By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Louie on 19 August 2009
Edit Thread
makingmusic476 said:
Louie said:

The funny thing is a lot of you guys are criticising him even though you didn't really get what he was trying to say.

He is not talking about user generated content but what he calls "ANTI-content". Whenever the game doesn't entertain you by itself but relies on you to create fun he talks about "anti-content."

Wii Music had a lot of "anti-content" because people wanted to play instruments in a realistic manner. According to Malstrom (I haven't played the game myself) the game rather focused on creating your own songs / videos / whatever, though. That means you had to create the content by yourself which the consumer usually doesn't like.

Little Big Planet is probably NOT such an example: The game's only purpose is to give you tools to create levels. The game is fun because you can create the levels not because you can play them (of course playing a level can also be fun but that's not the game's focus) and thus it offers a lot of content. If the focus was "PLAY great levels!" instead of "CREATE great levels" this would be an example of anti-content.

I disagree with him on Flip Book Studio, though. The entire context of the game is to let you create things, not to watch them and thus it offers a lot of content.

In case you're still confused remember: Value depends on the amount of content related to the "purpose" or "job" of a game! If your game's job is to let you create levels than a big level editor is great, if your game's job is to lt you PLAY levels then a big level editor with nothing else just sucks.

Edit: Take "Do-it-yourself" cocktails for instance. You buy a do-it-yourself cocktail set to MIX cocktails. The value of the set comes from offering you the opportunity to mix those cocktails. If you want to DRINK a cocktail at a bar you'd be pretty angry if the barkeeper gave you some fruit juices and ice and told you "do it yourself!" but in the first context that's exactly what you want.

That means user generated content can work but only if the user sees value in actually creating the content instead of consuming it. Most people buy games to consume content and if they realise the game is only fun when they create content they feel cheated and the game loses its value. If creating content is what you are looking for you will probably feel cheated if the creation-part is bad (the whole purpose of a "create your own cocktails"-set would be gone if there were just 3 complete cocktails inside).

So what Malstrom criticises is that in his eyes Nintendo tells people "creating is fun!" and then says "well, people didn't understand it" while in reality people did understand but just didn't want to create. They rather wanted to consume. Now his fear is that Nintendo could become "arrogant", could release more "anti-content" games and continue to tell people they are just too dumb to understand (which was always a big complaint for him regarding Sony and Microsoft) and consequently lose customers. Of course that's debatable but I'm sure a lot of people didn't even read what he wrote.

That is a rather misguided notion of what LBP is about.  The game is not simply a level editor, and people don't gain enjoyment from the title simply by creating levels.  I have probably invested over 200 hours into LBP since its release, making it my most played game since Mario Kart 64, and I haven't published a single level.  I haven't even finished all the tutorials in the Create mode.

The editing tools are not the entire game.   You can easily invest ten or more hours into the levels provided for the story mode by Media Molecule, which can double or triple with replays with friends.  Then there's the online levels.  The editing tools are provided so that people that have a knack for level design, and enjoy creating levels, can publish levels for all to play.  Then guys like me can play them for hours on end with friends.

The game's slogan is "Play. Create. Share."  Not just "Create."  Playing is most certainly a major focus of the game, and the drop-in/drop-out multiplayer mixed with a plethora of user made levels is what gives the game its longevity.

Your concept of the game would be like saying only people that upload videos on YouTube get any enjoyment out of YouTube.

However, I suppose using your defition of "anti-content", the editor would be a form of anti-content for me, but the game has so much OTHER content that I don't even need to think about the editor (though I'll probably enjoy the heck out of it once they patch in the online co-op Create mode).

Edit: Ah, I just saw your response to Ameratsu.  I see what you're trying to say now.

Btw, I highly recommend getting NSMBWii when it comes out.  Then you'll understand the awesomeness of a multiplayer 2D platformer.  In LBP, I'm a mischevious little bastard that does nothing but think of nefarious ways to kill my friends so I can collect all the points and prize bubbles lol.

Does anybody know if NSMBWii will award people places at the end of each level based on coins?  I know it's childish, but I can't help but try to get first place on every LBP level.  I'd love to have that element in NSMBWii.

Yeah I know where you guys are coming from. I didn't want to say the game's only purpose is to create levels. What I meant is that in the case of Little Big Planet, where you clearly know you are getting a game that has a focus on user generated content (playing levels other people created is also a part of user generated content here) shows that user generated content can work very well. Just when you expect "consume only" and get a lot of the "create" stuff you'll feel cheated.

I think NSMBWii has rankings at the end of each level btw. Anyways, I'm going to be now