Thanks for Failing
- Thread starter Susan Arendt
- Start date
Agreed completely with Rise of Nightmares. I remember first hearin about it and havin two vastly different reactions. The first was the cynic. Its the first nonlaunch title for the Kinect I could think of that wasn't either a dance or sports game. The only other one I even remember was that god awful fightin game that came out with it. With so little other material to work from, the dev team would have to create a completely new system to deal with the mechanics of the game and first attempts almost never ever end well.
The second reaction was, not quite excitement, but like...happy optimism. Sure it was probably goin to suck, but damnit at least its an attempt. Even if it doesn't go well, other developers can see what worked and what didn't and go from there to make their own not dance games. If we get lucky, the Kinect might actually end up bein somethin more than just a gimmick.
The second reaction was, not quite excitement, but like...happy optimism. Sure it was probably goin to suck, but damnit at least its an attempt. Even if it doesn't go well, other developers can see what worked and what didn't and go from there to make their own not dance games. If we get lucky, the Kinect might actually end up bein somethin more than just a gimmick.
I actually feel bad for Rise of Nightmares. Horror games that can really consistently frighten players are becoming such a rarity, and it sounds like with a bit more polish, it could have been great. LA Noire...well I played it and as much as it got right, the logic of the investigations did get out of hand. Interesting article, Susan.
Hooray, failure!
In all seriousness, it's nice to see that there are still game companies out there who are willing to do things besides military shooters and licensed tie-ins. Now, if only we could get them to stay focused long enough for these projects to bear decent fruit, we'll be living the dream.
In all seriousness, it's nice to see that there are still game companies out there who are willing to do things besides military shooters and licensed tie-ins. Now, if only we could get them to stay focused long enough for these projects to bear decent fruit, we'll be living the dream.
I didn't play any of them, but I have been tempted to buy LA Noire simply because it seems they try.
I agree with your closing statement. Trying and failing is better than not trying at all. That deserves credit. Alpha Protocol was another recent example of a game that tried and only partially succeeded. Cheers for those games.
The detective story is incredibly hard to get right, maybe thats the real reason why LA Noire didn't succeed. So many games have tried and I will be hard pressed to think of even a single one succeeding. Maybe this is because the genre is so fictional that it defies logic, and therefore translates poorly to an interactive media. Or maybe human psychology is simply too complex to simulate in a believable way.
Edit:
For those interested in the investigation genre of games, I just realize that I should mention Covert Action. It's one of the games that Sid Meier made that never got popular, probably because the concept only partially worked. Sid Meier is most often known for his big hits, but he actually tried a lot without quite succeeding. Maybe thats the reason why he made such big hits occasionally.
Covert Action is a game where the player takes the role of a fictional secret agent that solves cases of international crime. Each case is generated procedurally based on the structure of 5-10 premade stories. The game has a number of mini games to retrieve information and act upon it. Since the game makes acting risky this encourages the player to get at least some facts and discourages trial and error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Action
I agree with your closing statement. Trying and failing is better than not trying at all. That deserves credit. Alpha Protocol was another recent example of a game that tried and only partially succeeded. Cheers for those games.
The detective story is incredibly hard to get right, maybe thats the real reason why LA Noire didn't succeed. So many games have tried and I will be hard pressed to think of even a single one succeeding. Maybe this is because the genre is so fictional that it defies logic, and therefore translates poorly to an interactive media. Or maybe human psychology is simply too complex to simulate in a believable way.
Edit:
For those interested in the investigation genre of games, I just realize that I should mention Covert Action. It's one of the games that Sid Meier made that never got popular, probably because the concept only partially worked. Sid Meier is most often known for his big hits, but he actually tried a lot without quite succeeding. Maybe thats the reason why he made such big hits occasionally.
Covert Action is a game where the player takes the role of a fictional secret agent that solves cases of international crime. Each case is generated procedurally based on the structure of 5-10 premade stories. The game has a number of mini games to retrieve information and act upon it. Since the game makes acting risky this encourages the player to get at least some facts and discourages trial and error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Action
I really liked this editorial. It's utterly refreshing to see people try things, which was enough to make me want to buy LA NOIR on its own.
Of course, frequently lukewarm reviews and panning of the "innovative" mechanics kinda put me off, so....
Of course, frequently lukewarm reviews and panning of the "innovative" mechanics kinda put me off, so....
I'm also glad for games like these. Perhaps for different reasons, though.Susan Arendt said:
LA Noire was hoping so much to grab people through their sense of sight (see also: the glut of 3D everything). Rise of Nightmares was hoping to pull people in through their kinesthetic senses (see also: other motion controls)
Touch and sight are our two most sensitive... err... senses. They are probably our most important (sight alone accounts for 80% of the information we process each day), too. But that also means they are the hardest to fool.
The "divide and conquer" principle doesn't apply here. A successful illusion has to feed the false information to several senses at the same time for the brain to believe it. It's why I don't believe an article claiming we've found aliens when none of the other major news outlets aren't corroborating.
Developers have a tendency to view people as technological constructs, such that if you can fool one of the inputs, you can change the output. But consider the written word... it has the ability to stir emotions of all sorts that are very real, and those emotions can override our senses. Yet there's no visual or tactile or auditory trickery. You can't fool the senses as easily as you can fool the mind, but you can only fool the mind if you use the right tricks.
(Another example? Police dogs. People try everything in the world to fool the dogs into not smelling the drugs. It doesn't work. The ones that succeed? They fool the handler into thinking the dog is smelling the wrong thing -- maybe by hiding the drugs in a burger or something. Choose the right one to target, and you can fool the whole set.)
Both of these games put forth a valiant effort, really as good as anyone could expect, and in doing so I feel they've proven that our general inability to "fool the senses" with some of this stuff isn't about the technology but about our technique.
As someone who loves the setting, L.A Noire is my GOTY. I wouldn't have thought that driving aimlessly simply for the sake of driving (sensibly I might add) could be so entertaining. Finding all the cars, film canisters and just exploring an L.A. I thought I could only see in movies was a dream come true for me.
Well that's great to know considering i picked up L.A. Noire yesterday na dstill haven't played it. I know it was supposed to have some kind of uncanny effect - that much i picked up from reviews and such, but i don't think i heard anyone call it a flat-out failure before.
Oh well, i'm still gonna try to like it. As for Rise of Nightmares i think like many others and will say it's biggest flaw was being exclusive to the Kinect.
Oh well, i'm still gonna try to like it. As for Rise of Nightmares i think like many others and will say it's biggest flaw was being exclusive to the Kinect.
It's the first time in my life this has happened... a double post. My streak is broken! D:
...please disregard >_<
...please disregard >_<
Well failing is the best way to learn and its better to make new mistakes than rehash old mistakes. Yet to get a hold of L.A. Noire yet...
I was very surprised that L.A Noire failed.
But things like Duke Nukem and Kane and Lynch were just destined to fail.
But things like Duke Nukem and Kane and Lynch were just destined to fail.
I disagree, in theory: if you do it right, then the process of controlling the character is intuitive, and you become completely immersed in the game. If you're actually doing stuff physically, and your physical actions provide feedback in the game, then being startled by something could literally make you jump. The key is making the controls intuitive enough that you are properly immersed.Woodsey said:
This is a conundrum for me, because I want to encourage game developers to try new things, but I don't want to reward failure and make them think they've done it right when they've fucked up. And they're going to fuck up at least once when trying new things, especially if it's based around something that hasn't been done before and you have to completely pioneer the new gameplay and technology elements.
But see, if I don't give them monetary support, then the people in control of the money aren't going to let them experiment again and thus, they won't perfect the ideas they came up with, but didn't get right the first time around.
Oh, what to do?
But see, if I don't give them monetary support, then the people in control of the money aren't going to let them experiment again and thus, they won't perfect the ideas they came up with, but didn't get right the first time around.
Oh, what to do?
Getting L.A. Noire for Christmas, so to each their own.
Although considering Russ gave the game 4/5, I wouldn't exactly say the game failed. Maybe for you it failed, but certainly not for everyone it did.
Although considering Russ gave the game 4/5, I wouldn't exactly say the game failed. Maybe for you it failed, but certainly not for everyone it did.
The problem with articles claiming certain games to be "failures" tend to be problematic, as it is virtually impossible to make such a thing without brining in opinnions.
I never played Rise of Nightmares, but I absolutely loved L.A. Noire. It was full of fun, intrigue, mystery and memorable scenes. The whole "Truth, Doubt, Lie" thing got a little old when you had to do it really often, but in the better cases it was broken up by chase scenes with awesome music and crime scene investigating.
That doesn't sound like failure to me. Of course, that's my opinnion.
I never played Rise of Nightmares, but I absolutely loved L.A. Noire. It was full of fun, intrigue, mystery and memorable scenes. The whole "Truth, Doubt, Lie" thing got a little old when you had to do it really often, but in the better cases it was broken up by chase scenes with awesome music and crime scene investigating.
That doesn't sound like failure to me. Of course, that's my opinnion.