If you did not play it, I should not spoil it for you. But if you really need to, at least look it up. Dark Souls "spoiler":
Sif
-
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
If you did not play it, I should not spoil it for you. But if you really need to, at least look it up. Dark Souls "spoiler":
I agree with you but which games are trying so much to be a movie that they cease to be a game? People might say Heavy Rain / Walking Dead at most and even then calling them non games is going too far. Every RPG, TPS, FPS etc are interactive stories.
Joke post? Please tell me where this treasure cove of gameplay exists. Heck there isn't even an above level of interactions in the game. So its more of a game how?
Magicpaint
Member
I understand that he wants to stretch videogaming beyond its familiar elements but stripping down the level of interactivity sounds like a misguided way of looking at it. The 'gameplay' is what separates videogaming from other forms of entertainment. Interactivity should be what drives his goal but that is probably the more challenging proposition.
While I cant speak for him all I cant understand why X is more game than Y etc. What is the minimum level of interactions that classify something as a game. If journey is not what is it then? Are all the gamers and journalists who bought it and loved it somehow fooled into thinking it is one. Journey is as much a game as a vanquish. Only this medium could have been used to convey the emotions that both the games do. There is nothing that makes one product more of a game then another.
Rather than say whether we "should" do this or not, I'd rather point out that this person seems to agree that games cannot be art.
Specifically, if the only way this developer can see to make games "art" is to remove the gameplay, then obviously he sees some conflict between gameplay (i.e. that which makes a game a game) and "art". I think games have their own emotional palette; games can make you experience a feeling of achievement, a feeling of failure, and a sense of involvement that movies cannot. In addition, games can make you think in complex, sophisticated ways; for example, Chess requires extremely sophisticated thinking at high levels of play, as does a game like Poker, which requires you to read and understand your opponents in a way that movies never demand of you.
So video games do their own things which can make them intellectually demanding and sophisticated. Trying to mimic cinema's emotional and intellectual palette has been causing trouble and awkwardness for years in the gaming industry now. I think these are the last vestiges of gaming's early days, when it latched on to cinema as a way to justify itself in the medium's early stages of development. Those days are gone now -- gaming no longer needs movies to prop up its legitimacy -- and so we're seeing a gradual movement away from the "cinematic" style of game design, which enormous hits like Angry Birds, Wii Sports and Farmville attest to.
Specifically, if the only way this developer can see to make games "art" is to remove the gameplay, then obviously he sees some conflict between gameplay (i.e. that which makes a game a game) and "art". I think games have their own emotional palette; games can make you experience a feeling of achievement, a feeling of failure, and a sense of involvement that movies cannot. In addition, games can make you think in complex, sophisticated ways; for example, Chess requires extremely sophisticated thinking at high levels of play, as does a game like Poker, which requires you to read and understand your opponents in a way that movies never demand of you.
So video games do their own things which can make them intellectually demanding and sophisticated. Trying to mimic cinema's emotional and intellectual palette has been causing trouble and awkwardness for years in the gaming industry now. I think these are the last vestiges of gaming's early days, when it latched on to cinema as a way to justify itself in the medium's early stages of development. Those days are gone now -- gaming no longer needs movies to prop up its legitimacy -- and so we're seeing a gradual movement away from the "cinematic" style of game design, which enormous hits like Angry Birds, Wii Sports and Farmville attest to.
To be honest, he's overgeneralizing, but there is some truth in what he's saying. I remember hearing about a study that found that the stress from adrenaline/cortisol can inhibit memory formation. It might be in more games' best interests to slow down and let the player breathe while they convey the story. Consider Shadow of the Colossus: I don't think that game would be nearly as memorable if it were a series of back-to-back boss fights without reprieve. Removing the player from the primary "game" allows them the rationalize and remember their experiences.
SonicMegaDrive
Member
This is the exact direction for gaming that I dread and fear most. I know many would love this, but I most certainly would not.
Flachmatuch
Member
The article is just stating the obvious in a controversial (not thought provoking but simply provocative) way. Great way to achieve your fifteen minutes of internet (or just neogaf) fame, worthless trivial bullshit otherwise.
If you climb a mountain do you fondly remember each step you took or the view from the top? He seems to be saying that if you don't think back on the gameplay that it doesn't really matter as much. Not sure what I think of that.
I do like that he's thinking of new gaming experiences. I would like to see someone experiment with the time component of games - that people can interact with them way longer than movies or books and get connected with them that way.
I do like that he's thinking of new gaming experiences. I would like to see someone experiment with the time component of games - that people can interact with them way longer than movies or books and get connected with them that way.
I don't disagree with your assessment of what games can and do currently achieve, but I also don't think you're entirely meeting his argument. Part of the reason that "emotional" content in games is so awkward is because it's jammed around all these elements that run in opposition to it. Instead of complementing the sophisticated thinking (or twitchy, fast thinking) that games require, the emotional stuff just gets in the way, or gets ignored. Something like Heavy Rain or The Walking Dead (especially the latter) doesn't function like a lot of existing AAA properties, because it keeps the focus entirely on player agency inside the story ("interesting decisions") instead of on puzzle solving. Whether or not the narrative succeeds on its own, it has to be at the center of the player's attention all the time.
Gaming doesn't necessarily need these sorts of games to survive or be popular, as you pointed out. But there is a market for games that forgo challenge in pursuit of other things. Heavy Rain sold millions of copies, as did LA Noire. And games with strong narrative elements like Red Dead Redemption or Mass Effect do find commercial success. It's not the only path (and it shouldn't be), but it is a way to make games, and in that context, I welcome that sort of exploration.
Weirdly enough, Farmville is an example of a challenge-free game, even if it doesn't attempt any kind of traditional narrative.
The Lamonster
Member
ihearthawthats
Banned
so in his updated post here, he basically wants ez-mode games? hate to break it to him, but devs have been dumbing down games for a long time now. unlimited lives/continues, numerous save points, regenerating health, etc. escalating it to god mode as he suggests could work sure, but again, it's not everything every game should strive for. challenging games are refreshing, i.e. dark souls. so are games that have great implementation of scaling difficulty.
in terms of his specific example of skyrim, there are more elements of challenge then just one of health management. enemies, items, areas, can still provide elements of challenge. sure you killed the challenge of survival, but would you want to go as far as killing them all? the enemies can't kill you anymore, yay no more game overs, but what if you couldn't kill them either? no more progress and you're stuck at a stalemate. it sounds like you just want open sandbox-type games and to get rid of the 'game over' screen, but this is not the same thing as killing gameplay or removing challenge. sandbox games and even games without 'game over' screens have existed for a long time. there's no reason they can't co-exist with other types of games, and honestly it just comes down to preference which type of game you prefer.
relating back to his original article, memorable moments are never only just the very easy moments. lots of people remember hard moments as well, i.e. ornstein & smough, quick man's stage of lasers, etc. again, i feel it's about a dynamic. a game that is always easy has the potential to be boring and a game that is always hard has the potential to be frustrating. two emotions that aren't particularly sought for, but if implemented well they could be emotions of relaxation or accomplishment instead. you talk so much about emotion, but there are many different kinds of emotions and all of the different elements of a game can achieve a different one. if we merely stick to a single element of gameplay, i.e. pure story, or "kill gameplay" we are limiting the capability to achieve a wide range of emotions.
in terms of his specific example of skyrim, there are more elements of challenge then just one of health management. enemies, items, areas, can still provide elements of challenge. sure you killed the challenge of survival, but would you want to go as far as killing them all? the enemies can't kill you anymore, yay no more game overs, but what if you couldn't kill them either? no more progress and you're stuck at a stalemate. it sounds like you just want open sandbox-type games and to get rid of the 'game over' screen, but this is not the same thing as killing gameplay or removing challenge. sandbox games and even games without 'game over' screens have existed for a long time. there's no reason they can't co-exist with other types of games, and honestly it just comes down to preference which type of game you prefer.
relating back to his original article, memorable moments are never only just the very easy moments. lots of people remember hard moments as well, i.e. ornstein & smough, quick man's stage of lasers, etc. again, i feel it's about a dynamic. a game that is always easy has the potential to be boring and a game that is always hard has the potential to be frustrating. two emotions that aren't particularly sought for, but if implemented well they could be emotions of relaxation or accomplishment instead. you talk so much about emotion, but there are many different kinds of emotions and all of the different elements of a game can achieve a different one. if we merely stick to a single element of gameplay, i.e. pure story, or "kill gameplay" we are limiting the capability to achieve a wide range of emotions.
challenge is a crutch inherited from arcade games to make you pay more to progress.
lol.
Do you even know what you're talking about? (hint: no) All good arcade games are designed to be completed on one credit.
Reading entire books is a crutch that stayed from before we had SparkNotes.
Solving math problems with pen and paper is a crutch that stayed from before we had calculators.
Walking is a crutch that stayed from before we had cars.
Calligraphy is a crutch that stayed from before we had the printing press.
Challenge is a "crutch" if: 1. You think the purpose of video games is to deliver emotional experiences as efficiently as possible.
2. You don't believe anyone could find it fulfilling to accomplish a task through methods that are detailed, involved, and not completely idiot-proof.
bababouille
Member
Yeah, guy seems pretty ignorant or really in a 'I'm an indie game dev, I actually think about games now' wake up phase.
I feel like games that are worthwhile come in three categories (with recent exemples):
(1) Intense audio-visual experience, exploring the unknown (Dark Souls, Child of Eden, SotC, Nier, Metroid Prime, adventure...)
(2) Brainy/skill based games (fighting games, shmups, RTSes to an extent...)
(3) Bittersweetness (visual novels, 4HoL, Katamari, Love Plus, Opoona, JRPGs in general... DS library is full of those) Games that linger around after you've played them, designed around the fact that video games can impact real life by inducing a feeling of nostalgia or freedom.
TL;DR good games are unpredictable, built around a general formula instead of being constrained by it, their scopes go beyond what's being presented on the screen.
Most modern blockbusters now go the bad game route, which is building a simple grind/reward type of experience (Bethesda, Bioware, Ubi, triple-As in general) and coating it in an appealing presentation. What's the difference between a game like AC and a shitty IOS app where you're essentially playing it to pass the time because there is very little investment involved? Is the grinding aspect of games what he means by 'gameplay'?
Narrative is part of game design, shooting stuff and becoming stronger, are (or should be) part of a narrative, IMO if you dissociate it using terms like 'gameplay' and 'story' then it means that you are not fully appreciating your games or that they are bad.
ihearthawthats
Banned
challenge != greatly challenging. a challenge requires a certain amount of skill or knowledge to overcome it. all games have challenges, but not all of them are challenging. but even then the word 'challenging' is subjective and varies on the skill level of the gamer. making a game less challenging is fine by me, but removing challenge completely as op suggests and you're basically turning into a mindless task.
You only *think* you enjoyed it, man! The game was just wasting your time with all this "gameplay" filler nonsense.
all good arcade games are designed to milk you out.
Yes and no. Arcade games are like slot machines in that they entice people to put in coins by potentially giving players a reward for a seemingly small price. They differ from slot machines by making the payoff dependent on the player's actions rather than pure random chance.
bababouille
Member
Challenge is an easy way to generate a sense of achievement and reward for the player. In the arcade days it was fine because they were usually very inventive and creative in that regards, since you wouldn't want to pay more if you felt the game was an obvious money making trap. Now it's not because all you do is beat shit and long length of a game is favoured over intricate scoring systems.
Good arcade games are designed as being simple enough to understand on the first try, but complex/interesting enough to make you want to invest in it. They aren't necessarily designed to be hard.
Your reading comprehension is usually better than this.
NullPointer
Member
Yes.
Stop trying to force a fully determined story upon the player and develop techniques that allow what story exists to be a collaboration of developer vision and player action. Look at classic PnP role playing games for inspiration here.
If a dev just wants to tell a linear story, there are better mediums to choose than gaming.
Also, this.
I played a lot on arcade machines when I was a kid. I know what I'm talking about and you are not.
What am I not getting? He's saying that game mechanics are incidental to the kinds of emotional experiences that games "should" deliver, and that it only serves to pass time. I don't disagree that interactive fiction can be enjoyable, but with the artificial hierarchy he's created.
AcceptableGhost
Member
(Good) arcade games are the pinnacle of challenge. It is alright to admit you are not up to it.
Quarter feeding won't make you better either.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
"I know it's a shop because I've seen a few shops in my time."
Graphics Horse
Member
You seem to think he's stating that there's only one way to make games, when he clarified that he doesn't believe that in his follow-up post.
There's room for all kinds of games, and I don't think that the author of this piece believes differently.
By starting over and actually getting better at the game.
Graphics Horse
Member
Oh is that not quarter feeding? ok.
So you pay more to learn to progress? Is that the word he missed?
Quarter/credit feeding is used in reference to people who slog through the games by emptying out their wallets with continues, mostly. You have to use a quarter to start over!
No, starting over from the beginning with each game over gives you better value per coin. More playtime. When you start playing using continues, you're going to likely game over a lot since you sucked too much to get past x point in the game -- it's just going to get harder.So you pay more to learn to progress? Is that the word he missed?
Graphics Horse
Member
Fair enough, Most of the money I've spent is on racing games where there was no difference.
And yet you are unwilling to extend the same courtesy to RE6...
Graphics Horse
Member
I'm just seeing two different ways of paying to progress, one more intelligent, rewarding and ultimately easier than the other. But possibly more expensive, depending on the game design. (such as Checkpoints vs. immediate respawn)
stop stalking people
LMAO! Does sliding into cover come under hardcore gameplay or interactive movies?
What emotion did you feel playing Dishonored? It was as sterile as they come in terms of story in a videogame
I apologise for remembering what you have said in other threads. I shall endeavour to pay less attention in future.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll