The last few games you beat and rate them 5

[pistolpete11]

The examples you gave sounded more like you wanted added context, and to see things happen that were implied, which I think would be a mistake.

I think you have an overactive imagination. I said 10-15 second cut scenes like the one they did give you. Never did I say more context.

Having a guy from the village look up and notice the light asks more questions than it answers. Who is that guy? Where is that guy? Is he a good guy? Bad guy? Does he know what that light means? Does he know who's doing it? Does he think that's a good thing? A bad thing? Are there more people with him? How would this affect them? Are they going to try to stop it? Pretty ambiguous if you ask me.

Flashback showing the girl alive, laughing and frolicking in a field or something. Shows how much the guy loves her. Not much context there. Just reinforces and reminds you what you already know.

Or here's another one. Instead of telling us she was sacrificed in the opening cut scene, show it to us after beating one of the colossus. Who killed her? Are they the same people that noticed the light? Why did they kill her? It would also have the side bonus of wondering how she died until they show you that cut scene.

I'm just spitballing here. The point is there could have been a trickle of a story throughout the game instead of the monotony of checking off 12 colossus one by one before you get anything else to think about.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think you have an overactive imagination. I said 10-15 second cut scenes like the one they did give you. Never did I say more context.

Having a guy from the village look up and notice the light asks more questions than it answers. Who is that guy? Where is that guy? Is he a good guy? Bad guy? Does he know what that light means? Does he know who's doing it? Does he think that's a good thing? A bad thing? Are there more people with him? How would this affect them? Are they going to try to stop it? Pretty ambiguous if you ask me.

Flashback showing the girl alive, laughing and frolicking in a field or something. Shows how much the guy loves her. Not much context there. Just reinforces and reminds you what you already know.

Or here's another one. Instead of telling us she was sacrificed in the opening cut scene, show it to us after beating one of the colossus. Who killed her? Are they the same people that noticed the light? Why did they kill her? It would also have the side bonus of wondering how she died until they show you that cut scene.

I'm just spitballing here. The point is there could have been a trickle of a story throughout the game instead of the monotony of checking off 12 colossus one by one before you get anything else to think about.

Again, what you're describing IS more context. Especially the third one, which is what I took exception to most. I'm not saying that you have to feel the same way I do, but I think the suggestion sounds really bad, cheesy, and harmful to the experience, personally.

The story is better told not knowing (or even getting too many hints about) who killed her, how she died, why she was killed, what her connection to the townspeople is, etc. Leave these things to the player's imagination. It's needless excess, and is counter-productive to the artful minimalism and mythical quality of the game.

To a lesser but still harmful degree, so is showing stuff that we already know must have happened, but was tastefully only alluded to/implied. You're saying they don't have to be COMPLETELY explicit/exhaustive and answer every question (which I agree, would be even worse), but that's still more explicit than what would be ideal, in my opinion.

What you find monotonous/repetitiveness is legitimately what I find to be a bold and positive feature, from my perspective (though I would cut down the number of colossi, personally). Besides, there are more than enough (in my view, lesser) games that operate the other way.

 

[pistolpete11]

Again, what you're describing IS more context. Especially the third one, which is what I took exception to most. I think it sounds really bad, cheesy, and harmful to the experience, personally.

The story is better told not knowing who killed her, how she died, why she was killed, what her connection to the townspeople is, etc. Leave these things to the player's imagination. It's needless excess, and is counter-productive to the artful minimalism and mythical quality of the game.

To a lesser but still harmful degree, so is showing stuff that we already know must have happened, but was tastefully only alluded to/implied. You're saying they don't have to be COMPLETELY explicit/exhaustive and answer every question (which I agree, would be even worse), but that's still more explicit than what would be ideal, in my opinion.

Besides, there are more than enough games that operating the other way.

It's not any more context than what is in the game already. You think it's some mystery how she died? They tell you...explicitly...and I quote "She was sacrificed for she had a cursed fate" in the opening cut scene. I'm simply suggesting have that be a piece of the story that is revealed during the game instead of the beginning of the game. You still don't know who the people are, what her connection is to them, or why they sacrificed her. Imagine away. It's the same information with the same level of ambiguity, just told differently and at a different time.

But whatever. You have some sort of sentimental, emotional connection to this game probably from playing it on your PS2 as a kid. I'm playing it on my PS5 as an adult and I was completely underwhelmed from the controls to the method of storytelling to the performance. I spent too much time playing the game for how much enjoyment I got out of it let alone trying to explain how I think it could have been improved on the internet.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's not any more context than what is in the game already. You think it's some mystery how she died? They tell you...explicitly...and I quote "She was sacrificed for she had a cursed fate" in the opening cut scene. I'm simply suggesting have that be a piece of the story that is revealed during the game instead of the beginning of the game. You still don't know who the people are, what her connection is to them, or why they sacrificed her. Imagine away. It's the same information with the same level of ambiguity, just told differently and at a different time.

But whatever. You have some sort of sentimental, emotional connection to this game probably from playing it on your PS2 as a kid. I'm playing it on my PS5 as an adult and I was completely underwhelmed from the controls to the method of storytelling to the performance. I spent too much time playing the game for how much enjoyment I got out of it let alone trying to explain how I think it could have been improved on the internet.

Vaguely mentioning "She was sacrificed for she had a cursed fate" (whatever the hell that means) hardly seems explicit. Showing it in some flashback is. I'd compare it to finding out more about the girl in Limbo, which would similarly be really lame compared to how tastefully they handled it, IMO (had just the right amount and is fairly minimal).

But geez, can't you just agree to disagree on a topic and appreciate that people have different value judgements rather than find some silly narrative to dismiss it with? I didn't play it as a kid, and I find nostalgia to be a dumb concept. I just find its method of storytelling artistically bold and tasteful (something rare and in short supply in videogames), and found the version you were suggesting off-putting, cheesy, and typical/standard. I have my own criticisms of the game, it's far from perfect, and parts of it are outright terrible (I gave my own suggestions for how I would want to improve it), but my criticisms appear to be the opposite of yours when it comes to story.

You can explain your perspective and I'm not trying to take that away from you, but it's hardly some definitive criticism where you're necessarily right and everyone who feels otherwise is necessarily wrong (which, judging by the way you were arguing, seemed to be what you're insisting).

 

[Osprey]

But geez, can't you just agree to disagree on a topic and appreciate that people have different value judgements rather than find some silly narrative to dismiss it with?

Ironically, this is exactly how I felt last week, when you just wouldn't accept what I personally value in games (gameplay over story) and kept imagining things to dismiss it. It's just a little funny that you're now on the other side of it and can't understand why he won't just agree to disagree and now know how I felt.

 

[Shareefruck]

Ironically, this is exactly how I felt last week, when you just wouldn't accept what I personally value in games (gameplay over story) and kept imagining things to dismiss it. It's just a little funny that you're now on the other side of it and can't understand why he won't just agree to disagree because now you know how I felt. Man

I was very careful not to cross that line in the discussion I had with you. The only thing I stated as a matter of fact/overwhelming likelihood in our discussion was that I didn't understand your perspective, which is true, I didn't. I was happy to leave it at not understanding it (and even conceded that your take may be due to some elusive other explanation that I can't fathom, rather than narrowmindedness), but the fact that I didn't understand something that you felt was so simple bothered you, so I kept asking if hypotheticals were applicable to try to find common ground and try to triangulate the actual logistics of what you were saying. I'm unwilling to just PRETEND to understand, and I don't particularly want or care if this guy does that either.

He can say that too about my opinions, and I think it would be fair. I'm not taking exception to him not understanding what I see as the value of minimalism, I'm taking exception to him leaping to a dismissive assumption and baselessly asserting that that's "probably" what I'm guilty of it. When I say "Why can't you just agree to disagree?" to him, what I mean is "Why can't you either agree that it's a different value judgement OR agree that we're not going to come to an understanding?"-- either one's fine by me. As long as it's not immature narrative spinning for the purpose of rolling your eyes.

That's not what happened in our discussion-- not understanding wasn't good enough for you. I wasn't "imagining things to dismiss" about you, and I never understood why you kept taking it that way. Every hypothetical possibility that I brought up was NOT framed as a direct assertion (or even likelihood) of your behavior/mindset. I was merely bringing up an exhaustive list of possible explanations that I can fathom, understand, and perfectly respect, and ASKING YOU to clarify if ONE OF THESE is what you meant-- Otherwise, I'd still be at a loss (which is what ended up being the case). It felt like the act of interrogating you was taken as an accusation for some reason, though, not sure why. It was an attempt to be charitable (those were all answers that I would sincerely respect/appreciate more than what you gave), not an attempt to dismiss. If anything, it's closer to an attempt to steel-man, not straw-man.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I love a good Shareefruck word salad

 

[Shareefruck]

Okay, tldr:

Spinning baseless narratives to dismiss/roll your eyes = bad,
Asking about possible respectable hypotheticals without committing to them because you don't understand = good.

That's the difference between the two disputes, in my view.

 

[Osprey]

I was very careful not to cross that line in the discussion I had with you. The only thing I stated as a matter of fact/overwhelming likelihood in our discussion was that I didn't understand your perspective, which is true, I didn't. I was happy to leave it at not understanding it (and even conceded that your take may be due to some elusive other explanation that I can't fathom, rather than narrowmindedness), but the fact that I didn't understand something that you felt was so simple bothered you, so I kept asking if hypotheticals were applicable to try to find common ground and try to triangulate the actual logistics of what you were saying. I'm unwilling to just PRETEND to understand, and I don't particularly want or care if this guy does that either.

He can say that too about my opinions, and I think it would be fair. I'm not taking exception to him not understanding what I see as the value of minimalism, I'm taking exception to him leaping to a dismissive assumption and baselessly asserting that that's "probably" what I'm guilty of it. When I say "Why can't you just agree to disagree?" to him, what I mean is "Why can't you either agree that it's a different value judgement OR agree that we're not going to come to an understanding?"-- either one's fine by me. As long as it's not immature narrative spinning for the purpose of rolling your eyes.

That's not what happened in our discussion-- not understanding wasn't good enough for you. I wasn't "imagining things to dismiss" about you, and I never understood why you kept taking it that way. Every hypothetical possibility that I brought up was NOT framed as a direct assertion (or even likelihood) of your behavior/mindset. I was merely bringing up an exhaustive list of possible explanations that I can fathom, understand, and perfectly respect, and ASKING YOU to clarify if ONE OF THESE is what you meant-- Otherwise, I'd still be at a loss (which is what ended up being the case). It felt like the act of interrogating you was taken as an accusation for some reason, though, not sure why. It was an attempt to be charitable (those were all answers that I would sincerely respect/appreciate more than what you gave), not an attempt to dismiss. If anything, it's closer to an attempt to steel-man, not straw-man.

I was perfectly fine with you not understanding my preference. All that I asked was that you accept it (despite not understanding it) and you flat out told me that you couldn't. You repeatedly said that it seemed "narrow minded" to you and peppered me with imagined hypotheticals to try to find common ground that you could accept. You even just admitted that you were "interrogating" me for an explanation that you could respect. That doesn't seem like being happy to leave it as a misunderstanding or that not being good enough for me. I know that you meant well, but how you came across is that you couldn't accept my preference without understanding it first, called it narrow minded, asked repeated hypothetical questions that I shouldn't have needed to answer to gain your respect and thought that all of that was doing me a favor.

I wasn't comparing the two disputes. I don't even really understand what you two are arguing about. I was just comparing you wondering why he can't accept your different value judgement with me wondering last week why you couldn't accept mine. That's all.

 

[Shareefruck]

I was perfectly fine with you not understanding my preference. All that I asked was that you accept it (despite not understanding it) and you flat out told me that you couldn't. You repeatedly said that it seemed "narrow minded" to you and peppered me with imagined hypotheticals to try to find common ground that you could accept. You even just admitted that you were "interrogating" me for an explanation that you could respect. That doesn't seem like being happy to leave it as a misunderstanding or that not being good enough for me. I know that you meant well, but how you came across is that you couldn't accept my preference unless I helped you to understand it, called it narrow minded, asked repeated hypothetical questions that I shouldn't have needed to answer to gain your respect and thought that you were doing me a favor.

I wasn't comparing the two disputes. I don't even really understand what you two are arguing about. I was just comparing you wondering why he can't accept your different value judgement with me wondering last week why you couldn't accept mine. That's all.

I should clarify that I'm happy to "agree to disagree", but I don't think I said that I'm happy to "accept your preference," which to be honest I'm still not totally sure what that specifically means. I can certainly "acknowledge" your preference as being what it is, though. I don't think you're lying about it, but if I actively don't understand it, what more can I say?

As for the comparison, I think the circumstances are meaningfully different.

I was wondering why he felt the need to leap to a presumptuous strawman when the difference in the specific value judgement in question seemed to be a pretty cut and dry explanation (sure seemed like we disagreed mainly on the value of minimalism). If he doesn't feel that it's cut and dry, then fair enough, that can be further disputed and clarified, although I'm not sure any point of confusion justifies throwing around baseless claims-- that seems unfair regardless, so I took exception to it.

You're wondering why I similarly feel the need to bring up hypotheticals and the possibility of an unflattering explanation instead of chalking it up to a difference in value judgment. My answer to that is:

(1) I don't feel that the preference in question IS a cut and dry value judgement-- it contains qualifiers that bring to mind potential contradictions and complications, and I don't agree that all value judgements should be automatically considered valid as a matter of preference (which seems to be what you're asking for),

(2) I don't feel that I'm actually asserting anything to begin with by bringing these thoughts up, let alone unfairly. Comments like "that comes across as a bit ignorant/narrowminded, doesn't it?" or "I cannot understand why you feel that way, aside from maybe nostalgia" seem like pretty non-committal, non-accusational thoughts that contain enough respectful caveats and qualifiers that they ideally should be considered harmless food for thought. You might associate negative connotations with them that can feel uncomfortable to entertain, and I apologize if you felt slighted, but ultimately, I do feel that that's fair discourse rather than something nasty. Again, you did something similar when trying to understand why I "cared so much about your opinion", by wondering out loud about my insecurity. I didn't like hearing that questioned, sure, but ultimately, I think it would be unreasonable of me to have a problem with you doing that (unless we had a bad history of pettiness/getting personal, maybe). It's certainly possible, you're not unfairly claiming it outright, it's not meant as an insult, and without a compelling explanation from me, who could blame you for merely entertaining that notion?

If I slipped up and outright CLAIMED that you were "probably" narrowminded (aka. actually calling you it rather than bringing up the thought/possibility), I can definitely apologize for that, as I agree that that would be egregiously out of line and would be wildly unfair of me. I tried to make an effort not to go that far, though, and that's where the line is for me.

I'm also not sure I understand why interrogation in hopes of respecting a position more is a bad thing. If it really really matters to you, I can TRY to refrain from that kind of talk in the future (I might subconsciously either way because you reacted this way), but it would be begrudgingly out of courtesy/sensitivity rather than a genuine belief that it's the right way to discuss things.

 

[Osprey]

(1) I didn't feel that the preference in question WAS a cut and dry value judgement-- it contains qualifiers that bring to mind potential contradictions, and I'm not sure I agree that all value judgements are inherently valid on the basis of it being a matter of subjective preference, nor do I think these things should just be arbitrarily accepted,

Well, it was cut and dry. You just chose to read deep between the lines to make an argument over it and even asked me to confirm or deny your reading. You were so off in the weeds, though, that I didn't know how to respond or feel the need to.

(2) I don't feel that I'm actually asserting anything to begin with by bringing these thoughts up, let alone unfairly. Comments like "that comes across as a bit ignorant/narrowminded, doesn't it?" or "I cannot understand why you feel that way, aside from maybe nostalgia" seem like pretty non-committal, non-accusational thoughts that contain enough respectful caveats and qualifiers that they ideally should be considered harmless food for thought. They might come with negative connotations that can feel uncomfortable to even entertain, and I apologize if you felt slighted, but ultimately, I do feel that that's fair discourse rather than nasty. Again, you did something similar when trying to understand why I "cared so much about your opinion", by wondering out loud about my insecurity. I didn't like hearing that questioned, sure, but ultimately, I think it would be unreasonable of me to have a problem with you doing that (unless I were reading into some obvious pre-existing pettiness, which I don't think we have). It's certainly possible, you're not unfairly claiming it outright, and without a compelling explanation from me, who could blame you for merely entertaining that notion? I'm not sure I understand why interrogation in hopes of respecting a position more is a bad thing. Sentiments shouldn't be inherently respected or understood right off the bat.

If I slipped up and outright CLAIMED that you were "probably" narrowminded (aka. actually calling you it rather than bringing up the possibility), I can definitely apologize for that, as I agree that that would be egregiously out of line and would be wildly unfair of me. I tried to make an effort not to go that far, though, and that's where the line was for me.

The point was that it shows that you're coming at it from a judgmental point of view and I don't think that you should be judging what I value in games in the first place.

 

[Shareefruck]

Well, it was cut and dry. You just chose to read deep between the lines to make an argument over it and even asked me to confirm or deny your reading. You were so off in the weeds, though, that I didn't know how to respond or feel the need to.

The point was that it shows that you're coming at it from a judgmental point of view and I don't think that you should be judging what I value in games in the first place.

I don't know what to do with that information either.

Would you suggest that people should never make off-hand remarks about how they feel about trends and common views about pop culture in general, at the risk of personally offending the tastes of people who happened to subscribe to them? On some level, if we're honest about what we think, most people are often going to somewhat step on other people's toes. The way I see it, as long as it doesn't actually get personal, mean-spirited, disingenuous, or accusational, we should be able to do that much, even if we wildly disagree or completely don't understand each other, IMO. I really don't think of that as a bad thing.

This started with me just making an off-hand remark about how the common sentiment "If I wanted a story, I'd read a book! Games should stick to gameplay!" just didn't make any sense to me logically and seemed silly in general. I don't think that's an insane, over-reaching opinion to hold, and I didn't set out to argue with you about it specifically (I wasn't even aware that you held it).

If after a certain point of questioning/discussion, you don't think it's any of my business or that I'm owed an answer, then stop there and leave me with my unaddressed potentially ignorant opinion.

 

[Osprey]

This started with me just making an off-hand remark about how the common sentiment "If I wanted a story, I'd read a book! Games should be about gameplay!" just didn't make any sense to me logically and seemed silly in general (I can't say I feel any closer to making sense of it after this discussion, because the sticking points for me weren't addressed). I don't think that's an insane, over-reaching opinion to hold, and I didn't invite you to argue about it specifically (I wasn't even aware that you held it), nor was I picking on your takes or anything.

First, no one said, "Games should be about gameplay." No wonder you're arguing if that's how you read the first part.
Second, I didn't argue with your remark or take it personally. I just explained the sentiment that you were having trouble understanding.

 

[Shareefruck]

First, no one said, "Games should be about gameplay." No wonder you're arguing if that's how you read the first part.
Second, I didn't argue with your remark or take it personally. I just explained the sentiment that you were having trouble understanding.

"Games are most uniquely suited for gameplay, in my opinion," then. The distinction between the two aren't all that relevant to what I was saying. I'm not taking exception to an "ought" being implied, if that's what you're getting at.

It eventually got to a point where you did take it personally, though, no? I'm just saying that I didn't set out to drag you into it or anything.

 

[Andrei79]

The "if I want a story, I'll read a book" comments have always been absurd. In my experience, the people playing story driven games are often book readers to start with. There's no set rule about what gameplay is either. Nothing seperate clicking a button to parry from clicking one to discover clues or to answer a dialogue option. They're all interactive, which is why stories through a gaming medium offers something nothing else can provide. I don't care if my game has cheesy dialogue here and there or that it isn't a classic from Russian literature, it's the only medium where I can live through dozens of hours of a character's tribulations and make choices, all with visual support, voice acting and music to boot.

Im bringing up this conversation for no reason at all. Just thought it would help derail the thread further.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

This disagreement seems quite dumb and kind of reeks of people pontificating and enjoying the smell of their own farts.

 

[Mikeaveli]

The "if I want a story, I'll read a book" comments have always been absurd. In my experience, the people playing story driven games are often book readers to start with. There's no set rule about what gameplay is either. Nothing seperate clicking a button to parry from clicking one to discover clues or to answer a dialogue option. They're all interactive, which is why stories through a gaming medium offers something nothing else can provide. I don't care if my game has cheesy dialogue here and there or that it isn't a classic from Russian literature, it's the only medium where I can live through dozens of hours of a character's tribulations and make choices, all with visual support, voice acting and music to boot.

Im bringing up this conversation for no reason at all. Just thought it would help derail the thread further.

I think you have to distinguish between different types of story-driven games here. There is nothing interactive about the story of a Last of Us/Uncharted/God of War. You can watch all the cutscenes on YouTube and have the same experience as someone who actually played it. Nothing wrong with that for people who are looking for that cinematic experience but I find it boring and prefer a game where either the player has an impact on the story or there is little focus on story.

 

[Osprey]

The "if I want a story, I'll read a book" comments have always been absurd. In my experience, the people playing story driven games are often book readers to start with. There's no set rule about what gameplay is either. Nothing seperate clicking a button to parry from clicking one to discover clues or to answer a dialogue option. They're all interactive, which is why stories through a gaming medium offers something nothing else can provide. I don't care if my game has cheesy dialogue here and there or that it isn't a classic from Russian literature, it's the only medium where I can live through dozens of hours of a character's tribulations and make choices, all with visual support, voice acting and music to boot.

All interactions aren't the same. Clicking to solve a puzzle, adapt to a new situation or threat, kill an enemy, improve positioning or build something is very different than clicking to get to the next cutscene. There's not much challenge, sense of accomplishment or sense of choice in the latter. People who love story-driven games seem to not mind because they're after good, cinematic stories and building emotional connections with characters. There's nothing wrong with that, nor is there with people who don't value those things as much.

 

[Ceremony]

@pistolpete11 congratulations, you've officially experienced the gaming/Geek Emporium rite of passage of a massive back and forth with Shareefruck

We've all been there

 

[pistolpete11]

@pistolpete11 congratulations, you've officially experienced the gaming/Geek Emporium rite of passage of a massive back and forth with Shareefruck

We've all been there

Thank you, thank you.

Unfortunately, I don't think it was my first

 

[Andrei79]

All interactions aren't the same. Clicking to solve a puzzle, adapt to a new situation or threat, kill an enemy, improve positioning or build something is very different than clicking to get to the next cutscene. There's not much challenge, sense of accomplishment or sense of choice in the latter. People who love story-driven games seem to not mind because they're after good, cinematic stories and building emotional connections with characters. There's nothing wrong with that, nor is there with people who don't value those things as much.

I'm having a hard time following your post. Mostly because you end it with a sentence that makes me wonder what even compelled you to answer if you think that last sentence. Also because I feel you're confusing how many different types of games can be story driven games vs what you just described, which are AAA cinematic experiences. Pathfinder is a story driven game which has both challenge and accomplishment, moreso than 90-95% of games reviewed here. It's as hard as any fromsoft game. It's also very text heavy though, but I can't find any book that could provide me with the whole experience. A part of it, sure, but not the whole package. I'm bringing this game up because the conversation started with the Witcher 3 and Xenogears, which aren't cRPGs, but still in that broader family of RPGs.

 

[Andrei79]

I think you have to distinguish between different types of story-driven games here. There is nothing interactive about the story of a Last of Us/Uncharted/God of War. You can watch all the cutscenes on YouTube and have the same experience as someone who actually played it. Nothing wrong with that for people who are looking for that cinematic experience but I find it boring and prefer a game where either the player has an impact on the story or there is little focus on story.

No, I don't have to make that distinction because I'm talking about the concept as a whole. So, I don't care that there's AAA nonsense being published that's aimed at broader audiences. Lots of non story focused "pure" gameplay games are being published that are complete garbage. The concept of a story driven game works and when done right can't just be replaced by a book. And I'll stand by saying that I take issue mostly with that comment specifically. The most text heavy games, for example, are usually played by book readers to start with.

 

[Osprey]

I'm having a hard time following your post. Mostly because you end it with a sentence that makes me wonder what even compelled you to answer if you think that last sentence. Also because I feel you're confusing how many different types of games can be story driven games vs what you just described, which are AAA cinematic experiences. Pathfinder is a story driven game which has both challenge and accomplishment, moreso than 90-95% of games reviewed here. It's as hard as any fromsoft game. It's also very text heavy though, but I can't find any book that could provide me with the whole experience. A part of it, sure, but not the whole package. I'm bringing this game up because the conversation started with the Witcher 3 and Xenogears, which aren't cRPGs, but still in that broader family of RPGs.

I responded because you seemed to be saying that all clicking of buttons is gameplay and I thought that it was important to point out that all clicks aren't equally rewarding. Clicking to get to the next cutscene, for example, isn't very rewarding. You point out that that example doesn't apply to every type of story-driven game, but what you describe doesn't apply to every type, either. It seems that we're just on different pages and want to talk about different types of games. The Witcher 3 is interesting because it's kind of in the middle, sharing things in common with cRPGs, but with a cinematic story, so we can go either way with it, and we clearly did.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think you have to distinguish between different types of story-driven games here. There is nothing interactive about the story of a Last of Us/Uncharted/God of War. You can watch all the cutscenes on YouTube and have the same experience as someone who actually played it. Nothing wrong with that for people who are looking for that cinematic experience but I find it boring and prefer a game where either the player has an impact on the story or there is little focus on story.

No, I don't have to make that distinction because I'm talking about the concept as a whole. So, I don't care that there's AAA nonsense being published that's aimed at broader audiences. Lots of non story focused "pure" gameplay games are being published that are complete garbage. The concept of a story driven game works and when done right can't just be replaced by a book. And I'll stand by saying that I take issue mostly with that comment specifically. The most text heavy games, for example, are usually played by book readers to start with.

I agree that there are types/levels to this that can be distinguished, but I lean in the same direction on pretty much every level, personally. I'm curious what both your takes are on this and why.

Highest level: Obviously, I agree that there's a certain way to do story in a videogame that can't remotely be replicated by a book/movie, and this uniqueness gives it additional value. Some are TRULY interactive in a very creative way that completely makes full use of the medium's capabilities. That alone is enough to make the notion kind of silly (I agree, you just need one type of counter-example to deny the broad concept as a whole).

Moderate level: To add to that, I would argue that it doesn't even need to succeed that thoroughly for the argument to hold true, though. There are plenty of games that for the most part are told with a very linear, forward-moving story progression and not much interactivity to speak of besides pressing a button to progress story sequences in between the gameplay. But even these often have modest story elements unique to the medium that may not come to mind, but can also make a world of difference. Menus that contain event/character summaries and added lore, missable time/action-sensitive scenes that can add another dimension, visual staging/framing/atmosphere/tone-setting that's pretty unique to the restrictions of playing as a videogame character, etc.

Lowest level: But even if you take it to an unrealistic extreme and have a videogame that can 100% be replicated by a book or movie, I still don't see why that alone would justify denying/not caring about its value. It's ultimately just a piece of art/content to be consumed. If what it's doing succeeds in one form, there's no reason I can think of that it shouldn't succeed in another form that's capable of the same things. It's not MORE, despite its form allowing it to be-- But so what? I think that games like this straight up HAVEN'T been good (eg. the cinematic games Mikaeveli mentioned, even if they have some "moderate level" qualities that don't amount to much), but they wouldn't be good as movies either. If something came along that you would hypothetically love as a movie, why the hell would some arbitrary label of it being a videogame change that, if it's otherwise indistinguishable? If your favorite film was never released as a film, but was inexplicably released as a videogame that's literally just a blu-ray menu with a chapter select and play button, would you really value the narrative experience less? "It's just a preference/value judgement" doesn't address that logical inconsistency for me.

If someone just straight up didn't value story, period, and therefore wouldn't under any of these levels, I'd understand, even if I disagree. But it seems to me like if you value it in one medium, it would only make sense to value it in another, if none of that value is actually lost in the translation. (how could something go from not boring to boring, just because its medium changed to something with a larger Venn diagram?)

 

[Andrei79]

I responded because you seemed to be saying that all clicking of buttons is gameplay and I thought that it was important to point out that all clicks aren't equally rewarding. Clicking to get to the next cutscene, for example, isn't very rewarding. You point out that that example doesn't apply to every type of story-driven game, but what you describe doesn't apply to every type, either. It seems that we're just on different pages and want to talk about different types of games. The Witcher 3 is interesting because it's kind of in the middle, sharing things in common with cRPGs, but with a cinematic story, so we can go either way with it, and we clearly did.

Ah, got it and that makes sense. To clarify, what I had in mind when I wrote that included clicking dialogue for a cRPG (Inxile, Larian, CDPR, etc), but could just as well be applied to "pure" cinematic experiences.