Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
^^ So do a lot of other visual novels, but I really don't think it actually matters too much to the discussion...
But the thing is, there's a difference between something with gameplay and something where you're turning digital pages.
No, but my point is, how much do they contribute to the game as a whole? Does it need the music and the animation in order to be as enjoyable as it is?
Look, I'm not saying that Phoenix Wright's bad or not even a game because both things are both ridiculous, but I do agree with Sims with the idea that Phoenix Wright doesn't need to be a game in order to be enjoyed the same way that, say, Skyrim or Fallout need to be games in order to be enjoyed.
This post made me realize that we're actually dealing with two questions:
1)Are VNs video games
2)Do VNs need their audiovisual aspect to function?
Seriously, though, we need to stop using Phoenix Wright as the example. It's an outlier and barely relevant to the discussion, and I don't think most of the people in this conversation have actually played it.
In the case of Phoenix Wright, I'd argue that the interactivity bits are not relevant or important to the enjoyment of the game.
Then again, long time ago and an LP at that so whatever.
But they are. It's a mystery story, and the interactivity is you solving the mystery.
If you want an example of something that's indisputably a videogame but probably shouldn't be, take the worst examples of JRPGs where the combat seems to take place in an entirely different work from the story.
This is a good idea. >.>
Probably not. They just usually get released on the same devices as video games due to certain functions that they need to work (audio/video, saving/loading, often other stuff).
Yes, if I had to answer in general. Most likely though, there are a lot that don't.
I'd say I agree on both counts. Or at least, I'd say most VNs benefit from their audiovisual aspect.
Finished SpecOps: The Line.
...
Damn.
I feel physically tired.
Seriously, someone else on this site needs to play it so we can discuss it.
It's not very long, but it's short in the Portal sense, where it ends and you go "well, of course it's over. Why would it be longer?"
I'm definitely going to play it, but I probably won't have a chance until December. My laptop doesn't really run the demo very well.
Ah, fair enough. Nothing ruins intense psychological horror like stuttering.
Incidentally, while I've said that I won't spoil the plot and am holding myself to that, here's a non-spoiler that won't even happen for all that many players (which I'm tagging as a spoiler anyway no matter how mild it is because it would still have a somewhat greater effect if you weren't expecting it).
The most horrifying bit of flavortext ever to appear on a loading screen is "You are still a good person."
Close second: "Do you even remember why you came here?"
@INUH: Downloaded the demo after I heard it existed, which was 5 minutes ago.
Though I probably won't buy it until it goes on sale.
Don't play the demo. It's extremely misleading, consisting only of the shooty bits, which are very deliberately not fun to play and also not the main component of the experience.
And yeah, I'd argue that the unspoken "every game must cost $60 on release" rule didn't do SOTL any favors. I'd argue that it's worth it just for being something you won't get anywhere else, but it would have made more sense to charge $30 or $40.
Well, never playing that game.
(not that I would have anyway, really)
It's a horror game. Being fun would make it suck.
Which is probably why I don't have any interest in horror games.
I never checked that there was a demo, I'll have to try it out. It was gonna be on my Christmas list at least.
Fair enough; they aren't for everyone.
Do not. It will give you as accurate an impression of the game as glancing at a screenshot of Modern Warfare 3 would give you of Portal.
I already know about it being Heart of Darkness The Game, I just want to see how the gameplay is. I'll still get it if the gameplay isn't that good or stuff like that.
Looked it up.
Doesn't look or seem like my cup of tea, so I'll pass on it, not really for me.
^^Okay good.
Though the Heart of Darkness thing is both not a spoiler (you start off looking for a guy named Konrad) and somewhat misleading.
Once I finish Dark Souls, I don't know what I would get for another game, but I suck at shooters, so hopefully it's not too difficult as far as that goes. Unless it takes me so long to finish Dark Souls that One Piece: Pirate Warriors comes out, or I decide on Dragon's Dogma instead, I might pick SpecOps up next.
Umm...
Well, there's an easy mode...
Wait, why the ellipses?
because doom falls upon the easy modoers
Hmm.
Well, I'll try normal anyway, probably.
It gives you the option to switch down if you die...I think five times from one checkpoint or something like that. FWIW, I only found that out in the last level.