Do Gamers Want Simpler Games?

[Xno Kappa]

It is more difficult because games are not medium to begin with.

How so?

medium:
6. an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed or accomplished: Words are a medium of expression.

I'll try to say this as politely as possibly, this is exactly why I think 90% of the time you're trolling.

[Alleya]

See my post about games providing context for your actions, not dealing with the human condition or internal complexity.

Xenogears was a great game, but if you think the plot is anything more special than a typical drone-brained anime well...I would say you should read more.

[Xno Kappa]

See my post about games providing context for your actions, not dealing with the human condition or internal complexity.

Xenogears was a great game, but if you think the plot is anything more special than a typical drone-brained anime well...I would say you should read more.

My point is that books had a huge influence in my love and appreciation for the game Xenogears. I think we're in agreement here, I'm simply stating that games are not necessarily incapable of a good plot, they're just not up to par at the moment. If nothing else, the sheer volume of books alone stomps anything a game can put out.

So to reiterate your previous quote, yeah, if you want a truly deep story pick up a book. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with expecting a decent story from a game.

[BRP]

How so?

medium:
6. an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed or accomplished: Words are a medium of expression.

I'll try to say this as politely as possibly, this is exactly why I think 90% of the time you're trolling.

You can hand pick any definition you want really. You got a list of at least 6 to choose from! Not to say they are incorrect, but I wonder if any of them can explain why basketball or chess isn't media while videogames are? (Here is a clue: Videogames only contain more media than your average game, a little more than your average tabletop game, but as a whole they are not media). If you are interested in a better understanding I'll try to give it to you(actually I won't here because it wouldn't be important to anything in this thread). But that would be a waste of time because you are not. I mean I am pretty sure I've already alluded to this a thread you read recently, the FFXIII rate it thread: You don't play a medium.

EDIT:

they're just not up to par at the moment.

"It is a young medium" etc.

lol-ok.

[TheDirtyHobo]

Not to say they are incorrect, but I wonder if any of them can explain why basketball or chess isn't a medium while videogames are?

By that definition, you could easily argue that they are a medium. You use them to express and accomplish physical and mental dominance over the other team or player, respectively.

But video games have quite clearly evolved from the days of pong and carved out their own niche as an actual story-telling device, in the same way that film has evolved from classic theater to become something independent of it.

"It is a young medium" etc.

lol-ok.

It's sort of a cop-out argument, but it does hold its water. How many years was Batman relegated to "Hey look, it's a bad guy! *POW* Gee golly I'm sure glad you were here to save the day, Batman!" before something that was much more complex and could begin to be compared to other forms of storytelling came out like The Dark Knight comics?

[Kaelan?]

Xenogears was a great game, but if you think the plot is anything more special than a typical drone-brained anime

This statement is so bad, it's not even wrong.

You're also completely disregarding the fact that it's completely different to experience a good plot in a game rather than in a book or a 2-hour movie. Saying "go somewhere else if you want good plot" makes no sense; the whole point is having a good game and a good plot at the same time - the plot being a part of what makes it enjoyable. I think Xenogears' plot has yet to be outdone by any other game, and it wouldn't have been anywhere near as good without said plot, but that's not the only reason I played through it multiple times. Were it a movie, that would be the only reason I'd have to revisit it. It's like saying "Go to a concert if you want good music, games are about gameplay".

As for the "game stories and movie stories are different" point, I do think that's true. A story transition between books & movies is just not as radical as to/from games, partly due to the gameplay, but also partly due to the technology. We still can't make characters as visually expressive as real people, after all. Voice acting also has a long way to go, with very few exceptions.

You could have cut off 80% of the first-half of FFXIII and the game would not lose a single bit of complexity(and it certainly would have been better)

Almost every single person who's played the game and notes that the first 20 hours are the worst part of the game would disagree, thanks to the terrible move of only feeding you small bits and pieces of the gameplay mechanics at a time for said 20 hours. Beyond that, as a general rule almost any RPG with a decent combat system gets more complicated over time until about the last 20-50% (varies) or so of the game, both to provide a sense of progression and to avoid overwhelming people with all the content at once.

I do agree with the general point that complication isn't necessarily always related to length though; games like Chess and Go, though not video games, would be better examples. Go's mechanics are some of the simplest you could conceive of, but it's far from easy to understand well, let alone be any good at actually playing. So I suppose I agree with the point but disagree with the example.

As to the original question in the topic: Why is this surprising?
Yes, 90% (or whatever the number is) of people want simpler games, most game sales aren't to hardcore gamers, whom are the voices clamoring against that. It really shouldn't take any research to figure this out - it's the well known divide between making more money or making a better product. Why this is apparently hard to see is beyond me.

[Xno Kappa]

more nonsense

Are you legitimately trying to rewrite definitions now? Are you equating Basketball to Shadow of the Colossus? Jesus Christ dude...no no no this all makes sense now.

Steve Nash IS Final Fantasy XII.

"It is a young medium" etc.

lol-ok.

And? This in itself is self-explanatory since you know, there's several millennium's worth of literature behind books when compared to games.

You really are a* fucking troll, next time stay banned a little longer while you beg and wonder why to mods how such a thing can happen. I'm done with your baiting bullshit but of course feel free to go and make your little bitch session thread in spam when the majority in this thread doesn't agree with you.

[Mayareira]

Since we are into equating stuff now, I'll go ahead and toss in some.

Final Fantasy XII is Michael Jordan, Michael Schumacher, God, Koenigsegg, Adriana Lima, Papa John's, Charles Darwin, OS X, Firefox and BlackBerry 9700 of RPGs. Cut this Steve Nash bullshit already.

If RPGs were music, Final Fantasy XII would be 5th Symphony while your beloved XIII would go no further than in da club.

[BRP]

By that definition, you could easily argue that they are a medium. You use them to express and accomplish physical and mental dominance over the other team or player, respectively.

Yeah, that is the problem basically. And if you really want to be loose about it, you can apply it to anything. That makes the definition pointless. BUT with a little explanation it isn't pointless. That's true for all definitions I think.

But video games have quite clearly evolved from the days of pong and carved out their own niche as an actual story-telling device, in the same way that film has evolved from classic theater to become something independent of it.

Yes, they clearly "evolved" in some ways, but concepts don't just evolve into something else entirely. Classical theater didn't evolve into film. Film only took its place in terms of popularity. Acting didn't really evolve either. (Also really weird use of niche.)

How many years was Batman relegated to "Hey look, it's a bad guy! *POW* Gee golly I'm sure glad you were here to save the day, Batman!" before something that was much more complex and could begin to be compared to other forms of storytelling came out like The Dark Knight comics?

This is not an example of something "evolving" into something entirely new. The batman franchise certainly picked up better, or lets say more unrestrained, writers along the way, but it only became deeper as a comic series.

We still can't make characters as visually expressive as real people, after all.

As opposed to books or comics books. LOL.

Almost every single person who's played the game and notes that the first 20 hours are the worst part of the game would disagree, thanks to the terrible move of only feeding you small bits and pieces of the gameplay mechanics at a time for said 20 hours.

You meant agree right?

As to the original question in the topic: Why is this surprising?

It really isn't. And it certainly isn't new. Even as technology progressed and game design was refined, there was always a move to make games more available to the mainstream. For example early consoles had plenty of games which were simply arcade titles but with infinite lives(which were also FREE, which is comparatively a big deal) and toned down difficulty. As time went by all console games were designed around infinite lives. (I can't remember the last game which gave you a real game over without save-points everywhere... I am sure if there was one recently it got blasted by critics. Unless it was called "retro".)

Are you legitimately trying to rewrite definitions now? Are you equating Basketball to Shadow of the Colossus? Jesus Christ dude...no no no this all makes sense now.

Yes, accuse me of nonsense then throw back a nonsense defense. Also dude, I am OBVIOUSLY equating basketball to chess, because I think they are the SAME thing, that isn't THAT weird? You are out of your league, don't bother.

And? This in itself is self-explanatory since you know, there's several millennium's worth of literature behind books when compared to games.

Games like fetch and grab-ass have probably been around for dozens of millennia. Why haven't they become literature?!?! Oh, and why is literature only literature? I mean its been several millennia. My squirtle EVOLVED only in a day!

[Xno Kappa]

LMAO

A+ for effort though. Gave me a Jon Stewart moment.

"Not saying it's evolved! Just saying it's a lot better now!"

[TheDirtyHobo]

Since we are into equating stuff now, I'll go ahead and toss in some.

Final Fantasy XII is Michael Jordan, Michael Schumacher, God, Koenigsegg, Adriana Lima, Papa John's, Charles Darwin, OS X, Firefox and BlackBerry 9700 of RPGs. Cut this Steve Nash bullshit already.

If RPGs were music, Final Fantasy XII would be 5th Symphony while your beloved XIII would go no further than in da club.

The fact that you put God and Charles Darwin in the same metaphor list makes me laugh. The fact that you put OS X in the list lets me know you think the game must be shitty.

This is not an example of something "evolving" into something entirely new. The batman franchise certainly picked up better, or lets say more unrestrained, writers along the way, but it only became deeper as a comic series.

The Batman argument was saying it's a new medium and people haven't fully explored it and taken it completely seriously yet. It has nothing to do with evolving into something new. That was the paragraph before about how video games are different than 'standard' games.

[Charismatic]

What the fuck is going on here?
Let me clear something up for you.


People who care about games (and spend a lot of time playing them) don't necessarily want simpler games, though they are sometimes able to enjoy them.
People who don't give a shit tend to want simpler games.

/thread

[BRP]

LMAO

A+ for effort though. Gave me a Jon Stewart moment.

"Not saying it's evolved! Just saying it's a lot better now!"

What are the chances of Jon Steward was mocking someone talking about animals and plants?


EDIT: The DirtyHobo, I thought you were replying to my statement where I said videogames are not media. So they can't be a young medium and no amount of years can (DE)evolve them to a medium. But they certainly can get "a lot better". That could include getting a better story(or better shot cutscenes, etc), but there will never be a story-game or something.

[TheDirtyHobo]

I thought you were replying to my statement where I said videogames are not media. So they can't be a young medium and no amount of years can (DE)evolve them to a medium. But they certainly can get "a lot better". That could include getting a better story(or better shot cutscenes, etc), but there will never be a story-game or something.

What I'm not seeing is how video games are not a medium. If you say the definition given before is too broad, then find one for us which includes literature and cinematography but not video games.

And to clear the air, the evolution thing I WAS talking about was that VIDEO games have evolved into a completely different category than TRADITIONAL (card, board, arguably tabletop RP) games in the same way that Film evolved into a different category than Plays, even though for the most part they meet several of the same basic criteria.

[Kaelan?]

As opposed to books or comics books. LOL.

...

You meant agree right?

What? Are you saying characters in books are less expressive than real people? And in the same way game characters are?

I also don't get how your example is relevant, given that neither books nor comic books have movement, animation (especially facial animation) or voice acting, the quality of which are what I was pointing out to be the source the source of the visual disconnect.

And yeah nevermind, I take back the FFXIII point. I first read you as saying "you could discard the last 80% of the game and keep it just as complex", and missed the "first half" part.

there will never be a story-game or something

What does that mean? What's a story-game?

[Charismatic]

Kaelan, you might want to reread the post you're arguing against... he said to discard the early 20%, not the rest of the game.

Here's the quote again, in case you forgot what you were arguing against.

You could have cut off 80% of the first-half of FFXIII

[Kaelan?]

Yeah, I noticed that a minute ago and fixed it

[Xno Kappa]

Still waiting on an answer about this;

What I'm not seeing is how video games are not a medium. If you say the definition given before is too broad, then find one for us which includes literature and cinematography but not video games.

And to clear the air, the evolution thing I WAS talking about was that VIDEO games have evolved into a completely different category than TRADITIONAL (card, board, arguably tabletop RP) games in the same way that Film evolved into a different category than Plays, even though for the most part they meet several of the same basic criteria.

Although it's obviously going to end with a certain someone creating his own definitions against a well established format. Shit...never mind this part, it'll probably be used to ignore/dodge the question.

[BRP]

What I'm not seeing is how video games are not a medium. If you say the definition given before is too broad, then find one for us which includes literature and cinematography but not video games.

You can use the one Hiro-whatever posted(including example). It just requires explanation. I imagine that is something he couldn't do even if he wanted to. This isn't going to be easy, but it will be convenient considering what I am about to say is closely tied to media.

medium:
6. an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed or accomplished: Words are a medium of expression.

The sum of this is that media is something we use to communicate. To convey what we mean to another person. The problem with taking this definition as it says is that everything we know means something(as humans gave stuff meaning). While it makes most sense to say language is media, you can still say the same with anything, like... trash. If you walk into a house and there is trash fucking everywhere you "read" it as "This place is dirty" or "The people who live here are slobs". You can "read" flying trees and terrible winds and rains as "there is a tornado outside". For what we are talking about we want to include things like literature, but not trees lol. Simple enough right?

This need to limit definitions isn't unique to the word media of course, in fact it is in someway necessary in every definition. So I can never find you a definition of media(of all things!) that isn't too broad, lol. For this thread you must also consider Game can also mean anything if you define it as something like "Something you play" or "a set of rules". There needs to be some explanation or to forgo that some middle-ground between the people communicating.

It is pretty clear what we want to say is something along the lines medium is a tool we use to represent ideas. So let us limit that to things we use strictly to communicate ideas and which gain their worth from their ability to do so. Language(first and foremost), images, and objects modified to fit this role(sculptures and so on, which work like images). This includes literature, pictures, motion pictures, and comics. e.g. We use words to communicate meaning, like it says in the quote above.

The purpose/essence of games is not to communicate ideas. You interact in them beyond simply reading or listening or watching. In a sense games are much more like what we call life. It is like reality, but limited to a set a of rules which we follow strictly(in physical games once you break the rules you stop playing the game, in videogames you can't break the rules without editing the code - the physical laws of that "virtual world"). Games are more simulation than representation.

Despite how they may "look", Videogames are more related to the games of old than they are to any medium. To help explain this I want you to think for a moment of tabletop games. They too contain a lot of media. The cards in the card game are a medium, the miniatures in wargames represent something in the same way sprites or models would in a videogame, and board games are sort of like non-electronic virtual worlds(some of which even contain sound or video!). The main difference is that videogames are rebuilt with programming code to appear on a screen and to be interact with a controller rather you than your hands. (And with this you gain the ability add sheer wizardry to games, stuff impossible to do by hand without insane technology we don't have yet.)

To clear things up: I am not saying media cannot contain media. Movies contain both pictures and music/language. That is not what makes disqualifies (video)games. It is the fact you play them, that you "live" in them as the rules describe. Consider active vs passive.

I have a good example to give, but it is one that will either create more questions or make it much easier to understand what I am saying. I don't care though: Words are a medium, but conversation is a game. (And preemptive strike on a potential rebuke: You can record a conversation as a manuscript or video(media), but you can also do the same with a match of football. I was saying something like this when I mentioned RPGs are not about storylines.)

Admittedly a difficult thing for me to put down on paper. I am not completely pleased with this explanation, but I feel like I fulfilled your demand.

And to clear the air, the evolution thing I WAS talking about was that VIDEO games have evolved into a completely different category than TRADITIONAL (card, board, arguably tabletop RP) games in the same way that Film evolved into a different category than Plays, even though for the most part they meet several of the same basic criteria.

Film didn't evolve into a category, it was born a different category. The same is true with videogames. Using the word evolution like this is just deceptive.

EDIT: Film is acting and stage-direction(and whatever little bits you want to include) applied to new technology.

What's a story-game?

A contradiction.

[TheDirtyHobo]

The sum of this is that media is something we use to communicate. To convey what we mean to another person. The problem with taking this definition as it says is that everything we know means something(as humans gave stuff meaning). While it makes most sense to say language is media, you can still say the same with anything, like... trash. If you walk into a house and there is trash fucking everywhere you "read" it as "This place is dirty" or "The people who live here are slobs". You can "read" flying trees and terrible winds and rains as "there is a tornado outside". For what we are talking about we want to include things like literature, but not trees lol. Simple enough right?

This need to limit definitions isn't unique to the word media of course, in fact it is in someway necessary in every definition. So I can never find you a definition of media(of all things!) that isn't too broad, lol. For this thread you must also consider Game can also mean anything if you define it as something like "Something you play" or "a set of rules". There needs to be some explanation or to forgo that some middle-ground between the people communicating.

It is pretty clear what we want to say is something along the lines medium is a tool we use to represent ideas. So let us limit that to things we use strictly to communicate ideas and which gain their worth from their ability to do so. Language(first and foremost), images, and objects modified to fit this role(sculptures and so on, which work like images). This includes literature, pictures, motion pictures, and comics. e.g. We use words to communicate meaning, like it says in the quote above.

The purpose/essence of games is not to communicate ideas. You interact in them beyond simply reading or listening or watching. In a sense games are much more like what we call life. It is like reality, but limited to a set a of rules which we follow strictly(in physical games once you break the rules you stop playing the game, in videogames you can't break the rules without editing the code - the physical laws of that "virtual world"). Games are more simulation than representation.

Despite how they may "look", Videogames are more related to the games of old than they are to any medium. To help explain this I want you to think for a moment of tabletop games. They too contain a lot of media. The cards in the card game are a medium, the miniatures in wargames represent something in the same way sprites or models would in a videogame, and board games are sort of like non-electronic virtual worlds(some of which even contain sound or video!). The main difference is that videogames are rebuilt with programming code to appear on a screen and to be interact with a controller rather you than your hands. (And with this you gain the ability add sheer wizardry to games, stuff impossible to do by hand without insane technology we don't have yet.)

To clear things up: I am not saying media cannot contain media. Movies contain both pictures and music/language. That is not what makes disqualifies (video)games. It is the fact you play them, that you "live" in them as the rules describe. Consider active vs passive.

I have a good example to give, but it is one that will either create more questions or make it much easier to understand what I am saying. I don't care though: Words are a medium, but conversation is a game. (And preemptive strike on a potential rebuke: You can record a conversation as a manuscript or video(media), but you can also do the same with a match of football. I was saying something like this when I mentioned RPGs are not about storylines.)

Admittedly a difficult thing for me to put down on paper. I am not completely pleased with this explanation, but I feel like I fulfilled your demand.

Ok, I see what you're saying much better now, but I still disagree with it.

Film didn't evolve into a category, it was born a different category. The same is true with videogames. Using the word evolution like this is just deceptive.

EDIT: Film is acting and stage-direction(and whatever little bits you want to include) applied to new technology.

If the word evolution doesn't suit your fancy then just pick something else. The point is, the invention of motion picture cameras was the splitting point between stage plays and movies. Classic theater decided "We don't want to record this, we're just going to continue as we were beforehand", and Filmmakers decided "Hey, let's use this new tool and try to add new things that couldn't have been done before".

Likewise, traditionally games were, like you said, a (or many) player(s) and a ruleset. Then, the technology came along to make digital representations of these games, i.e. video games. Then they used the technology to do something that traditional games couldn't do as easily, tell a story.