demagogue on 20/1/2016 at 00:54
When a game or novel takes days or even weeks to finish, it's understandable the audience can't keep everything from early on in their mind if they don't realize its significance. My only advice would be to impress on the fact the stakes are high for an event, even if they won't know why yet. That'll make it stick better.
Jason Moyer on 20/1/2016 at 06:09
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I get these sorts of issues all the time with my own writing - events that don't make sense to readers because
they missed things I didn't make it clear enough.
I hate the (current?) need that people have for everything to be explained to them, when I think a good story should lead to as many questions and speculation and discussion as it resolves, so I'm pretty fine with it.
faetal on 20/1/2016 at 08:03
The problem with a really good, subtle story line is that x% of people will miss it. While the ones who did get it will have a better experience, I can understand why a dev / publisher might be more comfortable with 90% of people having a good experience than 60% having a great one.
demagogue on 20/1/2016 at 10:41
I'm ok dividing the field between games as ham fisted corporate entertainment consumables and subtle & disquieting indie spirtiual meditations.
The problem as I see it is that the indie community itself doesn't really see it that way, and I don't know if they're any more likely to be any more subtle than AAA games in general.
The most subtle games I've seen have been on the fringes of Interfactive Fiction, eg, IF where you have an unreliable narrator/PC that you can't trust is giving you the true story or is faithfully following your commands, but that's a pretty obscure field.
faetal on 20/1/2016 at 10:54
It's possible to do the whole Disney thing too - have the overall plot be simple enough for the "imbecile masses" but with a layer of nuance over the top for the discerning types which improves the overall experience. I call it the Disney thing from the fact that Disney realised at some point in the '80s / '90s that a lot of people were taking their kids to see Disney movies, so there is often a lot of humour which is almost certainly lost on anyone who isn't an adult.
Starker on 20/1/2016 at 11:43
Quote Posted by demagogue
The most subtle games I've seen have been on the fringes of Interfactive Fiction, eg, IF where you have an unreliable narrator/PC that you can't trust is giving you the true story or is faithfully following your commands, but that's a pretty obscure field.
Ooh yeah. Not in the fringes, even -- the "mainstream" stuff like Spider and Web, Anchorhead, Slouching Towards Bedlam, Vespers, Photopia, etc, usually has some pretty interesting stuff going on.
heywood on 20/1/2016 at 11:56
I think the pace of new releases and the emergence of the Steam "backlog" syndrome is driving players to rush through games. That and the desire to finish as early as possible so you can talk about it online. Conversation fizzles out so quickly now and moves on to the next game, so if you're really interested in a game you want to be one of the early finishers otherwise you feel left out of the conversation, like you missed the boat.
And so a lot of developers are designing games for fast and easy consumption. Fortunately, they're not all doing that.
icemann on 20/1/2016 at 12:58
With the size that our backlogs are getting, I'd just say to pick the game you want, play it till you've had your fill (or 100% completed it) then move on. End of the day we're never going to get to the end of it, as it's never ending. Unless you stop buying games full stop obviously.
One concern I have, is that games are REALLY starting to go for the HUGE time investment style stuff. Months required to beat etc. Back when I was playing Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 many years ago, I really enjoyed this, even though you get REALLY burned out towards the end. But nowadays it feels like most games are doing it. That said, I'm saying this having played through MGS 5 and currently playing Fallout 4. So my viewpoint might be a bit biased.
For another sort of game that's better the 2nd time round: Games that don't explain how they work nearly AT ALL (eg Fallout 4). Since going in for a second go, you get it now. So no mucking round having to read guides online etc. Just, play and enjoy.
Thor on 20/1/2016 at 13:16
I can't think of any single player games [that aren't roguelikes (or roguelites?)] that are better the second time around... I rarely play any game more than once and when I do it's not better - it's just not worse, if it has extremely high replay value (like x can be less than or equal to y, where x is the enjoyment of the repeated playthough and y is the enjoyment of the initial playthrough). If I suck at a game too much, I reload the parts that I can't pass until I reach a reasonably good skill level. To be frank - the game is lucky if I complete it once before getting bored of it. To be even franker, I am jealous of people that enjoy a game more (or as much) the second time around. How do you do it?
Thirith on 20/1/2016 at 13:31
For me it's the same as rereading a book or watching a film again, things that I do frequently. I enjoy the characters, the writing, the atmosphere or the moment-to-moment gameplay; the novelty of "what happens next?" or "how do I beat this guy?" or of doing things differently the second time around are all things I enjoy much less. In that sense, for me it's as much of a non-issue as eating a dish I like more than just once.
