Gagan said:

Eh, I'd say my rule set leads to a better game.

Nah, the pretentions of the critic lead to bollocks like Bastion.

That aside, the last thing I can think to add is that there are a few weaknesses in your theory: elements other than gameplay affect how the player experiences gameplay, the most interesting parts of games are often moments when your options are reduced to one or two, and your definition of game exclude some fundamental games, like those of pretence; which, in this case, are obviously pretty relevant to videogames.

Convention has also been firmly established now; inevitably at the expense of creativity. But it does result in a higher consistency of technical quality.

That said, convention also results in people ignoring glaring technical flaws, just because it's similar enough to things without them in other ways.

Foolz just made me read this.


My take is, civility is free, as is class.

Also, words on a forum can be completely deficent in communicating effectively, which is why you have to dose in a litre of salt when interpreting what someone is saying.

I certainly would not judge Gagan or Dvade for their takes, and I certainly would not make character assesments on the basis of their communique.

I do agree however that the "everyone has their take and they are all equal and valid" is not advancing the intellectual pursuit of gaming, or communication.

SupremeAC said:

^ I heard a songwriter once proclaim that language is inadequate to convey our thoughts and feelings, and that by talking to eachother, we form a silent mutual agreement that we will most likely misunderstand one and other.

Well that's the other extreme.

I just wrote a bunch and delted it.  I just want logic courses to be mandatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

I just think that logic course would hep people out. Even just to suss out advertising and politics (sorry fo rthe redundancy).

SupremeAC said:

I think that it is optimistic to say the least, that logic courses would counter people's nature to form and loudly proclaim ungrounded opinions.

Like I just did here.  Did I look up what exactly a logic course would pertain?  No, I just went on and formed an opinion without proper research!

Given that Aspro didn't describe what his logic course would contain, nor offer a justification for it beyond his desire to help others (what a lovely fellow), your post seems to be equally mocking Aspro's position, and an imagined position against him. Which, if my interpretation is correct, is impressive satire, well done.

aspro said:

Most logic course teach this, which is all you need to know:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

and by the way, as I state earlier, every human should know.

In my experience, all this usually leads to is people using these to shut down discussions when people disagree with them, while surreptitiously employing them themselves in better disguises.* And by the end, all that matters is the method of discussion, not the subject; which can actually hinder people in both identifying bullshit, and changing their position on something based on new information. This is not to suggest that such a course couldn't be helpful to some people, merely that it can also be very unhelpful for some people, too.

*That last part isn't true. Usually without any disguise at all, but their opponent is so busy clarifying their position that they can't counterattack. This is why you'll find fallacies regularly used in popular debates; it's a very effective method of cheating, and even highly educated audiences when deciding the vote don't notice, or at least don't care. The MC pointing it out isn't worth much, because the opponent who has to respond to a strawman fallacy combined with an ad hominem attack that paints them in a bad light not only is made to look like a bellend, but also wastes valuable time.

SupremeAC said:

Well you two are a hypocrit bunch.  First you go on a bit about how a good discussion should come to be, and then you just run off to your recording rooms and *fancy word I can't quite remember but basically means to 'hijack and use for your own gain' I'll edit it in when it comes back to me in the midst of night* this discussion in your podcast, thus also cutting out any possibility to counter your opinions on the matter.

If Gagan doesn't listen to and comment on the podcast, he's a bad friend.

Dvader said:

Gagans you point on depth of gameplay is fine, I agree with a lot of it, the most important aspect of gaming are the option so the player has to interact with the game. But your opinions have a reductionist point of view, everything is about the mechanics. If game doesn't have this much depth to its combat/puzzles/whatever it is trash or some degree of trash.

Yeah if the interactions stink, the game stinks. I don't need a complex set of mechanics. Mario is built around one mechanic, the jump mechanic. It happens to be a very good one, because they way the acceleration, decceleration, and arc of his jumps work, is that even though its a consistent parabolic curve, the player has enough air control to create smaller shifts in their jump arc for different ranges of jumps. And the whole game is built around creating obstacle courses, with enemy placements asking you to manipulate these different arcs. The games I'm bad mouthing, do less than that. They simply are press button, bam, the end. With little to no interesting decision making beyond that. And in the case of puzzles, yeah it should mentality stimulate you on some level. Mechanics matter, they are a central part of the experience. Very few games (though sure they do exist), have good gameplay in spite of bad mechanics.


And yeah some games have good mechanics, fundamentally undermined by bad game design else where (Resident Evil 6's campaign for instance, that aren't Chris Redfield).

Dvader said:

. DMC 3 and 4 have the deepest combat mechanics of a hack and slash action game, does that automatically make it the best action game?

First of all, yeah probably lol. In the case of DMC3, among aficianados of the genre it's considered one of the big 3, between it, Ninja Gaiden, and Bayonetta. Unlike the other two, its not beholden to chain combos. Unlike the other two, there are heights to be reached with its systems that the other two simply can't. It's certainly a better feeling game in terms of impact. Now it isn't universally looked at that way because Ninja Gaiden and Bayonetta have better enemies. Likewise 4 is probably in the argument, because yeah as lazy as the campaign is, and how lacking the enemies are, Dante in bloody palace mode is basically godlike. To the tune that people are still making combo vids for that game to this day, and it's 10 years old. And had a reboot.

You know what Uncharted high level looks like? Foolz playing uncharted, now subtracts the deaths.

Dvader said:

Plenty of people what more of their games, not depth in combat but more variety than just being great at combat. You may argue go play something else, now you are just dismissing their opinion.

Not really, they want a shallow parlor trick. I don't ask for depth in just combat. I want depth in the gameplay. If the gameplay is just combat, that's on the dev. But if they have non combat gameplay, it should be good. Not functional. Not it exists. Not it's okay. Good, great even if it's supposed to be some industry moving mustardpiece. And that still comes back down to depth.

Dvader said:

It's a fallacy to say the masses cater to simplistic shit

My general stance was "people like thing, it must be good" is a fallacy, because well it is. Otherwise the general public liking simplistic shit, isn't much of a fallacy as much as a consistently proven fact in all aspects of life.

Dvader said:

We have essencially killed off the movie cash in game because consumers wisened up and demand better quality.

Partially true, but mostly false. We have created an environment, where making the base acceptable releasable product on a console is so fucking expensive, that movie tie in games simply can't be made or else they are a train wreck on those budgets. So they moved to mobile gaming where the investment is cheap. People didn't get taste, making games just got too expensive. It's why the middle market died on console in the first place.

Dvader said:

Games are in a bit of an innovative rut but in general games now play way way way better than ever.

If the argument is they became more "playable" because they at least control fine, and work from a set of "well this mechanic works in a vaccuum". then yes, the average level has been raised, but very few if ever actually push their genre forward. I can't think of one genre this entire generation of games, whose best game or best games for that matter wouldn't be outclassed by a wildly superior alternative from the past. Sports games with Rocket League is about the best I got, and technically Tony Hawk n SSX fit that genre, and are no slouches in the depth department. So that's a faux-achievement at best on this gen's part.

Dvader said:

Back to personal taste in games, Gagan you say Zelda games have crap level design because it's mostly handholding, ok then your thoughts are what, all linear games are crap? My favorite action game ever made is RE4, it's linear as hell but the level design is unmatched.

Towers can testify I'm a big mark for Resident Evil 4. My issue is never linear levels, but more so the linearity of the gameplay. RE4's level design gives you enough room to make compelling decisions with its systems. Zelda's level design is wack, because what does it actually provide? It's not some labyrinthine thing that is interesting to navigate, built to be speed run in compelling ways, or has unique goodies for a perceptive player, or any of the shit that makes Metroid's exploration n navigation interesting in both 3D n 2D, or the way a Dark Souls level folds in on itself. The combat spaces do not matter, because combat in zelda is box rooms, fight dudes. Zelda's combat outside of rare examples like the iron knuckle (a legit great sequence in ocarina), rarely use their space for combat. You don't need to worry about enemy placements in Zelda, because it's just gonna close off the area, and you're gonna fight dudes with your lock on combat against enemies that are a simple matter of wait for your wide open shot to attack where you have an eternity to hit them. Works for Bayonetta because the combat has depth and the enemies are far more aggressive. Not exactly something Zelda can offer. And Bayonetta is pretty linear.



Dark Souls on the flip side using the same type of combat system, has all sorts of shifts in how its level design plays into its combat. Be it the traps set for the player, be it having to walk on a thin support beam while you are being shot at by a projectile, while needing to be mindful of swinging hooks, to i have a pit underneath me full of two tanky monsters, but the further up the stairs I go I have to deal with these flying vulture mother fuckers.

Resident Evil 4 has its sniping level after you first meet the merchant, all sorts of reasons why that valley is more interesting than anything I attack in a Zelda game.



And the puzzles, yeah, it be one thing that they are all one room puzzles. But the other part is, it's not like they are interesting shit to solve. Find the lock/switch with the right key/item, bam you solved it. Shooters benefit from good level design from something like Doom (a maze level design game) to the first half of Halo (when the level design is reasonably good). Platformers are obviously linear, but again, enemy placement is how we judge those levels. I don't care how the levels look, if they add nothing interesting to gameplay. FEAR's levels are grayer than my printer, but they are the reason people gas up FEAR's AI. Because without them shits, it's a parlor trick.

Dvader said:

Are the mechanics deep in RE4, not exactly but no game cares to put the player in constant changing situations like RE4 does, level design and pacing are greater than mechanic depth to me.

.

Outside of Vanquish and Resident Evil 6, yeah no other TPS would stack up favorably to RE4. You have to be mindful of an actual health pool. Both you and Ashley, you have a shoulder shooter system that rewards you for shooting explosives out of the air (either when they light them or mid air, for two distinct results), weapons out of the air, you can knife things out of the air, you can shoot them in the hand to knock the weapon out, you can shoot them in the head to take their face off, you can shoot them in the leg. You can shoot a group of enemies in the legs to group them up to blow them up, Because you can't actually move n shoot, the game has a positioning element to its systems, especially when you have to be mindful of ashley. And then you have some range in terms of enemies to flesh out some more depth from these systems.



Uncharted doesn't offer half that shit. It is a disservice to Resi 4 to think it's not mechanically deep. Because it absolutely is. It's level design and pacing absolutely benefit from its rich mechanics, just as much as its mechanics benefit from the level design n pacing.

Dvader said:

We just had the most open zelda, Mario, and MGS games ever made. MGSV is mechanically brilliant, the depth to any one situation is unmatched in the genre and yet everything around those mechanics took a step back. BOTW is exactly what Gagan seems to want from a zelda game, open ended non key puzzles, options to how to approach any encounter, but once again level design and pacing fell off, not my favorite zelda.

So we can disagree there in what makes a game great, I am curious what your favorite games are, it would give a little more insight into your views.

Odyssey is one of my least favorite 3d Mario games. even though its mechanically superior to all of them. Because the game makes no to little effort to take advantage of said mechanics. MGSV has an issue where for all the tools the player has, is offset by how little the tools the enemies have (as they are out right bad), and how the boss fights are bad, and how the base building is a net negative that adds a compulsive grind n time sink. The game is good because yes you have all these tools n the actual outpost designs (that part of the level design) are ace, but it falls short of MGS3, precisely because MGS3 creates more compelling scenarios, and yeah has more depth for it.



Breath of the Wild is the only 3D Zelda I like, so fair point there.



Favorite games



Order


1. Resident Evil 4


2. Super Metroid


3. Ninja Gaiden Black




No order after that


Devil May Cry 1, 3, 4


Ninja Gaiden 2


Bayonetta


The Wonderful 101


God Hand


Viewtiful Joe 1 n 2


Otogi


Onimusha


Dragonball Fighterz


Street Fighter series


King of Fighter series


Guilty Gear


Tekken n Tekken Tag


Blazblue


Garou Mark of Wolves


Smash Bros Melee


Mahvel vs Capcom


Darkstalkers


Powerstone


Capcom vs SNK


Virtua Fighter


Rogue Squadron 1 n 2


XWing Alliance


Tie Fighter


Starcraft 1 n 2


Warcraft 2 n 3


Command n Conquer


Company of Heroes


Civilization


XCom


Fire Emblem


Valkyria Chronicles


Tactics Ogre


Jagged Alliance 2


Thief 1-3


Metal Gear series


Splinter Cell 1-4


Hitman Blood Money n Hitman 2016


Doom


Quake


Tribes


Unreal


Halo


Half Life 1


Crysis n Crysis Warhead


Stalker Shadow of Chernobyl


Mario duh


2D Zelda that isn't phantom hourglass n spirittracks


Resident Evil series


Dark Souls, Demon's Souls, n Bloodborne


Nioh


Cuphead


Mega Man


Ori


The Witness n Braid


Antichamber


Zachtronics puzzle games in general


The Swapper


Castlevania 1,3,4, n rondo of blood


System Shock


Divinity Original Sin


Fallout 2, Icewind Dale


Dead Rising 1


Jet Set Radio Grind n Future


Tony Hawk Proskater 1-4


SSX 1-3


Battlefield games


Rainobw Six Siege


Swat 4


Rocket League




I guess i could type all day, but for the most part all of those would get an 8/10 or higher from me, and I rate from a 10 point scale, with 5 being average.

Gagan said:

Foolz said:

Nah, the pretentions of the critic lead to bollocks like Bastion.

I didn't gas that shit up, you did. You hoe.

Foolz said:

Convention has also been firmly established now; inevitably at the expense of creativity. But it does result in a higher consistency of technical quality.

That said, convention also results in people ignoring glaring technical flaws, just because it's similar enough to things without them in other ways.

Rubbish.

Huh? I'm saying your criteria, which is your pretension as a games critic, is going to result in novelty if someone thinks "hmm, let's make a game fulfilling this criteria". It's an aside. An aside that didn't suggest you hyped up Bastion. As one of the first critic/librarian games, Bastion had enough novelty value to outweigh the shite to me. But that's beside the point.

How so?

The one thing I've learnt from this post is we should have called ourselves Game Down Under.