EPTOff-Topic General Discussion - Page 2916
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 09 2014 02:52 Scip wrote: It's been linked before Yango... Obviously I missed that else I wouldn't have missed the video as well. EDIT: Also, I think some of you misconstrued his point, but there's not a whole lot of point in reviving a 600-page old discussion, so whatever. Though in fairness there's a certain segment of the video where he gets a bit too fanatical and doesn't express his point very well and pretty much every complaint about the video latches onto that part. | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
...yeah | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On September 09 2014 03:11 TheYango wrote: Obviously I missed that else I wouldn't have missed the video as well. EDIT: Also, I think some of you misconstrued his point, but there's not a whole lot of point in reviving a 600-page old discussion, so whatever. Well it's not like we have anything better to talk about. | ||
|
Frudgey
Canada3367 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On September 09 2014 02:57 onlywonderboy wrote: Going back and rereading old conversation in this thread is weird. Like a time capsule. That's exactly what it is... Anyway, just finished vacuuming and cleaning half of my dining room carpet. If you guys have never done it, you'd be surprised how much dirt can hide in carpets. | ||
|
Cixah
United States11285 Posts
I miss chips  . | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 02 2014 08:52 Requizen wrote: Really? That's fucking dumb. Sure, OoT had a lot of running back and forth (one of the things that annoyed me about it), but that's a horrible complaint. He's trying to make it sound like every game should be completely driven by "go do the thing because it's fun". I thought it was kind of funny that you brush this part off, when really the root of this is probably one of the major questions of modern game design. "Can the overall fun of a game be enriched by aspects/elements of the game that are individually not fun?" Egoraptor seems to subscribe to the idea that the answer is no--that a well-designed game should not have components that individually are not fun as those components will never serve to enrich the game. But honestly this isn't an easy question, I think, and the argument underlies a lot of other game discussions that are relevant to the LoL playerbase (as it often comes up in LoL vs. DotA discussions--since Riot on principle also tends to believe that "un-fun" elements will always detract from the game) as well as the SC/SC2 playerbase (as that question is also the root of the automine/MBS discussion in SC2's infancy). | ||
|
Tooplark
United States3977 Posts
On September 09 2014 02:28 jcarlsoniv wrote: you son of a bitch I was listening to this this morning and almost posted it My sister showed it to me last year - I think she might know Anais Mitchell? Why We Build the Wall and If It's True are two of my favorites. "But the ones who say the lies are the solemnest, they swear. And the ones who load the dice, always say the toss is fair. And the ones that deal the cards are the ones who take the tricks - with their hands over their hearts, while we play the games they fix." Why We Build The Wall is so good. Defs one of my favorites too. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On September 09 2014 03:43 TheYango wrote: Sorry to single you out Req, but: I thought it was kind of funny that you brush this part off, when really the root of this is probably one of the major questions of modern game design. "Can the overall fun of a game be enriched by aspects/elements of the game that are individually not fun?" Egoraptor seems to subscribe to the idea that the answer is no--that a well-designed game should not have components that individually are not fun as those components will never serve to enrich the game. But honestly this isn't an easy question, I think, and the argument underlies a lot of other game discussions that are relevant to the LoL playerbase (as it often comes up in LoL vs. DotA discussions--since Riot on principle also tends to believe that "un-fun" elements will always detract from the game) as well as the SC/SC2 playerbase (as that question is also the root of the automine/MBS discussion in SC2's infancy). That's an impossible argument. What is fun? Until "fun" is a quantifiable amount, you better not make any games because each element can be considered unfun by someone. Hyperbolic statements aside, I still think his point was dumb, but it's not what you addressed. In Ego's head, there should never be a door that is unlocked by story. Every locked door should only be unlocked by gameplay, because in his description, any time story stops the gameplay, the game is failing. I would not agree with his viewpoint because I like stories in games. In fact, I can put up with crummy gameplay if the story is good. And basically he's just pouting because he wants to be able to go anywhere without having to pay attention to what anyone is saying. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
I get what you're saying, but come on, explicit railroading has always been acknowledged as a really shitty way to limit the player's experience and to present story. There are a lot of ways you can restrict a player's movement and force the player to experience particular plot elements in the game and developers have learned over the years to present them in ways that are less jarring to the player. It's why modern game developers tend to try much harder to hide railroading elements behind fake choices and other things because they'll get called out on explicit railroading. It's not so much that the "door" is unlocked by the story, but that the door is not presented in a way where it appears to serve any purpose other than to force you to trigger a particular plot device in the game and the presentation is not altered in any way to hide this fact. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On September 09 2014 04:12 TheYango wrote: So you think that it's categorically wrong to say that hard railroading is an awful way to use story elements to restrict gameplay? I get what you're saying, but come on, explicit railroading has always been acknowledged as a really shitty way to limit the player's experience and to present story. There are a lot of ways you can restrict a player's movement in the game and developers have learned over the years to present them in ways that are less jarring to the player. It's why modern game developers tend to try much harder to hide railroading elements behind fake choices and other things because they'll get called out on explicit railroading. But the implication was that railroading was fine as long as there was no story and you had to figure it out yourself, which is bad. Explorative railroading is still railroading. While LTTP was more open as to where you could go and what you could do in what order, there were still (if I recall correctly, it's been a while since I played it) certain things you had to do in a certain order because you needed specific items to do them. This is still railroading, but it doesn't feel like it because instead of having a text that says "You can't go into this dungeon until you have X item", you just can't get there until you have X item. And funnily enough, he praises A Link Between Worlds, when it was pretty heavy on which dungeons you could and couldn't get to via items. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 09 2014 04:21 Requizen wrote: But the implication was that railroading was fine as long as there was no story and you had to figure it out yourself, which is bad. Explorative railroading is still railroading. While LTTP was more open as to where you could go and what you could do in what order, there were still (if I recall correctly, it's been a while since I played it) certain things you had to do in a certain order because you needed specific items to do them. Well, no, the implication is that railroading is fine as long as you do a good job sugar-coating it and tricking the player into believing they aren't being railroaded. You get railroaded super hard in most Bioware RPGs, for example, it's just that it's well hidden from you through a huge decision tree of choices that don't actually lead you anywhere different--which is exploiting the fact that it's a fairly small percentage of gamers that will actually play through the game enough times to actually take note of this fact. To someone who plays enough games to be able to tell the difference, this sounds stupid, but this is a discussion about game design. The goal of game design is to design games that sell/appeal to a lot of people, so designing game mechanics to be marketable even when they're shallow fits within the parameters of what a game designer is trying to do. On September 09 2014 04:19 wei2coolman wrote: I don't think hard railroading is bad if the goal of the game is to tell a story, but it definitely sucks when the games trying to highlight gameplay as the reason to play the game. Ideally there shouldn't even be this dichotomy between "story game" and "gameplay game" because of the implication that they detract from one another in some way in the first place. Gameplay elements should make sense with the story, and the way the story is written and presented should be paced in such a way that makes sense in the context of a game. You shouldn't have this idea of "it's ok for a story game but bad for a gameplay-focused game" because if the story and gameplay interact poorly, it weakens the overall experience regardless of where the focus is. Unfortunately, there's a scarcity of such games because while lots of developers can individually create good gameplay and good stories, there are very few that can create good gameplay that interacts well with a story AND a good story that interacts well with gameplay, so we choose to compromise and make this division in the first place. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
| ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On September 09 2014 04:25 TheYango wrote: Well, no, the implication is that railroading is fine as long as you do a good job sugar-coating it and tricking the player into believing they aren't being railroaded. To someone who plays enough games to be able to tell the difference, this sounds stupid, but this is a discussion about game design. The goal of game design is to design games that sell to a lot of people, so designing game mechanics to be marketable even when they're shallow fits within the parameters of what a game designer is trying to do. I understand where you're coming from, of course. No one likes games where you are just led by the nose from point to point, or games that take place completely in a hallway from start to finish (hi newer FF games). And if the video was truly about game design from a person who understood it, I'd likely have have less to say about it. But that's not the way it's presented, it really was just him complaining about petty things in an otherwise decent game because hating on OoT is a great way to get click bait, and (as the first 30 seconds of his video shows), he wants to prove how much more he knows than the OoT fanboys who are obviously blinded by nostalgia. Honestly, I think you're just inferring too much out of his argument. I've only watched a few Game Grumps, but every time I do Ego is bitching about some minute thing or another, he kind of just comes off as sorta whiny. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On September 09 2014 04:34 Requizen wrote: I understand where you're coming from, of course. No one likes games where you are just led by the nose from point to point, or games that take place completely in a hallway from start to finish (hi newer FF games). And if the video was truly about game design from a person who understood it, I'd likely have have less to say about it. But that's not the way it's presented, it really was just him complaining about petty things in an otherwise decent game because hating on OoT is a great way to get click bait, and (as the first 30 seconds of his video shows), he wants to prove how much more he knows than the OoT fanboys who are obviously blinded by nostalgia. Honestly, I think you're just inferring too much out of his argument. I've only watched a few Game Grumps, but every time I do Ego is bitching about some minute thing or another, he kind of just comes off as sorta whiny. I watch a lot of Game Grumps. Outside of real shit shows like Sonic 06, at least 50% of the complaining he makes about poor conveyance in games is shit the game has told him, but he was too busy making dick jokes or spamming A/X and not actually listening to the game. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
Again, this sounds retarded to someone who actually plays a lot of these games and puts a legitimate effort into learning how to play the games they play, but purely from a game design standpoint where you're trying to market exactly to those people who A/X through shit and skip tutorials, it's sort of valid. | ||
| ||
