next »

[Gimym TILBERT]

This is the source, it's debatable but it serve as a good starting point and convincingly put.

[Dragonmaw]

tip: you can shrink images by putting width= and height= in the img tag.

for example, [ img width=640 height=480 ] will constrain an image to 640x480 dimensions.

[Samtagonist]

Oh, Derek said something I'd like to reply to.  I guess it can wait until morning, I'll just wait until morning a-

THREAD IS TEN PAGES LONGER
REACTION IMAGES
HURR DURR ICY IS SUCH A TROLL
SEMANTICS
NO YOURE AN IDIOT
NO YOURE AN IDIOT
SEMANTICS
ICY IS SUCH A TROLL AM I RIGHT GUYS

edit: Oh shit, dog, is that some Tales of Tales? 

[Gimym TILBERT]

@dragonmaw
Thanks!

[Dustin Smith]

Ashford, you forgot me posting socrates quotes in attic greek.

This thread is a superthread about everything. I won't be surprised if we're swapping homemade pizza recipes before the pagecount hits 50.

mmmhmm, pizza

[Samtagonist]

Ashford, you forgot me posting socrates quotes in attic greek.

This thread is a superthread about everything. I won't be surprised if we're swapping homemade pizza recipes before the pagecount hits 50.

I really thought it'd be dead after Gilbert dropped the 'icyqualm' bomb.

[PGGB]

Icygate 2011, never forget.

[substance]

The thing I hate, and the reason why I said I wish you had read what was linked before posting, is quoting Wikipedia. I absolutely detest quoting Wikipedia.

Come on, sometimes the retarded amalgamation of sentences that end up there are too funny not to quote.

Anyway dude, my main contention was that you were trying to imply that I did not read the link. I did skim it, a long time ago. Let's just call it a misunderstanding and move on. I don't think this thread has any room left for an in-depth discussion of semiotics.

I have not cut apart your posts except according to the divisions you have already given them (via quotations), and have responded to them in full context. This is far more than I can say about your responses here.

Hmmm, well, I wouldn't mind you cutting up my sentences as long as it doesn't modify what I'm trying to communicate. There is no value in quoting a post verbatim, you could just link to it. That's the reason why I cut up other people's posts, because there's discrete ideas in there that need addressing, or examples, et cetera. When it's impossible to dice up a large segment, I include the whole thing. Even if I wanted to do otherwise, old habits die hard, so please grant me the benefit of the doubt.

As an example, observe how useful it is to reply to this quote on its own:

Also, I don't know what thread of Anarkex's you are referring to. Link?

I think it's this one: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=14524.0. I could be mistaken. And yes, I discovered this forum through that thread, etc.

[Dragonmaw]

Given that I am accustomed to apportioning my concepts, ideas, and/or themes according to paragraphs, I would certainly appreciate it if you quote the whole post and divide according to the concepts presented. This is what I do, since it provides the full context to posts and makes one appear less of a pedantic reductionist.

If this was not your intent, I apologize, but keep in mind that approaching posts in a particular way definitely gives off certain vibes. Reacting to an argument by reducing it to individual sentences is usually the purvey of trolls and people seeking to remove the correct contexts. You can be just as vitriolic, but responding to a post by either quoting the entire post or by addressing it according to paragraph(s) makes you look better and gives more credence to your discussion.

You can't convince me that cherry-picking sentences and fragments from my posts is beneficial to the context and meaning of a discussion. It isn't.

Oh, and that last sentence was in a paragraph all its own, so you are actually quoting according to the lines I suggested: by paragraph

[Breadcultist]

@Dragonmaw
I'm talking about games, not music.

Didn't you see why I mentioned survival horror? Yes, it doesn't fit into the my scheme. I mentioned it to dismiss it as a 'real' genre. It's just Capcom's silly marketing term. Along with 'stylish hard action', another fake genre they made up to describe Devil May Cry. Thank fuck that one didn't catch on!

Resident Evil 4 and Dead Space are... 3rd person shooters.

@Paul
I'll reply to your second paragraph before the first.

Yep, puzzle is category that's not a genre. Icy said that, but now I'm not sure that he actually said it was a 'miscellaneous' category. Someone else on insomnia.ac did. But that's what I'm saying. Or, what I'll say is what we might as well use the term for.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2814
 
Alternatively:

there exist four major categories of videogames: Action, Strategy, Puzzle, and RPG. Those are the four fundamental categories of videogames possible, and they will never change. A fifth one will never be "discovered". All genres will always fit right inside those categories, or somewhere between them.

Here's what I understand from this.
Action involves pressing the right button at the right time (i.e. the reflex requirement). Or pressing the analogue stick at the right angle for the right length of time, or enduring a butting mashing segment. Physical stuff.
RPG involves taking on the role of a character (seems like a bit of an odd-one-out here. Is this a mechanical or thematic label? Let's ignore it since it's not relevant).
Strategy is figuring out the right sequence of actions, planning ahead to achieve some goal.
Puzzle is, I think, sort of like strategy, but solving problems with a more exact, definite answer.

Strategy involves tweaking many wide ranging variables (e.g. How many tanks does it take to win a battle in a RTS? The correct answer isn't an exact number, unless there's some cheap tactic that broke the game. The answer is whatever is part of a good overall strategy, and it'll depend on what other units you'll pick, how much resource gathering you'll do, what decisions the opponent is making...). Puzzles are simpler, involving fewer options, and having fewer paths to the solution. Within this category, there happen to be lots of 'misfits'.

For distilling game categories in this way, I'd mash together puzzle and strategy, put them up against action, and throw out RPG. All game challenges are now divided into the puzzle (mental) and action (physical). Defined so no 3rd option exists. And this leads me nicely on to...

The adventure game genre.

In terms of the two (or Icy's 4, as far as I can see) categories, it clearly fits under Puzzle. No requirement of You move through the game solving puzzle (the simpler, less flexible kind) after puzzle, with a bit of exploring in between (the exploration itself sometimes being a puzzle). Now my job is to explain what distinguishes them from other puzzle games like Braid or Sokoban or DROD (play this if you like pure puzzle games btw). Inventories aren't it. You can just have puzzles based on dealing with fixed objects that are stuck in the environment. Or word puzzles. Or character-interaction puzzles.

First I wanted to say exploration. Ain't that a mechanic? The act of moving from place to place, to find stuff (like new places), is a kind of puzzle. But it's not unique enough. Braid, DROD, and Sokobon have the player move forward to new places...

I think there are common structural features. Adventure games tend to be set in a world of connected areas that you're free to explore, to go back and forth at least. But not always.

Okay, I think I have it: adventure puzzles tend to introduce new unique elements, often things somewhat familiar from real life. Everyday appliances and tools. They're involved in puzzles that call upon the player to apply their real world-derived common sense.  Sokoban, Braid, DROD tend to reuse the same few elements many times, in many combinations and arrangements, exhaustively. Adventure game elements (inventory items or just things in the game world) tend to lend themselves to less flexibility and reuse. They tend to be more pre-fabricated in their usage. As opposed to the more explicable-by-internal-rules nature of a Sokoban crate or DROD roach.

Now, these descriptions are matters of degree, not binary choices. Best I can do right now. The description seems to fits graphical adventures and text adventures. Myst is just an old style graphical, point-and-click adventure, viewed in first person, right? I only played Riven. All about individual puzzles and exploration. And it tells you why DROD is at least less of an adventure game.

[I hope C.A. replied to me, since that strand of the thread was more on topic... was]
[Will check out the other strands too...]

[allen]

[Samtagonist]

And yes, I discovered this forum through that thread, etc.

Jesus Christ, that travesty of a thread made it off of this forum?  And INSPIRED you to come here?

so phanny joek

allen, what is it about these sort of threads that turns you into a raving lunatic?  It's like a switch is thrown in your brain.  I've seen you in other threads and you prove to be capable of acting like, or at least mimicking the actions of, a cognitive human being.  But once I show up or someone like me it's HUEHUEHUE UR SO DUM EAT SHIIIIIT

[allen]

don't flatter yourself, that image wasn't made by me.

[C.A. Sinner]

[I hope C.A. replied to me, since that strand of the thread was more on topic... was]

I did. The response is short and sweet as well. 

[Breadcultist]

This isn't about being "nice" to anyone, it's about providing valid, meaningful criticism. When I play Knytt, I don't expect something like Super Mario Bros. 3 because that not the kind of game it tries to be, so someone saying Knytt sucks at being SMB3 tells me about as much as "apples don't taste like oranges". That kind of criticism is on the level of GameTrailers forum members bashing Super Mario Galaxy because it has "a bad story".

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! First, what is validity if not the proper application of standards? The question is what standards are the right ones in what circumstances. Meaningful to who? Evaluating Knytt and Spelunky as platformers is surely meaningful to people who like platformers, and are looking for views on them.

Games don't 'try to be' anything. It's designers who try to design certain games in certain ways for certain reasons. For critical purposes, why do the designers reasons matter? I'm saying they don't. If the game ended up looking and playing like a platformer, it will be judged as one, whatever the intention.

Now, mistaking one genre (in terms of mechanics) for another is bound to cause confused criticism. That's what you (or someone here, can't be bothered to check...) said about Icy's Flower review. I still haven't heard what genre the game is in...?

But what you're saying is the possibility of an even worse mistake, to criticise a game in terms of mechanical complexity and all that good stuff, when the game just isn't 'supposed' to be judged in those terms from the view of ANY game genre at all.... but instead as... a place to explore or something.

I had fun exploring Knytt AND Super Mario Bros 3. But SMB3 had much more stuff, more depth to offer. Yes, you can say a deep game is 'not the kind of game it tries to be'. That'd be the skill-depth. Perhaps one could argue for Knytt's success in reaching greater depths of a different kind. The aesthetic experience of moving from scene to scene as means of inducing a feeling of calm and relaxation or something...? I think there's a bit of that in SMB3. Like the part when you go up above the clouds. Knytt probably copied that!

Do you think the above is 'what Knytt is trying to do'? Gotta be something close, right?

Knytt is a free platform game for Windows featuring exploration, atmosphere, and infinite cuteness.

Atmosphere. Cuteness. Okay, by your standard-standards we're at least justified in comparing the graphics to SMB3!

Hope you don't mind the long responses! Take it as a compliment, the more I write, the more important I think what I'm replying to is (even if it's important for wrongness...)