Because there are tons of sim games out there: flight sims, historicallly based war sims, sports games where a.i. is based off stats and mocaps of actual athletes (so, it's you vs. simulated star athletes), "America's Army" game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army), etc.
I'd like to think that Jack Thompson was an idiot because he couldn't tell the difference between "a game" and a "murder simulator" :poly121:
Games are a fixed 'paraphrased' version of reality, not a dynamic 'nuts and bolts' simulation of it, there is quite a difference between the two.
ahh Deja i see what you're getting at. HAH. fair enough. i guess that was right on the money. yeah, when i wave my finger i'm also pointing it at myself. i try to depersonalize the stuff i'm criticizing or promoting.. but yeah. i guess that's just not how people read it.
P.S. Ur a n00b and if u luv ur ego so much, why dont you marry it, egoboy?
HAH i will. you're invited. the sex is awesome, by the way.
hmm i quite like what you're getting at. really, really crazy choice is a great concept. i loved the choices in mass effect... i think they did a fantastic job with that game. actually, mass effect was incredible in general.. it had a ncie ballance of freedom, as well as a very traditional linear story.
I also like the idea of giving players the freedom of choice, but staking things in a certain direction and sorta force you into making specific choices, just because of the way the pros/cons are stacked. the illusion of choice. perhaps if the player refused to do what was obvious, a theme could be presented later in the game about "stubbornness" or something like that.
I'm playing fable2, and i really, really liked the bit with the
spire. i thought it was really incredibly.. emotionally involving.
As far as tragedies go, Kane and Lynch was a bit of a tragedy... and was also a very linear game. i feel that it wasn't treated fairly in reviews. it had some problems, but it wasn't as bad as they said it was.
hey, so i was chatting with a friend about the idea of giving people exactly what they want, but having a little bit of information in there on top of it all.. so the player is sorta pulled forward by their ego. lets say you're playing an rpg and you're sent to go get an awesome peice of armour that will make your character big and strong and really, really on top of things in general. when you get it though, and you're taking all this pride in your new piece of armour, and really focusing on it, you find out that maybe it has a back story, like it was made with the souls of little kids.
that could introduce a whole new story thread with some specific themes --hmm.. perhaps related to the desire to obtain the most power. perhaps at the end, the player gets the choice to destroy the armor he just collected and free the children... or keep it, and .. OOOOOoo perhaps we could put him in a situation where he NEEDS the power to protect someone.. ooh that's an interested dilema.
John, nearly every single post of yours in this thread is incredibly scatterbrained and self-contradictory. Not to mention throwing in a nice pinch of elitism, hypocrisy and just plain confusion.
Seriously, are drinking too much coffee or something?
Vermilion made some very good points, as did killingpeople. They also managed to present them in readable, comprehensible form. It seems like you can barely string one coherent sentence together. Maybe you should do a pass over every single post you've made in this thread, in the same manner that you did with the original post, and then people might understand a bit better what you're actually trying to say.
If you even know what you're actually trying to say.
BTW, Fallout 3 does the "optional driven main storyline placed in an open world" thing that you mentioned would be something to look for a few posts back, it has a pretty consistent and strong "main quest", while still allowing the player to ignore it completely and do whatever the hell they want if they're that way inclined.
I know players who completed the whole thing only following the main story thread in about 6 hours, and other players who have only done maybe a quarter of the main story and have spent 40+ hours just having fun in the open world. Isn't that exactly what you're talking about here?
i was waiting for my best friend to show up and send me some lovin. MoP, i dont know why we dont get along, but either way.
i have, actually, read over my posts numerous times. you remember that sometimes i edit my posts after i post them, before you can respond. in fact, every time someone suggests that i've been a dick, i read my stuff again.. and re-read it. then i assume that i HAVE been a dick, and pace around my appartment with the perspective that i have been a dick, to see if i can find truth in it. sometimes i do. i am very much interested in not being pompus
i am however, interested in being confident and making value judgments. if that sounds pretentious, then maybe you should argue my point and see what happens. i go far out of my way to present a clear argument. sometimes i am scatter brained, as was my first post in this thread, which i re-wrote after accepting criticism. i think i've demonstrated a desire in this thread to accept other perspectives, and i've actually changed my opinion over the course of this thread. I have to flat out argue about this pretentiousness bullshit. Yes. i have a point of view. it's open to be argued. don't call me a dick for having a point of view. argue my point, not that i'm making one. ANYWAY. now is that not clear? i dont think it's fair that i can't string together my thoughts. we'll get more into that if you want but i wont make this post huge.
yes, you're very right, fallout does have that ability. i would argue that it's fairly.. poorly emphasized, but that's just my opinion.
a lot of these games that allow you to do what you want to do, but offer a main story, have a very watered down main story. fallout managed to keep me going, but it was nowhere near other experiences i've had in games, but that's a matter of my personal taste. if fallout was LESS hands-off i would have personally found it much more engaging. I still find that in a lot of these more open games, the main plot is still presented in a sort of "hey! would you LIKE to do this?" kind of way. i could be imagining things, but i don't really feel the game designers really expressing to me what they find valuable.. they'll offer something to me so see if i kinda like it, but it seems that nobody will say "do this important thing! it's great for these reasons!" personally, i enjoy more linear games like half-life. but perhaps we can find a balance.
personally i'd like to see a little more of that, but i'd like your opinion on that too.
here's the crux of my argument, and it's something im having a difficult time expressing.
i personally enjoy linear games. i COULD enjoy do-what-ever-you-want games. to ME, when i play the do-what-ever-you-want games, i feel more.. narcissistic. I could enjoy both, but i wonder what style we should be promoting.. do do-what-you-want games promote narcissism? it appears to me that they do.
there i felt that was pretty clear. i hope that was clear.
I know what's going on MoP. the thing is that i have a fundemental way in which i present ideas, based on how i usually talk with my friends. talking and discussing stuff is a very creative process for me, so when i throw out an idea, a lot of the time i'm hoping to get help actually formulating the idea it's self..
in fact some times, i might not know exactly what i'm even looking for, but i trust in the creative process.
anyway so yeah. that might clarify a few things about me. it's actually a great process for discovering new ideas and theories and stuff like that.
lets say you're playing an rpg and you're sent to go get an awesome peice of armour that will make your character big and strong and really, really on top of things in general. when you get it though, and you're taking all this pride in your new piece of armour, and really focusing on it, you find out that maybe it has a back story, like it was made with the souls of little kids.
that could introduce a whole new story thread with some specific themes --hmm.. perhaps related to the desire to obtain the most power.
yeah, sort of a bait'n switch.
you NEED to kill the king to obtain that super-awesome item, but when doing so, you'll plummet his lands into deep despair and destruction... unless you discover the evil guy in the court who will plummet the land into destruction and kill him too. or maybe its that evil guy who are just feeding you the information about the powerful item of the king. or maybe you'd be able to steal his artifact without killing him..
This is an interesting thread. I mean, it could be about more interesting subject matter, but the interesting thing it is mostly comprised of now is discovering the ego that drives John's thought process.
I believe in there being meaning in games, but as for deeper meaning, one can find meaning in anything. It is entirely possible to meditate upon the most simple things in life. Reading a haiku, for example, a short poem focusing often upon a natural moment in nature, one is able to extrapolate and interpret as much as one desires - learning and evolving thought perhaps not even considered by the original author. I find this happens a lot while reading comic books. The dialogue and premise of the story set the stage for introspection, and the art provides something to look at in reflection. Something abstract to focus on while considering the meaning of things. The 'om' of the experience. A technique often used in movies, where it shows a random pretty shot of something or an unfocused, quiet scene inbetween other scenes.
Instead of more a focus on storytelling or direct meaning in games, there perhaps needs to be more of an 'om' upon which to focus, letting the player's introspection derive meaning. If the game is ADD and never paces itself, running from spoonfed cutscene story information and emotion, to action and gameplay, always running for a goal, never slowing to absorb the world, how is the player given a chance to absorb the meaning? In this way, even if most of the addiction for MMOs is to be able to perform a task, and accomplish things with others, the social, world exploration side, is the introspective side, the arena in which the player learns about himself.
Edit: As everyone else is saying: in an RPG, when there is a choice to be made, a moral decision to consider, something deeper than kill the evil bad guys, save the day and be the righteous hero, this is where the player questions their importance, and the meaning of their actions, the moral consequences of the choices they are making. If the player has to stop and think about what they are doing, and what the consequences are; if they are torn between two outcomes, and a sacrifice somewhere must be made, this is the point at which they might become introspective, and learn. When they are given meaningful choice.
The player is then able to take what they have learned and apply it to their own experiences, their own life. What would be interesting, maybe, is if the player would be able to learn abstractly through a game, and apply it back into the game itself, in order to further explore the 'meaning' they have found.
One of my favorite gaming memories was my first trip through the Barrens during the WoW beta - just an epic sense of adventure. That some people invest themselves so wholly in those games doesn't strike me as any more or less weird than people who construct their lives around comic books or movies or other entertainment options with a crafted narrative. Diff'rent strokes and all.
Indeed. To that effect, spelunking, travelling and other such explorations as well. Games provide universally accessible and safe alternatives in which to similarly explore oneself within a non-everyday environment.
Though I may not be one to talk about meaning, with my favorite titles including Quake, and Painkiller. If only games like that had more narration-free storytelling through the environment, like when you find those hidden areas and critters in Super Metroid, or the writing on the walls in Portal / L4D... you know, for when you haven't got the time or patience to experience the greatness of a written game, like Planescape: Torment, the most beautifully written, massive thing I have perhaps ever read.
Imagine Painkiller with an apparent, intriguing history to the monsters and environments. Then it could be shooting monsters, and shooting more monsters; but in the end, aren't we only shooting a reflection of ourselves, denying and escaping that which we are otherwise unwilling to confront? Imagine the horror. Those thousands of monsters vanquished, they live... in you.
Replies
Games are a fixed 'paraphrased' version of reality, not a dynamic 'nuts and bolts' simulation of it, there is quite a difference between the two.
lesson learned.
HAH i will. you're invited. the sex is awesome, by the way.
hmm i quite like what you're getting at. really, really crazy choice is a great concept. i loved the choices in mass effect... i think they did a fantastic job with that game. actually, mass effect was incredible in general.. it had a ncie ballance of freedom, as well as a very traditional linear story.
I also like the idea of giving players the freedom of choice, but staking things in a certain direction and sorta force you into making specific choices, just because of the way the pros/cons are stacked. the illusion of choice. perhaps if the player refused to do what was obvious, a theme could be presented later in the game about "stubbornness" or something like that.
I'm playing fable2, and i really, really liked the bit with the
As far as tragedies go, Kane and Lynch was a bit of a tragedy... and was also a very linear game. i feel that it wasn't treated fairly in reviews. it had some problems, but it wasn't as bad as they said it was.
hey, so i was chatting with a friend about the idea of giving people exactly what they want, but having a little bit of information in there on top of it all.. so the player is sorta pulled forward by their ego. lets say you're playing an rpg and you're sent to go get an awesome peice of armour that will make your character big and strong and really, really on top of things in general. when you get it though, and you're taking all this pride in your new piece of armour, and really focusing on it, you find out that maybe it has a back story, like it was made with the souls of little kids.
that could introduce a whole new story thread with some specific themes --hmm.. perhaps related to the desire to obtain the most power. perhaps at the end, the player gets the choice to destroy the armor he just collected and free the children... or keep it, and .. OOOOOoo perhaps we could put him in a situation where he NEEDS the power to protect someone.. ooh that's an interested dilema.
Seriously, are drinking too much coffee or something?
Vermilion made some very good points, as did killingpeople. They also managed to present them in readable, comprehensible form. It seems like you can barely string one coherent sentence together. Maybe you should do a pass over every single post you've made in this thread, in the same manner that you did with the original post, and then people might understand a bit better what you're actually trying to say.
If you even know what you're actually trying to say.
BTW, Fallout 3 does the "optional driven main storyline placed in an open world" thing that you mentioned would be something to look for a few posts back, it has a pretty consistent and strong "main quest", while still allowing the player to ignore it completely and do whatever the hell they want if they're that way inclined.
I know players who completed the whole thing only following the main story thread in about 6 hours, and other players who have only done maybe a quarter of the main story and have spent 40+ hours just having fun in the open world. Isn't that exactly what you're talking about here?
i have, actually, read over my posts numerous times. you remember that sometimes i edit my posts after i post them, before you can respond. in fact, every time someone suggests that i've been a dick, i read my stuff again.. and re-read it. then i assume that i HAVE been a dick, and pace around my appartment with the perspective that i have been a dick, to see if i can find truth in it. sometimes i do. i am very much interested in not being pompus
i am however, interested in being confident and making value judgments. if that sounds pretentious, then maybe you should argue my point and see what happens. i go far out of my way to present a clear argument. sometimes i am scatter brained, as was my first post in this thread, which i re-wrote after accepting criticism. i think i've demonstrated a desire in this thread to accept other perspectives, and i've actually changed my opinion over the course of this thread. I have to flat out argue about this pretentiousness bullshit. Yes. i have a point of view. it's open to be argued. don't call me a dick for having a point of view. argue my point, not that i'm making one. ANYWAY. now is that not clear? i dont think it's fair that i can't string together my thoughts. we'll get more into that if you want but i wont make this post huge.
yes, you're very right, fallout does have that ability. i would argue that it's fairly.. poorly emphasized, but that's just my opinion.
a lot of these games that allow you to do what you want to do, but offer a main story, have a very watered down main story. fallout managed to keep me going, but it was nowhere near other experiences i've had in games, but that's a matter of my personal taste. if fallout was LESS hands-off i would have personally found it much more engaging. I still find that in a lot of these more open games, the main plot is still presented in a sort of "hey! would you LIKE to do this?" kind of way. i could be imagining things, but i don't really feel the game designers really expressing to me what they find valuable.. they'll offer something to me so see if i kinda like it, but it seems that nobody will say "do this important thing! it's great for these reasons!" personally, i enjoy more linear games like half-life. but perhaps we can find a balance.
personally i'd like to see a little more of that, but i'd like your opinion on that too.
here's the crux of my argument, and it's something im having a difficult time expressing.
i personally enjoy linear games. i COULD enjoy do-what-ever-you-want games. to ME, when i play the do-what-ever-you-want games, i feel more.. narcissistic. I could enjoy both, but i wonder what style we should be promoting.. do do-what-you-want games promote narcissism? it appears to me that they do.
there i felt that was pretty clear. i hope that was clear.
I know what's going on MoP. the thing is that i have a fundemental way in which i present ideas, based on how i usually talk with my friends. talking and discussing stuff is a very creative process for me, so when i throw out an idea, a lot of the time i'm hoping to get help actually formulating the idea it's self..
in fact some times, i might not know exactly what i'm even looking for, but i trust in the creative process.
anyway so yeah. that might clarify a few things about me. it's actually a great process for discovering new ideas and theories and stuff like that.
yeah, sort of a bait'n switch.
you NEED to kill the king to obtain that super-awesome item, but when doing so, you'll plummet his lands into deep despair and destruction... unless you discover the evil guy in the court who will plummet the land into destruction and kill him too. or maybe its that evil guy who are just feeding you the information about the powerful item of the king. or maybe you'd be able to steal his artifact without killing him..
I believe in there being meaning in games, but as for deeper meaning, one can find meaning in anything. It is entirely possible to meditate upon the most simple things in life. Reading a haiku, for example, a short poem focusing often upon a natural moment in nature, one is able to extrapolate and interpret as much as one desires - learning and evolving thought perhaps not even considered by the original author. I find this happens a lot while reading comic books. The dialogue and premise of the story set the stage for introspection, and the art provides something to look at in reflection. Something abstract to focus on while considering the meaning of things. The 'om' of the experience. A technique often used in movies, where it shows a random pretty shot of something or an unfocused, quiet scene inbetween other scenes.
Instead of more a focus on storytelling or direct meaning in games, there perhaps needs to be more of an 'om' upon which to focus, letting the player's introspection derive meaning. If the game is ADD and never paces itself, running from spoonfed cutscene story information and emotion, to action and gameplay, always running for a goal, never slowing to absorb the world, how is the player given a chance to absorb the meaning? In this way, even if most of the addiction for MMOs is to be able to perform a task, and accomplish things with others, the social, world exploration side, is the introspective side, the arena in which the player learns about himself.
Edit: As everyone else is saying: in an RPG, when there is a choice to be made, a moral decision to consider, something deeper than kill the evil bad guys, save the day and be the righteous hero, this is where the player questions their importance, and the meaning of their actions, the moral consequences of the choices they are making. If the player has to stop and think about what they are doing, and what the consequences are; if they are torn between two outcomes, and a sacrifice somewhere must be made, this is the point at which they might become introspective, and learn. When they are given meaningful choice.
The player is then able to take what they have learned and apply it to their own experiences, their own life. What would be interesting, maybe, is if the player would be able to learn abstractly through a game, and apply it back into the game itself, in order to further explore the 'meaning' they have found.
Indeed. To that effect, spelunking, travelling and other such explorations as well. Games provide universally accessible and safe alternatives in which to similarly explore oneself within a non-everyday environment.
Though I may not be one to talk about meaning, with my favorite titles including Quake, and Painkiller. If only games like that had more narration-free storytelling through the environment, like when you find those hidden areas and critters in Super Metroid, or the writing on the walls in Portal / L4D... you know, for when you haven't got the time or patience to experience the greatness of a written game, like Planescape: Torment, the most beautifully written, massive thing I have perhaps ever read.
Imagine Painkiller with an apparent, intriguing history to the monsters and environments. Then it could be shooting monsters, and shooting more monsters; but in the end, aren't we only shooting a reflection of ourselves, denying and escaping that which we are otherwise unwilling to confront? Imagine the horror. Those thousands of monsters vanquished, they live... in you.
Different audience buy them for:
Blood guts shoot'em up bang bang
An "immersive experience"
Puzzles
sanboxesfreedom
Humor
Stuff that you may consider art
and some because you can play a tentacle monster who.... lets not get into that.
etc.
And combinations of that stuff. Whatever is your bag is your bag.
getting along with MoP can be an art in an of itself.