Wait wait, how is No More Heroes and Bayonetta in the same category? I can get behind everything you've said about Arkham Asylum, somewhat, but No More Heroes is just pressing A over and over, sometimes lifting the Wii mote, and sometimes running around. Bayonetta's combat actually has a lot to it.
Wait wait, how is No More Heroes and Bayonetta in the same category? I can get behind everything you've said about Arkham Asylum, somewhat, but No More Heroes is just pressing A over and over, sometimes lifting the Wii mote, and sometimes running around. Bayonetta's combat actually has a lot to it.
Both are the same mechanic at varying levels of complexity. DDR on basic and DDR on maniac are still both DDR.
Both are the same mechanic at varying levels of complexity. DDR on basic and DDR on maniac are still both DDR.
I see that, but Bayonetta requires strategy, and has many many more mechanics, whereas NMH really is just pressing A over and over. Also, you can run on the wall while looking like a panther... holy shit you can do that in No More Heroes too!!
Andrew and I have been arguing over the definition of "game" for the last 40 minutes. And I'm getting paid for it.
Nice! Why have this argument off the forums when you could drag us all in.
That's how we roll. AIM keeps us occupied at work.
But fair enough: This started because Andrew said (re: the Arkham Asylum conversation) that interactive storybooks are not games. So I asked him to define a game. He said: "Any set of rules in which an agent's (human or artificial) success is dependent upon the choices of other agents within the system."
I brought up Choose Your Own Adventure novels, and we've been dickering ever since.
This started because Andrew said (re: the Arkham Asylum conversation) that interactive storybooks are not games. So I asked him to define a game. He said: "Any set of rules in which an agent's (human or artificial) success is dependent upon the choices of other agents within the system."
I brought up Choose Your Own Adventure novels, and we've been dickering ever since.
So chime in, Crem.
So, Andrew, you don't think God of War and Epic Mickey count as games? I like you =3
I will discuss the definition of game here for the last time.
At dictionary.com there are 24 definitions of game. All of them are, semantically, a correct definition of game. However, definitions #1 is "an amusement or pastime: children's games." That includes almost everything. It also makes the word "game" useless for any sort of discussion. What part of a particular video game is game and what part is not? According to definition #1, it's all game. So is sitting in a cardboard box and imagining it is a rocket. That's not particularly helpful.
I prefer something much closer to definition number 3, "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators." Definition 8 is also pretty close, "anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules: the game of diplomacy."
A game is a set of rules which test a skill or skills. When I evaluate a game, the first thing I look at are what skills the game is testing in what proportions and how fairly and thoroughly it is testing those skills. This is why I often say that two games that appear completely different to most people are actually the same game. They are testing the same skills with the same underlying mechanic. The only difference being the tweakage of some variables and a different veneer.
Andrew and I have been arguing over the definition of "game" for the last 40 minutes. And I'm getting paid for it.
Nice! Why have this argument off the forums when you could drag us all in.
That's how we roll. AIM keeps us occupied at work.
But fair enough: This started because Andrew said (re: the Arkham Asylum conversation) that interactive storybooks are not games. So I asked him to define a game. He said: "Any set of rules in which an agent's (human or artificial) success is dependent upon the choices of other agents within the system."
I brought up Choose Your Own Adventure novels, and we've been dickering ever since.
So chime in, Crem.
Interactive storytelling can be a game, but it is not inherently a game. So says I who has a Master's project thesis on this topic!
Words often mean a lot less than you think they do. Changing their meaning to suit yourself leads to everyone having their own definition and the word becoming meaningless. Daryl Surat explains this better than I do.
Interactive storytelling can be a game, but it is not inherently a game. So says I who has a Master's project thesis on this topic!
Yes, there can be a game with storytelling combined and integrated. Just look at Half-Life. However, the story in Half-Life, while intermingled with the game in a good way is not actually part of the game. The only time I have ever actually seen story be an actual part of the game is in actual story games such as Nanofictionary.
What about Disaster for the Wii? Shit is collapsing - stay alive. Sure, there's also the kidnapping storyline, but that doesn't mean the other half of the story isn't a part of the gameplay.
What about Disaster for the Wii? Shit is collapsing - stay alive. Sure, there's also the kidnapping storyline, but that doesn't mean the other half of the story isn't a part of the gameplay.
I don't know anything about the game, so I can't make a specific comment about that game. I can, however, give a general guide for telling apart what is game and what is not in a typical video game.
First, remove anything that is not interactive. That obviously includes cutscenes. It also includes music and sound, unless the music is interactive (Mario Paint, Wii Music). Then replace all graphics with the most generic shape possible. So replace mario with a stick figure. Replace mushrooms with a red circle. Remove any and all visuals that aren't necessary interactive components. Once you have done this, you can more easily see what parts are the game and what parts are not.
First, remove anything that is not interactive. That obviously includes cutscenes. It also includes music and sound, unless the music is interactive (Mario Paint, Wii Music). Then replace all graphics with the most generic shape possible. So replace mario with a stick figure. Replace mushrooms with a red circle. Remove any and all visuals that aren't necessary interactive components. Once you have done this, you can more easily see what parts are the game and what parts are not.
Then Disaster's story is part of the game. It would be a stick figure running around with blocks falling on him and the ground changing shape. The story is that your character tries to survive the environment trying to kill him. /earthquake
The story is that your character tries to survive the environment trying to kill him.
To be fair, that's not a story. That's a premise, or a motivation. A story is an arc that includes a premise, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution.
The story is that your character tries to survive the environment trying to kill him.
To be fair, that's not a story. That's a premise, or a motivation. A story is an arc that includes a premise, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution.
What else does the game have =P? Plus, rising action: Earthquake starts. Climax: You dodge shit. Falling action: Earthquake stops. Resolution: You get in safety. There's also some shit about the president's daughter going on, but let's ignore that.
Where does MGS4's cutscenes fit into this btw? You can nudge the camera and zoom and shit =P
There's quite a bit of difference between playing a demo to completion and never having heard of a game in my life.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean you did more than have some of the game mechanics demonstrated to you, devoid of the vast majority of content, any context, and difficulty curve of the actual game.
I'm not saying you have to like Arkham Asylum. I'm not saying it's the greatest game ever. I'm just saying this, and only this - You've not actually played the game. The most charitable I could be is that you've not played the game enough to pass any judgement on it.
The game is more than the demo, which by it's very nature is generally designed to do two things - Show off some of the game mechanics, and whet one's appetite for the full game. To dismiss an entire 12 hour game as a terrible game, because you played a 30-40 minute demo with a fraction of the content and gameplay in the full game is just ludicrous.
Even sillier is trying to make definitive statements about what the game is like from the demo, because while some game demo line up almost exactly with the full game (Dead rising for example), most these days don't, because they're trying to avoid what happened with games like dead rising, and dead rising 2, and so many games from the early days of PC gaming - by playing the demo, getting 90% of what the game had to offer. How many people Played the demo version of doom, or commander keen, or any of those without ever buying the real game?
Comments
But fair enough: This started because Andrew said (re: the Arkham Asylum conversation) that interactive storybooks are not games. So I asked him to define a game. He said: "Any set of rules in which an agent's (human or artificial) success is dependent upon the choices of other agents within the system."
I brought up Choose Your Own Adventure novels, and we've been dickering ever since.
So chime in, Crem.
At dictionary.com there are 24 definitions of game. All of them are, semantically, a correct definition of game. However, definitions #1 is "an amusement or pastime: children's games." That includes almost everything. It also makes the word "game" useless for any sort of discussion. What part of a particular video game is game and what part is not? According to definition #1, it's all game. So is sitting in a cardboard box and imagining it is a rocket. That's not particularly helpful.
I prefer something much closer to definition number 3, "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators." Definition 8 is also pretty close, "anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules: the game of diplomacy."
A game is a set of rules which test a skill or skills. When I evaluate a game, the first thing I look at are what skills the game is testing in what proportions and how fairly and thoroughly it is testing those skills. This is why I often say that two games that appear completely different to most people are actually the same game. They are testing the same skills with the same underlying mechanic. The only difference being the tweakage of some variables and a different veneer.
First, remove anything that is not interactive. That obviously includes cutscenes. It also includes music and sound, unless the music is interactive (Mario Paint, Wii Music). Then replace all graphics with the most generic shape possible. So replace mario with a stick figure. Replace mushrooms with a red circle. Remove any and all visuals that aren't necessary interactive components. Once you have done this, you can more easily see what parts are the game and what parts are not.
Plus, rising action: Earthquake starts. Climax: You dodge shit. Falling action: Earthquake stops. Resolution: You get in safety. There's also some shit about the president's daughter going on, but let's ignore that.
Where does MGS4's cutscenes fit into this btw? You can nudge the camera and zoom and shit =P
I'm not saying you have to like Arkham Asylum. I'm not saying it's the greatest game ever.
I'm just saying this, and only this - You've not actually played the game.
The most charitable I could be is that you've not played the game enough to pass any judgement on it.
The game is more than the demo, which by it's very nature is generally designed to do two things - Show off some of the game mechanics, and whet one's appetite for the full game. To dismiss an entire 12 hour game as a terrible game, because you played a 30-40 minute demo with a fraction of the content and gameplay in the full game is just ludicrous.
Even sillier is trying to make definitive statements about what the game is like from the demo, because while some game demo line up almost exactly with the full game (Dead rising for example), most these days don't, because they're trying to avoid what happened with games like dead rising, and dead rising 2, and so many games from the early days of PC gaming - by playing the demo, getting 90% of what the game had to offer. How many people Played the demo version of doom, or commander keen, or any of those without ever buying the real game?