I do that too, sometimes - but I'm pretty sure I've seen a few people claim they like to actually vocalise. To each his own I guess.Mahoshonen said:
Syndicate Gets Gimmicky
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Voice commands make everything more immersive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ04mfAY2BU
LIGHTNING BOLT!
LIGHTNING BOLT!
I'll bring the pitch forksZen Toombs said:
So Kinect still isn't worth it, huh? Also, there are words that have more than on meaning (i.e. sitting, revolution, music, dog... Ummmm... fingering?) so a video game gimmick isn't an exception.
I can sympathise with the housemate incident. The exact same thing happend to me, but I was speaking swedish! Like, what the hell? That´s not even the same goddamn language, how on earth did that happen?
Regardless, I´m intrested to hear your take on the ending and the resulting backlash.
Regardless, I´m intrested to hear your take on the ending and the resulting backlash.
TLDR? A gimmick is built on to a game, a core mechanic has a game built onto it, and tangential mechanics work together to make a game.
I think the best way we can describe a gimmick in a game is by looking at games with silly tangential mechanics that still do not seem out of place. Bethesda games have a recent tradition of adding in mechanics like this. Fallout 3's VATS system is not at all necessary to the main experience, and one could play the entire game without it. I think though, that players who tried this would agree this makes for an entirely different game. Similarly with Skyrim, the dragon shouts were a miniscule addition to the combat, just a readied powerful spell that used no magicka. but again, players who used shouts would say that the combat felt different from when they didn't. I pick these examples because of how similar their function is to the Breaching in Syndicate. These are all powers exclusive to the player and they elevate our hero above the simple AI controlled entities. But by looking at how the games explore these mechanics we can see just how one seems like a gimmick and one seems like a core mechanic. I'll drop a hint, it all has to do with theme.
Especially in western games, the developers have in mind a role they want a player to embody before some designer comes up with a gimmick. It's a universal design philosophy that designers pay attention to what a player is feeling when they sit down with the various mechanics of a game. What they are looking for when they create roles for the player is to build core mechanics around an emotional theme. Fallout's theme is about intelligence and opportunism in a world struggling to hold together, and the VATS system reinforces the payers feeling that only through strategy and experience are you better than the many opponents you face and defeat. Skyrim's theme is about the powers inherent in the undiscovered birthright, and the Dragon shouts (as you are continually reminded) are something only a very few privileged "old guard" and the dragonborn can use to defeat their enemies. When we get to Syndicate, we see that the theme is more about the senses and abilities of people being augmented to make them more powerful in a never-ending arms race, and breaching is a player's way of interacting with that tech.
What makes it feel like it is executed so badly then? Many games struggle to give enough context for their mechanics, but Syndicate has the backstory and explanations to back their fantasy tech up (tecnobabble included!). Many games' visual and audio cues fail to enforce the feelings a mechanic supposedly made for, but Syndicate's breaches are visibly and audibly satisfying, and feel just as powerful as they should be in this world. Many games fail to provide enough opportunity to use a mechanic, but breaching in Syndicate is ubiquitous and not restricted in its access. So it looks good, it sounds good, we see it often, and it makes sense. In a movie that would make it a necessary element of the theme, but in games, we have the angle of exploration and discovery pay attention to, and in Syndicate one could say it was underutilized.
This one actually goes back to the context we're given about these augments. Why, when everybody is willing to KILL for these augments, do they only do about 4 of 5 functions? These cannot be core mechanics if they are never explored to their fullest potential. The reason breaching never felt like a core mechanic is there was never enough variety of basic gameplay to teach us that we were an augmented supersoldier, and what that might be like. Oh, and the boss fights. Those were crap.
I think the best way we can describe a gimmick in a game is by looking at games with silly tangential mechanics that still do not seem out of place. Bethesda games have a recent tradition of adding in mechanics like this. Fallout 3's VATS system is not at all necessary to the main experience, and one could play the entire game without it. I think though, that players who tried this would agree this makes for an entirely different game. Similarly with Skyrim, the dragon shouts were a miniscule addition to the combat, just a readied powerful spell that used no magicka. but again, players who used shouts would say that the combat felt different from when they didn't. I pick these examples because of how similar their function is to the Breaching in Syndicate. These are all powers exclusive to the player and they elevate our hero above the simple AI controlled entities. But by looking at how the games explore these mechanics we can see just how one seems like a gimmick and one seems like a core mechanic. I'll drop a hint, it all has to do with theme.
Especially in western games, the developers have in mind a role they want a player to embody before some designer comes up with a gimmick. It's a universal design philosophy that designers pay attention to what a player is feeling when they sit down with the various mechanics of a game. What they are looking for when they create roles for the player is to build core mechanics around an emotional theme. Fallout's theme is about intelligence and opportunism in a world struggling to hold together, and the VATS system reinforces the payers feeling that only through strategy and experience are you better than the many opponents you face and defeat. Skyrim's theme is about the powers inherent in the undiscovered birthright, and the Dragon shouts (as you are continually reminded) are something only a very few privileged "old guard" and the dragonborn can use to defeat their enemies. When we get to Syndicate, we see that the theme is more about the senses and abilities of people being augmented to make them more powerful in a never-ending arms race, and breaching is a player's way of interacting with that tech.
What makes it feel like it is executed so badly then? Many games struggle to give enough context for their mechanics, but Syndicate has the backstory and explanations to back their fantasy tech up (tecnobabble included!). Many games' visual and audio cues fail to enforce the feelings a mechanic supposedly made for, but Syndicate's breaches are visibly and audibly satisfying, and feel just as powerful as they should be in this world. Many games fail to provide enough opportunity to use a mechanic, but breaching in Syndicate is ubiquitous and not restricted in its access. So it looks good, it sounds good, we see it often, and it makes sense. In a movie that would make it a necessary element of the theme, but in games, we have the angle of exploration and discovery pay attention to, and in Syndicate one could say it was underutilized.
This one actually goes back to the context we're given about these augments. Why, when everybody is willing to KILL for these augments, do they only do about 4 of 5 functions? These cannot be core mechanics if they are never explored to their fullest potential. The reason breaching never felt like a core mechanic is there was never enough variety of basic gameplay to teach us that we were an augmented supersoldier, and what that might be like. Oh, and the boss fights. Those were crap.
I guess the Kinect play in Mass Effect 3 is only fun when you are already having fun. I could be wrong but that is the impression I get.
I still refuse to buy one though, like Yahtzee said, it never does anything to enrich the game, not worth £100+ in my opinion.
I still refuse to buy one though, like Yahtzee said, it never does anything to enrich the game, not worth £100+ in my opinion.
I propose the term 'coleslaw' for an extra effect that exists without interrupting gameplay.
When i go to a diner and order a burger, they always offer coleslaw and a pickle on a seperate, tiny bowl-plate (for the record, they offer this for other sandwiches, as well). A pickle i can understand as a standard burger topping, but a coleslaw? Useless and only liked by a small number of people who don't seem to understand they came her for a burger(other sandwich) and not any side dressings.
So, coleslaw is something people don't order, don't especially want, and don't usually eat, unless they recieve so much burger that they need something to act as a palate clenser.
When i go to a diner and order a burger, they always offer coleslaw and a pickle on a seperate, tiny bowl-plate (for the record, they offer this for other sandwiches, as well). A pickle i can understand as a standard burger topping, but a coleslaw? Useless and only liked by a small number of people who don't seem to understand they came her for a burger(other sandwich) and not any side dressings.
So, coleslaw is something people don't order, don't especially want, and don't usually eat, unless they recieve so much burger that they need something to act as a palate clenser.
Try this one: a gimmick is a feature that was put in to make the game sound/look better in promotional materials, but doesn't actually make the game better when you play it.
More shortly: A gimmick is something that was put in because it sounds good on the box.
More shortly: A gimmick is something that was put in because it sounds good on the box.
A gimmick is anything thats massivly pimped in the trailer and in ads but doesn't really affect gameplay.
I would add the Skyrim kill cams are a gimmick. But I won't say the Fallout kill cams are because the bloody death sequences were a staple of the first 2 Fallout games.
Some nintendo haterz say everything in mario galaxy is a gimmick but if you actually play the game you see that each of the abilities that mario have provide puzzle solving opportunities that can't be replicated by other means.
I would add the Skyrim kill cams are a gimmick. But I won't say the Fallout kill cams are because the bloody death sequences were a staple of the first 2 Fallout games.
Some nintendo haterz say everything in mario galaxy is a gimmick but if you actually play the game you see that each of the abilities that mario have provide puzzle solving opportunities that can't be replicated by other means.
Now that you mention it, charging through Syndicate with a small army of mind-controlled techno mind slaves sounds a hell of a lot better than what we actually ended up getting.
Heck, the boss fight thing. Easy way to add those hacking elements in. Have some goons come in to attack the player, only to have said player either kill off or hack into said goons. You could easily end up with a group of about four or five guys helping you fight the boss. That's loads more interesting than just popping out from behind a wall and shooting people. Or you could just hack the boss itself, and let him go nuts on his own cronies for a while until he eventually fights off your hacking attempts and comes at you all the more perturbed. All of that should have been possible within the mechanics they have set up.
Heck, the boss fight thing. Easy way to add those hacking elements in. Have some goons come in to attack the player, only to have said player either kill off or hack into said goons. You could easily end up with a group of about four or five guys helping you fight the boss. That's loads more interesting than just popping out from behind a wall and shooting people. Or you could just hack the boss itself, and let him go nuts on his own cronies for a while until he eventually fights off your hacking attempts and comes at you all the more perturbed. All of that should have been possible within the mechanics they have set up.
I disagree because the grav gun did have it's usesAkalabeth said:
For example;
Blocking a turret with an object, saving a grenade
Turning timed grenades into grenade launchers
Grabbing items from safety
Clearing roller mines, etc.
Does anyone else have that issue with the Kinect voice commands? That would be a fascinating incident report, of choice being altered in a game due to the audio from the game. I could see someone having problems with that, or a dev trolling us for a moment where we think we have choice.
Wow, an entire piece written about gimmicks and not one mention of the Wii from Yahtzee...progress. Joking aside, the part where he mentioned a friend altering his conversation just by talking shows why using voice controls are a bad idea in general. The system has no real way of disserning who's voice it needs to listen to and just takes anything said that is audible as a player's command.
Gimmick: most people already understand the definition as a blurry, but clear abstraction in their subconscious. People should just think for themselves without relying too much on words and exact definitions. These things cannot emulate thought.
Yeah, my definition of 'gimmick' pretty much matches the general consensus here. It's a feature in a game that is not fully integrated into the core gameplay. I'll say that the on-rails shooter sections in... the eleventy million games they exist in do fit this definition because they are not sufficiently different from the core game to be a change of place, but are not similar enough that your skills from the main game (and therefore the game design) can carry on.
(Although that makes me think of the rail shooter sequences in the Saints' Row games, which I don't think are bad. I'll submit that open-world sandbox are the only ones in which on-rail shooter sequences aren't gimmicky, because it is similar enough that your skills can carry on - since in the usual game you'll usually drive and shoot, so these are sections in which you only shoot (but on the same environments), different in the same way that a racing section is the one in which you only drive.)
The problem, I think, is devs not fully understanding the game design. In the same way that a sequel by a different team may end up being a visually similar experience but feel very different, because devs only copied the surface and were unable to comprehend the deeper structure (cf MCCLOUD, Scott, Understanding Comics, 2000) devs may not completely understand the basics of their own game and thus be unable to add meaningfully to it. The result of that is a game that feels generic, because devs were unable to deviate from the basic template.
The gravity gun was woven into the game's fabric, as it allowed the player to perform various things throughout the game without loss to its other functions. It didn't work well and could be ignored most of the time, but that doesn't mean it isn't a mechanic, just that it's a bad one.
Plus, there were some sections in which it was developed. Ravenplace is one example, since it forced you to rely on it more (although I just kept shooting zombies because fuck the gravity gun) and there was the beach where it could be used to move stuff instead of throw stuff at people. It's a small thing, but a gimmick won't get even this much, because this is depth and gimmicks don't have depth.
On the end of HL2e2, though, using the shiny balls of kapow instead of the rocket launchers means that 1) you can't have rocket launchers on the game at all and 2) you need to destroy the hunters first, instead of making a tactical choice about what to tackle first and how to approach the situation. I would argue that it's the shiny balls of kapow that are a gimmick, although a minor one.
(Although that makes me think of the rail shooter sequences in the Saints' Row games, which I don't think are bad. I'll submit that open-world sandbox are the only ones in which on-rail shooter sequences aren't gimmicky, because it is similar enough that your skills can carry on - since in the usual game you'll usually drive and shoot, so these are sections in which you only shoot (but on the same environments), different in the same way that a racing section is the one in which you only drive.)
The problem, I think, is devs not fully understanding the game design. In the same way that a sequel by a different team may end up being a visually similar experience but feel very different, because devs only copied the surface and were unable to comprehend the deeper structure (cf MCCLOUD, Scott, Understanding Comics, 2000) devs may not completely understand the basics of their own game and thus be unable to add meaningfully to it. The result of that is a game that feels generic, because devs were unable to deviate from the basic template.
I hate HL2, but I must disagree. Possibly because I hate HL2e2's ending even more.Akalabeth said:
The gravity gun was woven into the game's fabric, as it allowed the player to perform various things throughout the game without loss to its other functions. It didn't work well and could be ignored most of the time, but that doesn't mean it isn't a mechanic, just that it's a bad one.
Plus, there were some sections in which it was developed. Ravenplace is one example, since it forced you to rely on it more (although I just kept shooting zombies because fuck the gravity gun) and there was the beach where it could be used to move stuff instead of throw stuff at people. It's a small thing, but a gimmick won't get even this much, because this is depth and gimmicks don't have depth.
On the end of HL2e2, though, using the shiny balls of kapow instead of the rocket launchers means that 1) you can't have rocket launchers on the game at all and 2) you need to destroy the hunters first, instead of making a tactical choice about what to tackle first and how to approach the situation. I would argue that it's the shiny balls of kapow that are a gimmick, although a minor one.
On voice commands; quite a few years ago a friend brought over his Star Fleet Command (or some such) to show me how marvelous it was with speech commands. He had to change to a mic with an activate button because he has always yelled at video games. Without the button his screams of, "NO!" would suddenly be used to do an arbitrary command that would be game changing. Never for the good either.
It did teach me a lesson. Enjoy the game, toss out the gimmicks and I am never going to buy a Move or a Kinect.
It did teach me a lesson. Enjoy the game, toss out the gimmicks and I am never going to buy a Move or a Kinect.
I also felt that the 'hacking' or 'breaching' powers in Syndicate were a bit of a unneccesary add-on, but the game does present moments where they are useful. I.e: when you are a bit overwhelmed, or when you are faced with an enemy you are not that equipped to handle (shield carrying guys, until you get that particle beam ion cannon or whatever). Granted, I did play on Hard through the first playthrough, so there were probably more instances presented.
One of the upgrades that would've been nice is a range extender, sometimes it'd be cool if you could hack someone sniping from far away behind cover. And the boss fight where you only use 'breaches/hacks' yeah...that was the only one I didn't like. All the others were pretty cool though, even better than Deus Ex anyways (unlike the rest of the game, which Deus Ex was way better).
One of the upgrades that would've been nice is a range extender, sometimes it'd be cool if you could hack someone sniping from far away behind cover. And the boss fight where you only use 'breaches/hacks' yeah...that was the only one I didn't like. All the others were pretty cool though, even better than Deus Ex anyways (unlike the rest of the game, which Deus Ex was way better).