how something like an interactive documentary could work - putting people into the roles of non-fictional characters and just understanding how the world works and how the people around you are ticking, etc. - all of this stuff can be fascinating, if done right.

Games can't use the same techniques that film people rely on, that's true. But games also need to evolve and become more than what they are right now. Not every game needs to have amazingly deep gameplay and a great character controller that a team of programmers and designers work on for years - Crafting an interesting world and letting the player take part of it can be a fascinating experience, yet nobody has ever gotten that right.

Actually, I thought this little gem here is great:

http://www.kongregate.com/games/GregoryWeir/the-majesty-of-colors

Almost no gameplay to speak of - but it's totally fascinating.

So while this statement in the OP is definitely sensationalist, there is a lot of truth to it. A lot of the people here who scream 'HE'S SO WRONG, GAMEPLAY IS KING, THATS JUST STUPID!' are in the end the people who want a faster horse, not a goddamn car.

It's interesting to look at how movies evolved - It also started with people simply copying theater and failing, then people like George Melies trying to figure out how to do things that can only be done through the magic of film, then you slowly saw more efforts going into proper storytelling within silent films towards figuring out how to use the camera properly and how to utilize editing to only leave the interesting bits in. And once all this shit got figured out, film became a canvas for artists to use. This process took a lot of time and film, just like games, was first seen as a fluke. What we need are some more visionaries that push things forward by figuring out what works and what doesn't work for these interactive experiences.
 

RionaaM

Unconfirmed Member
Jul 6, 2012
14,850
0
0
If he's talking about developing certain games with a focus on story instead of gameplay, fine. But if he wants EVERY single game to be like this, looks like I'll dedicate 100% to retro gaming.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,124
0
0
Reading the actual blog post, I am actually surprised how short it was. I wonder what he is really talking about is pacing. Sure, all those examples are points of relatively "no gameplay" but since they are surrounded with active segments, they are inactive by comparison. Having a game that goes to 11 all the time might be exhilarating, but it doesn't really allow the player to really process anything other than pure reflexes. If you have a hard gameplay section, then end it with a cutscene, it allows the player to process the fight they just had and they are able to remember it better. Sure, everyone's brain works a little differently, but I find myself playing either super hard games that force me to master skills (like a Super Meat Boy, or Trials) or slower paced adventure type games (like JRPGs or adventure games) because I can take my own time with things. It is that sort of "middle of the road" that games take that sort of bores me.
 
If he's talking about developing certain games with a focus on story instead of gameplay, fine. But if he wants EVERY single game to be like this, looks like I'll dedicate 100% to retro gaming.
That's why his statement is stupid and sensationalist - saying that EVERY game needs to be this or that is just silly, but there definitely is truth behind the 'Not every game needs to have amazingly deep gameplay for it to be a great game' statement.
 

irkutsk12

Neo Member
Sep 8, 2011
81
0
0
I was asked by Adrian to post this here, so there we go. Everything below is from him:

----

Hi guys, Adrian Chmielarz here.

I’m having trouble with the verification email after updating the email in my NeoGAF profile, and thus I cannot post directly from my Saphathoreal account atm - so big fat thanks to the friend who posts this here for me.

I’ll be writing a follow up blog post soon, but I thought that maybe it’d make sense to clarify some things right away.

I do not want to make interactive movies or books or whatever. Games do borrow elements from other media (e.g. music) but they also offer things that no other art from can, like interactivity and sense of presence.

Not embracing that would be silly.

But a lot of you here believe that there’s one more crucial element that defines what video games are, and that element is challenge that can result in player’s failure (don’t die, solve a puzzle, be faster than an enemy car, etc.).

Why?

We all respect Sid Meier, right? His definition of a game is that it’s “a series of interesting decisions” (or “a series of interesting choices”).

No part of this definition says that a “challenge” is sine qua non of video games.

Let me use Skyrim to explain my point of view. I have played it for well over a hundred hours. I have finished the main story, most of the sub-quests, explored most of the world, destroyed the Dark Brotherhood, etc. It was a fantastic experience.

But: I did it all on god mode. From start to finish. I’d like to pretend that I was role playing a necromancer cursed by gods with immortality, but the truth is I couldn’t be bothered with trial and error combat and the inventory/speed limits.

Now tell me this: was I, or was I not playing a video game?

In my opinion, I was. It was an interactive, immersive experience full of interesting decisions.

So this is where I come from.

That does not mean that I think my post was flawless. It was not.

For example, my definition of a “gameplay” was that it’s something featuring “challenge”. I called the “challenge”-less gameplay as “interactivity”. So it was “gameplay” versus “interactivity”. Wrong. That’s definition clusterfuck. Gameplay is gameplay, and whether it features challenge or not is a whole different story.

Other example: my post was supposed to be thought-provoking, but it simply went too far. If I believe that games can evolve or grow a new branch, then it was narrow minded of me to state that there’s just one way to do it.

As I said, I’ll be writing a follow up, and I’ll try to be better. Blogging is new to me, and English is not my first language – but still some mistakes that I’ve done… Well, I should not have done them. I still stand by the general idea that removing challenge can result in a more engaging, deeper, more memorable experience that we still should call a video game, but there’s more to the story than this.

Thanks for listening.
 
Reading the actual blog post, I am actually surprised how short it was. I wonder what he is really talking about is pacing. Sure, all those examples are points of relatively "no gameplay" but since they are surrounded with active segments, they are inactive by comparison. Having a game that goes to 11 all the time might be exhilarating, but it doesn't really allow the player to really process anything other than pure reflexes. If you have a hard gameplay section, then end it with a cutscene, it allows the player to process the fight they just had and they are able to remember it better. Sure, everyone's brain works a little differently, but I find myself playing either super hard games that force me to master skills (like a Super Meat Boy, or Trials) or slower paced adventure type games (like JRPGs or adventure games) because I can take my own time with things. It is that sort of "middle of the road" that games take that sort of bores me.
YES !
That's exactly what I thought too.

Focusing only on what people remember of a game (when the game has coincidently a strong focus on narrative :D) and calling the rest "useless" is a bit strange to me as it is the fusion of the whole thing that allows those scenes to stand out so that they will be remembered.
But I can see his point : If you conceive your game in a very high narrative way, the gameplay is often boring honestly. Like a filler to the next story development or a minor activity while a scene is played.
And that is where people here disagree : Instead of "getting rid of the gameplay elements of the games", why couldn't we think about the (minute to minute) gameplay as a way to express a story, a background or an atmosphere ?

edit : oh Adrian Chmielarz precised is opinion right before my post ! lol.

Yeah, skyrim focus is about telling a story and letting a world feel alive. There is indeed no real point in allowing the player to die...
But did the decisions you made have consequences on the game's narrative ? I think so. In a way, the challenge here was to make the right choices in order to have the right story developments. If not, what would be the point of your choice ? it would be like the choice to turn the page of a book or not at this point :p

So there again, this game is about a challenge in my opinion. not about life/death but about seeing the story develops in a way that suits you. the consequence of your choice and the challenge that you face are not as obvious as running into a goomba in mario but there exist nonetheless.
 
Mar 9, 2009
549
0
0
It should be mandatory that before someone says something about elimintating gameplay in favor of powerful moments, he needs to play through Dark Souls properly.

One particular bossfight there will turn their world upside down, and bring a range of powerful emotions while maintaining gameplay.
Which fight is that one again...? And also why?
 
Feb 7, 2012
2,237
0
0
The elite developers have been using engaging gameplay to tell stories since Ocarina of Time.

Only weak developers with limited creativity believe that you need a video game to be "cinematic" for it to be art.
 
Mar 9, 2009
549
0
0
Also I do think he's very right. There are games which have successfully integrated emotional moments into games without compromising the gameplay, but at best these moments are triggered by the gameplay, like flicking a switch or pressing a button. Performing a rocket jump or Kickflip McTwist won't trigger emotional responses, but the outcome can.
 
R

Retro_

Unconfirmed Member
Wait

I'm sure this has been mentioned before in the 8 pages of this thread but

this guy knows you can get a game over screen in The Walking Dead right?
 
Mar 11, 2012
10,279
1
460
Madrid, Spain
I loved To The Moon and I loved Bayonetta. I loved Xenoblade and I loved Left 4 Dead. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with story-driven or gameplay-driven games, nor anything that essentially makes one type a "non-game".

The rift between them and contempt for the "opposite side" seem to be, at least in part, fueled by designers that excel at one of those types and benefit from that rift and "identification" of gamers with any one of the sides, much like politicians benefit from polarized, often arbitrary ideological differences (concentrating in the 10% that's different rather than the 90% that we agree on).

I'm fucking sick of seeing that in politics and I would rather we don't dance to the same tune regarding videogames. We are smarter than this. We can disagree without throwing poo at the other side.
 
Aug 23, 2009
3,792
0
0
Some people enjoy playing for fun and exploration. Others enjoy mastering the game through honing of skills. Some,people like both. Personally I think both are needed. Just for the record I play for skills mastery.

Nothing more fun than losing online or,offline (darksouls, ninja gaiden bayonetta witchtime off) then gradually getting better. Finally crushing those games after putting in the,time.

On a side note

Thats why Its weird that gaf looks down on sports games. They are like microcosms of darksouls minus the dragons. Fifa full manual takes time to master. Even if you make that happen it does not mean success online. Thats the never ending challenge hense people get the game year after year.

Anyway thats my thought. Seems like this guy wants to get the satisfaction without the work. Skyrym not acknowledging me beating game on the hardest difficulty lvl took away from the experience to,me.
 
Jan 30, 2010
9,943
0
0
Thread title misleading, it omits the intended goal. He says if you want this, then kill gameplay to achieve it, etc. Of course I still disagree. I've had plenty emotional moments in games that did have gameplay as he describes it (which is also a weird way to describe it, you can have gameplay without impending death for sure, like puzzles, which you can fail in by not figuring them out, not by dying). Granted some of them like Panzer Dragoon Saga were pretty easy games, but they'd remain emotional if they had been tougher too. Plus, why go to that length? You can have both gameplay and no-gameplay moments in games. I mean, cut scenes. They exist. They don't however have to be the only thing that exists in a game for it to be emotional. Amnesia spurs emotions as well, and it's all during interactive gameplay. Usually you can fail too, though it could have been a little harder to be better in my opinion, but that's besides the point.
 

RionaaM

Unconfirmed Member
Jul 6, 2012
14,850
0
0
That's why his statement is stupid and sensationalist - saying that EVERY game needs to be this or that is just silly, but there definitely is truth behind the 'Not every game needs to have amazingly deep gameplay for it to be a great game' statement.
Yup, that's why games like Dear Esther (which I haven't "played", but would like to) can coexist with something like Super Mario Galaxy or Serious Sam, for example. It's not either/or, it's both. And that's the best way it could be.
 
Dec 6, 2008
1,889
0
0
I agree. There's games I play because the gameplay is too fucking good and there are games I play because everything outside of gameplay is too fucking good.
I think I could put every game that I enjoyed playing in one of those two groups.

I've been solving the problem with games which gameplay I don't care about by picking the lower difficulties.
In the end I don't die and I don't feel like I'm being told how I should be playing it.

Note that I didn't understand what he said as "every game should cut gameplay", I think he meant "if you want your game to be memorable, and gameplay isn't a point, cut the gameplay". Which doesn't mean every game should be Heavy Rain or The Walking Dead.
 
Dec 2, 2007
8,973
0
0
I loved To The Moon and I loved Bayonetta. I loved Xenoblade and I loved Left 4 Dead. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with story-driven or gameplay-driven games, nor anything that essentially makes one type a "non-game".

The rift between them and contempt for the "opposite side" seem to be, at least in part, fueled by designers that excel at one of those types and benefit from that rift and "identification" of gamers with any one of the sides, much like politicians benefit from polarized, often arbitrary ideological differences (concentrating in the 10% that's different rather than the 90% that we agree on).

I'm fucking sick of seeing that in politics and I would rather we don't dance to the same tune regarding videogames. We are smarter than this. We can disagree without throwing poo at the other side.
Agreed.

I think that perhaps using the word "gameplay" hurt the discussion, because it's such a nebulous term that can be defined in a lot of different ways. But there's totally room for all kinds of games. Story heavy games without challenge can be great, and mechanics-heavy games with little to no story content can be great too. They can exist together.

And I think he's absolutely right that putting the player in the mode of pure utilitarian problem-solving makes it harder for them to engage in certain kinds of emotional involvement. I can think of some counter examples, but they're rare and pretty particular. They're certainly not suited for everything. Even in that crucial bridge scene in Ico, I fucked it up my first time through because I wanted to know what was on the other side. And I love that game.

There is an important caveat here, though. Action isn't good for building emotion, but I think it can set the stage for certain kinds of emotion, both before and after the challenge occurs. In Demon's Souls, the moments where I feel the most scorned and alone aren't when I'm fighting monsters, but when I'm exploring an area and anticipating a challenge I have yet to encounter. Or in Hotline Miami, the entire nihilistic thesis of the game happens right after you finish your challenge-conquering and return to your car through the aftermath of your blood-drenched polygonal massacre. The fact that the player will face or has faced challenge is the criteria for those memorable experiences.

I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. If, as a designer, you're trying to deliver certain kinds of emotional story beats, every part of the game needs to be examined. Something may be decent enough on its own, but if it gets in the way of the message, one or the other has to give.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
Apr 25, 2009
17,350
0
0
He didn't guess the 5 moments in those games for me but in general I'm with him.

I think lots of people would agree with him if it wasn't as provocatively titled.

You often see arguments that a game doesn't have enough content or has filler and padding. But the filler and padding in those games are often the combat loops.

In Uncharted 1 when you first get to your plane in the jungle there is a fight with 4 waves. That is filler, because the experience would have worked just as well with 1 wave because it would still give you the feeling of an ambush. But that's curious, because Uncharted is a shooter so 3 waves more than necessary is the gameplay part of it.

I don't play Assassin's Creed, Journey or Uncharted for the gameplay. It's better if they have solid mechanics, but the experience is what counts for me.
Trial and error dying in a sequence like Uncharted's chase sequence is not why I play it. I play it because I like the feeling of barely escaping / catching up to someone.
 
Jan 27, 2012
2,765
0
0
A typical point-and-click adventure game presents the player with a problem: how to proceed from one place to another, how to get an item, how to advance the story, etc. This typically involves solving a puzzle or using Item A in conjunction with Item B that will result in the solution of Puzzle C. At it's most basic premise, a point-and-click adventure game is just a puzzle game utilizing the use of abstract or logical reasoning instead of, say, reflexes. This is very much in line with any definition of a game, and the fact that it uses video for visual interaction reference firmly puts in the category of video games. Point-and-Click Adventure games used to be a very popular category of video games in the 80s and 90s, long before genres like 3rd Person Action Games came into existence.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you have not played a typical point-and-click adventure game like, say, Monkey Island or King's Quest. If so, I would recommend doing so. You'll be surprised to know just how much of a unique game experience it is. It forces you to use your brain instead of your twitch reflex. It is NOT comparable to an interactive movie or, as some people would tend to do, a visual novel.
I don't have a problem with games like those at all, but the slideshows with links, or the ones that are merely pictures. Adventure games with integrated systems that support the story and items/actions are cool. The ones where you simply look at pictures and click things are not, and they are nothing like Monkey Island and similar games. In my opinion of course.

There are loads of them, and that is probably due to how simple it is to make a game like that (Pictures, interactive links/objects, etc.).

But, I don't really play those types of games -- my original post and opinion may have been a bit exaggerated, but I posted it because of how gaming in general always puts story and graphics before gameplay.

Books and movies are far better formats for telling a story, for example -- I think that focusing on story in a game means that you would have to compromise both the gameplay and story due to the basics of game design (Story and gameplay mechanics rarely, if ever mesh well together, and trying to tell a story while designing good mechanics that also make sense is probably very hard.)

there should be a secondary type of media-genre to support stuff like the less interactive adventure games though -- interactive media, interactive movies, etc.

Is it possible to tell a story through a video game that wouldn't be far better off as a book, or even a movie? Maybe, but I think it would require a radically different approach to video game design.

Currently, most game developers/publishers are trying to copy the recipe of mediocre Hollywood movies, which isn't a good goal at all.
 
May 24, 2012
20,246
1
550
I think the opening person is quoting someone who thinks games should be movies... Fuck that.


Forgive my language, but if I wanted a movie, I'd watch a movie. My interaction with games shouldn't be limited to invoke emotions, and indeed many of the highest regarded games in the world are very heavy in gameplay but still illicit a lot of emotions (see OoT and FF7)


(edit) The sense I get from his is basically "Cut the gameplay, shorten every single game to 4-8 hours of non-stop emotion" which I don't want. Sometimes you need to have time inbetween to really punctuate things... to grow attached to your characters. That's the biggest problem I have with movies as well... You don't have enough time to TRULY get attached to a character and instead movies have to apply all sorts of tricks to make you THINK you are attached (through montages, scenes with family, etc). In movies they try and force the character into situations you can relate to, where as in games you have the time to build up trust naturally. Sure, the story parts of games reinforce that, but how many times have you been playing a character in an RPG or something and have grown dependent on them for your strategies only to have them killed? Probably not nearly often enough :p but when it happens you feel much more hurt. You had a true attachment to that character, not just because the game TOLD you you had an attachment... but because now you have a true hole in your group that can't be filled easily.
 
Dec 2, 2007
8,973
0
0
I think the opening person is quoting someone who thinks games should be movies... Fuck that.
I was asked by Adrian to post this here, so there we go. Everything below is from him:

----

Hi guys, Adrian Chmielarz here.

...

I do not want to make interactive movies or books or whatever. Games do borrow elements from other media (e.g. music) but they also offer things that no other art from can, like interactivity and sense of presence.

Not embracing that would be silly.
It was on this very page!
 
May 24, 2012
20,246
1
550
It was on this very page!
Saying one thing and yet heavily implying the other is something else. You can say whatever you want, but it's impossible to read anything else from what the first post says... He says we have to divorce gameplay from games. The first post reads as "I want to make games into choose your own adventure books" and even cited the walking dead as an example.
 
Oct 2, 2007
20,750
1
0
His premiss is wrong. The moments he mentioned are shared moments, everyone that plays those games experiences those moments so a group of people discussing those games will talk about them but for me they aren't the most memorable gaming moments. Not even close. He also points to a thread basically asking for peoples' favorite set pieces and uses that as evidence that people don't think about level design or mechanics or other gameplay aspects when remembering a game fondly.
 
Oct 2, 2007
20,750
1
0
The blog post is the author presenting an argument why these challangeless experiences are superior to a more traditional video game, so I think it makes sense that people are posting their arguments against it. I don't agree with Adrian Chmielarz at all but I wouldn't actively try to prevent him from designing a game in the model that he describes. I don't think arguing against his blog post suggests that someone necessarily believes these games shouldn't exist at all.
 
Jun 29, 2008
10,349
0
0
But: I did it all on god mode. From start to finish. I’d like to pretend that I was role playing a necromancer cursed by gods with immortality, but the truth is I couldn’t be bothered with trial and error combat and the inventory/speed limits.

Now tell me this: was I, or was I not playing a video game?

In my opinion, I was. It was an interactive, immersive experience full of interesting decisions.
I think the problem is highlighted there. Since Skyrim is an RPG without any real emphasis on choice and consequence other than in how you build your skills that you use to kill enemies, and if you remove even that, you´re just wandering around, looking at stuff, reading stuff.

If you remove challenge, you have to replace it with some other interactions that mean something. And I would like to say that those interactions actually are gameplay.

If you don´t do that, but just concentrate to remove the interactions because they are in the way of the story, then sorry, your games aren´t going to be interesting to to me.
 
May 24, 2012
20,246
1
550
The blog post is the author presenting an argument why these challangeless experiences are superior to a more traditional video game, so I think it makes sense that people are posting their arguments against it. I don't agree with Adrian Chmielarz at all but I wouldn't actively try to prevent him from designing a game in the model that he describes. I don't think arguing against his blog post suggests that someone necessarily believes these games shouldn't exist at all.
This. I have no problem with people that want to make cinematic games... but don't expect me to buy them. I don't want people to be constrained by the medium to NOT do things they want to do, but in turn I don't want them to say "Well how people have been playing games for the last 30 years is wrong!"
 
Aug 19, 2006
25,598
1
0
Why make a video game then?

Are we back in the Sega CD era?
Sounds like he wants to be. I appreciate he's trying to dissect and rethink everything he knows about games, but I'm not convinced by the direction he's heading in here. An interactive video CD adventure is a valid form of game, but essentially defining it as a 'better' form of game is pretty questionable.

And it does irk me when people make 'best moments in games' threads and most of the responses seem to be cutscenes, but I know I shouldn't let it get to me, people are free to enjoy what they want, but when some admit to hating the game but enduring it to see the cutscenes then I wonder why they bother. There's always Youtube.

The example he gives that I can most relate to, driving around listening to the radio is a funny one. Exploring virtual worlds can be fun in itself, but perhaps he's right not to define that as gameplay if I can enjoy doing the same thing on Google street view. Listening to radio is something you can do any time, but it's is easier to concentrate on that when you're not focused on something particularly urgent like a mission.
Can you make a game which is a virtual world where you just drive around listening to the radio? Yes, they did, some people choose to do just that!
Would it benefit the game if they removed everything else? It would make the game cheaper to create... is that it?