Starker on 17/6/2016 at 03:05
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
There is an obligation to be critical and let it be known when you are justifiably unsatisfied. Businesses keep up standards because of the ever-looming pressure of unsatisfactory customers.
Sadly, in this case, there is not enough pressure for change. The philistines outnumber the enlightened 1000:1 globally. Nonetheless the obligation remains.
Here I would have to disagree. There is no obligation to let people who are having fun with a game know how unsatisfied you are with it and there is no need to treat them like philistines. Just because someone likes a game doesn't mean that they are uncritical of its flaws. And even if they are, there's really nothing wrong with someone having mindless fun.
Personally, as a literature nerd, it's really this kind of elitism that I don't like. It reminds me of certain people who complain about the 50 Shades of Grey generation being the downfall of literature and feel the need to patronise people like me who read pulp and fantasy and other "mindless genre literature". Yes, I know the prose is not really remarkable, yes I know it's just escapism, yes I know it's clichéd and predictable. That's why I'm reading it. It's kind of sad to see the rise of gaming "connoisseurs" like that.
Sulphur on 17/6/2016 at 03:11
Meh. At least Koki had the ability to be hilarious while also being obnoxious. It also helped that he had an analytical mind as to why something worked/didn't and explained it with the sort of detail that showed his apparent knee-jerk reactions had some depth to them instead of 'this is shit, and you wanking nubpoles are contributing to the decline of this great industry'. Right. Because AAA gaming has always been about intelligently designed experiences and not always tended towards homogenisation and low hanging fruit, and because we're not in the middle of an indie renaissance right now.
Maybe recognise that you're on a forum dedicated to LGS, and a fair number of us are here because we appreciate the design philosophy they approached games with. We can tell when various parts of whatever games work and don't work, but the difference is we don't see the need to mount a telephone pole and scream into the distance about it. And, shockingly, we can enjoy both shallow games and games with deep systems at work without feeling pained at the lack of one in the other.
I know this is difficult to accept because obviously 'carefully designed is bettar', but when someone here isn't playing Assassin's Creed, they might be playing Dark Souls instead. Perhaps approach this with an open mind instead of pigeonholing everything, and you may find yourself having better conversations.
GMDX Dev on 17/6/2016 at 04:15
Quote Posted by Starker
Personally, as a literature nerd, it's really this kind of elitism that I don't like. It reminds me of certain people who complain about the 50 Shades of Grey generation being the downfall of literature and feel the need to patronise people like me who read pulp and fantasy and other "mindless genre literature". Yes, I know the prose is not really remarkable, yes I know it's just escapism, yes I know it's clichéd and predictable. That's why I'm reading it. It's kind of sad to see the rise of gaming "connoisseurs" like that.
There is always a place for mindless anything and people enjoying those things. I'm not too bothered by what you personally enjoy unless it affects me or what I am passionate for as whole. The problem is it does affect me due to the rise to market dominance:
-Many other forms of games don't sell as well, despite sometimes having more effort and passion behind them. This can outright kill companies.
-Some genres of games sometimes die out completely because the majority of developers/publishers wants a piece of the mindless pie.
-The future of games is affected as a whole, as future generations drew their inspiration from the previous, and so the true identity could be lost.
-the selection of what is available on the market is limited and as a result I cannot get what I want, e.g nearly every third person shooter is a linear regen health cover shooter, when there used to be quite the variety in styles.
I assume elitist cinemaphiles and literature buffs feel the same way about their respective passions, you've just never had one put it in similar words to you.
Looking Glass would never have died if there were a demand for more, though they were an outlier for their time, and way ahead of their time too.
Quote Posted by "Sulphur"
And, shockingly, we can enjoy both shallow games and games with deep systems at work without feeling pained at the lack of one in the other.
I enjoy simple games and I enjoy complex ones. Design and execution is what matters, and the design here is poor. Note that because I am disagreeing it doesn't mean I am shoving that opinion down your throat.
And yeah, keep up the attacks of character.
Sulphur on 17/6/2016 at 04:17
If we're going to misinterpret everything as a personal attack/'attack of character', I might as well point out that self-awareness isn't your strongest suit. It may be of utility to note that, even then, I posit this as an observation, and not an 'attack', which is a pretty remarkable claim from someone who has no problem making implicit insults to an entire group of people.
Anyway, the problem with blind spots is people don't want to or can't acknowledge they exist even when faced with them, so this is ultimately pointless. Do have fun with convincing the world through the rest of your tone-deaf screeds.
henke on 17/6/2016 at 04:31
Quote Posted by scumble
I got to the end of the game but it was somewhat disappointing. I've saved some characters I don't really know whether I should care about. However I think it's hard to get character development of any sort into an action game, and perhaps most game writers don't have the skills with story to get it to work.
I'm not sure I've played a game that's done character development particularly well.
Oh it's certainly doable. Naughty Dog's games(Uncharted, The Last Of Us) does that very well for instance. My fave part of the ending was when she picks up the second gun! They worked in her signature weaponry in a really neat way there.
Anyway, since you've finished it, you might wanna check out the video Errant Signal did on it, which is a very well done analysis of the whole thing.
[video=youtube;sqm3_v9aZQY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqm3_v9aZQY[/video]
Starker on 17/6/2016 at 05:23
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
I assume elitist cinemaphiles and literature buffs feel the same way about their respective passions, you've just never had one put it in similar words to you.
I've met quite a few elitists who thought that they are so much more cultured because they read "deep literature" and that the unwashed masses are the downfall of everything that's great about their hobby. What they didn't know was that I was already reading "deep literature" when they were still learning to read.
The point of my small anecdote here was that just because someone likes a "shallow" game doesn't mean that it's your duty to educate them or that it's welcome or needed. Especially here, among some of the most game literate people.
Chade on 17/6/2016 at 06:04
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
The problem is it does affect me due to the rise to market dominance:
-Many other forms of games don't sell as well, despite sometimes having more effort and passion behind them. This can outright kill companies.
-Some genres of games sometimes die out completely because the majority of developers/publishers wants a piece of the mindless pie.
Technically, the fact that your preferred genres don't sell as well as others isn't what causes them to die. Right now there are plenty of niche genres which are going strong in their own little pockets of the market.
The trouble is that all the genres you are pining for were once mainstream AAA genres, with AAA tech, AAA budgets, the works. And AAA games get more expensive to produce all the time. If the target audience for those genres can't keep pace with AAA budgets, they're toast. I don't know if that's something you can really justify getting angry about (well, at the very least, who can you blame?). It seems to me it shouldn't be too long before LGS type games start coming out through indie channels and hopefully find a more sustainable niche. I hope so, anyway.
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
-The future of games is affected as a whole, as future generations drew their inspiration from the previous, and so the true identity could be lost.
I think the resurrection of many old styles via indie channels shows that childhood memories last forever.
Briareos H on 17/6/2016 at 06:41
Apologies for my previous post. I had obviously not understood what was happening here.
scumble on 17/6/2016 at 15:46
Quote Posted by henke
Oh it's certainly doable. Naughty Dog's games(Uncharted, The Last Of Us) does that very well for instance. My fave part of the ending was when she picks up the second gun! They worked in her signature weaponry in a really neat way there.
I was aware of that happening, but now you mention it was quite clever.
Also I watched Hannah of Yogscast play Uncharted 4 (no PS4 so I'm not going to be playing it) and I agree the character development there was better. There was just nothing there in Tomb Raider. I did like the Lara character there as a sort of involuntary hero, shouting "I'm coming for you bastards!" and so on. It's a bit of a laugh.
Last gameplay comment, probably - I did want cover to be manual, as it is in something like Mass Effect 3 or GTA V even. There's the danger that these games can be too helpful and take away your sense of control over your protagonist. I kept trying to press a key to take cover, but realised you have to guess what you stand behind to take cover. It seemed more awkward to get cover while retreating and in other games it has made more sense to press the key to make your character dash to cover instead of walking back and getting stuck on the object you're trying to hide behind. Or jump backwards over object to get to cover.
heywood on 17/6/2016 at 18:49
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
Looking Glass would never have died if there were a demand for more, though they were an outlier for their time, and way ahead of their time too.
There was demand, but it was just for Thief sequels. Towards the end, Looking Glass was losing money on everything else they made. If they hadn't gotten themselves buried in debt due to other ventures, they could have kept going based on their success with Thief.
Irrational Games continued on as an independent studio despite SS2 not selling that great, but when they tried to make a spiritual successor they couldn't make their gameplay concepts work and had to focus more on shooting. They also got pressure from their publisher to make it more accessible and console friendly because they needed big sales to cover the AAA development budget.
Invisible War and Deadly Shadows were also allocated AAA budgets and streamlined for consoles.
I don't think the demand for these games ever declined. What happened was that the convergence of PCs and consoles made the whole market so much bigger. Budgets and sales expectations for AAA titles grew accordingly. Thief 1 sold something like 500k copies in its first years, which was more than enough for a AAA PC title in the last 1990s. But it was not enough for a AAA title in 2005. So even if there was still a potential market of 500k, that would not be enough to get the project funded. And suppose LGS was still around by then and didn't care about huge sales and wanted to make a new game that could turn a nice profit on 500k sales. If they did, it would have a budget of no more than a few million and would not meet gamer's expectations for graphics and production quality. So that wouldn't be a viable proposal either.
