RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS

[Ganrich]

 

 

 

from people playing it wrong

You don't get to decide what "the right way" to play a game is for me. No one does, not even the developer. How someone plays a game is a completely individual preference. People derive enjoyment from games in different ways.

In a single player environment I fully agree with this sentiment. Once you step into a competitive online game environment... You play by the rules and styles the game has setup to make you competitive. If you don't then you cannot play the game competitively and you will be at a disadvantage. This is not the game's fault. If you don't care about winning in an online competitive mode then do what you want to do. It's your game to play as you will.

[Raithe]

RockPaperShotgun - Rise of the Tomb Raider PC Review

 

 

...

Rise is a strong and confident step forward for the new series, but I’m still unconvinced it’s heading in a direction that I particularly like. This new Lara Croft is in danger of becoming a character constantly in the act of becoming something with no clear idea of how to portray that thing once she arrives. When all of the rising was done, she still felt like a heroine in search of a setting and plot that draw on her strengths rather than her struggles, and for all that forward momentum the game is a spectacular journey that fails to reach a fulfilling destination.

[Katphood]

This dude is hilarious! 

 

[Keyrock]

 

 

from people playing it wrong

You don't get to decide what "the right way" to play a game is for me. No one does, not even the developer. How someone plays a game is a completely individual preference. People derive enjoyment from games in different ways.

In a single player environment I fully agree with this sentiment. Once you step into a competitive online game environment... You play by the rules and styles the game has setup to make you competitive. If you don't then you cannot play the game competitively and you will be at a disadvantage. This is not the game's fault. If you don't care about winning in an online competitive mode then do what you want to do. It's your game to play as you will.

 

Somewhat disagree.  It's the people that think outside the box and go against the grain that create the strategies that eventually become accepted as viable ways to play the game.  If no one thinks outside the box then you will have a stagnant game with a single style of playing and everyone conforming to it.  I'll give you an example from a game I know exponentially better than Titanfall.  In DotA, the regular way of winning the game is to group up once you feel your team is strong enough and push the enemy base and win by sheer force and superior team fight execution, often with the help of something like the aegis.  Then someone came up with Rat DotA, which goes against all of that.  You avoid fights, you pull the opposing team around the map, sometimes sacrificing a hero or two to get their attention, meanwhile another member of your team sneaks into their base while they're occupied elsewhere and does structural damage to it.  When it was first attempted it was going against the "right way" to play the game, now it's an accepted strategy since it was proven effective, winning games and even entire tournaments.  Never would have happened had someone not thought outside the accepted structure of the game.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Keyrock

[Fenixp]

Advanced strategies like that are usually not created by accident tho, Keyrock. They tend to be made by people who first conformed to the standardized way of playing the game, were dissatisfied with it and had sufficient knowledge to try and construct new strategies. What Ganrich started off talking about were people complaining that they do not enjoy the game because they feel like they suck at it regardless of what they do. Such people won't discover new, successful strategies as they lack even rudimentary understanding of the game - telling them "You're playing it wrong, you'll enjoy it a lot more if you play the game like this ..." is exactly the kind of advice you should give them, otherwise they'll abandon the game entirely. (and yes, I'd say that playing a game in such a way that you get zero enjoyment out of it is definitely "playing it wrong" :-P) When they understand what's considered successful at the game, that's where they can start experimenting and have fun doing that.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Fenixp

[Keyrock]

Advanced strategies like that are usually not created by accident tho, Keyrock. They tend to be made by people who first conformed to the standardized way of playing the game, were dissatisfied with it and had sufficient knowledge to try and construct new strategies. What Ganrich started off talking about were people complaining that they do not enjoy the game because they feel like they suck at it regardless of what they do. Such people won't discover new, successful strategies as they lack even rudimentary understanding of the game - telling them "You're playing it wrong, you'll enjoy it a lot more if you play the game like this ..." is exactly the kind of advice you should give them, otherwise they'll abandon the game entirely. (and yes, I'd say that playing a game in such a way that you get zero enjoyment out of it is definitely "playing it wrong" :-P) When they understand what's considered successful at the game, that's where they can start experimenting and have fun doing that.

Point taken.  My point is that there is not a single "right way" to play a game.  Obviously, this applies more strongly to a single-player game where the game is confined to only you playing the game.  As an example, I spent probably a good 10 hours in Oblivion's Shivering Isles expansion (still the single greatest thing Bethesda has ever produced) running around New Sheoth, finding ways to get on top of structures and jumping from roof to roof, finding a place, thinking "can I get up there?", then proceeding to get up there and seeing what places I could jump to once I got up there.  I had a blast.  In the confines of a competitive multiplayer game, you have other players to contend with, so things change.  You can still experiment in those games and try out new and wacky things to do.  It's easier in a competitive game where you play as a lone player (deathmatch or whatever), in a team game you have other people on your team depending on you, but even in those games there is room for experimentation.  And you don't necessarily have to be a master of the traditional method to do it either.  You can do wacky things in pubs in DotA that are completely bonkers and off the wall and without being a seasoned player who has played the game the traditional way for months or years and they may even work.  Sure, those cheese strats would never work at the pro level, but if you're not playing at the pro level then who cares?  Cheese strats even sometimes work at the pro level, though they're generally refined by the pros to make them work.  The pros obviously have an intimate knowledge of the game and all the systems, you have to be to play at that level, but the original idea may have come from someone just starting out who has little knowledge or desire to play the traditional way.  A pro saw the cheese strat, saw it worked sometimes in pubs, knew it wouldn't work as is at pro level, but tweaked a few things to modify it so that it might sometimes work at the pro level.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Keyrock

[Ganrich]

I

Advanced strategies like that are usually not created by accident tho, Keyrock. They tend to be made by people who first conformed to the standardized way of playing the game, were dissatisfied with it and had sufficient knowledge to try and construct new strategies. What Ganrich started off talking about were people complaining that they do not enjoy the game because they feel like they suck at it regardless of what they do. Such people won't discover new, successful strategies as they lack even rudimentary understanding of the game - telling them "You're playing it wrong, you'll enjoy it a lot more if you play the game like this ..." is exactly the kind of advice you should give them, otherwise they'll abandon the game entirely. (and yes, I'd say that playing a game in such a way that you get zero enjoyment out of it is definitely "playing it wrong" :-P) When they understand what's considered successful at the game, that's where they can start experimenting and have fun doing that.

This is what I meant. You put it better, for sure. You have my thanks.

 

I agree about Dota Keyrock, but Titanfall is a different creature. Dota has a slew of options, play styles, etc. Titanfall is much more tightly controlled from a design standpoint. It doesn't have the options of different builds for your hero or team compositions that Dota has. It does have different builds, but they are minor in their effect.

 

Parkour increases your running speed, and that speed could be maintained via the good ole arena shooter bunny hop. However, if you just run on the ground... You are slow. Titan weapons come in 3 categories IIRC... 1) a bullet hose chain-gun, 2) insane splash damage from a handful of rockets, 3) a rail gun. The missiles and rail gun were one shot kills to a pilot while the missiles had splash damage. The chaingun was more or less an instant kill, but I think to a few bullets, but they came out fast. A pilot with no Titan vs a pilot in a Titan is dead if they stay on the ground. They must parkour, flank, attack from above, etc. Even then it tends to favor people in Titans. It usually took team coordination if your team didn't have a Titan in the area, but not always. Mediocre players in a Titan weren't much of an issue.

 

However, many players said to themselves "A shooter made by a company formed by 2 of the major players of Infinity Ward? I will play it like CoD and wreck people." They then proceed to run on the ground as slow as can be and not jump, not parkour, etc and they got ROFLstomped. Then they said it was a bad game and left. It's bad enough when a player with a smart pistol, shotgun, or smg was jumping all around you landing a bunch of rounds, and you can't hit them with those typical CoD aiming skills.... But when that player is in a Titan that are resistant as all get out to Standard weapons and come packing with weapons that one shot kill and do crazy splash damage? It's game over. To kill a Titan as a Pilot you had to 1) use anti-Titan weapons that did very little damage, had long reloads, or exposed you. 2). Rodeo the Titan rip open a panel to expose it's core and fire into its brain pan. 3). Get a Titan of your own. All the while avoiding chainguns, rockets (varying types), a rail gum, electric smoke, the Titan's punch, or whatever could be coming your way to one shot kill you or get you exposed.

 

That was a major issue Titanfall had. People thought "CoD with Mechs", and it wasn't. It's only similarity to CoD was hit scan weapons. They then, not using the major tool the Pilot had to save themselves from Titans (Parkour), turned to the Internet and said the game was bad, was a CoD wannabe, and unbalanced. Even the reviews made comparisons to CoD. It was a helluva lot better than any CoD I have ever played, and so much so that BO3 is Titanfall without mechs.

 

Anyway, in Clan vs Clan I am sure those team strategies were developed by creative people that at the time went against the grain. However, I bet every single one of the, was using parkour. Also, they were probably using similar tactics to kill Titans because their aren't a plethora of ways to do it.

[Keyrock]

Fair enough.  I'll defer to your Titanfall knowledge since it's a game I know much less about.

[sorophx]

 

When all of the rising was done, she still felt like a heroine in search of a setting and plot that draw on her strengths rather than her struggles

I think it was John Carmack who said, "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie." 

 

this is why I think video game journalism doesn't exist, what substitutes for it is a bunch of try-hards trying to earn a living by peddling crap. I bet this same reviewer praised Skyrim and Fallout 4 for their story. what a sorry excuse of a journalist.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

When all of the rising was done, she still felt like a heroine in search of a setting and plot that draw on her strengths rather than her struggles

I think it was John Carmack who said, "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie." 

 

this is why I think video game journalism doesn't exist, what substitutes for it is a bunch of try-hards trying to earn a living by peddling crap. I bet this same reviewer praised Skyrim and Fallout 4 for their story. what a sorry excuse of a journalist.

 

I can't imagine that quote is from the last 15 years. Games have increasingly become a storytelling medium, and story has been incredibly important for a long time now. Sure Doom and Quake and such didn't really need one, but games that come out now that are just about shooting and don't really have anything to drive the player forward are often criticised pretty heavily now.

[Amentep]

 

 

 

When all of the rising was done, she still felt like a heroine in search of a setting and plot that draw on her strengths rather than her struggles

I think it was John Carmack who said, "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie." 

 

this is why I think video game journalism doesn't exist, what substitutes for it is a bunch of try-hards trying to earn a living by peddling crap. I bet this same reviewer praised Skyrim and Fallout 4 for their story. what a sorry excuse of a journalist.

 

I can't imagine that quote is from the last 15 years. Games have increasingly become a storytelling medium, and story has been incredibly important for a long time now. Sure Doom and Quake and such didn't really need one, but games that come out now that are just about shooting and don't really have anything to drive the player forward are often criticised pretty heavily now.

 

 

The full quote is "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." and was quoted int he MASTERS OF DOOM book from 2003.

 

That said, speculating randomly, I think the point to me is less about the importance of story and more about the nature of games.

 

Or put it this way if Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, George R.R. Martin, J.K. Rowling, Barry Hughart and the ghost of J. R. R. Tolkein created the story, characters and setting for a game and the writing is so good that it makes your toes curl, your hair stand on end and magically cause bacon to appear on a plate near you...

 

...but the only way to get through the story is to level grind through broken mechanics, menu systems arcane and confusing, HUDs that appear to be designed for Aliens not humans, and features and options that are unclear; if conflict resolution is a chore with each battle lasting longer than the longest, most tedious battle in Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor - then who is going to play long enough to experience the wonderful story?

 

Similarly if you make a porno film with plot, characters and themes to rival War and Peace but you cast a bunch of people who have boring sex, film it like you've just got your first VHS recorder, you light it like your in a hospital and the audio sounds like someone read lines with a monotone voice while underwater, who will ever watch the whole thing?

 

Story is important, yeah; but story in a game is in service to the game.  You forget the game part and all you've got is a lot of work most of the world will never experience.

[Oerwinde]

https://contests.nvidia.com/en-us/the-division-beta-key-giveaway

 

NVIDIA giving away The Division beta keys for people who are interested.

[Fenixp]

Sunless Sea has a free weekend over at Steam. No reason not to give it a shot.

[Sarex]

You don't get to decide what "the right way" to play a game is for me.  No one does, not even the developer.  How someone plays a game is a completely individual preference.  People derive enjoyment from games in different ways.

 

If only someone was there to tell Sawyer that for PoE...

 

The full quote is "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." and was quoted int he MASTERS OF DOOM book from 2003.

 

That said, speculating randomly, I think the point to me is less about the importance of story and more about the nature of games.

 

Or put it this way if Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, George R.R. Martin, J.K. Rowling, Barry Hughart and the ghost of J. R. R. Tolkein created the story, characters and setting for a game and the writing is so good that it makes your toes curl, your hair stand on end and magically cause bacon to appear on a plate near you...

 

...but the only way to get through the story is to level grind through broken mechanics, menu systems arcane and confusing, HUDs that appear to be designed for Aliens not humans, and features and options that are unclear; if conflict resolution is a chore with each battle lasting longer than the longest, most tedious battle in Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor - then who is going to play long enough to experience the wonderful story?

 

Similarly if you make a porno film with plot, characters and themes to rival War and Peace but you cast a bunch of people who have boring sex, film it like you've just got your first VHS recorder, you light it like your in a hospital and the audio sounds like someone read lines with a monotone voice while underwater, who will ever watch the whole thing?

 

Story is important, yeah; but story in a game is in service to the game.  You forget the game part and all you've got is a lot of work most of the world will never experience.

 

The only problem is that there hasn't been a story in a game, so far, to rival even the mediocre books I read.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Sarex

[Fenixp]

The only problem is that there hasn't been a story in a game, so far, to rival even the mediocre books I read.

All this means is that you prefer book storytelling to videogame storytelling. A good game doesn't have a linear story that's largely spelled out for you like in literature (because, sadly, literature doesn't really have much of a choice - the wonderfully confusing hot media and all that) and sure, if that's what you prefer, a linear story built from highest quality parts presented in front of you, then videogames can never beat books.

 

Good thing then that videogames have entirely different tools to present a story with then! See, that's the thing - they have no reason to beat books. All videogames have to do is what film did before them - repeat what we've seen in literature countless times and try to wrap it around their own, unique qualities. I dare to say that writing of Sunless Sea is on par with some of the best literature I've ever read, yet its storytelling would never work with any other kind of media. Brothers: A Tale of Two sons is a simple story which has been repeated over and over, yet is made striking as it uses features only videogames can, all the way down to using your controller to tell crucial part of the storyline.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Fenixp

[ShadySands]

Dunno if this has been mentioned yet but EA pulls out of E3 2016, plans fan events in LA and London instead

 

Electronic Arts won't have a booth on the showfloor at E3 2016, but the publisher is still going to have a Los Angeles presence this June. EA Play, a fan-oriented event open to the public, will be held June 12-14 at Club Nokia - just down the street from the Los Angeles Convention Center, and E3 proper. This will be the first year EA has skipped E3 for more than a decade.

 

EA will still hold a press conference, but instead of sharing the pre-E3 Monday with Microsoft, Sony, and Ubisoft as it had in years past, the company's presentation will take place on Sunday, June 12 - much like Bethesda held its conference on the Sunday before E3 last year. EA will also host a special one-night event on Sunday, June 12, at The Mermaid conference and events center in London.

[Orogun01]

 

 

When all of the rising was done, she still felt like a heroine in search of a setting and plot that draw on her strengths rather than her struggles

I think it was John Carmack who said, "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie." 

 

this is why I think video game journalism doesn't exist, what substitutes for it is a bunch of try-hards trying to earn a living by peddling crap. I bet this same reviewer praised Skyrim and Fallout 4 for their story. what a sorry excuse of a journalist.

 

I disagree, I seen good articles that argue from a mechanical point and not through subjective bullcrap meant to obfuscate the point. Erik Kain saying that the eagle eye, detective view from Batman and AC detracts from level design and pointing out Thief games as good examples of how to guide players through a quest via good level design. That was good reporting that didn't trying to aggrandize a story that wasn't there. I actually suspect that most games journalist don't actually like games, understand them or even play them.

[Keyrock]

 

I think it was John Carmack who said, "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie." 

 

In fairness, that quote was made at a time when most video game stories consisted of "Robot Ninjas Kidnapped the President" and not much more.  Gaming has evolved since then.  I agree not all games need a deep, well written story.  Games come in all shapes, sizes, and varieties.  There are story-driven games and there are gameplay-driven games.  Story-driven games obviously need a good story with well thought out characters or they will fall flat on their face (/glances disapprovingly in David Cage's direction) since story is the core pillar of the game.  Gameplay-driven games don't necessarily need much story at all, though they can still benefit from one.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Keyrock

[sorophx]

 I actually suspect that most games journalist don't actually like games, understand them or even play them.

 

I agree, that's why I'm so angry at that article's author, he came across as someone who doesn't really understand games, especially Tomb Raider

 

 I agree not all games need a deep, well written story.  Games come in all shapes, sizes, and varieties.  There are story-driven games and there are gameplay-driven games.  

 

That's kind of my point: TR doesn't really need a story. it needs good levels and good mechanics of traversing these levels. it's nice to have a story to follow, but I definitely do not need TR to be a "cinematic experience". and when that reviewer said that the new TR failed because its story is not engaging or something, I couldn't help myself but cringe.

[Fenixp]

Somewhat related to a recent discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKw4eNFGqc&ab_channel=SuperBunnyhop

Edited January 29, 2016 by Fenixp

[Ganrich]

Somewhat related to a recent discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKw4eNFGqc&ab_channel=SuperBunnyhop

As someone with absolutely zero problems with the idea of "multiplayer only games" (at least on PC where I don't pay for Live or PS Premium) I really miss bots. I would much rather have bots than a tacked on campaign with a terrible story and no challenge.

 

I prefer single player only or MP only games. To me, games that try to straddle both lines tend to suck at one, the other, or both.

[Lexx]

Anyone tried MGSv online part on PC yet? I played about half an hour and it was... Ok-ish, I'll guess. Don't really see a point in it, though. You spawn and run to the checkpoints, trying not to die and kill enemy players.

 

I've played with gamepad probably vs mouse and keyboard. Wasn't that bad, actually but I still think I've got a huge disadvantage due to it.

 

Man, it would be so much better I they had some real coop missions etc. Imagine running through Afghanistan or the Africa map with some other players. Now that would be something I'd rather have.

[Majek]

I must say Uncharted 2 and 3 were quite good in both things ( all 3 if you count coop  play separately), but that's just ps3 not PC.

[Mamoulian War]

well the only point of the MGSV online part are the microtransactions. for Konami.

 

for players, no point at all.

[Fenixp]

As someone with absolutely zero problems with the idea of "multiplayer only games" (at least on PC where I don't pay for Live or PS Premium) I really miss bots. I would much rather have bots than a tacked on campaign with a terrible story and no challenge.

 

I prefer single player only or MP only games. To me, games that try to straddle both lines tend to suck at one, the other, or both.

Right? I can't really add anything that George did not say, he does tend to be quite exhaustive with topics he picks, but I'd definitely be a lot likely to purchase Battlefront or even Rainbow Six: Siege if they just contained botmatches.