What Does It Mean To Player Character?

[Erttheking]

I understood what you were saying, I simply disagree with it. And I find this statement to be a gross oversimplification. I'm familiar with the genres of gaming and accepted conventions, that doesn't mean I know what the entire game is going to be. I just got 40k Mechanicus from the Humble Bundle and it's got elements of XCOM, but enough new ideas to make it fresh. Frankly, I think you're getting tunnel vision in the AAA industry.

What can I say, I'm not the type of person who demands for constant innovation, and I think variations on existing ideas can be highly enjoyable. Sekiro has more than enough new ideas in it to make it its own game, even though it's clearly part of the Dark Souls family. I actually enjoy Bloodborne more because of the changes to the formula it made.

And this is without getting into independent games, which bring an ungodly amount to the table. Technically Darkwood and Subnatica are both crafting survival games, but both have such creative and unique takes on the genre (Subnatica through a fully realized and developed underwater ecosystem, Darkwood through being a neverending nightmare) that they deliver experiences you just can't find anywhere else.

I'm definitely tunneling a bit towards AAA, but I've played a decent amount from the non-AAA scene like a Divinity, Shadow Tactics, Invisible Inc. and such. But indie games fall into stagnation to with 2D Souls games, roguelikes, Souls roguelikes, survival games.

Sekiro has a great core game to it but the problem is it used Souls game design for like everything else and it doesn't fit the game. Why can't Sekiro just be Sekiro instead of borrowing so many Souls' elements. Bloodborne is the best Souls game because it basically removes stuff that doesn't work in Souls. That's mainly what I'm talking about with game design, the only things in any game should be elements that enhance the game's core. Whereas so many games have elements that dilute the core game. Another super recent example is the new game Judgment (from the Yakuza devs), which is basically a Yakuza game with Yahtzee's review saying how he wished the detective gameplay was done much better. Why can't Judgment just be a detective game?

You accusing them of falling into stagnation because they're using the same genre is missing the forest through the trees. I mean, look at Subnatica and the amount of depth that goes into that game. Can you point into any kind of game that comes anywhere near close to providing what that game provided? Also let me bring up indie games that aren't 2D souls games, rougelikes, a combination of the two, and survival games. Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night, Road Redemption, Dream Daddy, A Story About My Uncle, Tooth and Tail, Graveyard Keeper, Crosscode, Return of the Obra Dinn, Northguard, City Skylines, Tannenberg, Xenonauts, Little Nightmares, Dungeons 2, Mark of the Ninja, Holy Potatoes a Weapon Shop, Overcooked, Lovers in a Dangerous Space Time, and this is only me accounting games on my Steam recent list. You need to get out there and look man.

As for your complaint about Judgement, I can see the problem there, I just have to question how many games actually do that, and I'd question more why combat can't be allowed in addition to the detective gameplay, and yet again this seems to be mainly you throwing shade at games you haven't actually touched yourself.

 

[CaitSeith]

I totally agree with only having gameplay elements that enhance the core game, I've said that numerous times and above in this post. The problem with JRPGs is that they rarely fix or improve their core mechanics. I would love a JRPG that doesn't have shit turn-based combat, I love good turned-based combat. The point of turn-based combat is that it's supposed to be so strategic that you need time to think but few JRPGs are strategic because there's no positioning involved. Why isn't there a JRPG with elemental interactions like Divinity? Systemic game elements enhance basically every genre of games, even Zelda finally incorporated that kind of stuff. Or how long it took JRPGs to give up on random battles (which only ever were a thing originally due to hardware limitations) yet it took forever for DQ to finally give up on that bullshit. Something like Valkyria Chronicles or Resonance of Fate is as much a core JRPG as a "classic" JRPG like a DQ game, neither have elements that stray from the core anymore than a DQ game. When you do literally the exact same shit for so long, it ain't good.

JRPGs combat is more puzzle than strategy. You should try Chrono Trigger, a SNES JRPG without random battles, it has combo attacks, and the special attacks have different AoE which determines the number of enemies it can hit at the same time (as enemies constantly move, making timing a relevant factor in battle). Valkyria Chronicles and Resonance of Fate aren't turn-based JRPGs, they are tactic-RPGS (like Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre or Fire Emblem); and the fact that you must plan positioning all the time changes the core experience that turn-based JRPGs are expected to provide.

Simple isn't worse than complex. Vanilla isn't worse than Neapolitan. But you keep treating vanilla as if it should taste like Neapolitan.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The golden age of television varied and diverse? By what measure? All of the critically acclaimed TV shows are either about anti-heroes, over-stuffed with nudity and shock value, or banking on 80's nostalgia, or all three. A lot of these shows are really good, but nearly all of them follow a very clear formula to success, just like videogames. Name me one show from the golden age that did something truly different, and wasn't just a more shocking version, a less romanticized version, or a deconstruction of something we'd already seen. And reality TV is still all over the fucking place. It's pretty much completely taken over The Discovery Channel and National Geographic, among many others.

There's so many great shows about so many different kinds of subject matter. There's all kinds of stuff from Big Little Lies (can't wait for the next episode), Legion, Atlanta, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Good Place, Stranger Things, Black Mirror, Killing Eve, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Good Omens, Sharp Objects, The Americans, Altered Carbon, The Doom Patrol, Westworld, The Marvelous Ms Maisel, GLOW, Maniac, Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Billions, Man in the High Castle, The End of the Fucking World, Jett, The Night Manager. And, that's just the shows I've seen. There's a bunch of critically acclaimed stuff I haven't seen like True Detective, The Handmaiden's Tales, Chernobyl, Fleabag, Barry, The Good Fight, etc. And you can find pretty much all these shows going to say the TV section of RottenTomatoes, you don't have to dig for them like you do video games or music.

Gloomhaven is just Munchkin but grimdark.

Lol, Munchkin sucks.

You accusing them of falling into stagnation because they're using the same genre is missing the forest through the trees. I mean, look at Subnatica and the amount of depth that goes into that game. Can you point into any kind of game that comes anywhere near close to providing what that game provided? Also let me bring up indie games that aren't 2D souls games, rougelikes, a combination of the two, and survival games. Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night, Road Redemption, Dream Daddy, A Story About My Uncle, Tooth and Tail, Graveyard Keeper, Crosscode, Return of the Obra Dinn, Northguard, City Skylines, Tannenberg, Xenonauts, Little Nightmares, Dungeons 2, Mark of the Ninja, Holy Potatoes a Weapon Shop, Overcooked, Lovers in a Dangerous Space Time, and this is only me accounting games on my Steam recent list. You need to get out there and look man.

As for your complaint about Judgement, I can see the problem there, I just have to question how many games actually do that, and I'd question more why combat can't be allowed in addition to the detective gameplay, and yet again this seems to be mainly you throwing shade at games you haven't actually touched yourself.

I'm not saying you can't make a great survival game, I'm just saying there's a lot of them (like MMSs from last-gen) and that does cause overall stagnation. Edit: Mark Brown's Soulslike video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx7BWayWu08] pretty much mirrors of the issue with too many similar games. Bloodstained is literally Castlevania. I did say I definitely have some tunneling to AAA as I'm not an indie aficionado but I did mention wanting to play Obra Dinn (in my last post), I have Mark of the Ninja (just haven't gotten to it), and I'm well aware of Cities Skylines. As I said above to Shinji, when you have to really dig for good stuff, how healthy is the medium?

Detective work and combat are pretty opposite of each other, not saying you can't do both. Again, the overall trend is very much towards games need combat to fill content. I haven't play Judgment obviously but half-assed game elements aren't something that makes me wanna play it or any game. I have played Sekiro (still need to finish it) but I'm not just throwing shade at games I've never played. Sekiro has lots of design issues. And, again, so many games are so similar to each other that you don't need to play them all. Do I need to play RDR2 if I've tried a Rockstar game here and there and don't like them? I hated RDR1 so much I couldn't bring myself to finish it.

JRPGs combat is more puzzle than strategy. You should try Chrono Trigger, a SNES JRPG without random battles, it has combo attacks, and the special attacks have different AoE which determines the number of enemies it can hit at the same time (as enemies constantly move, making timing a relevant factor in battle). Valkyria Chronicles and Resonance of Fate aren't turn-based JRPGs, they are tactic-RPGS (like Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre or Fire Emblem); and the fact that you must plan positioning all the time changes the core experience that turn-based JRPGs are expected to provide.

Simple isn't worse than complex. Vanilla isn't worse than Neapolitan. But you keep treating vanilla as if it should taste like Neapolitan.

Then, they're bad puzzle games. Resonance of Fate isn't a tactical RPG. FF12 kinda proves how simple the standard combat is because all it takes is a few If-Then-Else statements for combat to play itself, that's a pretty shitty puzzle. If you can do the combat in real-time as FF12 proves, then the combat proves simple enough to not merit it being turn-based as that's literally the whole point of doing something turn-based, being it can't be done in real-time. The "classic" JRPG always tries to make turn-based combat fast paced, which is oxymoronic. Either pick one or the other and go with it.

Vanilla is the best part of Neapolitan.

 

[Casual Shinji]

There's so many great shows about so many different kinds of subject matter. There's all kinds of stuff from Big Little Lies (can't wait for the next episode), Legion, Atlanta, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, The Good Place, Stranger Things, Black Mirror, Killing Eve, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Good Omens, Sharp Objects, The Americans, Altered Carbon, The Doom Patrol, Westworld, The Marvelous Ms Maisel, GLOW, Maniac, Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Billions, Man in the High Castle, The End of the Fucking World, Jett, The Night Manager. And, that's just the shows I've seen. There's a bunch of critically acclaimed stuff I haven't seen like True Detective, The Handmaiden's Tales, Chernobyl, Fleabag, Barry, The Good Fight, etc. And you can find pretty much all these shows going to say the TV section of RottenTomatoes, you don't have to dig for them like you do video games or music.

I could equally pick these shows apart and criticize them for doing things other shows and movies already have. Stranger Things is just Stephen King/Steven Spielberg the show, Black Mirror is The Twilight Zone, Killing Eve is just another cat-and-mouse serial killer tale, Brooklyn Nine-Nine is a comedy cop show, Doom Patrol is more superhero related stuff, Westworld is a remake, and The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina is a show about witches. None of this is new or original, all of it I have already experienced in some form before, which by your standards mean they're not worth spit.

Note that I'm not saying these shows aren't great, but if you apply the same level of scrutiny toward these shows as you do toward videogames then they wouldn't hold up either. The only difference is you choosing to focus wholly on the negatives of games and not on those of these series.

Also, pressuming people actually have to dig for games and music as opposed to TV shows, and not just you.

 

[Yoshi178]

Chocolate is the best part of Neapolitan.

Fixed*

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What makes things difficult about video games is they have an extra, most significant dynamic that no other medium is really capable of: interactivity. Sure, some shows like Black Mirror: Bandersnatch allow you to pick an outcome, but it ultimately falls flat because people don?t want to pick anything in those mediums; they just want to be told a good story, period. There?s a reason why Bandersnatch didn?t do as well as the more traditional episodes before it.

Board games also have interactivity, but are still a night and day difference from video games. For one, there?s really nothing to them from a development standpoint. Anyone with some paper and a pen can create their own board game. The reason they are doing so well is mostly due to the user agency afforded or more specifically, required by the simplicity in their design. Imagination. It?s also why books are generally considered better than their movie/tv counterparts.

Video games take not only a lot of resources, time, technology, artistry and money to create, but also have the added challenge of what ?interactivity? is going to mean to the end user. True, video games are stagnating currently but that goes with the territory of already being beyond what other mediums can offer. Knowing that they can do more means they?re not so easily let off the hook like other mediums. Getting there will involve great advances in technology and ingenuity; most likely VR as a prime example. But for now, there are only so many ways to manipulate a digital figure on screen with a controller and make it feel ?fresh?.

There are glimmers of smaller feats in the meantime. Death Stranding has been hinted at doing something new with the online component in terms of encouraging collaboration and bringing people together.

However, I personally think games can be where they are and still feel worthwhile. The biggest issue to me would be finding the best way to meld storytelling and gameplay so that neither detract from the other. That would be strapping the cart to the horse.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I could equally pick these shows apart and criticize them for doing things other shows and movies already have. Stranger Things is just Stephen King/Steven Spielberg the show, Black Mirror is The Twilight Zone, Killing Eve is just another cat-and-mouse serial killer tale, Brooklyn Nine-Nine is a comedy cop show, Doom Patrol is more superhero related stuff, Westworld is a remake, and The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina is a show about witches. None of this is new or original, all of it I have already experienced in some form before, which by your standards mean they're not worth spit.

Note that I'm not saying these shows aren't great, but if you apply the same level of scrutiny toward these shows as you do toward videogames then they wouldn't hold up either. The only difference is you choosing to focus wholly on the negatives of games and not on those of these series.

Also, pressuming people actually have to dig for games and music as opposed to TV shows, and not just you.

I'm not saying saying everything has to be completely original as everything takes inspiration from something(s). My point with the TV shows was they are diverse in subject matter, which is what you asked about. TVs superheroes alone are more diverse than movies along with video games. The TV version of Westworld is a remake akin to John Carpenter's The Thing in that it's quite different. There's several video games that are different IPs that are more similar to each other than Westworld TV and Westworld movie. You say Stranger Things is just King/Spielberg the show but what games have kids as the lead characters? Video games still have issues with having leads that aren't white adult males. There's far more diversity in both TV and board games than there is in video games.

Most of the top rated and selling video games aren't very good. It's not as bad as music where you can't even turn on the radio and hear anything good (that isn't older music), probably hard to just find new music with people playing actual instruments. Whereas when you look at the 70s, it was probably hard to put on the radio and hear something that wasn't good.

What makes things difficult about video games is they have an extra, most significant dynamic that no other medium is really capable of: interactivity.

The reason [board games] doing so well is mostly due to the user agency afforded or more specifically, required by the simplicity in their design. Imagination.

Interactivity is definitely a game-changer. For me, it's really disappointing how such a large percentage of video games just fall back on combat for the main form of interactivity. So much more could be done in that department with current technology. Mark Brown's newest video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9TzqNQBmr0] brings up the topic of making talking as much fun as shooting. Board games are killing it just game design alone, not just because of imagination. Sure, tabletop RPGs will always have the edge because of imagination and the natural open-endedness afforded by the medium though video game RPGs can be much better role-playing games than they currently are. It shows that how far RPGs have gone the wrong way when games like Divinity that are wanting to bring back old-school RPGs are better role-playing games that "modern" RPGs.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You say Stranger Things is just King/Spielberg the show but what games have kids as the lead characters?

Have you played an idie game in the last 6 years?

Video games still have issues with having leads that aren't white adult males. There's far more diversity in both TV and board games than there is in video games.

Uhm what? Most if not all of those shows you just mentioned have white people as the leads. Look at the highest rated series; all white. Most of them dudes too.

Most of the top rated and selling video games aren't very good.

Says who, you? You've already made it clear how astronomically high your standards for videogames are compared to any other form of entertainment, and I can only assume based on recent comments that you haven't even played most of these top rated and selling games.

And so what if they aren't? There's so much to choose from besides what's popular, and if you're only deciding what to play based on that you're doing it wrong.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You say Stranger Things is just King/Spielberg the show but what games have kids as the lead characters? Video games still have issues with having leads that aren't white adult males.

There are in fact way too many kids as lead characters in games. I feel like half of jrpgs (or more) is a cast of high school kids.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Have you played an idie game in the last 6 years?

Uhm what? Most if not all of those shows you just mentioned have white people as the leads. Look at the highest rated series; all white. Most of them dudes too.

Says who, you? You've already made it clear how astronomically high your standards for videogames are compared to any other form of entertainment, and I can only assume based on recent comments that you haven't even played most of these top rated and selling games.

And so what if they aren't? There's so much to choose from besides what's popular, and if you're only deciding what to play based on that you're doing it wrong.

I forgot about the likes of Braid, Limbo, Inside (which I've played them all) as you're barely even playing as a character (with any kind of personality) in those.

Over half the shows I listed have main characters that aren't white males. Are you seriously trying to argue gaming is more diverse than TV shows in both characters and subject matter?

Just look at Spiderman, the mission design was absolute crap in it. It was a fun game and all but it could've been so much better. Not to mention, writing is rather shit in the medium so most games could be so much better with good writing. How are my standards so high when anyone could easily imagine say a Bethesda game with good writing and characters? How do you score a game in the 90s when it's quite easy to see the game could be decently better? I love Horizon and personally gave it an 8/10 (maybe 8.5 on a good day).

I'm just saying it's rather annoying having to dig for the really good games like it is with music, which usually has me searching non-english sites, though gaming isn't that bad. When a medium is in a golden age, it's easy to find loads of great content like music in the 70s and TV presently.

There are in fact way too many kids as lead characters in games. I feel like half of jrpgs (or more) is a cast of high school kids.

I was thinking kids pre high school. But yeah, JRPGs love teenage characters for some reason, so much so that Nier's main character in the Japanese release was a teenage brother. I guess Japanese pubs think anything else can't sell copies like how in the West, pubs feel white short hair men are the only main characters (usually voiced by Nolan North or Troy Baker) that'll sell.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm just saying it's rather annoying having to dig for the really good games like it is with music, which usually has me searching non-english sites, though gaming isn't that bad. When a medium is in a golden age, it's easy to find loads of great content like music in the 70s and TV presently.

Music wasn't better in the 70s. It's just that people forgot about most of the real garbage from that era so you can't find it anymore.

90% of anything is crap. The stuff that isn't crap ends up sticking around.

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm just saying it's rather annoying having to dig for the really good games like it is with music, which usually has me searching non-english sites, though gaming isn't that bad. When a medium is in a golden age, it's easy to find loads of great content like music in the 70s and TV presently.

Music wasn't better in the 70s. It's just that people forgot about most of the real garbage from that era so you can't find it anymore.

90% of anything is crap. The stuff that isn't crap ends up sticking around.

I tried telling him that. My older brother does not get this either when it comes to the rap genre in the 90s/early 2000s. He thinks naming 30 or so rappers makes up 90%. He ain't even close.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Over half the shows I listed have main characters that aren't white males. Are you seriously trying to argue gaming is more diverse than TV shows in both characters and subject matter?

It's illogical to compare them to eachother directly in terms of character diverity, because they opperate differently. In a game you can just be a nameless figure in a red cloak wandering through a desert. In a TV show this isn't really possible, because your character is going to need a personality. Does that mean TV shows are less diverse than gaming because these types of characters don't exist in that medium? Same with subject matter. Certain things games do that TV doesn't and vice versa.

Just look at Spiderman, the mission design was absolute crap in it. It was a fun game and all but it could've been so much better. Not to mention, writing is rather shit in the medium so most games could be so much better with good writing. How are my standards so high when anyone could easily imagine say a Bethesda game with good writing and characters? How do you score a game in the 90s when it's quite easy to see the game could be decently better? I love Horizon and personally gave it an 8/10 (maybe 8.5 on a good day).

Well, that's your opinion regarding Spider-Man. But seeing you admitted the game was fun, I doubt the mission design was as bad you make it out to be. Again, this just feels like you raking a game over the coals for a few stumbles. The Last Guardian had a lot bigger problems than Spider-Man, you know.

And writing is always going to be of a lesser quality seeing as it's not a solely narrative medium. TV and movies are never going to have the same quality in writing as books neither. But just like TV and movies have a visual and sound edge over books, so too does gaming have an interactive edge over all three. Games don't necessarily need a good story to tell a good story, because just the act of you controlling a character and moving around through a world already creates a personal story that no other medium can.

I'm just saying it's rather annoying having to dig for the really good games like it is with music, which usually has me searching non-english sites, though gaming isn't that bad. When a medium is in a golden age, it's easy to find loads of great content like music in the 70s and TV presently.

Except most of that golden TV content is gated behind subscriptions, which is only getting worse. If you only have a PS4 and a Switch (coupled with a PC which everybody pretty much has by default) you can play nearly eveything there is currently in terms of gaming content. Yet with TV you're going to need three seperate subscriptions to see maybe half of what is out there.

And all you need to do to find new games is just check on youtube, where there's loads of list rundowns of most of the games on PC, PS4, Switch, and Xbox. It's really not that hard to get a clear picture on what is available.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'm just saying it's rather annoying having to dig for the really good games like it is with music, which usually has me searching non-english sites, though gaming isn't that bad. When a medium is in a golden age, it's easy to find loads of great content like music in the 70s and TV presently.

Music wasn't better in the 70s. It's just that people forgot about most of the real garbage from that era so you can't find it anymore.

90% of anything is crap. The stuff that isn't crap ends up sticking around.

What modern music comes anywhere near close to the likes of Queen, Zeppelin, Floyd, Stones, Beatles, Boston, CCR, Rush, Who, etc.? There's only one band since the classic rock era that I'd put in that tier. Sure there was crap in the 70s but you could turn on the radio and hear some of the best music ever made. Now, you'll almost never hear any good new music on the radio

It's illogical to compare them to eachother directly in terms of character diverity, because they opperate differently. In a game you can just be a nameless figure in a red cloak wandering through a desert. In a TV show this isn't really possible, because your character is going to need a personality. Does that mean TV shows are less diverse than gaming because these types of characters don't exist in that medium? Same with subject matter. Certain things games do that TV doesn't and vice versa.

What percentage of games would you say have main characters that don't have to kill (or subdue) 100s/1,000s of enemies? When so many games are combat focused, you're missing out on so many different kinds of characters.

Well, that's your opinion regarding Spider-Man. But seeing you admitted the game was fun, I doubt the mission design was as bad you make it out to be. Again, this just feels like you raking a game over the coals for a few stumbles. The Last Guardian had a lot bigger problems than Spider-Man, you know.

And writing is always going to be of a lesser quality seeing as it's not a solely narrative medium. TV and movies are never going to have the same quality in writing as books neither. But just like TV and movies have a visual and sound edge over books, so too does gaming have an interactive edge over all three. Games don't necessarily need a good story to tell a good story, because just the act of you controlling a character and moving around through a world already creates a personal story that no other medium can.

Insomniac developed a great core game but failed to make it special like Rocksteady did with Batman. It's an open world game to a T. Just about every review criticizes the side missions as they are literally chores. Danny O'Dwyer even called it a Tony Hawk game in that sense. The main missions are better but usually just devolve into dropping Spiderman into a stealth mission or combat arena and the memorable parts of said missions are usually character or story beats, not the design or structure of the actual gameplay.

The problem with writing in games is that very very little good writing talent is in the industry. It's like how TV used to be and all the talent was in film, whereas now that has shifted. Remember when David Caruso thought he was too good for TV and now you have just about all the top acting talent working in TV now whether it's say Amy Adams or Anthony Hopkins. Even the top regarded written games usually have massive issues with the writing.

Except most of that golden TV content is gated behind subscriptions, which is only getting worse. If you only have a PS4 and a Switch (coupled with a PC which everybody pretty much has by default) you can play nearly eveything there is currently in terms of gaming content. Yet with TV you're going to need three seperate subscriptions to see maybe half of what is out there.

And all you need to do to find new games is just check on youtube, where there's loads of list rundowns of most of the games on PC, PS4, Switch, and Xbox. It's really not that hard to get a clear picture on what is available.

You can binge shows and really only have one subscription at any one time or find "ways" around it. You really need to follow games to get a good idea of what's out there. I don't follow TV news or anything and I know of pretty much all the good shows out there.

 

[Casual Shinji]

What percentage of games would you say have main characters that don't have to kill (or subdue) 100s/1,000s of enemies? When so many games are combat focused, you're missing out on so many different kinds of characters.

Probably a lot, but then I'm not familiar with every game genre there is. If we're talking first/third-person action games, then probably a lot. But there's plenty of different types of characters you can put in combat scenarios, it all depends on whether the developer dares or is allowed to divert from the status quo.

Insomniac developed a great core game but failed to make it special like Rocksteady did with Batman. It's an open world game to a T. Just about every review criticizes the side missions as they are literally chores. Danny O'Dwyer even called it a Tony Hawk game in that sense. The main missions are better but usually just devolve into dropping Spiderman into a stealth mission or combat arena and the memorable parts of said missions are usually character or story beats, not the design or structure of the actual gameplay.

Yes, overall Spider-Man was more generic than Batman: Arkham in terms of gameplay design. But then it also had more satisfying combat, a more fun, lighthearted tone, and characters that felt more emotionally investing. And this brings the game at roughly the same level of quality. I don't prefer Arkham over Spider-Man, I just prefer how it handles specific character/story related gameplay moments.

The problem with writing in games is that very very little good writing talent is in the industry. It's like how TV used to be and all the talent was in film, whereas now that has shifted. Remember when David Caruso thought he was too good for TV and now you have just about all the top acting talent working in TV now whether it's say Amy Adams or Anthony Hopkins. Even the top regarded written games usually have massive issues with the writing.

How do you even know there's very, very little writing talent in the industry? Are you just basing that on you not liking the writing, because that can be attributed to many factors. There is a tremendous amount of writing talent in the industry, but because games are primarily about gameplay that talent won't show itself in the same way as it does in TV and movies.

You can binge shows and really only have one subscription at any one time or find "ways" around it. You really need to follow games to get a good idea of what's out there. I don't follow TV news or anything and I know of pretty much all the good shows out there.

And that "way" is actively harming those shows, so that sounds a bit counter-productive from someone who's been praising those shows. But setting that aside, TV shows are still more mainstream than gaming so obviously the exposure is larger as well. This has nothing to do with game quality percentage, just with mainstream appeal. It'd probably be a lot harder for me to find good boardgames than it would be finding good videogames.

 

[Yoshi178]

I'm just saying it's rather annoying having to dig for the really good games like it is with music, which usually has me searching non-english sites, though gaming isn't that bad. When a medium is in a golden age, it's easy to find loads of great content like music in the 70s and TV presently.

Music wasn't better in the 70s. It's just that people forgot about most of the real garbage from that era so you can't find it anymore.

90% of anything is crap. The stuff that isn't crap ends up sticking around.

What modern music comes anywhere near close to the likes of Queen, Zeppelin, Floyd, Stones, Beatles, Boston, CCR, Rush, Who, etc.?

Led Zeppelin didn't even write their own songs...

 

[CaitSeith]

Chocolate is the best part of Neapolitan.

Fixed*

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Probably a lot, but then I'm not familiar with every game genre there is. If we're talking first/third-person action games, then probably a lot. But there's plenty of different types of characters you can put in combat scenarios, it all depends on whether the developer dares or is allowed to divert from the status quo.

Putting characters into a combat scenario is different from the game being primarily about combat from a gameplay perspective. RPGs as a genre have no reason to be about combat yet combat is the main form of gameplay in probably at least 90% of them. Whereas a FPS has to be about shooting since it's a shooter.

Yes, overall Spider-Man was more generic than Batman: Arkham in terms of gameplay design. But then it also had more satisfying combat, a more fun, lighthearted tone, and characters that felt more emotionally investing. And this brings the game at roughly the same level of quality. I don't prefer Arkham over Spider-Man, I just prefer how it handles specific character/story related gameplay moments.

I feel like Spiderman's aerial combat was the first time since Arkham City (which added the beatdowns and quick-use gadgets) that "Arkham" combat evolved. Spiderman needed that because he has far more combat abilities than Batman. Whereas, all those other games that copied the system did nothing but copy it, which isn't good game design. Look at the Middle-earth games, they literally have the same exact moves and specials as Batman like Wraith Stun (aka cape) leads into Wraith Furry (aka beatdown). Different IPs shouldn't play exactly the same as one another (even using the same buttons no less), that's what we have in the industry right now, it's not good and it doesn't lead to good games either. Back to Spidey and Batman, just one of those actual Riddler puzzles (to unlock those locked Riddler trophies) in Arkham City was more interesting gameplay than the entirety of Spidey's side missions. I can imagine a much better Spiderman game whereas Arkham City came much closer to maxing out the potential of a Batman game.

How do you even know there's very, very little writing talent in the industry? Are you just basing that on you not liking the writing, because that can be attributed to many factors. There is a tremendous amount of writing talent in the industry, but because games are primarily about gameplay that talent won't show itself in the same way as it does in TV and movies.

Pretty much, how else am I (or anyone) come to that conclusion? When few stories or characters move you, then the writing talent must be pretty low. Going back to the Arkham games, you can tell the difference between Asylum/City and Knight because Paul Dini did not write the final game. And when you bring an actually talented writer to a video game, you can see the difference quite easily. There's plenty more reasons while I'm saying there's hardly any talent in the industry than "I just don't like it". Why would good writers work in video games to begin with? The compensation is almost certainly far lower. Games are developed backwards where levels are created first and a writer has to come in and tie it all together (i.e. Mirror's Edge and Uncharteds). You just can't make a cohesive game that way and why would a great writer want to be burdened with such little creative control? The Horizon NoClip documentary featuring John Gonzalez shows how John was able to say "No, take this out, it doesn't make sense" and Guerilla did it, which rarely happens in the medium; John himself says in the video from his experience in the industry. There's a reason why Horizon feels "right" when most other games with similar structure and mechanics don't. If you're a writer, there's very little reason to work in the video game industry unless your passion for gaming is extremely strong.

TV shows are still more mainstream than gaming so obviously the exposure is larger as well. This has nothing to do with game quality percentage, just with mainstream appeal. It'd probably be a lot harder for me to find good boardgames than it would be finding good videogames.

The amount of TV shows I'd rate 8+/10 is far far higher than video games I'd rate that high. Between TLOU and Dishonored 2, I didn't play a game I'd rate an 8+/10 for example, that's about 3 years IIRC. Did I play every game? Of course not. I'm sure I missed something I'd rate that high but the same can be said for anything including TV, I've never watched The Wire for example. I think how games are developed "backwards" as mentioned just above just don't make for great content or when it happens, it's just blind luck (like Uncharted 2).

Led Zeppelin didn't even write their own songs...

All their best songs were written by Zeppelin like Achilles Last Stand, perhaps the greatest song of all-time.

 

[Casual Shinji]

How do you even know there's very, very little writing talent in the industry? Are you just basing that on you not liking the writing, because that can be attributed to many factors. There is a tremendous amount of writing talent in the industry, but because games are primarily about gameplay that talent won't show itself in the same way as it does in TV and movies.

Pretty much, how else am I (or anyone) come to that conclusion? When few stories or characters move you, then the writing talent must be pretty low. Going back to the Arkham games, you can tell the difference between Asylum/City and Knight because Paul Dini did not write the final game. And when you bring an actually talented writer to a video game, you can see the difference quite easily. There's plenty more reasons while I'm saying there's hardly any talent in the industry than "I just don't like it". Why would good writers work in video games to begin with? The compensation is almost certainly far lower. Games are developed backwards where levels are created first and a writer has to come in and tie it all together (i.e. Mirror's Edge and Uncharteds). You just can't make a cohesive game that way and why would a great writer want to be burdened with such little creative control? The Horizon NoClip documentary featuring John Gonzalez shows how John was able to say "No, take this out, it doesn't make sense" and Guerilla did it, which rarely happens in the medium; John himself says in the video from his experience in the industry. There's a reason why Horizon feels "right" when most other games with similar structure and mechanics don't. If you're a writer, there's very little reason to work in the video game industry unless your passion for gaming is extremely strong.

This is so loaded with personal bias that, again, you're trying to pass off as fact. Who's to say someone doesn't consider Arkham Knight to be a drop in writing quality, but that this honour is held by City? Like me. And there's a reason HZD feels right? That game starts off with one of the most cluncky and forced tutorials just so Aloy can get the Focus as a kid instead of as an adult. It's the writing forcing you into a gameplay sequence that's not fun. Why do you think New Game+ starts you off as an adult?

When you're so adamant in your conviction that the vast majority of game writing is factually terrible, don't bring up examples of, in your opinion, good writing that have such obvious flaws.

TV shows are still more mainstream than gaming so obviously the exposure is larger as well. This has nothing to do with game quality percentage, just with mainstream appeal. It'd probably be a lot harder for me to find good boardgames than it would be finding good videogames.

The amount of TV shows I'd rate 8+/10 is far far higher than video games I'd rate that high. Between TLOU and Dishonored 2, I didn't play a game I'd rate an 8+/10 for example, that's about 3 years IIRC. Did I play every game? Of course not. I'm sure I missed something I'd rate that high but the same can be said for anything including TV, I've never watched The Wire for example. I think how games are developed "backwards" as mentioned just above just don't make for great content or when it happens, it's just blind luck (like Uncharted 2).

That has almost nothing to do with what I previously said, but whatever. We can keep this train going, but I doubt there's much sense.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

This is so loaded with personal bias that, again, you're trying to pass off as fact. Who's to say someone doesn't consider Arkham Knight to be a drop in writing quality, but that this honour is held by City? Like me. And there's a reason HZD feels right? That game starts off with one of the most cluncky and forced tutorials just so Aloy can get the Focus as a kid instead of as an adult. It's the writing forcing you into a gameplay sequence that's not fun. Why do you think New Game+ starts you off as an adult?

When you're so adamant in your conviction that the vast majority of game writing is factually terrible, don't bring up examples of, in your opinion, good writing that have such obvious flaws.

You can't factually say writing is good or bad, it's an art, not a science. I used as much facts as you can like how games are developed (with sources saying such). Writers in other mediums write for different mediums (TV/film/comics/novels), yet you almost never see an established writer from another medium doing a project in video games. There's reasons (good or bad) for that unless you think it's merely a coincidence.

The opening for Horizon is for world building. It wasn't "fun" but it kept my interest. I've never said Horizon is some beacon of perfection, I gave it an 8/10 (there's plenty it could get better at). It clicks far better than the majority of open world games.

That has almost nothing to do with what I previously said, but whatever. We can keep this train going, but I doubt there's much sense.

Sorry, I apologize, I was mainly commenting on the line "This has nothing to do with game quality percentage, just with mainstream appeal".

With TV I can go to simply the RottenTomatoes TV section. With something less mainstream like board games (as you asked), I can go the BGG rankings [https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame] and find nothing but the good ones. Video games just don't have either of those.