A Discussion About Your Values of Gaming and Modern Gaming

All I can say is that this topic started in IRC with me favoring gameplay over Hiino's favoring of story/art, and then we neutralized and agreed that most of modern gaming suck. So I basically wanted to see what you guys think

Poll #2 has been made as multiple choice poll because there is never just one bad thing.

Please keep this discussion mature/educated rather than a bunch of fanboyism, hatred, etc.

Also I am open for suggestions, additions, etc for the polls

 

I haven't really played many modern games. I no longer am subscribed to gameinformer or pay attention to any up-and-coming stuff, so I'm not one to pick up every single new one off the shelf or even be aware of their existance, with the exception of Skyward Sword. Therefore, I can't really accurately judge modern games aside from observations.

I guess my only main complaints are:

I feel like modern gaming focuses a lot on multiplayer nowadays. I'm mostly referring to CoD bullcrap with 12 year olds on xbox live screaming BOOM HEADSHOT I PWN JOO lol what's a storyline? I've always loved going single player and becoming immersed in a game's plot. It makes me feel warm fuzzies and personal connections and yeah all that good stuff. It's what I'm mostly used to. However, since I've become more social over the years, I have discovered that multiplayer can be pretty fun. I just can't stand when that's the main focus of games and gamers altogether.

Also: fucking zombies. Just stop it please. Yes I know they've been around for awhile but the big ol' wave of zahmbee apocalypse games (and other media too) that has happened these past few ears is just making me feel like they are really running out of ideas. Either that or just making more of them since evry1 luvs zombies!!!1one and want to appeal to them. Which makes sense, I guess. It is a business after all. Same goes for war-era "brown and bloom shooters with little pieces of burning paper floating everywhere".

Oh yeah. I know I already said this in IRC and we discussed this a bit, but I still don't really understand what's entirely wrong with QTE. I can at least see the point of view complaining about lack of originality, but I still think it's kind of cool that players can somewhat interact with the cutscene going on. It slightly irritates me when they are mostly about quick reflexes though. I suppose Wiimote motion controls at times could be included in this QTE complaint too? That's a bit more understandable for me.

Playing SS kind of makes me realize how much the Wii can irk me, though the location of my wii sensor doohicky or my failure at mastering the wiildo is probably to blame. I wish there could be an option to have things stick to the nunchuck and traditonal control stick and button controls. As I said, they try to immerse the players into the story, but at times it feels a bit unnecessary. Soooo, I guess I can see your complaint? I'm not really making a point here but I see both sides I guess.

Anywhoo, I still think there are some good modern games out there. I really don't think that people should dismiss games because they aren't old/indie, and vice versa. Not saying you guys are but uh yeah.

 

I hate the unskippable tutorials, because they are time-eating and the gameplay is horrible when the graphics are bad. You know, the game should have rather good graphics (except when you're playing as a mutant).

 

I can't get into this thread because I love all of the top things and dislike all the bottom things.

 

Alright first of all, SEBT didn't say he favours gameplay over storytelling, he said that the story of a game is not important. More specifically, that gameplay is the only thing that makes a game great. So he's dumb.

Wild Desu, I don't like quicktime events when they are used improperly. Using them during an action cutscene is maybe okay, I don't play games that do that. I think that developers should try to let the player control the action rather than show it to them and let them press buttons, and only use cutscenes for telling the story and things that can't possibly in done in-game. Quicktime events that break the flow of gameplay are horrible and you should never do them ever because pressing X to not die isn't fun.

Regarding the poll: I didn't vote for the first section of it. I think to make an excellent game, all five of those things need to line up. The atmosphere should reflect and build upon the story. A game's setting is part of the story. Music can greatly enhance gameplay, and needs to go with the art style. If you put an alien fortress and a techno soundtrack in Skyrim, it would completely fuck the game up. Games are like movies in a lot of ways, and I forgot where I was going so goodnight.

 

Okay I'm changing Poll #1 back to what it was before because yeah. Try to go for one thing. Hopefully this doesn't break anything.

Also Fab, sure you need a tiny bit of story, mostly for "Oh my god what am I doing why am I here," and etc., but story was just never important to me. I feel that it gets in the way of gameplay and the game's immersive experience. You don't need a story for a game to be great. Sure, you do need to keep with the surrounding, but you seem to fail to look at all of the games without stories/minimal storiesand why they are great. Zelda only had a small paragraph in the begging before you play, and the game's still great because of the immersive exploration and how the game plays. Super Mario Bros 3 only has stuff like "my king has been transformed" and "oh no the princess has been stolen" and it is still hailed as one of the greatest games of all time. Why? Thy polished the gamplay of the original, added more interesting gameplay elements, and made the levels more interesting.

 

Sure. Gameplay is what makes a game fun. If the story is getting the way of playing the game, it won't be fun. Being fun is the most important thing for a game, because if it's not fun, it's Heavy Rain.

Minimalist stories are completely fine and you can have just as much fun playing Geometry Wars as Star Wars. But when you stop playing, that's where the experience ends. You have nothing to think about except how much fun it was or wasn't. Stories give you something to ponder, something to feel, and something to talk about online.

 

I don't play that many modern games (by modern game, I assume you're referring to big budget games like Diablo 3 rather than something indie like Guxt). However, I still think that without good gameplay, a game's story, ambience, music etc. just sorta falls by the wayside. You need your game to have some sort of interesting mechanic or idea behind it. It could be time-warping, or an unusual magic system, etc. Without it, your game plays like any other game out there, and that's not very interesting.

 

Well of course. I did say that all aspects of a game have equal importance. Although gameplay is the one that's most likely to be fun, and fun is rather important in a game. Some games aren't games though, like Metal Gear Solid 4, which was a movie with shooty bits.

 

Gameplay is always the most important part of a game. If the gameplay sucks then the game will suck as a whole. Note the word "game" in gameplay.

Metal Gear Solid 4 is an interesting case because it had good gameplay but the cutscenes were far too long.

 

I like games that teach something. GTA IV radio stations introduced me to classification of 20and 21th century music (music was classified according to radio stations).

Gameplay and the fun factor

Sandbox with great graphics and to interact with your world

 

I'd like to point out a little something that I seek out more than anything else in the first section: the smoothness and aesthetic feel of the engine itself. Its something that can be a little hard to explain, but some games just feel smoother than others. Sometimes the subtle and commonly overlooked sfx and particles can make a huge difference in how good a game feels to play. I've always been fascinated by this stuff, and it's usually the first thing I notice about a game.
One could argue that this would fall under gameplay, but pleasing aesthetics and good gameplay can coexist separately. Games can easily have incredible gameplay but feel a bit rough and unresponsive, and on the other hand, a terrible game can also feel nice and smooth.

Anyways, I understand what SEBT is saying about storylines, I've never put too much focus on storyline myself either. Of course I like a good story, but I find it hard to enjoy both simultaneously. It doesn't mean I can't appreciate either of the two as much as the other, it just depends on which I'm in the mood for. When I feel like getting into pure gameplay I'll hop on something multiplayer, and when I feel like channeling a little more of that focus into the story elements, then It's time for something single player.

On the subject of modern games, my first point comes into play nicely because big name studios put too much focus on innovating graphics, and obscene graphics that make consoles cap their framerates at 30 and give lag to anyone without a $1500 rig results in rough aesthetics. The reason I have more interest in independent games is that they tend to innovate on more interesting subjects and let graphics come second as it should be.

 

It's possible to make a story in a game without using words or charades. Think along the lines of Yume Nikki, but imagine instead a game that doesn't suck.

 

Like WildDesu and CarrotLord, I don't play a whole lot of modern games, unless you count random internet flash games. Other than my computer, which is itself about 6 years old and is therefore a bit limited in what games it can run, the newest console system that I ever had growing up was the SNES. My brother and I thought about getting an N64 or Gamecube back in the day, but somehow never got around to it. Actually, that's not entirely true about the SNES; my mom bought a PS2 while I was in high school or something for the sole purpose of playing DDR. Too bad we never got a memory card to go with it.

Oh, and the newest handheld system that I have is a GBA. So yeah, I'm something of a "games of ages past" person, I guess.

Anyway, regarding what makes a game good, for me it has to do with a balance of all the factors listed in the poll, and maybe some others, too. Also, I don't think there's one secret formula for every game. Some games are designed to be more story-driven while others rely less on story but more on gameplay. A game can be great either way, but the purpose of why you play a game is an important factor, too. If all you want is some mindless fun, you probably are not going to want something with deep, heavy story like a Final Fantasy game or any RPG at all for that matter. Something like an old Rampage game or a space shooter or bullet hell game might be more enjoyable. A lot of arcade games are classics (maybe even "great games?" Think PacMan or Asteroids), but don't have a whole lot in the way of storyline.

If instead you want to immerse yourself in another world where you meet interesting characters and engage in a more cerebral adventure, something that's heavily story-based is probably going to be more appealing than a shoot-em-up action game. Puzzle games tickle another part of the mind during a gaming experience, and of course every different kind of game has its own appeal for its own reasons. What makes a game good is that it fills a particular niche of enjoyment by being balanced in different ways.

An aspect of gaming that I mentioned in irc a few days ago was a game's script. By that I mean the dialogue or narration flows, how events unfold (especially in cut scenes), and things like that. We decided that it fit pretty well under the category of "story," but in my mind there is still a distinction between the two. A game can have a good plot or premise, that is a good story, although the dialogue or cut scenes can be a bit strained. Especially with dialogue, sometimes the words that come on the screen just don't quite work but you know what they're trying to say. In this case, the story could still be good while the writing is lacking. Maybe this has to do with a funky translation or the script writers just had a bad day, but a wonky script can have either a diminishing or endearing effect on a game apart from the overall quality of its story.

tl;dr: Different games thrive on various combinations of and emphases on all the sundry aspects of a game.

When a game fails, whether modern or not, it is often because it is unbalanced: it relies too heavily on one or some elements (especially graphics, today) at the expense of others.

 

It's possible to make a story in a game without using words or charades. Think along the lines of Yume Nikki, but imagine instead a game that doesn't suck.

>_> and why do you think it sucks?

 

Yume Nikki:
✓ Art
✓ Music
✓ Atmosphere
? Story
✘ Gameplay

Also Mosaic made a lot of good points that I was too lazy to say and probably could not have said as eloquently, so don't tl;dr him.

 

He made some great points, yes. Best ones I read in the thread, even. But didn't he say that different games have their appeals for their own reasons? I think that just because a game is lacking a bit in the gameplay area doesn't mean that it entirely rules out the great aspects and automatically makes it a sucky game. But hey, that's just me.

 

Yume Nikki:
✓ Art
✓ Music
✓ Atmosphere
? Story
✘ Gameplay

Also Mosaic made a lot of good points that I was too lazy to say and probably could not have said as eloquently, so don't tl;dr him.

What are you talking about? Yume Nikki had great gameplay. The gameplay consisted of wandering around and exploring an abstract world, which is the one thing that made it unique.

 

The gameplay consisted of a whole lot of walking. Exploration is fun and all, but Yume Nikki just bored me to death and I've had this conversation a thousand times. It is not a fun game. It's hardly a game. It's interesting, unique, and moving (in some people's opinions), but it is not fun. SEBT definitely wouldn't play it for more than 5 minutes. Yume Nikki could have been fun if there was more puzzle-solving, since you collect a million different powers and only use a handful of them. Once each.

Do not try to start arguing that Yume Nikki is teh graetest gaem evar because I've had quite a bit of time to make up my mind. There are good things about it and there are bad things about it, and the bad things made me not want to finish it. I'll try to keep this relevant to the thread:

Yume Nikki doesn't really have a story. It has a lot of weird things in it, and apparently some people like to interpret the shit out of these and come to the conclusion that Momodora* was raped by a drug dealer who is her father or something. Maybe the game is too intellectual for me, but I didn't get anything like that out of the game. I also don't need a plot to enjoy a game, because the setting of a game tells its own story, depending on how you react to it. For me, Yume Nikki was about being trapped in a nightmare because some clinically insane child keeps falling asleep instead of jumping off her balcony.

Everything in the game that was even a little abstract looked wrong. Wrong in the sense that looking at it made me feel uncomfortable. If this was intentional, then I have to commend the developer for making worlds that I hated being in. If that is the intentional atmosphere, then the art and music in Yume Nikki are extremely well done, and create a game that eliminates any need for a story. You just walk around, feeling uncomfortable, until you find something weird and the game is like "WELL LOOK AT THIS CRAZY SUBCONSCIOUS SHIT, WHAT DO YOU THINK IT COULD MEAN????" and I reply "don't care."

So there's an example of a game that can immerse you without telling a story. You make up your own story based on the environment. I hope I did an adequate job of explaining why it's an interesting game, but also why I don't like it.

 

SEBT definitely wouldn't play it for more than 5 minutes.

Honestly, I played it for much more than 5 minutes :0. Although, I still haven't beaten the game yet, and I haven't played it in a while either. I just haven't been in in the right mood to fire it. up.
I would consider Yume Nikki much more of an immersive experience than an actual game. Sure, there's the exploration part of the game experience, but the game experience mostly consists of empty voids. One of the driving factors of that game experience to me was to see what I would come up to next within these voids, or what else I could find that could interest and/or surprise me.