The *Overrating of Games* Epidemic
Taren Durbank
overrated games of all time. I have thought about why overrating occurs so
commonly. The most obvious reason is a severe lack of mature critics and
professionalism in the industry, especially since any backyard hacker can
write a review and post it to the Internet, but also because computer and
video games are not really regarded as a true artform by the mainstream
(yet).
Here are some other, more specific, reasons why I think many game reviewers
overrate games:
1. They get games really early (near to their release date) and succumb to
all the hype.
2. They get overwhelmed by fantastic new graphics (again because they get
them near to the release date). If they had of played it a few years later
they would not think so highly of them. Graphics should be judged on the
merits of being artistic, stylish, meaningful, and universal.
3. They have not played enough games, so they don’t have a large enough
basis for comparison. For example, they may give game "A" 95% because they
haven’t played game B, C, D, and E, which actually have better interfaces,
gameplay, or plot, but the reviewer doesn’t know it so s/he just goes with
saying game A is awesome compared to the few games s/he has played.
4. They don’t mark enough on artistic merit. For example, looking for
universal and recurring themes and metaphors in the plot instead of just
action, or for truly artistic and meaningful graphics instead of just more
polygons and colours.
I also have a quote of James Hague from his article "Will Game Reviewers
Please Stand Up":
"What's wrong with the reviews that are available? Frequently, they're not
so much reviews as essays in which the author indulges his esoteric
technological fetishes. One reviewer I recently read, for instance, rambles
on about how a particular PS2 game's graphics suffer because the console has
only four megabytes of video memory. Another game gets panned because of
"low resolution textures," whatever that means.
"On the other end of the spectrum are reviewers who seem to have been
recruited at elementary schools. Titles are marked down for "weapons that
aren't spectacular enough," or because they "took only twenty hours to
finish," or because "level bosses are too easy.""
JH
"Taren Durbank" <tare...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:a774ll$64q$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
| This is a follow-up to the thread I sparked a while ago on the most
| overrated games of all time. I have thought about why overrating occurs so
| commonly. The most obvious reason is a severe lack of mature critics and
| professionalism in the industry, especially since any backyard hacker can
| write a review and post it to the Internet, but also because computer and
| video games are not really regarded as a true artform by the mainstream
| (yet).
I think the reviewers does not play the games long enough.
Black&White and Sacrifice got very high scores because of that.
Both games are lot of fun in the beginning but get very fast
very tedious and none of the reviewers had played long
enough to discover that.
/ JH
Damon Wilson
Strategy Games - now, alas, defunct) I have to agree that a lot of game
reviewers are immature. This largely isn't our fault, it has to be said.
Even the better funded review magazines and websites (certainly here in the
UK) rely on guys who are good at playing games, but rarely have much
experience in anything else. As can often be seen in sports reporting, guys
who are over-involved in a specific pastime naturally become rather shallow.
There is a direct parallel to the present situation from history. At the
turn of the nineteenth century, movies were seen as a silly pastime for
nitwits by the American and European intelligentsia - most flicks were just
fifteen-minute slapstick comedies or simplistic adventures. Serious art
critics would no more have dreamed of reviewing a 'nickelodeon' than they
would the comics page of a newspaper.
Then, in 1915, Griffith's Birth of a Nation came out: a three-hour epic
describing a war that many of its audience has actually lived through.
Whatever we may feel about BoaN today, at the time it was widely accepted
that it had proved potential of movies to be respectable art. I think it's
only a matter of time before a computer game comes out that impresses the
public enough score as genuine art. Then you can bet the more serious
reviewers will start getting involved.
To return to my original point, it's not entirely the reviewers' fault that
their reviews are shallow. Their employers and editors often insist that
they are written this way because 'only kids and morons play video games.'
Another reason is that most games are only fit for kids and morons. The
quality of creative writing (as opposed to creative programming) in most
games is abysmal. If games publishers spent a fraction of the money the
movie industry spends on talented plot/script writers, we'd already be
seeing brilliant and erudite journalists and academics writing long reviews
in the broadsheet newspapers and the art review magazines.
"Taren Durbank" <tare...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a774ll$64q$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
Alan B
it 90% plus ...
da Turtle
I think the same about the UNDER rating of games. Some games get awful
scores in the magazines, yet sell well. Who would rates solitair highly?
What is the most popular game of all time?
There was a game called "Speed Devils" for the Dreamcast. It got very
middling reviews. "Sega Rally" got wonderful reviews. Guess which game I
loved and played more? That's right, I played Speed Devils. It was a fun
driving game that I could play, or not play, as I felt like. I would
never have bought it if the buzz on the street had not been "hey, this is
actually fun!"
Turtle
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
> This is a follow-up to the thread I sparked a while ago on the most
> overrated games of all time. I have thought about why overrating occurs so
> commonly. The most obvious reason is a severe lack of mature critics and
> professionalism in the industry,
There is a similar problem with underrating games. If a game isn't:
1. Top ten
2. Six-figure seller
3. On the cover of the magazine
4. Way over budget
5. Brand new, never before seen, whiz bang graphics engine
then it will be reviewed as (corresponding precisely to the above list):
1. Average
2. Disappointing sales
3. Unknown
4. A budget title
5. Dated technology
Exceptions are made for remakes (for nostalgic value) and perhaps one
quirky puzzle game every once in a while. Adventure games almost always
start from their own five yard line. It would be nice if reviews could be
about the game and not about the process and the technology.
--
FOURTH DOWN AND GOAL FROM THE THREE!!!
Scott
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
http://www.heavycat.com - Only the Gameplay Matters
http://www.ladystar.net - Your Magical and Mysterious Adventure Awaits
Destroy
speak by the company providing the product to get a more than they
deserve positive review. The whole world is corrupt I tell you.
Seneca
[ . . . ]
> There is a direct parallel to the present situation from history. At the
> turn of the nineteenth century, movies were seen as a silly pastime for
> nitwits by the American and European intelligentsia - most flicks were
just
> fifteen-minute slapstick comedies or simplistic adventures. Serious art
> critics would no more have dreamed of reviewing a 'nickelodeon' than they
> would the comics page of a newspaper.
>
> Then, in 1915, Griffith's Birth of a Nation came out: a three-hour epic
> describing a war that many of its audience has actually lived through.
> Whatever we may feel about BoaN today, at the time it was widely accepted
> that it had proved potential of movies to be respectable art. I think it's
> only a matter of time before a computer game comes out that impresses the
> public enough score as genuine art. Then you can bet the more serious
> reviewers will start getting involved.
That's an interesting thought, but there's a huge difference between a work
of art and a game. Computer games have been around for 25 years (or longer
if you count games played on mainframes), which is long enough for them to
be recognized as an art form if there were any likelihood of that happening.
I think it is fair to say that computer games are already much more advanced
relative to their beginnings than Griffith's Birth of a Nation was relative
to the earliest movies.
The most important difference is that any real work of art is a thing
complete in itself, and requires an artist. A game may be genuinely artistic
in some respects (graphics, music etc.), those things that are actually
delivered in the box, but it is *gameplay* that's central after all--and
that can hardly be regarded as a work of art since its completion depends on
the end user.
There have been some attempts to make audiences an active part of "art"
(e.g., the movements of viewers in a gallery causing changes in sound and
light displays), but these have been uniformly silly. And it would be
virtually impossible for a reviewer to write a sensible review of such a
thing anyway (what exactly would he be reviewing?) other than to comment on
its novelty. I think there is somewhat the same difficulty with trying to
see games as an art form.
Seneca
Alan B
things were less transparent. Then there's the 'official' console mags who
give nearly everything 90% plus. It's like UK PC Zone magazine. They're big
Peter Molyneux fans, they had a monthly diary on the development of Black &
White, the world exclusive review in issue 100 - there's realistically *no
way* that that game wasn't going to get 90% plus, whether it deserved it or
not.
For A list titles, I'd ignore the reviews in the mags and concentrate on
what people with no vested interest are saying on the newsgroups.
Mike Price
<tare...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This is a follow-up to the thread I sparked a while ago on the most
>overrated games of all time. I have thought about why overrating occurs so
>commonly. The most obvious reason is a severe lack of mature critics and
>professionalism in the industry, especially since any backyard hacker can
>write a review and post it to the Internet, but also because computer and
>video games are not really regarded as a true artform by the mainstream
>(yet).
>
>Here are some other, more specific, reasons why I think many game reviewers
>overrate games:
>
>1. They get games really early (near to their release date) and succumb to
>all the hype.
>
>2. They get overwhelmed by fantastic new graphics (again because they get
>them near to the release date). If they had of played it a few years later
>they would not think so highly of them. Graphics should be judged on the
>merits of being artistic, stylish, meaningful, and universal.
>
Nothing was truer than this with the release of the AMIGA 500. The
first year or so, Amiga games paled in comparison to their
counterparts on the C64. Wonderful Graphics, but bugger-all gameplay
(with a few exceptions). Even games like Bubble Bobble and Wizball,
which existed on both machines - the C64 version was far more
playable.
AMIGA went through this again with the release of the AGA chipset.
Reviewers went wild about a game called "Stardust", which was
basically just "Asteroids" with the most wonderful graphics you have
ever seen. I played it for 5 minutes before shelving it, yet
magazines would rate it as high as 98%.
Of course, the AMIGA was one of the greatest gaming machines ever, so
it can be excused for being the victim of over-rated game syndrome for
a couple of short periods.
>3. They have not played enough games, so they don’t have a large enough
>basis for comparison. For example, they may give game "A" 95% because they
>haven’t played game B, C, D, and E, which actually have better interfaces,
>gameplay, or plot, but the reviewer doesn’t know it so s/he just goes with
>saying game A is awesome compared to the few games s/he has played.
I never understood how the "Final Fantasy" series can wear the tag
"BEST RPG OF ALL TIME!", when the gameplay pales in comparison to
dozens of games and series over the past 20 years and even then, it is
a bit of a stretch to call it an RPG. The problem is that we have two
generations of gamers. The generation that grew up with Atari 2600 and
C64, before graduating to AMIGA and perhaps later PC (or a console).
The olde generation has experienced some wonderful games over the
years. I still haven't seen ANY game on the PC that can top at least
10 different titles from my trusty c64 (Anyone remember "Elite"?) The
newer generation of gamers, who consider Doom 2 to be "a really old
game" have missed all this and can only compare to what they are used
to and as someone else pointed out, most reviewers are young.
Ben Sisson
(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>It's nothing new either - I'd say it was much worse back in the day when
>things were less transparent. Then there's the 'official' console mags who
>give nearly everything 90% plus. It's like UK PC Zone magazine. They're big
>Peter Molyneux fans, they had a monthly diary on the development of Black &
>White, the world exclusive review in issue 100 - there's realistically *no
>way* that that game wasn't going to get 90% plus, whether it deserved it or
>not.
What did they give it?
B&W would get around 50% from me, all of it for its engine.
--
Ben Sisson
"I sense much beer in you. Beer leads to intoxication! Intoxication
leads to hangover!! Hangover leads to *suffering*....
From American Jedi
Lucian Wischik
>The problem is that we have two generations of gamers. The generation
>that grew up with Atari 2600 and C64, before graduating to AMIGA and
>perhaps later PC (or a console). The olde generation has experienced some
>wonderful games over the years. I still haven't seen ANY game on the PC
>that can top at least 10 different titles from my trusty c64 (Anyone
>remember "Elite"?)
Heretic! Everyone knows that *real* gameplay was only found on the ZX
Spectrum and BBC (the original platform for elite after all!) And we
looked down upon C64 as flashy graphics with weaker gameplay.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Hartmut Schmider
> I think the reviewers does not play the games long enough.
> Black&White and Sacrifice got very high scores because of that.
> Both games are lot of fun in the beginning but get very fast
> very tedious and none of the reviewers had played long
> enough to discover that.
I agree. Most flaws in games reveal themselves after a considerable time of
play. Time that a reviewer just does not have. Here's another example:
Dungean Keeper. That game was a blast to play, but after doing so for long
enough, the fundamental flaw in the design became inherent: you could just
"drop" your troops wherever you wanted, and as a result the whole strategy
in building a dungeon with a specific topology was rendered irrelevant.
Might as well have played all of it on a soccer field. Many reviewers
really loved the game, but had to agree later that it didn't live up to its
promise.
All of that being said, in my opinion games really are better these days
than they used to be. The developers do learn from past mistakes, and if we
players often feel that a specific game doesn't live up to our
expectations, it is mostly because our expectations are way higher than 10
years ago.
Regards, Hartmut
--
Hartmut Schmider | Morality is a venereal disease.
Queen's University | Its primary stage is called virtue;
-- | its secondary stage, boredom;
h...@post.queensu.ca | its tertiary stage, syphilis. (Karl Kraus)
Ashikaga
<snip>
> There is a similar problem with underrating games. If a game isn't:
>
> 1. Top ten
> 2. Six-figure seller
> 3. On the cover of the magazine
> 4. Way over budget
> 5. Brand new, never before seen, whiz bang graphics engine
>
> then it will be reviewed as (corresponding precisely to the above list):
>
> 1. Average
> 2. Disappointing sales
> 3. Unknown
> 4. A budget title
> 5. Dated technology
>
> Exceptions are made for remakes (for nostalgic value) and perhaps one
> quirky puzzle game every once in a while. Adventure games almost always
> start from their own five yard line. It would be nice if reviews could be
> about the game and not about the process and the technology.
I have no idea why a budget title would constitute as a reason for a bad
review. Some of the best films are low budget ones. So the game company
doesn't want to reinvent the wheel and therefore, uses less money to make a
game, does that necessarily mean the game has to be bad?
> --
> FOURTH DOWN AND GOAL FROM THE THREE!!!
>
> Scott
> Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
> http://www.heavycat.com - Only the Gameplay Matters
> http://www.ladystar.net - Your Magical and Mysterious Adventure Awaits
Ashikaga
Jenny100
news:4gqe9ucdvav7vtept...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:19:51 -0000, "Alan B" <re...@to.newsgroup.com>
> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
> >It's nothing new either - I'd say it was much worse back in the day when
> >things were less transparent. Then there's the 'official' console mags
who
> >give nearly everything 90% plus. It's like UK PC Zone magazine. They're
big
> >Peter Molyneux fans, they had a monthly diary on the development of Black
&
> >White, the world exclusive review in issue 100 - there's realistically
*no
> >way* that that game wasn't going to get 90% plus, whether it deserved it
or
> >not.
>
> What did they give it?
>
> B&W would get around 50% from me, all of it for its engine.
I thought the Computer Games Magazine review was good.
http://www.cgonline.com/reviews/blackwhite-01-r1.html
At least the reviewer finished the game and was able to
describe the problems with the later levels.
Peter Olafson
review is just an opinion. For myself, I find it best not to be concerned
about what other people think and simply enjoy (or not enjoy) games for
their own sake.
Peter
"Taren Durbank" <tare...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a774ll$64q$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> This is a follow-up to the thread I sparked a while ago on the most
> overrated games of all time. I have thought about why overrating occurs so
> commonly. The most obvious reason is a severe lack of mature critics
<snip>
Brandon Van Every
> them near to the release date). If they had of played it a few years later
> they would not think so highly of them. Graphics should be judged on the
> merits of being artistic, stylish, meaningful, and universal.
I think it's patently ridiculous to be judging games on the visual standards
of 10 years hence. Games are not film. The technology is highly unstable
and still evolving rapidly. When it levels off and everything can look
pretty much like anything you want it to look like, then a "permanence" of
visual regard will apply.
It is perfectly valid to make a game that looks better than other games in
the here and now. That's called progress. History? The future will have
to be the judge of history, you can't do it now. You might find something
ugly, or timeless. Others might find you a crank, or a genius.
> "What's wrong with the reviews that are available? Frequently, they're not
> so much reviews as essays in which the author indulges his esoteric
> technological fetishes. One reviewer I recently read, for instance,
rambles
> on about how a particular PS2 game's graphics suffer because the console
has
> only four megabytes of video memory.
Well, it's all about what you can do with a console's 640 x 480 display on a
TV, 32-bit color, triple buffered, and 500K worth of textures or bitmaps or
whatever, isn't it? Those are the limitations of a console with only 4MB of
video memory. Assuming no highspeed texture caching architecture, which
would make the 4MB limit a fib. (I'm not familiar with PS2 architecture).
Wanna do something with more onscreen information, like text or thousands of
detailed units or some such? Sorry, can't raise that TV's resolution. But
hey, try a PC where the video resource budget is much higher! You want more
texture memory? Sorry, you shouldn't want more texture memory. And don't
think about taking my 32-bit color away! I'm an artist, I want my universal
palette to make my universal art.
You can do good work within these limits. But if you don't recognize that
there are limits, and that they affect the aesthetic possibility of some
kinds of work, then you are foolish. 4MB video memory is not an esoteric
concern, it's an artistic concern.
> Another game gets panned because of
> "low resolution textures," whatever that means.
That means when you zoom to look at texture mapped objects, they look like
grainy shit. It also means that the textures are highly repetitive. I
don't know about you, but aside from op art, I don't value repetition in
visual artwork. Maybe it would be better to comment that something is ugly,
rather than the technical reason for it. Then again, maybe the reviewer
*did* do both and the critic was just whining about techno terms and not
paying attention.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon Van Every
"Hartmut Schmider" <h...@post.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:85r8mg7...@post.queensu.ca...
>
> I agree. Most flaws in games reveal themselves after a considerable time
of
> play. Time that a reviewer just does not have. Here's another example:
> Dungean Keeper. That game was a blast to play, but after doing so for long
> enough, the fundamental flaw in the design became inherent: you could just
> "drop" your troops wherever you wanted, and as a result the whole strategy
> in building a dungeon with a specific topology was rendered irrelevant.
> Might as well have played all of it on a soccer field. Many reviewers
> really loved the game, but had to agree later that it didn't live up to
its
> promise.
In DK1's defense, you couldn't drop your troops anywhere you wanted on your
*enemy's* dungeon. Only your own. So, the defender can deploy his troops
at will to any point in his dungeon. The topology of the dungeon is still
important, because the attacker can sneak up on something vital if the
defender hasn't planned well. I agree it would be better without the
dropping, it would be more tactical instead of a slugfest, but we shouldn't
denounce it as being completely devoid of tactics.
The real evil was DK2's combat pit. Whoever spends the most time
babysitting the combat pit wins the game.
Brandon Van Every
"Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> wrote in message
news:BsJl8.282$Jc5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> That's an interesting thought, but there's a huge difference between a
work
> of art and a game. Computer games have been around for 25 years (or longer
> if you count games played on mainframes), which is long enough for them to
> be recognized as an art form if there were any likelihood of that
happening.
Such a pronouncement would be devoid of technological analysis. Film works
with light. It's analog and the process can inherently handle a lot of
visual complexity in a simple manner. Computers are digital. The ability
of computers to handle complex visual art is entirely predicated on their
computational power. In this view, 25 years is definitely not enough time
to pronounce a verdict. Actually, I don't think film had a verdict in its
first 25 years either.
> I think it is fair to say that computer games are already much more
advanced
> relative to their beginnings than Griffith's Birth of a Nation was
relative
> to the earliest movies.
But the production processes are still not simple. That's the difference.
> The most important difference is that any real work of art is a thing
> complete in itself, and requires an artist. A game may be genuinely
artistic
> in some respects (graphics, music etc.), those things that are actually
> delivered in the box, but it is *gameplay* that's central after all--and
> that can hardly be regarded as a work of art since its completion depends
on
> the end user.
We don't need a definition of Art which hermetically separates artist and
audience. If you tried, Postmodernists would debunk it.
> There have been some attempts to make audiences an active part of "art"
> (e.g., the movements of viewers in a gallery causing changes in sound and
> light displays), but these have been uniformly silly.
Bullshit. Even Shakespeare was successful. But the thing to remember about
incorporating an audience, is that they're not trained actors.
Sean Howard
: This is a follow-up to the thread I sparked a while ago on the most
: overrated games of all time. I have thought about why overrating occurs so
: commonly. The most obvious reason is a severe lack of mature critics and
: professionalism in the industry, especially since any backyard hacker can
: write a review and post it to the Internet, but also because computer and
: video games are not really regarded as a true artform by the mainstream
: (yet).
You think the reviewers are immature? What about the programmers and the
artists and the designers that work on a game? The game industry is this
big inbred daycare...but that's why we like it so much :) There aren't
any "problems" with the way games are reviewed. Game reviewers are just
as inarticulate, ignorant, and self centered as the rest of us.
I have seen the enemy, and it is us.
: 1. They get games really early (near to their release date) and succumb to
: all the hype.
Just like everyone else...
: 2. They get overwhelmed by fantastic new graphics (again because they get
: them near to the release date).
Just like everyone else...
: 3. They have not played enough games, so they don’t have a large enough
: basis for comparison.
Actually, they play more games than the average schmoe. I'm not surprised
that Metal Gear Solid 2 got great reviews next to Generic $20 Swamp
Racing Hunter VII.
: 4. They don't mark enough on artistic merit. For example, looking for
: universal and recurring themes and metaphors in the plot instead of just
: action, or for truly artistic and meaningful graphics instead of just more
: polygons and colours.
While I would love a game that had even a single metaphor, games are not
about those types of thing. If the game is fun, I'm far more likely to
enjoy it that if it is literary. Games with heavy exposition generally
fail to impress.
: "What's wrong with the reviews that are available? Frequently, they're not
: so much reviews as essays in which the author indulges his esoteric
: technological fetishes. One reviewer I recently read, for instance, rambles
: on about how a particular PS2 game's graphics suffer because the console has
: only four megabytes of video memory. Another game gets panned because of
: "low resolution textures," whatever that means.
The complaints are valid, the reasons are suggested but may not be the
real problem behind the game. Long story short, the reviewers don't
like the game and look for reasons, however silly, to explain that away.
Regardless of the reasons, they still didn't like the game. Sure, you
might (I love Tales of Destiny above all RPGs) but then you are dealing with
factors of niche tastes.
: "On the other end of the spectrum are reviewers who seem to have been
: recruited at elementary schools. Titles are marked down for "weapons that
: aren't spectacular enough," or because they "took only twenty hours to
: finish," or because "level bosses are too easy.""
Again, valid complaints. Actually, you have to look at the context. Some
games are too short at 20 hours, some are too long at 10. MGS and Castlevania
Symphony of the Night both took only 10 hours to win, yet are regarded very
highly among the PSX games. On the other hand, if an exposition-heavy RPG
was 10 hours, you may have seen more than you played, and you would be
upset. Singling out the "took only xxx hours" complaint out of context does
make it look silly.
Like I said, these reviewers have problems with the games, and they don't
know quite how to express what they are yet, so they just pick out details.
The vocabulary necessary to explain gameplay faults doesn't exist yet, but
that brings me back to the who defining "game" and "toy" and the
philosophy of understanding videogames..and I don't think we want to go
back to that.
@@
Sean Howard
Now with 20% more raisens.
Joe62
<tare...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"What's wrong with the reviews that are available? Frequently, they're not
>so much reviews as essays in which the author indulges his esoteric
>technological fetishes.
This is getting close to the mark. There isn't yet a shared language
for writing about games nor any kind of real professionalism.
Think of how useful movie reviews can be. The language and terminology
(built up over a long time) allows the communication of a lot of
information.
The professionalism allows a reviewer to get their personal opinion
accross, but the good reviewers don't write for that purpose. The
pupose of the review is to help someone make a decision - is this
movie (or game) worth my time and money?
That's the real problem with game reviews. I couldn't care less
whether the *reviewer* likes the game - his job is to let me know if
*I'll* like it.
Joe62
<wils...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Another reason is that most games are only fit for kids and morons. The
>quality of creative writing (as opposed to creative programming) in most
>games is abysmal. If games publishers spent a fraction of the money the
>movie industry spends on talented plot/script writers, we'd already be
>seeing brilliant and erudite journalists and academics writing long reviews
>in the broadsheet newspapers and the art review magazines.
Very good point!
Nathan Mates
Damon Wilson <wils...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Another reason is that most games are only fit for kids and morons. The
>quality of creative writing (as opposed to creative programming) in most
>games is abysmal. If games publishers spent a fraction of the money the
>movie industry spends on talented plot/script writers, we'd already be
>seeing brilliant and erudite journalists and academics writing long reviews
>in the broadsheet newspapers and the art review magazines.
I think you vastly overestimate the number of quality movie
scripts, and that number seems to be declining over time compared to
decades ago. It is common for movies to begin shooting w/o a completed
script, and it's common for movies to have scripts rewritten while
filming-- and I believe the end product suffers for it.
While it is true that most games don't have good scripts, I'd think
that part of that is due to scriptwriters not having the skills and/or
vocabulary to deal with the open-endedness of most games. Those that
are more linear in nature can have a much more intricate plot simply
because the characters are following it much closer.
Would Shakespeare really be a better playwright if chunks of his
scripts had "characters go do what they feel like for a while"? I
don't think so. And yet, most game players demand such freedom. You
can't necessarily fault scripts for giving players what they want.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
# think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein
Hartmut Schmider
> In DK1's defense, you couldn't drop your troops anywhere you wanted on your
> *enemy's* dungeon. Only your own. So, the defender can deploy his troops
> at will to any point in his dungeon. The topology of the dungeon is still
> important, because the attacker can sneak up on something vital if the
> defender hasn't planned well. I agree it would be better without the
> dropping, it would be more tactical instead of a slugfest, but we shouldn't
> denounce it as being completely devoid of tactics.
OK, you're right. The topology of the dungeon mattered as far as the
"interface" between yours and the oponents is concerned. But everything
behind that boundary was irrelevant.
Point is that this flaw was invisible until you played the game for quite a
while. That's one reason why I find it's a good idea to wait a while before
you buy a game. Don;t only read the reviews that have to be done at the
time of release, but read what people who played it for a few weeks have to
say.
Regards,
Hartmut "you can't go wrong with Pong: tried tested and true" Schmider
Steve Hilberg
>Taren Durbank (tare...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>: 4. They don't mark enough on artistic merit. For example, looking for
>: universal and recurring themes and metaphors in the plot instead of just
>: action, or for truly artistic and meaningful graphics instead of just more
>: polygons and colours.
>While I would love a game that had even a single metaphor, games are not
>about those types of thing. If the game is fun, I'm far more likely to
>enjoy it that if it is literary. Games with heavy exposition generally
>fail to impress.
Say what?
Fallout, Fallout 2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, Star Control 2,
Starflight, Starflight 2, Wing Commander 1, Wing Commander 2, Wing
Commander 3, Descent: Freespace, Freespace 2, Wasteland....
Those are the games I remember _really_ liking. And most of them were
commercial successes, yet all were pretty heavy on story, atmosphere,
and exposition.
--
Steve Hilberg <Necromancer> CCSO Workstation Support Group
<hil...@uiuc.edu> KB9TEV
Member, APAGear CCSO _still_ doesn't pay me enough to
http://www.apagear.org speak for them, so I still don't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As we were forged we shall return, perhaps some day. | VNV Nation,
I will remember you and wonder who we were." | "Further"
Steve Hilberg
>Damon Wilson <wils...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>Another reason is that most games are only fit for kids and morons. The
>>quality of creative writing (as opposed to creative programming) in most
>>games is abysmal. If games publishers spent a fraction of the money the
>>movie industry spends on talented plot/script writers, we'd already be
>>seeing brilliant and erudite journalists and academics writing long reviews
>>in the broadsheet newspapers and the art review magazines.
> I think you vastly overestimate the number of quality movie
>scripts, and that number seems to be declining over time compared to
>decades ago. It is common for movies to begin shooting w/o a completed
>script, and it's common for movies to have scripts rewritten while
>filming-- and I believe the end product suffers for it.
This is true, but often, a film reviewer will make a big deal of that
and tell you that the writing is crap. When was the last time you saw
any game review say that about a computer game?
> While it is true that most games don't have good scripts, I'd think
>that part of that is due to scriptwriters not having the skills and/or
>vocabulary to deal with the open-endedness of most games. Those that
>are more linear in nature can have a much more intricate plot simply
>because the characters are following it much closer.
> Would Shakespeare really be a better playwright if chunks of his
>scripts had "characters go do what they feel like for a while"? I
>don't think so. And yet, most game players demand such freedom. You
>can't necessarily fault scripts for giving players what they want.
While part of what you say is true, the quality of the writing is
pretty lackluster in most games -- it's obvious a lot of times that
there was no real attempt to make the dialogue interesting, or force
the character to make difficult choices with an impact on the later
portions of the game. Plotting usually ends up sounding hamhanded
and not very engaging, while even the best RPGs make random killing
the best way to develop your character. I suppose the last point is
more a problem with the game system than the writing, but it all
weaves together.
Mark Morrison
<pnol...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Or perhaps they simply like the games better than you do. After all, a
>review is just an opinion.
Yes, but it's supposed to be a balanced, impartial opinion.
>For myself, I find it best not to be concerned
>about what other people think and simply enjoy (or not enjoy) games for
>their own sake.
>
Yes, but what if you depend on reviews to decide what games to buy ?
--
Bunnies aren't cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Bent C Dalager
Ashikaga <ashi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I have no idea why a budget title would constitute as a reason for a bad
>review. Some of the best films are low budget ones. So the game company
>doesn't want to reinvent the wheel and therefore, uses less money to make a
>game, does that necessarily mean the game has to be bad?
There seems to be this trend that the quality of a game is measured by
the amount of work and resources that went into making it. Like you, I
don't understand it. It's probably just the way things are.
Might have something to do with people not wanting to be "ripped
off". If the game was expensive to produce, at least you're paying for
_something_. If it was a 2-week tweak of an old game, then you feel
"cheated" for paying 30 bucks for it, even if the game _is_
outstanding in its own right. Probably a hangover from purchase of
physical goods that just isn't too compatible with the nature of the
information market place.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - b...@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Sean Howard
: Fallout, Fallout 2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, Star Control 2,
: Starflight, Starflight 2, Wing Commander 1, Wing Commander 2, Wing
: Commander 3, Descent: Freespace, Freespace 2, Wasteland....
: Those are the games I remember _really_ liking. And most of them were
: commercial successes, yet all were pretty heavy on story, atmosphere,
: and exposition.
Actually, not many of those were commercial successes, and live on mostly
as cult classics. I certainly am fond of Torment, but I can't help but
think that these games are more of the exception than the rule. Even
with the first four games...lots of talking to people, there was at least
a decent balance of words to action. Even Torment broke the conversations
up by giving you control occasionally.
But some games, like Valkyrie Profile (one of my favorite games), may
have cutscenes that are an hour long. In fact, despite having a great
strategy and action platform game in there, I haven't replayed it because
I don't want to sit through the first 3 hours of the game which are almost
exclusively cut scenes. As talky as Torment was, it NEVER gave up interaction,
even if that interaction was limited to a few dialog choices.
Japnese RPGs tend to be the worst - strategy rpgs a close second.
@@
Sean Howard
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
> "Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd." wrote...
> <snip>
>> There is a similar problem with underrating games. If a game isn't:
>>
>> 1. Top ten
>> 2. Six-figure seller
>> 3. On the cover of the magazine
>> 4. Way over budget
>> 5. Brand new, never before seen, whiz bang graphics engine
>>
>> then it will be reviewed as (corresponding precisely to the above list):
>>
>> 1. Average
>> 2. Disappointing sales
>> 3. Unknown
>> 4. A budget title
>> 5. Dated technology
>>
>> Exceptions are made for remakes (for nostalgic value) and perhaps one
>> quirky puzzle game every once in a while. Adventure games almost always
>> start from their own five yard line. It would be nice if reviews could
>> be about the game and not about the process and the technology.
>
> I have no idea why a budget title would constitute as a reason for a bad
> review. Some of the best films are low budget ones. So the game company
> doesn't want to reinvent the wheel and therefore, uses less money to make
> a game, does that necessarily mean the game has to be bad?
>
Yep. That's the game media. 50% of the reason the economics of the game
industry don't work. The other 50% is the "Department of Wheel
Reinvention" that is page one on every game design document.
Tall development dollars always impress the game media. It's an easy way
to measure, as opposed to something abstract like gameplay or fun. This is
why the entire shareware market is dismissed (except for the obligatory
mention of Doom), why Interactive Fiction is dismissed (except for the
obligatory mention of Zork), and why Adventure Games are dismissed (except
for the obligatory mention of Myst). "But, but..." the game media
sputters, "it's too easy to make a game like that! Everyone MUST spend at
least a year fiddling with matrices and floating point optimizations!
That's what games are all about!"
The only room for non-mega-budget games in the industry, it seems, is the
either Independent Games Contest, and/or the occasional quirky puzzle.
Nothing else is taken seriously without a seven-figure budget.
--
Jordan fades back... *swish* AND THAT'S THE GAME!!!!!!
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
...
>
> : 3. They have not played enough games, so they don’t have a large enough
> : basis for comparison.
>
> Actually, they play more games than the average schmoe. I'm not surprised
> that Metal Gear Solid 2 got great reviews next to Generic $20 Swamp
> Racing Hunter VII.
>
> : 4. They don't mark enough on artistic merit. For example, looking for
> : universal and recurring themes and metaphors in the plot instead of just
> : action, or for truly artistic and meaningful graphics instead of just
> : more polygons and colours.
>
> While I would love a game that had even a single metaphor, games are not
> about those types of thing. If the game is fun, I'm far more likely to
> enjoy it that if it is literary. Games with heavy exposition generally
> fail to impress.
Games without heavy exposition also fail to impress. The question is,
which impresses fewer people? My guess is that thousands of years of
storytelling is going to carry a little more weight than the latest
vertex-shading technique.
--
"I'm sorry, Captain, but I have an emergency call on
line five from a Mr. Ham."
"Alright, give me Ham on five, hold the Mayo."
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
> I think it's
> only a matter of time before a computer game comes out that impresses the
> public enough score as genuine art. Then you can bet the more serious
> reviewers will start getting involved.
I'll guess it will be turned down by the first five publishers it's pitched
to. Success is only measured in unit sales. Contributing to society or to
a body of great works is irrelevant because it can't appear on a 10Q.
> To return to my original point, it's not entirely the reviewers' fault
> that their reviews are shallow. Their employers and editors often insist
> that they are written this way because 'only kids and morons play video
> games.'
The implication of these employers and editors that kids are morons is
alternately amusing and depressing.
> Another reason is that most games are only fit for kids and
> morons. The quality of creative writing (as opposed to creative
> programming) in most games is abysmal.
Hear hear..
> If games publishers spent a
> fraction of the money the movie industry spends on talented plot/script
> writers, we'd already be seeing brilliant and erudite journalists and
> academics writing long reviews in the broadsheet newspapers and the art
> review magazines.
Or, even if game publishers spent a fraction of the money wasted on
reinventing the wheel, they'd achieve similar results.
--
"Alright, who taught the cats how to type?"
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
> "Damon Wilson" <wils...@btinternet.com> wrote
> [ . . . ]
>> There is a direct parallel to the present situation from history. At the
>> turn of the nineteenth century, movies were seen as a silly pastime for
>> nitwits by the American and European intelligentsia - most flicks were
> just
>> fifteen-minute slapstick comedies or simplistic adventures. Serious art
>> critics would no more have dreamed of reviewing a 'nickelodeon' than they
>> would the comics page of a newspaper.
>>
>> Then, in 1915, Griffith's Birth of a Nation came out: a three-hour epic
>> describing a war that many of its audience has actually lived through.
>> Whatever we may feel about BoaN today, at the time it was widely accepted
>> that it had proved potential of movies to be respectable art. I think
>> it's only a matter of time before a computer game comes out that
>> impresses the public enough score as genuine art. Then you can bet the
>> more serious reviewers will start getting involved.
>
> That's an interesting thought, but there's a huge difference between a
> work of art and a game. Computer games have been around for 25 years (or
> longer if you count games played on mainframes), which is long enough for
> them to be recognized as an art form if there were any likelihood of that
> happening. I think it is fair to say that computer games are already much
> more advanced relative to their beginnings than Griffith's Birth of a
> Nation was relative to the earliest movies.
But each was developed in an entirely different social context. Games are
driven entirely by money. Film in the early 20th century was not dependent
on a publisher. Essentially all films were "independent" at the time, and
didn't have to move a quarter of a million units in order to remain
"economically viable."
Were the game industry to begin to recognize the value of those elements of
a game not directly tied to unit sales, I think it would start a
renaissance in the game industry unmatched since the opening of the first
arcade.
--
I think that all right-thinking people are sick and tired of
being told that ordinary decent people are fed up with being
sick and tired. I'm certainly not. But I'm sick and tired of
being told that I am.
Ben Sisson
Hilberg) (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>ro...@mailer.fsu.edu (Sean Howard) writes:
>>Taren Durbank (tare...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>: 4. They don't mark enough on artistic merit. For example, looking for
>>: universal and recurring themes and metaphors in the plot instead of just
>>: action, or for truly artistic and meaningful graphics instead of just more
>>: polygons and colours.
>
>>While I would love a game that had even a single metaphor, games are not
>>about those types of thing. If the game is fun, I'm far more likely to
>>enjoy it that if it is literary. Games with heavy exposition generally
>>fail to impress.
>
>Say what?
>
>Fallout, Fallout 2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, Star Control 2,
>Starflight, Starflight 2, Wing Commander 1, Wing Commander 2, Wing
>Commander 3, Descent: Freespace, Freespace 2, Wasteland....
>
Awesome list.
The fact there hasn't been a true followup on the SC2/SF2 hybrids is
almost a crime. Why the hell not?
Brandon Van Every
>
> OK, you're right. The topology of the dungeon mattered as far as the
> "interface" between yours and the oponents is concerned. But everything
> behind that boundary was irrelevant.
Not quite. When you ran out of troops to defend yourself, an attacking
enemy would penetrate your dungeon faster or slower depending on how well
you had situated stuff. An "open room" design was the least defensible but
gave the most firepower in the initial assault, 'cuz everything was right
there to counterattack with. An elaborate door-behind-door,
trap-behind-trap sort of dungeon would give the defender time to withdraw
units, heal them, and send them back out for more fighting. Of course the
real magic was in having a battle in one place while destroying an enemy
room in another place with a mere imp.
Brandon Van Every
"Sean Howard" <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:a78214$pco$1...@news.fsu.edu...
>
> The vocabulary necessary to explain gameplay faults doesn't exist yet,
I disagree. It's called human language, English being my preferred one.
Just because others use language badly, or use language in a way that you
don't agree with, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Brandon Van Every
"Joe62" <jmcgin...@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:3c979b63...@news.telus.net...
>
> Think of how useful movie reviews can be. The language and terminology
> (built up over a long time) allows the communication of a lot of
> information.
Yeah, let's think about this. Movie reviews aren't worth shit! I saw "We
Were Soldiers" recently. That inestimable bleeding heart liberal fag rag
that we Seattlites know and love as "The Stranger" gave it a one sentence
review, dismissing it as "jingoistic claptrap." Having seen the movie, I
consider that completely irresponsible. The Vietnamese were hardly
portrayed as a bunch of mindless robots, there were clear and deliberate
parallels between the people on both sides of the conflict. I daresay the
reviewer is incapable of taking the subject of war seriously. I almost
wrote a letter to the editor but a sense of futility kicked in.
What's the moral of the story here? There's a perceived need to review
stuff. People often want more information about an entertainment product
than the entertainment product's marketing department delivers. So how is
this perceived need met? Well, one possibility - the one you're all
decrying - is for the marketers to increase their coverage of the product
through the mechanism of reviews. Another possibility is that Joe Random
Asshole gives you his worthless $0.02, because he likes having a funky
arthouse job at some rag like The Stranger. Who's really benefitting? The
marketers who advertize in The Stranger. They know you're picking up The
Stranger for a different perceived need, but you'll end up looking at a lot
of products. At least such rags have movie schedules, that's something
about movies they can't screw up.
I don't trust anybody. I've heard intellectual screenwriting colleagues of
mine denounce movies they haven't even seen! Pointing out this hypocrisy
(the movie in question was "Fight Club") my friend just continued to
bluster. The only person I trust is me.
Consequently for games: no demo, no purchase. I don't need reviews. I
could care less about reviews. I do need demos. If something has no demo,
then *maybe* I'll pick it up on the bargain rack someday. But only if the
title has gained such notoriety that it sounds worth it. That's probably
how I'll try "Black & White" one of these days. I'm willing to pay $5 for
it.
> That's the real problem with game reviews. I couldn't care less
> whether the *reviewer* likes the game - his job is to let me know if
> *I'll* like it.
That's the real problem with *all* reviews. And you're confused about the
reviewer's job. The reviewer's job is to increase the readership and
advertizing revenue of the rag he writes for. If he can give the appearance
of doing this, he gets to keep his job.
Brandon Van Every
"Bent C Dalager" <b...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:a78e02$k8p$2...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
>
> Might have something to do with people not wanting to be "ripped
> off". If the game was expensive to produce, at least you're paying for
> _something_. If it was a 2-week tweak of an old game, then you feel
> "cheated" for paying 30 bucks for it, even if the game _is_
> outstanding in its own right. Probably a hangover from purchase of
> physical goods that just isn't too compatible with the nature of the
> information market place.
I disagree that it's a hangover. Quality ideas take time and resources to
manufacture. The low quality ones - like most Hollywood scripts, for
instance - are mere agriculture. Plant, water, harvest, sell.
Brandon Van Every
"Mark Morrison" <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:qmef9ukkikbn4mfjb...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:49:12 GMT, "Peter Olafson"
> <pnol...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Or perhaps they simply like the games better than you do. After all, a
> >review is just an opinion.
>
> Yes, but it's supposed to be a balanced, impartial opinion.
Balanced against what point of balance?
> Yes, but what if you depend on reviews to decide what games to buy ?
Then you're stupid. Sorry, it's true. Even getting people's opinions on
Usenet isn't all that worthwhile. Some of those Usenet opinions will be the
correct ones. But there are so many of them, that you can't tell until you
actually play the game.
The only thing that works is a demo.
Brandon Van Every
"Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd." <in...@NOSPAM.heavycat.com> wrote in message
news:u9fhaa3...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Tall development dollars always impress the game media. It's an easy way
> to measure, as opposed to something abstract like gameplay or fun.
Let's not muddle the issues.
> This is
> why the entire shareware market is dismissed (except for the obligatory
> mention of Doom),
Shareware is dismissed because it has no marketing budget to command
attention with.
> why Interactive Fiction is dismissed (except for the
> obligatory mention of Zork),
IF is dismissed because the vast majority of gamers don't care to read text.
IF really should be read by book readers. If electronic books ever catch
on, and if writers of say Stephen King or Tom Clancy's caliber and notoriety
decide to do IF, then there's hope for IF.
> and why Adventure Games are dismissed (except
> for the obligatory mention of Myst).
Adventure games are dismissed because they're resource intensive to produce
and have a small audience. This actually serves as a counterpoint to your
price tag theory. The reviewers might love big price tags, but love cannot
sustain sales if too few people want the product.
Brandon Van Every
>
> The implication of these employers and editors that kids are morons is
> alternately amusing and depressing.
Well, realistically, as smart as I am and as smart as I was, I was not as
smart as a child as an adult.
Brandon Van Every
>
> Were the game industry to begin to recognize the value of those elements
of
> a game not directly tied to unit sales, I think it would start a
> renaissance in the game industry unmatched since the opening of the first
> arcade.
Please define this value.
Jester
> which impresses fewer people? My guess is that thousands of years of
> storytelling is going to carry a little more weight than the latest
> vertex-shading technique.
I think you overestimate a large part of the game-playing public.
- Daniel
--
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing
sound they make as they fly by.
-- Douglas Adams
Sean Howard
: > The vocabulary necessary to explain gameplay faults doesn't exist yet,
: I disagree. It's called human language, English being my preferred one.
: Just because others use language badly, or use language in a way that you
: don't agree with, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"Sally rode her bike to the store. It was stolen".
What was stolen? Her bike of course, but that isn't 100% clear based on
language alone. Context is an important part of communication. For instance,
"Sally had a monkey and a gerbil. It was stolen."
The context fails to indicate which of the two objects was stolen. It is
the same thing with game reviews.
"This game has crappy gameplay"
WTF does that mean? The word "gameplay" can mean a multitude of things, but
we don't have the context to derive meaning from. Are the controls flakey?
Are there not enough rewards? Are the enemies not fun to battle against?
Saying that saming has less than stellar gameplay means NOTHING...
When I say we don't have the vocabulary, I don't mean that we need to
invent new words but that language itself is a contributing problem to
communication. We need to give context to these words we throw around too
often without thinking about. When we talk about "gameplay" in a review,
we need to decide whether it always refers to a mathematical measure of
the relationships between game objects, or whether it represents the
enjoyability of these relationships.
We've had arguments in the past about "games" vs "toys" and what is a "game",
and they never produced anything because we were speaking different
languages. We were talking about different subjects.
@@
Sean Howard
Robert Tweed
news:x6Sl8.2569$s8.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Mark Morrison" <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:qmef9ukkikbn4mfjb...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:49:12 GMT, "Peter Olafson"
> > <pnol...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but what if you depend on reviews to decide what games to buy ?
>
> Then you're stupid. Sorry, it's true.
No it isn't. If you take the first review you read as accurate without some
other foundation then you are gullible, although not necessarily stupid. You
never really know what a game is like until you have played it completely,
and by that time it's too late to decide whether or not to buy it. You
should make such decisions based on available information, preferrably from
numerous undependent sources. It works for governments, who always delegate
some responsibility to experts and working groups. Does that make them
stupid?
> Even getting people's opinions on
> Usenet isn't all that worthwhile. Some of those Usenet opinions will be
the
> correct ones.
Opinions are not right and wrong. There are facts and there are opinions.
Facts are true and false. Opinions are subjective. When comparing other
people's opinions, it is only useful to consider whether each person's
opinion is likely to be similar to your own opinion.
> But there are so many of them, that you can't tell until you
> actually play the game.
Well, you can judge these things quite easily. Does person "A" sound like a
nutter? If so, then you probably don't want to trust their opinion. Does
Person "B" make some interesting statements about the game that strike a
chord and capture your interest? If so, then you are likely to share similar
opinons and therefore might want to give that review some extra weight. Does
person "C" cover a lot of explicit detail? Has Person "D" pointed you in the
right direction before? Etc., etc..
> The only thing that works is a demo.
Actually, the only thing that works is playing the entire game. But doesn't
that somewhat self-defeating? If there is a demo available then that's
definitely a valuable source of information, but just one source. Bear in
mind that a demo only tells you how good the demo is, nothing about the rest
of the game.
Quite frankly your whole argument is completely invalid. If you read several
different reviews and weigh the available information then you are making an
informed decision. This is something that can be done without ever looking
at a demo. Reviews are a single source of information. That's all they are,
and that's all anything is. Never trust a single source of information -
it's as simple as that.
- Robert
Brandon Van Every
> Brandon Van Every (vane...@3DProgrammer.com) wrote:
>
> : > The vocabulary necessary to explain gameplay faults doesn't exist yet,
>
> : I disagree. It's called human language, English being my preferred one.
> : Just because others use language badly, or use language in a way that
you
> : don't agree with, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> "Sally rode her bike to the store. It was stolen".
>
> What was stolen? Her bike of course, but that isn't 100% clear based on
> language alone. Context is an important part of communication. For
instance,
To play a fun game of nitpicking, the English language includes some rules
of context that were drilled into all of us in grade school.
> "Sally had a monkey and a gerbil. It was stolen."
>
> The context fails to indicate which of the two objects was stolen. It is
> the same thing with game reviews.
English teachers would say that the sentence lacks parallelism and is
therefore bad English.
> "This game has crappy gameplay"
>
> WTF does that mean?
True, the single English word "gameplay" cannot tell you anything. However,
a few sentences or paragraphs can. "This game took way too long to get from
building your first city to conquering the entire globe. Conquering a
continent was reasonable, but after that, the morass of units bogged down
the whole thing." There. 2 sentences to tell you why Civ III has crappy
gameplay. Although in fairness, it also has good gameplay previous to the
bog-down.
> The word "gameplay" can mean a multitude of things, but
> we don't have the context to derive meaning from. Are the controls flakey?
> Are there not enough rewards? Are the enemies not fun to battle against?
> Saying that saming has less than stellar gameplay means NOTHING...
It isn't that hard to write English sentences that describe things
specifically. The problem is that people are sloppy, verbose, or muddled in
how they analyze things. Admittedly, I've spent a *lot* of time thinking
about Civ to distill it's primary problem into those 2 sentences.
> When I say we don't have the vocabulary, I don't mean that we need to
> invent new words but that language itself is a contributing problem to
> communication.
I say it isn't. I say that people are lazy speakers. Why think and speak
precisely when "THIS SUX!" will do? Well, maybe because some taciturn
Usenet debator will take the mickey out of you.
That, actually, is one of my big gripes about reviewers. Frequently they
aren't open to challenge. They don't leave e-mail addresses, there isn't a
forum where the reviewer must defend his pronouncements.
> We need to give context to these words we throw around too
> often without thinking about.
Alternately, we need to think about words and not throw them around.
There's a difference between communication standards and communication
skills.
> When we talk about "gameplay" in a review,
> we need to decide whether it always refers to a mathematical measure of
> the relationships between game objects, or whether it represents the
> enjoyability of these relationships.
But since you'll never get an ISO standard meaning of the word "gameplay,"
the article is going to have to define its terms anyways. Hence, you don't
even need the word "gameplay." You could just talk about the specific
problems in the game that make it boring. Myself, I'm big on "pace" as the
site of many gameplay problems. I think about pace primarily in terms of
film language.
> We've had arguments in the past about "games" vs "toys" and what is a
"game",
> and they never produced anything because we were speaking different
> languages. We were talking about different subjects.
Yep. So the moral of the story is that instead of looking for dictionaries
and lexicons, we should be learning to speak English. Or whatever other
written language is handy.
Is this just because I'm a liberal arts major? Is there always going to be
a culture gap between the artsies and the enginerds?
Brandon Van Every
"Robert Tweed" <robert...@killingmoon.com> wrote in message
news:a7901r$idv7d$1...@ID-99544.news.dfncis.de...
> "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
> news:x6Sl8.2569$s8.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Mark Morrison" <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:qmef9ukkikbn4mfjb...@4ax.com...
> > >
> >
> > Then you're stupid. Sorry, it's true.
>
> No it isn't. If you take the first review you read as accurate without
some
> other foundation then you are gullible, although not necessarily stupid.
Isn't gullibility a specific form of stupidity? There are other kinds of
stupidity, like the inability to plug cords into TV and VCR sockets.
> You
> never really know what a game is like until you have played it completely,
> and by that time it's too late to decide whether or not to buy it.
I don't think that's true. I've never played a good demo and then found the
game to be bad. Good demos are very strong indicators of a full game's
quality.
Now, a mediocre or lousy demo might not show off a game properly, and people
have whined about that at times ("KQ#: Mask Of Eternity" springs to mind),
but I think people who make good games but lousy demos are stupid and
shouldn't get my money anyways. I don't trust games that have a mediocre or
lousy demo, there's no inherent reason that I should. They can fix their
own problems on their own time.
> You
> should make such decisions based on available information, preferrably
from
> numerous undependent sources.
There's only one source that matters, and that's the demo. That's as close
as you're going to get to the game without buying, borrowing, renting, or
pirating the game.
> It works for governments, who always delegate
> some responsibility to experts and working groups. Does that make them
> stupid?
Governments are stupid. Their performance compared to private industry is
legendary. Would you like to advance a different point of argument?
> > Even getting people's opinions on
> > Usenet isn't all that worthwhile. Some of those Usenet opinions will be
> > the correct ones.
>
> Opinions are not right and wrong. There are facts and there are opinions.
Fact: once you've reached the 19th century in Civ III, you will start to
have *lots* of units to manage, and the game will begin to bog down.
Opinion: this bogdown sucks. IMO, this opinion is a trivial extension of
the fact. Otherwise we'd formulate the fact as "once you get to the 19th
century you'll have this wonderful time, you won't know exactly why, but
you'll just get a warm fuzzy feeling inside of you." Some people of course
have the counter-opinion that micromanaging hundreds of units as they
perform the same shore clearing tasks over and over again is joyous. They
have the incorrect opinion. They're a pox on the Earth and they should all
be put against the wall when the Revolution comes.
If we could at least classify people's opinions broadly into polar camps,
then we could agree to disagree. Some players consider "Micromanagement" a
serious flaw and others consider it a whole lot of nebbish fun. (The Boring
People, I famously call them. Run for the hills, The Boring People are
crawling towards us!) The problem of course is quantifying
"Micromanagement." Civ III hints at what the definition would be like. I
don't have the mental energy to hammer out a definition right now.
> Facts are true and false. Opinions are subjective. When comparing other
> people's opinions, it is only useful to consider whether each person's
> opinion is likely to be similar to your own opinion.
Which is impossible unless you have a lot of experience with everything a
person is likely to say. Having read a few reviews by someone doesn't
count. They might agree with you 9 times but not the 10th. Now, if you've
found such a person and you're comfortable with losing your $30 10% of the
time, by all means consider your problem solved. But if you want 100% of
your money to go towards your happiness, download the demo.
> > But there are so many of them, that you can't tell until you
> > actually play the game.
>
> Well, you can judge these things quite easily. Does person "A" sound like
a
> nutter? If so, then you probably don't want to trust their opinion.
There's also the sheer amount of time it takes to read so many opinions.
The viewpoints are hardly consolidated, they're raw babble. Also the finer
the granularity of what's being discussed, the less you can trust anybody's
opinion. For any particular detail, what if they don't explain themselves
all that well, or you don't read it all that well? How can you tell the Big
Picture issues apart from the minor detail issues, if you haven't played the
game?
> > The only thing that works is a demo.
>
> Actually, the only thing that works is playing the entire game.
I'm curious why this is your experience. My experience is, a good demo is
an accurate representation of the game. Can you name some specific demos
you got burned on?
> Bear in
> mind that a demo only tells you how good the demo is, nothing about the
rest
> of the game.
To say that it tells you "nothing" about the rest of the game is a false
statement. Demos are always subsets of the full game.
> Quite frankly your whole argument is completely invalid.
Not by what you've proven so far. Your only strong argument is that Usenet
reviews are mostly opinion.
> If you read several
> different reviews and weigh the available information then you are making
an
> informed decision.
You are juggling a lot of conflicting noise and succumbing to paralysis of
analysis. Governments are famous for this. ;-) Decisive action = playing
the demo.
> This is something that can be done without ever looking
> at a demo. Reviews are a single source of information. That's all they
are,
> and that's all anything is. Never trust a single source of information -
> it's as simple as that.
Then you would never trust your own senses and judgements. I do. Maybe
that's the difference between us: I'm willing to make decisions based on
primary experience, and I value primary experience over secondary experience
and heresay when it comes to matters of aesthetics.
Taren Durbank
news:x6Sl8.2569$s8.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> news:qmef9ukkikbn4mfjb...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:49:12 GMT, "Peter Olafson"
> > <pnol...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Or perhaps they simply like the games better than you do. After all, a
> > >review is just an opinion.
> >
> > Yes, but it's supposed to be a balanced, impartial opinion.
>
> Balanced against what point of balance?
A Usenet review is often just an opinion.
But a true, artistic review is based on a set of universal criteria and
artistic merits that encompass a helluva lot more than just a single
person's subjective tastes. Good movie and book reviewers are aware of this;
most juvenile game reviewers are not.
Taren Durbank
> artists and the designers that work on a game? The game industry is this
> big inbred daycare...but that's why we like it so much :) There aren't
> any "problems" with the way games are reviewed. Game reviewers are just
> as inarticulate, ignorant, and self centered as the rest of us.
>
> I have seen the enemy, and it is us.
Stop saying "we" and "us". Your we and us doesn't include me, and I expect
it doesn't include a great deal of others reading this thread (and others
not reading this thread).
> : 1. They get games really early (near to their release date) and succumb
to
> : all the hype.
>
> Just like everyone else...
>
> : 2. They get overwhelmed by fantastic new graphics (again because they
get
> : them near to the release date).
>
> Just like everyone else...
Everyone? I am not a part of your everyone.
> : 4. They don't mark enough on artistic merit. For example, looking for
> : universal and recurring themes and metaphors in the plot instead of just
> : action, or for truly artistic and meaningful graphics instead of just
more
> : polygons and colours.
>
> While I would love a game that had even a single metaphor, games are not
> about those types of thing. If the game is fun, I'm far more likely to
> enjoy it that if it is literary. Games with heavy exposition generally
> fail to impress.
Do you speak for the majority of games? You do not. Plenty of games have
metaphor. It is just likely that you are one of those who does not see those
metaphors.
> @@
> Sean Howard
> Now with 20% more raisens.
What is a "raisen"?
Taren Durbank
> Brandon Van Every (vane...@3DProgrammer.com) wrote:
>
> : > The vocabulary necessary to explain gameplay faults doesn't exist yet,
>
> : I disagree. It's called human language, English being my preferred one.
> : Just because others use language badly, or use language in a way that
you
> : don't agree with, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I strongly agree with Brandon's notion. I oppose this common myth that a
sufficient language doesn't exist to critique games. The faults in grammar
about the stolen bikes are the fault of the writer, not the language.
The fact is, the inception of the interactive game has not redefined things
like metaphor, visual metaphor, subtle metaphor, plot, story techniques,
universal themes, recurring themes, art techniques, use of colour to portray
meaning, use camera techniques to portray meaning, etc., etc. These are
things that can be critiqued the same way as in film or novels.
The only real new thing is how to critique to the interactive elements of
the game's plot. But even that is not such a huge hurdle.
As for describing gameplay, it is already defined. A huge vocab of words
already exists to describe gameplay, along with interfaces and control
schemes. If you had read a good deal of reviews then you would know that
this vocab exists. It may not be used very well by most reviewers, but I do
believe it is there.
Brandon Van Every
"Taren Durbank" <tare...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a79an7$85q$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
Ok, given your framing of the problem, let me repeat the question: balanced
against what point of balance? You've said more things should be taken into
account. You haven't actually said where the point of balance is.
I bet you can't find this point of balance. I think you're walking straight
into the maws of Moral Relativism.
Brandon Van Every
> > You think the reviewers are immature? What about the programmers and the
> > artists and the designers that work on a game? The game industry is this
> > big inbred daycare...but that's why we like it so much :) There aren't
> > any "problems" with the way games are reviewed. Game reviewers are just
> > as inarticulate, ignorant, and self centered as the rest of us.
> >
> > I have seen the enemy, and it is us.
>
> Stop saying "we" and "us". Your we and us doesn't include me, and I expect
> it doesn't include a great deal of others reading this thread (and others
> not reading this thread).
How would you measure it? Would you count up the number of people who like
your reviews vs. the number of people who think you're an opinionated
asshole? Would you do this for all reviewers? If you have N reviewers, P
gameplayers, and Q games to review, who would you declare is the articulate,
knowledgeable, far seeing one?
You *can* measure social consensus this way. But there's no guarantee that
only one kind of consensus will be reached. There might be multiple
polarities or political parties. Democrat vs. Republican. Democrat vs.
Republican vs. Libertarian vs. Green. Or maybe there are so many polarities
that you really can't discern a single "far seeing" individual. Just a lot
of party noise.
Art is a controversial subject. I doubt you're going to state a criteria
that everyone agrees upon, and I doubt you're going to measure a reviewer
that everyone agrees upon.
Ergo, from some people's perspective you're just as much of an inarticulate,
ignorant, self centered asshole as the next guy. The question is, does this
*matter* ? Do you have your public, your like-minded types?
> > : 1. They get games really early (near to their release date) and
succumb
> to
> > : all the hype.
> >
> > Just like everyone else...
> >
> > : 2. They get overwhelmed by fantastic new graphics (again because they
> get
> > : them near to the release date).
> >
> > Just like everyone else...
>
> Everyone? I am not a part of your everyone.
True, I'm not a part of (1) or (2) either. But I think the point is valid:
reviewers often have the failings of all sorts of other people. In this
respect they're actually worthy representatives, qualified to speak about
what Joe Average Consumer will or won't like. Bessy may not know Art but
she knows she liked that duck painting. So golly, a movie about duck
paintings is gonna sell to her!
Generally every time my friend Adam coos about the graphics of some new
game, I roll my eyes. I tell him to download demos but he's too lazy.
Actually he does do one thing right: he buys from stores with a return
policy. He ends up paying top dollar if he keeps the game, a condition I
find intolerable 'cuz I'm a lot cheaper than he is, but he's not screwed if
it sucks. Buy the game, play the game, return the game, "Gee I guess I
should listen to you sometime about demos" is a recurring pattern.
> > While I would love a game that had even a single metaphor, games are not
> > about those types of thing. If the game is fun, I'm far more likely to
> > enjoy it that if it is literary. Games with heavy exposition generally
> > fail to impress.
>
> Do you speak for the majority of games? You do not. Plenty of games have
> metaphor. It is just likely that you are one of those who does not see
those
> metaphors.
You are both speaking in a hopelessly vague way. (i.e. inarticulate,
ignorant, self centered from *my* perspective. Nothing personal, just
pointing out the relativity.) Why don't you try arguing about a specific
game, whether it "has metaphor" or not? Then we could all find out what a
metaphor is. Or isn't. Or whether the rest of us even care. Or should
care.
The main direction of human evolution is towards convincing other people to
do your bidding. Remember that when thinking about game reviewers, CEOs,
experts, etc.
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
>> This is
>> why the entire shareware market is dismissed (except for the obligatory
>> mention of Doom),
>
> Shareware is dismissed because it has no marketing budget to command
> attention with.
I believe that was almost exactly what I said.
>
>> why Interactive Fiction is dismissed (except for the
>> obligatory mention of Zork),
>
> IF is dismissed because the vast majority of gamers don't care to read
> text.
That must be why there were four Monkey Island games made.
>> and why Adventure Games are dismissed (except
>> for the obligatory mention of Myst).
>
> Adventure games are dismissed because they're resource intensive to
> produce
> and have a small audience.
Hmmmm... Longest Journey sold a quarter of a million units. I don't think
I need to point out how many units Myst, Riven, etc. sold. There may not
be a huge audience for the average adventure game, but this is usually due
to the publisher not marketing the game to anyone except the standard "game
players market" (who probably don't like adventure games anyway) and then
whining that "nobody will buy the game."
--
"She said to have Javasheets and style scripts and then to
eat lots of cookies and then to have 16-bits and ummm..
enabled!"
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
>
> "Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd." <in...@NOSPAM.heavycat.com> wrote in message
> news:u9fiiqo...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> Were the game industry to begin to recognize the value of those elements
> of
>> a game not directly tied to unit sales, I think it would start a
>> renaissance in the game industry unmatched since the opening of the first
>> arcade.
>
> Please define this value.
It's not that simple. Games need to begin to appeal to people the way
books, music and movies do. They need stories and characters and literary
elements that can communicate something besides statistics. Some games need
to have value beyond just technological progress or achieving the highest
score/level. It can't be just another item in a feature list.
The problem is, no publisher will *ever* listen to this, because if it
isn't about moving boxes, it isn't in the game.
--
Jordan fades back... *swish* AND THAT'S THE GAME!!!!!!
Scott
Gerry Quinn
>
>But each was developed in an entirely different social context. Games are
>driven entirely by money. Film in the early 20th century was not dependent
>on a publisher. Essentially all films were "independent" at the time, and
>didn't have to move a quarter of a million units in order to remain
>"economically viable."
>
>Were the game industry to begin to recognize the value of those elements of
>a game not directly tied to unit sales, I think it would start a
>renaissance in the game industry unmatched since the opening of the first
>arcade.
Capitalism creates value by concentration. Instead of a load of indie
products with a medium amount of sales, you get heavily marketed
superproducts that cost a lot to make. More people work in the
industry, more revenue is generated and spent.
This is why the system works the way it does, as distinct from the world
of consumers with near zero employment that was predicted by many in the
early twentieth century.
There will always be a tension between the concentrated sector and the
indies. At times the former will get too large and bloated, and start
losing money. Then some indies will get the chance to move into niches
where they may eventually grow to be the dying behemoths of a future
era...
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzles, Arcade, Strategy, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
Check out our new arcade-puzzler "Bubbler"!
Gerry Quinn
>"Sally had a monkey and a gerbil. It was stolen."
>
>The context fails to indicate which of the two objects was stolen.
Actually I would say the gerbil is referred to, by basis of being the
last-mentioned. If "it" were stressed while speaking aloud, everyone
would understand it to be the gerbil.
What's less clear is whether Sally is currently missing a gerbil, or
used to be in possession of a stolen one. Grammatically the latter
makes more sense, but one can argue that one does not normally assume
criminal behaviour on the part of an introduced character without
further cues.
Alistair Hutton
>
> "Robert Tweed" <robert...@killingmoon.com> wrote in message
> news:a7901r$idv7d$1...@ID-99544.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Fact: once you've reached the 19th century in Civ III, you will start to
> have *lots* of units to manage, and the game will begin to bog down.
The bit after the second comma is emotive opinion not fact. You find
that
the game bogs down, other people might state that their organisational
skills are being tested
--
Alistair Hutton
Alistair Hutton
>
> > why Interactive Fiction is dismissed (except for the
> > obligatory mention of Zork),
>
> IF is dismissed because the vast majority of gamers don't care to read text.
> IF really should be read by book readers. If electronic books ever catch
> on, and if writers of say Stephen King or Tom Clancy's caliber and notoriety
> decide to do IF, then there's hope for IF.
>
But IF (or text adventures) are profitable. Back in the days of the
Spectrum
a great text adventure took one person, PAW (Professional Adventure
Writer)
and six months part time work. The games were all sold mail-order,
people
made money from them. Fast forward to the modern day and apart from the
name
cahnge to Interactive Fiction nothings changed. A great piece of IF can
be
produced by one person over six months with a £20 authoring package.
Look at massive multi-player online games as well. What's the one
sector
that consistently makes it's money back? Text based MUDs. The majority
of
the content is gerneated by the users once that magical critical mass is
generated. Things that people are discussing now as cutting edge
(pseudo-intellgent agents, user generated content , user scripted e
vents etc.) have been done, profitably in MUDs for at least a decade.
IF is one of those quiet main stream things. They'll burble along with
no
advetising budget, mail order or web download only and they'll keep
making
their indie authors money while the big studios go bust making generic
3rd person platform game/FPS/RTS/4X
--
Alistair Hutton
Seneca
>
> > "Damon Wilson" <wils...@btinternet.com> wrote
> > [ . . . ]
> >> There is a direct parallel to the present situation from history. At
the
> >> turn of the nineteenth century, movies were seen as a silly pastime for
> >> nitwits by the American and European intelligentsia - most flicks were
> > just
> >> fifteen-minute slapstick comedies or simplistic adventures. Serious art
> >> critics would no more have dreamed of reviewing a 'nickelodeon' than
they
> >> would the comics page of a newspaper.
> >>
> >> Then, in 1915, Griffith's Birth of a Nation came out: a three-hour epic
> >> describing a war that many of its audience has actually lived through.
> >> Whatever we may feel about BoaN today, at the time it was widely
accepted
> >> that it had proved potential of movies to be respectable art. I think
> >> it's only a matter of time before a computer game comes out that
> >> impresses the public enough score as genuine art. Then you can bet the
> >> more serious reviewers will start getting involved.
> >
> > That's an interesting thought, but there's a huge difference between a
> > work of art and a game. Computer games have been around for 25 years (or
> > longer if you count games played on mainframes), which is long enough
for
> > them to be recognized as an art form if there were any likelihood of
that
> > happening. I think it is fair to say that computer games are already
much
> > more advanced relative to their beginnings than Griffith's Birth of a
> > Nation was relative to the earliest movies.
>
> But each was developed in an entirely different social context. Games are
> driven entirely by money.
Sure. So was film, by the time Griffith made The Birth of a Nation. The
difference is that film is a passive form of entertainment, and therefore
can be art. Games are by definition interactive, and it is hard to see any
interactive thing as a work of art.
> Film in the early 20th century was not dependent
> on a publisher. Essentially all films were "independent" at the time, and
> didn't have to move a quarter of a million units in order to remain
> "economically viable."
But they still had to sell an awful lot of tickets. If you're saying that
the bean counters were less in control of the final product at that time,
that's probably true (of almost any kind of enterprise for that matter), but
I don't see that the change has made any difference in regarding film as
art. And yet games are not and have not been regarded as art.
I cannot think of *any* kind of game, ever, anywhere, that has been
considered an art form. It is certainly true that computer games have
artistic elements that other games do not have, but still the bottom line is
a game is a game is a game.
>
> Were the game industry to begin to recognize the value of those elements
of
> a game not directly tied to unit sales, I think it would start a
> renaissance in the game industry unmatched since the opening of the first
> arcade.
You may be right about that; I'm only arguing against the idea (requoted
near the top of this post) that "the public" will at some point see games
"as genuine art" and therefore "more serious reviewers will start getting
involved."
Seneca
Seneca
> news:BsJl8.282$Jc5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > That's an interesting thought, but there's a huge difference between a
> work
> > of art and a game. Computer games have been around for 25 years (or
longer
> > if you count games played on mainframes), which is long enough for them
to
> > be recognized as an art form if there were any likelihood of that
> happening.
>
works
> with light.
So do computer games.
> It's analog and the process can inherently handle a lot of
> visual complexity in a simple manner. Computers are digital. The ability
> of computers to handle complex visual art is entirely predicated on their
> computational power.
Doesn't matter. Computers are digital at the machine level but essentially
analog at the user level. A game is a game is a game, whether analog or
digital. The technical method of delivery does not make a thing either an
art form or not an art form.
> In this view, 25 years is definitely not enough time
> to pronounce a verdict. Actually, I don't think film had a verdict in its
> first 25 years either.
It certainly did. By the time Griffith made The Birth of a Nation, and then
Intolerance, film was regarded as serious art.
>
> > I think it is fair to say that computer games are already much more
> advanced
> > relative to their beginnings than Griffith's Birth of a Nation was
> relative
> > to the earliest movies.
>
> But the production processes are still not simple. That's the difference.
Why is that "the difference"? Whether a thing is or is not art does not
depend on the complexity of the processes used.
>
> > The most important difference is that any real work of art is a thing
> > complete in itself, and requires an artist. A game may be genuinely
> artistic
> > in some respects (graphics, music etc.), those things that are actually
> > delivered in the box, but it is *gameplay* that's central after all--and
> > that can hardly be regarded as a work of art since its completion
depends
> on
> > the end user.
>
> We don't need a definition of Art which hermetically separates artist and
> audience. If you tried, Postmodernists would debunk it.
The artist's role is not that of the audience. Simple as that.
>
> > There have been some attempts to make audiences an active part of "art"
> > (e.g., the movements of viewers in a gallery causing changes in sound
and
> > light displays), but these have been uniformly silly.
>
> Bullshit. Even Shakespeare was successful.
And deservedly so, but where's the relevance in that? Shakespeare did not
produce games, or anything else interactive. Read his plays and you will
find no part for the audience.
> But the thing to remember about
> incorporating an audience, is that they're not trained actors.
Irrelevant, since they take no active part in the play. Is "incorporating" a
new word for "entertaining"?
Seneca
Dimensional
is a large enough vocabulary of words, for a dedicated reviewer to get an
accurate assessment of the game across. The real problems are many reviewers
have never learnt to write a stringent review, and b) the time constraints
of the industry forbid it.
It is widely said that the majority of a games sales come in the first month
of it's release. so reviews have to go up fast after a game is released. but
to give a detailed review especially of for instance a RPG with 50 + hours
of game play and a branching story line will take probably about 2 weeks
assuming the reviewer has something approaching a normal life as well which
is unacceptable to the editors who need the reviews.
so what we end up with are not so much Reviews as first impressions. and as
such tend to come across as very tenuous and nebulous because (IMHO)the
reviewers have not even got a clear and crystallized view of the game
themselves.
anyway That's just my feeling from reading what's generally available and
could of course be utterly wrong.
Jeremy
--
There is no Chaos
Just a Pattern larger than your mind
Stephen Granade
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:49:12 GMT, "Peter Olafson"
> <pnol...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Or perhaps they simply like the games better than you do. After all, a
> >review is just an opinion.
>
> Yes, but it's supposed to be a balanced, impartial opinion.
"Impartial" and "opinion" are fighting each other in your sentence. I
expect casualties.
Opinions are personal things. They can be backed by facts, but in
the end they are a judgement call made by a person. The more you try
to fit them into the slot marked "impartial," the more they're going
to sound like a recitation of facts from a publisher's press release.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade
sgra...@phy.duke.edu
Duke University, Physics Dept
Seneca
seeing it twice.
"Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd." <in...@NOSPAM.heavycat.com> wrote
> Seneca wrote:
>
> > "Damon Wilson" <wils...@btinternet.com> wrote
> > [ . . . ]
> >> There is a direct parallel to the present situation from history. At
the
> >> turn of the nineteenth century, movies were seen as a silly pastime for
> >> nitwits by the American and European intelligentsia - most flicks were
> > just
> >> fifteen-minute slapstick comedies or simplistic adventures. Serious art
> >> critics would no more have dreamed of reviewing a 'nickelodeon' than
they
> >> would the comics page of a newspaper.
> >>
> >> Then, in 1915, Griffith's Birth of a Nation came out: a three-hour epic
> >> describing a war that many of its audience has actually lived through.
> >> Whatever we may feel about BoaN today, at the time it was widely
accepted
> >> that it had proved potential of movies to be respectable art. I think
> >> it's only a matter of time before a computer game comes out that
> >> impresses the public enough score as genuine art. Then you can bet the
> >> more serious reviewers will start getting involved.
> >
> > That's an interesting thought, but there's a huge difference between a
> > work of art and a game. Computer games have been around for 25 years (or
> > longer if you count games played on mainframes), which is long enough
for
> > them to be recognized as an art form if there were any likelihood of
that
> > happening. I think it is fair to say that computer games are already
much
> > more advanced relative to their beginnings than Griffith's Birth of a
> > Nation was relative to the earliest movies.
>
Peter Cowderoy
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Taren Durbank wrote:
> As for describing gameplay, it is already defined. A huge vocab of words
> already exists to describe gameplay, along with interfaces and control
> schemes. If you had read a good deal of reviews then you would know that
> this vocab exists. It may not be used very well by most reviewers, but I do
> believe it is there.
>
In the case of beat-'em-ups and to a lesser extent FPSes it's just not
sufficient to really communicate the way a game plays. Even expert players
who spend a lot of time discussing their games have difficulty getting
this kind of stuff across to each other without both having played the
game in question.
Of course, this isn't about pointing out flaws as such - it's very easy to
say why you don't like a particular game once you've got a little
practice. It's a hell of a lot harder to describe what's really good about
one, especially what makes it worth keeping on playing it again and again
if it's that good.
I'm supposed to put a quote here?
Knight37
> I don't think that's true. I've never played a good demo and then
> found the game to be bad. Good demos are very strong indicators of a
> full game's quality.
I've played good demos and then the full game sucked, and vice versa. A demo
is just another tool for pre-judging a game without buying it or stealing
it. It's not the only tool, and many times, not even the best tool. A demo
only gives a taste of the gameplay, and a demo will not tell you if the game
has some crucial flaws that only show up later in the game. Reviews CAN warn
you of this. Also some games I've played the demo which was a great demo but
the the full game was just more of the same which I'd already gotten for
free with the demo so why did I waste my money? The point is, a demo is a
good indicator, but not the only worthwhile indicator for quality of a game.
--
Knight37
asok: 'you're my role model, wally. despite all the pressure and
frustration, you press on. you bend but you do not break.'
wally: 'my motto is - they can't break you if you don't have a spine.'
-- Dilbert
Lucian Wischik
>"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> had the moxy to write:
>> I've never played a good demo and then found the game to be bad.
Maybe Brandon's evaluation subroutine is just better written than yours :)
Actually, I'm with Brandon. My experience is that
Good demo ===> good game
bad demo ===> sometimes good, sometimes bad.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Knight37
> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>>"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> had the moxy to write:
>>> I've never played a good demo and then found the game to be bad.
>>I've played good demos and then the full game sucked
>
> Maybe Brandon's evaluation subroutine is just better written than yours
> :) Actually, I'm with Brandon. My experience is that
> Good demo ===> good game
> bad demo ===> sometimes good, sometimes bad.
By your very logic I'd miss a lot of good games if I only used demos as a
judgement of whether or not the game is good. I'd have missed Planescape
Torment (no demo), Fallout (bad demo), Aliens vs. Predator 2 (bad demo), and
countless others.
Examples of games with "good demo ===> bad game" :
Grand Theft Auto II - superb demo, played it countless hours, got the full
game, realized it's pretty much the same as the demo, quickly bored with it.
Perhaps this is a case of "demo is TOO good".
Quake III Arena - very good demo that showed off the engine, too bad the
game was about as deep as the demo. Another one of those "demo not only
shows the best of the game, it shows the whole thing."
Same thing with many other games.
There's also been lots of games that had a critical flaw in the end game
that didn't show up in the demo, but I can't think of specific examples at
the moment. Oh, I remember one, Empire of the Fading Sun, and for that
matter, so was Ascendancy (both had pretty good demos but the critical flaws
in the AI didn't show up until the full game).
And lets not forget that there's lots of great games that never get a demo
for one reason or another.
--
Knight37
"You'll never prove a thing copper, I'm just a part time electrician. I...
I... I... BAD IS GOOD, BABY! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT!"
-- The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs At Midnight, The Tick
Peter Olafson
skillfully expressed, with supporting evidence, but it's nevertheless simply
what one person thought of a game. There are no absolutes, no "universals."
It's all a matter of taste.
Peter
"Taren Durbank" <tare...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a79an7$85q$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
Lucian Wischik
>ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Lucian Wischik) had the moxy to write:
>> Good demo ===> good game
>> bad demo ===> sometimes good, sometimes bad.
>By your very logic I'd miss a lot of good games
Strictly speaking (I'm a logician in my job -- i.e. theoretical computer
science), my logic would only tell you to buy games with good demos, and
wouldn't say anything about games with bad demos. Therefore you wouldn't
miss any.
>Quake III Arena - very good demo that showed off the engine, too bad the
>game was about as deep as the demo.
That might be a good example, except I thought that the Q3A demo stank :)
>There's also been lots of games that had a critical flaw in the end game
>that didn't show up in the demo
I don't think that's much of a problem. By the time you get to the end
game, you've already got most of the benefit of it.
>so was Ascendancy (both had pretty good demos but the critical flaws
>in the AI didn't show up until the full game).
full game? or end game?
Robert Tweed
> > > Then you're stupid. Sorry, it's true.
> >
> > No it isn't. If you take the first review you read as accurate without
> some
> > other foundation then you are gullible, although not necessarily stupid.
>
> Isn't gullibility a specific form of stupidity? There are other kinds of
> stupidity, like the inability to plug cords into TV and VCR sockets.
Well, in that case you shouldn't generalise so much ;-)
> > You
> > never really know what a game is like until you have played it
completely,
> > and by that time it's too late to decide whether or not to buy it.
>
> I don't think that's true. I've never played a good demo and then found
the
> game to be bad. Good demos are very strong indicators of a full game's
> quality.
They are strong indicators, but they are not a 100% accurate source. Reviews
are not 100% accurate either, but they one is completementary to the other.
>...
> Governments are stupid. Their performance compared to private industry is
> legendary. Would you like to advance a different point of argument?
OK, you got me on the first point. However, private industry delegate
management responsibility in the same way, so the general argument stands.
The problem is that some managers are incompetent and do not know how to use
delegation advantageously.
>...
> > Opinions are not right and wrong. There are facts and there are
opinions.
>
> Fact: once you've reached the 19th century in Civ III, you will start to
> have *lots* of units to manage, and the game will begin to bog down.
> Opinion: this bogdown sucks.
Incorrect. Fact: once you've reached the 19th century in Civ III, you will
start to have *lots* of units to manage.
Opinion: This causes the game will begin to bog down. This bogdown sucks.
Bogdown is a subjective term. It's also worth pointing out that while
factual, the first statement is also ambiguous, since you don't define
*lots*. What is lots to you might not be very many to someone else.
> IMO, this opinion is a trivial extension of
> the fact. Otherwise we'd formulate the fact as "once you get to the 19th
> century you'll have this wonderful time, you won't know exactly why, but
> you'll just get a warm fuzzy feeling inside of you." Some people of
course
> have the counter-opinion that micromanaging hundreds of units as they
> perform the same shore clearing tasks over and over again is joyous. They
> have the incorrect opinion.
That's not an opinion, that's in inaccurate assertion.
> They're a pox on the Earth and they should all
> be put against the wall when the Revolution comes.
That's an opinion, a possibly dubious one. Mr Van Every, Meet Mr Hitler.
Adolf, this is Brandon. Now shake hands, I'm sure you have lots to discuss.
The fact is that these people have a different opinion from yours, that
doesn't make their opinion wrong. If 99% of the world likes micromanaging
games then your ultimate strategy game with no micromanagement will find a
very small audience. It doesn't take a marketing genius to work out what is
the problem here. (I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether
those figures are accurate, they probably aren't even close and I don't
really care).
>...
> > Facts are true and false. Opinions are subjective. When comparing other
> > people's opinions, it is only useful to consider whether each person's
> > opinion is likely to be similar to your own opinion.
>
> Which is impossible unless you have a lot of experience with everything a
> person is likely to say. Having read a few reviews by someone doesn't
> count. They might agree with you 9 times but not the 10th. Now, if
you've
> found such a person and you're comfortable with losing your $30 10% of the
> time, by all means consider your problem solved. But if you want 100% of
> your money to go towards your happiness, download the demo.
Demos are not 100% accurate. I'd say 10% is a decent enough error margin,
and you are only looking at a single reviewer as your source of information.
Make it two trusted reviewers and you should be closer to 1%, which is
pretty good going. All this without spoiling the game by having played a
half-arsed version of it beforehand. I think that's worth more consideration
that you seem prepared to give it.
>...
> There's also the sheer amount of time it takes to read so many opinions.
> The viewpoints are hardly consolidated, they're raw babble. Also the
finer
> the granularity of what's being discussed, the less you can trust
anybody's
> opinion. For any particular detail, what if they don't explain themselves
> all that well, or you don't read it all that well? How can you tell the
Big
> Picture issues apart from the minor detail issues, if you haven't played
the
> game?
Skim the reviews. Take a broad overview of what each reviewer thinks. Only
read in-depth the bits that seem interesting.
> > > The only thing that works is a demo.
> >
> > Actually, the only thing that works is playing the entire game.
>
> I'm curious why this is your experience. My experience is, a good demo is
> an accurate representation of the game. Can you name some specific demos
> you got burned on?
I can't think off the top of my head specific examples (since I haven't
bothered with Demos for several years) however, I can tell you what the
specific shortfallings tend to be:
1) The demo is the *entire* game. The game has nothing more to add than what
you have already played (this is pretty common).
2) The demo fails to show the quality of the game well, giving a false
negative. This is common when large games are cut heavily to make a demo
version.
3) The demo is actually different from the game itself. This is not common,
but sometimes a demo will be based on the same engine, but the game itself
is quite different.
> > Bear in
> > mind that a demo only tells you how good the demo is, nothing about the
> rest
> > of the game.
>
> To say that it tells you "nothing" about the rest of the game is a false
> statement. Demos are always subsets of the full game.
That's incorrect. A demo is related to a game. Although it should be, it is
not necessarily a subset. Anyway, what you learn about a game from the demo
is based on extrapolation, which is never going to be 100% accurate, as you
are claiming. Yes, extrapolation will give you a good result most of the
time, but to assume that it is foolproof is naive.
> > Quite frankly your whole argument is completely invalid.
>
> Not by what you've proven so far. Your only strong argument is that
Usenet
> reviews are mostly opinion.
Well, yes, everything on Usenet should be considered less-than-trustworthy.
The trustworthyness of a source is always an important factor in deciding
whether or not to believe it. A demo, I grant you, has a high level of
trustworthyness, but that doesn't make it a perfect source any more than a
review is a perfect source. Neither is a prefect source.
> > If you read several
> > different reviews and weigh the available information then you are
making
> an
> > informed decision.
>
> You are juggling a lot of conflicting noise and succumbing to paralysis of
> analysis. Governments are famous for this. ;-) Decisive action =
playing
> the demo.
Should I jump off this bridge? What do you think? no, <mutter, mutter>...
Well, decisive action = jump off the bridge and see what happens. Decisive
action is not necessarily as important as correct action.
> > This is something that can be done without ever looking
> > at a demo. Reviews are a single source of information. That's all they
> are,
> > and that's all anything is. Never trust a single source of information -
> > it's as simple as that.
>
> Then you would never trust your own senses and judgements. I do. Maybe
> that's the difference between us: I'm willing to make decisions based on
> primary experience, and I value primary experience over secondary
experience
> and heresay when it comes to matters of aesthetics.
Well, it all depends what you count as primary experience. If you see a
light in the sky do you "trust your eyes" and belive you have seen a UFO? If
fifty people tell you it's a helicopter, would you believe them?
Always weigh the evidence, and do not trust a single source, even a primary
source. Of course, when you have actually played the whole game, if you
thought it was fun, it doesn't matter whether that was a perceptual illusion
because your perception is just another opinion, not a fact. I hate to use
this expression in this group, but "it's all relative" :-)
- Robert
Rainer Deyke
> "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
> news:H3Vl8.2990$MC5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
start to
> > have *lots* of units to manage, and the game will begin to bog
down.
> > Opinion: this bogdown sucks.
>
> Incorrect. Fact: once you've reached the 19th century in Civ III,
you will
> start to have *lots* of units to manage.
> Opinion: This causes the game will begin to bog down. This bogdown
sucks.
>
> Bogdown is a subjective term.
Is it really? As your number of units, you have more micromanagement
decisions to make per turn. Thus the amount of real time taken per
turn is increased. Actions that require several turns take longer in
real time. The game is bogged down. Can this be offset by more stuff
happening per turn? No, because the larger number of units implies
that the fate of each individual unit is less important overall.
--
Rainer Deyke | ro...@rainerdeyke.com | http://rainerdeyke.com
Bent C Dalager
Rainer Deyke <ro...@rainerdeyke.com> wrote:
>
>Is it really? As your number of units, you have more micromanagement
>decisions to make per turn. Thus the amount of real time taken per
>turn is increased. Actions that require several turns take longer in
>real time. The game is bogged down. Can this be offset by more stuff
>happening per turn? No, because the larger number of units implies
>that the fate of each individual unit is less important overall.
On the face of it, this seems to be an argument rooted in the
assumption that the aim of the game is to make the turns go by. Since,
in the end game, turns go by slower, the game has bogged down. I would
suggest that the aim of the game is to build/conquer/dominate/what
have you and that as you get more units, you simply do more of these
activities per turn. A "turn" is just some arbitrary concept to
introduce some sort of timekeeping into the game. How long (or not) a
turn takes seems irrelevant to the bogging down (or not) of the game.
To put it simply, I wouldn't _care_ how long a turn took so long as I
had fun playing it.
If, on the other hand, the argument is that as the game goes on, you
end up with more and more useless units that aren't really used for
anything but that you have to click by while you're playing, it's
something else entirely. Then it's getting bogged down in boredom. The
length of the turns is then a symptom, not the cause, of the bog-down.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - b...@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Rainer Deyke
news:a7asv5$5an$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <Ap6m8.77951$af7.50299@rwcrnsc53>,
> Rainer Deyke <ro...@rainerdeyke.com> wrote:
> >
> >Is it really? As your number of units, you have more
micromanagement
> >decisions to make per turn. Thus the amount of real time taken per
> >turn is increased. Actions that require several turns take longer
in
> >real time. The game is bogged down. Can this be offset by more
stuff
> >happening per turn? No, because the larger number of units implies
> >that the fate of each individual unit is less important overall.
>
I
> had fun playing it.
I think I addressed this already:
> > Can this be offset by more stuff
> >happening per turn? No, because the larger number of units implies
> >that the fate of each individual unit is less important overall.
Let's say you have 10 city and attack another city this turn. If you
win, you've added 10% to your territory. Your choices - which city to
attack, which unit[s] to use, etc - have a real significant impact on
the game. Now let's say you have 100 cities and attack 10 cities this
turn. You have ten times as much work to do. Your choices per turn
are still as significant, but they're spread out. The amount of
strategy per turn stays constant while the execution bogs down. Put
another way, the amount of strategy per unit real time decreases to
one tenth its original.
Bent C Dalager
Rainer Deyke <ro...@rainerdeyke.com> wrote:
>
>Let's say you have 10 city and attack another city this turn. If you
>win, you've added 10% to your territory. Your choices - which city to
>attack, which unit[s] to use, etc - have a real significant impact on
>the game. Now let's say you have 100 cities and attack 10 cities this
>turn. You have ten times as much work to do. Your choices per turn
>are still as significant, but they're spread out. The amount of
>strategy per turn stays constant while the execution bogs down. Put
>another way, the amount of strategy per unit real time decreases to
>one tenth its original.
Ok. What seems a little strange is that when you have ten times the
number of targets and ten times the number of units, I would expect
strategic concerns to also increase significantly. After all, if I
have only one target and only one unit, there's precious few ways I
can distribute my resources between my different targets. The more
units and the more targets, the more choice and the more strategic
thought on my behalf?
I should add that I haven't played CivIII, only I and II. I am
interested largely from an academic point of view.
Peter Cowderoy
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Bent C Dalager wrote:
> Ok. What seems a little strange is that when you have ten times the
> number of targets and ten times the number of units, I would expect
> strategic concerns to also increase significantly. After all, if I
> have only one target and only one unit, there's precious few ways I
> can distribute my resources between my different targets. The more
> units and the more targets, the more choice and the more strategic
> thought on my behalf?
>
The curve bottoms out pretty fast. The difference between 1 city and 10 is
a huge amount more so than that between 10 and 100. 1000 cities is almost
entirely a waste of time :-)
Joel Wellington
<in...@NOSPAM.heavycat.com> wrote:
>Brandon Van Every wrote:
>
>>> This is
>>> why the entire shareware market is dismissed (except for the obligatory
>>> mention of Doom),
>>
>> Shareware is dismissed because it has no marketing budget to command
>> attention with.
>
>I believe that was almost exactly what I said.
>
>>
>>> why Interactive Fiction is dismissed (except for the
>>> obligatory mention of Zork),
>>
>> IF is dismissed because the vast majority of gamers don't care to read
>> text.
>
>That must be why there were four Monkey Island games made.
>
The Monkey Island series wasnt IF. IF didnt have graphics - just text
and a command parser.
Rainer Deyke
news:o4ei9ug53rimr9d52...@4ax.com...
> The Monkey Island series wasnt IF. IF didnt have graphics - just
text
> and a command parser.
The graphics or lack thereof in a game are a trivial detail and should
not be used for classification. ;-)
Jet Nebula
>ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Lucian Wischik) had the moxy to write:
>
>> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>>>"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> had the moxy to write:
>>>> I've never played a good demo and then found the game to be bad.
>>>I've played good demos and then the full game sucked
>>
>> Maybe Brandon's evaluation subroutine is just better written than yours
>> :) Actually, I'm with Brandon. My experience is that
>> Good demo ===> good game
>> bad demo ===> sometimes good, sometimes bad.
>
>By your very logic I'd miss a lot of good games if I only used demos as a
>judgement of whether or not the game is good. I'd have missed Planescape
>Torment (no demo), Fallout (bad demo), Aliens vs. Predator 2 (bad demo), and
>countless others.
As an aside, I actually LIKED Fallout's demo--I absolutely had to have
the game after playing it. What do you think was so bad about it?
Jet Nebula
wrote:
>Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>>ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Lucian Wischik) had the moxy to write:
>>> Good demo ===> good game
>>> bad demo ===> sometimes good, sometimes bad.
>>By your very logic I'd miss a lot of good games
>
>Strictly speaking (I'm a logician in my job -- i.e. theoretical computer
>science), my logic would only tell you to buy games with good demos, and
>wouldn't say anything about games with bad demos. Therefore you wouldn't
>miss any.
So you're suggesting he buy every game with a demo, regardless of
whether the demo is good or bad? That is, after all, the only
conclusion of your stated "logic" if Knight37 is to avoid missing any
good games. If the demo is good, the game is good, so he should buy
it. If the demo is bad, the game might still be good, so to avoid
missing a good game, he should buy it. I'd hardly call that a good
demo "evaluation subroutine." :P
Taren Durbank
balanced
> against what point of balance? You've said more things should be taken
into
> account. You haven't actually said where the point of balance is.
>
> I bet you can't find this point of balance. I think you're walking
straight
> into the maws of Moral Relativism.
Things like metaphor, visual metaphor, subtle metaphor, plot, story
techniques, universal themes, recurring themes, art techniques, use of
colour to portray meaning, use camera techniques to portray meaning, etc.,
etc. These are things that can be critiqued the same way as in film or
novels.
They are not exact or absolute, but they are much more meaningful indicators
of a work of art, as opposed to judging a game based on eye-candy and
poly-counts.
Raj
Seneca wrote:
> "Damon Wilson" <wils...@btinternet.com> wrote
> [ . . . ]
>
>>There is a direct parallel to the present situation from history. At the
>>turn of the nineteenth century, movies were seen as a silly pastime for
>>nitwits by the American and European intelligentsia - most flicks were
>>
> just
>
>>fifteen-minute slapstick comedies or simplistic adventures. Serious art
>>critics would no more have dreamed of reviewing a 'nickelodeon' than they
>>would the comics page of a newspaper.
>>
>>Then, in 1915, Griffith's Birth of a Nation came out: a three-hour epic
>>describing a war that many of its audience has actually lived through.
>>Whatever we may feel about BoaN today, at the time it was widely accepted
>>that it had proved potential of movies to be respectable art. I think it's
>>only a matter of time before a computer game comes out that impresses the
>>public enough score as genuine art. Then you can bet the more serious
>>reviewers will start getting involved.
>>
>
> That's an interesting thought, but there's a huge difference between a work
> of art and a game. Computer games have been around for 25 years (or longer
> if you count games played on mainframes), which is long enough for them to
> be recognized as an art form if there were any likelihood of that happening.
> I think it is fair to say that computer games are already much more advanced
> relative to their beginnings than Griffith's Birth of a Nation was relative
> to the earliest movies.
How long was writing around before the *Tale of Genji*. That is, I
believe, considered to be the first novel. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
>
> The most important difference is that any real work of art is a thing
> complete in itself, and requires an artist. A game may be genuinely artistic
> in some respects (graphics, music etc.), those things that are actually
> delivered in the box, but it is *gameplay* that's central after all--and
> that can hardly be regarded as a work of art since its completion depends on
> the end user.
Huh? Can artists collaborate? Is a piece of music no longer art if
it is written by more than one person? Is improvisational jazz art?
Opera involving many different artists (for sets, librettos, musical
composition, conducting, musicians, choreographers, ushers, ticket
takers, seat upholsters, wing nut tighteners ;-) ). Movies surely
involve many "artists" with different areas of expertise. I must be
misunderstanding you. I don't understand the "requires an artist" part.
Don't books require the participation of the reader to "complete" the
artwork? Isn't this what "reader-response" theory is all about? Is an
interactive movie not a movie? Is interactive fiction not fiction?
I play only adventure games, and if I knew where this crossposted
post originated, I would respond there. So perhaps my thoughts are out
of line. If so, I apologize.
I am a professor of philosophy and teach aesthetics, so perhaps my
views on art are broader than most. But colleagues from literature
departments have commented also on the interesting new possibilities for
"open narrative structure" presented by computer games. Branching plot
seems to me to still be plot. (That Blade Runner has seven possible
endings does not seem to me to disqualify it as a narrative; rather, it
enhances the potential of narrative.) (After all, Kierkegaard has a
book of prefaces! ;-) )
Even RPGs can be said perhaps, granted in a stretch, to have
character development. The biggest drawback there seems to be in the
area of personality development. ("Orientation" perhaps?)
As I said, I am thinking of adventure games and the hardest elements
to integrate in to a "such games are art" view are self-contained,
non-inventory, puzzles (for example, the endgame in Tex Murphy: Overseer
is a chess match). I must admit I have not yet thought this element
through satisfactorily.
However, Jane Jenson has turned her game Gabriel Knight: The Sins of
the Father into a novel. (Um... given the quality of that novel,
perhaps it isn't such a good example. But I would actually be quite
comfortable endorsing a novelization of The Longest Journey. It might
even work as a film. (I have not had the pleasure of seeing those films
made of games like Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy, so I cannot comment on
them. Actually, I have difficulty imagining them!) And to me the Tex
Murphy games do seem like interactive movies (as they are designated by
the company which produced them). The point here is that games may be
translated into novels, and perhaps films into games (as in the case of
Gold and Glory: The Road to El Dorado).
I think the comment in this thread concerning the money put into
script/story writing as compared with graphics and other technical
aspects of games is quite relevant on the issue of "the art of computer
games." That some computer graphics have been recognized as art, I
would assume, is not in need of argument. But, perhaps as with special
effects in movies and techniques in music videos and commercials (for
example, choreography), there is a crossover between what is considered
art in some contexts and that which is perceived exclusively in
utilitarian terms. (Although the Dadaists would have a field day with
that distinction, eh? :0D )
In my humble opinion, computer games will get the attention of art
critics when an art critic chooses to pay attention to them.
>
> There have been some attempts to make audiences an active part of "art"
> (e.g., the movements of viewers in a gallery causing changes in sound and
> light displays), but these have been uniformly silly. And it would be
> virtually impossible for a reviewer to write a sensible review of such a
> thing anyway (what exactly would he be reviewing?) other than to comment on
> its novelty. I think there is somewhat the same difficulty with trying to
> see games as an art form.
Are there better and worse "happenings" or performance art pieces?
If there are I should think such things could be reviewed. Is it
possible to comment on how well or poorly participation in or
interaction with a piece or work of art is achieved or experienced?
Don't worry none of this will be on the final exam, although some of
it may be helpful in writing your term paper.
(HAHAHAHAHA!!!)
~Raj
>
> Seneca
>
>
>
Taren Durbank
standards
> of 10 years hence. Games are not film. The technology is highly unstable
> and still evolving rapidly. When it levels off and everything can look
> pretty much like anything you want it to look like, then a "permanence" of
> visual regard will apply.
I said it to you before: too much skimming, not enough reading of posts.
My whole point was that when graphical capabilities level off, the score for
"Graphics" in most reviews will become obsolete because to them graphics is
simply eye-candy and more polys. Graphics should be judged on the merits of
being artistic, stylish, meaningful, and universal. These things will not
die in 10 years hence.
> It is perfectly valid to make a game that looks better than other games in
> the here and now. That's called progress. History? The future will have
> to be the judge of history, you can't do it now. You might find something
> ugly, or timeless. Others might find you a crank, or a genius.
Taren Durbank
> > > You think the reviewers are immature? What about the programmers and
the
> > > artists and the designers that work on a game? The game industry is
this
> > > big inbred daycare...but that's why we like it so much :) There aren't
> > > any "problems" with the way games are reviewed. Game reviewers are
just
> > > as inarticulate, ignorant, and self centered as the rest of us.
> > >
> > > I have seen the enemy, and it is us.
> >
> > Stop saying "we" and "us". Your we and us doesn't include me, and I
expect
> > it doesn't include a great deal of others reading this thread (and
others
> > not reading this thread).
>
> How would you measure it? [blah blah]
I would not call myself "immature, inarticulate, ignorant, or self-centred".
And I doubt that the people I know would call me that either. If you require
a measure, then go find a dictionary for those words.
> > Do you speak for the majority of games? You do not. Plenty of games have
> > metaphor. It is just likely that you are one of those who does not see
> those
> > metaphors.
>
> You are both speaking in a hopelessly vague way. (i.e. inarticulate,
> ignorant, self centered from *my* perspective. Nothing personal, just
> pointing out the relativity.) Why don't you try arguing about a specific
> game, whether it "has metaphor" or not? Then we could all find out what a
> metaphor is. Or isn't. Or whether the rest of us even care. Or should
> care.
Fair enough, I just thought it was pretty obvious. I can think of thousands
of instances of metaphor in games.
Planescape: Torment has tonnes of metaphor. Visit some fan-sites or ngs and
you can read some analyses of it. Scars as a painful reminder of the past
(also done well in the movie Memento). The Nameless One's thick skin as a
thick barrier between him and the world (his reclusion from society, mostly
caring only about himself). Each death as a metahpor for a person being
given another chance to redeem himself, being given a "clean slate". Shadows
as dark sins of the past coming back to get you (Karma). Ignus, the human
turned into a fire elemental, is a metaphor for a person that cannot control
his rage. Morte, the talking skull, is pure metaphor--a person totally
reduced to just a floating skull, because that epitomises what he is: a
funny little chatterbox with sharp teeth can give you a nasty bite (in the
context of Usenet, flaming someone).
Diablo 2. Moreius can be seen as a metaphor for humanity. He follows
Diablo--succumbs to his dark nature. Crossing the desert--a test of his
willpower. The journey into the underground building where Ba'al resides--a
descent into the dark recesses of his soul. Tyrael entering the cavern to
battle Diablo and Ba'al--a light of hope, a change of nature in Moreius.
Blade Runner, American McGee's Alice: C'mon, now these ones have hundreds
each.
Hell, just look at character designs, those are usually pure metaphor.
Tyrael from Diablo 2: his wings a metaphor for purity and goodness, the
light that emanates from him a metaphor for holiness and hope. His bright
blue sword a metaphor for his heroism and divine wrath (just the blue colour
in itself is a metaphor).
This sort of stuff is blatantly obvious to me, but beware that only talented
character designers and game designers put this stuff in *intentionally*.
Some games simply use colour because it looks good, not because it is
meaningful to do so, or add polys because it looks good, rather than using
shape and form to add metaphor and meaning to a character.
DemilinX
> Yeah, let's think about this. Movie reviews aren't worth shit! I saw "We
> Were Soldiers" recently. That inestimable bleeding heart liberal fag rag
> that we Seattlites know and love as "The Stranger" gave it a one sentence
> review, dismissing it as "jingoistic claptrap." Having seen the movie, I
> consider that completely irresponsible. The Vietnamese were hardly
> portrayed as a bunch of mindless robots, there were clear and deliberate
> parallels between the people on both sides of the conflict. I daresay the
> reviewer is incapable of taking the subject of war seriously. I almost
> wrote a letter to the editor but a sense of futility kicked in.
"The Stranger" (Seattle) and "The Mercury" (Portland) are infamous for
having overly biased (or just plain lack of interest in their) reviews. I
still love 'em to death though. :D
--
MåT W¡££¡åM§
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
np: Glassjaw - Lovebites and Razorlines
*meep*
"I hate when lanes end."
Gerry Quinn
Somebody wrote:
>> I think it's patently ridiculous to be judging games on the visual
>standards
>> of 10 years hence. Games are not film. The technology is highly unstable
>> and still evolving rapidly. When it levels off and everything can look
>> pretty much like anything you want it to look like, then a "permanence" of
>> visual regard will apply.
>
>"Graphics" in most reviews will become obsolete because to them graphics is
>simply eye-candy and more polys. Graphics should be judged on the merits of
>being artistic, stylish, meaningful, and universal. These things will not
>die in 10 years hence.
But with the limited technology of today (probably) and yesterday
(certainly), few games can achieve the above standards as they will be
understood ten or twenty years from now. (Something that looks new
today may cause reviewers to think it's nearer a universal standard than
it actually is.)
It's not just graphics. Hardly anyone will play Planescape:Torment in
ten years - the graphics are mostly okay, the delay between zones may
even have gone away, but the combat is broken and the interaction will
seem boring and primitive by future standards that will be 'closer' to
universal standards.
[The main defect in the graphics is the insufficient amount of text that
appears on screen at once.]
It's rightly considered a pioneering game today, but it's so flawed that
it simply won't stand up in ten years time.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzles, Arcade, Strategy, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
Check out our new arcade-puzzler "Bubbler"!
Lucian Wischik
>[PST]
>It's rightly considered a pioneering game today, but it's so flawed that
>it simply won't stand up in ten years time.
I disagree! I happily play ten-year-old games where the mechanics might be
considered broken by today's standards, but the ideas shine through
brilliantly. Notably Laser Squad. And Manic Miner. And Elite.
Seneca
[ . . . ]
My (now somewhat dim and perhaps unreliable) recollection from English Lit.
is that the novel has been around for about 250 years. I don't recall what
the first one is considered to have been, and I suppose opinions on that may
vary anyway.
>
> >
> > The most important difference is that any real work of art is a thing
> > complete in itself, and requires an artist. A game may be genuinely
artistic
> > in some respects (graphics, music etc.), those things that are actually
> > delivered in the box, but it is *gameplay* that's central after all--and
> > that can hardly be regarded as a work of art since its completion
depends on
> > the end user.
>
>
> Huh? Can artists collaborate? Is a piece of music no longer art if
> it is written by more than one person? Is improvisational jazz art?
> Opera involving many different artists (for sets, librettos, musical
> composition, conducting, musicians, choreographers, ushers, ticket
> takers, seat upholsters, wing nut tighteners ;-) ). Movies surely
> involve many "artists" with different areas of expertise. I must be
> misunderstanding you. I don't understand the "requires an artist" part.
My use of the singular article was not intended to convey that only one
individual artist is permitted. Of course artists can collaborate and
frequently do. If ten thousand artists collaborate on a single work, it is
still *they* who are the artists--not the viewer, reader, audience or other
end user.
>
> Don't books require the participation of the reader to "complete" the
> artwork?
No. The writer is the producer, the reader is the consumer. (Again, my use
of the singular form is not meant to imply that there can be only one writer
and only one reader. I presume that your similar use was not meant to imply
that either.) The reader no more "completes" the book than the buyer of any
product completes its manufacture by buying it. The process of production is
completed when the product is packaged.
> Isn't this what "reader-response" theory is all about? Is an
> interactive movie not a movie? Is interactive fiction not fiction?
Let me know when either of those becomes a form of any importance, and I
will then carefully consider the question.
>
> I play only adventure games, and if I knew where this crossposted
> post originated, I would respond there. So perhaps my thoughts are out
> of line. If so, I apologize.
I have no idea where it originated either. I'm posting to the
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games newsgroup.
> I am a professor of philosophy and teach aesthetics, so perhaps my
> views on art are broader than most. But colleagues from literature
> departments have commented also on the interesting new possibilities for
> "open narrative structure" presented by computer games. Branching plot
> seems to me to still be plot. (That Blade Runner has seven possible
> endings does not seem to me to disqualify it as a narrative; rather, it
> enhances the potential of narrative.)
Blade Runner has seven possible endings?
> (After all, Kierkegaard has a
> book of prefaces! ;-) )
> Even RPGs can be said perhaps, granted in a stretch, to have
> character development. The biggest drawback there seems to be in the
> area of personality development. ("Orientation" perhaps?)
> As I said, I am thinking of adventure games and the hardest elements
> to integrate in to a "such games are art" view are self-contained,
> non-inventory, puzzles (for example, the endgame in Tex Murphy: Overseer
> is a chess match). I must admit I have not yet thought this element
> through satisfactorily.
I'm not much of an adventure game player, I'm afraid, so really can't relate
to much of what you have to say here. Based on the few that I have played,
such games seem to require the player to figure out what the author wants
him to figure out in order to advance the story. That sort of linearity just
doesn't have much appeal for me.
> However, Jane Jenson has turned her game Gabriel Knight: The Sins of
> the Father into a novel. (Um... given the quality of that novel,
> perhaps it isn't such a good example. But I would actually be quite
> comfortable endorsing a novelization of The Longest Journey. It might
> even work as a film. (I have not had the pleasure of seeing those films
> made of games like Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy, so I cannot comment on
> them. Actually, I have difficulty imagining them!)
I have seen part of the Tomb Raider movie, on rented videotape. The reason I
only saw part of it is that I fell asleep fairly early on. Occasionally I
would be half-wakened by an unusually loud series of explosions or barrage
of gunfire, but would promptly fall asleep again. I think it is a good movie
to sleep through and I would probably buy the tape if I ever had problems
with insomnia.
[ . . . ]
> In my humble opinion, computer games will get the attention of art
> critics when an art critic chooses to pay attention to them.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, but who knows? There
are some very goofy art critics.
Not long ago I saw on TV a program about an art-collecting couple who had,
among their many cherished objets d'art, what appeared to be a length of
clothesline about a foot long fastened to their apartment wall by a nail
through its center. That, they said, was a piece of art worth $7,000. Why?
Because it had been nailed there by a famous artist, or at least an artist
popular with the art crowd at that time (whose name I have forgotten and
expect never to have any reason to remember).
So I suppose you could make the case that if a piece of clothesline nailed
to a wall can be "art," then anything can be "art." An old sofa, dishes in
the sink, the contents of your refrigerator, or even a computer game.
At some point, words like "art" just begin to lose all meaning.
>
> >
> > There have been some attempts to make audiences an active part of "art"
> > (e.g., the movements of viewers in a gallery causing changes in sound
and
> > light displays), but these have been uniformly silly. And it would be
> > virtually impossible for a reviewer to write a sensible review of such a
> > thing anyway (what exactly would he be reviewing?) other than to comment
on
> > its novelty. I think there is somewhat the same difficulty with trying
to
> > see games as an art form.
>
>
> Are there better and worse "happenings" or performance art pieces?
Probably, in the sense that some loads of garbage may be even less appealing
than others.
> If there are I should think such things could be reviewed.
Simply because some examples might be better or worse than others? If that
were a reason to review things, what in the world would you *not* want to
review?
> Is it
> possible to comment on how well or poorly participation in or
> interaction with a piece or work of art is achieved or experienced?
It is possible to comment on anything, but I am beginning to think
professors of philosophy and aesthetics just have too much time on their
hands. ;-)
Seneca
Knight37
> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>>ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Lucian Wischik) had the moxy to write:
>>> Good demo ===> good game
>>> bad demo ===> sometimes good, sometimes bad.
>>By your very logic I'd miss a lot of good games
>
> Strictly speaking (I'm a logician in my job -- i.e. theoretical computer
> science), my logic would only tell you to buy games with good demos, and
> wouldn't say anything about games with bad demos. Therefore you wouldn't
> miss any.
If bad demo ===> sometimes good, and I never buy games with bad demos, then
I am going to miss those sometimes good games.
>>Quake III Arena - very good demo that showed off the engine, too bad the
>>game was about as deep as the demo.
>
> That might be a good example, except I thought that the Q3A demo stank :)
>
>>There's also been lots of games that had a critical flaw in the end game
>>that didn't show up in the demo
>
> I don't think that's much of a problem. By the time you get to the end
> game, you've already got most of the benefit of it.
Okay wise guy. The flaw might be in the 2nd level, right after the demo
level. Or it might be that the only good level in the game was the demo
level. Basically, there could be flaws in the gameplay that do not show up
in the demo, only in the full game.
>>so was Ascendancy (both had pretty good demos but the critical flaws
>>in the AI didn't show up until the full game).
>
> full game? or end game?
Full game.
--
Knight37
Vanessa Kensington: Mr. Powers, my job is to acclimatize you to the
nineties. You know, a lot's changed since 1967.
Austin Powers: No doubt, love, but as long as people are still having
promiscuous sex with many anonymous partners without protection while at
the same time experimenting with mind-expanding drugs in a consequence-free
environment, I'll be sound as a pound!
-- "Austin Powers"
Lucian Wischik
>>>There's also been lots of games that had a critical flaw in the end game
>>>that didn't show up in the demo
Ah. "End game" --> the game that comes out at the end of development,
vs. "End game" --> the final hour of gameplay.
Knight37
> As an aside, I actually LIKED Fallout's demo--I absolutely had to have
> the game after playing it. What do you think was so bad about it?
I don't remember why it was bad, I just remember thinking it sucked.
--
Knight37
Though my views may be wrong, they may even be perverted
She'll hear me out, and won't easily be converted
To my way of thinking, in fact she'll often disagree
But at the end of it all, she will understand me
-- Depeche Mode, "Somebody"
JH
"Susan" <SuDA...@bendSPAGHETTIcable.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:7kik9u8ulcbf0tfu2...@4ax.com...
| "Taren Durbank" <tare...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| I know the PS2 console has a couple independent sites that average up the
review
| scores from a half dozen or so reviews of each game. Is there any similar
| source for combining review scores for the PC gaming world? This would be
a
| cool tool.
www.gamerankings.com has links to all US/UK reviews
and has an average score.
JH
Jet Nebula
>Jet Nebula <thi...@spamfreezone.com> had the moxy to write:
>
>> As an aside, I actually LIKED Fallout's demo--I absolutely had to have
>> the game after playing it. What do you think was so bad about it?
>
>I don't remember why it was bad, I just remember thinking it sucked.
A lot of people thought that, but I don't remember why. I replayed it
about 20 times then ran out and bought the full game. Actually, I
didn't even like the full game at first because it lacked the pacing
of the demo! Guess I'm just a freak.
Joel Wellington
<ro...@rainerdeyke.com> wrote:
>"Joel Wellington" <jo...@eftel.com.au.NOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:o4ei9ug53rimr9d52...@4ax.com...
>> The Monkey Island series wasnt IF. IF didnt have graphics - just
>text
>> and a command parser.
>
>The graphics or lack thereof in a game are a trivial detail and should
>not be used for classification. ;-)
Game graphics are hardly trivial. Quake without graphics is not very
playable.
Murray Peterson
news:7kik9u8ulcbf0tfu2...@4ax.com:
> I think reviewers should wait
> until a game has been selling for one month and then base their review
> not only on their own satisfactory or not completion of the game but
> also on input from a dozen others who have finished the game too.
As an "amateur" reviewer, I have to disagree with you here. My views of a
game may change with time and reflection, but I have never modified my view
because of another person's reviews. I don't know about anyone else, but
my reviews are *my* viewpoint, and I certainly don't want anyone's "input",
except as an interesting point of discussion after the fact.
> The
> basic genre isn't enough. An adventure that has a lot of strategy or
> sport type genre in it is going to hard on me--I need to know this
> sort of thing from the review since it won't likely be advertised or
> on the box.
That depends on the review -- mine come down really hard on anything
requiring good reflexes or good motor skills. Basically, you need to find
one or more reviewers whom you trust to tell you what you need to know
about a game.
> I also need to know if the players generally took 3 hours
> to get through some difficult timed-action-sequence in what otherwise
> is an action/adventure.
Again, find the right reviewers -- they will tell you exactly that.
> I know the PS2 console has a couple independent sites that average up
> the review scores from a half dozen or so reviews of each game. Is
> there any similar source for combining review scores for the PC gaming
> world? This would be a cool tool.
Is an average score really going to be of use? I really need to read the
review, mostly to find out what is important to the reviewer, and *why* the
high (or low) score was given. A review that trashes a game because it
wasn't implemented using the latest 3D technology is going to be a review I
will happily ignore.
> Lastly, is there any source that will rent PC games?
None that I know of; they are too easy to damage (multiple disks), require
paper manuals, and also require extended rental periods. I would expect an
adventure game would have to rent for almost as much as the purchase price
before it became economical.
--
Murray Peterson
Email: murray_...@shaw.ca (remove underscore)
URL: http://members.shaw.ca/murraypeterson/
Taren Durbank
> nineties. You know, a lot's changed since 1967.
> Austin Powers: No doubt, love, but as long as people are still having
> promiscuous sex with many anonymous partners without protection while at
> the same time experimenting with mind-expanding drugs in a
consequence-free
> environment, I'll be sound as a pound!
> -- "Austin Powers"
Heheh.
"My god man, how good are these new computer things? Hard drive! Mega-bites
of ram!" - Austin Powers
Taren Durbank
news:o0ok9u8ck50guehgl...@4ax.com...
For me it was the cumbersome interface and all the clicking with the
different pointers. I've even heard fans of Fallout say they dislike the
interface, it being probably the worst thing about the game.
Taren Durbank
> (certainly), few games can achieve the above standards as they will be
> understood ten or twenty years from now. (Something that looks new
> today may cause reviewers to think it's nearer a universal standard than
> it actually is.)
I think the potential has been there for many years. The techniques I
mentioned before do not require 1M polys/sec or 24-bit colour. A few simple
lines and the proper use of colour can achieve more artistic meaning in a
character (if used skillfully) than a plain but realistic-looking Quake 3
skin.
A famous architect of the 20th century used about 30-40 lines to sketch out
a plan for a building on a hill. It may look quite ordinary, as it is quite
a simple drawing, but many regard it as a highly skillful sketch because it
portrays so much meaning with so few lines: perspective, size ratios, the
fundamental style and architecture of the building (probably best recognised
by architects), positioning, the landscape, and so forth. This is just an
example, but such achievements could be done on a Commodore 64 or even good
old Turtle for the BBC.
To me, the limiting factor is not the medium or the technology.
The limiting factor is the skill of the artist.
> It's not just graphics. Hardly anyone will play Planescape:Torment in
> ten years - the graphics are mostly okay, the delay between zones may
> even have gone away, but the combat is broken and the interaction will
> seem boring and primitive by future standards that will be 'closer' to
> universal standards.
I think people will still be playing PS:T just like people still play SNES
games, MAME games, and other old-school emulated games. Heaps of people
still read Shakespeare, which is in an archaic language that is hard to
understand. Similarly, people still read old poetry and stories written in
old-school English or even the dead language Latin.
Taren Durbank
I've seen some Blockbuster and independent stores that rent PC games. Not
many though, maybe about 1 in 10 for Blockbuster and less for independents,
and they're usually in obscure places that take you hours to drive there and
back.
freshie
<tare...@hotmail.com> composed a work, of the following which is an
excerpt:
>This is a follow-up to the thread I sparked a while ago on the most
>overrated games of all time. I have thought about why overrating occurs so
>commonly. The most obvious reason is a severe lack of mature critics and
>professionalism in the industry, especially since any backyard hacker can
>write a review and post it to the Internet, but also because computer and
>video games are not really regarded as a true artform by the mainstream
>(yet).
Like any others ratings game, the industry itself gives the
journalists a reason to exist. From movies, to books, to music, to
stocks. Your average reviewer is hand-fed from the companies that
they are reviewing. If they are too critical of the entity they are
reviewing, that entity will cut them off.
Give a negative review of Game X, the company in question won't deal
with them for Game Y that is coming out. No designer diary presented
for the next game, no beta builds, no information. Without those
things, what is your average journalist going to do with their tim?
Gerry Quinn
>> But with the limited technology of today (probably) and yesterday
>> (certainly), few games can achieve the above standards as they will be
>> understood ten or twenty years from now. (Something that looks new
>> today may cause reviewers to think it's nearer a universal standard than
>> it actually is.)
>
>I think the potential has been there for many years. The techniques I
>mentioned before do not require 1M polys/sec or 24-bit colour. A few simple
>lines and the proper use of colour can achieve more artistic meaning in a
>character (if used skillfully) than a plain but realistic-looking Quake 3
>skin.
I'm sorry, but an FPS with line drawings cannot achieve the specific
game experience that FPS players are looking for.
>A famous architect of the 20th century used about 30-40 lines to sketch out
>a plan for a building on a hill. It may look quite ordinary, as it is quite
>a simple drawing, but many regard it as a highly skillful sketch because it
>portrays so much meaning with so few lines: perspective, size ratios, the
>fundamental style and architecture of the building (probably best recognised
>by architects), positioning, the landscape, and so forth. This is just an
>example, but such achievements could be done on a Commodore 64 or even good
>old Turtle for the BBC.
Actually, on a lo-res screen (made worse by colour limitations that
prevent good anti-aliasing), that could NOT be achieved.
>To me, the limiting factor is not the medium or the technology.
>The limiting factor is the skill of the artist.
Some types of art need better technology than others. Most fine art
requires resolution technology which has been available on paper and
canvas for centuries, and is barely becoming accessible on PCs now.
Contrariwise, the frame rate of paper is poor, and since games normally
require rapidly changing images, the computer screen has an advantage
here.
>> It's not just graphics. Hardly anyone will play Planescape:Torment in
>> ten years - the graphics are mostly okay, the delay between zones may
>> even have gone away, but the combat is broken and the interaction will
>> seem boring and primitive by future standards that will be 'closer' to
>> universal standards.
>
>I think people will still be playing PS:T just like people still play SNES
>games, MAME games, and other old-school emulated games. Heaps of people
>still read Shakespeare, which is in an archaic language that is hard to
>understand. Similarly, people still read old poetry and stories written in
>old-school English or even the dead language Latin.
There's a difference between playing a retro game and watching a play in
a language which, though archaic, is technologically equivalent to
modern English.
And people don't play retro games all that much, though Alan Sugar's new
scheme for email-telephone stations may give the Speccy back-catalogue a
new lease of life...
The point about PS:T is that the combat is poor, and a lot of the
gameplay is (let's be honest here) quite boring. The graphics
technology isn't really the issue, the organising technology for a
really good CRPG is not yet developed.