|
Yeah, indie studios are a different thing entirely. Plus there are plenty of good indie games made by literally one person (like Stardew Valley), you don't get much more creative control than that.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:The problem with the claim that games=art is that it's a yes/no oversimplification. The fact that too many gamers seem compelled to view things as binary is part of a much larger discussion. stories aren't art?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Video games are fart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:The problem with the claim that games=art is that it's a yes/no oversimplification. The fact that too many gamers seem compelled to view things as binary is part of a much larger discussion. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is made of a culmination of individual things that are certainly a duck, obviously...
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
I'm way late to the Dark Souls discussion, but I'm still going to do an effort post. Basically, Demons/Dark Souls is one the most important games in modern times. Prior and during these titles released gaming was getting dumbed down on all fronts. The Wii was getting more popular and strongly pushing the casual gaming angle in terms of focusing on games that "your grandmother could play". Smartphones also began getting a foothold, pushing titles like Angry Birds and what not. But the biggest threat came from traditional consoles. The Xbox 360 and PS3 brought many game franchises (mostly from PC) to the masses which resulted in many of them being dumbed down. Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Rainbow Six, etc. were all made to appeal to the mass market as their mechanics were butchered to be more accessible. What's worse is that this was a period when gaming had a bit of an identity crisis. Such as whether or not games were "art" or how gaming was pushing storytelling and general groundedness to be taken as seriously as The Godfather. The days of games focusing on skill, challenge, and intricate design seemed to be a thing of the past. Even things such as boss battles and save points were said to be unneeded if not antiquated. Even the concept of dying, yes that's right dying in a game, was beginning to be questioned. Now this isn't to say that there weren't any games of this time period that were skilled/challenged focus on the HD consoles and the Wii had titles that fit this description. Not to mention the PC occasionally got large budget games with "deep" gameplay. However these weren't the norm. Demon's Souls, really shook things up. Not only did the game challenge everything in this department, it managed to succeed. It had a good opening of 150,000 units in North America and would garner half a million sales in a year. It was so subject to immense critical and consumer acclaim. While it wasn't a mega hit, the title did demonstrate that there indeed was a purpose for skilled and challenged focused titles, as well as a market for them. But while Demon's Souls was the title that made people turn their heads, it was Dark Souls that made them shift. Dark Souls did just boast the critical and player acclaim, it also sold copies, A LOT of copies. The game became a multi-million seller on every platform it was on. Unlike Demon's Souls it didn't just show that skill and challenged based games had a market, it showed that they had a big market, huge market, one that could even support large budgets. Now this isn't to say that games still don't have a problem of lacking challenge or skill. However, one can feel the ripples that the series has had on the market and industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
A. Beaverhausen posted:If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is made of a culmination of individual things that are certainly a duck, obviously... It's a small pond in a park with a flock of ducks on it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
dark souls isn't important or even impressive. its just better than halo clones/yearly sports games. the critical acclaim meant that games had a thing to be compared to, so people would say "the dark souls of ....". darks souls is like far cry (or gta or halo or OoT) in that it set a bar that every game could be compared to.punk rebel ecks posted:Now this isn't to say that games still don't have a problem of lacking challenge or skill. However, one can feel the ripples that the series has had on the market and industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I'm way late to the Dark Souls discussion, but I'm still going to do an effort post. lol classifying a recent trend as a "threat" to something you like is the dumbest poo poo, genres don't actually kill each other dude and even if someone makes a game where you can't die there will obviously still be people who want games where you can, and developers will want to continue making those games because challenge is and always has been a core pillar around which you can build a game Demon's Souls was released in the same year as Left For Dead 2, League of Legends, and Bayonetta, all of which were well-known for having a high skill ceiling and offering a challenge to players looking for that sort of thing (while still permitting lower-skill players to have a fun experience). Were there also games that went the other route? Yes, of course there were, and there always will be. The industry has never been forced to choose between only making challenging or unchallenging games, that's a false dichotomy. The questions you're describing, such as whether or not death it's necessary to allow the player to die, were meant to asking about game design options, not requirements. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls didn't just sell well because they were challenging, there were plenty of other games offering a challenge. They sold well because they were also just really good. The gameplay was tight, the storytelling was subtle, the world design was beautifully intricate, and the PvP mechanics were excitingly charting new waters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
!Klams posted:All
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
almost every old classic game had terrible gameplay and controls and is undeniably a bad game outside the specific moment of its inception
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
How old we talking here? Pong? Pacman? Duck Hunt? Super Metroid?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:lol classifying a recent trend as a "threat" to something you like is the dumbest poo poo, genres don't actually kill each other dude and even if someone makes a game where you can't die there will obviously still be people who want games where you can, and developers will want to continue making those games because challenge is and always has been a core pillar around which you can build a game I was mostly referring to single player games, specifically those with a substantial budget. Those games were becoming rarer and rarer during the late 2000s. Sure there were titles like Bayonetta and Fallout: New Vegas, but they weren't exactly common, hence why they were applauded at their time for their depth. While genres and playstyles rarely die, they absolutely due wax and wane overtime. Just look at arcade styled games for example. Outside of $2 budget shoot-em-ups, and random wanna be Streets of Rage indie Steam games, they are very rare. And have continued to do so since Sega's demise. Only fighting games have survived.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Vermintide is seriously just a huge first person update to the formula used by Gauntlet Legends
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
A. Beaverhausen posted:If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is made of a culmination of individual things that are certainly a duck, obviously... Nope, stories aren't art, but story Telling IS art.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:stories aren't art? Stories by themselves aren't art. The art is in HOW they are told. Hence the art of storytelling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:Stories by themselves aren't art. The art is in HOW they are told. Hence the art of storytelling. Yeah that was a pretty good album, its amazing how prison really forms the soul of an artist
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
Games are art like telephones are conversations
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 06:30
|
|
|
Nah. That would be the role of the hardware the game is running on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I was mostly referring to single player games, specifically those with a substantial budget. Those games were becoming rarer and rarer during the late 2000s. Sure there were titles like Bayonetta and Fallout: New Vegas, but they weren't exactly common, hence why they were applauded at their time for their depth. While genres and playstyles rarely die, they absolutely due wax and wane overtime. Just look at arcade styled games for example. Outside of $2 budget shoot-em-ups, and random wanna be Streets of Rage indie Steam games, they are very rare. And have continued to do so since Sega's demise. Only fighting games have survived. genres wax and wane in a natural popularity cycle like basically everything else that humans consume, not because some new gameplay concept threatens to destroy them
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:. Just look at arcade styled games for example. Outside of $2 budget shoot-em-ups, and random wanna be Streets of Rage indie Steam games, they are very rare. And have continued to do so since Sega's demise. Only fighting games have survived. That's because those games always were bad, and people were glad to ditch them once better ones appeared.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
poverty goat posted:almost every old classic game had terrible gameplay and controls and is undeniably a bad game outside the specific moment of its inception Agreed. Games generally age like milk. There are some exceptions but the constantly evolving nature of the games industry and videogame hardware means that most older games are objectively worse than current releases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
I'd seriously rather spend an equal amount of time in like Burger Time than in The Witcher 3 or Dragon Age or whatever generic rear end modern game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
Bayonetta and FO: NV aren't interesting in the same way Demon's Souls was (both great games though). Both of those games as well as drat near everything else at the time accommodated any player that was interested in playing via lots of difficulty options etc. Demon's Souls wasn't interesting because it was hard, it was interesting because it was uncompromising in it's vision. It showed that you could not only make something interesting, but be successful financially without trying to appeal to everyone. They could have changed the game to be a lot easier and less obtuse to broaden the appeal, but ultimately it would have likely been forgotten and wouldn't have gone on to become one of the most iconic series in modern games. It showed that sometimes it was better to stick with your weird ideas than try to make some homogenized experience to try and sell the most copies possible. There were a lot of things about it that were flat out harrowing at the time, but the end result was that it was memorable. Was getting invaded fun? Maybe maybe not, but it stuck with you. There are games I played last year that I can't remember anything about but I could probably recount 80% of DeS and I haven't played it in like 7 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 07:49
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I'd seriously rather spend an equal amount of time in like Burger Time than in The Witcher 3 or Dragon Age or whatever generic rear end modern game. Sorry about your condition
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
It's kinda humorous to me that you feel like Demon's Souls was certainly more accurate to the vision of its director than Bayonetta or FO: NV was, and that Miyazaki would not have wanted to make the game different than the final product regardless of appeal. It's also kinda humorous that you think Bayonetta was so compromised as to make that comparison. Hideki Kamiya has stated many times that he believes in people, and that he makes games such that anyone can eventually do amazing things in them. He wants people to feel good about themselves, and having gradually increasing difficulty levels building up to very difficult poo poo seems like a great way to accomplish that. I don't see any reason to believe that Bayonetta was a more significant departure from Kamiya's "vision" than Demon's Souls was for Miyazaki, or that Kamiya compromised heavily on Bayonetta, and I don't see how you could show that one way or the other, really. You seem to want to believe that it was the fact that it was so unique and "uncompromising" that made it popular, but those attributes are all over games that get little to no attention. It also isn't unique for being a game that is financially successful without broad appeal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:no, except in indie studios, there's no analog for the power of a well known hollywood director. Harrow posted:
The world of games has become a lot bigger than AAA titles in sheer number of real games you can buy on a legitimate digital storefront. It's no longer realistic to talk about games as if everything is coming out of the EA turd factory. I frankly don't see a lot of difference between the movie industry and the games industry at this point on an artistic basis. "Except for indy studios" leaves out like 99% of games. And again this thing where it's only art if it has no commercial considerations is a fallacy. All of those top directors (and lol at the idea that "top directors" don't have to worry about marketability) had to break through by making commercial pieces. This betrays a misunderstanding of how movies work. There's not really a director out there making an "uncompromised" vision or whatever it is you guys are visualizing. If there is you probably haven't seen their poo poo. Even low budget flicks with no apparent audience have to cobble together funding and distribution. Like a good example would be George Clooney. George just mostly makes whatever film he wants to make and likes to work with Soderbergh on pictures that never make a nickel, right? Well, not exactly, because George goes overseas and films Japanese commercials and whatever. The production needs to have the financing and distribution network and advertising scheme together--Clooney isn't making small personal pictures, he's working with top talent and making movies that appeal to markets. The money has to come from somewhere. By the standard of some people in this thread, in all of film, pretty much only George Lucas, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, and Tommy Wiseau are actually artists, because they just have money coming out their ears. But of those I would bet only Tommy is the one who doesn't think about marketability and audiences or any business-side stuff, because he's an independently-wealthy crazy person who wanted to do one movie. This is all belaboring the point that what qualifies as art is not determined by how many business considerations went into its creation. The guys who made SpecOps: The Line (a game I personally hate--not germane to whether it's art or not!) talked a lot about how they were told to put in a dumb multiplayer component to sell more units. This didn't really matter to the overall question of whether they were making art. Art on commission is still art. When big movie stars do a movie, they have to do a press junket and maybe you'll even have to sit through a taped message at the theater of them telling you to play the tie-in game or buy a bag of popcorn. No one rationally thinks that has any bearing on the movie itself. tango alpha delta posted:The problem with the claim that games=art is that it's a yes/no oversimplification. The fact that too many gamers seem compelled to view things as binary is part of a much larger discussion. This is basically just describing a movie exactly. And no one really worries about whether movies are art, even though virtually all movies are crassly commercial. Name Change fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:It's kinda humorous to me that you feel like Demon's Souls was certainly more accurate to the vision of its director than Bayonetta or FO: NV was, and that Miyazaki would not have wanted to make the game different than the final product regardless of appeal. It's also kinda humorous that you think Bayonetta was so compromised as to make that comparison. Hideki Kamiya has stated many times that he believes in people, and that he makes games such that anyone can eventually do amazing things in them. He wants people to feel good about themselves, and having gradually increasing difficulty levels building up to very difficult poo poo seems like a great way to accomplish that. I don't see any reason to believe that Bayonetta was a more significant departure from Kamiya's "vision" than Demon's Souls was for Miyazaki, or that Kamiya compromised heavily on Bayonetta, and I don't see how you could show that one way or the other, really. What? I think your missing the point here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
Maybe most movies aren't art, they are artistry applied to porous of business. Kitsch and glamour for its own sake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 08:21
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:What? I think your missing the point here. Maybe you should stop taking design notes for your explanations from the Souls games
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 08:25
|
|
|
Silent Hill 1 is the best game in the series and Silent Hill 2 is one of the most overrated games of all time I'll go so far as to say most people who put SH2 on a pedestal were 12 when they played it who also hadn't played the first game
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 09:28
|
|
|
Diablo 3 loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
Malah posted:Diablo 3 loving sucks. sir this is the unpopular video games opinions thread. this opinion is not appropriate for this thread, please take it elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 11:35
|
|
|
RazzleDazzleHour posted:Silent Hill 1 is the best game in the series and Silent Hill 2 is one of the most overrated games of all time silent hill downpour was pretty good and i enjoyed it. It also has 3dtv support which looked pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:silent hill downpour was pretty good and i enjoyed it. It also has 3dtv support which looked pretty cool Downpour was pretty good but it ran like rear end on X360.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 12:04
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:Stories by themselves aren't art. The art is in HOW they are told. Hence the art of storytelling. Surely story telling would be a craft
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Everything is art, hope this doesn't blow ur mind *shits turd into hand* See this turd? IF I call it art, then it is art. Literally
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
I only didn't say all Zelda games are trash because I haven't played the recent ones, as the old ones were trash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
a bitchin jetski posted:Downpour was pretty good but it ran like rear end on X360. I don't remember it being any worse than any other silent hill game (on console at least, never played one on PC) edit: oh yeah, if anyone plays Downpour make sure you look at a guide to do the 'Calling All Cars' quest as soon as you hit the town because the police are loving annoying. Seriously: gently caress the police.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
!Klams posted:I only didn't say all Zelda games are trash because I haven't played the recent ones, as the old ones were trash. the new ones are trash too don't worry
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Downpour was a nice upturn but the enemy design was super loving boring and I still can't get over the fact that it had sidequests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 14:22
|
|
