The occupation needs an occupation.
Greatgone12's forum posts
Despite the fact that SupCom 1 on 360 was intact gamewise:|GulliversTravelI haven't played it, but I'm sure it was. I'm also going to assume that the game was not as optimal play-wise as the PC version. The goal of developers is to make a friendly game, and complex RTSes on consoles are not friendly. So the devs have a choice: complex RTS on console (which is technically possible, but pointless) or a relatively shallow RTS that plays well (also a fine possibility, I'm not dissing, but a compromise).
[QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"]the only way it well work on consoles is if it is dumb downed so the pc version will suffer as a result. Why would they do this supreme commander sold way more on pc then the 360 so focus on the primary playerbase!MangaJ
Explain why it would have to be "dumbed down."Because console controllers have fewer buttons, therefore fewer potential inputs, therefore a smaller possibility space, therefore less complexity, therefore it is dumbed down.
Oh my, I do believe I struck a nerve there. So, you coming from tabletop experience means you're the infallible source of what makes a game an RPG, partial or not? That's just amusing elitism, nothing more. In fact, that's what your whole reply reeked of.Verge_6And what is your reply reeking of, if not elitism in regards to my elitism?
Listen: I am not an infallible source of anything. What I am is an EXPERT on role-playing games, by virtue of the fact that I have been PLAYING role-playing games my whole life. Experts, by definition, are the best sources of information -- if you ever doubt the fact, read some Schopenhauer -- and role-playing game has a very specific definition that is being abused. Why is this a problem? This quote sums it up quite nicely:
pinksville, the point of the article is not to "piss all over CRPGs." It's to point out how the "RPG" label is misused and explain how it should be used. This is important, because once you have that clarity in your terms, it's easier to focus on what makes those games good and how to make them better.
The games we currently have can be (for example) wonderful tactical dungeon crawlers--masterpieces, many of them--and those elements are what we should look at when comparing and improving them. But, they are poor RPGs. Progress towards greater plot interactivity has been stalled because everyone got locked into the "RPG means stats" mentality and stopped thinking about anything else. An entire genre is nigh-untapped.
The article is about insight, clarity, and consistency, not saying one type of game is better than another. If people learn to distinguish between "this is what makes stat-heavy strategy games good" and "this is what makes role-playing games good," we'll end up with greater demand for and better examples of each.Comments Poster
In other words, your mindless abuse of the word is INHIBITING the creative possibility space of video games. If you're fine with that, then go ahead, label me an elitist and go ahead with your life. I'm not weeping for you.
Your hate post doesnt deserve more than what he said. Its a fact that the RPG elements were already amazing on ME1 and the shooting ones needed an improvement. Thats exactly what Bioware did
Here's the thing: there ARE no RPG elements in the original Mass Effect. There are elements that ATTEMPT to EMULATE RPG elements, such as dialogue trees -- which are on their way, granted, but not quite RPG elements. A role-playing game allows FULL control over the story -- it's interactive storytelling -- and Mass Effect does not allow that. I did NOT criticize Mass Effect as a game (though I don't like it), merely the notion that it is a role-playing game, which is blatantly incorrect.
Seeing as you have blatant misconceptions about what makes a game an RPG or not and openly stated you were ignoring points that argued against your view, I think it's rather appropriate.Verge_6My "blatant misconceptions" come from a board gaming background, because unlike all of YOU, I was too poor to afford video games. From my background, anybody who has ever played a tabletop war game and compared it to a role-playing game will immediately see the fallacy of your arguments.
Mass Effect 2 does ATTEMPT to create role-playing, but it only provides an ILLUSION. Stats, etc. are all tabletop war gaming features.
EDIT: The fact that you control a party of characters in combat destroys any possibility of true role-playing, by the way, to anybody aware of the definition of "role-playing".
This is mostly gibberish.Jared2720Thank goodness you've pointed out every flaw in my argument.
Listen, do yourself a favor and go pick up this book. All of your delusions about "art" and "semantics" will be cleared up in no time.
In my opinion, you're doing a disservice to the industry by clinging to such outmoded nomenclature. It's no wonder that "gamers" have the reputation that they do. Reducing these works of art to something called a "video game" is counterproductive. Interactive media will become the literary tradition of the 21st Century, I believe, the way film was the literature of the 20th Century, but you're not doing the medium any favors with your semantics.Jared2720
As Wittgenstein explained, if you do not define your terms precisely, then your statement is nonsensical. In this case, the term "video game" is, indeed, a nonsensical term, because we cannot define a game. After all, if it is merely something that is defined by rules, then isn't everything a game? Because ultimately, all rules occur after the fact, as a result of humans defining them. And if "game" is a synonym of "everything", then the word "game" itself is meaningless -- ultimately, any statement that takes the word "game" at anything but face value is a nonsensical statement.
Secondly, "literature" is written work. Film is not the "literature" of the 20th century -- it is the film of the 20th century, or, if you want to be more precise, it is the adaptation of theater onto a medium that allows for greater suspension of disbelief. As with video games, they are ultimately the adaptation of games onto a medium that allows for certain greater possibilities. That does not change the fact that they are games.
Thirdly, the implied statement of your post is that "games are art", but then we must define every single term in the statement. In this case, we know that the word "game" is meaningless, and from that point of view, we can determine that the whole statement is nonsensical. But even if you forget that for a moment, we must then look at the definition of the word "art". Any basic dictionary search will reveal many definitions, which proves only that something is amiss. Indeed, it is: the word "art" does not have a universal definition. Again, as Wittgenstein explained with the "Beetle in the Box", words must have consensus in order to mean anything. A word cannot mean something only to you, because then the word does not actually have any meaning.
So now we can look at how the word "art" is, by consensus, understood: as a craft (the art of war, painting) or as something of outstanding quality ("your sister is a work of art"). Developing a video game can be described as an art, but then it loses all legitimacy, because everybody is an artist in that case. An excellent video game is also art, but it does not represent video games as a whole. It does not add legitimacy, either.
Fourthly, you are only proving your ignorance by disapproving of semantics, because it is the most important barrier to any and all discussion that wishes to be anything more than superficial. Now who is it that's doing this industry a disservice?
"Video game", taken as anything but at face value, means nothing. As an industry, the word "video game" means something that exists with a graphical component is defined by rules. That is it. Nothing is being inhibited or whatever.
[QUOTE="Greatgone12"]The term "video game" is already outdated and archaic. We only use it for lack of a better term. The point is that you're focused on all the wrong details. My problem isn't that they're not calling it a video game, but that the dev team sounds like a bunch of megalomaniacs. And the term "interactive drama" is stupid, don't you think?
I'd rather play Max Payne than Indigo Prophecy, so I'd rather play Alan Wake than Heavy Rain. Plus the Heavy Rain devs don't even have the guts to call it a video game, so I'm leaning towards the possibility that it might not be a very good video game.