I'll agree that it doesn't need to be a gun, but by god it needs to be something other than a wannabe movie.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
I'll agree that it doesn't need to be a gun, but by god it needs to be something other than a wannabe movie.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
Jay520 said:
An interactive novel would still be a 'book' though, right? In the strictest sense, Heavy Rain is definitely a video game. The game constantly presents you with a series of contextual challenges which progressed the game, saved the player's life, solved mysteries, etc. Heavy Rain is no less of a game than DJ Hero or any other game based on contexts. It's just so fixated on the story that it becomes associated with movies. |
I fail to see the difference. Games prevent you with a series of contextual choices. So do Visiual novels.
happydolphin said: I love this paragraph especially “In general, I don’t like game mechanics, I mean it’s the idea you do the same things through different levels. I think, in my mind, it’s an ideas I don’t really like because I love to do different things and like to see the story moving on and I like to do different things and different scenes, not do the same thing over and over again. If it involves violence at some point fine, if it makes sense in the context. But violence for the sake of violence, it doesn’t mean anything to me anymore.” He doesn't like traditional game mechanics, and wants some more fluid game mechanic, evolutive and adaptive to story events and context. This is the natural progression of gaming, and it's exciting honestly. I understand there are limitations especially in the context of online, but still there are ways to mesh the two and the prospective is exciting.
|
Story should twist itself in whatever broken-neck way it needs to for the sake of game mechanics. If you want to make a visual novel, this is fine, but make no bones about what you are making and don't attempt to make bastardized gameplay just for in defying calling a spade a spade.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
Kasz216 said:
I fail to see the difference. Games prevent you with a series of contextual choices. So do Visiual novels. |
most heavy rain threads turn into arguments about semantics. :P
Jay520 said:
I'm not familar with visual novels but I would assume the number of contextual choices is far fewer than in a video game. Unlike Heavy Rain, or any other video game, where the game almost always gives you a challenge which dictates the character's fate. I can understood why many see Heavy Rain not as a video game using the connotation of the word 'video game' but using the denotative definition of a video game, then Heavy Rain is undeniably a video game. Honestly, I'm not too oncerned with whether or not this is identified as a video game or not. If you feel that it's more of a interactive movie than a video game, then that's your call, it's really not an interesting topic to discuss imo. My main point (which I admit wasn't clear) is we shouldn't discourage developers from developing these types of titles if they do find critical & commercial success without damaging the industry ( which I don't think they are). |
I don't disagree with that... with the exception that I don't think we should discoruage developers from creating such things even if they don't find critical and commercial success.
People should be free to do whatever they like, and pretty much everything has an audience or some kind... and if someone wants to make it, why the hell not?
My point is... everything on a DVD isn't a movie. Everything on a Videogame console isn't a videogame.
This becomes VERY important going into the modern age of multiformats. Example... Ebooks.
E books are books.
If I were to release "Catcher in the Rye" for Xbox 360 and put it on an DVD, it would be no less a book.
If I were to release "Catcher in the Rye" in movie theatres where every minute the "Page" turned to the next wall of text, or if it was all scrolling text... it's not a movie, it's a book.
To refer to things based on there format instead of context is wrong.
TruckOSaurus said:
But I bet each time you replayed it you altered you playstyle, adapted it to avoid taking damage in certain sections, saved your energy for a boss so you can pound him with ninja stars, opted to keep a subweapon because it shot downwards and you knew you'd be dealing with enemies on lower ground later on, etc... |
For sure! I would redo it and try to perfect it! I do that with classics all the time! :D
I think I might have been unclear this far as to what I saw for a vision. Within the context-driven actions, it may not be a cinematic adventure per se where actions are pre-programmed. In other words, one player could do a much better job than another, and could even be ranked over a points system or by achievements. Cinematic adventures are but one possibility within the variety of what would be the intensely story-driven genre.
For example, you're in an area where you are bare hands, no items, and you need to make your way beyond obstacles to get to the next thread in the story. The objects you find along the way will help you get there, but you need to find the objects, and execute the actions properly. Say you only have a knife, and, for instance, you find material to make a hut or something, or make a passage over a chasm. Maybe you'll need animal bones and ligaments? The challenges are always new and so the player is always interested, like in a good book, the face-offs are always new and fresh. Takes thos to a whole other level where you can play this online with other people and cooperate. What about a LOST game? When you try to bring new ideas, it's hard but the trick is to not choke them with "oh that'll never work" mentality.
I don't think I'm doing a good job at expressing this though. :(
Mr Khan said:
Story should twist itself in whatever broken-neck way it needs to for the sake of game mechanics. If you want to make a visual novel, this is fine, but make no bones about what you are making and don't attempt to make bastardized gameplay just for in defying calling a spade a spade. |
I understand what you're expressing, and I trust that you undstand that Cage is not advocating cinematic adventures per se, but a focus on context-driven actions which of course may lead to cinematic adventures, but also to much more elaborate context-driven action games such as Conker. As such, this type of content still has a long way to go before coming to maturity and bringing consoles games to where they're mean to be from an immersion standpoint.
Kasz216 said: I don't disagree with that... with the exception that I don't think we should discoruage developers from creating such things even if they don't find critical and commercial success. People should be free to do whatever they like, and pretty much everything has an audience or some kind... and if someone wants to make it, why the hell not?
This becomes VERY important going into the modern age of multiformats. Example... Ebooks. E books are books. If I were to release "Catcher in the Rye" for Xbox 360 and put it on an DVD, it would be no less a book. If I were to release "Catcher in the Rye" in movie theatres where every minute the "Page" turned to the next wall of text, or if it was all scrolling text... it's not a movie, it's a book. To refer to things based on there format instead of context is wrong. |
CGI-Quality said: Indeed. The problem with quoting David Cage (and devs like him) is that people don't actually grasp what he's trying to say and read too far into the words on the screen. In truth, this article is nothing new, he's said such stuff before, but he's never tried to be cocky, condescending or insulting about it. The GT interview puts much of this article in perspective. Then again, there's really no need to defend Cage at this juncture - anyone who didn't like him before hasn't exposed themselves now. The rest who respect what he's about however, know he's bigger than the words he speaks. |
I understand your frustration, but I believe, whether I'm right to or not, that people, when presented the argument more clearly or when disambiguated, can come to understand things and quotes better. You also corrected me in one of the exclusive threads, and once I understood, I was quick to correct.
We have a lot of smart people here, it's just that the mindset might be a little off since we're all online. But I believe in the intelligence of people for the most part. Am I wrong? Maybe I am, but I generally like to give the benefit of the doubt. Mind you I'm also a little newer so I haven't reached that place yet.
Having said that, it does kind of suck that people throw what he said with little consideration, but I'll try to show them they're wrong to, hopefully I won't suck too much at it.