TheDarkDemon

I enjoy the story surrounding a game,then gameplay mechanics... Third would be graphics and sound entwined. If the graphics are solid, I expect the sound to fit with it.

i like video games for the overall experience rather than just focusing on one aspect. as some of you probs know, the MGS series is my fave. but that's unrelentingly bashed on for it's amount of cutscenes. but personally, it progresses the story, has a fun amount of gameplay, and the cutscenes themselves are far from boring imo. i even love Heavy Rain, which is an interactive cutscene in itself. but then I can adore the Souls series which uses a scarce amount of cutscenes.

i skyped with Yadda and watched as he played through the entire Last of Us and personally didn't mind it. but i can't say entirely.

most games that i've played as of recent that heavily provide gameplay with little cutscenes have just been bland, insipid, and uninspired (destiny, tomb raider, etc.) i just prefer unique experiences in vidya i suppose. but I think that games need that variety or else it will become annoyingly stale. if developers dont take chances to create a different experience in a video game then games wont go anywhere. it's a medium that's surface is just being scratched imo.

games are fucking shit, i hate them.

Favorite video games: Deus Ex, Thief (the old one kek), System Shock 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R

I think TotalBiscuit set a nice defenition of a video game. If you can lose, it's a game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bvX4hzqcqc
We have all sorts of gameplay mechanics (they could be aiming and shooting; quick-time events; dialogue trees etc.) nowadays. If you don't like mechanics, you won't like the game.

By the way, if you're looking for an eye-opener in terms of story-telling in games, play Spec Ops: The Line (available on PC). The genre is the 3rd person modern military shooter, it's story-driven, it's covering some tough themes and it's criticising the ludicrousness of its own genre. Totally recommended.

Foley wrote:I think TotalBiscuit set a nice defenition of a video game. If you can lose, it's a game.

I suppose. But again you're limiting the progressiveness of video games. Not everything has to be traditional. I consider Proteus, and Dear Esther video games. Sure, you basically can't do much in the games, and the experiences from player to player dont really have any range as far as gameplay goes, but the experience of playing it and how it affects you will surely be different for almost everyone. It's just a different style of video game is all, I suppose. I'd be willing to hear out anyone's thought on this though.

and as far as the whole "losing" aspect goes: Minecraft's creative mode cannot kill the player, yet that's very much a game.

I don't necessarily see my opinion as a getaway for games to do this, however. Take Dead Space 3 for example. The game takes control away from the player to do an incredibly trivial "cutscene" that lasts about 1-2 seconds. This is a different experience, yes, but it can be an annoying one.

Dead Space 2 scared the piss out of me, lovely narrative that, but I really loved the beginning, just throws you right into the midst of chaos.

Peebles wrote:Not everything has to be traditional. I consider Proteus, and Dear Esther video games. (...) It's just a different style of video game is all, I suppose. I'd be willing to hear out anyone's thought on this though.

Dear Esther is like watching a map in a map editor with voice overs. And that's it, no ruleset, no goal - it can't be a game by any definition.

Peebles wrote:Sure, you basically can't do much in the games, and the experiences from player to player dont really have any range as far as gameplay goes, but the experience of playing it and how it affects you will surely be different for almost everyone.

This is the essence of art. It has nothing to do with being a game because the artistic value is only optional.

Peebles wrote:and as far as the whole "losing" aspect goes: Minecraft's creative mode cannot kill the player, yet that's very much a game.

Technically you can fall through the world and die in the creative mode. Minecraft is a sandbox, in general. It gives you a basic ruleset and resources. You can create goals and new rules with those and within them you can define failure states (if not you yourself then a mapmaker, server admin, whoever).
Plus, generally speaking, if you have a level editor in a game, the editor itself isn't a game.

Peebles wrote:and as far as the whole "losing" aspect goes: Minecraft's creative mode cannot kill the player, yet that's very much a game.

The least fun game ever maybe. Its an editing tool. The game is gathering the resources while staying alive making shelter etc.

A game needs to have a fun gameplay hook first and foremost (getting back to the first thing debated here). It needs to be fun enough so you can keep playing. You know a game really has a great gameplay hook if you can play a fair amount of the game without paying attention to cutscenes or story or music or anything else (Hotline Miami). Secondly it needs everything else. It should have a good story but it doesnt need to be great, it should have good music but it doesnt have to be memorable. Games for me warrant re-plays if I just want to go back and play some more of that amazing game. Its not about going through and watching the same story again.

But there is a goal. Make it to the the tower. Still a goal, buddy. Also, you can go too far into the water in Dear esther and die iirc. So that "if you can lose, its a game" argument sounds right with you, then technically, by your standard, Dear Esther is a game.

My point is, whether it's a fun game or even if it's lacking heaps of aspects that conventional games have, it can still be called a video game, just not by conventional standards. but even Minecraft's creative mode: there is no goal, you're right. but there isnt a goal in survival mode is there, really. to me, you can kinda set your own goal in both modes of the game. I played on Mike's MC server for a while. it was survival mode, and our goal was to gather and build a massive mountain with villages on each level. dying didn't matter. we didnt do it for shelter, or to survive. we did it because that's the goal we set for ourselves. we could have easily done it in creative mode too. games are essentially interactive experiences.

idk what im really talking about anymore lol. still. games vary. agree to disagree.

Let's set it straight, then. We agree that Dear Esther is something unconventional. Traditionally, video games have gameplay while Dear Esther practically doesn't. The question is: do you want to dump it into the video game category — and confuse most gamers — or do you want to create a new category for it — virtual instalation sounds good. I believe the latter option is worse from financial standpoint because noone is interested in a new medium by default.

Foley wrote:Let's set it straight, then. We agree that Dear Esther is something unconventional. Traditionally, video games have gameplay while Dear Esther practically doesn't. The question is: do you want to dump it into the video game category — and confuse most gamers — or do you want to create a new category for it — virtual instalation sounds good. I believe the latter option is worse from financial standpoint because noone is interested in a new medium by default.

All I'm really saying is that video game is a broad term. but games can have genres just like everything else. So yeah, I see what ya mean by category. That seems fair. Still considered a video game, just in different genre, or "category".

Lol, no. By category I meant medium. Virtual installation would not be a genre or a category of a video game, it would be a medium (separate from video games).

What would be so confusing to gamers then? I played Dear Esther when it came out and thought "this was a very unique game". I never once thought "this isn't a video game". Because I know games vary so much. If gamers are confused, so be it. Then they won't play it.