By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pearljammer on 05 December 2009
Edit Thread
psrock said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
psrock said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

So a game has to be cinematic to be GOTY? Then that just shows another thing that is wrong with the industry

No, with so many games being released and being just terrific, a game needs to more than just " running, stoming and jumping, ect" to win GOTY, still a good game though.


  Except NSMB Wii is better than those other games, its gameplay is more refined, more engaging, and more fun, not to mention far more accessible.

 

All the other games like U2 have, is more cinematics, so what you're arguing, is that cinematics are more important than gameplay

You know what is great in 2009 : You can have a game with great gameplay, amazing cenematics all in one game.

Not only that, I'd argue that the bolded suggestion is a legitimate argument, in principle at least. Like any other artform, gaming can fill many roles. It need not necessarily be, first and foremost, fun. Dramatic prose need not be cathartic, a comedy need not be conventionally humourous nor does painting necessarily need to be visually appealing.

I realize it's a fairly recent artform, and many people will claim to know just what its specific role is to provide - like in your case, you claim that it should engage the user, and above all, be fun. Say I were to fully accept that as true, isn't in true that everyone perceives what is fun differently than the next? Take movies for example, some find the explosions and thoughtlessness of a film like Transformers 2 preferable and more fun than the musings of say Daniel Day Lewis' character: Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood (which I thought to be a riot! I hadn't had that much fun in a drama in some time. Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino had a similar affect on me).

However, if you're specifically talking about fun with the gameplay I think two thinks:

  1. You're unfairly limiting this virtually limitless artform; and
  2. You haven't actually tested the gameplay in Uncharted 2. While I prefer NSMB Wii (I think, the jury is still out on it for me) Uncharted 2 was wildly fun.

But that's beside the point, because I simply refuse to accept that as true (First sentence, second paragraph). On a personal level, I've appreciated games on both extremes as well as those that have a healthy mix of the two. For example, one of my favourite genres is the 2D platformer, with NSMBW being one of my favourite games of the last decade. Hardly a story worth mentioning, very little dialogue, poor characterisation, little atmosphere, but it is one helluva game. Ridiculously fun, very fresh, incredibly tight controls, etc. I love it. On the otherhand you have games like Monkey Island or Hotel Dusk or perhaps even Shadow of the Colossus that depend either solely or heavily on factors other than gamesplay to make them the amazing, unforgettable games that they are. Are they any less brilliant than NSMBW for doing so? Hell no. That's completely up to the user.

Sorry for the lengthy reply (I welcome any critiques, I think it's a great thing to discuss), I just can't agree that gameplay must always trump every other factor in the making of a brilliant game.

Edit: I thought I should perhaps add an example of a movie providing more than just a visual experience. Musicals. Any one. I mean, would you simply take the stance that if you want to listen to music you'd say 'just listen to music' and claim that a it being a musical (and having songs in the middle of dialogue) takes away from the movie experience?

Edit 2: Is anyone else's display messed up on VGChartz? All of my windows are pushed to the side, and the font has been made extremely small. Edit

Edit 3: Nevermind, it's apparently a Canadian thing. I have to stop editing.