Morning Discussion
by Alice O'Connor, Jan 20, 2011 5:00am PSTCan't think. Head fluffy. Lymph nodes sore. Throat stinging. Shoulders ache. You did want to know that, didn't you? Excellent. In that case, you may look inside my head:
If the bubblicious Ark Hotel were ever built, it would prove beyond all doubt that the world is completely and utterly brilliant and everything in it is absolutely perfect.
'Can' frontman Damo Suzuki rocks out with Dead Sea Apes. Yes, he's still verging on incomprehensible but yes, he's still got it.
A selection of lewd pranks and shamings from 17th Century London. There are no rude pictures and it's all very tame but only you know how cruel your workplace is.
One Night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble.
Is Bruce Wayne only a mask Batman wears? Of course not. Don't be daft.
The latest and greatest TF2 version of a pop song. This time, the Scout and Pyro sing 'Love The Way You Lie' by Eminem and Rihanna. Quite splendid.
Go on, now. Do a Thursday. Hop to it.
The War Z renamed Infestation: Survivor Stories due to 'trademark issues'
Microsoft reverses stance on 24-hour check-in, used games for Xbox One [update]
Mobile review: XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Sony apologizes for faulty PS3 update, investigating cause
Killer is Dead preview: Mondo uncertainty
I just realized why this is a bad word in games. It's not because they're making things easier and clearer for players to understand. It's not because of the "players can do less and see more" spiel that comes along with it. It's that "players do less" part.
When did games become about doing less? Games are about doing things, that's the entire thing that makes it a "game" in the first place. Oh sure, if something isn't fun then you can eliminate it. But as often as not game developers are just removing parts because they're there. I can understand trying to make something that wasn't fun into something that is. I can understand replacing something that isn't fun with something that is.
But more often than not game developers of late have said to themselves "anything that require less time and button presses is better." A great example is Mass Effect 2. They replaced wandering around on the surface of a generic planet with one of the worst mini games in history. Their logic seemed to be "it requires less time!" Which is just plain illogical, "we're giving players a shorter game!" is not a goal. It replaced a not fun thing with an even more not fun thing. At least going down on a planet, exploring and shooting stuff has the potential for fun.
Another, upcoming example is Skyrim. "We're making skills more useful by making less of them!" This is a purely illogical statement. They are not adding any gameplay mechanics by doing this, and reducing the choices the player has. They're giving the player less to do for nothing in return. If they had tried expanding the game mechanics of those skills, that would give the player more to do. If the game mechanics of those skills weren't fun, then they could have eliminated them and given themselves more time. "But it makes the game more interesting-" how? Again there's no added game mechanics through this specific move. There's just a reduction in what the player has to do and think about.
I can't wait until this fad is over, and game developers realize games are about being played, and not about requiring the least amount of intelligence and thought possible. Heck for a lot of games people find thinking to be the fun part.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 19 replies.
You must be logged in to post.