the problem is that the thing is it's the same thing we've been getting for years. you think it's justifiable that the game gets rave reviews when it doesn't do anything new, or anything too differently. in fact the game itself seems to follow a mold.
the problem is that this kind of game stagnates the industry. we can't get by calling some good story told by an alright game goty.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41222121]the problem is that the thing is it's the same thing we've been getting for years. you think it's justifiable that the game gets rave reviews when it doesn't do anything new, or anything too differently. in fact the game itself seems to follow a mold.
the problem is that this kind of game stagnates the industry. we can't get by calling some good story told by an alright game goty.[/QUOTE]
You're acting like journalists review how innovative a game is, while in fact they look at how [I]good[/I] it is. Because, surprise, a game can still be good without innovating, and that's what people are interested in: good games.
Furthermore, does a game have to fulfill [I]your[/I] demands to get the title GOTY now? Here I thought that "Game of the Year" was a title given to the best game of a certain year, but apparently it's actually awarded to the one which innovates the most in gameplay aspects.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41222121]the problem is that the thing is it's the same thing we've been getting for years. you think it's justifiable that the game gets rave reviews when it doesn't do anything new, or anything too differently. in fact the game itself seems to follow a mold.
the problem is that this kind of game stagnates the industry. we can't get by calling some good story told by an alright game goty.[/QUOTE]
Why does a game need to be innovative to be good? I would agree if the current game design formulas had been done to absolute perfection and could not be improved any further, but I think most people would say that's a ridiculous statement. Every game is the same thing we've been getting for years, every FPS can be summed up as 'run around and shoot stuff' if you oversimplify it, and even though we have the occasional game with some interesting and unique playstyle, it generally won't catch on and bring on a surge of loads of new games following the same idea because that idea would get done to death much quicker than something common like the standard FPS formula would.
I don't like this whole idea that people will base their judgment of a game on facts and comparison rather than simply how much enjoyment they got out of playing it. I can think of a few games in recent memory if I was to review it objectively, I would have plenty of negative things to say but overall if I still had a load of fun playing it then I would call it a good game.
Do you know why it's the same thing we've been getting for years? Because it works. If it didn't work, don't you think the formula would have changed already? If you want innovative, go looking for new, interesting indie games and stay away from main stream, it isn't really that hard. As with just about everything else in life, if you don't like it, ignore it and move on.
just because something works does not mean it's not obsolete
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
this game model is quite obsolete and overused. the flaws in it are quite glaring.
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
another part of the problem too is graphics...
they used way to many assets to get the game to look as pretty as possible. think about how games would be if we didn't focus on graphics?
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41228710]
this game model is quite obsolete and overused. the flaws in it are quite glaring.[/QUOTE]
Please define "obsolete" in a non-subjective manner, because it seems to work fine here.
[QUOTE=Wyvers;41223680]Why does a game need to be innovative to be good?[/QUOTE]
because a game that did nothing new like the last of us 7 years ago would have gotten a 7/10 for being a good game but bringing nothing new to the table.
maybe i'm among a younger demographic or something and i've been out of the loop for quite some time, but typically if a game didn't do anything new and was just a good game it was considered above or near average. a game had to do something new and exciting to get rave reviews.
anyone remember that time? when you needed to be innovative to get good reviews? no?
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;41228813]non-subjective manner[/QUOTE]
excuse me while i go take some acid and smoke some DMT.
i'll be back with an answer in 12 hours.
what a fuckin trap post if i've ever seen one
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
if you honestly cannot see any of the flaws in this strict linear model you probably don't have a mind open enough to be talking to me anyway.
i'm not going to bridge the mental gap for you. thats your fucking job, otherwise you're just taking this piss and this turns from a discussion into a frivolous debate.... well it already has but whatever, still your fault.
So you can't accept that people think differently from you, therefore they are beneath you?
Does anybody else smell a hint of narcissism here?
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41228846]
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
excuse me while i go take some acid and smoke some DMT.
i'll be back with an answer in 12 hours.
what a fuckin trap post if i've ever seen one
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
if you honestly cannot see any of the flaws in this strict linear model you probably don't have a mind open enough to be talking to me anyway.
i'm not going to bridge the mental gap for you. thats your fucking job, otherwise you're just taking this piss and this turns from a discussion into a frivolous debate.... well it already has but whatever, still your fault.[/QUOTE]
What the hell?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;41229319]there are flaws in a linear narrative, but so are there in an open one
such as
narrative disconnect, what occurs when the player just fucks around outside of a mission when the main story is meant to be urgent
[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of a part early on in Bioshock: Infinite when you try and get a ticket for the First Lady's Airship. After Booker murders a bunch of people infront of Elizabeth for the first time, she flips out and runs away from you. As someone who felt involved in the narrative, I quickly ran after her the whole way until you catch up with her.
But it turns out, as Booker is yelling things like "Elizabeth get back here!" you can go exploring separate rooms for collectables (Like a voxophone and some other things), which completely undermines the urgency they try to create for the situation
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41228846]because a game that did nothing new like the last of us 7 years ago would have gotten a 7/10 for being a good game but bringing nothing new to the table.
maybe i'm among a younger demographic or something and i've been out of the loop for quite some time, but typically if a game didn't do anything new and was just a good game it was considered above or near average. a game had to do something new and exciting to get rave reviews.
anyone remember that time? when you needed to be innovative to get good reviews? no?
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
excuse me while i go take some acid and smoke some DMT.
i'll be back with an answer in 12 hours.
what a fuckin trap post if i've ever seen one
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
if you honestly cannot see any of the flaws in this strict linear model you probably don't have a mind open enough to be talking to me anyway.
i'm not going to bridge the mental gap for you. thats your fucking job, otherwise you're just taking this piss and this turns from a discussion into a frivolous debate.... well it already has but whatever, still your fault.[/QUOTE]
Since you know how to make a great game, for the love of god go out and become a game designer, prove that your ideas are better than what is tried and tested before you simply say that it sucks.
Until then stop acting you are a messiah compared to us.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41161824]ha, dont blow smoke up my collective asses.
you're all focusing on how well some archaic old tried and true method is so well for telling a story only because it has been tried and true.
impossible has been said to many times to count in this industry. you are the crusty old demographic going harumph! and i am the person who will be laughing a few years down the line.[/QUOTE]You're acting like an idiot
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41228846]because a game that did nothing new like the last of us 7 years ago would have gotten a 7/10 for being a good game but bringing nothing new to the table.
maybe i'm among a younger demographic or something and i've been out of the loop for quite some time, but typically if a game didn't do anything new and was just a good game it was considered above or near average. a game had to do something new and exciting to get rave reviews.
anyone remember that time? when you needed to be innovative to get good reviews? no?
[/QUOTE]
And? Are you saying that because people 7 years ago used to review games whilst taking innovation as a serious factor, that it's wrong if we do it differently now? Surely if the attitude taken towards reviewing games has changed, it's for a reason?
Sorry if I sound a bit "ooo it's just opinions man", but I think what makes a 'good game' is based primarily on what the developers wanted to achieve with it, which for the most part for passionate, serious game developers, is to bring entertainment and happiness to people. I understand that without innovation from any source, the gaming industry will grow stale, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss any game that doesn't offer innovation, because then you are excluding yourself from what could be an enjoyable experience.
Also, if you want to stop this from turning into a frivolous debate, then you should probably lay off the insults.
this proves humanity for the most part has its head desperately stuck deep in the sand
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
also putting words in other people's mouth isn't arguing. it's almost like a clusterfuck in here. kinda sad.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41234282]this proves humanity for the most part has its head desperately stuck deep in the sand[/QUOTE]
I picture you posting this and then immediately putting on your fedora, taking a sip of milk from a wine glass while gently stroking your neckbeard and thinking "Ah, I'm so glad everyone is shit except for me."
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;41228846]because a game that did nothing new like the last of us 7 years ago would have gotten a 7/10 for being a good game but bringing nothing new to the table.
maybe i'm among a younger demographic or something and i've been out of the loop for quite some time, but typically if a game didn't do anything new and was just a good game it was considered above or near average. a game had to do something new and exciting to get rave reviews.
anyone remember that time? when you needed to be innovative to get good reviews? no?
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
excuse me while i go take some acid and smoke some DMT.
i'll be back with an answer in 12 hours.
what a fuckin trap post if i've ever seen one
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
if you honestly cannot see any of the flaws in this strict linear model you probably don't have a mind open enough to be talking to me anyway.
i'm not going to bridge the mental gap for you. thats your fucking job, otherwise you're just taking this piss and this turns from a discussion into a frivolous debate.... well it already has but whatever, still your fault.[/QUOTE]
You never [B]NEEDED[/B] to be innovative in order to get a good review. It's a welcome addition (even when it's done poorly sometimes), but a game that takes a well-trodden formula and does it EXTREMELY well (as The Last of Us does) will easily get as much praise as a game that thrives on well-executed innovation.
To give an example, Rayman Origins is not a game I would consider innovative, but I'll be damned if it's not one of the best 2D platformers that I've EVER played. Conversely, you can take something like Portal or Half-Life 2 which (for their times) innovated in spades, and I'd give them equal praise.
On a final note, I really don't understand why you have such an issue with the linear format. As I said earlier, it has been extremely well established that a linear narrative will allow for a stronger story, if for no other reason than to create proper pacing (which is, so far, apparently not possible in an open-world game). Open-world games absolutely have their place in this industry and they can provide great [I]experiences[/I], but the linear games will ALWAYS be here when a developer wants to tell a strong, well-paced narrative. Unless we somehow surpass thousands of years of linear narratives (books, cinema, theater), which I highly doubt, linearity will remain the best way to tell a story.
[QUOTE=MoarToast;41234329]I picture you posting this and then immediately putting on your fedora, taking a sip of milk from a wine glass while gently stroking your neckbeard and thinking "Ah, I'm so glad everyone is shit except for me."[/QUOTE]
Literally every fucking argument this guy is in this is what it comes to. "Everyone is dumb, but me".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
