• Game Maker's Toolkit - Arkham Knight and the Scourge of Scale
    44 replies, posted
[video=youtube;Kvbnc-7Y0fE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvbnc-7Y0fE[/video]
"We need more games like Gone Home" Stopped there. I agree with the general idea though. [editline]a[/editline] pssh yeah explain why we need more games like Gone Home.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48159509]"We need more games like Gone Home" Stopped there. I agree with the general idea though. [editline]a[/editline] pssh yeah explain why we need more games like Gone Home.[/QUOTE] Yeah that really stopped me in my tracks, Gone Home isn't really what you could call a game, it's just an interactive experience. There is a place for pseudogames like those in the industry, but it's not and should never be the main focus of game development.
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;48159826]Yeah that really stopped me in my tracks, Gone Home isn't really what you could call a game, it's just an interactive experience. There is a place for pseudogames like those in the industry, but it's not and should never be the main focus of game development.[/QUOTE] It was also badly written ant the subject matter was horribly handled. Someone holding a subjective opinion that Gone Home was any good in any context is wrong in their [B]opinion[/B]
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;48159826]Yeah that really stopped me in my tracks, Gone Home isn't really what you could call a game, it's just an interactive experience. There is a place for pseudogames like those in the industry, but it's not and should never be the main focus of game development.[/QUOTE] Why limit what videogames can be?
[QUOTE=BOXHOUND;48159895]Why limit what videogames can be?[/QUOTE] No one is It's just that objectively speaking, Gone Home is shallow. Objectively speaking. It's mechanics are shallow. As a story, it's shallow. It's story relied on shallow game mechanics so it could only tell a shallow story. I'm not going to play a game like Gone Home again or any of it's spiritual succesors because it's not going to be entertaining to me. It can be made, and I have no issue with that. It's just that holding it up as a design ideal is not good for design for anyone who doesn't like really shallow wander and look based mechanics.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48159928]No one is[/QUOTE] Except the guy I was responding too.
[QUOTE=BOXHOUND;48159999]Except the guy I was responding too.[/QUOTE] Not really. He was saying that focusing on the development of games like Gone Home won't go far. And it won't.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48160068]Not really. He was saying that focusing on the development of games like Gone Home won't go far. And it won't.[/QUOTE] Story/atmosphere driven adventure games do have an audience. It's absolutely fine not to like gone home. But "developers should never make games like this" is a pretty egocentric outlook. If people don't want this type of game, the devs who make them will go out of business.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48160068]Not really. He was saying that focusing on the development of games like Gone Home won't go far. And it won't.[/QUOTE] I think that's maybe stretching a bit of what the intent behind the example was. It's not that he wants to see more sandbox games with similar gameplay as Gone Home, but more sandbox games that have a tightened focus on small environments instead of massive expanses that marketing departments like to advertise. Gone Home, regardless of the quality of its gameplay or narrative, was a sandbox game with a small and enclosed world; which is exactly the type of example he wanted to give to contrast a large open-world environment the video was focused on criticizing. While it fulfilled the criteria of a suitable example, the game itself is controversial.
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;48159826]it's just an interactive experience.[/QUOTE] Sounds pretty much like a game to me. There's a victory state after all, you [I]can[/I] win the game. There may not be much gameplay, but when people use the game as a positive example I don't normally see them doing so because it has complex mechanics or anything like that. But usually because it was story driven as fuck (I don't care enough to play it, but I'm aware the story isn't anything special) and relied on the environment to tell you bits and pieces about the game in a way that's only recently started to rear its head again.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48160068]Not really. He was saying that focusing on the development of games like Gone Home won't go far. And it won't.[/QUOTE] Best part is proselytizing Gone Home is essentially saying "make your shit pushbutton political and shave off 66% of your content"; sorry, that's an incredibly shit way to do anything. Gone Home is certainly a game, and it's an incredibly pandering and shitty and absolutely unfinished one, and should never be the basis of anything other than how to NOT create a piece of storytelling.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48160068]Not really. He was saying that focusing on the development of games like Gone Home won't go far. And it won't.[/QUOTE] If you were actually paying attention, you'd see that he was using it as an example of a game with a small but fleshed-out playing area versus an open world, not saying that every single game needs to be a house simulator. I know this forum has a huge hate boner for Gone Home but it's getting so ridiculous that just saying the name throws the forum into a blind rage that prevents them from hearing any other words said
If only the guy hadn't spent 5 seconds talking about Gone Home we could have actually discussed the topic at hand
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48160341]Sounds pretty much like a game to me. There's a victory state after all, you [I]can[/I] win the game. There may not be much gameplay, but when people use the game as a positive example I don't normally see them doing so because it has complex mechanics or anything like that. But usually because it was story driven as fuck (I don't care enough to play it, but I'm aware the story isn't anything special) and relied on the environment to tell you bits and pieces about the game in a way that's only recently started to rear its head again.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm not going to say Gone Home was a masterpiece, but saying it isn't a game is like saying that the Transformers movies aren't movies just because you don't like them Ed: the automerge is not real
The only problem with Gone Home is the setting and the subject matter. I thought it was going into some weird occult shit, which would have been interesting. That's why I'm actually kind of curious about their next game about the space station in space.
I thought everyone stopped giving a shit about arguing over/bringing up Gone Home. Guess there's still a flame left in a lot of people. That said, I'd agree with many of the points in the video. Surprised to see how it was barely touched that this is a widespread thing now a days, with every studio trying to make their product 'open world', but failing at it because they fail to realize that it's really hard and time consuming. Don't try to make some expansive world unless there's stuff to do all over it relevant to the story/gameplay or that's the main point of the game.
[QUOTE=The Hoovy Bear;48161001]I thought everyone stopped giving a shit about arguing over/bringing up Gone Home. Guess there's still a flame left in a lot of people. That said, I'd agree with many of the points in the video. Surprised to see how it was barely touched that this is a widespread thing now a days, with every studio trying to make their product 'open world', but failing at it because they fail to realize that it's really hard and time consuming. Don't try to make some expansive world unless there's stuff to do all over it relevant to the story/gameplay or that's the main point of the game.[/QUOTE] It's not that there's still a flame in people, it's just the idea that someone is saying that we need more games like Gone Home. If they're talking about atmospheric "walking simulators", they should be using Ethan Carter, The Stanley Parable and Dear Esther which at least have some interesting stories and great environments. We don't need games that can be beaten in 20 minutes at $19.99 price points. We don't need games that are immune from legitimate critique criticism because if you do, you're just a cisgendered bigoted shitlord.
[QUOTE=Velocet;48161023]It's not that there's still a flame in people, it's just the idea that someone is saying that we need more games like Gone Home. If they're talking about atmospheric "walking simulators", they should be using Ethan Carter, The Stanley Parable and Dear Esther which at least have some interesting stories and great environments. We don't need games that can be beaten in 20 minutes at $19.99 price points. We don't need games that are immune from legitimate critique criticism because if you do, you're just a cisgendered bigoted shitlord.[/QUOTE] Case in point. I'm guessing you either didn't actually watch the video or immediately tuned out the second you heard the word "Gone" followed by the word "Home", because the vast majority of your post has absolutely nothing to do with the video or the context in which it discusses Gone Home.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48160943]If you were actually paying attention, you'd see that he was using it as an example of a game with a small but fleshed-out playing area versus an open world, not saying that every single game needs to be a house simulator. I know this forum has a huge hate boner for Gone Home but it's getting so ridiculous that just saying the name throws the forum into a blind rage that prevents them from hearing any other words said[/QUOTE] Hey, before you want to act like a condescending dick maybe you should point out where I said, or even mildly implied that I think he was suggesting all game should be that. Oh wait, you can't because I didn't. And by the way, how did I have a "hate boner" for it? Because I calmly wrote out my thoughts about the game? Oh my.
[QUOTE=Psychopath12;48160241]I think that's maybe stretching a bit of what the intent behind the example was. It's not that he wants to see more sandbox games with similar gameplay as Gone Home, but more sandbox games that have a tightened focus on small environments instead of massive expanses that marketing departments like to advertise. Gone Home, regardless of the quality of its gameplay or narrative, was a sandbox game with a small and enclosed world; which is exactly the type of example he wanted to give to contrast a large open-world environment the video was focused on criticizing. While it fulfilled the criteria of a suitable example, the game itself is controversial.[/QUOTE] I agree, but calling it a "sandbox game" is a bit of a stretch. You had no personal decision other then what order to read. That's about as much choice as you get in a book or movie. Which is why I originally mentioned it as an outliar, it didn't really fit as an example of what he was trying to say. Disclaimer : I really, really hate gone home. [QUOTE=hexpunK;48160341]Sounds pretty much like a game to me. There's a victory state after all, you [I]can[/I] win the game. There may not be much gameplay, but when people use the game as a positive example I don't normally see them doing so because it has complex mechanics or anything like that. But usually because it was story driven as fuck (I don't care enough to play it, but I'm aware the story isn't anything special) and relied on the environment to tell you bits and pieces about the game in a way that's only recently started to rear its head again.[/QUOTE] Victory state does not mean there is a game involved. A failure state does not mean there is a game involved. A game is a game when it has rules. Anything can be considered a game. An interactive story is technically a game, but it shouldn't be priced like a videogame. What it is, is a terrible example of a game. If I made a game where you touch a wall and you win, it's a terrible idea. If I made a game where you walk around and touch and read things until you win, it's the same goddamn thing, it just takes longer. Story just enriches the experience, but when your core gameplay is shit, it's kind of hard to care. These are games, not books. The second part of your argument is kind of strange, what are you trying to say? That games shouldn't allow it's environment to tell you details? [QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48160954]Yeah, I'm not going to say Gone Home was a masterpiece, but saying it isn't a game is like saying that the Transformers movies aren't movies just because you don't like them[/QUOTE] Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Gone Home is barely a game. This isn't opinion. To check if something is a game, do the following. Remove the story. Is the game still fun? Then you have a game. Gone Home SOLELY DEPENDS on it's story to make it interesting. It's eyecandy. It's a movie. It's hardly a game. That analogy you use is horrible, just because the game is bad doesn't make it not a game, your completely right. We are saying it can hardly be considered a game because of it's content/gameplay ratio. It's a touchy subject. I won't ever not call it a game, but I sure as hell won't ever call it a good one, or a good example of a game. [QUOTE=The Hoovy Bear;48161001]I thought everyone stopped giving a shit about arguing over/bringing up Gone Home. Guess there's still a flame left in a lot of people. That said, I'd agree with many of the points in the video. Surprised to see how it was barely touched that this is a widespread thing now a days, with every studio trying to make their product 'open world', but failing at it because they fail to realize that it's really hard and time consuming. Don't try to make some expansive world unless there's stuff to do all over it relevant to the story/gameplay or that's the main point of the game.[/QUOTE] 1st paragraph - When you say opinions and they are quite harshly controversial, it can say a lot about the video when the video is clearly trying to be informative. 2nd paragraph - This is true for the most part. However, open-worlds are open worlds because you are given choice. When you sidestep sidequests or things to do on the side and focus on the story, like Ubisoft is treacherous at doing, "Open-world" doesn't mean what it means anymore. Witcher 3 did this perfectly - it blends the primary quest and side quests, making you feel necessitated to do the things on the side, but not too much that you forget there is something to do in the main quest. It also never makes you feel like you need to do the next quest immediately or as soon as possible, there is always a "wait period" given to you realistically. It's brilliant writing, and games like Ubisoft generic openworld game number 4 don't do that right. [QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48161097]Case in point. I'm guessing you either didn't actually watch the video or immediately tuned out the second you heard the word "Gone" followed by the word "Home", because the vast majority of your post has absolutely nothing to do with the video or the context in which it discusses Gone Home.[/QUOTE] He very literally said "We need more small sandbox games like Gone Home." It's quite minor, but it kind of makes you rethink where this guy is coming from. [QUOTE=BOXHOUND;48160237]Story/atmosphere driven adventure games do have an audience. It's absolutely fine not to like gone home. But "developers should never make games like this" is a pretty egocentric outlook. If people don't want this type of game, the devs who make them will go out of business.[/QUOTE] These "games" shouldn't be put to a maximum regard as one of the greatest games ever made. It's a glorified point and click without the puzzles, and laughable story about a genamerica family. If you really care about atmosphere and story, go make a movie. Games are not the medium to be doing this. Also, calling this "story" and "atmosphere" driven "adventure" game is flat out wrong. The story doesn't progress you in this game. Finding clues about how to get to the end does, and the clues are scattered by clicking on everything until you find it. Liking the game solely depends on if you like the story. That's not what games are. [QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48160943]If you were actually paying attention, you'd see that he was using it as an example of a game with a small but fleshed-out playing area versus an open world, not saying that every single game needs to be a house simulator. [/QUOTE] Anytime I hear we need more games like "Gone Home" I go no - that game doesn't even have puzzles. It's a goddamn interactive movie at BEST. But it barely even does that. I thought it was a horror game for christs sake, and it just throws the awesome atmosphere and experience and makes it boring. Using it as an example of a good, small sandbox game like he does isn't the answer to "Worlds getting too large." I have a hateboner for it. I'm not gonna try to hide that. Because everybody in the games industry treated it like gods gift to the world when it came out - for the price they demanded, it was like asking to set the standard of games lower then it already was for higher prices. Anyways, people get mad when Gone Home is mentioned because it's a bad game. Good movie, bad game, debately pretentious. Not sure why we really need a bunch of posts of discussion about it. [B]Onto the subject at hand, [/B] Smurfy mentioned that this has nothing to do with the topic, it sort of does. Typing this out, really, makes me sort of disagree with him. We need larger worlds - we just need to spend more time making them. We need to make each location intimate, like Witcher 3. Notice how he never mentions Witcher 3. I wonder why? Because it works against his argument - you CAN do a large game world right. You don't have to pack a load of content into a small area, you just have to space it out into reasonable sections and sub things along the way. You have to make each location unique and have it's own features that make the player interested and be able to interact with. NOT like JC2 did. (I haven't played Arkham Knight so I can't say much.) Gone home is the perfect example of smaller worlds done WRONG. There is nothing to do, it's packed full of information that you can do nothing with other then just "appreciate." There are both bad examples of bigger worlds, and bad examples of smaller worlds. This guy is trying to make it out as "Bigger worlds get worse as they get bigger, because there's too much too do and leaves you out of touch." Except, large scale can be done properly. It's not a case of quantity over quality. You can have a lot of quantity with a lot of quality. It's just not as black and white as this guy makes it seem. Just because a game has a big world, or promises one, isn't a bad thing. Sure, in some cases, it works. But not always. He should clarify that in the video, but he never does. p.s I like writing
ahhh the fucker in this video just had to mention gone home one time jesus christ
[QUOTE=artDecor;48161510]ahhh the fucker in this video just had to mention gone home one time jesus christ[/QUOTE] I only mentioned it because I thought it was a bad example.. I kind of forgot anything controversial on the internet has to be argued and discussed, even at the sake of the original topic. But for real guys, don't turn this into "Why Gone Home is bad" - at least make it "Why Gone Home was a bad example"
Asylum is so much better than City it's not even funny The only actual problem with Asylum is the shitty final boss
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48161534]I only mentioned it because I thought it was a bad example.. I kind of forgot anything controversial on the internet has to be argued and discussed, even at the sake of the original topic. But for real guys, don't turn this into "Why Gone Home is bad" - at least make it "Why Gone Home was a bad example"[/QUOTE] It was a great example of what the video was actually about. Gone home is a densely packed sandbox. That's all he was talking about. Your first post about how you got triggered and had to turn the video off is what derailed the thread. Cue the 20 page thread about arguing semantics over the internet.
[QUOTE=BOXHOUND;48161653]It was a great example of what the video was actually about. Gone home is a [b]densely packed sandbox[/b]. That's all he was talking about. Your first post about how you got triggered and had to turn the video off is what derailed the thread. Cue the 20 page thread about arguing semantics over the internet.[/QUOTE] I don't think sandbox is the correct word to be using when talking about Gone Home (and I sure as heel wouldn't use dense either). Sandbox implies you have multiple options to tackle the obstacle, and that you can sort of do your own thing. We all know that that does not happen in Gone Home.
[QUOTE=BOXHOUND;48161653]It was a great example of what the video was actually about. Gone home is a densely packed sandbox. That's all he was talking about. Your first post about how you got triggered and had to turn the video off is what derailed the thread. Cue the 20 page thread about arguing semantics over the internet.[/QUOTE] Being triggered is pointing out a bad example now? As soon as you start using insults is the moment you lose an argument. P.s I don't what your definition of a sandbox game is but it is not gone home. Its got as much choice as whether or not to press the exit after playing it for 2 minutes.
Describing Gone Home as densely packed is objectively incorrect It is the opposite of densely packed both in terms of narrative and gameplay.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48160943]If you were actually paying attention, you'd see that he was using it as an example of a game with a small but fleshed-out playing area versus an open world, not saying that every single game needs to be a house simulator. I know this forum has a huge hate boner for Gone Home but it's getting so ridiculous that just saying the name throws the forum into a blind rage that prevents them from hearing any other words said[/QUOTE] No one's mad, and that the devs dropped 2/3rds of the game's content and purposefully tried to spin the remainder as groundbreaking politicized nu-gaming are facts, so maybe you should get your head out of your ass and start paying attention to the objective facets instead of attempting to ride your high horse further out off the cliff you've already railroaded yourself into.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48162749]Describing Gone Home as densely packed is objectively incorrect It is the opposite of densely packed both in terms of narrative and gameplay.[/QUOTE] the point is that gone homes tiny house has a ton of shit to look at and a bunch of tiny details [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=27X;48162796]No one's mad, and that the devs dropped 2/3rds of the game's content and purposefully tried to spin the remainder as groundbreaking politicized nu-gaming are facts, so maybe you should get your head out of your ass and start paying attention to the objective facets instead of attempting to ride your high horse further out off the cliff you've already railroaded yourself into.[/QUOTE] this is the blind rage hes talking about btw
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.