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
Oh shit.
the kerning on the L and i in that font makes that weird to read
Well, yeah. It's a hilariously common problem in comics.
Apparently, Marvel once got an angry letter about someone who said something like "I WILL DESTROY YOU AS EASILY AS I WOULD FLICK AN INSECT OFF MY SHOULDER."
One of their supervillains was displeased with their depiction of him?
that
is
hilarious
(if I read that read)
I'm loving turn of the century US political pics/ads/cartoons
wut
It's a joke about how they resemble movies more than games.
That was the point, yes.
Well at least for Uncharted. The Heavy Rain guy might get offended that you're categorizing his abstract artsy-fartsy thing too much by saying that even though it's basically an extended movie, but Uncharted was pretty much "hey, let's make a game that feels like an Indy movie! Fuck yeah!"
Hey, Wicked asked.
Uncharted's supposed to feel like an Indy movie, but it's still a game. Whereas Heavy Rain is just "Press things when things happen on your TV"
I feel like Heavy Rain comes out better in terms of that, because Uncharted is actually trying to be a game and not always succeeding at it, while Heavy Rain is meant to just be an experimental thing. Not that I'm saying it's an entirely successful experiment. At its best points, it's gripping, but at other points, it's just kinda dull.
I never felt that Uncharted was failing at being a game and being too much of a movie. Well, Uncharted 3, maybe, but Uncharted 2 actually stopped relying so damn much in QTEs which I felt was cool. Uncharted 1 had some QTE moments here and there, but they felt gameplay-y enough to work without the prompts (Like that bit where a box falls on your head in the middle of gameplay)
As for Heavy Rain, I'm aware it's supposed to be an experiment, but I feel the principles behind it (Namely, eliminating most of the game design in service of the movie feel that is supposed to accomplish) are kind of a step backwards, really.
A lot of it for me is the linear climbing sections where you must do exactly what the designers want you to with no possibility of variation.
It's a fair point, but I don't think that was necessarily the main goal. Look at scenes like cutting off your own finger or slowly applying the button combination to step through electrified wires. That's gripping in a way that movies can't really be, and that most games can be but aren't.
I suppose so, but I don't feel that lack of freedom is necessarily an issue with games. I mean, the climbing sections are a challenge that can be solved in one particular way and admittedly, it shouldn't feel like that, climbing should be more freeform. But I don't think it's really that much of an issue as it presents a challenge for the player to face and it involves a degree of skill besides pushing the button at the right time, even if that skill is something as basic as observation and understanding of the enviroment laid out by the designers.
Whereas Heavy Rain doesn't issue a challenge to the player except react in a way that feels natural to get a story you feel is inspired by your decisions (Which is bullshit, anyway, as the game itself protects you from decisions and mistakes that would ruin the game's plot)
I never said it was the main goal, but it is one of the principles behind it. The developers did state that the idea behind the game was to blur the line between movies and games, which I think is kind of a bad way of seeing things. Games should aim to be less like a movie or a book and simply elaborate on the good things that game design possesses as a form of art.
Also, it bugs me that the implied meaning behing "being more like a movie or a book" is "having a good narrative" (When developers say it, I mean). not because games have accomplished a complex narrative on par with the best movies (Jury's out on that one, to be perfectly honest) but because games could and should have such a narrative.
EDIT: Didn't realize that there was another page.
Yeah I didn't really see the climbing bits as "stupid linear gameplay" so much as a shameless "ooh, look at the pretty 400-foot drop OH SHIT IT CRUMBLES MOVE YOUR NINJA WARRIOR ASS". I mean Prince of Persia was just as railroady, but boy was it a pretty choo-choo.
I agree in general, but...eh. It's one thing to have the only way to progress be to kill a bunch of enemies or walk down a hall, but there's a degree of exactness in the climbing that just bugs me.
Yeah, I'm not claiming that Heavy Rain is a good game. I just think it's more interesting in terms of design than Uncharted is.
Yeah, that was really silly.
Idunno. I can't say I really like either one. I just feel like Heavy Rain did some interesting stuff, some of which sucked and some of which was good.
I'm in agreement, but I'd say MGS2 is probably one of the closest efforts anyone has made in that regard.
Yeah, but I feel it's emblematic of recent games' tendency to focus on looking pretty more than on being good games.
Heavy Rain was a very interesting experiment, but as they say...
EDIT: Nevermind I don't have opinions.
Edit: I fucked up the html
As was pointed out, Heavy Rain's biggest success was its capacity to produce tension. It used very specific scenarios and quick time events to do that, though, and while some of that stuff could and should be part of forthcoming games, it does clash with the concept of "emergent complexity", "emergent gameplay" or whatever you'd like to call it -- essentially, the capacity for a simple, versatile system to produce its own outcomes, be that on a small or large scale.
The issue here is that emergent complexity is the Holy Grail of game design, since it allows a game to self-replicate somewhat -- it essentially produces as many solutions to problems (and sometimes problems themselves) as players can imagine. Solitaire has emergent complexity; Chess has emergent complexity; Mount & Blade has emergent complexity. This principle doesn't mix well with traditional, linear storylines, though, because there's usually a set solution that will progress the plot. As game design currently stands, top-notch gameplay and traditional storytelling are actually at odds, which is why it's important that games find a way to express narrative and be held to standards unique to themselves.
Perhaps the wisdom of the ancients can help us out here, though. A lot of old school arcade games thrived on pure gameplay -- and, most importantly, the scoring system. What if a game's score actually represented a particular resource that needed to be acquired in order to advance the plot, for instance? Mount & Blade does this, albeit without an actual plot. You set your own objectives and then have to create a strong enough military force to achieve them, so your success is measured in the size of your army and your renown score. To take a similar example, perhaps the goal of the game is to win back the lands of your grandfather. But you have to be a knight to own land, and your family's noble status was revoked -- ergo, you must build X amount of renown in a system of emergently complex fights and battles in order to win a knighting.
This is the kind of system that I think would allow both a cohesive, well-written story and a focus on gameplay that is strong in its own right. At the same time, however, it ignores the problem wherein games have not yet found their feet as a unique means of expressing narrative. In any case, those are my five cents on the matter, as Australia does not have a two cent piece.
While emergent complexity is great, I don't think it needs to be the only thing.
Does it count as a Holy Grail if Dwarf Fortress has already done it?
Neither does the US.
Plenty of games have done it, but it's not an exact science, and melding it properly with a compelling story hasn't been done to my knowledge.
Depends on how you define story. I mean, Dwarf Fortress has a tendency to generate compelling stories, but if you're talking about one single story that's predetermined...I'm not entirely sure how the two could coexist.