next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

i think it's fair to say that a game that tricks players into thinking they're doing well when it's actually the ai is cynical, yes (or more precisely: deceptive). i just meant that i don't think very easy games in general are deceptive. i can also sort of get the idea that you shouldn't give fireworks and big multicolored CONGRATULATIONS messages to people who didn't do anything particularly challenging or notable, because it's rewarding very little skill. but provided a casual or easy game isn't misleading in that way, or doesn't feel like it's rewarding the player for a complete absence of skill, i think it's fine (unlike icycalm, who believes that easy games *per se* are bad games).

it also depends on the genre of game. with jrpgs i don't particularly care much about difficulty, because that isn't their point. it doesn't make a jrpg more fun if you die and have to go through a dungeon over and over before you can get past it, whereas it does make a platformer more fun to have a high challenge level. but with jrpgs i'm more occupied with the story and imagining and interacting with the world than with overcoming challenges.

but anyway, thanks for the explanation, that does makes sense. i thought you meant that games which are extremely easy are themselves cynical per se, rather than simply games which are *deceptive* about how easy they are. i do agree that games shouldn't lie to the player about their mechanics, but a lot of even hardcore games do that. for instance, in the latter metal gear solid games, bosses become slightly easier each time you fail to beat them (this ensures that the player can get through the game eventually if they keep trying). i think in games where the content matters more than the mechanics, and where the particular challenges of a game can get in the way of seeing all the content, it's acceptable to either allow the player to skip individual challenges or to aid the player (but i'd prefer that aid be open rather than secret).

[P Diddy]

in the latter metal gear solid games, bosses become slightly easier each time you fail to beat them (this ensures that the player can get through the game eventually if they keep trying).

It's too bad many gamers don't talk enough about this aspect of MGS. Because some people might not know.

[mirosurabu]

Also, as an aside: I've never really understood why the people who want games to be "interactive art experiences" hate challenge and complexity so much. I think if you're going to make an immersive and atmospheric game, challenge and complexity done the right way can help enhance the "experience" rather than detract from it (The Void and Demon's Souls are recent examples of this). I've never found any Tale of Tales game particularly immersive  because of their minimal interactivity.

When I want purely immersive experience I want as little forced challenge as possible. Challenge is fine, but it should be optional. When you play GTA in sandbox mode (when you don't do missions), there is minimal forced challenge (driving a car), but if you want relaxed experience, you can set your own challenges (which you do for fantasy reasons, so these are not real challenges) or you can do side-challenges (such as stunt challenges) if you want to test your skills. Being able to choose between fantasy play and serious play helps immersion a lot.

The Sims 3 is like that. Sims now have desires, so if you want some form of real challenge you can try to please them, but if you want fantasy role-play you can do that too.

Demon's Souls has great atmosphere but it comes with forced challenge at the very start of the game (which disappears once you talk to the monumental, but still). It's very punishing and if you suck at first level you are more likely to be annoyed than immersed.

So, it's not the same type of immersive experience. Immersion has more to do with role-playing I think. Demon's Souls is less about that, more about discovery.

[jwk5]

Good for you, do you want a cookie? Tell me something I don't know.

You know, at some points you almost seem like you are capable of taking part in a discussion maturely and though I don't usually agree with you I can at least respect your opinion when you present them reasonably. Then you have to turn right around and act like a complete tool the moment your opinion gets challenged. That really isn't necessary.

Anyways, my point was that you can't attach an "ideally, everyone would be..." type scenario to video games because when it comes to video games the ideals are pretty divided. So what might be ideal for you is not ideal for the next guy. I agree it would be cool to play in a virtual reality type setting (where the game is based around you and your real world physical abilities) but I don't think there is anything wrong with acting merely as a guiding force in another character's story either (which is pretty much the case with players in video games currently).

As with IcyCalm, or some of the louder voices in the whole "art game" scene, it is really unfair to say "a person who enjoys X kind of game is Y kind of person" because in reality people don't easily fall into those kinds of generalizations. Yeah, some do, but most people draw from a wide range of influences and realistically most people are not that invested into the notion of video games as part of a way of life. Most people who play them do so off and on between dealing with work, life, etc. To them video games are just entertainment, like movies and TV.

Most of the people trying to validate video games as being this or that are not actually trying to validate video games, they are trying to validate themselves. If I like video games, and video games are important, then I am part of something important. To be fair, it is like that with music, movies, etc. too (just look at the comments on virtually any YouTube clip for examples of that). Sometimes to really see something you need to step back from it and look at it for what it is. See the forest for the trees.

Video games are awesome, I love playing them and I love making them (and I also love being apart of communities like this and discussing them) but I don't think they are worth all the viciousness and desperate attempts at validation that people keep using them for.

[P Diddy]

Anyways, my point was that you can't attach an "ideally, everyone would be..." type scenario to video games because when it comes to video games the ideals are pretty divided.

When I said "in a perfect world" don't take it literally as in "everyone should be forced to be the same", I meant it in a way where everyone agrees together with blues skies and pink bunnies. I've been patronized many times about my love for videogames. And all I heard for years was "videogames are bad for you - go outside" even if I always played outside, so I didn't think that I would actually get such a lecture from a "videogame" forum.


edit: all my opinions get accepted on Neogaf, I come here and wammo, I'm an alien. This community is indeed "special".

[C.A. Silbereisen]

and where the particular challenges of a game can get in the way of seeing all the content, it's acceptable to either allow the player to skip individual challenges or to aid the player (but i'd prefer that aid be open rather than secret).

I've never really understood why you'd want to make a content-based game as cripplingly linear as MGS or some of those newer JRPGs that don't have world maps and replace towns with menus. I mean, the whole idea of making a content-based game is that the player gets to see and discover the content at their own pace, but in a lot of those types of games, that isn't really the case. It's just about doing a bunch of boring, often trivial shit so you can see the next cutscene. If the gameplay/interaction isn't good and adds nothing to the experience, why not just remove it?

This doesn't apply to games where the stuff you have to do between the cutscenes/story sequences is actually good and the story is used as a reward. Final Fantasy Tactics and Professor Layton come to mind.

[Dustin Smith]

pdiddy, dawg, i was referring to the fact that you put LegionOfJohn's love of videogames into question. he's posting in this thread, for allah's sake.

[jwk5]

When I said "in a perfect world" don't take it literally as in "everyone should be forced to be the same", I meant it in a way where everyone agrees together with blues skies and pink bunnies. I've been patronized many times about my love for videogames. And all I heard for years was "videogames are bad for you - go outside" even if I always played outside, so I didn't think that I would actually get such a lecture from a "videogame" forum.

What lecture? I never said games were bad in the sense you shouldn't be playing them, I just said in a "perfect world" people probably wouldn't be playing video games. They probably wouldn't be watching TV, eating chocolate, dying from cancer, etc. either. I probably wouldn't be drinking energy drinks like they were my lifeblood.

Anyways, people will patronize just about anyone over virtually anything, especially if it is something their victim enjoys the most. That is just the nature of an asshole ("I'm not happy until you're not happy!") so don't let it get to you.

EDIT: For the record, I don't think your tastes in games or ideals about what a game should be like (or even IcyCalm's for that matter) are wrong. Everyone has a "a good game should have..." mindset to some degree. It is just that because everyone has that mindset I don't think you're going to get far making any assumptions like "mine is better than yours!" Which is aslo the only real qualm I have with IcyCalm, aside from the fact he shows such little respect for most people (at least on the internet) that he really only deserves that in return (at least on the internet).

[P Diddy]

When I said "in a perfect world" don't take it literally as in "everyone should be forced to be the same", I meant it in a way where everyone agrees together with blues skies and pink bunnies. I've been patronized many times about my love for videogames. And all I heard for years was "videogames are bad for you - go outside" even if I always played outside, so I didn't think that I would actually get such a lecture from a "videogame" forum.

What lecture? I never said games were bad in the sense you shouldn't be playing them, I just said in a "perfect world" people probably wouldn't be playing video games. They probably wouldn't be watching TV, eating chocolate, dying from cancer, etc. either. I probably wouldn't be drinking energy drinks like they were my lifeblood.

Anyways, people will patronize just about anyone over virtually anything, especially if it is something their victim enjoys the most. That is just the nature of an asshole ("I'm not happy until you're not happy!") so don't let it get to you.

Fair enough,

...but in a perfect world, I want to be playing videogames also.

EDIT: I don't think you're going to get far making any assumptions like "mine is better than yours!"

But I was asked by Paul about my opinion, why not leave it at that. It was aimed at him because he was genuinely curious. I didn't force this idea on anyone.

[jwk5]

Fair enough,

...but in a perfect world, I want to be playing videogames also.

That is a perfect world I can live with. I'll bring the energy drinks and soda.

P.S. When you get done throwing stones with everyone in this thread (don't worry, you're not the only one doing it) you should really take a look at some of the other forums on TIGS (especially the Creative>Design). When you're being civil you've got a pretty level head on your shoulders and there are plenty of places here for you to discuss ideas on game creations or actually help people making games here improve them. I mean If you love video games why not take part in making them?

[RobF]

It concerned JoyRide. What I meant was that the concept of making a car auto-steer without having the player know about it is a very cynical form of game design.

Whilst it's abundantly clear that the implementation of the autosteer leaves a lot to be desired (and I have a rough idea of how it ended up so munged but that's purely speculation so probably not worth posting right now), as I said earlier you're assuming something that's not the case when you call it cynical.

Accessible game design has -nothing- to do with assuming anything about the intelligence of the player and everything to do with removing as many barriers as possible. It's not about intelligence, it's about physical ability to play. It's an important distinction and whether you like it or not, something that's deservedly going to be increasingly prominent in design.

Now before you go shitting your pants again that it's going to come and take your precious games away from you or dumb them down, I'm going to put this rather bluntly:

THAT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN. It is in no-ones interests for this to happen.

The mission statement for Bigpark. This is important, so pay attention.

To expand gaming audiences around the world and bring them together through accessible and highly entertaining interactive experiences.

So, unless in the next two weeks, Bigpark are going to do an about face and start writing Gears Of Fisting VII: The Space Marining Of Death, your precious loves will be safe from whatever disturbing influence you believe accessibility to be.

Now, if you downloaded Ikaruga from XBLA right this very second and it started autosteering your space ship when you sat down, then you'd probably look a bit befuddled. That Joyride is designed as a casual experience for complete non gamers, something they just wave their arms at a bit - it doesn't matter if at any point it starts autosteering *more* than it already does. More being an important qualifier here. You're still being moved through the level regardless, it just increases the amount of autosteer.

As I said, it's not the best implementation and there's likely reasons how it's ended up a bit shonkier than it should be, but it. is. not. a. threat.

It's an orange to your apple. Or whatever bizarre-o comparison you want to bring into the discussion.

What you will see, increasingly, and thank fuck for this because it's bloody important, is access features being used more and more. Access isn't about dumbing things down, it's about choice. And what does choice make? Options.

True fact #1. I have a game I've wrote that lets you pretty much deconstruct my entire design. You can turn on autofire, you can drop the FPS, you can reduce the waves to nothing and probably some more stuff I've forgotten about.

True fact #2: People who generally don't want or need to use these features in order to have an enjoyable game don't use them.

True fact #3: No-one dies by their presence.

True fact #4: More people get to play my game. I like that bit.

True fact #5: It still kicks peoples asses. They just get to choose what level their asses get kicked at.

True fact #6@ It has laser beams. BOOM!

It's important that in my game, they're options. Because my mission statement is not Bigpark's, yeah? The same as it'd be important if we're talking Super Shooty Enbanganing.

It's not important when your game is aimed, built and designed at complete, utter and total non gamers as something for them to just wave their arms at. Like Joyride.

Trying to pretend that for what Joyride is, the autosteer thing is important is to misjudge the entire intention of the project and to judge it as something it's not.

There's no streams crossed, Venkman.

But the important bit that bears repeating. Accessibility is not about judging intelligence. Intelligence does not come into it.

It's insulting to have the player be fooled into thinking they won 1st place when in fact they didn't do anything (yes sometimes auto-steer gives you 1st place). When a player doesn't move but yet the car turns drastically, it pretty much signals that the game designer was very cynical about the intelligence of the user. It's like they expected their audience to be less then what they could be.

It's not a game about winning. It's a game about waving your arms around and having a laugh. It's not Gran Turismo. It doesn't matter. What matters is that someone gets to stand in front of Kinect, wave their arms around and have a laugh. That's all.

It's like when Scott Adams said "You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public."

I preferred the other Scott Adams who said "Bite Lip. Lift Dome. Take Gem"

Imagine if you bought this game for your mother, wouldn't you want to tell her that she's being fooled if she's sitting down? Because if you knew, I'm sure you would eventually tell her that she wasn't actually getting better at the game, that she was in truth just sitting down. And I'm sure you can imagine that her reaction will never ever be "wow that's great".

Man, I suppose you tell kids that Santa isn't real too? Come on!

So if wiser gamers/ex-gamers support this idea, then they are being cynical in there vision of where interactive media should go.

I totally support and advocate accessibility in gaming. I've near fallen off a chair telling other developers to get their arses into gear about it. I've ran competitions specifically to create more accessible games and seen Star Wars, Xain D'Sleena and more opened up to a wider audience and done so in a way you, as a normal player would never know or need to know about . I know the difference it can make and how it does not effect you or your games but it opens up previously unplayable games to a wider audience of people.

If that's a cynical view of where interactive media should go, a scenario where everyone comes away happy, I'll be that cynic. Any time.

Devs will make mistakes with it, you will get daft implementations of access practices, sometimes slight, sometimes enough to make you facepalm your fod but it's helping make the future of gaming better not worse.

And to reiterate one last time. Your preciousses will remain so and they will remain safe. This is adding, not taking away.

[jwk5]

Anyways, people will patronize just about anyone over virtually anything,

so don't let it get to you.

[P Diddy]

When you're being civil you've got a pretty level head on your shoulders

ya sometimes I give-up being civil because sometimes I feel nobody cared about what I had to say.

All I did was bring up the fundamentals of design between form and function. I never thought that such information would be described as "garbage" (true story - way back in the thread)

[jwk5]

When you're being civil you've got a pretty level head on your shoulders

ya I sometimes I give-up being civil because sometimes I feel nobody cared about what I had to say.

All I did was bring up the fundamentals of design between form and function. I never thought that such information would be described as "garbage".

The problem is only really made your entrance into these forums through this thread, which for the most part is a hotbed of petty arguments, name calling, side-taking, etc. and while there is some pretty interesting discussions to be found throughout this topic most of it immediately gets swallowed up by petty bullshit within 3 or 4 posts.

I suggest stepping out of this thread and browse around the forums a bit find some interesting topics to post in. Give yourself time to get to know the community and vice versa. Most of the shit going on here will cool down once enough people get bored of it and whatever grudges are currently being held will most likely be forgotten (I'm holding no grudges, at least). Also understand that most of us here disagree with each other (I make a hobby of disagreeing with Paul Eres) so don't feel that if you say something contrary it immediately means you're a pariah.

Regardless of what reasons brought you here and made you decide to join these forums the fact of the matter is you did, and you're here, so go find a comfortable seat and sit down and relax and talk game. Welcome to TIGS, my friend.

[P Diddy]

And to reiterate one last time. Your preciousses will remain so and they will remain safe. This is adding, not taking away.

I never said that all my favorite kind of games would stop being made. I actually said and I quote:

Don't get me wrong, things will probably pick-up, but we have to recognize the problems if we want things to get "better".

[Dustin Smith]

jwk5 is certainly more of a gentleman than most people in this thread. It sort of brings the asshole out in everybody (me included) involved. The original topic is long dead, maybe we could make threads in Design on any topics we'd want to continue discussing. For me at least there's a stigma in engaging discourse in here.

i'm not digging the negative vibe, maaaan

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

^^ what jwk5 said

[jwk5]

jwk5 is certainly more of a gentleman than most people in this thread. It sort of brings the asshole out in everybody (me included) involved. The original topic is long dead, maybe we could make threads in Design on any topics we'd want to continue discussing. For me at least there's a stigma in engaging discourse in here.

i'm not digging the negative vibe, maaaan

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

^^ what jwk5 said

My inner asshole is expressed in drawings.










...which is why I will never be allowed into Chuck E. Cheese's again.

Oh, and sometimes I post like a jerk or make smartass drawings, it happens. Nobody's perfect.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

I've never really understood why you'd want to make a content-based game as cripplingly linear as MGS or some of those newer JRPGs that don't have world maps and replace towns with menus. I mean, the whole idea of making a content-based game is that the player gets to see and discover the content at their own pace, but in a lot of those types of games, that isn't really the case. It's just about doing a bunch of boring, often trivial shit so you can see the next cutscene. If the gameplay/interaction isn't good and adds nothing to the experience, why not just remove it?

This doesn't apply to games where the stuff you have to do between the cutscenes/story sequences is actually good and the story is used as a reward. Final Fantasy Tactics and Professor Layton come to mind.

there are visual novels. and whether the story of metal gear solid or jrpg game x is good or bad depends on the audience. i found the stories of the metal gear solid games to be pretty good, and a lot of jrpgs too. they're not great literature, but they're often entertaining enough, at least on the level of stephen king or harry potter and such, or even children's cartoons. stories don't have to be masterpieces for them to be enjoyable: episodes voltron or he-man and she-ra are often entertaining to watch even though they aren't great literature, stories in games are often similar.

the reason linearity tends to be used is that it's more difficult (or takes more work) to tell a story non-linearly. a lot of people try it, and it's often not as powerful as just telling someone a story. but it depends on the type of story. immortal defense for instance has a story that could not have been told non-linearly, whereas saturated dreamers has a story that can be told non-linearly (so i'm telling it that way). it's all in how the story is structured, and how important the sequencing is.

[P Diddy]

When you're being civil you've got a pretty level head on your shoulders

ya I sometimes I give-up being civil because sometimes I feel nobody cared about what I had to say.

All I did was bring up the fundamentals of design between form and function. I never thought that such information would be described as "garbage".

The problem is only really made your entrance into these forums through this thread, which for the most part is a hotbed of petty arguments, name calling, side-taking, etc. and while there is some pretty interesting discussions to be found throughout this topic most of it immediately gets swallowed up by petty bullshit within 3 or 4 posts.

I started by poking at Icycalm for making mistakes in how he spells important movies, assumed he was gay, I went all out, and me and RobF were actually on the same side. This thread is a hotbed of negative energy, it's a true testament of the infective effects this topic brings about.

But there was a part of me that made me feel like I was throwing away the baby with the bath water. I read more of Icycalm's work, and he reminds me of people I used to be friends with (I already knew a ton about the guy and his site, but I didn't read all his articles). So I would then say something that was in agreement with the guy, and then I became the bad guy or something.

So imagine what happened when I used the word "amateurs" to describe the majority of the indies... I think you were there.

[jwk5]

I've never really understood why you'd want to make a content-based game as cripplingly linear as MGS or some of those newer JRPGs that don't have world maps and replace towns with menus. I mean, the whole idea of making a content-based game is that the player gets to see and discover the content at their own pace, but in a lot of those types of games, that isn't really the case. It's just about doing a bunch of boring, often trivial shit so you can see the next cutscene. If the gameplay/interaction isn't good and adds nothing to the experience, why not just remove it?

This doesn't apply to games where the stuff you have to do between the cutscenes/story sequences is actually good and the story is used as a reward. Final Fantasy Tactics and Professor Layton come to mind.

MGS4 was just a bit too long winded for my tastes, but I loved it (I have the same kind of love/hate relationship with Xenosaga). I love all the MGS games but like any game I have to be in the mood for them. Sometimes I am in the mood for a game that is all action, sometimes a quick little casual/puzzle fix, sometimes I am in the MGS/RPG mood where I want lots of story and a slower pace, etc. Sometimes I don't even want that much interaction going on I am just in pseudo-movie mode, games like in Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain hit the spot when I am in those moods.

the reason linearity tends to be used is that it's more difficult (or takes more work) to tell a story non-linearly. a lot of people try it, and it's often not as powerful as just telling someone a story. but it depends on the type of story. immortal defense for instance has a story that could not have been told non-linearly, whereas saturated dreamers has a story that can be told non-linearly (so i'm telling it that way). it's all in how the story is structured, and how important the sequencing is.

I definitely agree with you there. For all the fuss being made over how games should be non-linear a lot of times I am more partial to the linear games. I don't think every game needs to be a choose-you-own-adventure, discovering where a path laid out before you goes can be just as compelling as choosing your own paths. Dragon Quest 8, despite having its overworld, was really linear but at the same time kept that linear path so damn interesting I couldn't put the controller down.

Speaking of Immortal Defense, I've never actually played your game. I should really do that one of these days...

I started by poking at Icycalm for making mistakes in how he spells important movies, assumed he was gay, I went all out, and me and RobF were actually on the same side. This thread is a hotbed of negative energy, it's a true testament of the infective effects this topic brings about.

But there was a part of me that made me feel like I was throwing away the baby with the bath water. I read more of Icycalm's work, and he reminds me of people I used to be friends with (I already knew a ton about the guy and his site, but I didn't read all his articles). So I would then say something that was in agreement with the guy, and then I became the bad guy or something.

So imagine what happened when I used the word "amateurs" to describe the majority of the indies... I think you were there.

You'll note that the majority of my contributions to this thread are just random drawings poking fun at the thread itself (or taking statements out of context and trying to imagine what they'd mean literally). So maybe I am not really the best person to give advice on how to approach this topic lol. However, when things get heated it is hard to tell what means what so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

If it looks like your opinions are being devoured by the chaos or are being taken the wrong way here try thinking clearly about what it is you want to discuss and post it in one of the other appropriate forums (for example, if it is about the relative quality of indie games try posting a topic about it in the "Indie Games" forum).

You're not always going to get polite responses, unfortunately, and responses you give won't always be polite (you're a human being and you're entitled to getting angry too) but generally the more politely you can put it (keeping in mind this is a forum full of independent and amateur game makers) the more likely it is that you will be getting polite responses back.