next »

[gimymblert]

no you are making a logical fallacy, a implies b doesn't mean b implies a, man implies blood but blood doesn't imply man

[J-Snake]

no you are making a logical fallacy, a implies b doesn't mean b implies a

That's not what I am doing, to be formal: I am saying (a -> b) is äquivalent to (not b -> not a)

[gimymblert]

still a fallacy

man imply blood
not equal to
not blood imply not man
which false because
mustache is not blood
mustache imply not man is false

[jamesprimate]

guys

[J-Snake]

still a fallacy

man imply blood
not equal to
not blood imply not man
which false because
mustache is not blood
mustache imply not man is false

There is no fallacy. You have to consider that mustache here is absent from blood. And according to the first statement blood is necessary to be a man. Another example is the statement: If it rains the street is wet. This is äquivalent to: If the street is not wet it doesn't rain. Make clear that this statement doesn't exclude other reasons why the street could be wet. It just says if it rains the street will be wet. But there can also be other reasons why the street can be wet.

[gimymblert]

guys

[J-Snake]

These are the basics of propositional logic and if you don't follow them you will end up with a lot of wrong conclusions in no matter what topic you are discussing.

[Tokinsom]

The only thing tedious and boring is this discussion. brb gonna go f*ck up some aliens.

[s0]

btw puzzles and "traversal" (platforming and related stuff) are also pretty ubiquitous in games. are they overused too?

i personally find puzzles more tedious than combat but that's just me

[gimymblert]

I think along the same line, but what's a puzzle? what function does it serve in game, are they well implemented. The problem is when it's not questioned and act like filler or box to be ticked.

Shooting for example is improve across game but I don't feel like they put me in interesting scenario, you essentially goes with the motion having no surprise. Pushing block around, matching items with environment, backtracking and being lost, those aren't exciting by themselves.

They became overused when they are just that, busywork to make you feel you have done something because it's supposed to be 300 hours long worth of 60€ the game, it's the repetition, the numbness.

[s0]

big offender in this regard: platforming sections in games that aren't platformers.

[Rarykos]

Damn this thread exploded.

I like my violence justified. Like when I was cheering "Go f*ck them up!" while watching John Wick.

And filling games with shooting or stupid puzzles is a huge problem with developers not knowing what their game is about. Basically, bad game design/lack of single vision.

[gimymblert]

More like bad habit, dev think they need to have to vary so the experience don't get too repetitive, there need something to break up ... which they do by having an entire new genre you didn't bought the experience for right in the middle of the progression and potentially blocking if you are not into this. Mario do it generally well as they don't do it, instead they create new gameplay based on teh same elements. FF use to make it well by simply adding side mini game that don't block you at all so you can pose, zelda have fishing for that exact version!

[J-Snake]

And filling games with shooting or stupid puzzles is a huge problem with developers not knowing what their game is about. Basically, bad game design/lack of single vision.

Pretty much why I am not a fan of Tomb Raider. The puzzles are just "attached" to the game, they don't arise from native mechanics like in Half-Life 2 for example.

[JimmyJ]

big offender in this regard: platforming sections in games that aren't platformers.

I may be insane, but I actually love the platforming in the Souls series. I can't justify or explain why, I just do.

[Mittens]

i personally find puzzles more tedious than combat but that's just me

^ same here

this discussion seems kinda dum, shouldn't we just say "combat is boring when the devs made boring combat" ?
some games have combat and violence which is really clever, challenging, fun, varied etc. and there's also a LOT of those over-shoulder gears of war clones which have totally dry, samey, pointless combat which seems to achieve nothing more than slow down the speed at which you stomp through the game levels.

The concept is not inherently bad, it's not helpful pretending that it is maybe

[gimymblert]

combat is boring is just a subset of the conversation, the root is "why are we so dependent on it" corollary "why non combat not as much prevalent"

sub discussion around that premise is:
- effectiveness of combat as an easy mechanics to replicate and to "fill" the experience
- cultural perception of the prevalence of combat (ie hardcore centric view)
- conflict and goal make combat the purest expression of game ... or not

All the sub discussion address the premise indirectly by trying to justify and deny combat as important in game.

[JWK5]

There is also the possibility that not all combat really is "combat". The NES game Contra, for example. Yes, thematically, you are shooting things but mechanically the game is really about timing and positioning. The implied violence is only there to give context to what is happening mechanically. In other words, it is the thematic undercoat of paint covering the mechanics framework. Over this undercoat is laid the aesthetic overcoat that helps imply the thematic structure underneath (which in turn helps imply the mechanic structure underneath it). There is no actual violence happening in the mechanics, it is only implied in the theme and aesthetics. I think as a result of this most of us do not actually see video game "violence" as an actual depiction of violence, but we see it more like "play fighting" (that is, a pretend conflict where no one is actually harmed), which is what it is.

That said, developers these days seem to be working from the top down rather than the bottom up when it comes to building the layers of their games. Instead of starting with something mechanically fun, they marry the mechanics with the aesthetics and assume for fun mechanics they need violent aesthetics (and thus a violent theme). The net effect of this is that we see games that might vary greatly in theme but mechanically play uncomfortably similar. Fighting games are a good example, the fighting games that stand out the most aren't necessarily the ones that vary the most in aesthetics but rather the ones that vary most in mechanics. They are all still about fighting, even similarly so, but their individual take on the mechanics has had a ripple effect that has caused them to have a fairly unique take on their theme and then their aesthetics. Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, Mortal Kombat, etc. despite all being fighting games have very different universes, rules, aesthetic approaches, etc. On the other hand, there are a slew of fighting games that faded into obscurity because they mechanically played very similar (and aesthetically and thematically were very similar).

Though I do enjoy FPS, the problem with them is mechanically they are starting to all blend together (which is leading to them blending together thematically and aesthetically). You can really see the top-down design approach. As the technology improves they only get more mechanically similar. Call of Duty and Battlefield are a good example. They seem to be growing closer and closer together with every iteration (along with each "Me too!" game of their ilk that pops up). Violence isn't the (only) cause for the tedium, it's the mechanics. Where you see the same aesthetics and the same theme, you almost always see the same mechanics. Top-down design.

Top-down design won't always lead to that, but it generally will. This not only in video games, even in drawing or writing it will tend to leave you with poor anatomy or a meandering tale, if you can't establish how things will work then you'll have a hard time creating them effectively. In other words, if you don't mechanically figure out how your game will be different then you will have a hard time creating differences thematically and aesthetically (since the mechanics do not support the differences well). You're essentially giving the same old thing a new coat of paint. It can look a little different and be pretty, but ultimately it is still the same.

Violence is an attractive tool in video games because it is easy to apply to the same mechanics that have been used over and over ad nauseam. We don't see many games with non-violence at least as an option if not used at all because we don't see many games that are all that different mechanically.

I personally enjoy "violent" video games, but I am growing weary of how they are starting to blur together badly.

[s0]

That said, developers these days seem to be working from the top down rather than the bottom up when it comes to building the layers of their games. Instead of starting with something mechanically fun, they marry the mechanics with the aesthetics and assume for fun mechanics they need violent aesthetics (and thus a violent theme).

im not sure thats entirely true. many games that are narratively not about violence still feature violent game mechanics (and gameplay themes) because it's what (devs and publishers think) sells or because they couldn't think of anything more fitting. this is why "ludonarrative dissonance" is being talked about so much today. it used to be an abstract academic concept, but now that games are putting more emphasis on storytelling its becoming acute.

bioshock infinite (already mentioned itt) is a big example of this problem. i honestly thought the parts where you just walk around were the best parts of the game and i actually dreaded the shooting sequences, not just because they weren't good but because they seemed out of place.

[gimymblert]

It wasn't an academic stuff, it was coined by the lead of farcry 2 on a blog post when he was trying to figure out how to make better game narrative looking back at how he made farcy 2 and what it tried to fix it (ie justifying the violence by setting the game in africa because africa is violent you know )