Well, I read it...

I did too, I guess.

Originally Posted by panzerfaust You've defined Dear Esther. Just because it is insanely weak does not neuter itself of the definition. By this logic many games are just linear pathways that trigger "content delivery." I feel like if Dear Esther allowed you to pick up a cup off a dining room table, people would suddenly be more comfortable calling it a game. I don't identify with that view at all.

I usually don't really think about games so excuse me if I make a few mistakes writing about them, as I did with the part you quoted. It isn't that the player must interact with the world, but that the world must interact with the game. Dear Esther does not, it is a walking content delivery system, as I stated earlier. However this is not necessarily due to not touching things, if a player never touched a single thing in Dear Esther, I would still consider it a game if the world interacted with the player. It doesn't, and never did. Contrast this something like Stanley Parable, where there is as little interaction as there was in Dear Esther but there are subtle differences based on how on went through the game. Dear Esther doesn't have this. There is no interaction, no cause and effect. It is a flat virtual painting one experiences, but does not interact with.

As for the many games being like it I would say that this is not true. Even in games like Call of Duty where you are being ferreted from shooting gallery to shooting gallery the game is interacting with you. Based on how you shoot, the tactics you take, or the weapons you bring there is a difference in how the world will treat you. Even basic NES games had this push and pull, where an action produces a change in enemy formations or tactics. Heck even Pac-Man had this basic push and pull system. I think the basic at the core level Dear Esther had no player agency, which I believe is integral to a game.

Originally Posted by cindersphere I usually don't really think about games so excuse me if I make a few mistakes writing about them

I'm just throwing my side of this, is all. Nothing scientific here.

snip

I agree with what you're saying about the game's lack of player agency and all, but I do believe it exists if only in a ghost of a sense. You enter a shore side house and you hear noises in the next room. You look upwards at a stairwell and something whips over the balcony above. You don't need to do either of those actions but the game is prepared for your choices. It's built with player interactivity in mind. There's a developer's touch here albeit incredibly misguided and weak.

I'll concede that the game is a strange case because it so uninteresting in every way imaginable, which makes it hard to pin down. Is it a game? Well it's certainly not a visual novel. It's something, though.

Originally Posted by cindersphere Based on how you shoot, the tactics you take, or the weapons you bring there is a difference in how the world will treat you.

Maybe it was just a bad example, but that game, along with most shooters, don't treat you any different in that they only just throw guys at you.

I'm a bit further than my first visit to Haud Village ( rescued Lucrecia and had a big battle at Raftfleet ), but I just had to mention that this is the worst piece of game music I have ever heard -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExlBUymRIVQ

Mass Effect 2 suicide mission done. Game over. Poor Tali.

Once I get burnt out (which feels like it may be soon) on Aedis Eclipse, I'm starting Yggarda Union on PSP.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by Indignate Maybe it was just a bad example, but that game, along with most shooters, don't treat you any different in that they only just throw guys at you.

I don't think that's true. While you may only see it that way, each enemy has a rudimentary AI that does react to you, add on top of that the ability to switch weapons and shoot from various areas all give a player a certain amount of influence in any given situation. Certain weapons allow for certain tactics and for the most part most games allow you the freedom to carry them from one area to the next. They do not just throw guys at you, that game would be a Time Crisis or any light gun game really, a more sophisticated version of this idea would be the quake games though. However I maintain COD actually places a greater emphasis upon player actions and dealing with the consequences of your actions, such as picked up a shotgun and entered a fighting area with wide expanses will change how you interact with the world, just as much as picking up a sniper rifle in tight closed spaces. Beyond that most shooters have differences in accuracy ratings, area of effects on weapons, differences in hit boxing, and changes in movement speeds, all of which push back on you and you upon them.

I will say your sentiments would line up with my thoughts on every fighting game a few years ago, where they are are essentially the same game with a dude in front of you to fight. However a friend of mine recently showed me the differences between not only characters but the systems within each fighting game. You may not perceive the way a game reacts to you and the differences it produces, but that does not make them present. But thats just my quick thoughts on your thoughts.

****
Anyway I am finally playing Dragon Quest 8 and so far I really am not digging it. It just seems so forced to me. It seems like the game is purposefully vague in many ways just to make you explore, which would be fine if the world was worth exploring and not a flat plane with the occasional red chest. For anyone who has played it and remembers the game, does it pick up after the dog goes evil, or is this about how good the game is going to be until the end?

I remember Dragon Quest 8 being awesome from start-to-finish, topped off with a very memorable soundtrack.

Originally Posted by cindersphere I don't think that's true. While you may only see it that way, each enemy has a rudimentary AI that does react to you, add on top of that the ability to switch weapons and shoot from various areas all give a player a certain amount of influence in any given situation. Certain weapons allow for certain tactics and for the most part most games allow you the freedom to carry them from one area to the next. They do not just throw guys at you, that game would be a Time Crisis or any light gun game really, a more sophisticated version of this idea would be the quake games though. However I maintain COD actually places a greater emphasis upon player actions and dealing with the consequences of your actions, such as picked up a shotgun and entered a fighting area with wide expanses will change how you interact with the world, just as much as picking up a sniper rifle in tight closed spaces. Beyond that most shooters have differences in accuracy ratings, area of effects on weapons, differences in hit boxing, and changes in movement speeds, all of which push back on you and you upon them. I will say your sentiments would line up with my thoughts on every fighting game a few years ago, where they are are essentially the same game with a dude in front of you to fight. However a friend of mine recently showed me the differences between not only characters but the systems within each fighting game. You may not perceive the way a game reacts to you and the differences it produces, but that does not make them present. But thats just my quick thoughts on your thoughts.

I get that you can interact with and react from the game, but there are few FPSs that I feel react to you or your actions besides taking the rudimentary cover behind a wall or dodging a grenade. I mean, if I pull out a sniper, they don't take cover longer or try to flank me. If I pull out a shotgun, they don't really seem to try and create distance and use a long range weapon. You can be put so close to death and just wait behind cover the full 20 seconds to get your health back and the AI won't ever think to rush you unless they're designed to i.e. the Juggernaut in MW.

This is all just from CoD though, as that was the previous example. There are some shooters that do it better. Halo comes to mind as does L4D's Directer system, which is designed to react to how good or poorly you're performing. Again, I'm just talking about how the game reacts to you, rather then you having to react to the specificities of a weapon or the size of an area. I don't think CoD, and other shooters like it, does the 'reacting to you' part so well.

what have i done

shoulda made a new thread

what the hell is CoD doing here

you level up in CoD

Originally Posted by panzerfaust Yeah I suppose I missed a lot, but I was taking my time, really. Spent a long while drawing at some points, grinding more than I tend to prefer in my RPGs.

I may also just have goofed off too much, I'm actually going to start up 8 soon since I'm nearing the end of 7. It will be interesting to see how much quicker my play-through is now, FF7 originally took me 100+ hours since I maxed out levels and materia, this time currently I'm nearing the end at 30 hours.

let me know how you feel going back to it, because i'm almost ashamed to say i enjoyed it quite a bit.

i mean, it's easy to point out how stupid the plot is, but i don't know, the outrageous nature of the game feels very intentional. much of the game is so bizarre that i don't think it's simply a result of poor planning. not in a crazy conspiracy theory sort of way, but the way it still highlights the real problems of the main character. i think the ending makes that very clear.

Originally Posted by panzerfaust you level up in CoD

Originally Posted by panzerfaust let me know how you feel going back to it, because i'm almost ashamed to say i enjoyed it quite a bit. i mean, it's easy to point out how stupid the plot is, but i don't know, the outrageous nature of the game feels very intentional. much of the game is so bizarre that i don't think it's simply a result of poor planning. not in a crazy conspiracy theory sort of way, but the way it still highlights the real problems of the main character. i think the ending makes that very clear.

For me, FF8 is the rare JRPG where the story is all kinds of weird and crazy, but the game is fun enough that I don't care. FFX-2 is like that for me as well.

So.

Cyberpunk 2077.

guuuuh so good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr8fSPDXABs