• Video Game Review Review: Polygon's Virginia Review
    93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Loadingue;51275552]I'm coming to it, just wait for the post to update. [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] Okay done. Open your eyes now.[/QUOTE] Okay, I'm not going to quote your post because it's a pain to format. First off you seem very focused on "walking simulators" which I never mentioned in my post, so I don't know where that's coming from. A walking simulator can be a game, but it isn't necessarily a game. The Stanley Parable is a game as it has states which change depending on a player's decisions, Gone Home is a game because it requires player interaction in order for it's story to be unveiled (beyond holding a play button), even Journey could be called a walking simulator and that's a game with failure states. I wouldn't call Proteus a game because the player has no agency, you don't do anything, which is fine as Proteus never set out to be about that. Dear Esther I would similarly not call a game as the player does nothing but hold down the play button on an audiobook while some pretty pictures scroll by, in fact I'd say Dear Esther would be significantly improved if you removed the player control and use creative cinematography to connect the scenes to the story. The problem, for me, is that these games are [i]not[/i] narrative driven. A narrative driven game is one which is pushed forward by it's story, these games just passively regurgitate dialogue or narration. I was going to use story heavy games in a more traditional format (Metal Gear for example), but I won't. Instead I want to mention the differences between a narrative-driven game and a passive experience. Dear Esther is a 'game' where you walk along an island while a story is told to you while you enjoy the pretty, but almost entirely unrelated, scenery. The story has no input from the player, it doesn't involve the player, it isn't related to the environment the player is in (until a short section later on). The 'game' doesn't use the medium it posits itself as being in any meaningful way. The story could have been told by having a camera fly through the environments and nothing would be lost, in fact it would probably improve the experience as you could control the pacing and visuals much better. Gone Home is a game where you explore a house to uncover the events which happened while you were away. If you follow the breadcrumb trail of letters, notes, and keys you can see a fairly short story involving your sister. You can also explore the house thoroughly to uncover other details about the family and other more minor stories. You can also discover things about each family member's personality based on their stuff, environmental storytelling and all that jazz. Gone Home is narrative focused because it demands the player engage with in to uncover the story, and it reciprocates the player's exploration by providing them story both through the main narrative and in it's environment. Dear Esther is not narrative focused because it demands nothing of the player as it regurgitates it's story, the environment is almost entirely unrelated to the story (and often times is quite pretentious), and it disincentive-ises (words) the player from trying to interact as leaving the linear path on the few occasions that's possible is met with nothing, the game doesn't respond to you until you're back on the linear path. I deliberately chose two games I don't like for my example to avoid any accusations of bias ("You're only praising the game you like") and to be accurate ("You can't compare Dear Esther to Bayonetta"). I just need you to know I'm not praising either game here, they both have story problems which go far beyond any mechanical or directorial scope. Getting on to the last point, I mean that these 'Interactive Exhibits', as the example name I gave before, are not videogames and that is completely fine. They don't need to be games, it does them a disservice to call them such. They are tangentially related media in the same manner as film and documentaries, made in similar fashions but with entirely different aims. 'Interactive Exhibits' could very well be a great and popular medium, especially with VR firmly with one foot in the door. Calling them games limits their possible scope and audience, people who typically don't play games can easily shy away from these experiences because they have a false impression of them. Creating a new name for a new medium, with a new set of standards and expectations, is a whole lot easier and a lot more easily understood than "It's a game but it functions entirely differently, with a different focus and minimal interaction". This is primarily for categorisation purposes, as I said before these 'Interactive Exhibits' should be sold alongside games and visual novels, but they should stand proudly as their own medium not begrudgingly at the edge of another. Errant Signal said that by excluding these interactive experiences from the realm of games we're limiting what games can do, I would argue that by putting them in the realm of games we're limiting what the interactive experiences can do. As long as they are classed as games they will be judged by the standards of games, and by those standards they're honestly pretty awful. Most games have bad stories, but they're held up by their gameplay. These things also generally have bad stories, but story is all they have. Finally, the Errant Signal video wasn't really pertinent to the discussion to be frank. He was talking about a MUCH larger context of whether any narrative focused thing is a game. He lumped The Walking Dead and others in as 'not games' where in our current discussion they would fall under the category of games because you actually have to do things. I didn't want to reference it too much as very little of it was actually relevant to what we're discussing, and what was relevant I disagree with entirely, but that's a discussion for a different thread which already exists. [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] Holy wall of text Batman. That post looked a lot smaller in the preview.
Well, the fact that you consider Gone Home a game, something a lot of people on your side would disagree with, shows how subjective this whole argument can get. Can't help but notice that on my side, everyone agrees that they're video games while that is subject to debate on the other side. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51275783] They are tangentially related media in the same manner as film and documentaries, made in similar fashions but with entirely different aims.[/QUOTE] But that's incorrect. Those other games (I used walking sims to designate them easily earlier) have the same aims than any "normal" game. It's just that they've isolated those aims, compared to "normal" games which have many usual aims, notably the one that is gameplay challenge. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51275783]This is primarily for categorisation purposes, as I said before these 'Interactive Exhibits' should be sold alongside games and visual novels, but they should stand proudly as their own medium not begrudgingly at the edge of another. Errant Signal said that by excluding these interactive experiences from the realm of games we're limiting what games can do, I would argue that by putting them in the realm of games we're limiting what the interactive experiences can do. As long as they are classed as games they will be judged by the standards of games, and by those standards they're honestly pretty awful.[/QUOTE] Everyone has their own standards, and by mine those games are fine. By my own standards, a lot of successful 2D games make poor examples of video games. You seem to call for practicality by saying we should differentiate the mediums they belong to, but let's be practical: in the end, to play a walking simulator, you still need a gaming PC and some video game sense and experience won't hurt. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51275783]Most games have bad stories, but they're held up by their gameplay. These things also generally have bad stories, but story is all they have.[/QUOTE] I think the quality of those games' story is irrelevant to their status, but seeing that you think most games have bad stories, you must have pretty high standards. Anyway, it's getting late and I think my will to continue to argue is dwindling, as is the case for others I'm sure. It's obvious we all have our reasons and opinions but I don't think either side is going to change them tonight. At least I hope this discussion could have enlightened readers who wished to learn more about this subject. To TheJoey: it's still a great and funny video.
[video=youtube;-QLmLaNyJBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QLmLaNyJBE[/video] Just gonna leave this here.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51274777]Challenge is subjective, thus a walking simulator for some might be a game for others.[/QUOTE] So, a book for some might be a game for those unskilled enough to find it challenging. I think the point of games labelled "walking simulators" is that there's no room for expression of skill at all. No matter how good you are there's no more you can do than the lowest common denominator.
video = moving, visual medium game = something you can interact with. anything can be a game if you want it to be. it's like trying to define art who decided on all these made up qualifications something has to be to be a video game it's a very new medium. it can be fucking whatever as long as you interact with it you moving the dude? pressin a key? that's a game. sorry. it might not be the game you want. so then don't play it. stop trying to argue it's not a 'video game' by your made up definition of what one should be.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51276871]video = moving, visual medium game = something you can interact with. anything can be a game if you want it to be. it's like trying to define art who decided on all these made up qualifications something has to be to be a video game it's a very new medium. it can be fucking whatever as long as you interact with it you moving the dude? pressin a key? that's a game. sorry. it might not be the game you want. so then don't play it. stop trying to argue it's not a 'video game' by your made up definition of what one should be.[/QUOTE] how am i supposed to be an elitist then when i can't box off people who aren't "real" gamers
also in this very thread you've started making exceptions to your rules for puzzle games. so what's stopping the walking sim being an additional exception to them? it's so arbitrary
that sopranos clip is gold
I feel that simultaneously criticizing someone for judging a game based off their subjective perceptions of "bad words" + the character, yet also criticizing a game in your own right for it not meeting your (rather arbitrary) terms of what constitutes a game, seems a little paradoxical
The word walking simulator always brings people out of the woodwork. Frankly while I understand if you consider the label of "game" arbitrary, arguing it still is a game doesn't change the fact of how shit of a "game" it is. You can have entertaining walking simulators, things like the Stanley parable, it's both humorous and uses it's walking simulator like nature to make a point about player agency.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51276871]video = moving, visual medium game = something you can interact with. anything can be a game if you want it to be. it's like trying to define art who decided on all these made up qualifications something has to be to be a video game it's a very new medium. it can be fucking whatever as long as you interact with it you moving the dude? pressin a key? that's a game. sorry. it might not be the game you want. so then don't play it. stop trying to argue it's not a 'video game' by your made up definition of what one should be.[/QUOTE] why do they have to be called games? i do not understand at all why it should be insulting to be called "not a game". you could call it something else which gives them a stronger identity and would likely market far better. i would say it would make it more attractive to people who never play video games as it wouldn't come with the baggage and expectations people have about what a game is. [editline]29th October 2016[/editline] i would rather see an adoption of a unique term and perhaps the solidification of a new form of art than have it always be on the fringe of another.
I really don't see how games like Virginia are "pushing the medium." They can provide compelling stories and emotional beats, but you can also do that in a traditional game format with honestly much greater effect. For example, in a game like Virginia, you are just witnessing some emotional events in the perspective of a character, but in a game like Undertale, or The Last of Us (or any game with a well crafted story), you are essentially performing the actions that lay the groundwork for those events to happen. For instance, the whole twist of Spec Ops: The Line would have much less of an impact on the player if they just walked from point A to point B and watched a character do something, instead of contributing to the actions through the player's own volition. I'm not saying these so called "walking simulators" are bad things (hell, I loved The Stanley Parable, even thought Firewatch was alright up until the lukewarm ending), I'm just saying that I don't see how they're exactly pushing the medium forward by essentially limiting themselves and potentially losing what makes video games so compelling and unique as a form of art in the first place.
I think the best way to draw the line is to ask how much the experience would be affected by removing the player from the experience entirely. If those elements that are unique to videogames and seperate them from other media aren't important to the overall experience, then I think, at best, they are video games in the same way a drop of lemon juice in a glass of water is lemonade. I think what gets people really upset is when they're judged alongside video games, but by no video game exclusive criteria, like someone winning a cooking contest on the food's aesthetic alone. A more cynical person might assume that some "walking simulator" developers are essentially "slumming it" by releasing what otherwise might be an animation or movie to the more sycophantic video game media desperate for the legitimacy of more established mediums like movies and books.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;51277595]The word walking simulator always brings people out of the woodwork. Frankly while I understand if you consider the label of "game" arbitrary, arguing it still is a game doesn't change the fact of how shit of a "game" it is. You can have entertaining walking simulators, things like the Stanley parable, it's both humorous and uses it's walking simulator like nature to make a point about player agency.[/QUOTE] oh i still think it's kind of poop though don't worry i sometimes argue even on gone home's behalf, but virginia seems like even less than that and, from a point of reviewing a review, polygon's unabashed fawning over it is embarrassing
The problem I have with these "non-games" is that it seems that shedding all gameplay mechanics is enough for them to receive automatic praise from critics, regardless of the actual quality of the naked story that's left. But from what I've seen most of these stories are just mediocre compared to other forms of media, or even compared to some actual games.
I think a good way to claim the true value of the game as such, is it's uniqueness in medium implementation. In this case, the game can easily work as a book or a film - thereby having lower value as a game, when compared to other games. For example, higher up we have someone mentioning Spec Ops - perhaps not the best of games, but certainly one that makes the best of it's medium - it tells a story, and player's actions are tied to it. It's not that those actions truly change or affect the story - but without player's actions, the story and emotions would have no value, if they were simply presented, without player interaction. The problem with Virginia itself, is that as a player, you are irrelevant. And I think we can all agree, that the most important part of a game, is the participant, which I feel is something Errant Signal has missed in their musings.
So since everyone else is throwing their thoughts into this discussion, I'll throw mine in, too. I agree with Joey's description of a game: it needs to have a fail state. Similarly, I agree with his "exceptions" to puzzle games like Portal, point-and-click games like Myst, sandbox games like GTA V (played as sandbox), and no-permanent-death games like Dark Souls. But I don't do it through making "exceptions" to the rule, but rather, by clearly defining what a "fail state" is. The classic definition of a fail state is "Game over", but that is [B]not[/B] the only kind of fail state. A fail state is simply the opposite of a win state. Similarly, not every game has only one win state - in fact, most games have several win states, and as such, fail states. And I consider them all valid, except for the state of "finishing the game", and let me briefly say why: because [B]all[/B] media can be "finished" - it isn't a state unique to games. You can obviously finish a game, but you can also finish a book, finish a TV show, and finish a film. So with that being said, what do I describe to be a win state, and by extension, a fail state? Put simply, these states arise as a result of conflict, and by conflict, I mean anything that involves the player taking actions that have consequences of some form. As a quick addendum, I do not consider the absence of action to be a choice, for the same reason as I don't consider "finishing the medium" to be a win state: anyone can choose to not watch a film (pausing it) or read a book (closing it), and it is not unique to games. When the player is faced with such conflicts, two states naturally arise from it: a "win" state is when the consequences of actions taken are positive in some way to the player's experience, and a "fail" state is when the consequences of actions taken are negative in some way to the player's experience. Allow me to demonstrate through a variety of titles, including titles from the contested genres in this thread, an example of conflict, win state, and fail state. [B]Half-Life 2:[/B] I don't think anyone would argue Half-Life 2 to be "not a game", so I think it's a perfect place to start. Half-Life 2 has many, [B]many[/B] conflicts in it, as is the nature of many first-person shooters. So let's consider a trivial example: a fight with a group of enemies. In this case, the fail state is obvious: you die and have to reload a save. The obvious negative consequence is that you lose all the progress you made between then and the last save. Even if you saved right before the fight, you still lose the progress [B]of[/B] that fight, and more importantly, you have spent time that does not progress the game. The obvious win state here is "you kill the enemies", but that is actually just a subset of the win state: you don't die and get to progress the story. You can achieve this by killing the enemies, obviously, but you can also achieve this by simply running away. Some people don't even think of running away as a choice, and others don't consider it to be a win state, but I do. So, moving on, let's tackle a puzzle game. For this, [B]Portal[/B] also has a series of conflicts. These conflicts are not solely, as has been hinted above, the dangers of death, such as turrets or water. Instead, the conflicts are the puzzles themselves. The win state to any given puzzle is simple: you solve it. The positive consequence is that you get to progress through the game. The lose state of a puzzle is a bit more abstract, and I understand if you might scoff at this one, but it is nevertheless how I interpret things: failing to solve the puzzle. I should point out here that the states are not mutually exclusive, meaning that it is possible to move from one state to the other. In puzzle games like Portal, there are some puzzles that you can solve almost instantly: press the button, cube drops out of dispensor, put cube on platform to open door, walk through door. But there can also be puzzles that you have to sit and think for a long time about. Puzzles that you have to experiment with, try different things, poke and prod it. Sometimes, you might even have to look the puzzle up or ask someone for help. I would argue that, for as long as you spend doing these things, you are in a fail state. The negative consequence? All the time you are spending on solving the puzzle is not being spent progressing the game. You're losing time. Point-and-click games like Myst I believe fall under the same definition of win and fail states as Portal, since they are simply different types of puzzle games. So how about no-permanent-death games? Let's tackle [b]Dark Souls[/b]. Like in Half-Life 2, Dark Souls is filled with a great many conflicts in it. And like Half-Life 2, the win and fail states of fight are the same. The fail state is you die, and the win state is you survive. What makes Dark Souls different from Half-Life 2, in terms of its fail state? In Half-Life 2, when you die, you have to reload your last save, and lose all your progress. In Dark Souls, you respawn with the loss of souls, but your "progress" is still there. So what's the difference? I would argue [b]there is no difference[/b]. Why? Because you still lose time: the time you spent getting to the fight, the time spent during the fight, and if you don't retrieve your souls, then the time spent collecting those souls. In both Half-Life 2 and Dark Souls, the penalty for failing is the loss of time. Sandbox / free-roam games, like GTA V's free-roam? Well, let's think about it. Even when you're not playing a story, and you're just dorking about, you still have conflicts. They can be conflicts the game supplies for you, such as gaining enough notoriety that the cops try to stop you. But they can also be conflicts that you set for yourself, which is common in sandbox games. So let's tackle the conflicts you set for yourself. The win and fail state are simple: did you achieve your goal? So, now that I've given some examples of what I consider makes a game be a game, let's tackle some things that I don't consider games: "walking simulators", like Dear Esther or Virginia. Both Dear Esther and Virginia follow the same general plot: the player is guided along a linear path. In Virginia's case, you are sometimes presented with interactions, such as opening a door or turning a knob. But in both cases, there are no [b]choices[/b]. Remember the two exemptions I made to fail states earlier, because they're not unique to games? For brevity's sake, they were "finishing the story is not a win state" and "choosing to not take action is not a fail state", for the reasons that all media can be finished: games, books, movies, and TV shows ; and all media can be stalled by inaction: not moving at all in a game, closing the book, pausing the movie or TV show. And that is the problem that Dear Esther and Virginia has. People like to be pedantic and argue that Dear Esther has a fail state: if you don't move forward, you never finish the game. But, as I described before, I do not consider inaction to be a fail state, because all media can do it, and saying "you failed a movie" is just silly. In Virginia, you are sometimes prompted to interact with the environment, such as opening doors or turning dials. But they have no fail states: there is nothing else you can do [b]except[/b] open the door or turn the dial. If you don't, then you stall the game, and inaction is not a fail state. You [b]have[/b] to open the door or turn the dial. It's not a choice. One might try to argue these are puzzles, but I would say that is not a valid argument: unless you don't know where the door or dial is (and the game is pretty obvious in showing them to you), then there is no time spent "solving the puzzle". As soon as you see the door or the dial, you have solved the puzzle. Choosing not to open the door or turn the dial is not "not solving the puzzle" - it's stalling the game through inaction. As a quick call-back to Portal, as soon as you walk into the puzzle and see the solution: press the button, cube drops, put cube on platform to open door, walk through, you've solved the puzzle. If you just decide to sit there staring at your feet for 6 hours, you're not "failing the game" - you're just stalling progress, the same as hitting pause on a movie. With that in mind, let's tackle another controversial title: [b]Gone Home[/b]. Now, full disclaimer, I haven't played Gone Home, but from I can tell, the premise of the title is that you, as the player, explore a house and find clues that reveal a story. The clues are scattered around the house, and you have to actually walk around the house to find them. As such, [b]I consider Gone Home to be a game.[/b] Why? Because it is puzzle-solving. When you enter the house, you don't immediately know where all the clues are. You have to walk around, looking through cupboards and dressers and such (presumably), looking for the clues. You have to solve the puzzles of "where would these notes be". Is Gone Home a [i]good[/i] game? Are they [i]good[/i] puzzles? I'd argue that the puzzles are pretty simple, they don't offer much challenge. But that's not the criteria of a game. I'm not discussing what makes a title a [i]good[/i] game - just what makes a title a game [i]at all[/i]. And through my definition, Gone Home [b]is[/b] technically a game. But Dear Esther, or Virginia? I would say no: [b]I do not consider Dear Esther or Virginia to be games[/b]. The reason is that they have no conflict for the player to solve: the only choices the player is given are between action and inaction. And as I've said a few times now, inaction is not a fail state. I want to make it perfectly clear I am [b]not[/b] lambasting titles like Dear Esther or Virginia. I absolutely [b]love[/b] the idea behind titles like them, and I love that people are creating these stories and sharing them. I am simply saying that the term "game" is not, in my opinion, the correct term for them. And we need a better term. Honestly, for titles like Dear Esther and Virginia, I would use the term "visual novel", because that is exactly what they are: a narrative experience being told visually, with minimal user input. Whether or not these titles like Dear Esther should even be interactive media is a different discussion altogether. And as a final note, even the term "visual novel" as it is now is not an accurate fit, because there are "visual novels" that actually can be classified as games through my definition: they have conflicts whose choices have either positive or negative consequences. There are visual novels that are more games than Dear Esther or Virginia. So that's my essay on the subject. Feel free to criticize it. And I apologize for any typos or grammatical errors that make points difficult to understand or even sound contradictory - I wrote this at 4am.
The word "walking simulator" is inherently a critique or an insult. Now it has cemented its place as a genre but you didn't use to call a good walking simulator by that name, because while playing you're focused on the game rather than thinking "well this sure feels like walking". I don't recall anyone tossing the term around when Stanley Parable first came out in 2011 and it was hugely loved by core gamer audience. Only a year or two later came out Dear Esther and Gone Home, which game journos praised to heavens but got huge amounts of shit from core gamers. I would guess that Stanley Parable is actually engaging and responds to player choices in an interesting way, unlike the other two.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;51278174]I don't recall anyone tossing the term around when Stanley Parable first came out in 2011 and it was hugely loved by core gamer audience. Only a year or two later came out Dear Esther and Gone Home, which game journos praised to heavens but got huge amounts of shit from core gamers. I would guess that Stanley Parable is actually engaging and responds to player choices in an interesting way, unlike the other two.[/QUOTE] stanley parable is one that stumps me, to be honest. it definitely falls under "walking sim" in most cases but there are so many endings and paths to find that that in itself becomes a game. finding a lot of those endings becomes a puzzle. i think stanley parable is unique. and no, the term walking sim is only a critique or insult to those who find it to be one. many people immediately take it as an insult which i think shows a little insecurity. i agree with posters above that say games and interactive storytelling devices ("walking sim", "interactive movie" etc) are two different types of experiences but are okay to be sold together. but to rate an interactive experience that doesn't have video game elements in it next to video games that are most definitely games is a little unfair and makes little sense, imo. i hate to be overly critical like this but there's also this to consider: if you are sub-par at writing and know a guy that can make block people in blender, you can make a movie and nobody in the indie film industry would give you a second glance because it's a sub-par product. but as soon as you make your film in a game engine and call it a video game, video game indie journalists will line up around the block to suck your wiener. you will win every award. it's very easy to take advantage of this. someone above called my view of the industry "unfortunate" but really i'd rather play a sub-par video game than experience a sub-par movie that calls itself a video game, and to put the two side by side is disingenuous and does a disservice for both the potential consumer and the artists who put time into their work and deserve a REAL critique of their stuff. i guess maybe i shoulda wrote that into the video huh
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51275264]I agree with and will take the critique of this "what is a video game" section being too major of a part of the video, one that ended up having people try to argue with me about what a video game is and whether a camp fire story is a game. [/QUOTE] Because it's, bluntly, a weak and exclusionary argument. Your criteria has to change constantly because there's too many exceptions in the medium. There's no consistency overall. And again, the [I]act [/I]of telling a campfire story can be a game. It's even supported by your definition. There is a set of mechanics to reach an objective with the challenge of telling a good story and the fail state of not scaring anyone. No, a story itself is not a game. Interaction with a medium to tell that story which requires player involvement and the formation of a magic circle facilitating play, is. Games require people to agree on a set of rules and enter a state of play. Video games require people to agree on a set of rules and engage with a digital medium through entering a state of play. That's literally all it takes bro. There are dozens of scholarly sources you could read to formulate a better argument. But to be fair I am a game design academic, I worked on a few art games, and I volunteer at festivals. I'm probably the least partial person to argue with about this. [B]e:[/B] [QUOTE=TheJoey;51278301]stanley parable is one that stumps me, to be honest. it definitely falls under "walking sim" in most cases but there are so many endings and paths to find that that in itself becomes a game. finding a lot of those endings becomes a puzzle. i think stanley parable is unique. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TheJoey;51274968]If there's no way to "NOT SUCCEED" at the game besides just turning off the game or walking away from your keyboard then there is no failure state, by my logic it's not a game. [/QUOTE] These are fundamentally at odds with each other. There is no way to avoid reaching at least one of The Stanley Parable's endings without stopping play. These endless exceptions are why your argument is so poor.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51278754]These are fundamentally at odds with each other. There is no way to avoid reaching at least one of The Stanley Parable's endings without stopping play. These endless exceptions are why your argument is so poor.[/QUOTE] I don't see how that is other than because you're taking the words very literally. If you're "playing" Virginia by clicking or pushing w to get to the next scene (sometimes no input is even necessary because it carries on with cues in the music) then there is nothing impeding you from reaching the end goal, which in most cases is signaled by a credits sequence or "the end". If there's nothing stopping you from the end "success state" then there is no gameplay. Puzzles are such obstacles. Bosses or enemies are those obstacles. I understand that you are trying to turn my words around on me by basically saying "well you said 'stopping play' but stopping play is finding an ending in stanley" but not only did I say Stanley was unique and stumps me when it comes to my own description of what a game is, but it's doubly unique in that you can either get that ending by accident by not playing the game or you can figure out how to achieve that ending by trying out several different things, like thinking "huh, I wonder what happens when I don't do anything at all." I also didn't say "finding all of those endings requires doing something and no endings require not playing", I said "finding a lot of those endings becomes a puzzle" and that's... still true? You didn't disprove this and this statement isn't at odds with anything I said. Defending my opinion that Virginia isn't a game is becoming circular when instead of trying to convince me otherwise with something reasonable, you're just telling me "well look at these two posts you made here, they don't make sense next to eachother!" I dunno, dude.
I wanted to agree with this video going into it due to my negative experience with Virginia. But then there was all that dissing on games without combat gameplay and game-movies. I like Until Dawn and Telltale's The Walking Dead, and watching a Mass Effect Let's Play got me into the series and convinced me to play all the games.
When did he diss on interactive stories?
I never liked the "game/not game" debate. If u can interact with it through someway electronically, it's a game. But I really liked the video apart from that. I honestly think there should be some people keeping the whole of games journalism accountable with how they write.
I want more now. FEED ME MORE VIDEOS
The major point I've always made and one I agree with in this video is "Why make it a game" There's no reason it should have been in this medium. There's nothing there that utilizes the unique aspects of video games to elevate the storytelling experience in Virginia especially compared to games that work similarly but still manage to use unique mechanics in order to evoke certain emotions and experiences. It's trying to be this "unique" experience but when so many games have already gone this route, in better fashion, then it's obviously going to fail at capturing audiences who expect more from it. Furthermore the critcism of this review overall is more than fair. It's obvious they're up-selling it and moreover it's obvious the reviewer must not have played many games of similar style(or many at all) to reach this conclusion.
[QUOTE=spekter;51279728]The major point I've always made and one I agree with in this video is "Why make it a game" There's no reason it should have been in this medium. There's nothing there that utilizes the unique aspects of video games to elevate the storytelling experience in Virginia especially compared to games that work similarly but still manage to use unique mechanics in order to evoke certain emotions and experiences. It's trying to be this "unique" experience but when so many games have already gone this route, in better fashion, then it's obviously going to fail at capturing audiences who expect more from it. Furthermore the critcism of this review overall is more than fair. It's obvious they're up-selling it and moreover it's obvious the reviewer must not have played many games of similar style(or many at all) to reach this conclusion.[/QUOTE] You're right, Virginia doesn't capitalize on the medium, and it might've done better as a film, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a game.
[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;51279206]When did he diss on interactive stories?[/QUOTE] When he asked "Why didn't they just make a movie instead?"
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;51280014]When he asked "Why didn't they just make a movie instead?"[/QUOTE] No. Making a video game thats essentially walking to a thing and watching a thing would work better as a movie. Interactive Story games work fine, if you keep in mind its a game and take advantage of that. Its what a lot of Telltales new games have been criticized on and games like Until Dawn or even Life is Strange are praised for, or hell, you could probably count the Ace Attorney series in that bunch too.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;51280014]When he asked "Why didn't they just make a movie instead?"[/QUOTE] If the only interaction in your "game" is pressing W to walk from point A to point B, obviously the question "Why didn't they just make a movie" comes to mind. Because that's nothing more than a movie were you have to keep pressing the "PLAY >" button. Why not just ditch the button and let me watch the movie?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.