What you are proposing, in my mind, is totally, incompatible with gaming
Regards
Marty
-
In your mind maybe - for me the horizon has infinate posibilities, and I'm certainly glad most devcos aren't subscribing to your way of thinking.
Regards
Marty -
Most devcos are making ****e to pay the bills.Comment
-
Thank you razu.
Yes, they are making ****e, because thanks to a wider market and greater change, and more mainstream gamers, the only way to pay bills, is apparently to appeal to the dregs of gaming humanity.
Because of the gaming market undergoing a shift, development politics so to speak changed greatly, and in the long resulted in the crappulence we are floating in right now. I hate gaming at the moment, truth be told, so much of the joy is gone. I dont like not being the core market anymore.
I also have crazy dreams of some kind of balance being struck, where the money men mature, and realise to make better profits, they need to stop discarding the old ways so quickly.
oh, will you look at that, I was dragged back into the topic.
Call me elitist and blinkered if you want, but at least no one can say Im not passionate.Comment
-
It's amazing how different you and me are, yet we both have a huge love for gaming. I love finding the hidden subtle meanings, heck, I often enjoy debating 'what something means' more than playing the actual game. To me, gaming is all about the experience. However I like my experience to extend outside the boundries of the game itself, looking for something that may or may not exist in order to fit my own theories about development and story twists.Good god, can you imagine, in a decade, people sitting around, discussing the hidden subtler meanings to games they've played? How in a clever way, it parodies real life meanings and god I cant even fake a sentence about this stuff.
Id run a mile, one of the things I detest about films, would have infected gaming.
I remember one thread on ntsc-uk a fair while ago now, where myself and Concept really ripped apart Silent Hill 3 in order to find what certain events - and even certain expressions by characters - meant not only in this one game, but also the entire series, the entire background of the town of Silent Hill and even what it meant for the future of the horror genre. For a game that has been slagged off for being a dumned down extention to the series, we found an awful lot of detail that wasn't obvious on your first play. It was still the most enjoyable discussion I've ever had about gaming, and I cannot wait for another game to come along that allows me to go into similar levels of depth - as long as someone else takes part, obviously.
If you care, this is an example of what I came up with:
Though you'd be happy to know the next paragraph started with "Am I talking crap?"One area of the review I didn?t quite agree with was the comment about the music not quite fitting in during cutscenes. To me, they were quite brilliant. Again, rather cold and distant, but with a beauty behind the lyrics. Perhaps a metaphor for the town itself? Historically it is often referred to throughout the series as being a picturesque tourist attraction, but more recently, clearly things have gone wrong. The beauty in the setting remains, but the darkness binds it.
In some ways I am similar to you however. Like you, I just enjoy doing what I do, and if people laugh or disagree with my (unusual?) stance on gaming, then so be it.
It is nice how people with such different (positive) opinions on gaming and exist on the same forum and even love some of the same games.
Gaming just rocks, I guess.
Am I talking crap? Thought so.Comment
-
That doesnt sound like crap, I like what you said, it doesnt feel alienating.
Interesting point with silent hill, Ive read alot about the hidden meanings behind it. Strangely, or perhaps sadly, things like that I dont/didnt consider.
Maybe Im too much of a face value kind of player.
But say most games decided to take mature stance, as opposed to say for example B-movie style games, Id feel uncomfortable, thinking that creation was suddenly strongly influenced by much deeper meanings, be it narrative or twitch games.
Journos in a bar: yes, and that end of level boss, with 3 guns, that represents duality of whatever on another level.... etc
Gaming, for me, is about gaming, them being created to entertain, not debate societies deeper hidden thoughts.
Im personally a huge fan of cheap b-movies, they feel so unpretentious, so "I dont give a damn if Im slightly kitsch"
Its difficult to quantify. So of my personal favourites, be they big on narrative, or surreal hands on games, they feel "gamey", like theyre not out to try and prove or say anything.
I feel like Im mellowing, and that makes me tense again.
I dont like the idea of games braodening, because as much as you will see me championing unusual games, there is always the feel that when they try to push big revolutionary changes through, it will take away something that currently exists.
I dont think the games market can grow any bigger. Something has to give. Something has to die.
I also dont like the idea of suddenly film makers working alongside gamemakers. That E3 DVD given away with edge made me sick, their whole ramble about how now games and films are closer than ever.
Its more than being about narrative, we've had narrative since the earliest PC games, its about the way things physically work and are done in the different mediums.
The games market existing (and changing) say through 84-95 produced quality, so why drastically change what was broken?
"The shapes" article in the latest gameTM highlighted alot of what I was thinking, though in a more concise writing manner.
He too feared the time when gaming created the hollywood equivalent of the blockbuster.
Or am I going off the original point again?Comment
-
So what you're saying is that you don't enjoy films with a deeper meaning, such as Donny Darko or Memento, and you'd much rather watch a bang-bang-splat B-movie. Fine, that's your own perogative. I personally enjoy the former style of cinema.Originally posted by otaku84
But you then go on to say that you don't want games to follow in this trend in offering things for everyone. If you had your way, we'd stay with the "pure" arcade-like games of the 90s. We'd have no Deus Ex, no GTA, nothing with a deeper meaning. To take that back to the movie analogy, if you'd had your way during the so-called Golden Age of cinema, all films would have stayed simple and B-movie like, with none of the more complex examples we have today. But this doesn't bother you because you don't watch these complex films anyway.
I suggest you employ this same tactic towards games; just don't play the deeper ones that don't appeal to you. Stay with the simpler arcade-like games (nothing wrong with this, BTW) and let others enjoy the more, to us, fulfilling experiance that subtle narratives and social digs that the new breed of games will (hopefully) employ.Comment
-
aaah! But do you not see? That game is making a very important social comment! It represents mans primordial inner instincts, the monkey, now traped, by modern societies over restrictive social norms and values. The game, in a way, parodies mans struggle for fiscal gain. Enough bananas leads to victory and freedom from the ball, do we not all yearn for fiscal fluidity so as to be able to free ourselves, albeit by secluding ourselves, from societies reign of control. The monkey must negotiate the maze, have we not all felt both trapped, and yet risked falling into a limitless abyss? The combination of both claustrophobic ball, and limitless void, highlights the duality of man, and his struggle against seemingly two realities. The classic rock and a hard place if you will. Not to mention the enormous sexual and pseudo-sexual references of monkies trapped in transparent plastic balls. You see them but dont touch, matched and directly parralled by the shape and size of the control device, which controls all, no other inputs needed, the so called joy-stick. A modern discourse of how todays society is or at least seemingly controled solely by men? In the long run what appears to be a game, is in fact a paraphrasing of what goes on in all our daily lives, hence its addictive qaulities, the success of the game is directly correlated to how in real life, we wish to succeed, and since the game mirrors our life situations subliminally and subconciously, it plays on us instinctively, hence the need for just one more go. This is no game that was genuinely creative, but a cynical cooky-cutter by the book, game of numbers, playing on the very basic primitive instincts that govern us all, there was no creative process here.Originally posted by razu
Oh, but I mock, and after reading this, youll realise that games right now are not mature, they do not have deeper meanings, that all of the above is pap, and I am of course mad as a hatter, because what sane person would spend 15 minutes of their life, this late at night, typing such nonsensical crap?
Why, I just have. Well, look at that.
I suddenly had a scary thought, that someone in a devco might actually demand thats how games are concepualised one day.Comment
-
To get back to the original point, I think the games and film industries have a lot in common, if in their practices than in any specific examples.
The early formative periods of games, the pioneering examples of gameplay and technical achievement, is similar to the pioneering films that introduced moving cameras, a complex and coherent narrative and the tool of suspense. Noel Bushnell could easily be compared to the Lumiere Brothers and Miyamoto to Hitchcock. All these illuminaries introduced various aspects of film and game that we all take for granted now.
With the formation of the big games companies of Nintendo, Sega et all, the development of games industry industry parralled that of cinema with the so-called "studio" system. Even here, oglipolies, vertical integration and unfair market systems can be seen. But these "studios" churned out hundreds of games, some excellent examples like Mario Bros but also many poor ones.
I believe we are still in this stage now, with the majority of games released having a shorter, yet more expensive, development time and in response to market conditions rather than any one designer's vision. There are elements of modern-day cinema practices, such as big companies occaisioanlly releasing innovative original product, but most games are just "filler" entertainment, similar to those seen in the 50's.
I look forward to a time when independent companies can release innovative product, similar to the indie film scene now, while the masses can enjoy filler entertainment provided by the big studios, who occasionally toss a more substantial apple to the discerning crowd.Comment
-
Good one. Now how about telling us that Apocalypse Now wasn't anti-war but actually one big advert for Playboy.Originally posted by otaku84
Comment
-
No, you totally missed my, or rather I didnt type it up that well.Originally posted by srgbilco
I dont mean generic action films, say like the atrocious xXx, and while I havent seen those films you mention, (actuall Donny Darko sounds fascinating, I must try and get it), I do not see or read those meanings. I would take it at face value.
Take Fear and Loathing, 1 of my personal favourite films, people will tell you it has a deeper meaning about change during the 60's, I didnt see that until someone went at great length to explain it, i merely saw it as a comedy.
I enjoy complex films, but I dont go for that whole deeper meaning thing.
Saw a war film once, very old, and some big film buff guy was explaining to me how because of his situation, where he was from, the duality of his cause, his inner grief and demons, how he represents what alot people feel at times etc
I was like, "shut up dude, he's on the run, I dont need to know anymore, its a good film, let me just enjoy it as a yarn, not a moral debate about the morailty of mankind."
This makes me appear as someone incapable of understanding deeper meanings. Which is not true, I took philosphy, and debated yadda yadda its not important.
But I dont want to look deeper into things, that can ruin a film for me.
Take David Lynch films, I love David Lynch films. Why? Not because I like to look into the deeper meanings of what he is trying to express about himself and humanity, but because afterwards Im like "whoa", totally confused, and simply enjoying the vacuum feeling you get in your head. A kind of, that made no sense, hence why I like it.
Those films were made, some say, with the intention of promoting those particular discourses, what I dont like is, suddenly, during the creation process of games, these things are taken into account.
You mentioned good narrative games, well I certainly dont think GTAVC has any deeper meaning, it has a good plot, some story cliches, its good popcorn wrapped up in good gameplay. I am not arguing against narrative. We have had narrative since the early 80's, with text adventures, hell even earlier than that, what I am arguing against is hollywood style creation porcesses and all that goes with it, and game creation being influenced by the apparent "need" for deeper more mature meanings.
Games do not need social commentary, or deeper meanings, complex plots, yes SOMETIMES, but complex narratives do not need a deeper meaning, or anything else, to be complex. It can be complex, and filled with red herrings, whilst being a totally face value narrative, that makes no bones about what it is.Comment
-
Apocalypse Now was an antiwar film?
Damn, I just thought it was boring. It also made no sense, but not in a good David Lynch way, more in a bad why the heck did I sit for 2 hours kind of way. Really awful film IMO, but then again, as youve seen, my opinion is about as far removed from anyone elses as you can get.
Anyway, that monkey ball thing? That couldnt have been more sarcastic and joking, had you taken vaseline and written the word JOKE across your PC moniter. I was fooling dude.
Oh, and I dont think gaming parallels films at all, maybe now they are slowly starting, and sure you made some good examples, but it just doesnt click for me.
Though, I do agree, indie games are something I greatly look forward to, being able to experience a single creators vision. There are scant few examples right now, Jeff Minter (huge fan of his work), and some homebrew stuff on modded consoles, but not much really. Not nearly enough. Oh, and there was Yaroze, which for everything people knock Sony for, that was a stroke of genius. Small candy scented droplets of something new, alot of it crap, but mostly all the creation of 1 mind.
That Monster Maze game still occasionally gets played by me.
But not for deeper social meanings, but simply because they dare to try new forms of gameplay that big companies are too afraid to try. Oh, and for the glorious return of the 2D sprite and all the shallow gameplay mechanics that go with it.
Comment
-
But that's an oxymoron! The whole point of Hollywood style development is that it produces hollow, simple popcorn movies intended for quick mass consumption. The complex films you reference are a complete breakaway from this Hollywood production line and so if games follow these innovative examples, they would actually be moving away from Hollywood.Originally posted by otaku84
I think your main fear with a closer parrallel to the film industry is that of lots of crappy games produced in bulk. We are all agreed this is a bad thing and is not what any of us want. But to completly ban deeper messages in games is to deny that extra enjoyment to people who enjoy the Memento's of the world.
By their very definition, subtle messages wouldn't be in-you-face. Think of them as Easter eggs for those who care and want to investigate the underlying message of the game. Those who couldn't give a **** can just get their kicks purely from the gameplay.
Edit: I know about the Monkey Ball thing. I just thought it was taken a bit OTT.Comment
-
Don't bother with Donnie Darko if you're interested in a decent story or a decent film.
And as for the fella saying he likes a story not for the message within but just the story itself....
...its passing along the messages that gave us storytelling in the first place, m'lad.
Games must evolve.Comment
-
Do bother with Donnie Darko if you're interested in a great story and a great filmOriginally posted by biglime .
Personally, I believe games have the potential to be the greatest communicative medium we have. The marriage of sound, visuals and interactivity is something no other art form can offer so easily.
At the moment though, there's no middle ground and no-one looking to make things that work on several levels. If you look at some of the great films that have been mentioned in the thread, they can be taken at face value or you can spend forever looking for hidden depth and meanings to them. With games you either get mindless action (which I'm not knocking for a second) or some kind of convoluted 'meaningful story' rammed down your throat, a la MGS2.
It'd be great if games could get to the stage where the player gets out as much as they are willing to put in, as far as story goes. Maybe the Silent Hill games do this to some extent (I've only played the first game, so it's hard for me to say), but apart from that I'm struggling to come up with examples.
If this ever did happen, it needn't mean the death of the arcade shooter or the one-on-one fighting game. I don't think anyone's proposing that this kind of approach would suit any genre of game, but it'd be nice to have the odd thing come out with ideas above the current station. As srgbilco said though, this won't ever happen with the industry working as it does now.Comment
-
*makes mental note to not get confrontational*
Have any of you read "The Player of Games" by Iain M. Banks? There's a game in it called Azad that was this massively important game to its civilisation. It was used to decide political positions and to install the next emperor. The main character is sent to play the game, and at first he was Otaku84, the 'face-value man'. He played the game for the game itself. No hidden meanings, no subtleties, unless they were strategic, nothing. He still enjoyed playing it. Later on in the book, he sees that the game stands for more than just the sum of its gameplay elements and began to appreciate it a whole lot more. It took his very participation in the game to the next level. This game lacked any form of narrative.
After reading Ms. Pratchett's article, this is the conclusion I came to. Hidden meanings and subtleties can come about without the existence of narrative in the usual sense. A story is not necessary for an action to take on a greater import to a player. In the future, if games were made like this, with a deeper meaning or efffect on the thoughts of the players that want these I don't see why this would affect the enjoyment of those that just want simple games. There is no threat. Even in the other fields of media that have been mentioned here, such experiences are in the minority and do not affect the production of good, solid pieces of entertainment.
This would suit me fine to be honest, as I am really getting tired of gameplay only games. A wonderful experience for me is not based on story, but on the addition of ideas and design elements that leave you room for your imagination to run wild
Comment
Comment