I have no idea honestly, I'm bringing this up since I just saw TotalBiscuit's "WTF is..." of Dear Esther, and he called it pretentious, I still don't know how he managed to come to that conclusion. And as you should know TB is a very level headed person...parkurtommoHe didn't enjoy it, and it isn't his cup of tea. That doesn't mean he is right, he didn't seem to care much for Gravity Bone either (or Thirty Flights of Loving) and these are both games that aim purely for telling a story and having little in the way of actual mechanical engagement. So riddle me this, does that say something more about someone's understanding or taste, or more about the game? Or both? I enjoy his videos and opinions as well, doesn't mean I'm going to see eye to eye.
Do you think games like LIMBO, Journey, Dear Esther are pretentious?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Braid is an extremely well made and thoughtful game. Now I'll merrily say that it's actual narrative feels like a bit of a wank at times, but even from a purely mechanical perspective it's a damn well crafted game. Uninspired is the least of things it is, there aren't many games that have done time manipulation that well out there; Prince of Persia SoT and Archon are two that come to mind. Which is another thing; it's not always about the gameplay. Mechanics are a piece of a game, it's not the whole form or the most distinctive one for every game. You're not going to play through a COD games singleplayer for the amazing gameplay, just like you're not going to play through Limbo for the amazing gameplay. You're playing through it for the spectacle and unfolding sequence of events; different shades of atmosphere and environments.Yup, just a bunch of shallow fluff that heavily relies on tunes to pull the player in. Sorry, I don't hand the title of "great" to games like that.
Renegade_Fury
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc26EKhZNyM&feature=plcp
It the video game equivalent of modernist art. When people started writing poems with no meaning and no scheme, their argument was "who are you to say what true art is?!" Same thing with those painters that threw paint at a wall. No talent or beaty, just "art." there is no game in dear esther. It is an interactive short story. That was cool as a free mod. Now they have a full version? Sorry, I need a game to warrant a purchase. "Well who are you to define what a game is?!" Fine, waste your money on it and pretend to like it, but it's pretentious guff.organic_machineWhich is funny that you say that. Dear Esther isn't that in the slightest; the game is actually an academic work, product of a huge PHD; it's a game that was made with the intention of stripping away game conventions, built on that PHD which documents and analysis's ten years of storytelling in shooters. They guy behind it, Dan Pinchbeck, probably knows and likes the shooter genre more than you do. There's tons of talent and artistic merit in Dear Esther, just like there's tons of artist merit in a game like Tetris; it's just a very, very different brand of it. Neither are pretentious, they're both trying to say and explore something, and both are extremely well crafted and reasoned. If you want actual pretentious video games then you're looking in the wrong direction; there's more than enough of them in hobbyist 'indie' scene as there is in Triple A games development. Hell No Russian in Call of Duty as an example of a game taking a polarised step into pretentiousness, from a complete lack of.
I remember seeing that video a while ago, god it's so dumb... lolI'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc26EKhZNyM&feature=plcp
GunSmith1_basic
Which is exactly the same thing. With nicer visual assets and more randomisation on narration.[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"]
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc26EKhZNyM&feature=plcp
parkurtommo
I remember seeing that video a while ago, god it's so dumb... lol
It's pretty hilarious imho.
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]Braid is an extremely well made and thoughtful game. Now I'll merrily say that it's actual narrative feels like a bit of a wank at times, but even from a purely mechanical perspective it's a damn well crafted game. Uninspired is the least of things it is, there aren't many games that have done time manipulation that well out there; Prince of Persia SoT and Archon are two that come to mind. Which is another thing; it's not always about the gameplay. Mechanics are a piece of a game, it's not the whole form or the most distinctive one for every game. You're not going to play through a COD games singleplayer for the amazing gameplay, just like you're not going to play through Limbo for the amazing gameplay. You're playing through it for the spectacle and unfolding sequence of events; different shades of atmosphere and environments.Yup, just a bunch of shallow fluff that heavily relies on tunes to pull the player in. Sorry, I don't hand the title of "great" to games like that.
skrat_01
Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because the spectacle means nothing if the gameplay isn't there. COD1 and 2 didn't have the story, and they were loved, regardless.
Oh and btw, as much as I think games like Limbo are cheap and uninspired, Shadow of the Collosus is the game I put at the top when it comes to being pretentious, and having in actually zero substance.
[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]Which is exactly the same thing. With nicer visual assets and more randomisation on narration.
[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"]
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc26EKhZNyM&feature=plcp
skrat_01
I remember seeing that video a while ago, god it's so dumb... lol
It's pretty hilarious imho. It is "funny", and honestly, Braid doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before I don't think. But grouping indie platformers like that against mario... just doesn't seem fair and is obviously trying to make the characters look like hipsters, when they really aren't.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] I mean the standalone version.parkurtommoMm. Fair enough. But really, the only reason it got released standalone is because the mod was so popular. Really, it's not that pretentious, I don't think. Sure, you could say that it's boring, but really, it's just Myst without the puzzles. And now the developers are working on the Amnesia sequel. On a related note, last night I played through the entirety of "To the Moon." Man... I could imagine it being boring, my first playthrough of it was quite tedious at times, when I didn't know where to go. But my second and third playthroughs made it much more enjoyable, since I just walked along the path and didn't encounter any minor frustrations. And the ending is awesome.Admittedly I haven't gotten very far in it at all. I kinda hit what seemed to be a dead-end and then went back to playing one of the other umpteen things I'd bought on Steam. But I don't have anything against it. I just need a nicer time I can devote to it. Nothing about it rubs me the wrong way.
Though there is one indie game that really looks pretentious to me: "The Path." It's this Little Red Riding Hood adaptation where apparently you wander through the woods collecting stuff before watching a really weird cutscene. And then you do that eight times.
Braid is an extremely well made and thoughtful game. Now I'll merrily say that it's actual narrative feels like a bit of a wank at times, but even from a purely mechanical perspective it's a damn well crafted game. Uninspired is the least of things it is, there aren't many games that have done time manipulation that well out there; Prince of Persia SoT and Archon are two that come to mind. Which is another thing; it's not always about the gameplay. Mechanics are a piece of a game, it's not the whole form or the most distinctive one for every game. You're not going to play through a COD games singleplayer for the amazing gameplay, just like you're not going to play through Limbo for the amazing gameplay. You're playing through it for the spectacle and unfolding sequence of events; different shades of atmosphere and environments.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
Yup, just a bunch of shallow fluff that heavily relies on tunes to pull the player in. Sorry, I don't hand the title of "great" to games like that.
Renegade_Fury
Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because you're talking about modes, when its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because even if your point was that MP is its draw, well guess what? That means the gameplay has to be great, because that is all what MP is about.
Even then, the whole medium has expanded where good gameplay is consistently being overshadowed by the other part of a game. We have so many CoD clones with solid gameplay that can't stand out because they don't have the other parts that the medium of video games has shown it can engage the player in, like story and environments. I was watching an Extra Credits video involving Spec Ops The Line where they basically discuss how they can't match up gameplay with other big budget titles due to their own budget so they draw in the player in a different way. Another case is SoTC. Best gameplay ever? Not even close. But it has all the other things that don't exactly make up for the gameplay rather than cascade into it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree and disagree with you. It is about gameplay first, but not all about gameplay in today's age.[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] I could imagine it being boring, my first playthrough of it was quite tedious at times, when I didn't know where to go. But my second and third playthroughs made it much more enjoyable, since I just walked along the path and didn't encounter any minor frustrations. And the ending is awesome.parkurtommoAdmittedly I haven't gotten very far in it at all. I kinda hit what seemed to be a dead-end and then went back to playing one of the other umpteen things I'd bought on Steam. But I don't have anything against it. I just need a nicer time I can devote to it. Nothing about it rubs me the wrong way. Though there is one indie game that really looks pretentious to me: "The Path." It's this Little Red Riding Hood adaptation where apparently you wander through the woods collecting stuff before watching a really weird cutscene.. I just watched some gameplay of it, how is it pretentious? Just seems to have a creepy atmosphere and linear gameplay.I just think there's something a bit off when the most memorable parts of the game are the unplayable, incomprehensible cutscenes where you go to Youtube and read through the comments to read people's interpretations about what it means. And then the game gives you a codescending letter grade at the end of every level that's unrelated to anything you actually did.
And I'm just a bit annoyed whenever someone goes "Hey you guys Little Red Riding Hood is actually about puberty!" and I go "We know already. Why don't you do a fairytale that hasn't been done to death, like that one where that kid gets cannibalized by his stepmother and comes back as a bird that sings creepy songs?"
Also, I don't like the dev's attitude.
Braid is an extremely well made and thoughtful game. Now I'll merrily say that it's actual narrative feels like a bit of a wank at times, but even from a purely mechanical perspective it's a damn well crafted game. Uninspired is the least of things it is, there aren't many games that have done time manipulation that well out there; Prince of Persia SoT and Archon are two that come to mind. Which is another thing; it's not always about the gameplay. Mechanics are a piece of a game, it's not the whole form or the most distinctive one for every game. You're not going to play through a COD games singleplayer for the amazing gameplay, just like you're not going to play through Limbo for the amazing gameplay. You're playing through it for the spectacle and unfolding sequence of events; different shades of atmosphere and environments.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
Yup, just a bunch of shallow fluff that heavily relies on tunes to pull the player in. Sorry, I don't hand the title of "great" to games like that.
Renegade_Fury
Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because the spectacle means nothing if the gameplay isn't there. COD1 and 2 didn't have the story, and they were loved, regardless.
Oh and btw, as much as I think games like Limbo are cheap and uninspired, Shadow of the Collosus is the game I put at the top when it comes to being pretentious, and having in actually zero substance.
I think what people fail to understand is that some visions of artists, specifically Dear Esther for example, can't be done in other mediums, without being shunned by their respective community. (hell that's already happening in it's current medium, games) Can you imagine a movie like Dear Esther? Nope, because it simply can't, the visual design, and general idea is impossible with live action. Even for a CGI movie, it's just too far fetched. I'd love to see as movie that was as beautiful as Dear Esther, but sadly there are none. Just accept the fact that the video game industry is evolving, and has evolved, in to much more than just mario and half life.I just watched some gameplay of it, how is it pretentious? Just seems to have a creepy atmosphere and linear gameplay.I just think there's something a bit off when the most memorable parts of the game are the unplayable, incomprehensible cutscenes where you go to Youtube and read through the comments to read people's interpretations about what it means. And then the game gives you a codescending letter grade at the end of every level that's unrelated to anything you actually did.[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Admittedly I haven't gotten very far in it at all. I kinda hit what seemed to be a dead-end and then went back to playing one of the other umpteen things I'd bought on Steam. But I don't have anything against it. I just need a nicer time I can devote to it. Nothing about it rubs me the wrong way. Though there is one indie game that really looks pretentious to me: "The Path." It's this Little Red Riding Hood adaptation where apparently you wander through the woods collecting stuff before watching a really weird cutscene..PannicAtack
And I'm just a bit annoyed whenever someone goes "Hey you guys Little Red Riding Hood is actually about puberty!" and I go "We know already. Why don't you do a fairytale that hasn't been done to death, like that one where that kid gets cannibalized by his stepmother and comes back as a bird that sings creepy songs?"
Also, I don't like the dev's attitude.
Yeah, I guess that's pretentious. But a lot of people seem to throw the word at anything that they aren't used to, it makes me ashamed to be a gamer sometimes, the fact that everyone just wants the same stuff, always.
[QUOTE="organic_machine"]...skrat_01It's a game with lousy mechanics. And that's fine, because it's not focusing on mechanics at all, and it sure as hell isn't the only game to do so. The most popular triple A game at the moment, as we know, COD, uses the most basic set of mechanics as a means to obstruct the next sequence of scripted events, more then actually provide a set of evolving mechanics that increasingly test the player. What is your fail state? Slowing progression? What is your central verbs? Move, aim, shoot? Mechanics aren't the games main drawcard; it's multiplayer where the mechanics actually take centre stage.
...organic_machineWhich is funny that you say that. Dear Esther isn't that in the slightest; the game is actually an academic work, product of a huge PHD; it's a game that was made with the intention of stripping away game conventions, built on that PHD which documents and analysis's ten years of storytelling in shooters. They guy behind it, Dan Pinchbeck, probably knows and likes the shooter genre more than you do. There's tons of talent and artistic merit in Dear Esther, just like there's tons of artist merit in a game like Tetris; it's just a very, very different brand of it. Neither are pretentious, they're both trying to say and explore something, and both are extremely well crafted and reasoned. If you want actual pretentious video games then you're looking in the wrong direction; there's more than enough of them in hobbyist 'indie' scene as there is in Triple A games development. Hell No Russian in Call of Duty as an example of a game taking a polarised step into pretentiousness, from a complete lack of.
Fair enough.
I guess as a Myst fan, I couldn't help myself from processing the game through an adventure game filter, constantly being reminded that there's no gameplay to challenge me.
I guess my criticism is that they want you to explore, but there's really nothing to explore except the narrative. If intsead of a linear path and audio, maybe they could have opened the terrain up a little bit and have the narrative dispersed in more creative means, byt then again, that's me thinking adventure games again.
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Braid is an extremely well made and thoughtful game. Now I'll merrily say that it's actual narrative feels like a bit of a wank at times, but even from a purely mechanical perspective it's a damn well crafted game. Uninspired is the least of things it is, there aren't many games that have done time manipulation that well out there; Prince of Persia SoT and Archon are two that come to mind. Which is another thing; it's not always about the gameplay. Mechanics are a piece of a game, it's not the whole form or the most distinctive one for every game. You're not going to play through a COD games singleplayer for the amazing gameplay, just like you're not going to play through Limbo for the amazing gameplay. You're playing through it for the spectacle and unfolding sequence of events; different shades of atmosphere and environments. parkurtommo
Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because the spectacle means nothing if the gameplay isn't there. COD1 and 2 didn't have the story, and they were loved, regardless.
Oh and btw, as much as I think games like Limbo are cheap and uninspired, Shadow of the Collosus is the game I put at the top when it comes to being pretentious, and having in actually zero substance.
I think what people fail to understand is that some visions of artists, specifically Dear Esther for example, can't be done in other mediums, without being shunned by their respective community. (hell that's already happening in it's current medium, games) Can you imagine a movie like Dear Esther? Nope, because it simply can't, the visual design, and general idea is impossible with live action. Even for a CGI movie, it's just too far fetched. I'd love to see as movie that was as beautiful as Dear Esther, but sadly there are none. Just accept the fact that the video game industry is evolving, and has evolved, in to much more than just mario and half life.Dear Esther is shunned because it's a bad game, first and foremost. If a developer wants to be artsy fartsy, then go ahead, but that doesn't give them the excuse to ignore the most important factor. Evolution doesn't just pop out of nowhere, it's build off existing principles, and in this genre, gameplay is at the top of that list.
It isn't always about the gameplay. You don't play Final Fantasy for the same reasons you play Tetris. You don't play STALKER for the same reasons you play Quake. You don't play Crusader Kings for the same reasons you play Starcraft, Planescape to Diablo. etc. A game is a multifacated thing, the title of something tells us little about the actual forms that games can take up. Comics is the definition of 'comical strip'; does that mean that comics in their entirety are about humour? Hell no. The very fact that there are games that exist and aren't about the gameplay is evidence that games don't have to be about a concentration on mechanics. Interaction is a defining feature, that doesn't mean it nullifies everything else. Film is about the moving image in a similar sense, only it's just as much about language, writing and photography - to a huge degree in terms of composition. The same can be said about any other creative medium and art form. Should never be the focus? What? There's no such thing as a 'never' or an 'always'. There are tons of games that do, and there's a ton of games that have succeded because of it; focusing entirely on mechanics or not. At the end of the day every game will feature the elements of - aesthetics, technology, mechanics and story in some shape or form - difference here is that they'll concentrate on these all very differently. Planescape is different to Robotron for a reason. COD's gameplay in terms of singleplayer serves what purpose? There is no introduced learning tools, there is no increase in what constitutes as mechanical engagement other than facilitating the same thing from start to finish. What changes is the spectacle and the story, not the gameplay. You might enjoy it more for the gameplay and that's perfectly fine; at the end of the day the game has not been created with the intention of focusing on its mechanics in its singleplayer component; it's not a game like Doom which sets aside the aesthetic and story element to take stage for mechanical variation. The two games are different in terms of focusing on elements that constitute a game, despite being from the same genre. What you tend to value or prefer doesn't constitute as what is a game. Which is the same as you want you think as pretentious; you can say it all you want but that doesn't inform anything other than what you like in terms of video games.Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because the spectacle means nothing if the gameplay isn't there. COD1 and 2 didn't have the story, and they were loved, regardless.
Oh and btw, as much as I think games like Limbo are cheap and uninspired, Shadow of the Collosus is the game I put at the top when it comes to being pretentious, and having in actually zero substance.
Renegade_Fury
It is "funny", and honestly, Braid doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before I don't think. But grouping indie platformers like that against mario... just doesn't seem fair and is obviously trying to make the characters look like hipsters, when they really aren't.parkurtommoOh it's not fair, but that's partly why it is funny. If anything it's taking more of a jab at the people lauding these games for being more superior to platformers like SMB then the actual games themselves; the creators don't rile on the game, if anything it's directly influential.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I just think there's something a bit off when the most memorable parts of the game are the unplayable, incomprehensible cutscenes where you go to Youtube and read through the comments to read people's interpretations about what it means. And then the game gives you a codescending letter grade at the end of every level that's unrelated to anything you actually did.[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] I just watched some gameplay of it, how is it pretentious? Just seems to have a creepy atmosphere and linear gameplay.parkurtommo
And I'm just a bit annoyed whenever someone goes "Hey you guys Little Red Riding Hood is actually about puberty!" and I go "We know already. Why don't you do a fairytale that hasn't been done to death, like that one where that kid gets cannibalized by his stepmother and comes back as a bird that sings creepy songs?"
Also, I don't like the dev's attitude.
Yeah, I guess that's pretentious. But a lot of people seem to throw the word at anything that they aren't used to, it makes me ashamed to be a gamer sometimes, the fact that everyone just wants the same stuff, always.Personally, I think the difference is:A game like Dear Esther or To the Moon it just asks for a little time and consideration from the players to broaden their horizons and see what the creators have done.
The Path, both from its Steam description and from the dev's "games aren't art" and it seems to be full of itself with mocking game conventions and that "oh aren't I subverting your expectations of the medium?" feeling.
Maybe mechanically these games aren't all that different, but they certainly seem to get different reactions out of me from reading the Steam pages.
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]Braid is an extremely well made and thoughtful game. Now I'll merrily say that it's actual narrative feels like a bit of a wank at times, but even from a purely mechanical perspective it's a damn well crafted game. Uninspired is the least of things it is, there aren't many games that have done time manipulation that well out there; Prince of Persia SoT and Archon are two that come to mind. Which is another thing; it's not always about the gameplay. Mechanics are a piece of a game, it's not the whole form or the most distinctive one for every game. You're not going to play through a COD games singleplayer for the amazing gameplay, just like you're not going to play through Limbo for the amazing gameplay. You're playing through it for the spectacle and unfolding sequence of events; different shades of atmosphere and environments. Blabadon
Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because you're talking about modes, when its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because even if your point was that MP is its draw, well guess what? That means the gameplay has to be great, because that is all what MP is about.
Even then, the whole medium has expanded where good gameplay is consistently being overshadowed by the other part of a game. We have so many CoD clones with solid gameplay that can't stand out because they don't have the other parts that the medium of video games has shown it can engage the player in, like story and environments. I was watching an Extra Credits video involving Spec Ops The Line where they basically discuss how they can't match up gameplay with other big budget titles due to their own budget so they draw in the player in a different way. Another case is SoTC. Best gameplay ever? Not even close. But it has all the other things that don't exactly make up for the gameplay rather than cascade into it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree and disagree with you. It is about gameplay first, but not all about gameplay in today's age.Some people get be bought off with cheap thrills, and so that crowd will always be there for certain developers. Same thing with other movies and books. I don't think anyone would call Transformers or Twilight brilliant, but they had their fans. Basically I'm saying in principle, I think gameplay is the most important factor, but I don't think games need need it to be a success.
Even then, the whole medium has expanded where good gameplay is consistently being overshadowed by the other part of a game. We have so many CoD clones with solid gameplay that can't stand out because they don't have the other parts that the medium of video games has shown it can engage the player in, like story and environments. I was watching an Extra Credits video involving Spec Ops The Line where they basically discuss how they can't match up gameplay with other big budget titles due to their own budget so they draw in the player in a different way. Another case is SoTC. Best gameplay ever? Not even close. But it has all the other things that don't exactly make up for the gameplay rather than cascade into it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree and disagree with you. It is about gameplay first, but not all about gameplay in today's age.[QUOTE="Blabadon"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because you're talking about modes, when its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because even if your point was that MP is its draw, well guess what? That means the gameplay has to be great, because that is all what MP is about.
Renegade_Fury
Some people get be bought off with cheap thrills, and so that crowd will always be there for certain developers. Same thing with other movies and books. I don't think anyone would call Transformers or Twilight brilliant, but they had their fans. Basically I'm saying in principle, I think gameplay is the most important factor, but I don't think games need need it to be a success.
Oh. Well in that case I agree with you.So the early silent films are better than The King's Speech because they focus purely on the moving image, rather than exploring the various aspects that film has evolved into?Dear Esther is shunned because it's a bad game, first and foremost. If a developer wants to be artsy fartsy, then go ahead, but that doesn't give them the excuse to ignore the most important factor. Evolution doesn't just pop out of nowhere, it's build off existing principles, and in this genre, gameplay is at the top of that list.
Renegade_Fury
Your logic is outright false, evolution isn't reductive, it's growth and change.
Of course evolution is important, Dear Esther is part of the evolution in the understanding of storytelling in games, and as a result, what games are. It's sure as hell not an evolution in terms of learning systems and mechanical engagement; as I said everything isn't doing the same thing.
That's the same in fine art, games, film, music (of all godamn things) etc.
It's a strange particularity of the gaming community to belittle or condescend on anything that differs from their own taste..Although asking your particular question in a mostly shooter universe is a bit like walking into a chicken shack and asking if they have goat stew...I personally detest games that have too many puzzles, some people hate sports games or RPG's etc etc...many gamers for some unfathomable reason seem stuck in a pre-pubescent self or peer group value system
I think what people fail to understand is that some visions of artists, specifically Dear Esther for example, can't be done in other mediums, without being shunned by their respective community. (hell that's already happening in it's current medium, games) Can you imagine a movie like Dear Esther? Nope, because it simply can't, the visual design, and general idea is impossible with live action. Even for a CGI movie, it's just too far fetched. I'd love to see as movie that was as beautiful as Dear Esther, but sadly there are none. Just accept the fact that the video game industry is evolving, and has evolved, in to much more than just mario and half life.[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because the spectacle means nothing if the gameplay isn't there. COD1 and 2 didn't have the story, and they were loved, regardless.
Oh and btw, as much as I think games like Limbo are cheap and uninspired, Shadow of the Collosus is the game I put at the top when it comes to being pretentious, and having in actually zero substance.
Renegade_Fury
Dear Esther is shunned because it's a bad game, first and foremost. If a developer wants to be artsy fartsy, then go ahead, but that doesn't give them the excuse to ignore the most important factor. Evolution doesn't just pop out of nowhere, it's build off existing principles, and in this genre, gameplay is at the top of that list.
No, they're just not that big of a deal.
Absolute TRUTH... if you apply that to anything you or I or anybody else feels about any particular genreNo, they're just not that big of a deal.
whiskeystrike
Best damn post in the thread.It's a strange particularity of the gaming community to belittle or condescend on anything that differs from their own taste..Although asking your particular question in a mostly shooter universe is a bit like walking into a chicken shack and asking if they have goat stew...I personally detest games that have too many puzzles, some people hate sports games or RPG's etc etc...many gamers for some unfathomable reason seem stuck in a pre-pubescent self or peer group value system
spiderluck
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]It isn't always about the gameplay. You don't play Final Fantasy for the same reasons you play Tetris. You don't play STALKER for the same reasons you play Quake. You don't play Crusader Kings for the same reasons you play Starcraft, Planescape to Diablo. etc. A game is a multifacated thing, the title of something tells us little about the actual forms that games can take up. Comics is the definition of 'comical strip'; does that mean that comics in their entirety are about humour? Hell no. The very fact that there are games that exist and aren't about the gameplay is evidence that games don't have to be about a concentration on mechanics. Interaction is a defining feature, that doesn't mean it nullifies everything else. Film is about the moving image in a similar sense, only it's just as much about language, writing and photography - to a huge degree in terms of composition. The same can be said about any other creative medium and art form. Should never be the focus? What? There's no such thing as a 'never' or an 'always'. There are tons of games that do, and there's a ton of games that have succeded because of it; focusing entirely on mechanics or not. At the end of the day every game will feature the elements of - aesthetics, technology, mechanics and story in some shape or form - difference here is that they'll concentrate on these all very differently. Planescape is different to Robotron for a reason. COD's gameplay in terms of singleplayer serves what purpose? There is no introduced learning tools, there is no increase in what constitutes as mechanical engagement other than facilitating the same thing from start to finish. What changes is the spectacle and the story, not the gameplay. You might enjoy it more for the gameplay and that's perfectly fine; at the end of the day the game has not been created with the intention of focusing on its mechanics in its singleplayer component; it's not a game like Doom which sets aside the aesthetic and story element to take stage for mechanical variation. The two games are different in terms of focusing on elements that constitute a game, despite being from the same genre. What you tend to value or prefer doesn't constitute as what is a game. Which is the same as you want you think as pretentious; you can say it all you want but that doesn't inform anything other than what you like in terms of video games.Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because the spectacle means nothing if the gameplay isn't there. COD1 and 2 didn't have the story, and they were loved, regardless.
Oh and btw, as much as I think games like Limbo are cheap and uninspired, Shadow of the Collosus is the game I put at the top when it comes to being pretentious, and having in actually zero substance.
skrat_01
Disagree, again because gameplay is what constitutes a video game. All that interaction is derived from it, because without it, there is no game. Just because some people are more forgiving and prefer different elements of a game more, I don't think devalues the genre's foundation. There are complimentary elements to get the total package, but to be called "good" then you need to have that central element first in formost. You obviously feel it's a combination of a multitude of things, I do too, but I also feel preference doesn't belittle the core of the genre, and when it comes to video games, that's gameplay. Games like Limbo and Shadow Collosus I call pretentious because they significantly overvalue those complimentary elements to such a degree above the genre's central element, that it comes off as an excuse to have poor gameplay.
It isn't always about the gameplay. You don't play Final Fantasy for the same reasons you play Tetris. You don't play STALKER for the same reasons you play Quake. You don't play Crusader Kings for the same reasons you play Starcraft, Planescape to Diablo. etc. A game is a multifacated thing, the title of something tells us little about the actual forms that games can take up. Comics is the definition of 'comical strip'; does that mean that comics in their entirety are about humour? Hell no. The very fact that there are games that exist and aren't about the gameplay is evidence that games don't have to be about a concentration on mechanics. Interaction is a defining feature, that doesn't mean it nullifies everything else. Film is about the moving image in a similar sense, only it's just as much about language, writing and photography - to a huge degree in terms of composition. The same can be said about any other creative medium and art form. Should never be the focus? What? There's no such thing as a 'never' or an 'always'. There are tons of games that do, and there's a ton of games that have succeded because of it; focusing entirely on mechanics or not. At the end of the day every game will feature the elements of - aesthetics, technology, mechanics and story in some shape or form - difference here is that they'll concentrate on these all very differently. Planescape is different to Robotron for a reason. COD's gameplay in terms of singleplayer serves what purpose? There is no introduced learning tools, there is no increase in what constitutes as mechanical engagement other than facilitating the same thing from start to finish. What changes is the spectacle and the story, not the gameplay. You might enjoy it more for the gameplay and that's perfectly fine; at the end of the day the game has not been created with the intention of focusing on its mechanics in its singleplayer component; it's not a game like Doom which sets aside the aesthetic and story element to take stage for mechanical variation. The two games are different in terms of focusing on elements that constitute a game, despite being from the same genre. What you tend to value or prefer doesn't constitute as what is a game. Which is the same as you want you think as pretentious; you can say it all you want but that doesn't inform anything other than what you like in terms of video games.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because the spectacle means nothing if the gameplay isn't there. COD1 and 2 didn't have the story, and they were loved, regardless.
Oh and btw, as much as I think games like Limbo are cheap and uninspired, Shadow of the Collosus is the game I put at the top when it comes to being pretentious, and having in actually zero substance.
Renegade_Fury
Disagree, again because gameplay is what constitutes a video game. All that interaction is derived from it, because without it, there is no game. Just because some people are more forgiving and prefer different elements of a game more, I don't think belittles the genre's foundation. There are complimentary elements to get the total package, but to be called "good" then you need to have that central element first in formost. Preference doesn't eliminate the core of the genre, and when it comes to video games, that's gameplay. Games like Limbo and Shadow Collosus I call pretentious because they try to heighten the importance of those complimentary elements above the genre's central element.
All interaction isn't derived from gameplay, that's false. 'All' interaction is purely a product of code running in the background, the engine and the lines of script that actually make actions and reactions happen. At the end of the day all gameplay code and rules masquerading as visual action.Without the technology there is no game. Without the stone there is no sculpture, without the camera there is no film.
Video games however aren't about lines of code operating to rules; they're not automated board or physical games. They're more than that.
Literature, plays, film, photography, painting, sculpture, architecture and so on have all had different origins and been build upon different foundations. As forms they've evolved and changed. Low and behold as with the four elements they're always going to exist; this doesn't mean they're going to be focused on.
You're wrong. There are more than enough games that concentrate on areas other than mechanics; from text based adventures, to the rail shooters like Rez, and they're extremely wide and varied; just like games that do. What games are and can be is absolutely huge, like any creative medium and on that evidence alone outright proves games are more then what you constitute as a game. All you're proving is what you value.
Which is the same as what you try and define as pretentious. You're wrong again, all you're showing is what you value, apparently threatened by the fact that there are low and behold, games doing things different to other games out there.
All games aren't any one thing, games do things differently, as the huge span of music genres are to music, classical painting to modernist, classical sculpture to Dadist creation and the Avant Garde film producers of early film, to Michael Bay's next massive CGI blockbuster.
You don't have to like them, but they sure as hell exist.
You're going to have to get over that.
That's the fact, the truth isin the games themselves.
You can yell and raise your nose as much as you like - all you're doing, ironically enough is act pretentious.
Funny that.
It isn't always about the gameplay. You don't play Final Fantasy for the same reasons you play Tetris. You don't play STALKER for the same reasons you play Quake. You don't play Crusader Kings for the same reasons you play Starcraft, Planescape to Diablo. etc. A game is a multifacated thing, the title of something tells us little about the actual forms that games can take up. Comics is the definition of 'comical strip'; does that mean that comics in their entirety are about humour? Hell no. The very fact that there are games that exist and aren't about the gameplay is evidence that games don't have to be about a concentration on mechanics. Interaction is a defining feature, that doesn't mean it nullifies everything else. Film is about the moving image in a similar sense, only it's just as much about language, writing and photography - to a huge degree in terms of composition. The same can be said about any other creative medium and art form. Should never be the focus? What? There's no such thing as a 'never' or an 'always'. There are tons of games that do, and there's a ton of games that have succeded because of it; focusing entirely on mechanics or not. At the end of the day every game will feature the elements of - aesthetics, technology, mechanics and story in some shape or form - difference here is that they'll concentrate on these all very differently. Planescape is different to Robotron for a reason. COD's gameplay in terms of singleplayer serves what purpose? There is no introduced learning tools, there is no increase in what constitutes as mechanical engagement other than facilitating the same thing from start to finish. What changes is the spectacle and the story, not the gameplay. You might enjoy it more for the gameplay and that's perfectly fine; at the end of the day the game has not been created with the intention of focusing on its mechanics in its singleplayer component; it's not a game like Doom which sets aside the aesthetic and story element to take stage for mechanical variation. The two games are different in terms of focusing on elements that constitute a game, despite being from the same genre. What you tend to value or prefer doesn't constitute as what is a game. Which is the same as you want you think as pretentious; you can say it all you want but that doesn't inform anything other than what you like in terms of video games.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
Then we have a fundamentally different viewpoint, because I strongly disagree with that, because first and foremost, it's always about the gameplay. If you don't have that, put it down, because the they're called video games, and the gameplay is what separates it from all other medium. All the asethtics and, what not, are complimentary elements, and so should never be the focus. I don't understand what you're trying to say about COD, because its gameplay is its biggest draw. It's fast, responsive and fun, and as for the sp, at least for me when I played it, was a HUGE part of the reason why I enjoyed it. I'd say for FPS gameplay is the ultimate factor, because the spectacle means nothing if the gameplay isn't there. COD1 and 2 didn't have the story, and they were loved, regardless.
Oh and btw, as much as I think games like Limbo are cheap and uninspired, Shadow of the Collosus is the game I put at the top when it comes to being pretentious, and having in actually zero substance.
Renegade_Fury
Disagree, again because gameplay is what constitutes a video game. All that interaction is derived from it, because without it, there is no game. Just because some people are more forgiving and prefer different elements of a game more, I don't think devalues the genre's foundation. There are complimentary elements to get the total package, but to be called "good" then you need to have that central element first in formost. You obviously feel it's a combination of a multitude of things, I do too, but I also feel preference doesn't belittle the core of the genre, and when it comes to video games, that's gameplay. Games like Limbo and Shadow Collosus I call pretentious because they significantly overvalue those complimentary elements to such a degree above the genre's central element, that it comes off as an excuse to have poor gameplay.
You make a very compelling counter argument and I also feel that gameplay should always be first and foremost in videogames..Where i would disagree, is in your conclusion that the " overevaluation of complementary elements is an excuse for poor gameplay ".....I seriously doubt any dev sets out to consciously downplay gameplay but that it is simply the result of their vision...You may argue their vision is uninspired or lacking the necessary creativity to turn your crank but the argument that it is an "excuse for poor gameplay " is subjective at best[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
[QUOTE="skrat_01"] It isn't always about the gameplay. You don't play Final Fantasy for the same reasons you play Tetris. You don't play STALKER for the same reasons you play Quake. You don't play Crusader Kings for the same reasons you play Starcraft, Planescape to Diablo. etc. A game is a multifacated thing, the title of something tells us little about the actual forms that games can take up. Comics is the definition of 'comical strip'; does that mean that comics in their entirety are about humour? Hell no. The very fact that there are games that exist and aren't about the gameplay is evidence that games don't have to be about a concentration on mechanics. Interaction is a defining feature, that doesn't mean it nullifies everything else. Film is about the moving image in a similar sense, only it's just as much about language, writing and photography - to a huge degree in terms of composition. The same can be said about any other creative medium and art form. Should never be the focus? What? There's no such thing as a 'never' or an 'always'. There are tons of games that do, and there's a ton of games that have succeded because of it; focusing entirely on mechanics or not. At the end of the day every game will feature the elements of - aesthetics, technology, mechanics and story in some shape or form - difference here is that they'll concentrate on these all very differently. Planescape is different to Robotron for a reason. COD's gameplay in terms of singleplayer serves what purpose? There is no introduced learning tools, there is no increase in what constitutes as mechanical engagement other than facilitating the same thing from start to finish. What changes is the spectacle and the story, not the gameplay. You might enjoy it more for the gameplay and that's perfectly fine; at the end of the day the game has not been created with the intention of focusing on its mechanics in its singleplayer component; it's not a game like Doom which sets aside the aesthetic and story element to take stage for mechanical variation. The two games are different in terms of focusing on elements that constitute a game, despite being from the same genre. What you tend to value or prefer doesn't constitute as what is a game. Which is the same as you want you think as pretentious; you can say it all you want but that doesn't inform anything other than what you like in terms of video games. skrat_01
Disagree, again because gameplay is what constitutes a video game. All that interaction is derived from it, because without it, there is no game. Just because some people are more forgiving and prefer different elements of a game more, I don't think belittles the genre's foundation. There are complimentary elements to get the total package, but to be called "good" then you need to have that central element first in formost. Preference doesn't eliminate the core of the genre, and when it comes to video games, that's gameplay. Games like Limbo and Shadow Collosus I call pretentious because they try to heighten the importance of those complimentary elements above the genre's central element.
All interaction isn't derived from gameplay, that's false. 'All' interaction is purely a product of code running in the background, the engine and the lines of script that actually make actions and reactions happen. At the end of the day all gameplay code and rules masquerading as visual action.Without the technology there is no game. Without the stone there is no sculpture, without the camera there is no film.
Video games however aren't about lines of code operating to rules; they're not automated board or physical games. They're more than that.
Literature, plays, film, photography, painting, sculpture, architecture and so on have all had different origins and been build upon different foundations. As forms they've evolved and changed. Low and behold as with the four elements they're always going to exist; this doesn't mean they're going to be focused on.
You're wrong. There are more than enough games that concentrate on areas other than mechanics; from text based adventures, to the rail shooters like Rez, and they're extremely wide and varied; just like games that do. What games are and can be is absolutely huge, like any creative medium and on that evidence alone outright proves games are more then what you constitute as a game. All you're proving is what you value.
Which is the same as what you try and define as pretentious. You're wrong again, all you're showing is what you value, apparently threatened by the fact that there are low and behold, games doing things different to other games out there.
All games aren't any one thing, games do things differently, as the huge span of music genres are to music, classical painting to modernist, classical sculpture to Dadist creation and the Avant Garde film producers of early film, to Michael Bay's next massive CGI blockbuster.
You don't have to like them, but they sure as hell exist.
You're going to have to get over that.
That's the fact, the truth isin the games themselves.
You can yell and raise your nose as much as you like - all you're doing, ironically enough is act pretentious.
Funny that.
The ACTUAL best damn post in the thread[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] It isn't always about the gameplay. You don't play Final Fantasy for the same reasons you play Tetris. You don't play STALKER for the same reasons you play Quake. You don't play Crusader Kings for the same reasons you play Starcraft, Planescape to Diablo. etc. A game is a multifacated thing, the title of something tells us little about the actual forms that games can take up. Comics is the definition of 'comical strip'; does that mean that comics in their entirety are about humour? Hell no. The very fact that there are games that exist and aren't about the gameplay is evidence that games don't have to be about a concentration on mechanics. Interaction is a defining feature, that doesn't mean it nullifies everything else. Film is about the moving image in a similar sense, only it's just as much about language, writing and photography - to a huge degree in terms of composition. The same can be said about any other creative medium and art form. Should never be the focus? What? There's no such thing as a 'never' or an 'always'. There are tons of games that do, and there's a ton of games that have succeded because of it; focusing entirely on mechanics or not. At the end of the day every game will feature the elements of - aesthetics, technology, mechanics and story in some shape or form - difference here is that they'll concentrate on these all very differently. Planescape is different to Robotron for a reason. COD's gameplay in terms of singleplayer serves what purpose? There is no introduced learning tools, there is no increase in what constitutes as mechanical engagement other than facilitating the same thing from start to finish. What changes is the spectacle and the story, not the gameplay. You might enjoy it more for the gameplay and that's perfectly fine; at the end of the day the game has not been created with the intention of focusing on its mechanics in its singleplayer component; it's not a game like Doom which sets aside the aesthetic and story element to take stage for mechanical variation. The two games are different in terms of focusing on elements that constitute a game, despite being from the same genre. What you tend to value or prefer doesn't constitute as what is a game. Which is the same as you want you think as pretentious; you can say it all you want but that doesn't inform anything other than what you like in terms of video games. skrat_01
Disagree, again because gameplay is what constitutes a video game. All that interaction is derived from it, because without it, there is no game. Just because some people are more forgiving and prefer different elements of a game more, I don't think belittles the genre's foundation. There are complimentary elements to get the total package, but to be called "good" then you need to have that central element first in formost. Preference doesn't eliminate the core of the genre, and when it comes to video games, that's gameplay. Games like Limbo and Shadow Collosus I call pretentious because they try to heighten the importance of those complimentary elements above the genre's central element.
All interaction isn't derived from gameplay, that's false. All interaction is derived from the code running in the background, the engine and the lines of script that actually make actions and reactions happen. At the end of the day all gameplay code and rules masquerading as visual action. Without the technology there is no game. Without the stone there is no sculpture, without the camera there is no film. Video games however aren't about lines of code operating to rules; they're not automated board or physical games. They're more than that. Literature, plays, film, photography, painting, sculpture, architecture and so on have all had different origins and been build upon different foundations. As forms they've evolved and changed. Low and behold as with the four elements they're always going to exist; this doesn't mean they're going to be focused on. You're wrong. There are more than enough games that concentrate on areas other than mechanics; from text based adventures, to the rail shooters like Rez, and they're extremely wide and varied; just like games that do. What games are and can be is absolutely huge, like any creative medium and on that evidence alone outright proves games are more then what you constitute as a game. All you're proving is what you value. Which is the same as what you try and define as pretentious. You're wrong again, all you're showing is what you value, apparently threatened by the fact that there are low and behold, games doing things different to other games out there. All games aren't any one thing, games do things differently, as the huge span of music genres are to music, classical painting to modernist, classical sculpture to Dadist creation and the Avant Garde film producers of early film, to Michael Bay's next massive CGI blockbuster. You're going to have to get over that. That's the fact, the truths in the games themselves. You can yell and raise your nose as much as you like - all you're doing is ironically enough, acting pretentious. Funny that.Funny, so you're just going to preach from atop your pillar, calling me wrong and having to get over it, huh? Wouldn't you call that acting pretentious?
Of course, I'm proving what I value, because that's what I believe: gameplay is what defines games. There are different genres within the media like all others, but there like each, there is one element that defines it and separates it. All that interaction is derived from gameplay, because it's what gives the player control. Take the gameplay and what do you have? Nothing. You're really trying to get so philosphical that you're resorting to the stone and sculputre? Really, you want to play that game? No need to go into the world of Joesph Campbell, when all this thread is asking if we think games like Limbo, Dear Esther are pretentious. Please, for us as players, it starts with the gameplay, and when it's given a backseat for emotional cues, I don't hesitate at all to call that being pretentious.
not at all.
Well maybe dear esther, that wasn't even a game. There was no gameplay.
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] It isn't always about the gameplay. You don't play Final Fantasy for the same reasons you play Tetris. You don't play STALKER for the same reasons you play Quake. You don't play Crusader Kings for the same reasons you play Starcraft, Planescape to Diablo. etc. A game is a multifacated thing, the title of something tells us little about the actual forms that games can take up. Comics is the definition of 'comical strip'; does that mean that comics in their entirety are about humour? Hell no. The very fact that there are games that exist and aren't about the gameplay is evidence that games don't have to be about a concentration on mechanics. Interaction is a defining feature, that doesn't mean it nullifies everything else. Film is about the moving image in a similar sense, only it's just as much about language, writing and photography - to a huge degree in terms of composition. The same can be said about any other creative medium and art form. Should never be the focus? What? There's no such thing as a 'never' or an 'always'. There are tons of games that do, and there's a ton of games that have succeded because of it; focusing entirely on mechanics or not. At the end of the day every game will feature the elements of - aesthetics, technology, mechanics and story in some shape or form - difference here is that they'll concentrate on these all very differently. Planescape is different to Robotron for a reason. COD's gameplay in terms of singleplayer serves what purpose? There is no introduced learning tools, there is no increase in what constitutes as mechanical engagement other than facilitating the same thing from start to finish. What changes is the spectacle and the story, not the gameplay. You might enjoy it more for the gameplay and that's perfectly fine; at the end of the day the game has not been created with the intention of focusing on its mechanics in its singleplayer component; it's not a game like Doom which sets aside the aesthetic and story element to take stage for mechanical variation. The two games are different in terms of focusing on elements that constitute a game, despite being from the same genre. What you tend to value or prefer doesn't constitute as what is a game. Which is the same as you want you think as pretentious; you can say it all you want but that doesn't inform anything other than what you like in terms of video games. spiderluck
Disagree, again because gameplay is what constitutes a video game. All that interaction is derived from it, because without it, there is no game. Just because some people are more forgiving and prefer different elements of a game more, I don't think devalues the genre's foundation. There are complimentary elements to get the total package, but to be called "good" then you need to have that central element first in formost. You obviously feel it's a combination of a multitude of things, I do too, but I also feel preference doesn't belittle the core of the genre, and when it comes to video games, that's gameplay. Games like Limbo and Shadow Collosus I call pretentious because they significantly overvalue those complimentary elements to such a degree above the genre's central element, that it comes off as an excuse to have poor gameplay.
You make a very compelling counter argument and I also feel that gameplay should always be first and foremost in videogames..Where i would disagree, is in your conclusion that the " overevaluation of complementary elements is an excuse for poor gameplay ".....I seriously doubt any dev sets out to consciously downplay gameplay but that it is simply the result of their vision...You may argue their vision is uninspired or lacking the necessary creativity to turn your crank but the argument that it is an "excuse for poor gameplay " is subjective at bestNo, I don't think they're consciously downplaying gameplay, but I do feel they're being lazy with it. Their vision focuses too much on the glittery side of things, while being satisfied with an average to below foundation.
I've never thought that personally. Out of the three I've only played Limbo and Journey but I thought they were both brilliant.I was just wondering, since they seem to get a lot of hate for that exact reason.
If so, how are they pretentious? How can a game be pretentious?
parkurtommo
Just like you, TC ;) :P
All interaction isn't derived from gameplay, that's false. All interaction is derived from the code running in the background, the engine and the lines of script that actually make actions and reactions happen. At the end of the day all gameplay code and rules masquerading as visual action. Without the technology there is no game. Without the stone there is no sculpture, without the camera there is no film. Video games however aren't about lines of code operating to rules; they're not automated board or physical games. They're more than that. Literature, plays, film, photography, painting, sculpture, architecture and so on have all had different origins and been build upon different foundations. As forms they've evolved and changed. Low and behold as with the four elements they're always going to exist; this doesn't mean they're going to be focused on. You're wrong. There are more than enough games that concentrate on areas other than mechanics; from text based adventures, to the rail shooters like Rez, and they're extremely wide and varied; just like games that do. What games are and can be is absolutely huge, like any creative medium and on that evidence alone outright proves games are more then what you constitute as a game. All you're proving is what you value. Which is the same as what you try and define as pretentious. You're wrong again, all you're showing is what you value, apparently threatened by the fact that there are low and behold, games doing things different to other games out there. All games aren't any one thing, games do things differently, as the huge span of music genres are to music, classical painting to modernist, classical sculpture to Dadist creation and the Avant Garde film producers of early film, to Michael Bay's next massive CGI blockbuster. You're going to have to get over that. That's the fact, the truths in the games themselves. You can yell and raise your nose as much as you like - all you're doing is ironically enough, acting pretentious. Funny that.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
Disagree, again because gameplay is what constitutes a video game. All that interaction is derived from it, because without it, there is no game. Just because some people are more forgiving and prefer different elements of a game more, I don't think belittles the genre's foundation. There are complimentary elements to get the total package, but to be called "good" then you need to have that central element first in formost. Preference doesn't eliminate the core of the genre, and when it comes to video games, that's gameplay. Games like Limbo and Shadow Collosus I call pretentious because they try to heighten the importance of those complimentary elements above the genre's central element.
Renegade_Fury
Funny, so you're just going to preach from atop your pillar, calling me wrong and having to get over it, huh? Wouldn't you call that acting pretentious?
Of course, I'm proving what I value, because that's what I believe: gameplay is what defines games. There are different genres within the media like all others, but there like each, there is one element that defines it and separates it. All that interaction is derived from gameplay, because it's what gives the player control. Take the gameplay and what do you have? Nothing. You're really trying to get so philosphical that you're resorting to the stone and sculputre? Really, you want to play that game? No need to go into the world of Joesph Campbell, when all this thread is asking if we think games like Limbo, Dear Esther are pretentious. Please, for us as players, it starts with the gameplay, and when it's given a backseat for emotional cues, I don't hesitate at all to call that being pretentious.
Wow you guys are hell on my schizoid nature as i find myself agreeing with both of you...Skrat says you may be acting pretentious yourself by claiming that these games are pretentious and by extension gamers who like these games...You on the other hand make an excellent defense for the necessity of the validity of gameplay as a central tenet of videogames...I think that where I side with Skrat is on the non judgemental view and the futility of labelling that which we dislike...Surely you can agree that many people love these games for reasons you or I find completely without merit...Taste being relative, cannot be argued[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] All interaction isn't derived from gameplay, that's false. All interaction is derived from the code running in the background, the engine and the lines of script that actually make actions and reactions happen. At the end of the day all gameplay code and rules masquerading as visual action. Without the technology there is no game. Without the stone there is no sculpture, without the camera there is no film. Video games however aren't about lines of code operating to rules; they're not automated board or physical games. They're more than that. Literature, plays, film, photography, painting, sculpture, architecture and so on have all had different origins and been build upon different foundations. As forms they've evolved and changed. Low and behold as with the four elements they're always going to exist; this doesn't mean they're going to be focused on. You're wrong. There are more than enough games that concentrate on areas other than mechanics; from text based adventures, to the rail shooters like Rez, and they're extremely wide and varied; just like games that do. What games are and can be is absolutely huge, like any creative medium and on that evidence alone outright proves games are more then what you constitute as a game. All you're proving is what you value. Which is the same as what you try and define as pretentious. You're wrong again, all you're showing is what you value, apparently threatened by the fact that there are low and behold, games doing things different to other games out there. All games aren't any one thing, games do things differently, as the huge span of music genres are to music, classical painting to modernist, classical sculpture to Dadist creation and the Avant Garde film producers of early film, to Michael Bay's next massive CGI blockbuster. You're going to have to get over that. That's the fact, the truths in the games themselves. You can yell and raise your nose as much as you like - all you're doing is ironically enough, acting pretentious. Funny that.spiderluck
Funny, so you're just going to preach from atop your pillar, calling me wrong and having to get over it, huh? Wouldn't you call that acting pretentious?
Of course, I'm proving what I value, because that's what I believe: gameplay is what defines games. There are different genres within the media like all others, but there like each, there is one element that defines it and separates it. All that interaction is derived from gameplay, because it's what gives the player control. Take the gameplay and what do you have? Nothing. You're really trying to get so philosphical that you're resorting to the stone and sculputre? Really, you want to play that game? No need to go into the world of Joesph Campbell, when all this thread is asking if we think games like Limbo, Dear Esther are pretentious. Please, for us as players, it starts with the gameplay, and when it's given a backseat for emotional cues, I don't hesitate at all to call that being pretentious.
Wow you guys are hell on my schizoid nature as i find myself agreeing with both of you...Skrat says you may be acting pretentious yourself by claiming that these games are pretentious and by extension gamers who like these games...You on the other hand make an excellent defense for the necessity of the validity of gameplay as a central tenet of videogames...I think that where I side with Skrat is on the non judgemental view and the futility of labelling that which we dislike...Surely you can agree that many people love these games for reasons you or I find completely without merit...Taste being relative, cannot be arguedTaste is relative, yeah of course, I agree. Still, categorizing, organizing, labeling, and ranking is a part of human nature. That's what gamepot does isn't it: a site that lists, organizes, and reviews games. Whether you agree with an opinion or not, that's one thing, but I think we all have a set of guidelines we follow, whether some of us recognize that or not. I recognize mine which is why I hold gameplay very strongly, because I feel it really is what makes the medium what it is.
Well, its kind of like this; some people watch Jerry Springer, Wrestling, reality tv shows, listen to Rap and think Mc Donalds is fine food. And thats ok. But these people are not going to like or understand a game like Limbo or Flower, and they get all twisted inside when someone suggests that these games are actually good. Just let them flop around in their mediocre, mundane, dull headed little worlds. But for those that can rise above all that, we sure have some fine games to play.
Well, its kind of like this; some people watch Jerry Springer, Wrestling, reality tv shows, listen to Rap and think Mc Donalds is fine food. And thats ok. But these people are not going to like or understand a game like Limbo or Flower, and they get all twisted inside when someone suggests that these games are actually good. Just let them flop around in their mediocre, mundane, dull headed little worlds. But for those that can rise above all that, we sure have some fine games to play.
Videodogg
lol, but surely that type of thinking is not pretentious at all.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment