Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

That in Norse mythology, the "Naglfar" was a ship built from the toenail and fingernail clippings of the dead?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic: What's in a Game?  (Read 6466 times)

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #45 on: 15 Oct 2014, 13:26 »

Dunno ? It's like asking what's in the blackhole at the center of our galaxy.

I just promised to write about how we evolved in all those years of gaming. Well, that's my personal experience.
Logged

Kala

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #46 on: 15 Oct 2014, 14:12 »

Quote
While I read all of that and found it interesting... what is in a game?

Quote
Dunno ? It's like asking what's in the blackhole at the center of our galaxy.

Yes, sorry about that, it was a bit of a broad question wasn't it  :D

But no, Lyn did answer the question (or a subset of the question) with that response.  If I've understood correctly, from your experience of the games you've played (which is all any of us can really offer) what was in a game, primarily, was skills-based challenge - which has shifted, over time in terms of...importance? to give way to story-based entertainment.

Quote
Haven't rambled like that for years. And it feels weird. My analytic/synthetic side is not pleased.

No, no I really enjoyed reading it.  It was great!

I think it also mirrors how I've seen games change over the years and how my attitudes towards them have shifted over the years. 

I had completely forgotten Prince of Persia.  I had it on the master system? mega drive? one of those. Dumped hours into it. The precision timing needed. I would not have the patience now by a long shot.  Fuck. That. Shit. And I've never been a particularly patient person.  I think it was just bloody minded determination? You will not beat me, you tosspot game? (which was mentioned earlier I think, with the game being an antagonist!)

But yes, now I wouldn't even call that gameplay (well, technically, of course it is, but not in a positive way that I would enjoy).  More an exercise in slow torture.

I do think things were so much harder in the games of yesteryear, as well.  Not always just...skills based games just, they had less qualms about being genuinely unfair. Like the original UFO, where you start with nothing and the aliens shoot you from nowhere across the screen when you can't even see them.  I don't think I'm being elitist in saying that games are both easier and more accessible nowadays - and perhaps having more in common with movies than they once did, I'm not sure? Comparing Mass Effect to Prince of Persia anyways. They are more big flashy multi-media events than pressing buttons in the correct order to make a man avoid spikes.

Quote
I was there for the story damnit ! I WANT TO SEE THE NEXT CHAPTER OF THE FUCKING STORY. DON'T YOU DARE GAME-OVER ME @_@

Yes. 
That is the main draw for games, for me.  Wanting to get to the next part of the story.
I know it isn't for everyone, though.  And I don't think it has to be.

Quote
When I was a kid they were all awesome, more or less. Same shit with cinema and novels, btw. Probably a very natural thing.

...Is it though?
Is it just that I'm older, less patient, more discerning, more cranky?
Or is it because I've not had to figure things out for myself for so long I don't actually want to bother anymore?
Is it just that I changed, or that games changed with me? Or did games changing change how I played them? @_@

Quote
So damn lazy. I'm starting to associate a lot of games with tedious work when it's not fun enough to amuse me. And there is youtube.

Yeah.  It actually really bothered me how quick I was to look at youtube and find my way out of that room rather than eventually getting it.  Is this what I am now? The attention span of a gnat, demanding instant gratification like any other internet-fed console luddite?  :|

Though I am, of course, of two minds.  I have this inherent contradiction.  On the one hand, conditioned in no small part by nostalgia I think, I value having to discover things for myself, not being spoon fed or hand-held.  I resent things that make my life easier, more convenient and 'fun' in games, because they often also detract from the meaning or impact, the adversity.  Not challenge in a skills based clever-timing way, but a deeper kind of way? Just that discovering things for myself?
On the other hand, though, realistically, without the conveniences I have come to expect, I will undoubtedly get pissy and frustrated.  I will complain it is not intuitive enough; it hasn't anticipated my needs well enough. (Which annoys me, because that's not how I like to see myself, but given my impatience with FF, I think I probably would).

If I'm honest, I'm more nostalgic for the games I've loved and played from the past than I am excited for games and their potential in the future.  Which is a bit sad, I think.  Because I've always been so excited with games as a way of telling stories, as it's the only thing where we can be present in another world and properly live them. I dunno if they've lived up to my self-imposed hype, though.

edit: granted, in fairness, I thought we'd all have hoverboards by now.



« Last Edit: 15 Oct 2014, 14:59 by Kala »
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #47 on: 15 Oct 2014, 15:54 »

But I want hoverboards. The first time I saw that movie, I was too young to appreciate it, but they had freaking HOVERBOARDS. That I came to call it "you know mom, the movie with hoverboards - I want the same at christmas btw kthxbye."

Quote
If I've understood correctly, from your experience of the games you've played (which is all any of us can really offer) what was in a game, primarily, was skills-based challenge - which has shifted, over time in terms of...importance? to give way to story-based entertainment.

Nah, just entertainment in general. Story-based entertainment is just personal.

Quote
...Is it though?
Is it just that I'm older, less patient, more discerning, more cranky?
Or is it because I've not had to figure things out for myself for so long I don't actually want to bother anymore?
Is it just that I changed, or that games changed with me? Or did games changing change how I played them? @_@

Quote
Yeah.  It actually really bothered me how quick I was to look at youtube and find my way out of that room rather than eventually getting it.  Is this what I am now? The attention span of a gnat, demanding instant gratification like any other internet-fed console luddite?  :|

Though I am, of course, of two minds.  I have this inherent contradiction.  On the one hand, conditioned in no small part by nostalgia I think, I value having to discover things for myself, not being spoon fed or hand-held.  I resent things that make my life easier, more convenient and 'fun' in games, because they often also detract from the meaning or impact, the adversity.  Not challenge in a skills based clever-timing way, but a deeper kind of way? Just that discovering things for myself?
On the other hand, though, realistically, without the conveniences I have come to expect, I will undoubtedly get pissy and frustrated.  I will complain it is not intuitive enough; it hasn't anticipated my needs well enough. (Which annoys me, because that's not how I like to see myself, but given my impatience with FF, I think I probably would).

If I'm honest, I'm more nostalgic for the games I've loved and played from the past than I am excited for games and their potential in the future.  Which is a bit sad, I think.  Because I've always been so excited with games as a way of telling stories, as it's the only thing where we can be present in another world and properly live them. I dunno if they've lived up to my self-imposed hype, though.

edit: granted, in fairness, I thought we'd all have hoverboards by now.

Not sure i'm there myself, but it still bothers me.

Well I still think that what I watch on youtube are either :

1- Great games that are console exclusive (booo) where there is no emulator option. Like NaughtyDog titles. Curse be on their families and all that.
2 - Alternative endings because like if being an achiever is not enough of a pain, being a story achiever is even more torture in games with dynamic stories and multiple outcomes scenari. And no matter how I replay a game, I always play exactly the same way because it's what pleases me the most, especially storywise (thus why I usually favor linear and deep stories). So I go to youtube to see alternatives.
3 - Games that i'm interested to watch the story as entertainment, but certainly not fun enough or engaging enough to me to actually buy them and even less, play them. Like, you know, Assassin's Creed and the likes. Or games that feel like too tedious to play due to crappy gamedesign, like Of Orcs and Men, which also had the double negative to have the previous one on Games of Thrones which is an abomination... Well, their stories are damn good though. So I watched it on youtube to spare myself the ache to play through that nightmare. Not even hard, just shitty overall. Too bad, they are not big boys of the industry so I wouldn't mind buying their games, but hell no, my patience has limits.
4 - Watching a game that I have already played. I happened to do it for FF8 and 10, because honestly, when you have played through them 4 or 5 times with most achievements, why bother to do it again lol. Just watch the story if you are nostalgic and all that...

So while I like to tell myself that I use youtube most of the time for those... legitimate things I would dare say, I still happened to use it for Gone Home, because I really didn't know what to expect and it didn't seem like something I would buy.

WRONG.

Now I regret it.

At least I bought Dear Esther 2 years ago.
« Last Edit: 15 Oct 2014, 16:00 by Lyn Farel »
Logged

Kala

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #48 on: 16 Oct 2014, 01:05 »

Quote
But I want hoverboards. The first time I saw that movie, I was too young to appreciate it, but they had freaking HOVERBOARDS. That I came to call it "you know mom, the movie with hoverboards - I want the same at christmas btw kthxbye."

Well, I don't really know clearly what I was expecting or hoping to have by now so it's difficult to articulate.  I haven't put my finger on it entirely.  Just that we don't have it yet.  MMOs was probably the worst disappointment for me in that area, as it seemed like such a...theoretically exciting thing to explore.  You create a world and the parameters but then real people interact within that virtual space with whatever you've created.

UO and EVE made me think, wow, this is a thing where in a virtual space you can do things which will have real impact on the game experience of others, and they can have real impact on yours (to use the lucid dreaming comparison, you are aware you're dreaming, but other people are also in your dream, aware they're dreaming also.  but to them, you're in their dream. etc) Actually, it's probably ATITD, a small experimental game, that made me think there was the potential to really explore some stuff here.*

And all that...enthusiasm for the potential of what we could do, of course, rubs up a bit harshly against what we've ultimately got...which is largely mouthy shit-talking teenagers in a virtual themepark where they play on the rides and win prizes, comparing them with eachother for status and prestige. -.-;

I dunno.  Perhaps that's just more just... people (and my harsh and unfair perceptions of them!).  But what you make affects who the people are and the way they behave, right?
(though I know I'm straying into 'who are the games for' territory here, and I should not do this) But I think for an MMO, people and their behaviours are part of the game.


*Though I think expectation played into that, as well.
To give an example, a social situation was provided for the players to solve.  A dynamic rp type kind of thing, but with a political bent (which was admittedly controversial).  Basically, it deliberately benefited a player with one type of avatar and not another. It was deliberately unfair to see what the players would do to counteract or address it. I'll admit the games resources were limited in the actions you could take, but at the same time, you could enact laws.  You could all refuse to have that benefit.  You could trade or give the beneficial things to avatars denied it. So there's a fair amount of social power given to the players there, and a...very strong implied suggestion about taking matters into your own hands.

What did the players do?

...They whined on the forums that it was unfair  :|

Because that's what you do in online games when something unfair happens. It's the done thing.  We're used to doing that, rather than having any real power to change things ourselves from within it.
But not when the game provides you the tools to actually do something about it and is deliberately doing a social experiment to see how people would behave in a virtual world!  :bash:

(though, I might be putting an unfair slant on that)


It's not just MMOs, though...  Games uniquely place the player (unlike the reader or viewer) into the world to interact and discover.  Therefore it seems to me those experiences should be more challenging and meaningful because you're getting those visceral responses, you have agency and immediacy.  But they're mostly not, because mostly our stories are a bit shit (to be blunt).

Though if I'm entirely honest, that depends on what day and mood you catch me on, whether it's "games are amazing! they have all these amazing properties and unique things you can do!" to "games are a bit shit. everything's got shinier, but nothing's better in a real sense.  if anything it's more dumbed down."

Quote
Nah, just entertainment in general. Story-based entertainment is just personal.

Yes, you're right of course.  I was projecting my own stuff onto that.  I think I had more in my head going from Prince of Persia (which has no real story apart from to provide loose motivation for the mechanics. the princess! the egg-timer!) to Mass Effect as some kind of example and extrapolated.


Quote
Well I still think that what I watch on youtube are either

Heh.  Well, yes, I'd watched many clips of things for nostalgia, rather than playing them through all over again.
I think that's one of the (many) reasons I was surprised I was having such different reactions in my FF playthough - given that had been kept alive by watching things like clips. But the actual experience of playing it was different than what I remembered.

Though in all honesty, it would have to have a very good story for me to want to watch a playthrough on a youtube video  :| I think I'd probably just go and watch a film.  Unless it was something I was already heavily invested in, I've rarely found watching games to be in any way engaging. (some exceptions, but for the most part, and some more than others).

That said, I'd happily watch an ending or a cut scene in a game I had no intention of playing because the mechanics don't appeal.

Re: Gone Home - Aw  :P Well, it does depend.  But the thing with Gone Home I guess is putting you in that virtual space? Evoking a kind of mood, providing a specific experience?  And you feel a certain way being that person and rummaging through the personal items of your family, and as a player, making those discoveries about them.

(Which are actually pretty subtle, I needed a bit of time to put everything together re: the dad's uncle... >.>)

I find it really interesting that many people found it so intrusive that they were putting many of the items back where they found them.  I, of course, left shit all over the floor as I'm naturally a very messy, but I felt a bit guilty about it. (I also loved the admonishment about leaving lights on in the house when you aren't in the rooms - really cleverly anticipating there!)

I don't think you can get that experience from just watching it being played. As much as people will argue you may as well do, because it's just an interactive movie.  The interactive is the point, though.
« Last Edit: 16 Oct 2014, 01:19 by Kala »
Logged

Kala

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #49 on: 16 Oct 2014, 01:52 »

As an aside, also reminded of this bit from Penny Arcade, with games changing the person or games changing with the person vs the person's perspective of the game changing where Gabe talks about Shadow of Mordor http://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2014/10/01/kiss-the-girl -

Quote
As a husband and a father this stuff really resonated with me. My guess is that if you’re not married and you don’t have kids, this scene probably doesn’t carry the same emotional payload. I can tell you that as a young man this stuff would have gone right over my head. Once you’re a parent though you end up gaining access to this hidden band of information that was there all along but you were never tuned into it. What I love is that I’m seeing that parent’s perspective pop up more and more in video games. The first time I can really remember being hit with it was in Heavy Rain. The scene in the mall when you lose your son had me crying. I lost my youngest son at Disneyland for about 30 minutes, and I can tell you that it is a terror unlike anything I have ever experienced. The last of Us is another great example of a game that punched me right in the Dad gut. I’m sure it’s a great game no matter who you are but my God, as a father that game is just a masterpiece.

I wonder if there is, or will be, more dad centric or 'parents perspective' stuff in games as players have grown up with (or sometimes, grown out of) them?

Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #50 on: 16 Oct 2014, 03:36 »

On MMO and players : welcome into humanity I guess. Players are players, and player gonna be stupid. Nothing ever convinced me of the contrary to that day. MMOs made me even more misanthropic than I originally was.

More seriously though, regarding your example of players whining instead of doing, it's pretty illustrative to how I see people in general, grossly :

- You have leaders, very few of them. Charismatic or whatever make them people follow them. They do not need to be necessarily full of insight, quite the contrary : they just need to be populists.

- The rest composed of sheep that can't do anything on their own. It's basically a fundamental trait in humans in general.

- A minority of outsiders that do things differently. Oddballs.

All of that through my coloured glasses of course. xD

______________________________

I like sometimes watching people play, but for example in RPGs I get highly frustrated because they don't make their characters the way I want, and don't make the choices I want. Sometimes yes but it's hard to find. And it can change at any moment through the playthrough...

______________________________

On Gone Home I was lucky enough to feel most of what you described because the player was actually making sure that he was putting stuff back in place, shutting down lights, etc. It was well played in the regard that he felt how to transmit the right emotions to the guys watching.

______________________________

There probably will be more parent centric stuff since most gamedesigners also grow up with time. And new ones are not always neckbeards in a cave.

Well, in the case of children and parents in stories in general, it's most of the time cheesy or full of nonsensical feelings imo. The Last of Us did it right, but most of the time I just facepalm when I see that kind of scenes. Well, for Shadow of Mordor, I can't say since I havent played it. Probably one of the games I might watch on youtube btw. Not really my thing, I hate that kind of open world gameplay (the same reason I don't play Elder Scroll games).
Logged

Jace

  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1215
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #51 on: 16 Oct 2014, 06:15 »

While it was still a game, I think Heavy Rain was the most 'blurred the lines between game and film" that I enjoyed.
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #52 on: 16 Oct 2014, 07:22 »

I loved it and had to watch it on youtube :/
Logged

Jace

  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1215
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #53 on: 16 Oct 2014, 07:34 »

I loved it and had to watch it on youtube :/

If you can, it would still be worth going back and playing it, in my opinion.
Logged

Mizhara

  • Prophet of New Eden
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2545
  • The Truth will make ye Fret.
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #54 on: 16 Oct 2014, 08:08 »

Tried it. Took me about an hour to come to the conclusion that it was a long series of quicktime events and put it away forever.
Logged


Jace

  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1215
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #55 on: 16 Oct 2014, 08:10 »

To each their own, I suppose. I enjoyed it very much.
Logged

Kala

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #56 on: 17 Oct 2014, 04:09 »

Quote
On MMO and players : welcome into humanity I guess. Players are players, and player gonna be stupid. Nothing ever convinced me of the contrary to that day. MMOs made me even more misanthropic than I originally was.

More seriously though, regarding your example of players whining instead of doing, it's pretty illustrative to how I see people in general, grossly :

- You have leaders, very few of them. Charismatic or whatever make them people follow them. They do not need to be necessarily full of insight, quite the contrary : they just need to be populists.

- The rest composed of sheep that can't do anything on their own. It's basically a fundamental trait in humans in general.

- A minority of outsiders that do things differently. Oddballs.

All of that through my coloured glasses of course. xD

Heh.  Well, maybe.  I certainly have my own misanthorpic 'people, ugh' and 'people on the internet, ugh' reactions (on a regular basis).  But, y'know, I am a person on the internet.  And no one ever sees themselves as a sheep, only others.

I was thinking more along the line of schemas.  There's been psychological experiments where they've put people in a specific environment - e.g an office.  And they have all this stuff in the office that you might expect to see - e.g desks, printers, stationary, computers, pot plants - whatever.  Then they'd put in a few prominent out of place objects, like a random brick or something.  Put people in a room, have them look around, then they come out and record the items they remembered seeing.

You'd probably imagine they'd write down the odd objects, as they'd stand out.  But that was a bit of a blind spot - they saw and recorded what they expected to see in that environment.

So I think expectation and convention can have a massive role.

Which is a bit...self-defeating, I suppose?  As it suggests you can put things in games for people to do - give them ways of doing things they would not normally have at their disposal but...if they're used to that type of game being something else and used to a certain way of responding to things, they might not even see or consider it.

Because they've become used to doing things a certain way.  (Which, I think as well as getting older & more impatient, has influenced how I play games, and my reactions to them as well - sadly).


So just read this about procedural generation:

Quote
Both Riad and Kristmann love complex systems and procedural generation, and working with character behavior against those frameworks [..] "Obviously procedural generation comes with costs, probably most importantly the fact that you, as a creator, are giving away a lot control," Kristmann suggests. "But letting go and allowing the player to drive the experience fosters the creation of personal and intimate stories. Usually this approach does not provide epic story arcs or mind blowing reveals, but the bond it creates between the player and the game is something I care a lot about as a designer."

Probably dovetails a bit with where my thoughts have gone with it, re: pros and cons.  That and you get a unique experience each time, so re-playability. I love that some concepts and ideas we've had in gaming but might've gone out of fashion (e.g point and click adventures, or procedurally generated stuff) are being explored again in indy games.

I wonder if that's nostalgia on their part (like mine) for the games of yesteryear; or having the freedom to explore stuff out of the (now) traditional paradigm?

« Last Edit: 17 Oct 2014, 04:10 by Kala »
Logged

Silas Vitalia

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #57 on: 17 Oct 2014, 08:12 »

A friend of mine has a young son (about 11), I had a very interesting conversation with him and his friend a few weeks ago about video games.

It came up that he had gotten a hold of some very old NES games online (the kind I was playing at his age).  I asked him if he thought those old games were more difficult than the ones he plays now, and the resounding answer from both of them was that they were extremely difficult and unforgiving.

I think when you only had enough memory for 9 or 10 levels with most of the same sprites you had no choice but to make it incredibly difficult, or you'd finish the game in 20 minutes.  So you get genre standards like 3 lives, 3 continues and then forced restart.  The japanese games tended to abuse this more than the US ones, and punishing the player and making them run through a grueling amount of grinding gameplay design aesthetic would continue for years with Japanese games.  Think of all the old Resident Evil or very early Final Fantasy games.  Of course ones sense of accomplishment was fantastic when you actually made it through them, like you really achieved something impossible.

That being said it has been super interesting seeing the other side of game design philosophy that more of the USA designers pushed.  Look at the old LucasArts games, where it was literally impossible to die, and there were no 'lose' conditions - you just got to solve puzzles and have a fun adventure with no fear of walking off a cliff (looking at you, Space Quest).

Anyway I guess it's a mixed bag today, but I do like a lot of the variety.  $40 million production games that take 3 or 4 hours to finish and are basically just a series of cut scenes and scripted action (Call of Duty and clones), and then you get grueling punishment like Dark Souls.

On the whole I think most mainstream games are stupidly easy and take little effort and hold your hands the entire way though, though.

Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #58 on: 17 Oct 2014, 08:19 »

Indy games explore many things that have disappeared at some point, since they are indy games. Or, more precisely, since they can do whatever they want as long as they get kickstarted by people and not their publisher.

Anyway it's fun reading about what add replayability to people. I usually want to play my games again and again when the story/atmosphere/universe was awesome. So most of those games are completely linear, or close to. Be it mass market stuff like Mass Effect or more hipster stuff like The Longuest Journey.

I usually seriously dislike procedural games and open sandboxes for solo play. I just find them extremely boring and not appealing most of the time. I mean, past 5 min i'm already losing grip on those games...

But to the contrary, I love that for multiplayer ! MMOs, especially, when you are not there for the story but for the story you create with other people, and the sandbox you play in with other people. Without those, I just find it boring...
Logged

Mizhara

  • Prophet of New Eden
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2545
  • The Truth will make ye Fret.
Re: What's in a Game?
« Reply #59 on: 17 Oct 2014, 08:32 »

Since we've moved on to other game features than the actual definition, let me get something off my chest: Dark Souls etc are crap for me. I really don't like them. I'm too old for this shit. If I want to ram my head at something repeatedly, I'll go take out a supporting wall or something in real life, because at least that'll serve some sort of purpose.

I'm perfectly fine with facing a challenge (One Finger Death Punch, high end Quake III Arena, the fucking Librarians in Metro 2033 etc) but then there's just intentionally frustrating stuff like Dark Souls. It's not a good game as far as I'm concerned. When beating something becomes a question of trial and error until you discern whatever pattern the game aims for, it's gone from challenge to just... urgh.

On that subject, just add bloody difficulty levels. Give people the option. Sure, if I want a challenge I'll hit the higher difficulty levels but sometimes I don't want to. Sometimes I just want to have a little mayhem/story action going without the frustration. Hell, the Saint's Row games? I turn the difficulty way down in those games. Why? Because I don't play them for the challenge. I want to be the Boss. The utterly batfuck insane leader of the Saint's that cause carnage and mayhem with impunity and great humor. I don't want to be the Boss that struggles to get past every few encounters.

Options are always good, period. I certainly recognize that some people want to play the hardest difficulties to add challenge and such to their experience, but some people do not. I shift between the two constantly, depending on the game I play and what I want out of it. Hearing the internet catch fire then get doused immediately in tearful whines when someone suggested difficulty levels in Dark Souls blew my mind, as apparently this would somehow change the gameplay experience of those who prefer the high difficulty. WHY?! Fuck you! You can still play the game exactly how you want to! Having the option changes nothing except adding a wider range of players to the game.

Intentionally frustrating games are not for me. I have grown way too old and spent way too much time playing games to waste my time on such things anymore. Give me a challenge, fine. Just let me decide whether I want the actual challenge or if I want the progression of the story and so on and let others decide if they prefer the frustration.
Logged


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5