By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 04 November 2010
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
richardhutnik said:

It would be beneficial if those who create GAMES not be so full of themselves.  I have had deeper and more rewarding experiences, with more replayability, playing some boardgames than I have had playing a number of videogames.  The pretention that you think you creating a game needs to be thought of as some work of art is of higher form than even movies is absurd.  Get over yourself designers.  Stop trying to think you need to do movies.  Your compete with movies experience will end up bankrupting the industry for one thing.  And, when you have such pretention, you do something like, "Press X to Jason" ends up looking WAY out of place.

Now excuse me if my next game I play is Kirby's Epic Yarn.  Sorry if this is too much of a toy and too boardgamish for you game designer.

Considering how much hate you gave HR, I'm not surprised to see such a ridiculous post here.

I would suggest you stop confusing my hating of the hype behind Heavy Rain, and it both being used as some sort of fanboy salvo of awesomeness in the console war, and it being made out to be more than it is, with my opinion of it as interactive fiction.  I have Indigo Prophesy on my 360.  I would be interested in seeing an updated version that worked.  However, I do believe the spin towards Heavy Rain, is one that is not healthy for the videogame industry.  While it is good to do an experimental piece that stands out unique, if the attempt to keep trying to make a movie-like experience, with MONSTER production costs, is going to bankrupt the industry. 

My post prior is triggered by this individual, SO full of himself, ripping into the Wii, which does what videogames have been know to be, that is things that are fun, and games.  They also are sometimes toys.  And him taking a dump on boardgames I am PARTICULARLY offended with.  If videogames were more like boardgames, they would be more replayable, and more social for people.  The experience would actually be healthier.

You can take what you will about what I say.  But I do stand by this: Games are GAMES.  You can try to do more with them, but if you happen to end up feeling a need that you MUST do more with them, and are willing to bankrupt yourself in the process, you don't do anyone a service here.  Flat out, most game designers SUCK at storytelling, and the attempt to combine storytelling with the game medium, by means of bringing in writers who don't know about good game design, you end up with a fractured product in the end.  What you get, in the fragmented approach as the norm, is what you saw in Modern Warfare 2.  If THAT were a movie, it would of been in the running for worst film of the year. 

I will stand here now and also say I just finished Fable III, playing through twice, and I am done with it.  I bought it the same week as when it was released, and it already has been traded in.  WOW, I got a week or two of play out of it, and that is that.  Oh, the story was pretty good, and the acting was good.  But it ended up both on the short and easy side.  It is a disposable product in the end.  Now, if it ended up actually having it be where you ran the kingdom like a kingdom, and managed issues (like Simcity), then you would have a game with longevity.  Instead, what do you get?  I got a disposable experience that I am done with.  What sticks with me is how I want to punch Peter M's company in the face for doing a plot twist that works in films, but forced me to do poorly because I didn't prepare propertly.  Plot twist works in movies.  Here, it didn't.