PieToast said:
Nem said:
binary solo said:
Why? Challenging is not the only thing a video game can aspire to be, and these days may no longer even be the main thing. There is a much broader range of experience that can be had from video games than when they first appeared. If a video game aspires to someting other than a gameplay challenge then gameplay challenge may detract from the main purpose of the game. A video game should aspire to be an enjoyable experience for people who are interested in whatever the game is trying to do. Whether that's challenging gameplay or immersive experience or something else doesn't matter. The size of the audience you attract for a video game will be largely determined by what elements the developer focusses on as the main source of enjoyment.
I think it's a really bad idea to suggest any sort of formula or standard method for how a game should or shouldn't be challenging. some people want a really tough experience, others want a largely stress free time with their games. All preferences should be catered to.
|
Why is immersive something that exists without gameplay? Sounds like a movie to me.
Are you talking about those games that you just traverse and see what happens? I dont know. I am hard pressed to classify them as games when gameplay isnt the focus.
You want to give an example? I'm not sure what you mean.
|
An example? The so called "Walking simulators" which should have been called something better, but whatever.
Some games entertain teh idea that some form of interactivity in better than non. These types of games don't have combat. One could say that they don't challenge the player's dexterity like traditional games. Though they still have exploration so you may consider that as some form of challenge.
|
I agree with Trunkin. They should be called interactive movies.
I mean... really, its in the word. A game is something focused on gameplay.
