Let's be Postive about Negativity

[Nissa]

Honestly, a lot of what you're saying sounds subjective. For example, I think Super Mario World is better than Galaxy. Not that Galaxy is bad, it's just that between the motion controls, camera angle gimmicks, and the orchestral music, it's kinda overwhelming. I'd also like to be able to play a significant amount of time without having to worry about falling into a void. These aren't huge problems, but of the two I'd still rather play World. And I actually like Mario 3 better than both.

Graphics are a tricky thing, because "advanced" =/= "immersed." I really love Star Fox SNES graphics, because they are so weird and alien that I feel I'm in another world. It's sort of like the first Tron movie, where the visuals only exist because technology was advanced to a certain level, but no farther. I also feel that Mega Man is beautiful, though the X series had better gameplay.

Dude, don't say it's the reverse as far as culture goes. Sure, we can go out and find cool games in other countries, but right now the bigwigs in gaming are generally in California, and we generally hear about American games far sooner than we do any foreign games, other than Japan's.

Actually, what brought all this up in the first place was this video we were supposed to watch in class, about how the merging of movies and video games was supposed to be a good thing. I think it's awful. Hollywood has become stuck on making cameras and computers do things, rather than having actually good stories. This is my main problem with modern games -- some of them are just excuses for a trite, Hollywood style story. And that's why I didn't play Last of Us, because it's just another manifestation of Hollywood stereotype. Judge me all you want, but I have seen a bunch of stuff on it, and based on its general lack of puzzles, questionable AI, and stale story with manipulative ending, there's really no reason to own it.

But I mean, hey, if you guys like it, by all means. It's really okay to like flawed things.

Basically, I don't want games based on Hollywood storytelling. Gameplay needs to come first, before graphics, story, motion capture, and anything else. If you feel that there are a lot of good games nowadays, then by all means suggest some. Preferably ones that aren't all grey and washed out, don't have buttloads of cutscenes, and are actually, y'know, fun.

[TheEconomist]

Sure, we can go out and find cool games in other countries, but right now the bigwigs in gaming are generally in California

As opposed to the SNES days when you saw all kinds of mom and pop games coming out of Oklahoma and Kentucky? It's always been California, less so now.

And that's why I didn't play Last of Us

*sigh*

based on its general lack of puzzles, questionable AI, and stale story with manipulative ending

Doesn't need puzzles, and the ending isn't really the point of the story anyways. The experience is. The feeling of survival and exploring a destroyed world. Picking up on all the little details.. etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. You don't get that unless you're playing the game. If you didn't play the game, you didn't play the game.. It's an action game anyways. The 'story' isn't the point at all.

Seems to me you like the idea of a game more than actually playing it. So you like thinking about it and the concepts of it, but not playing it. I mean, you didn't play SC2. You don't play the MP. You don't like the story. Every time I talk to you about a game, it comes out that you never even played it. So then why do you talk about games so much? Especially one's you've never played?


So, since you're more into the IDEA of the game than the actual game, we're really talking about two different things, whether you realize it or not.

So, to give an example, even though you've given me none for your side, BioShock is an example of great story telling that just wouldn't and couldn't have been done in a previous time.


As for graphics, the advanceness of the graphics is an important part of immersion, never said it was the entire thing. Play (Actually play, not lets play) The Witcher 3, and explore the world for hours, and then you'll see that the game is immensely helped by advanced graphics.



-- EDIT: Also, as far as opinions goes, yes, all of this is subjective, however, like I said, comparing Final Fantasy III (the epic, large game of its time) to The Witcher 3, you can't really help but just acknowledge the size of the game compared to the 2MB SNES game.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

"My only really complaint with modern gaming is the business model,"

Hmm my complaints are that but also the fact that so many game franchises are turning into the same genre, everything is a SUPER FAST PACED TWITCH ACTION GAME! WITH EPIC BOMBASTIC ORCHESTRA MUSIC AND MICHAEL BAY EFFECTS YEAH!

That's my biggest complaint.

[TheEconomist]

That was the case a few years ago (2005-2013 or so). Now everything's an open-world. Still better than when everything was a platformer. And most of the games that were non-action and are now action, again, like Final Fantasy, probably should go action since even when they were turn-based, they weren't very strategic.

[Turalyon]

Oh great, another Tura textwall.

Fear me!!!

The writers wanted to to what the writers wanted to do storywise, and any such feelings are better in a book/movie, where the medium does not change per audience interaction.

I disagree with the part about it being "better in a book/movie" because this line of thought is as reductive as saying that all stories should only be told in books. All memorable game stories involve the writer doing "what they wanted storywise" in the end. The illusion of it being otherwise is really in how well the gameplay is crafted to serve and emphasise the story beats. Having the visceral experience of being in danger and helping Ellie as Joel (and playing as Ellie, too) through the gameplay potentially fosters the story of their father/daughter relationship.

I know there are variations of baddies. There are also variations of zombies, and none of these variations took advantage of their fungus-based story concept in a way that wouldn't also make sense with a zombie.

So what? The story isn't about the fungus zombies - that's just the setup, the world-building.

Well, except probably there's other games out there where you have to sneak by zombies.

Show me another game that involves steathily taking out, one-by-one, zombies that can kill you outright if not handled properly whilst attempting to tell a decent story about the development of a father-daughter relationship throughout.

Heard it all before. None of it inspires me to care.

Oh, I see, you're resorting to the "I think it's crap, therefore it's objectively crap" position. Gotta be careful of that confirmation bias there.

That's not really what I'm talking about. Sure, you can force a given story into any medium, but there's still mediums where a concept will work better and mediums where a concept won't. I feel that this story would have been better as a movie or novel, though horribly cliched no matter what medium it took.

Playing it gives you a level investment/engagement that you wouldn't normally have by just watching it. You haven't played it and only watched it as a Let's Play, so that pretty much makes it sorta like a film from your perspective already. And yet you still say it won't "work" for you. This makes me suspect that it's due to your personal preference, or rather, dislike of the genre rather than the story actually being mismatched with the medium.

Seriously, the whole father/daughter relationship thing is pretty done to death. Just because Ellie isn't technically his daughter doesn't change the trope. Actually, the death of his daughter is another trope in and of itself. It's all just emotional manipulation.

Other than Telltale's The Walking dead and BioShock: Infinite (both of which are fairly recent), the father/daughter theme is hardly "done to death" in games. When it comes to games, the solo guy/girl, the best buddies, hero and sidekick, hero guy and girl who get together - relationships are done to death.

As to it being a trope, well, every story is filled with tropes really. People throw around terms like "trope" and "retcon" to imply a negative connotation or to support their confirmation bias, when they're really just neutral terms. Tropes are just tools - they can be used well or used poorly. The game uses them well enough to get its message across, whether you have a preference for it or not.

Also, every story is a "manipulation" (emotional or otherwise) to some degree. It's just that those who like a particular story are either less discerning and don't realise the extent of their being manipulated by the writer or are actively willing to be manipulated by those tropes (sometimes due to a viewers preference for such a thing or sheer brilliance from the writer that hooks you in). The real trick is getting people to either of these states by building an internally consistent fictional world/verisimilitude.

[TheEconomist]

So what? The story isn't about the fungus zombies - that's just the setup, the world-building.

This.

They didn't even go into more depth in terms of the societal impact and what not like other Zombie universes do. Not due to ineptitude, but because it just wasn't the focus

[sandwich_bird]

I disagree with the part about it being "better in a book/movie" because this line of thought is as reductive as saying that all stories should only be told in books.

That's the only point I'll give to Nissa. Saying "better" might not be the right word but it is "easier" to make a player care about the story in a game if the game gives choices to the player rather than forcing him to act certain ways. When the game rolls out a cinematic that makes a character act a certain way that is contrary to how the player would act, it causes cognitive dissonance because you usually have control over the character; but not in that instance. I'd say that's a real and fair concern. It is surmountable though and I agree that you shouldn't limit creativity in any way.

And about all the games being the same in recent years vs the 90's; that's just plain out false. There's more diversity these days than ever before. 40% of all steam games came out last year and they're obviously not all the same genre. Maybe if you only look at AAA and forget indies, vr, mobile, nintendo, etc but that'd be a bit dishonest.

Basically, I don't want games based on Hollywood storytelling. Gameplay needs to come first, before graphics, story, motion capture, and anything else. If you feel that there are a lot of good games nowadays, then by all means suggest some. Preferably ones that aren't all grey and washed out, don't have buttloads of cutscenes, and are actually, y'know, fun.

If you want color, just google "top games 2016" and you get: Persona 5, Owlboy, Overwatch, Pokemon Sun/Moon, Abzu, Unravel, Street Fighter 5, Banner Saga 2, Crashlands, Dragon Quest Builders, etc. I'm still running through an increasingly long backlog so I can't comment on any of these except overwatch(and I REALLY want to play Persona 5) but yeah... There are choices, and a lot more if you look for it. But the thing is, you need to actually PLAY them. Looking at a lets play doesn't tell you the whole story. To come back to The Last of Us, there's no way to feel the tension of sneaking past clickers while just looking at someone play for example and this is very important to the experience.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

"As opposed to the SNES days when you saw all kinds of mom and pop games coming out of Oklahoma "

To be fair, during N64 days there were a shitload of mom and pop gaming shops in Oklahoma (they've all closed since then) then there was the Funcoland dynasty which kicked ass until nail salons took over their locations and shitty gamestop was the last gaming shop standing.

"Now everything's an open-world."

Yeah, I guess, i'd rather have it that way then the "everything is a real fast action game"

[TheEconomist]

I'm talking about game developers, not shops.

and I REALLY want to play Persona 5

I'm pretty excited about Persona 5 too. Debating whether I should buy the PS3 version now or watch a let's play and buy the PS4 version when I have a PS4. I refuse to buy the game twice though and Atlus games don't resell like they used to (not rare anymore).

Persona 4 was really the last JRPG I gave a crap about. Not much else has caught my attention since then. Might as well make P5 the next only JRPG I care about.

[Turalyon]

That's the only point I'll give to Nissa. Saying "better" might not be the right word but it is "easier" to make a player care about the story in a game if the game gives choices to the player rather than forcing him to act certain ways. When the game rolls out a cinematic that makes a character act a certain way that is contrary to how the player would act, it causes cognitive dissonance because you usually have control over the character; but not in that instance. I'd say that's a real and fair concern. It is surmountable though and I agree that you shouldn't limit creativity in any way.

I get where you're coming from but in the particular instance of The Last of Us, the only overtly evil thing the player is "forced" to do is to shoot that doctor (and/or kill the other doctors) who was about to operate on Ellie. When viewing this particular incident in isolation, sure, it looks morally bad but the scene is the very last interactive moment in the whole game. Until that point, we are shown time and again how Joel is a stone-cold murderer and torturer and how he'll do anything to protect Ellie. The player has been complicit with Joel's actions throughout the whole game (those who weren't, wouldn't stomach playing/viewing the rest of the game otherwise), such that him not killing the doctors would be out-of-character for him. Not only that, if one was invested in the story and Ellie enough from Joel's POV (the writers having "manipulated" the viewer in a "good" way as opposed to it being a conceit/the "bad" way), the player can feel/empathise that the killing of the doctor is the right thing to do.

Either way, I don't think that cognitive dissonance is an issue for The Last of Us because Joel's character is strong enough to be his own entity. What I mean by that is that the player is never really Joel, if you know what I mean. We just follow him and do some of his actions (ie: the fighting in this instance). We either sympathise with him or not. He's not a blank slate where we can attribute ourselves to fill in his character's background. The character of Joel is not like Sheppard from Mass Effect for example. Contrast the forced choice for Sheppard in ME3 and Joel in The Last of Us. There's greater cognitive dissonance for the latter because the player investment in the Sheppard character involves the player actually being Sheppard. He/She is your Sheppard. The player investment into Joel is nowhere near like this in comparison. Course, if your looking for a dog's breakfast of cognitive dissonance in terms of player/player character investment, look no further than the main player characters in Starcraft2 who we're ostensibly supposed to be but also not be.