I'm leaning towards DMeisterJ's side on this one.

His writing can certainly be entertaining at times. He has posted some witty, clever ideas on his articles before.

But is Malstrom a good writer? I don't think many would dare call him that.

Some people have stated on this thread that to properly understand the context of what he's trying to convey, you HAVE to read all the other stuff he has written before.

Isn't doing that, by definition, become exactly what he was trying to criticize? When you have to write countless paragraphs of pretentious text, all the while claiming that you are the one in the know, that the rest of the so-called ''analysts'' are idiots, then you are behaving as egotistically as the companies that ''do not take the consumer into account''.

In other words, if you need a tutorial (i.e. reading his previous essays) to properly understand what he's trying to prove, then his latest article is, as DMeister calls it, a contradiction.

And I am NOT a hater. I have genuinely enjoyed some of the stuff he's written. You just have to dig deep into the trash to find the valuable diamonds that are buried in there. I recommend reading the articles. However, if a condensed, ''cliff notes'' version of the articles surface one day, by all means read those instead. You'll save a huge amount of time and get the gist of what he's attempting to prove.

Okay, this thread is too long to read everything so sorry if I'm repeating anything here but for what it's worth here's my two cents:

First off I agree malstrom is full of himself and isn't the greatest writer that ever lived.

I also agree with pretty much the entire article although he doesn't explain certain things well enough. Tutorials being the main offender here.

Also I see a lot of people missing the point. Tutorials are broken (any tutorial) if you're trying to appeal to 'non-gamers'. They aren't interested in learning how to play - period.  They are not interested in playing at all!! That's why they are 'non'-gamers.  You have to immediately hand them something so intuitive and fun that it changes that opinion. They have to be 'sold' on the game before you can start 'uping' the complexity. Nintendo is one of the only companies that understands that.

I do agree integrated tutorials are usually fine. If it doesn't feel like a tutorial then it's okay IMO as long as the game starts off easily enough that you don't need to read anything to play. Tutorials like Sonic and The Secret Rings had are the worst. It sucked all the fun out - but that's a severe example.
Mario Kart Wii is a great example of the proper way to make games for 'non-gamers': Here is a wheel - drive. The game is more complex than that but it's easy enough anyone can get into it, have fun and then learn the details like power-ups, speed boosts, etc.

And he's right - GTAIV and MGS4 are broken. No non-gamer is ever going to pick up and play those games. Only the converted choir will. Cut scenes won't change this. If people want to watch a movie, they'll watch a movie not play a game with long cut-scenes.

 What you criticized about the FF tutorial isn't that it's necessary because the game's too complicated, it's just that it's made in a dumb way. If it had been integrated more with actual gameplay, it would have been ok, according to you. But that's a different argument from Malstroms

I don't like Malstrom because he is full of himself, he has a really poor writing style and uses flawed and contradictory arguments. But even I can't deny that he's got a lot right. His rambling about tutorials, though, is wrong. Zelda games do require a tutorial, otherwise a lot of people wouldn't get the game. When I first played Zelda OoT, I might have been frustrated if there was no tutorial stage, which is what Kokiri forest and the deku tree dungeon are, even if it's not officially labeled tutorial.

Yeah he acts like an egocentric one. The problem with your example is that his articles aren't for everyone, they are for people like me and you maybe that is they are for vg sales freaks.

I don't think that arguments like disruption or theory of cycles are interesting for everyone and those type of arguments usually need to be explained in details. The difference with an accademic type of writing is that the style he use is a freaky one, a theatrical one  may I say.

The problem I have with his recent articles is that I read Malstrom works from 2006 onward so sometime they feel unispired, not fresh like Wiikly ones.

The huge challenge Sean has now is that with the past articles he exposed the plan illustrated by Nintendo ( I don't think Sean is smart, I think that he was one of the few that heard carefully what Nintendo said "before the revolution" and analyzed it in detail ) while now he is trying to predict the outcome of the industry in the future.

Yes, a entirely different challenge.

We all have the pretty much the same amount of credibility when we whip out the good ol' crystal ball.

Might as well emphasize how right you have been on the past about this sort of thing to catch more people's attention.

Given he's speaking to a (in his mind) specific type of game/gamer most of his points have some merit.

Of course the second you have everyone adhering to firm rules you lost creativity and risk stagnation until someone dares to break the rules (as you could argue Nintendo did with the Wii).

Or to put in another way...


If they give you ruled paper, write the other way - Juan Ramon Jiminez


As for tutorials I do think they should simply arise from gameplay if at all possible.

I remember the obstacle course in Half Life teaching people how to play an FPS (I still wish you actually could have entered the staff competition mentioned) while most recently Portal cunningly taught us how to play the game so when it really began in earnest we knew what we were doing.

Part 2: I cast ressurection! How many lands does that cost me?

@BengaBenga

He talks about tutorials in a game being that the game is already too complicated in other words pick up and play. I wont dare to define it anymore than how he already did so I'll venture deeper into what is said.

- Just to prove a point to Steven I'm going to attempt to write this next thought in Malstrom format!

A game that needs a tutorial to teach you an example being Metal Gear Solid 4 is broken by his definition but wait, whats that now reader?

Reader(in this case BengaBenga) "Malstrom has no credability anymore! As we all know Metal Gear Solid is a great series and four proves that!"

Well to tell the truth the narrative behind Metal Gear Solid Four was replicating the movie model so it was actually more of an interactive movie than a game narrative, however let's talk about the components of it that as a g..

Reader "But MGO dib8rman, MGO!"

Reader please calm down I'm not attacking your preffered game I'm analyzing the definition of Malstrom's context - we can look at sales all day long but that's nothing but content and doesn't explain if a game is good or not as that type of judgement is based on the observer(s); remember we are trying to understand Malstrom's context and nothing else - so please don't interrupt me again. As I was saying let's talk about the components of Metal Gear Solid 4 that make it a game one of which is Metal Gear Online. This narrative behind this component is actually steriotypical to it's genre, the element of team against team and free for all turns this into a shooter and not an espionage game, so we will analyze this as a shooter game. Metal Gear Online (MGO) is a broken game component.

Reader "No! it's not dib8rman! Metacriti..."

Since when do other people tell you what you like? Now stop interrupting me unless you having something eventfull to say. The game requires layers upon layers of tutorials that barely skim the surface of the controls accesible to the players in the game, by the end of everything most players don't even know how to lay the person on the ground and cut their throat untill weeks of playing have gone by and another player informs them.

Reader "Your speaking in anecdot dib8rman, your personal expriences don't determine everyone elses - though it is quite funny that your such a noob."

Hmm, I thought I told you something, but you bring up a good point so here's a bit of homework for you - I'm certain you have Metal Gear Solid 4 reader, go and try out the online component with your mom or dad who has never played the game before, then come back to me with your frustration on having to explain how to do the actions never explained in the online tutorial.

Reader "Anecdote dib8rman anecdote."

Hmm well since we are talking about wide appeal in simplicity let's bring sales into the bid, Metal Gear is an established series correct?

Reader "uh huh, Wait! I thought you said sales weren't important in determining if the product is good!"

I'm talking about consumer acceptance not if the product is good or not, surely if anything sales numbers are good for it's measuring how many people bought a product.


Actually I have go go to sleep now would love to continue this tommorow but I did this for laughs