Story Driven Games: Can You Finish Them?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Yoshi9000 (443 posts) -

If the game has a great story, but mediocre gameplay (Nier), I will love the game. If the game has a mediocre story, or none at all, but fun gameplay (Left 4 Dead, Mario Kart ect.) then I will love the game. I really dont mind if a game wants to be artistic and tell a compelling story over being a challenge of obstacles. It adds variety in the gaming industry that needs to stay. Everyone has different preferences. I can overcome the repetitious gameplay if the story is good enough, because in my opinion, videogames can suck the player into a story in a way movies and books cant, because they are actively participating in this fascinating world.

#52 Edited by Jacanuk (6030 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@Jacanuk

Actually yeah they are random... Heavy Rain wasn't intended to be played more than once and the QTE don't follow any level of consistancy. Memorizing them and replaying doesn't change that...... I've killed off two characters in Heavy Rain but It had nothing to do with success or failure, it was merely a consequence of my choices..... The story builds its self around that concept...... Gaming is not as wide an umbrella as you think it is..... And lets be honest.... You're just ticked off by me saying Heavy Rain is not game.... People are super defensive about these things....

Where did you get the idea that it was only supposed to be played once? i know Cage is french but he isn't that french so he would develop a game to only be played once, all the endings clearly is meant for you as a player, so you don't just put it down after one playthrough and then watch the rest on youtube.

Also you might have chosen to put down the controller and not do a QTE but that is your choice, thats not how the game was designed. The game was designed to test your reflexes and if you were good enough, then you would save the person, and if you weren't well then good bye. What is so good about Cage´s way of designing the game, is that it doesn't just say "game over" or "replay this" it allows you to fail but still be able to continue and play the game.

But please dont mistake that as not having a failure state, because its actually a no brainer that it of course has.

Also i am not "ticked off" by you saying anything, i know you often just stand on the opposite side for the sole purpose of standing on the opposite side. And this is no different.

#53 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@Jacanuk

Cage said it himself... Heavy Rain was only designed to be played a single time..... If you thought the plot inconsisties were bad in a single play through then you have no idea how much worse it is when you have a view of the entire picture...

And as I've mentioned before many scenarios allow you to avoid the QTE sequence all together, in which I had no problem doing.... I think the only Mandatory QTEs were the earlier sections of Madisons Chapter and the 1st few Oragami Trials... And the Altercation at Kramer's place with Scott.... You could opt out of the rest... Not a failure. Its a choice. One which I exercised out of curiousity... Not everybody wants to be the hero and save everybody like you..... There is no best ending and worst ending... Its not a challenge.

I don't disagree with people for no reason.... In this case I'm disagreeing because Quantic Dream just doesn't make games.... Regardless of of the fact that we play them on game consoles.

#54 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@Jacanuk

Cage said it himself... Heavy Rain was only designed to be played a single time..... If you thought the plot inconsisties were bad in a single play through then you have no idea how much worse it is when you have a view of the entire picture...

And as I've mentioned before many scenarios allow you to avoid the QTE sequence all together, in which I had no problem doing.... I think the only Mandatory QTEs were the earlier sections of Madisons Chapter and the 1st few Oragami Trials... And the Altercation at Kramer's place with Scott.... You could opt out of the rest... Not a failure. Its a choice. One which I exercised out of curiousity... Not everybody wants to be the hero and save everybody like you..... There is no best ending and worst ending... Its not a challenge.

I don't disagree with people for no reason.... In this case I'm disagreeing because Quantic Dream just doesn't make games.... Regardless of of the fact that we play them on game consoles.

#55 Edited by Jacanuk (6030 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@Jacanuk

Cage said it himself... Heavy Rain was only designed to be played a single time..... If you thought the plot inconsisties were bad in a single play through then you have no idea how much worse it is when you have a view of the entire picture...

And as I've mentioned before many scenarios allow you to avoid the QTE sequence all together, in which I had no problem doing.... I think the only Mandatory QTEs were the earlier sections of Madisons Chapter and the 1st few Oragami Trials... And the Altercation at Kramer's place with Scott.... You could opt out of the rest... Not a failure. Its a choice. One which I exercised out of curiousity... Not everybody wants to be the hero and save everybody like you..... There is no best ending and worst ending... Its not a challenge.

I don't disagree with people for no reason.... In this case I'm disagreeing because Quantic Dream just doesn't make games.... Regardless of of the fact that we play them on game consoles.

Do you have a link to that statement? because i have never heard anything of that sort.

Eh? there is no way to avoid the decisive QTE´s ? like the crushing scene in the junkyard or the last fight scene, well yes you can avoid it by dying but that is kinda the optimal no return fail.

And you can disagree all you want but you are actually saying that a Ford isn't a car because Ford made it.

#56 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@Jacanuk

Obviously you're going to want proof... But I shouldn't have to do this, its pretty obvious playing it multiple times undermines the experience.... Your choices no longer feel choices because you already know whats behind door number 2......

www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/698809/quantic-dreams-david-cage-play-heavy-rain-several-times-kill-the-magic-of-it/

#57 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

Actually you can avoid that junkyard scene by just taking the Trypokane........

#58 Posted by Jacanuk (6030 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@Jacanuk

Obviously you're going to want proof... But I shouldn't have to do this, its pretty obvious playing it multiple times undermines the experience.... Your choices no longer feel choices because you already know whats behind door number 2......

www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/698809/quantic-dreams-david-cage-play-heavy-rain-several-times-kill-the-magic-of-it/

@Lulu_Lulu said:

Actually you can avoid that junkyard scene by just taking the Trypokane........

Thanks for the link, ok Cage is more French then i suspect but in his defence he says people should play it like life, and life has success and failures but no repeat thats true.

But it still doesn't make Heavy Rain not a game, also if i recall the only think you can avoid is the crusher not the Mad Jack scene. which again all depends on Success/fail.

#59 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@mastermetal777

Not only do I agree with Cage's reccomendation on playing Heavy Rain once... I'm extending this concept to Mass Effect and The Walking Dead. Besides if you finish it once you pretty much already completed it.

I also find it strange how somepeople need incentive in the form of an alternate plot in order to replay something..... Generally if gameplay is great then I'l replay it anyway.... But in Mass Effect's case its just not worth 20 mores of tedius gameplay just to see what would happen if I let the counsel die instead..... Its a rather cheap trick....

#60 Posted by spike6958 (5136 posts) -

Recently, no. If I have to follow a plot I want to finish the game over two or three days max, and with work and everything else getting in the way I simply don't have the time to do that anymore. That might change when stuff like the next Dragon Age and Mass Effect come out, but as an overall constant I don't think it's something I'll ever go back to.

#61 Posted by Ryagan (561 posts) -

JRPGs are most of what I play, so yes. Story-driven games are definitely not for everyone, though.

#62 Posted by sukraj (24391 posts) -

for me its gameplay and then story.

#63 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@Jacanuk

I thought you might find this interesting...........

www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LewisPulsipher/20140609/219021/Are_you_a_game_designer_or_a_fiction_writer.php

#64 Posted by Sythorous (25 posts) -

I mostly play games for the story, surely the game play has a lot to do if you want to finish the game, but if there is an interesting concept in the story then I think it is worth to the game. I play a lot of games made with RPG Maker and their system is all the same, mostly turned based and with the same graphic. But it is the story that makes me wants to play with the same mechanic over and over again, and I am actually being the hero to save the world.

#65 Edited by mastermetal777 (2553 posts) -

I view playing story-driven video games as similar to watching your favorite movie or reading your favorite book over and over. The main difference is that in video games, you're the active participant (even if you're just controlling a different person). I love coming back to the worlds, the characters, the plot, everything. And being an active participant in how the story comes along has always been fascinating to me. Gameplay is an important part of me liking a video game, obviously, so a game with both a great story and excellent gameplay is an even bigger plus in my book.

#66 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@Sythorous

When you say it like that you make it sound as If Gameplay is a "chore" and Story is the "Allowence" thats used to reward you for performing that chore.... It also implies that if you were presented the story without having to perform the chore then you would take it in a heartbeat !

Its nice to like the Overall product but you should at the very least examine each component and see if you like those two.....

#67 Edited by mastermetal777 (2553 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: I think games have become too complex to just simply weigh their pros and cons. I feel the question nowadays is "do you even notice you're playing a game anymore?" Back in the day it was easy to say that "the graphics are nice, but the gameplay was shallow and stiff." I say the overall experience is more important. Yahtzee Croshaw, speaking to a crowd at Game Connect one time, once said that "I think, as a general rule, a game is good if you can't see the game. Because it's gone beyond 6/10 for graphics, it's gotten past analysis of its every individual component and has become a whole greater than the sum of its parts." Here's the video link to where he said this so you don't think I'm talking out my ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEvY3AcaQTA

#68 Posted by harry_james_pot (11241 posts) -

Yes. In fact, story is the most important thing to me in a game.

#69 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@mastermetal777

I'm not talking about weighing the pros and cons so Much as I'm trying to Identify why we game.... Or if gaming is for everybody....

Also Gaming is Extremely Complex, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't pop the hood and try to make sense of it...... I understand games evolving... I can even understanding the Interactive Medium Expanding... What I don't get is why people think it needs to "Change"...... Its like they don't want games to be games anymore..... They want them to be something they are already familar with... Something that already exists.

Let me See if I can simplify what I'm trying to say: Like you said its the overall experience that matters, but how much of the overall experience is actually relevant to the game...... That includes the TV, The Couch you're Sitting on, what you had for breakfast that, if you're drunk, who you play with/against, etc..... These things although not important to gaming actually do contribute to the overall experience just as much as gameplay, graphics, story, multiplayer, controller scheme, etc.

Most people misunderstand when I say "gameplay is the only thing that matters" think I'm trying say all those other things are not important.... Thats just half it. What I actually mean is if your going to add things, like story, graphics, music, etc then at very least they can not interfere with the gameplay but at the very most must actually utilize the gameplay. So if you want story, then ask "how is it going utilize the game play" then build the game play like that. But thats not how our industry has been evolving, they just throw in story, graphics, cutscenes, music, etc with little to no utility or benefit to gameplay, in the case of cutscenes its the polar opposite of gameplay, so it doesn't even pass the minimum requirement of not intefering with the gameplay. They add story, graphics, music to contribute to the overall experience in the same way a theatre adds comfortable seats, popcorn, Soda, etc, to colour your experience of the overall movie experience... But the real problem occurs when games get judged this way, as if Tetris is somehow inferior to The Last of Us because it has no story despite TLOU's Story making 0 presence and utility in gameplay, the story becomes as much as an external contributing factor is the TV your playing on.

Thats been my Crusade ever since I created this acount over 7000 posts ago. As soon as we get this fixed we can turn our attention towards whats wrong with RPGs and Dark Souls ;)

#70 Posted by mastermetal777 (2553 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: your crusade is flawed. When the gameplay matches the theme of the story, it becomes enhanced by that gameplay. Take The Last of Us for example.the themes in that game are desperation, mortality, and the struggle to survive. In the gameplay context, it is translated to utilizing limited resources in order to survive an encounter. It feels tense and desperate when you're down to your last bullet and have to instead sneak past enemies and take em down that way.

I've said this time and again: cutscenes are not inherently bad for games. They can be used to add context to a situation for the next gameplay section, or to make a typically boring scene (simple talking) more engaging. To be honest, always standing around in moments of dialogue is a terrible way of getting someone to care.

Games have to change. They are becoming a great storytelling medium and teaching tool for 21st century skills. Much like novels evolved to become more accessible, and much like TV and film began utilizing their assets to tell compelling stories and teach people, video games can use gameplay to enhance a story or to teach people.

But remember this: at one time, a great film was nothing but a script no different than a book. Using cutscenes has always been a mere tool for gaming. Has it been used improperly? Many times. Any tool that is misused can be bad. Bad films and books follow the same principle in terms of tools they use like lighting or sentence building, respectively. Don't demonize a tool just because of examples of misuse.

#71 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@mastermetal777

Its not flawed.... People are flawed.

This has always been the barrier I keep running into everytime I bring this up. They think just because it contributes to their experience then its the same as if it contributes to the concept. "It makes it fun for me therefore thats what it must be about"

Its gone on for so many years now that the concept of gaming has lost all meaning..... People just throwing half assed definitions at eachother because thats just how they did it... Never coming to a concrete conclusion.... We can't even all agree that gaming should be fun.

As for your boner for cutscenes: Unlike Music and Story, and Graphics..... Cutscenes literally can not occur simultaenously with gameplay, wether you like them or not this fact is unescapable, whether it hurts the game or not was not my point, its a concept that can never be used by gameplay, unless you play that tile game with moving pictures but thats rather ridiculous.

Also anything inside a cutscene that can ehance the gameplay is merely just your perception...... Not that it matters, because designing a game to depend on cutscenes to enjoy the gameplay is the mark of horrible developer. Its like making a movie in such a way that you need to have a pamphlet in your hands explaining certain scenes to enhance whats happening on screen.... Its a crutch. A good developer will provide context using the real tools of the medium, not leeching tools from somewhere else to compensate for their incompetance and justfying their existance out of false necessity, its like me stabbing you in the neck and saying that you need a doctor ! Its true but its also missing the whole point what you need is to avoid crazy people known for stabbing people in the neck, your incompetance for ignoring those intructions is whats going to result into needing the doctor to compensate.

Some Gamers and Developers may need cutscenes, but its out of some form of incompetance, it doesn't actually enhance the gameplay or the game itself. Its just the crutch they use to play/make the game.

#72 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

Games need to evolve sure..... But they don't need to change to accomodate people who don't like gameplay to begin with.....

Thats like say books need to have picture because I just can't get into reading....

#73 Posted by mastermetal777 (2553 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: And again, you're missing my point. In my personal opinion, what kind of gameplay you have depends on what kind of game you're making. Something like Starcraft needs a deep and complex system of gameplay because of how much needs to be going on for it to be engaging. For a game like Journey, there doesn't really need to have a type of deep gameplay experience because all it is doing is driving the world-building and narrative, however minimal it might be. You keep going on about wanting more gameplay, but you have to realize something: not every game has to be the same. A game like Heavy Rain uses reflex-based gameplay that affects the outcome of its story based on either success or failure. A game like Gone Home or The Stanley Parable only has you picking objects up and/or simply walking around as you discover the events of the narrative. Gameplay is what drives a game, obviously, but does every game need to have action? Does every game need a complex system to be engaging? I don't think so. As long as you're controlling the character, which is the most fundamental thing about video games, then what does it matter how much or how little gameplay the game has as long as you're enjoying it?

If a book uses pictures, it's either a children's book, or a graphic novel, which is a subgenre of the novel itself. The same can be said about cutscenes in video games. If used right, they work.

#74 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75402 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@Jacanuk

Even David Cage knows they're not games.......

Look gaming is a flexible medium that encompasses a variety of different genres.... Fortunately, Heavy Rain and Beyond are not just a different genre they are a whole different animal entirely.....

Why is that bad thing ?

And you of course have a link to the video or article that proves that Cage actually said that right?

But if we go by the definition "videogame" Heavy Rain and Beyond two souls have all the factors that makes something a videogame, its interactive, it has a failure state, and it has a goal.

Its pretty idiotic even to discuss if they are games or not when they so clearly are games.

As long as something is interactive it's a game. You can't do that with books or movies

#75 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@mastermetal777

I know not everygame has to be the same your biggest mistake is thinking we need to shed gameplay to expand......... Your mistake is thinking gameplay really is that limited..... Hence the cutscenes.

Also Heavy Rain and Gone Home are not games....... But thats actually a whole different topic.

also I didn't say anything about deep or complex or minimilistic interaction whatever.... Its all gameplay to me. I woudn't discount something even as ridiculous as clow clicker from being a game..... It is.... Even if its just one button..... Heavy Rain has far more depth and complexity but its not a game.

"If a book uses pictures, it's either a children's book, or a graphic novel, which is a subgenre of the novel itself."

I was hoping to avoid this concept specifically but whatever... I'l try my best: Childrens books as a subcategory of novels, I mostly agree. But a graphic novel is not a subcategory of novels...... Yes it maybe a weird spinoff of the concept but it stands in a league/category of its own not bound by the idiosyncracies of novels, its actually now subcategory of a much larger concept, Literature.

And thats the problem this medium is having right now, we think the term "Game" is on the same level as Literature. Its not. Thats kind of how it lost its meaning.... People misused it too much. In Actuallity "game" is a Subcategory of "Interactive Entertainment" (please refrain from saying Interactive Ar..... Art sucks).

And this is where things get messed up... Unlike Literature, Interactive Entertainment is terribly structured and purely defined because people run around calling everything thats interactive and non-interactive a game willy nilly. We need to redefine it and then leave it as one category, then Spin off's like Heavy Rain, Gone Home and To The Moon to need to be examined and redefined then given their own Categories since they most definately are not games. Once everything has been named and explained then it will be much easier to see how those concept, merge, mix and overlap, without causing any confusions or misunderstandings.

But this is never gonna happen if people get all defensive and snappy if one points out something is not a game. As if that makes it inferior, imagine how disorganised things would get if people thought movies were like that, imagine the mess were everybody is trying to pass off everying from music videos to commercials as "movies" because people get all cranky when you say they are not movies.... Thats how gaming is right now.

#76 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride

I'm afraid simply being Interactive is not good enough....... Infact it never was.

The bare minimum prerequisites for gaming is much more than interaction.

#77 Posted by turtlethetaffer (17245 posts) -

I find that the best story driven games are ones that balance out the two factors. Those are the ones I most enjoy.

#78 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75402 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@The_Last_Ride

I'm afraid simply being Interactive is not good enough....... Infact it never was.

The bare minimum prerequisites for gaming is much more than interaction.

No it's not, you may not like it, but it is a fact. I am not a big fan of him. But his games are still in fact games

#79 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride

Whether I like it or not is besides the point...... No matter how interactive something is, its still not a game.....

#80 Posted by mastermetal777 (2553 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: I have to direct you to this video to help you understand my position, because I think you've misinterpreted me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEvY3AcaQTA

#81 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride

Whether I like it or not is besides the point...... No matter how interactive something is, its still not enough to be a game....

Gotta watch my wording.

#82 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

I understand your position..... You don't understand mine...... Nobody does..... Yet they disagree anyway.... Funny how that works.... :p

remember how I just explained why we shouldn't run around calling everything a game and the The Last Ride goes and does just that..... Thats why these arguments don't get resolved.

Nobody's bothering to open their mind just alil bit. Just enough to see. This industry is full of tiny little issues like that.

#83 Edited by mastermetal777 (2553 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Because your position is based on outdated ideas in an ever-evolving industry, for the most part.

#84 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@mastermetal777

Wrong..... 5 years ago I was a regular "hardcore" gamer who thought nothing of cutscenes and all that rubbish...... I even use to enjoy RPGs :p..... Yeah man for realsies.... Loved them.....

I got bored and decided to take a much much closer look at all these things...... Consulted many other bored gamers and this is who I am now..... Its not outdated..... The proof is literally in the pudding...... Just take a much much closer look..... No youtubes, no yahtzees, no extra credits.... You may not come to the same conclusion as I do but you will see what I see.......

Its simple Abstraction..... Can you do Abstract ?

When you play pong do pretend its to two people playing Tennis or do you see those pixels for what they really are ?

Could you still enjoy games if you saw them for the complex dynamic formulas of variables they actually are, would you play suck at a Mario if they replaced all the goombas with anthropromorphic cupcakes that were functionally indifferent from goombass..... ?

#85 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

you gotta ask yo self these questions.

#86 Edited by mastermetal777 (2553 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: If I play Pong, I do see 2 tennis players playing. If I do play Mario with cupcakes instead of goombas, I'll just assume Mario has a fear of cupcakes.

I honestly don't give a rat's behind what the systems and variables are in a game. What's the point? That's for the programmers to figure out, not me. My job as a gamer is to enjoy the games given to me, not see them as the most complex computer programs. I'm here to experience games, not try to figure out what makes them tick. I want to play, not scrutinize what makes it a game or not.

And why do Yahtzee or Extra Credits not matter? Because they want games to become more than just a complex system of equations meant to justify different commands? I'm with them, sorry to tell you.

#87 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75402 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@The_Last_Ride

Whether I like it or not is besides the point...... No matter how interactive something is, its still not enough to be a game....

Gotta watch my wording.

So what is a game then?

#88 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@mastermetal777

Thats a noble way of looking at things... And if this medium was just like the other ones then it wouldn't be an issue..... But its not..... Games are in trouble man..... And sometimes even the regular gaming joe has to know terms like Intrinsic Reward System or Ludonarrative Dissonance.

#89 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride

Believe it or not I don't have a solid answer for that one......... Or maybe this language is too insufficient to come up with one.....

The best I can do is Identify the key components are: Interaction, a Goal, Rules and Challenge.

The boys in the lab are still working on the rest.

Defining games is like trying to define Happyness.

#90 Posted by mastermetal777 (2553 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: that sounds too much like a cop-out to me.

#91 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@mastermetal777

hmmmmm ? What do you mean ?

#92 Posted by mastermetal777 (2553 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: no matter how complex, you always find the time to explain yourself in any other situation. But here, you're giving the most vague description possible.

#93 Edited by Ariabed (1896 posts) -

The clue is in the name people 'game' and what do you do with games? You play them! So gameplay is the most important thing in a game period, if a game happens to have good story, music, etc then that's a added bonus.

#94 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75402 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@The_Last_Ride

The best I can do is Identify the key components are: Interaction, a Goal, Rules and Challenge.

So interactions, check, goal in Beyond Two Souls is getting through her life so check, rules (there are rules that she can interact with a ghost) so check, Challenge is to time the QTE's perfectly. So check in all those boxes

#95 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride

Yeah.... Those more to a game then simple meeting the base component requirement.

Thats the part thats got they boys in the lab stumped.......

This is another flaw of human beings..... They demand an explanation to everything they don't understand....... Not knowing is unbearable so they fill in the blanks with whatever......

Kinda like how you're doing now.

This is how we wound up with Religion..... If more people where comfortable with not knowing and patient in trying to figure things out.... We wouldn't even have religions......

Lets try not to inject "meaning" into everything.

#96 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@mastermetal777

Really ?

I don't know.... Somethings are just too Axiomatic to go into detail with it......

I can't write a 500 word essay on why red is a colour and why sound is not a colour....

#97 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75402 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: woah! Let's not go that route with religion, someone is going to get pissed eventually. You didn't counter my argument though

#98 Posted by Starshine_M2A2 (4121 posts) -

Usually. The only one I haven't finished recently is Catherine. And that was purely because it was too difficult. Otherwise I love story driven games.

#99 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19315 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride

I did that way before you even brought it up...... I told you.... I don't know exactly what a game is. Can't define it yet.

Its not my fault people proceed attaching labels on to things before agreeing on a definition.

#100 Posted by The_Last_Ride (75402 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@The_Last_Ride

I did that way before you even brought it up...... I told you.... I don't know exactly what a game is. Can't define it yet.

Its not my fault people proceed attaching labels on to things before agreeing on a definition.

Games like this push the boundaries. You or me may not like a game like that, but it is in fact a game