So what defines a true [computer] game? : Othor Games

» Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:52 pm

A post of mine in another thread lead to what I found to be a surprising point of view; one of many I suspect, but not something that had occurred to me before. I wanted to continue with a reply, but it would have been too off topic, and would have derailed that thread. CD discussions are great for tangent topics.

The question I have is, 'what design approach makes for a good (or bad) game?' ~in general or in specific.
*[It's something I'm interested in since I've taken up studying Unity3D.]

This is a fragment from the discussion; quoted from a previous thread where I posted of an appreciation for quality cutscenes as a gaming device. I've posted the quote and my reply as the OP of this new topic. The quote brings up an interesting point (one that I don't fully agree with), about games being an active medium [that contradict the use of passive elements as device].

This thread is for further replies to the post quoted (below), and is open for anyone to post their own opinion on the use of gaming device (discussed in the OP). I'd like to say unequivocally that I'm interested in both sides and new points of view ~and I am, but I must admit that I'm rather entrenched in my own; (discussed in the OP, below). I can say [unequivocally] that I am open to discussion, and will consider the pros and cons of any point of view.

Spoiler

Games are an active medium, they are something you are supposed to play, and cutscenes are a passive medium, like TV shows and movies, they are something you are supposed to watch. Making games with cutscenes is contradictory to the nature of games itself. I dont want cutscenes in video games for the same reason I woudln't want a movie that makes you press a button every 10 mintues to contiue it, making you do somethign active in order to continue a passive medium is contradictory to the very nature of passive mediums such as movies.

Games (as a medium) exist under no such restrictions; this holds true for even the small subset ~computer games (which is what I assume that you meant).

Yes... games are meant to be played, but there is no such doctrine for their design; and no such requirements for them to be [good] games, in fact it's almost impossible to cement an absolute definition to identify what is or is not a [good?] game. Though Merriam-Webster tries: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game

There are even games where the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=738w1GLq6Fc. :wink:

I would like you to (and truly appreciate it if you would) apply your gaming rule to the following computer games, and explain [either] how they are not true games, or that they are anti-game; or how they should present them differently using our current technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hff-KiPFKFE, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xsYZW726WE, http://chir.ag/stuff/sand/, the aforementioned http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mHUSV2lATE, and Planescape:Torment...

Spoiler

Oft acknowledged as one of (if not) the best cRPGs ever designed; and a game with really cool cutscenes for every high level mage spell.
(Here's five of 'em)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKZZEPoVb4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn58158ygXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_bgE5Rq8xo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcGC2byVmoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJyUQ7zarS8

The interesting point is [question really], is not only to ask 'Why might this contradict your gaming rule?', but 'How exactly could a developer impart events like these, if restricted to a [first person?] player controlled realtime view?'.

Why Half-Life's method of no cutscenes is important is becuase it's as close to pure game as it can be. It manages to tell its story soley THORUGH THE GAME itself, and not through a non-game cutscene. Cutscenes are a crutch in video game story telling becuase they are highly controlled, and involve no action from you the player, which means game devs can force you to see something, the side effect of this however is that cutscenes are, by thier very nature, anti-game.

They had an excuse for cutscenes back in the 90's becuase game graphics were so primitive they couldn't properly express everything, but this is 2013, and even the most basic of modern game engines can do it reasonably well.

You are demanding that nothing in the entire game ~any game, pulls away from a realtime [first person?] player controlled view... and that that defines the archetype of a proper computer game. This makes any attempt (or perceived need) by the developer to depict outside events ~an impossibility; and saying that deviation from this implies laziness or a lack of technology and is anti-game(!?). Have I misinterpreted your point?