acquisto on 15/12/2015 at 15:50
Video games were a lot funner. Remember playing your Genesis, SNES, N64, and Saturn? Remember the quality games? Today, you have ultra HD graphics and games with so much blood, you gag 10 times each level.
Jason Moyer on 15/12/2015 at 20:05
Right, because the Genesis/SNES/N64/Saturn weren't designed and marketed entirely around graphical and audio improvements. The Genesis/SNES launches were basically the point where the focus shifted to making everything look better.
GMDX Dev on 16/12/2015 at 00:58
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Right, because the Genesis/SNES/N64/Saturn weren't designed and marketed entirely around graphical and audio improvements. The Genesis/SNES launches were basically the point where the focus shifted to making everything look better.
And by doing so enhancing gameplay with it. Anyhow that's insane hyperbole, gameplay continued to evolve rapidly, we shifted to the 3rd dimension which is an extra dimension to the gameplay, each of those subsequent consoles got more & more buttons on the pad for a much deeper experience...there simply weren't any non-games that attained success. Games have mostly always been marketed with a focus on graphics since as far back as I remember or read into because graphics are very visually stimulating and therefor very marketable (see: Dragon's Lair), and the majority of the audience are graphics or story whores with gameplay considered a lesser aspect of a fucking game, as exemplified by this thread.
Nameless Voice on 16/12/2015 at 02:02
I think you need to find a different term than "non-game". It would make your arguments much more coherent.
A non-game would be a game with literally zero gameplay. A game that plays itself. Basically, a film.
No matter how dumbed-down mainstream games are, they always still have at least some gameplay element that they emphasise, even if it's often mindless shooting. They may not be good games, they certainly aren't your kind of game. But they're still games.
Yeah, I know how tempting it is to invent hyperbole names for things you hate, and that's fine for ranting about them, but doesn't really lend itself that well to discussion.
Nameless Voice on 16/12/2015 at 02:37
Makes me think of one of those MMO mice.
Starker on 16/12/2015 at 02:46
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
A non-game would be a game with literally zero gameplay.
So, basically, the only non-game game is The Game. You know, (
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-game) the one that you just lost. Because even zero-player games have gameplay.
GMDX Dev on 16/12/2015 at 04:34
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
I think you need to find a different term than "non-game". It would make your arguments much more coherent.
I didn't coin the term or introduce it to this thread. It's your own Manwe's back on page one, and it isn't far from the truth.
Reading the thread beforehand would make
your contributions much more coherent ;)
twisty on 16/12/2015 at 05:40
Totally OT, but when I saw that picture it suddenly triggered a strong memory of the smell of the Atari 2600 controller I played with in the early eighties. It was quite a distinct smell and must have been the type of plastic that they used back then.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2235[/ATTACH]
Malf on 16/12/2015 at 06:55
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
I didn't coin the term or introduce it to this thread. It's your own Manwe's back on page one, and it isn't far from the truth.
Reading the thread beforehand would make
your contributions much more coherent ;)
Then I'll fire back at you with the fact that you have misunderstood the term.
I'm pretty sure that when Manwe uses it, he's referring to things like Dear Esther. Walking sims, that kind of thing. That's the definition as understood by the wider gaming community. Stuff heavy on narrative or abstract experiences but lacking in actual interactivity. However, you have mistakenly adopted the term and chosen to associate it with your own idea of what a non-game is without much of an explanation. Before you posted here, I have never seen anyone anywhere else refer to Assassin's Creed as a non-game.
Personally, I can't stand the term, as it's almost exclusively used derogatorily, and attempts to dismiss an entire genre outright while not offering an explanation or deeper exploration of the value these games may have.
It's basically lazy and vapid.
I think you saw the term and chose to associate it with the kind of development template Ubisoft and Warner have popularised, games which heavily feature as part of their design sweeping up numerous icons on maps.
Granted, there is a problem with this kind of game, but it's definitely not a complete absence of interactivity. Objectively, you go to a point on the map that has an icon, and through interacting with the game you change the state of that icon on the map. At a very basic level, one could argue that the very definition of a game is changing the state of something through interaction.
So while you may not like these kinds of games, arguing that they are not actually games is simply wrong.
