🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:38:22 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:54:38 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:33:43 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>><spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:42:16 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>><rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:25:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>>>><spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I didn't really start having
>>>>>fun with the game until Area 51, and that's like 90% into the game...
>
>>>>To me, that's a sign of a bad game.  The whole point of games is
>>>>entertainment, and if the first 90% is not entertaining then it's not
>>>>worth my time to grind through just to see the last 10% that is.
>
>>>No, it's a sign that I was probably playing a game not suited to me. 
>
>>That's what I meant in that context, bad to the player.  It just
>>seemed like you were being easy on the game (i.e. calling it a game
>>that took effort to appreciate for example) relative to all the other
>>games you pan -- just wanted to let you know you don't have to hold
>>back just for DE or feel obligated to sugar coat things, tell us how
>>you really feel ;)
>
>Ultimately, I found Deus Ex an appreciable experience* :) 
>
>Fun for me isn't the end-all/be-all of a game. Admittedly, it is
>usually the most important part, but it is not the only consideration.
>I admire technical skill, artistry and innovation. If the game has
>those features in abundance, I consider it a good game (although it
>usually takes more effort on my part to get to the end :). 
>
>Deus Ex is an extremely slow burner; you really need to get into the
>game to appreciate the detail of its world and the interesting
>convolutions of its plot. Its (for its time) novel gameplay
>architecture - allowing multiple gameplay styles - isn't immediately
>evident either, and I am sure many gamers FPS'd their way through half
>the games before realizing they had the alternative of talking or
>sneaking their way through all the obstacles. But once all those
>pieces start fitting together, it is a mesmerizingly clever piece of
>work in all its aspects and - for all its flaws - well worth its
>designation as one of the "classic PC games". 
>
>>I don't believe a game should be dependent on the plot to be enjoyable
>>at all.  Games are to be played, which implies the gameplay itself
>>should be enjoyable first.  Plots can be found in books and movies,
>>and therefore are not a gameplay component.  They are more like icing
>>on the cake -- if the story is well executed (production values and
>>writing) and finds its audience (those who subjectively enjoy the
>>plot), then the value added can be high.  But, if a game is relying on
>>the plot as the sole reason the player should get involved with it,
>>it's on shaky ground.  
>
>Yes, this is an area we've agreed to disagree on**. ;-)
>
>But I have always maintained there are two types of gamers: those
>interested in the mechanics, and those in the experience (I tend to
>call them PacMan gamers versus Kings Quest gamers because those are
>two early games which strongly differentiated between the two modes).
>On the one hand are people like Rin, who are focused on the gameplay:
>how the AI works, the balance of the weapons, how the level design
>effects the second-to-second flow of the action. They also tend to be
>more into online and competitive gaming. On the other hand, I trend
>more towards the latter camp. Story and setting are crucial; I want an
>"immersive experience" with highly detailed worlds. That's not to say
>the former group are completely disinterested in what a game looks
>like or what the story is about, or that I don't care if the AI is
>brain-dead and the gameplay is repetitive but our focus is different.
>
>If I swallow my bias, I would be forced to admit that neither is more
>"right" than the other; it is just that different people look for
>different things out of their games***. Deus Ex was definitely a game
>for the latter crowd; its multiple styles of gameplay made it a
>jack-of-all-trades (e.g., master of none) when compared to more
>straightforward shooters/sneakers, and just bashing your way through
>without taking the time to read all the newspapers/notes/books, talk
>to all the characters, and explore every nook and cranny definitely
>made for a more hollow experience.
>
>
>
>* yeah, I know, "appreciable experience" sounds like that sort of
>garbage used by people who bore their employees in long pointless
>meetings with lots of overly-complicated Powerpoint presentations.
>Unfortunately, I deal with the sort every day and sometimes it rubs
>off on me ;-)
>
>** well, /I/ have agreed to disagree anyway. I'm not sure Rin has ever
>quite cozened on to the idea that different people like different
>sorts of games and that it is okay for them to do so ;-)

It's just slightly less okay than they realize ;)

Because, at the end of it all, a "game" by definition of the word
indicates play -- some sort of challenge of skill.  A story is
something to experience/read/watch/follow/etc.  

If you watch a Star Wars movie on the television, and just prior to
the beginning of the movie introduction, and frequently during
commercial breaks, a host tests your knowledge with Star Wars trivia,
then what is happening is you are experiencing a "story" that just
happens to have a "game" as a side benefit.  The game is present, but
the story is the real reason you are there.

A game is the opposite (if we are to continue calling them games). The
reason to show up is to PLAY... not to watch or listen.  A story can
be added, and can enhance the experience if the user likes the story
or relates to it or whatever, but it remains a side benefit by the
very definition of a game is -- not by the definition created by your
or my opinion of what a game should be.  There's a big difference
between the two scenarios in that last sentence, that I don't think
Spalls has quite yet cozened up to ;)

What this fundmentally means is that if you sit down for a Star Wars
movie, it's not okay for the host to come on and say "Sorry folks,
sorry for the switcheroo, but the movie has been cancelled, but not
the entire entertainment experience... instead, we will focus on
playing Star Wars trivia and testing your knowledge, offering prizes".
And, by the same token, it is not okay for a publilsher to publish a
game, calling it such and say "Oh by the way, this is really more of
an interactive movie, we spent too much time developing the story to
create any actual gameplay so its littered with quick-time events so
that you can whack-a-mole your way through the interactive movie".

Although I will say that it has become easier these days to determine
whether a game is really just an interactive movie or an actual game,
thanks to better categorization on Steam, the ability to watch
gameplay vids before buying on Youtube, and so forth.  Add to that the
refund policies that digital distribution have made possible and the
state of things is better than it once was.

I'm curious though, since the plot/story is the most important
component to you -- I'm wondering how and when you got interested in
games?  Part of my preference for TRUE games versus interactive
experiences is a result of growing up with arcades, early home
consoles, and very early home computers (where the focus was usually
on gameplay, partially because the state of digital media was very far
behind cinema at the time).  I'm just wondering if you cut your teeth
more on games like Zork / Kings Quest and such and thus became more of
a fan of the story telling than the gameplay?