i beg to differ.MikeTheElf said:Games are meant to be gimmicky. They're built around capturing your attention at least long enough for one to buy it, to feed the parties involved with its production and sale. Immersion is just a bonus that everyone feels entitled to. To use an allegory: food works the same way; one can sustain oneself on food that doesn't taste good, but once one tastes more enticing food, one expects more out of all future foods. Everyone was content when 8-bit games were on the market, just as everyone was content pumping quarters into arcade machines for hours or days.
Entertainment has always been a contest as to what can hold one's attention; this results in a battle to see who can produce the nicest gimmick, game or service. This means that when one company does something that is the slightest bit profitable, all companies in the field will do the same; CDs supplanted cartridges, DVDs CDs, Blurays are apparently next. People are attracted to the shiniest object, and the Wii outsold both PS3 and 360. Motion control was naturally the next step. No one cares about innovation; they all want money.
1- Once the game is purchased, the developer has succeeded; a game does not need to hold attention for the developer to succeed; it needs to hold attention for the game to be considered 'good.'theklng said:i beg to differ.MikeTheElf said:Games are meant to be gimmicky. They're built around capturing your attention at least long enough for one to buy it, to feed the parties involved with its production and sale. Immersion is just a bonus that everyone feels entitled to. To use an allegory: food works the same way; one can sustain oneself on food that doesn't taste good, but once one tastes more enticing food, one expects more out of all future foods. Everyone was content when 8-bit games were on the market, just as everyone was content pumping quarters into arcade machines for hours or days.
Entertainment has always been a contest as to what can hold one's attention; this results in a battle to see who can produce the nicest gimmick, game or service. This means that when one company does something that is the slightest bit profitable, all companies in the field will do the same; CDs supplanted cartridges, DVDs CDs, Blurays are apparently next. People are attracted to the shiniest object, and the Wii outsold both PS3 and 360. Motion control was naturally the next step. No one cares about innovation; they all want money.
while some may consider games mere entertainment that are ultimately gimmicky, you are forgetting that those same gimmicks lessen the attention captive period for a person. a gimmick is essentially a superfluous element intended to attract immediate attention, but failing to keep interest once discovered. examples of such would be diamonds reflecting light or racing stripes on a car.
gimmicks don't make games interesting; the rules of play and game mechanics do that. a golden controller won't make the game you play any more fun (though perhaps you will get a feeling of material accomplishment owning one).
I'll just add: I'm not sure I want immersion.Uber Waddles said:To Yahtzee: Immersion is in the eyes of the beholder. You might not find motion controls immersive, thats fine. But, simply put, other people do.
This is also why VHS outsold DVD for years, until the format was actually killed off officially by studios. And why it took HD DVD and Blu Ray over a year to get combined sales greater than that of said dead (and at that point, LONG dead) format. This is why the best selling console is the one that uses the lowest resolution, has the worst specs, and still uses DVD (Yes, so does the 360, I know). This is why DVD audio was all but abandoned, along with SACD, and non-disc formats.MikeTheElf said:2- Gimmicks make the games interesting enough from a graphical or interface standpoint. For example: 3D makes people think that the game is inherently more shiny graphics-wise. Lots of people are only concerned with the lustre of their polygons, and many more won't admit that having good graphics is one of their priorities for a game. The fact of the matter is people are drawn to shinier objects, thus interest is drawn when something newer and shinier comes out. This is why HDTV is big, and this is why consoles use disc-based games as opposed to cartridge-based ones.
Malisteen said:Dunno 'bout Portal 2. On the one hand, the first game was tremendous. But really, did it need a sequel? Like my other favorite puzzle game, Ico, it was pretty perfectly well contained. I mean, how much of a cop out was it to tack a little extra ending onto the first game where Chell didn't actually escape after all? And now you have to escape the same lab all over again, only now it's messy! and there are more arbitrary gimmicks!
Again, the first game was great, and Glados was an awesome villain who I do look forward to hearing more from. The visuals and environment look great. But I'm not expecting the kind of sparkling gem that the first game was, any more then I would if I heard there was a direct sequel to Ico in the works where the kids were captured from the beach three seconds after we left them and taken back to the castle to try and escape all over again.
As I've stated: they just need to grab attention long enough for the target audience to purchase them; it doesn't have to be a successful object. Case and point: Laserdisc. For those of you who don't know what it is, I'll save you a wikipedia trip. It's the first attempt at DVD. It's a disc the size of a record, and it too flopped horrendously. Because of its shiny appearance, schools across America purchased them left and right, because of its array of educational videos.Zachary Amaranth said:This is also why VHS outsold DVD for years, until the format was actually killed off officially by studios. And why it took HD DVD and Blu Ray over a year to get combined sales greater than that of said dead (and at that point, LONG dead) format. This is why the best selling console is the one that uses the lowest resolution, has the worst specs, and still uses DVD (Yes, so does the 360, I know). This is why DVD audio was all but abandoned, along with SACD, and non-disc formats.MikeTheElf said:2- Gimmicks make the games interesting enough from a graphical or interface standpoint. For example: 3D makes people think that the game is inherently more shiny graphics-wise. Lots of people are only concerned with the lustre of their polygons, and many more won't admit that having good graphics is one of their priorities for a game. The fact of the matter is people are drawn to shinier objects, thus interest is drawn when something newer and shinier comes out. This is why HDTV is big, and this is why consoles use disc-based games as opposed to cartridge-based ones.
You can sell shiny to some people, and graphics are a decent department, but it's far from the end-all, or even close. Not even in the realm of consoles does that work.
MikeTheElf said:1- Once the game is purchased, the developer has succeeded; a game does not need to hold attention for the developer to succeed; it needs to hold attention for the game to be considered 'good.'theklng said:i beg to differ.MikeTheElf said:Games are meant to be gimmicky. They're built around capturing your attention at least long enough for one to buy it, to feed the parties involved with its production and sale. Immersion is just a bonus that everyone feels entitled to. To use an allegory: food works the same way; one can sustain oneself on food that doesn't taste good, but once one tastes more enticing food, one expects more out of all future foods. Everyone was content when 8-bit games were on the market, just as everyone was content pumping quarters into arcade machines for hours or days.
Entertainment has always been a contest as to what can hold one's attention; this results in a battle to see who can produce the nicest gimmick, game or service. This means that when one company does something that is the slightest bit profitable, all companies in the field will do the same; CDs supplanted cartridges, DVDs CDs, Blurays are apparently next. People are attracted to the shiniest object, and the Wii outsold both PS3 and 360. Motion control was naturally the next step. No one cares about innovation; they all want money.
while some may consider games mere entertainment that are ultimately gimmicky, you are forgetting that those same gimmicks lessen the attention captive period for a person. a gimmick is essentially a superfluous element intended to attract immediate attention, but failing to keep interest once discovered. examples of such would be diamonds reflecting light or racing stripes on a car.
gimmicks don't make games interesting; the rules of play and game mechanics do that. a golden controller won't make the game you play any more fun (though perhaps you will get a feeling of material accomplishment owning one).
2- Gimmicks make the games interesting enough from a graphical or interface standpoint. For example: 3D makes people think that the game is inherently more shiny graphics-wise. Lots of people are only concerned with the lustre of their polygons, and many more won't admit that having good graphics is one of their priorities for a game. The fact of the matter is people are drawn to shinier objects, thus interest is drawn when something newer and shinier comes out. This is why HDTV is big, and this is why consoles use disc-based games as opposed to cartridge-based ones.
3- The controller actually can influence the ammount of enjoyment one gets from a game. I enjoy certain controllers over others, and certain button layouts to others. For example: I prefer PS3 controllers over 360, because of the joystick placement, and because the PS3 controller feels more comfortable. I dislike the GameCube controller for the same reason; I just don't find it comfortable. Some of the Wiimote attachments also feel more natural; MarioKart is much more enjoyable with the Wiimote wheel attachment. The controller takes care of the extrinsic factors which affect gameplay, enhancing the gaming experience, and in some instances increasing my level of enjoyment.
Yes I agree, I'd go with the matrix form too. The problem with that is it's REALLY FUCKING HARD. The brain-plug kind of stuff is just getting off the ground and is still really slow and inconsistent. You have to think for 30 seconds just to make one letter. The holodeck-type will be possible first.Pebkio said:So... the two different systems lead to two different ways of playing?
Motion Controls lead to the holodeck?
...while...
Button Controls lead to direct input?
Taken to those extremes, you can tell which one of those will be for hardcore gamers and which is for casual gamers. I've always said that I don't like games that get too realistic.
...
I vote for more of a matrixy form of gaming.
Keep in mind that this is ValVe we're talking about who's only disappointing sequel I can think of is L4D2 and even then I enjoyed it and even prefered it over the first game.True Nero said:if anything. i'm actually afraid to be excited for portal 2. trying to make sequals to games that were concidered perfect don't usually come out to well.