Support NeoGAF

[Coeliacus]

Fuckin lol at the essentialists. Why wouldn't you draw upon other media's strengths? It's not like digital games are some kind of lone-standing monolith that is independent of all others. It's an audiovisual medium. Of course digital games could be inspired by other media, like film or painting or photography or literature. Neglecting the potential is creatively barren. I don't even think any other medium is as needy to justify itself as digital games.

And people saying they don't want 'story' in their games, due to the fact that including them would 'implode' the industry, are just disillusioned. All the representative elements in a game has some sort of meaning. Why not elaborate and use that representative aspect to heighten the experience? Why not tell something if you're making a singleplayer game? Story adds to the experience. It's just too bad that most developers consider it an after-thought, rather than a primary pillar of their game.

Good post.

Too much freedom leaves me feeling paralyzed and frustrated due to lack of time to invest in such games. Too little leaves me feeling empty and frustrated due to not being able to express myself.

That is the gist of it. I remember playing Morrowind for the first and last time, and getting lost outside of the first town looking for something to do. Not a very engaging experience.
On the other end there are QTEs...

Actually you know what? I don't even mind that some games make you sit and watch cutscenes as long as they are enjoyable and engaging. QTEs piss me off though, because you sit there ignoring all of the cool stuff going on while waiting for the damn button prompts to show up.

 

[revolverjgw]

Fuckin lol at the essentialists. Why wouldn't you draw upon other media's strengths? It's not like digital games are some kind of lone-standing monolith that is independent of all others. It's an audiovisual medium. Of course digital games could be inspired by other media, like film or painting or photography or literature. Neglecting the potential is creatively barren. I don't even think any other medium is as needy to justify itself as digital games.

And people saying they don't want 'story' in their games, due to the fact that including them would 'implode' the industry, are just disillusioned. All the representative elements in a game has some sort of meaning. Why not elaborate and use that representative aspect to heighten the experience? Why not tell something if you're making a singleplayer game? Story adds to the experience. It's just too bad that most developers consider it an after-thought, rather than a primary pillar of their game.

NAILED IT

 

[Yasae]

Game reviewers put "linear" as a con when it is detrimental to the game mechanics (or the reviewer is an amateur with unrefined taste). The OP posted a really open question. Is it linear in terms of the narrative or concerning the game mechanics? Linear as in QTE or as cut-scenes?

I've given a bit of thought into it, but the terminology isn't specific, and apparent by this thread's lack of direction, it's really a futile argument when separated from a specific genre. Is Tetris supposed to be open-world or linear? Why does FPS "X" fail at linear narratives where Half-Life 2 succeeds? Why aren't there more diverse game mechanics as displayed in Deus Ex?

Given the generic use of the word, I'm thinking game reviewers stick with the term as a generic adjective for "I didn't have fun playing this game."

I would say so too. Linear as a con is a sign that a reviewer shouldn't be reviewing a game. You don't put down a con that faults a game because of its fundamentals. That's like reviewing sugar and declaring it's too sweet.

 

[Jerk]

Plus story linearity.

:lol

Goes without saying.

 

[disappeared]

That is the gist of it. I remember playing Morrowind for the first and last time, and getting lost outside of the first town looking for something to do. Not a very engaging experience.
On the other end there are QTEs...

Morrowind was great and awful for just that reason. It really made you feel like a nobody-come-somebody the more you played, but the overall direction (narrative) lacked any drive whatsoever. It's the reason I still haven't visited the northern area of the map yet...

Actually you know what? I don't even mind that some games make you sit and watch cutscenes as long as they are enjoyable and engaging. QTEs piss me off though, because you sit there ignoring all of the cool stuff going on while waiting for the damn button prompts to show up.

QTEs were neat when Shenmue and God of War did them, but these days they're a crutch used for speeding up boss battles that could otherwise be awesome fights. Cutscenes seem to be overused to a fault, though. Metal Gear Solid 4 absolutely killed any love I had for putting down the controller for a few minutes hours and watching a movie.

 

[Tain]

Fuckin lol at the essentialists. Why wouldn't you draw upon other media's strengths? It's not like digital games are some kind of lone-standing monolith that is independent of all others. It's an audiovisual medium. Of course digital games could be inspired by other media, like film or painting or photography or literature. Neglecting the potential is creatively barren. I don't even think any other medium is as needy to justify itself as digital games.

And people saying they don't want 'story' in their games, due to the fact that including them would 'implode' the industry, are just disillusioned. All the representative elements in a game has some sort of meaning. Why not elaborate and use that representative aspect to heighten the experience? Why not tell something if you're making a singleplayer game? Story adds to the experience. It's just too bad that most developers consider it an after-thought, rather than a primary pillar of their game.

I'm not sure what the first half of this is in response to. Is anybody arguing that games should somehow never draw inspiration from anything else?

 

[Yasae]

It all boils down to the fact that the medium is large enough for all kinds of games, only games that shouldnt exist are bad games. Linear, non-linear.. there´s room for all that, today they are basically genres (games labeled under "sandbox games"), a certain genre is not THE FUTURE AND EVOLUTION OF GAMING, its a new branch. Thats always welcome, but also keep the old stuff.

I would love to have you in some of the RE4 threads

Spoiler

or at least back playing TF2.

 

[Jomjom]

I don't know why, but to me it seems like only the west criticizes linearity. So maybe it's just a western preference for freedom in all aspects.

 

[faceless007]

Well, to start with a couple of obvious ones, Metal Gear Solid and Heavy Rain?

I haven't played it but I find it hard to believe more money was spent on writing the story of Heavy Rain than on programming and art and the engine and sound combined.

Are you confusing the cost of animating and rendering cut-scenes with story? Because that shit falls under tech and art. Writing and designing cut-scenes is story.

 

[Lime]

I'm not sure what the first half of this is in response to. Is anybody arguing that games should somehow never draw inspiration from anything else?

In this thread, there's this qoute:

Like all forms of 'art' videogames have their own positive aspects and for a videogame to truly make the most of the medium it needs to avoid relying on the same methods of other form of media.

And around 8 to 10 years ago, the academic discussion consisted of proponents who argued that remediating 'non-game' elements into a game is obtrusive or non-important to the experience. Stuff like this: "[representational elements] are just uninteresting ornaments or gift wrappings to games, and laying any emphasis on studying these kinds of marketing tools is just a waste of time and energy.” A discussion that was a waste of time.

 

[Kimosabae]

I don't know why, but to me it seems like only the west criticizes linearity. So maybe it's just a western preference for freedom in all aspects.

Check the last page. There's a guy named 'Kimosabae' who expressed just that!

 

[Vinci]

In this thread, there's this qoute:



And around 8 to 10 years ago, the academic discussion consisted of proponents who argued that remediating 'non-game' elements into a game is obtrusive or non-important to the experience. Stuff like this: "[representational elements] are just uninteresting ornaments or gift wrappings to games, and laying any emphasis on studying these kinds of marketing tools is just a waste of time and energy.” A discussion that was a waste of time.

You get that there's a difference between 'employing' and 'relying on,' yes? It's one thing for a medium to draw influence from another and employ some of that other medium's methods to improve itself - it's quite another to adopt those methods and rely on them to the detriment of its own unique qualities. Which, I believe, is what he was getting at. If I'm wrong, I'd love for clarification from him - but that reading of his quote seems more likely than yours.

 

[KevinCow]

I haven't played it but I find it hard to believe more money was spent on writing the story of Heavy Rain than on programming and art and the engine and sound combined.

Are you confusing the cost of animating and rendering cut-scenes with story? Because that shit falls under tech and art. Writing and designing cut-scenes is story.

Uh. Okay? It's still time and money and effort that was applied to telling the story rather than the actual game.

 

[Lime]

You get that there's a difference between 'employing' and 'relying on,' yes? It's one thing for a medium to draw influence from another and employ some of that other medium's methods to improve itself - it's quite another to adopt those methods and rely on them to the detriment of its own unique qualities. Which, I believe, is what he was getting at. If I'm wrong, I'd love for clarification from him - but that reading of his quote seems more likely than yours.

Of course. One have to distinguish between well-implemented uses of other media in digital games and those that are badly implemented. No doubt putting up 3000 words of introductory text to a game is a detriment to the experience. Same could be said of cutscenes. There are badly implemented uses (e.g. 20-30 minutes unskippable ones) and well-implemented (e.g. bookending the entire journey). But using the terms "employing" and "relying" just isn't very satisfactory in clearly defining that line between badly vs. well-executed remediations (neither are my description though).

I just interpreted his or her post as claiming any use of other media's properties 'in principle' should be avoided.

 

[Vinci]

Of course. One have to distinguish between well-implemented uses of other media in digital games and those that are badly implemented. No doubt putting up 3000 words of introductory text to a game is a detriment to the experience. Same could be said of cutscenes. There are badly implemented uses (e.g. 20-30 minutes unskippable ones) and well-implemented (e.g. bookending the entire journey). But using the terms "employing" and "relying" just isn't very satisfactory in clearly defining that line between badly vs. well-executed remediations (neither are my description though).

I just interpreted his or her post as claiming any use of other media's properties 'in principle' should be avoided.

I know, and your interpretation is fine in and of itself. I was just illustrating how I interpreted his comments. There are some people on this forum - and I'm mistaken as one occasionally - that are contrary to the reliance on story within a video game, but I don't believe there are really that many who are 100% against it. That doesn't seem realistic. Personally, I feel that taking storytelling techniques from other media and applying them to video games wholesale isn't exactly getting us anywhere, whereas creators attempting to marry story and game design more cohesively - in which the act of playing communicates the story rather than acts merely as a vehicle to the next plot point - are totally cool with me.

I guess we're just wrapping up his views in our own with the different interpretations, looks like.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

linear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandbox

in my taste, of course

You speak the truth.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I can agree, but the problem here is that a well crafted linear game can hide the linear nature of the environment (see: Half Life 2), whereas when a game purports to be "open" and "non-linear" then its that much more jarring when I run up against its boundaries.

HL2 doesn't really hide it well.

 

[The Technomancer]

HL2 doesn't really hide it well.

Maybe its just me then, but the way the game was paced I never really felt like I was running up against too many invisible/arbitrary boundaries.

 

[Haly]

With Half-Life 2, wherever you went had purpose. It felt like if the decision was up to you, you would choose to go this way.

Which is why despite being completely linear it didn't feel as such/

 

[Opiate]

There's nothing wrong with taking design from other mediums, nor is there anything wrong with enjoying that. Just as there is nothing wrong with enjoying the combination of cartoon drawing and writing we call "comic books."

But the distinguishing feature of games -- that is, distinct from other mediums games are compared to -- is their interactivity. None of the others share this feature. Linearity is inherently antithetical to interactivity: if the designer is deciding what will happen (i.e. narration or linear mechanics) then the player, by definition, is not.

At the end of the decade, or the end of century, when a "gaming cannon" begins to form, and historians begin to hold up the most influential and significant games of the last decade or century, then games which are peculiarly and uniquely games will most likely be those to ascend, just as has been the case in other mediums: most canonical novels make ample usage of internal monologues and narration, while most canonical plays have significantly more emphasis on physical behavior and wordplay (Despite the fact that we now read Shakespeare instead of watch him, this is very true of his plays). Those are the strengths of those mediums.

Similarly, the strength of games is the interactivity, so a champion of games from a long term view is likely to hold up something that emphasizes and exercises this particular strength.

However, that is, as I said, a long term view. On an immediate and more personal basis, if you happen to like movie/games, more power to you. I'm speaking much more broadly and much longer term.

 

[marathonfool]

When I think of non-linear games, I think of cut and paste missions, shallow gameplay, and rewarding meta-game bonuses. Not my cup of tea. I prefer the linear, beefy, and well designed levels with wiggle room to experiment.

Games like MGS, RE4, and Uncharted 2 exemplify those traits.

 

[The Technomancer]

When I think of non-linear games, I think of cut and paste missions, shallow gameplay, and rewarding meta-game bonuses. Not my cup of tea. I prefer the linear, beefy, and well designed levels with wiggle room to experiment.

Games like MGS, RE4, and Uncharted 2 exemplify those traits.

Mhm, I know where you're coming from. But I really enjoy games like Geneforge, where you have a very freeform approach as to how you complete the game, or Minecraft, which is the most literal sandbox I've ever seen. Non-linearity done well is a lot of fun.

 

[Kimosabae]

There's nothing wrong with taking design from other mediums, nor is there anything wrong with enjoying that. Just as there is nothing wrong with enjoying the combination of cartoon drawing and writing we call "comic books."

But the distinguishing feature of games -- that is, distinct from other mediums games are compared to -- is their interactivity. None of the others share this feature. Linearity is inherently antithetical to interactivity: if the designer is deciding what will happen (i.e. narration or linear mechanics) then the player, by definition, is not.

At the end of the decade, or the end of century, when a "gaming cannon" begins to form, and historians begin to hold up the most influential and significant games of the last decade or century, then games which are peculiarly and uniquely games will most likely be those to ascend, just as has been the case in other mediums: most canonical novels make ample usage of internal monologues and narration, while most canonical plays have significantly more emphasis on physical behavior and wordplay (Despite the fact that we now read Shakespeare instead of watch him, this is very true of his plays). Those are the strengths of those mediums.

Similarly, the strength of games is the interactivity, so a champion of games from a long term view is likely to hold up something that emphasizes and exercises this particular strength.

However, that is, as I said, a long term view. On an immediate and more personal basis, if you happen to like movie/games, more power to you. I'm speaking much more broadly and much longer term.

You may have just breathed new life into this thread.

How do you feel games will be viewed in the future once this consensus and focus on interactivity truly seeps in? Seems clear (to me) that video games currently suffer an identity crisis. I think the implication is strong that game design could essentially be seen as "art" through its ability to affect persons through interactivity.

Do you have a list of a few games that you believe will persist based into cannon based on the criteria you've described?

 

[Fredescu]

Linearity is inherently antithetical to interactivity: if the designer is deciding what will happen (i.e. narration or linear mechanics) then the player, by definition, is not.

Even the most linear of video games require player decision or it's not a video game. Any canon of video games will involve a broad look across all genres, not at whichever game allowed for the most amount of interactivity, if that's even quantifiable. A well made lightgun shooter has you interacting constantly, even if it's only to aim and shoot, and that's about the most linear game type possible.

I think the implication is strong that game design could essentially be seen as "art" through its ability to affect persons through interactivity.

That's a fairly common theory.

 

[Kimosabae]

Right. I was just being thorough with my articulation to avoid any ambiguity regarding where people's understanding lies and build to my request.

 

[NullPointer]

Linearity and non-linearity, choice and lack of it, are both tools that can be used or misused in gaming.

An example of a well done hybrid between the two would be something like Red Dead Redemption. Open world, but linear story driven missions for the most part. I can play it in a directed manner, or not depending upon my mood.

This thread also reminded me of some parts of Heavy Rain, where I was almost screaming at the game to give me another choice of actions. In those moments the restriction of choice brought the drama of the moment to levels I hadn't experienced before. Bioshock has moments like that as well.

In short, interaction and lack thereof can both be used to amazing effect. Its all how they're used that matters.

 

[Opiate]

Even the most linear of video games require player decision or it's not a video game.

If it wasn't implicit in my post, I'll explicate it here: we're talking greater and lesser degrees of interactivity, not absolute on/off. More linearity means less interactivity, and vice versa. As it is the distinguishing trait of this particular medium, I believe that we will find -- over time -- that historians will view especially interactive games as particularly and importantly game. My evidence for this belief is that this effect has been similarly noticable in other mediums (with the canonical works taking strong advantage of their respective medium's strengths). It isn't absolute, and there certainly can be exceptions, but as a general rule, I've noticed it across novels, movies, music, scultpure, and plays.

Any canon of video games will involve a broad look across all genres

Drawing upon my statement above, I'll use this example: comic books aren't completely incapable of internal monologue, but they're certainly far less capable of it than novels are. Therefore, for psychologically driven narrative, books are and should be considered a superior medium.

So just as there are important and clear differences amongst different types of written storytelling, I suspect the same will be true amongst game genres. Some are and will be considered more quintessentially games.

 

[faceless007]

Uh. Okay? It's still time and money and effort that was applied to telling the story rather than the actual game.

I don't dispute that. But what makes you think it consumed more than half the total budget? On any game?

 

[Fredescu]

If it wasn't implicit in my post, I'll explicate it here: we're talking greater and lesser degrees of interactivity, not absolute on/off. More linearity means less interactivity, and vice versa.

It's the latter sentence that I was disagreeing with, although I may not have made that clear. If a player of a light-gun shooter has multiple interactions per second, how can that be considered less interactive than any other game? There is less scope for interactivity, but interactions and player decisions are constantly and frequently occurring, more so than in something like Wii Sports, a game which would no doubt appear in some kind of history of video games study fifty years from now. The linearity of light-gun shooters doesn't prevent interaction at all. It merely offers a rule-set for that interaction to occur in.

Rhythm games are perhaps even more linear. They're basically fast paced games of simon says, but they could only possibly be video games.

I think what I'm saying is that a lower scope of interaction doesn't mean removing interactive quantity, and therefore it is not only those games with a greater scope of interaction that are quintessentially video games. Removing strategy or exploration elements completely does not make a video game any less a video game.

 

[AAK]

Meh, my favorite games this gen and previous gen are linear: Bayonetta, Shadow of the Colossus, Viewtiful Joe, Devil May Cry.

 

[Tain]

Sounds like we've turned "linearity" into "complexity" now!

 

[BobsRevenge]

Shadow of the Colossus is an open world game...

I mean, pretty much every story driven game has a linear story progression. Not sure where you draw the line with it.

 

[Fredescu]

edit: nm, misread

 

[shintoki]

Meh, my favorite games this gen and previous gen are linear: Bayonetta, Shadow of the Colossus, Viewtiful Joe, Devil May Cry.

One could argue, they have a linear set up, but aren't really linear titles. Bayonetta, DMC, VJ are more about experimentation and score attack. It's similar to how many reviewers don't understand shmups(Or many other old school titles anymore). Certain titles are linear in nature and if your goal is just to finish it then it will be. But many of those titles have very open gameplay with a lot of re playability.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

The problem stems from most games nowadays being 6 hours long. A linear game, provided it's a good length and is well made (such as Uncharted 2), won't receive the same criticism.

 

[CecilRousso]

HL2 doesn't really hide it well.

I felt this way to. Maybe it was because I was LTTP and only played it when I already had gotten Crysis, which I felt showed just how nonlinear a linear action game can seem to be. After that, HL2 just felt like a corridor shooter. Episode 2 however, did it much better.

 

[Boney]

Hey guys Other M is awesome.

All of you with dusty Wii's go get it.

 

[Kimosabae]

Hey guys Other M is awesome.

All of you with dusty Wii's go get it.

Nah.

 

[Unknown One]

Meh, my favorite games this gen and previous gen are linear: Bayonetta, Shadow of the Colossus, Viewtiful Joe, Devil May Cry.

Mine is one in each type.

linear: Uncharted series.
Sandbox: Infamous.

 

[Boney]

Nah.

It is. Just behind Super and Zero Mision.

 

[Prentice]

Linearity (by itself - with no explanation) being a criticism by some game reviewer shouldn't be considered a valid form of game design critique by anyone. Linear design can refer to a game's mechanics, systems, narrative, level design, etc. and each one of these things really depends on the context of the game.

It's the latter sentence that I was disagreeing with, although I may not have made that clear. If a player of a light-gun shooter has multiple interactions per second, how can that be considered less interactive than any other game?

It's just as interactive - it's just not meaningful interaction. There's no sense of player choice or agency (outside of shoot this guy, shoot that guy, I lived/died).

 

[M°°nblade]

Sounds like we've turned "linearity" into "complexity" now!

There’s a difference between linearity and complexity but they are connected. The fewer actions a player can take, the more likely the order in which the player takes actions is fixed.

 

[jman2050]

If it wasn't implicit in my post, I'll explicate it here: we're talking greater and lesser degrees of interactivity, not absolute on/off. More linearity means less interactivity, and vice versa. As it is the distinguishing trait of this particular medium, I believe that we will find -- over time -- that historians will view especially interactive games as particularly and importantly game. My evidence for this belief is that this effect has been similarly noticable in other mediums (with the canonical works taking strong advantage of their respective medium's strengths). It isn't absolute, and there certainly can be exceptions, but as a general rule, I've noticed it across novels, movies, music, scultpure, and plays.

I think we're already seeing this to a degree now. Regardless of whatever games are being made now, we are seeing that, for the most part, the games that are being considered as true landmarks of the medium are treated as such solely by how they mold the interactivity with the player. Super Mario Bros, Tetris, Donkey Kong, Pong, Space Invaders, Street Fighter II, Metroid, The Legend of Zelda, Sonic the Hedgehog, Mega Man, Doom, Half-Life, Sim City, Ultima, Pokemon, Halo, Wii Sports, The Sims, World of Warcraft, Starcraft, etc etc. Pretty much all those games and likely many of the ones I can't think of at the moment are given legendary status because of how well they function as an interactive medium, ancillary supporting elements be damned.

I mean, for example, Halo may have an engaging story and a universe which greatly compliments the game's structure to many people, but that's not going to be the reason it's going to be remembered 20 years from now. It's going to be remembered because it was the first successful application of mainstream online gaming on a console platform (I ignore MMOs in this context because they are a different beast altogether). That in contrast to something like Heavy Rain, which is going to be completely forgotten not even a decade from now because it has nothing to establish itself as a demonstration of the medium's strengths.

With all that said, this statement: "More linearity means less interactivity, and vice versa." you're going to have to qualify further because, as written, I completely and totally disagree with it.

It's just as interactive - it's just not meaningful interaction. There's no sense of player choice or agency (outside of shoot this guy, shoot that guy, I lived/died).

Interaction isn't a function of "choice" or "how much control". That's a complete misunderstanding of what's actually happening when someone "plays" a game. The fundamental nature of any game, whether a "video" game or otherwise, is completing a given task given a set of specific rules. A good set of rules will include, among other things, a provision for decision-making by the player himself, but said decision-making doesn't have to be wide in scope to do its job. In Super Mario Bros, decision-making is basically "you can move left or right, hold B to run, hold A to jump, and it's up to you to decide how to apply these rules to reach the end of the level". You'd have a hard time convincing me that that's not "meaningful interaction".

 

[Blutonium]

Everytime a sandbox game gets announced it'll get hyped into oblivion, but once it's released nobody remembers it 2 months later. Atleast that's how I experience it. These games are fun while it lasts but once you've completed the story mode they become boring as shit. Except if you like playing pool or liars dice...


I'm done with sandbox games, they disappoint me every time.

 

[Gravijah]

Everytime a sandbox game gets announced it'll get hyped into oblivion, but once it's released nobody remembers it 2 months later. Atleast that's how I experience it. These games are fun while it lasts but once you've completed the story mode they become boring as shit. Except if you like playing pool or liars dice...


I'm done with sandbox games, they disappoint me every time.

So you enjoy sandbox games, yet you're done with them?

 

[Blutonium]

So you enjoy sandbox games, yet you're done with them?

Yeah, I enjoyed the story mode of Red Dead, GTA, Crackdown, Burnout Paradise (etc) but once I finished those games, they started gathering dust in the corner. I can't believe I wasted so many hours jumping on the hype-train here on GAF looking for screenshots and videos of these games, waiting for them to be released.


Then I get the games, finish them in 40 hours or so, and they've never been played after that.

 

[DeadTrees]

games which are peculiarly and uniquely games will most likely be those to ascend, just as has been the case in other mediums

Eh. "Electrocuting an Elephant" is an valid example of a movie that is "peculiarly and uniquely" a movie. So is Manos: The Hands of Fate. So is swap.avi. You couldn't do those in any other media, amirite?

As far as gaming goes, when you look at the thousands and thousands of games over the decades that were "peculiarly and uniquely games" and were forgotten anyway...where's the correlation?

My evidence for this belief is that this effect has been similarly noticable in other mediums (with the canonical works taking strong advantage of their respective medium's strengths). It isn't absolute, and there certainly can be exceptions, but as a general rule, I've noticed it across novels, movies, music, scultpure, and plays.

Movies? Really? Moviemaking has evolved to the point where the overwhelming majority of movies in the world are conceived as, and appreciated as...reproducable performances of plays. Take any random movie review from Ebert or whomever, and see how many of the observations could just as well have been made of a play. You have The 100 Greatest Movie Quotes and The 100 Greatest Characters, but strangely no one's come up with The 100 Greatest Crossfades or The 100 Greatest Pans.

In Super Mario Bros, decision-making is basically "you can move left or right, hold B to run, hold A to jump, and it's up to you to decide how to apply these rules to reach the end of the level". You'd have a hard time convincing me that that's not "meaningful interaction".

I've had more meaningful interaction vacuuming my car. It was really fun twenty-four-ish years ago, though.

 

[Fredescu]

It's just as interactive - it's just not meaningful interaction. There's no sense of player choice or agency (outside of shoot this guy, shoot that guy, I lived/died).

And? I'm not making a value judgement on those game types. I'm arguing that their linearity is function of their nature as a video game, that their categorization of and importance as a video game is not diminished by it.

 

[Margalis]

And people saying they don't want 'story' in their games, due to the fact that including them would 'implode' the industry, are just disillusioned. All the representative elements in a game has some sort of meaning. Why not elaborate and use that representative aspect to heighten the experience? Why not tell something if you're making a singleplayer game? Story adds to the experience. It's just too bad that most developers consider it an after-thought, rather than a primary pillar of their game.

The story of Tetris moved me to tears, the way the tall skinny block sidled right up to the short fat square block really warmed my heart.

The problem with 99% of discussion about story in games is that for whatever reason most people refuse to acknowledge that "video games" span a very wide range of things, from digital versions of traditional simple rules-based games to barely-interactive stories.

When you accept that a video game can be anything from a sound novel to a digital version of Catan any pronouncements about the importance of story stop making sense.

 

[Margalis]

"Replay value" basically for some silly reason means "bunch of random crap added into the game to keep you from truly 'finishing' it even after you've seen the credits"

This rather then just being fun enough to want to play again.

Thank you.

I always chuckle when a game gets high marks for "replay value" when most people don't play through once let alone replay. I would bet that there is a pretty significant overlap between games lauded for high replay value and games that most people don't finish at all. RDR being a good recent example.

Games are about a player's perceived control. Games that don't offer enough options make players feel less like an interactive experience, a game and more like a passive experience, a movie.

In the times of the NES and arcades I never heard anybody say "I don't know, I don't feel like I'm really shooting down endless hordes of marching space aliens, it just feels like I'm watching TV." And in Space Invaders your options are move left, move right and shoot. How many options do you have in Connect 4 or Backgammon or Pac-Man? Not a hell of a lot. Yet those types of games feel very interactive and immediate.

I don't think number of options has anything to do with anything.