Console The "Console War" and why I haven't played Bayonetta and won't ever play the sequel. [Archive]

Snowbluff

2014-11-11, 02:45 PM

I don't like Nintendo and I don't like the Wii U. There, I said it. I enjoy my 3DS, it has a good library and I play a ton of multiplayer games. I own a PS3, and will be purchasing a PS4 (Curse you Bloodborne and Sony's exclusive strategy!). I play PC games, but since I don't own a dedicated, high-power machine, I am limited in that capacity. I mostly play Blizzard games there.

Now, I haven't played Bayonetta. I heard it's good, and Totalbiscuit won't let me forget it. The problem is that the Xbox360 was such a huge piece of crap at launch that I would have been better off paying for an overpriced PS3 and I still would have saved moeny over time. By the time I replaced my second Xbrick I hadn't played Bay, and then I heard it performed poorly on the Sony system. So I never bothered. Still, Demon's Souls, CoD, and Armored Core kept me coming back to my matte black box.

Then the Wii U came out. I was bewildered. It must have been some kind of joke. It seemed like Nintendo was jumping the gun on the next generation. I didn't own a Wii in the first place. My friends that did own one only used it for Smash Bros and Mario Kart. Even worse is that all of the good games that would be coming out, Smash 4 and Bayonetta 2, wouldn't come out until after the new Sony system would be out. Not to mention that the Activision CoD teams, Bungie, and Fromsoft wouldn't make games for it. It would have been a ton of money to buy a system for 2 games that I would only play if I had friends over.

Bayonetta 2 was put in an awkward place. The entire fanbase played the games on Microsoft and Sony consoles. The system it would be on was a gimmicky half generation machine. It was one of the few core games for a system was pretty much a Nintendo publishing platform designed to wring as much money out of Mario as possible. It's no wonder it only sold a quarter million copies, which is dwarfed by the original's numbers. The system is absolutely toxic. Developers distanced themselves from it quickly, and the few that stuck around got screwed. It really isn't fair to Platinum. I hope they release more games that will be played.

Calling me a Sony would probably be an accurate statement. I grew up playing Playstation. My dad still has his collection of the classics. The PS2 had a huge library and reintroduced me to the Armored Core series. As far as I am concerned, the PS3 is the system that won it's console war. The Wii sales weren't for gamers, and the Xbox was plagued with console failures that I believe inflated its sales numbers. There were less decent exclusives than I could count on one hand in that generation, so the only real reason to pick a system was to get the one that worked. I'll buy a PS4, because Fromsoft has had me by the neck since the original Armored Core, and Sony knows it. Cheeky bastards. I have 100+ hours each on 7 Fromsoft titles (3 souls, 4 Armored Cores) alone from the last generation. All of the other games worth playing won't be exclusive, so I won't have to worry about that.

In short, I should win the lottery so I can build a PC. I don't to be in the lump sum of "console gamers," because some of them payed for a Wii U. There was really no point to this.

enderlord99

2014-11-11, 04:21 PM

The only good game company is Valve.

...Well, they're the only good company that makes games. There are a decent few companies that make good games.

Consoles, on the other hand...

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-11-11, 04:23 PM

idk about you, but I got to play some stuff on the Wii U with a friend of mine, and had a blast. The system seems pretty great so far.

Snowbluff

2014-11-11, 05:36 PM

I'm not a fan of the controllers or Nintendo. :smalltongue:

The only good game company is Valve.

...Well, they're the only good company that makes games. There are a decent few companies that make good games.

Consoles, on the other hand...

Right now, Valve is amidst Steam troubles and rarely puts out games. Things are looking up, but Steam is all Valve really has to show, and it's pretty much the worst. There is very little concept of quality control. Curation is a nice addition, but we pretty much need to weed out the games that don't work or use stolen assets. So, they are a bad company that occasionally puts out something playable. That being said, I eagerly await HL3 in 20XX, because it's going to be awesome.

If you want a good company, Fromsoft. Their material is consistently good. Even their "bad" games have good difficulty and replayability.

Anteros

2014-11-11, 05:48 PM

The only good game company is Valve.

...Well, they're the only good company that makes games. There are a decent few companies that make good games.

Consoles, on the other hand...

Even valve has their problems. Then again, I may be biased from the time a technical issue left me without internet for 6 months and steam "required" an update and wouldn't allow me to access my game library.

I understand piracy is an issue, but when your invasive DRM prevents me from using a product I purchased for long periods of time, I'm going to have a hard time supporting your company.

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-11, 06:18 PM

So Sony has one good exclusive in the future that you really want to play and that makes them better than Nintendo with around a dozen exclusives that are currently out and fairly well received? Bayonetta 2 only exists because Nintendo was willing to publish it. I for one am happy to have bought a WiiU because of Bayonetta, Mario Kart, and the upcoming Smash Bros. I have a pretty decent list of games I'd like to buy on it as well, though as of right now I only have 3, and they will all offer me dozens of hours of enjoyment.

You call the system toxic because it didn't sell well early? This was admittedly a failure on Nintendo's marketing, as despite actually having decent games the console did not sell well as opposed to both the Xbone and the PS4 which had little to no good exclusives at launch, and still sold a huge amount of copies. I would support either of the other companies consoles if they had games, but right now there are less than three good exclusives on either console, and most of the triple A titles just don't interest me that much. Xbone has Master Chief Collection, Sunset Overdrive, and maybe Dead Rising 3, but even that seems kind of average. PS4 has Infamous, and maybe Killzone. Bloodborne in like 6 months or something. Right now they just aren't comparable, WiiU simply has better quality and quantity of exclusives.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-11-11, 06:22 PM

So Sony has one good exclusive in the future that you really want to play and that makes them better than Nintendo with around a dozen exclusives that are currently out and fairly well received?

That's only because Nintendo decides to make everything exclusive. Sure there's only one PS4 EXCLUSIVE he really wants (which is different from "fairly well recieved"), but that doesn't mean that other games available on the system won't be bought. Or that he supports Nintendo's practice of making everything exclusive.

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-11, 07:03 PM

Snowbluff

2014-11-11, 07:57 PM

huttj509

2014-11-11, 08:39 PM

Snowbluff

2014-11-11, 08:54 PM

I really don't need another Mario Kart in my life. If there is a Wii U game that's couch worthy, it's Smash, and since it's Smash, someone else will own it. You've seen me of the 3.5 forums. I'm not so easily entertained. I need meaty games.

Hyrule Warriors is the next thing on our list. Just... why? :smallfrown:

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-11, 09:00 PM

Here's the problem: Mario Cart 8 is not what I would call game of the year. Bloodborne will be.

The simple fact of the matter is that if I choose a console, it will be the one that has all of my favorite games on it (upcoming Destiny stuff from Bungie, Armored Core and Souls from From, couch Diablo 3 stuff from Blizz, CoD from Sledgehammer/Triarc, Kingdom Hearts from Sqeenix). Bloodborne being an exclusive doesn't matter that much. If I have to choose between Microsoft and Sony for a console, from past experiences Sony has my money.

The problem with Nintendo is that you get to buy a console for your favorite Nintendo games (and smash). Metroid is my favorite. Nintendo hates it when gaijin devs make and awesome game, and even handed a license to Team Ninja. Metroid is probably not going to have another good game coming out at this rate, and if it does, I should be boycotting Nintendo for the last one. :smallannoyed:

I feel like it is a little preemptive to call Bloodborne the game of the year when it is not out. Previews are very positive, but they always are, so it doesn't really mean much. As for Mario Kart being game of the year, maybe not, for me personally that would be Tranistor, followed by Bayonetta 2, but I could see arguments for it. There are good games coming in the future for the PS4, but I want to emphasize future there. Right now it has very few good games, and is definitely not worth the price of entry. I feel like Sony is very good at hyping but so far has little to actually show for it.

Zevox

2014-11-11, 09:27 PM

Your loss. Bayonetta was already very good, and the sequel surpasses it in almost every area (having recently re-played the first one after playing the second, I'd only give the first one the upper hand on its final boss fight). To be perfectly honest, at this point I consider Bayonetta 2 the best action game I've ever played (dethroning Devil May Cry 3), and barring Dragon Age: Inquisition being truly mind-blowing it'll be my easy pick for game of the year. Between that and Nintendo's first-party titles like Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze and Smash Brothers, I'm quite happy I have a Wii U myself. Not sure how many other third-party titles worth a damn it'll get over the course of its life, but Nintendo themselves always make a good number of games worth buying anyway.

That's only because Nintendo decides to make everything exclusive. Sure there's only one PS4 EXCLUSIVE he really wants (which is different from "fairly well recieved"), but that doesn't mean that other games available on the system won't be bought. Or that he supports Nintendo's practice of making everything exclusive.
Every console developer makes their own games exclusive - they'd be stupid not to, since they want people to buy their consoles. Nintendo just makes a lot more first-party games than Sony (God of War, Killzone, InFamous, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, probably some I'm forgetting) or Microsoft (Halo, Gears of War, whatever Rare titles they feel like trying to milk at the moment, and not really anything else I'm aware of).

Do we really think KH 3 will be on PS4, Xbox 1, and NOT PC?
Um, yes. Why would it end up on PC? Neither of its predecessors did, and the market for PC games in Japan is pretty small. It should generally be the default presumption that if the game is being made by a Japanese company, it most likely won't get a PC version - those that do are the exception, not the rule.

Snowbluff

2014-11-11, 09:48 PM

I feel like it is a little preemptive to call Bloodborne the game of the year when it is not out. Previews are very positive, but they always are, so it doesn't really mean much. As for Mario Kart being game of the year, maybe not, for me personally that would be Tranistor, followed by Bayonetta 2, but I could see arguments for it. There are good games coming in the future for the PS4, but I want to emphasize future there. Right now it has very few good games, and is definitely not worth the price of entry. I feel like Sony is very good at hyping but so far has little to actually show for it.
Who cares what Sony has to say? Have you been playing games for the last generation? The director has one hell of a track record. I'll suggest Demon's Souls and Dark Souls to you guys over pretty much every other game I've played.

Your loss. Bayonetta was already very good, and the sequel surpasses it in almost every area (having recently re-played the first one after playing the second, I'd only give the first one the upper hand on its final boss fight). To be perfectly honest, at this point I consider Bayonetta 2 the best action game I've ever played (dethroning Devil May Cry 3), and barring Dragon Age: Inquisition being truly mind-blowing it'll be my easy pick for game of the year. Between that and Nintendo's first-party titles like Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze and Smash Brothers, I'm quite happy I have a Wii U myself. Not sure how many other third-party titles worth a damn it'll get over the course of its life, but Nintendo themselves always make a good number of games worth buying anyway. Well, at least Platinum made some money.

Every console developer makes their own games exclusive - they'd be stupid not to, since they want people to buy their consoles. Nintendo just makes a lot more first-party games than Sony (God of War, Killzone, InFamous, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, probably some I'm forgetting) or Microsoft (Halo, Gears of War, whatever Rare titles they feel like trying to milk at the moment, and not really anything else I'm aware of). Jesus, it looks like they are either crap now or people don't make them anymore. I'd love another Sly Cooper game. :l

Zevox

2014-11-11, 10:03 PM

Who cares what Sony has to say? Have you been playing games for the last generation? The director has one hell of a track record. I'll suggest Demon's Souls and Dark Souls to you guys over pretty much every other game I've played.
Eh. Having played the first Dark Souls, it was fairly good, but I don't rate it nearly as highly as a lot of its fans. I certainly wouldn't have considered it a candidate for game of the year in whichever year it came out even had I played it then, I can say that for certain.

Jesus, it looks like they are either crap now or people don't make them anymore. I'd love another Sly Cooper game. :l
There was a new Sly Cooper game released just last year actually, Thieves in Time, and it was very good, one of my favorites of the series (along with 2). Hopefully we will see more in the future, particularly given how Thieves in Time ended.

As for the other series, all are certainly still being made. God of War I'd expect we'll hear about come next E3, and would expect to remain fairly good. InFamous is decent I'd say - can't get into that as much personally due to the open-world design style though. Killzone and Ratchet & Clank I have no experience with, though I do intend to try the latter sometime. And on Microsoft's end, well, by all reports the new Killer Instinct turned out well at least, though I've never played it due to having no plans to get an XB1. I'm not the audience for Halo or Gears of War though.

Snowbluff

2014-11-11, 10:17 PM

I don't think there will be another Infamous for a while. The one we have for PS4 has framerate issues, or so I've been told. 1 and 2 were pretty cool, though.

Halo isn't made by Bungie anymore, and I haven't played it since I owned an Xbox. I hear 343 is releasing CoD: Advanced Warfare... as Halo 5.

Gears of War ispretty much the opposite out of what I would want out of a shooter. It's pretty much a good example of why people didn't like shooters in it's generation. "Knee-high wall simulator."

Dark Souls is a perfect example of the use of ludonarrative. Pretty much every element of the story telling is a part of the gameplay. Even if you don't like the gameplay, you have to give it props for creating a world without any handholding and very few cutscene. It seems most AAA games re trying to make games more like movies, which is a disservice to the medium.

Zevox

2014-11-11, 10:29 PM

I don't think there will be another Infamous for a while. The one we have for PS4 has framerate issues, or so I've been told. 1 and 2 were pretty cool, though.
I can't imagine why any framerate issues Second Son may have would have any impact on how soon we see another entry in the series. By all accounts I've heard it was a critical and commercial success. We won't see another for a while, but that's because Second Son just came out this year, and Sony doesn't force out an InFamous every year like the Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty developers do.

Dark Souls is a perfect example of the use of ludonarrative. Pretty much every element of the story telling is a part of the gameplay. Even if you don't like the gameplay, you have to give it props for creating a world without any handholding and very few cutscene. It seems most AAA games re trying to make games more like movies, which is a disservice to the medium.
Actually, I would say the reverse. The gameplay is fairly solid, aside from some of its tricks becoming overly predictable (oh look, another corner I can't see around and some enemies in the distance, I wonder if there's another enemy behind the corner waiting to sneak up behind me when I go after the ones I can see), but the storytelling is quite poor in that it barely exists. To me, Dark Souls came across as a dungeon-crawler-style action game, with no real story to speak of, subsisting wholly on the merits of its combat, and for something like that it does fairly well. But movie-style storytelling is far and away preferable to what people tell me Dark Souls is supposed to have (because quite frankly I saw almost none of it myself while playing) in my mind.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 05:57 AM

The only good game company is Valve.

...Well, they're the only good company that makes games.

Valve make games?

Could have fooled me.

Actually, I would say the reverse. The gameplay is fairly solid, aside from some of its tricks becoming overly predictable (oh look, another corner I can't see around and some enemies in the distance, I wonder if there's another enemy behind the corner waiting to sneak up behind me when I go after the ones I can see), but the storytelling is quite poor in that it barely exists. To me, Dark Souls came across as a dungeon-crawler-style action game, with no real story to speak of, subsisting wholly on the merits of its combat, and for something like that it does fairly well. But movie-style storytelling is far and away preferable to what people tell me Dark Souls is supposed to have (because quite frankly I saw almost none of it myself while playing) in my mind.

Story in Souls isn't told to the player, it's left for them to find and puzzle out for themselves. It's there, but you have to put effort in and look for it. There's almost an entire industry on youtube of figuring out Dark Souls lore and how it all fits together.

Movie style storytelling might be preferable in movies, but the rule for games shouldn't be "show don't tell", it should be "do don't show".

deuterio12

2014-11-12, 08:03 AM

It amuses me people are still calling the Wii U toxic when it's outselling the Xboxone.:smallamused:

Story in Souls isn't told to the player, it's left for them to find and puzzle out for themselves. It's there, but you have to put effort in and look for it. There's almost an entire industry on youtube of figuring out Dark Souls lore and how it all fits together.

Movie style storytelling might be preferable in movies, but the rule for games shouldn't be "show don't tell", it should be "do don't show".

Problem being that all the 99% of other characters in Dark Souls do is trying to murder you in sight, and the other 1% are shopkeekers/trainers/summons that mostly sell/train/summon in battle. Or just stand there being misteryous. They don't do story. They just stand there waiting for the main character to approach to try to murderize them, or stand there waiting to sell/train/ally with the main character.

You said it yourself, there's a whole industry on youtube trying to figure out what the hell the story is in Dark Souls.

What Dark Souls does quite well is creating an atmosphere. There's no invisible walls, and if you see something in the horizon, chances are that you'll eventually manage to reach it. You can try to murderize anything that moves. There's "gasp" multiple possible routes with half-hidden passages and everything!

But good story? Nope. Not even some old diary or wall inscriptions. The bosses don't even throw taunts at you.

Snowbluff

2014-11-12, 08:27 AM

It amuses me people are still calling the Wii U toxic when it's outselling the Xboxone.:smallamused: Well, it's been out longer, and Nintendo has a lot more good will than Microsoft right now. They really messed up in a lot of ways. Not to mention that AAA games are selling for more than a low number of games on the system.

Problem being that all the 99% of other characters in Dark Souls do is trying to murder you in sight, and the other 1% are shopkeekers/trainers/summons that mostly sell/train/summon in battle. Or just stand there being misteryous. They don't do story. They just stand there waiting for the main character to approach to try to murderize them, or stand there waiting to sell/train/ally with the main character.
If you talk to the shopkeepers a lot, buy all of their stuff, and complete their quests, you get a lot more out of them and the world they live in.

danzibr

2014-11-12, 08:32 AM

Zevox

2014-11-12, 09:10 AM

Story in Souls isn't told to the player,
And that is precisely the problem. Storytelling requires actually telling a story. If you can't be bothered to do that, then your story may as well not exist.

Movie style storytelling might be preferable in movies, but the rule for games shouldn't be "show don't tell", it should be "do don't show".
I disagree wholeheartedly. I'd say plenty of games have long since proven that movie-style storytelling still works exceptionally well in video games, while if Dark Souls is supposed to be our example of the alternative, I can't say I'm in the slightest bit convinced that it's a method worth using.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 09:48 AM

And that is precisely the problem. Storytelling requires actually telling a story. If you can't be bothered to do that, then your story may as well not exist.

See, here you've missed an important element.

The player is not passive. In a videogame you are a participant in the story, it's not being told to you, it's happening to you. In a traditional story you know what the protagonist did because the story told you. In a videogame you know what the protagonist did because you just did it.

Since Souls all but never leaves the protagonist's point of view, your direct experience of what you do is the story of your protagonist.

The lore of the world is also all there for you to find, but the game isn't just going to give it to you, you have to knowingly seek it out, talk to npcs, read item descriptions, and draw your own conclusions based on the information given.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I'd say plenty of games have long since proven that movie-style storytelling still works exceptionally well in video games, while if Dark Souls is supposed to be our example of the alternative, I can't say I'm in the slightest bit convinced that it's a method worth using.

I'd also say that plenty of games have shown why movie style presentation is bad for games (See: The decline and fall of the house of Square Enix), because it denies interactivity and player agency. Used very carefully cinematic presentation can enhance an experience, but too many times developers forget that every time you do it you step away from what makes a game a game, the participatory player. (See also: Every discussion about the ending to Mass Effect 3, because forgetting the player was their first and greatest sin there).

Zevox

2014-11-12, 09:57 AM

The player is not passive. In a videogame you are a participant in the story, it's not being told to you, it's happening to you.
Even in RPGs that try for that, such as Bioware's, I never feel that's the case. The story is still about the characters within it, I just happen to be controlling one of them during gameplay portions. I do not control the story any more than I do in any other form of media - at most the writers can create multiple-choice stories and I pick between which of a small handful of possibilities unfolds, which is like a choose-your-own-adventure book. And Dark Souls doesn't even try for something like that.

Since Souls all but never leaves the protagonist's point of view, your direct experience of what you do is the story of your protagonist.
So, the story of Dark Souls is of a guy wandering around a world inhabited almost entirely by hostile zombies and monsters basically because there's nothing else for him to do besides turn the game off sit around bored?

I'd also say that plenty of games have shown why movie style presentation is bad for games (See: The decline and fall of the house of Square Enix), because it denies interactivity and player agency.
I disagree completely. Square Enix's problem, speaking to the more recent Final Fantasy games at least, is that their writing is simply awful and they're honestly not very good at making engaging gameplay either. The style of the games is fine, the quality is what's lacking, outside of the visuals anyway.

(See also: Every discussion about the ending to Mass Effect 3, because forgetting the player was their first and greatest sin there).
Again, I disagree: the problem with ME3's ending is that it's poorly written and makes no sense.

Snowbluff

2014-11-12, 10:13 AM

Ya know... you called the Wii U toxic and a gimmicky half generation system, but I'm not quite sure why you dislike it. I believe the main reason for kicking out the Wii U when they did is because the Wii wasn't high def.

Anyway. I own a Wii U but not a PS4 or a XBox1. I'm actually more of a PlayStation fan (started on the original when I was 10), but I don't plan on getting a PS4 for another few months at least. The reasons I bought a Wii U were Pikmin 3, Sm4sh, the sequel to Xenoblade, and... some Mario stuff. But really, the middle 2 suffice (and they aren't even out yet :/).
It being toxic is an objective observation. Good games sell poorly because they are on the Wii U. Devs don't want to work with Nintendo and they don't want to develop for the system due to it's qualities (both in terms of performance and interface).

Me calling is gimmicky is a subjective statement because I don't want silly game pads and recycled Nintendo exclusives.

And that is precisely the problem. Storytelling requires actually telling a story. If you can't be bothered to do that, then your story may as well not exist.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I'd say plenty of games have long since proven that movie-style storytelling still works exceptionally well in video games, while if Dark Souls is supposed to be our example of the alternative, I can't say I'm in the slightest bit convinced that it's a method worth using.
What the hell is the point of playing a video game, then? Watch a movie. Shoving bits of gameplay in between isn't really adding anything to the experience. You could just watch The Last Samurai, then whenever there is a fight, play Dynasty Warriors. :l

Here's a little thought on the matter. If a person wasn't capable of reasonable thought, we'd call him a crummy person. Why? Because reason is the unique property of humans. To not cultivate our talent would be wasteful. The same is true of videogames. Their unique is the ability to tell a story through gameplay. By seeking out the information yourself, you are selecting your own level of involvement, and actively participating in the storytelling process.

Gorfnod

2014-11-12, 10:27 AM

I love nintendo!!! Mario is my favorite but i also like lonk dankey kang kurby sanic and weegee/ smash bros is the best fighting game but i can only play for 1 hour a day before my mom makes me turn it off.... Wait till she is on life support then she will only get one hour a day. Muhahahaha lol/jk but seriously i love nintendo!!! They are the l33t and xbone and psux can all get thrown in the garbage!!!!

Psyren

2014-11-12, 10:30 AM

One thing I will give the Wii U props for - it is still trying to be a game console, and not a crappy scaled-down PC with worse specs and half the features like the other two are. Consoles are, or should be, kings of the living room - bombastic split-screen party-style multiplayer and games that take best advantage of the space and a d-pad. They cannot and should not try to be PCs. They will never win the online multiplayer war, not when you are paying more for a worse experience with less features (e.g. no keyboards, minigames or alt-tab while waiting for a lobby); they will never win the breadth of titles war, not when they eschew backwards compatibility and render whole genres (like RTS) all-but impossible to play; they will never win the power war because their specs will always be worse than a current-gen PC and textures are fixed; they will never win the replayability war because you can't use mods, and they will never win the convenience war because they are still treating digital distribution like a live adder instead of embracing it.

I'll just leave this quote from Tycho (Penny Arcade) here:

"There is a point in this continuum where the fractious stew they are boiling here gives me the excuse I need to just play everything on computers again. If no choice is a good choice, at least it can be my choice. Resolution is all well and good, but if you’re curious what the PS5 might get up to, it’s something you can know today on the PC, upon the black anvil of our fathers."

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 10:40 AM

Even in RPGs that try for that, such as Bioware's, I never feel that's the case. The story is still about the characters within it, I just happen to be controlling one of them during gameplay portions. I do not control the story any more than I do in any other form of media - at most the writers can create multiple-choice stories and I pick between which of a small handful of possibilities unfolds, which is like a choose-your-own-adventure book. And Dark Souls doesn't even try for something like that.

I think your issue is that you've made a core assumption that "story" is a discrete and separable thing. Everything you the player does in a videogame is part of your story in that game, and actually the narrative the writers attempt to impose isn't privileged in that regard, in fact, when a writer tries to privilege their narrative over the player's story we notice and we don't like it, we complain about Magic Cutscene Powers and arbitrarily imposed character stupidity, things "we" wouldn't have said or done based on how we'd been interacting with the game to that point.

So, the story of Dark Souls is of a guy wandering around a world inhabited almost entirely by hostile zombies and monsters basically because there's nothing else for him to do besides turn the game off sit around bored?

Closer to the mark than you think :P But your story in Dark Souls is how you did all those things, how many times you had to try, or maybe you stopped trying at some point (which is, and this is even in the designers intent, essentially your character finally becoming hollow).

I disagree completely. Square Enix's problem, speaking to the more recent Final Fantasy games at least, is that their writing is simply awful and they're honestly not very good at making engaging gameplay either. The style of the games is fine, the quality is what's lacking, outside of the visuals anyway.

Really, their writing isn't considerably worse than it's previously been (it's always been pretty janky. I mean people loev Xenogears but really it's pretentious claptrap of the highest order, also, it all goes wrong when it forgets the player and starts presenting its story as "fei sits in a chair and tells you about awesome things you don't get to play", albeit that's because they ran out of time and money). But their integration of narrative and game story is, because their games have become progressively more constricted and linear, more Xenogears disc 2 and less disc 1, and the player has had progressively less to do to make a story, rather than to just pursue the next cinematic presentation.

Again, I disagree: the problem with ME3's ending is that it's poorly written and makes no sense.

But no more so than many other games. Or even parts of the same game. People like the Rannoch storyline in general despite the Quarians picking right now to reclaim their homeworld being not just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic but making sure you bagsy your favourite one when you just got woken up by hitting the iceberg. It just stands out more because of how particularly egregiously and suddenly the game forgets the player's involvement and ditches all of its previous gameplay mechanics and the expectations which grew out of them.

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-11-12, 10:55 AM

One thing I will give the Wii U props for - it is still trying to be a game console, and not a crappy scaled-down PC with worse specs and half the features like the other two are. Consoles are, or should be, kings of the living room - bombastic split-screen party-style multiplayer and games that take best advantage of the space and a d-pad. They cannot and should not try to be PCs. They will never win the online multiplayer war, not when you are paying more for a worse experience with less features (e.g. no keyboards, minigames or alt-tab while waiting for a lobby); they will never win the breadth of titles war, not when they eschew backwards compatibility and render whole genres (like RTS) all-but impossible to play; they will never win the power war because their specs will always be worse than a current-gen PC and textures are fixed; they will never win the replayability war because you can't use mods, and they will never win the convenience war because they are still treating digital distribution like a live adder instead of embracing it.

Quite so, very much this. Could you get the Wii U experience with a PC? Maybe if you were a hardware-modding enthusiast making heavy use of emulators.

Snowbluff

2014-11-12, 11:08 AM

Quite so, very much this. Could you get the Wii U experience with a PC? Maybe if you were a hardware-modding enthusiast making heavy use of emulators.

1) Hardware modding enthusiasts describes serious PC gamers.

2) You can totally get the Wii U experience. It has nothing to offer. Wii-motes? Those run on PCs. Want another screen? Stream it onto a tablet, laptop, or run it on another monitor. Touch screen? You can do that, too. I would say you would only run into problems of finding software that supports the equipment (the same problem the console has), so you are really asking for software modding.

The Wii U is a product of an arrogant, console gaming company that claims to be the savior of the industry by doing everything we hate about it. Relying on peripheral equipment. Console exclusives. Endless reruns of sequels. Mismanaging licenses. Tyrannical actions against fair use.

Andre

2014-11-12, 11:52 AM

Here's the problem: Mario Cart 8 is not what I would call game of the year. Bloodborne will be.

Yo, I heard Titanfall and Destiny were going to be game of the year too.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 11:56 AM

Also: Bloodborne isn't coming out this year. It's also just been delayed a month.

Psyren

2014-11-12, 12:05 PM

The Wii U is a product of an arrogant, console gaming company that claims to be the savior of the industry by doing everything we hate about it. Relying on peripheral equipment. Console exclusives. Endless reruns of sequels. Mismanaging licenses. Tyrannical actions against fair use.

Agreed - and these are reasons why I've not bought a Wii U. I enjoyed Bayonetta enough that that may change, and since there are some Wii games I still would like to play and Wii U is backwards compatible I have added incentive - but Nintendo's sequelitis-heavy first-party lineup and their horribly-designed tea-tray tablet controller with ****y battery life are not exactly inducing me to rush out and do it.

And the so-called main feature of the Wii U's tablet controller - being able to keep playing when someone else wants the TV - is aimed at children and college dorms, not independent adults.

Gorfnod

2014-11-12, 01:02 PM

You guys changed my mind, I hate nintenDooDoo now too... I threw it in the trash with the x-BONE and pSUX!!!

PC MASTER RACE 4 LIFE!!!!!

Got my smash bros emulator running so i dont need no stoopid consoles anymore!!!

danzibr

2014-11-12, 01:02 PM

Huh. I don't know what shenanigans Nintendo is involved in, but I *do* know almost everyone I know in real life wouldn't bother with technology stuff to emulate a Wii U on their computers.

Gorfnod

2014-11-12, 01:10 PM

OMG danzibr is right

*runs to get Wii U out of the trash

NINTENDO I AM SO SORRY!!!

Snowbluff

2014-11-12, 01:18 PM

Yo, I heard Titanfall and Destiny were going to be game of the year too.
Pfft, I love the crap out of Destiny, but it's no game of the year. The writer quit at one point, and Bungie working under Activision meant it had to be rushed. How the hell does someone nominate a game for 180 awards before it's even out?

And the so-called main feature of the Wii U's tablet controller - being able to keep playing when someone else wants the TV - is aimed at children and college dorms, not independent adults.
*facepalm* How is this a selling point?

You know what I did when my little brother got a console? I brought another TV out of the basement! TVs are not used for anything else!

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 01:26 PM

Whilst Nintendo have goofed occasionally (approach to Youtube content, online still fiddly), the Wii U is the only current gen console I own because, until Bloodborne comes out, it's the only one that actually has games I want to play (Bayonetta, Mario Kart, Smash maybe).

Nintendo make games which are fun and which are not quite like the games that other people make. People complain that they make the "same" marios and zeldas and whatever each gen*, but those game experiences are unlike the ones offered elsewhere. You can't get a game like a Mario game from anyone who isn't Nintendo. Especially now that Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, and Insomniac caught a fatal dose of Next Gen Brown. If you buy a 3D platformer these days that isn't Mario the only guarantee you'll have is that it'll be ****.

*Though not nearly as much as they complain if they don't...

Psyren

2014-11-12, 01:35 PM

You can't get a game like a Mario game from anyone who isn't Nintendo. Especially now that Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, and Insomniac caught a fatal dose of Next Gen Brown. If you buy a 3D platformer these days that isn't Mario the only guarantee you'll have is that it'll be ****.

3D maybe, but for platformers in general there are plenty of alternatives, such as Rayman Origins, Shovel Knight, Spelunky and Super Meatboy. And Rayman gleefully slaughters some of Nintendo's more asinine sacred cows like needing a lives system (why???) and multiplayer characters clipping each other. (Really now.)

And for that matter I think Binding of Isaac out-Zeldas Zelda. At least there I have more complicated things to wonder about than whether I'll get the hookshot or the boomerang first this time.

Tvtyrant

2014-11-12, 01:42 PM

*facepalm* How is this a selling point?

You know what I did when my little brother got a console? I brought another TV out of the basement! TVs are not used for anything else!

I don't really see the point of your argument. You a priori hate the Wii U, fine. But that means that no experiential arguments will change your mind, and since video games are experiential in nature you might as well say nothing will change your mind.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 02:04 PM

And Rayman gleefully slaughters some of Nintendo's more asinine sacred cows like needing a lives system (why???)

Y'know, there actually is a reason that Mario games still have a lives system, it's there so you can collect 1ups, because of the function that the 1up mushroom has in the language of the game.

Y'see, in the original game, the 1up 'shroom moved right. That meant that in order to collect it you had to move along the level and possibly move into an unknown challenge which you weren't quite ready for. In order to profit from that extra life, you had to do something inherently risky.

In the 3D Mario games that's replicated by the mushroom either trundling around in a dangerous position or floating in a position where collecting it requires a trickier than usual jump. It's a small and optional reward for doing something a little more skilful than is strictly required.

and multiplayer characters clipping each other. (Really now.)

That's intentional, remember this is also the company that made Mario Party, the ultimate destroyer of friendships. Multiplayer characters clip into each other so that you can screw each other over.

And for that matter I think Binding of Isaac out-Zeldas Zelda. At least there I have more complicated things to wonder about than whether I'll get the hookshot or the boomerang first this time.

They're not really similar though, other than the keys/bombs mechanic and the top down presentation. BoI is an execution and adaptability challenge, whereas Zelda is a logic and memory challenge. (two words: Water Temple). It doesn't "out-Zelda" Zelda because it isn't trying, it's a different thing you would play for a different reason.

Erloas

2014-11-12, 02:16 PM

So I think the thread did a pretty good job of indirectly proving the title of the thread even though the OP mostly went in a different direction.

I grew up on the NES and Genesis and then went to PC and PS1 then PS2. I'm not sure exactly where the PC came in, when 386s were still around but 486s were fairly new was when we got our first one. We only ever had one console at a time. Since the PS2 I've never really had a desire to own another console. Sure there are good games for them, but it never seems like they are worth it. I'm always going to have a PC anyway, and console games cost more (often a lot more, they generally take a lot longer to go on sale, though this seems to be changing some too).

I've had roommates that had both the XBox, 360 and PS3. We played them occasionally but unless there was a specific game with specific people I never went to a console over my computer. And while there are exclusives for the various consoles I would like there is no way I'm going to purchase all of them and even purchasing one for just a couple games I can't get on the PC just never seems worthwhile. Especially considering the cost of 1 or 2 of the new consoles I could replace my computer with one that will probably be equal to or better specs then the next consoles we haven't even heard about yet.
It also helps that some of the "exclusive" games also come out on the PC because they don't consider that breaking exclusivity because the PC doesn't count in the console wars.

The primary thing any of the newest consoles offer is better hardware, but the PC always already has much better hardware. Most controllers can be used on a PC or at least a very close replica can be. Assuming you actually prefer a controller, for some actions games it is better but with so many games focused around shooting the mouse is still far superior. You can easily put a PC on any decent TV, but it is easy to get a PC monitor better (but not bigger) than most TVs. I haven't seen any games designed around having multiple monitors but it shouldn't be hard at all to do if someone wanted to try.
The only downside to PC gaming is you have to actually know something when you get one so you don't get screwed over, but that is a secondary sort of problem.

As for the loss of couch multiplayer, well even the consoles are really pushing online because that is where most people are, somewhere else. PC gamers have been playing online since online existed. And when it comes down to it if I'm hanging out with other people and wanting to play a game we're playing card games and board games and that sort of thing. You can't do those on any console and they are more interactive and inclusive than any electronic game. They are also a staple to anyone that wants to be a well rounded gamer and they are a long ways departed from what they were in decades past.

Psyren

2014-11-12, 02:17 PM

Y'know, there actually is a reason that Mario games still have a lives system, it's there so you can collect 1ups, because of the function that the 1up mushroom has in the language of the game.

Y'see, in the original game, the 1up 'shroom moved right. That meant that in order to collect it you had to move along the level and possibly move into an unknown challenge which you weren't quite ready for. In order to profit from that extra life, you had to do something inherently risky.

In the 3D Mario games that's replicated by the mushroom either trundling around in a dangerous position or floating in a position where collecting it requires a trickier than usual jump. It's a small and optional reward for doing something a little more skilful than is strictly required.

This argument is tautological. "They have limited lives so that you can get more of them" is not a rational answer.

And even if you believe that a limited number of deaths is necessary (I still don't), booting you back to a checkpoint or the level start after an extended screenwipe animation is not. And your character looking sad on a continue screen is certainly not. It's flowbreaking and vestigial.

That's intentional, remember this is also the company that made Mario Party, the ultimate destroyer of friendships. Multiplayer characters clip into each other so that you can screw each other over.

That would be fine if it could be toggled for the competitive players. (i.e. the ones that don't know how (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2014/09/05) co-op games work. (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/20)) The rest of us, generally we expect more players to make an experience easier, not harder, because that's how teamwork is supposed to function, and the game actively pitting you against one another in a co-op title is bad design.

They're not really similar though, other than the keys/bombs mechanic and the top down presentation. BoI is an execution and adaptability challenge, whereas Zelda is a logic and memory challenge. (two words: Water Temple). It doesn't "out-Zelda" Zelda because it isn't trying, it's a different thing you would play for a different reason.

There's plenty of logic and memory in BoI.

danzibr

2014-11-12, 02:20 PM

OMG danzibr is right

*runs to get Wii U out of the trash

NINTENDO I AM SO SORRY!!!
:D

Glad you saved your Wii U from that terrible fate.

I don't think apologizing to Nintendo is necessary.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 02:38 PM

This argument is tautological. "They have limited lives so that you can get more of them" is not a rational answer.

It actually is. It gives a context to the reward you get for doing the slightly more skilful thing. It's the same as getting the tail cut weapons in Dark Souls, they're all crap weapons you'd never use, but they have value because you had to do that slightly more fiddly thing to get them.

And even if you believe that a limited number of deaths is necessary (I still don't), booting you back to a checkpoint or the level start after an extended screenwipe animation is not. And your character looking sad on a continue screen is certainly not. It's flowbreaking and vestigial.

On the other hand, if you die so many times in one place then the game is gently suggesting that you could try something else, possible given the open ended nature of the 3D mario games.

That would be fine if it could be toggled for the competitive players. (i.e. the ones that don't know how (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2014/09/05) co-op games work. (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/20)) The rest of us, generally we expect more players to make an experience easier, not harder, because that's how teamwork is supposed to function, and the game actively pitting you against one another in a co-op title is bad design.

The assumption that anything where the players have a shared goal is co-op is faulty. The design of these games is not to be strictly co-op. Players interfering with each other isn't supposed to be an option for the competitive (otherwise it would be an option, it's right in there as a core design feature of the game.

There's plenty of logic and memory in BoI.

There is, but not in the way they are in Zelda games. Because everything in a Zelda game is fixed, and because dungeons are generally intended to be traversed with considerable backtracking around the whole dungeon, going up and down floors to find that key you need and can now get because of this other thing you did, so you need to make the logical connection that "I found the thing that puts the water level to X and that means I can access door Y now".

Whereas Binding of Isaac is more clasically roguelike, you can't go back to previous floors, you can (usually) only hold one item, one trinket, and one consumable, and so much of your "logic and memory" is actually based on remembering what they do and how they will interact, and since which ones are offered on a run are random they're actually part of the adaptation required. It's about deciding which of these things are more valuable based on what other things you have encountered. Those value decisions are nothing like what you do in Zelda, but they're basically the core of good roguelikes (which Binding of Isaac certainly is).

huttj509

2014-11-12, 03:15 PM

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-11-12, 03:22 PM

And it's easy to dismiss form factor as superficial, but it really isn't.

Psyren

2014-11-12, 03:44 PM

It actually is. It gives a context to the reward you get for doing the slightly more skilful thing. It's the same as getting the tail cut weapons in Dark Souls, they're all crap weapons you'd never use, but they have value because you had to do that slightly more fiddly thing to get them.

Except getting lives doesn't require a lot of skill at all. Even if you ignore every green mushroom that's even remotely tricky to get, you also get them just by running through enough coins or getting a high enough score at intervals.

On the other hand, if you die so many times in one place then the game is gently suggesting that you could try something else, possible given the open ended nature of the 3D mario games.

You don't need an archaic lives system to do that - merely dying is enough. So it's breaking flow for no reason.

Lives in games existed for one reason and one reason only - a relic of the coin-op days when games monetized by being difficult. Games that don't monetize that way don't need the system, and both Rayman and Meat Boy proved that you don't need it for there to be challenge either. It's an evolutionary dead-end in game design, like an appendix.

The assumption that anything where the players have a shared goal is co-op is faulty. The design of these games is not to be strictly co-op. Players interfering with each other isn't supposed to be an option for the competitive (otherwise it would be an option, it's right in there as a core design feature of the game.

Just because it's intentional doesn't make it good design. I never said they put in player-clipping without realizing they had done so. (That would be quite hard actually.)

Sure, if you're either "independent" (no kids, spouse, or roommates? Is that what this means now?), or can easily afford another TV setup (read: no kids), fine.

It means "I can use electronics that I own during my free time whenever I choose to and however I choose to."

Tengu_temp

2014-11-12, 03:47 PM

Console wars are stupid. So are PC vs console wars. I personally went with the Playstation line, but not out of some kind of loyalty or whatever - they simply have the games I want. If XBox 360 had the games I like instead of PS3, then I'd buy an XBox and wouldn't buy a PS3.

Also, I'm not really interested in any of the latest gen consoles, for several reasons: first, they're expensive, second, they don't have any games I'm interested in yet. I might buy one of them several years in, after it establishes a decent game library for itself, like I did with both PS2 and PS3.

Also, you know what I don't like? Exclusives. Back in the day, exclusive games were mostly a hardware issue, because every console had different chips (from each other and from PCs) so porting was often tricky. But today, all consoles are pretty much premade PCs in boxes - having exclusives is not due to hardware limitations, but due to business decisions. In a perfect world, you'd be able to play any game on any platform, be it a console or a PC - players would like it because to play any game they want they only need to buy one, maybe two platforms each (PC + any console), and game makers would like it because they get more sales this way instead of artificially limiting themselves to a part of the market. But console producers wouldn't like it, because it limits their sales, and since they're the ones pulling the strings most of the time, thus we have artificially enforced exclusives.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 05:10 PM

Except getting lives doesn't require a lot of skill at all. Even if you ignore every green mushroom that's even remotely tricky to get, you also get them just by running through enough coins or getting a high enough score at intervals.

On the other hand, to get them from coins (or star bits) you have to explore outside of the critial path of the current challenge. Again, they're a small and generally irrelevant reward for a thing you didn't strictly need to do. This is also why they're not retained when you reload a game.

You don't need an archaic lives system to do that - merely dying is enough. So it's breaking flow for no reason.

However, having a limit on tries means that you are prompted to try something else simply by the mechanism of being returned to the place where you choose the things to try.

Lives in games existed for one reason and one reason only - a relic of the coin-op days when games monetized by being difficult. Games that don't monetize that way don't need the system, and both Rayman and Meat Boy proved that you don't need it for there to be challenge either. It's an evolutionary dead-end in game design, like an appendix.

On the other hand, it still can be a challenge element. It isn't in Mario, it's more of a high score than anything else.

Just because it's intentional doesn't make it good design. I never said they put in player-clipping without realizing they had done so. (That would be quite hard actually.)

"Is bad" and "I don't like it" are not synonymous. Not even on the internet.

huttj509

2014-11-12, 05:56 PM

It means "I can use electronics that I own during my free time whenever I choose to and however I choose to."

Ok, so no kids, spouse, or roommates.

Yes, if you never have any need to share a television with anyone else, the "play on the tablet" is useless, unless you prefer the feel of it.

Defining adulthood by "I don't need to share," and dismissing all others as children or dorm residents seems a bit off, though.

Psyren

2014-11-12, 06:09 PM

On the other hand, to get them from coins (or star bits) you have to explore outside of the critial path of the current challenge. Again, they're a small and generally irrelevant reward for a thing you didn't strictly need to do. This is also why they're not retained when you reload a game.

Nonsense, coins are everywhere. They are even used as affordances (i.e. go this way, fall down this pit, you did the right thing by removing that wall, etc.) It gives you lives slower than seeking them out manually of course, but you can absolutely get enough coins to 1-Up just by heading straight for the objective, because your amount collected persists between levels and even attempts. It's not like sonic where you start every level at 0 rings.

However, having a limit on tries means that you are prompted to try something else simply by the mechanism of being returned to the place where you choose the things to try.

You are conflating two separate mechanics - lives, and being returned to the spot you failed to try again. Mario ties the two together (and doesn't even do it well - see below) but they do not have to be at all. Meat Boy returns you to where you failed so you can try again too. So does Rayman. In fact, they do it better because they typically drop you right where you failed instead of needing to tie your iterations to the beginning of the level or an arbitrary "checkpoint." This minimizes iteration time and lets you experiment and refine your technique much more efficiently and effectively.

"Is bad" and "I don't like it" are not synonymous. Not even on the internet.

Oh, I know that. It's still bad. It puts your out of game desire (collaboration: play with friends) in direct opposition to your in-game desire (execution: jump where you intend to jump, collect the powerups you intend to collect.) That is not opinion, that is fact.

And comparing it to Mario Party - which IS intended to be a purely competitive/backstabbing game - is just silly.

Defining adulthood by "I don't need to share," and dismissing all others as children or dorm residents seems a bit off, though.

I'm not "dismissing others." I'm pointing out the demographics Nintendo most likely had in mind when they created it - the ones who would benefit most from that kind of technology.

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-12, 06:35 PM

Pfft, I love the crap out of Destiny, but it's no game of the year. The writer quit at one point, and Bungie working under Activision meant it had to be rushed. How the hell does someone nominate a game for 180 awards before it's even out?

*facepalm* How is this a selling point?

You know what I did when my little brother got a console? I brought another TV out of the basement! TVs are not used for anything else!

Before Destiny came out many people claimed it would be game of the year based off of the company's previous record and pre-release information. You have claimed Bloodborne would be game of the year based off of the company's previous record and pre-release information.

Playing on the controller has been useful for me on a number of occasions. I can play in the kitchen while I wait for things to finish boiling or cooking or whatever, I can play when my roommate's are on the TV, and I can play while lying down on my bed. And I've never run out of battery life because of that, and if you play for a reasonable amount of time you shouldn't. Also saying you can buy a new TV is ridiculous when you don't have to, because the console specifically allows you to not.

Zevox

2014-11-12, 06:54 PM

What the hell is the point of playing a video game, then? Watch a movie. Shoving bits of gameplay in between isn't really adding anything to the experience.
I disagree - the fact that you get gameplay in addition to the story is precisely the reason to play a game. I could just watch the movie they made out of Bayonetta and probably still enjoy all the over-the-top silliness just as much, but then I don't get the fun and challenge of fighting all those angels myself.

Or, in some games, you just get the gameplay, with little to no story. That can be quite good too, though I think that the best games are those that have both.

I think your issue is that you've made a core assumption that "story" is a discrete and separable thing. Everything you the player does in a videogame is part of your story in that game, and actually the narrative the writers attempt to impose isn't privileged in that regard, in fact, when a writer tries to privilege their narrative over the player's story we notice and we don't like it, we complain about Magic Cutscene Powers and arbitrarily imposed character stupidity, things "we" wouldn't have said or done based on how we'd been interacting with the game to that point.
You might complain about that - I find that to be entirely natural and far better than trying to force the story and gameplay to be integrated. Separation of the two is an important thing so that neither holds back the other.

Closer to the mark than you think :P But your story in Dark Souls is how you did all those things, how many times you had to try, or maybe you stopped trying at some point (which is, and this is even in the designers intent, essentially your character finally becoming hollow).
That's not a story, it's the gameplay. The "story" of Dark Souls is wholly unclear: there's no motive for you to do what you do, nor even an explanation for what the heck you actually accomplish in the end. You beat a bunch of monsters, then finally some guy called Gwyn, then either light a big bonfire that consumes you or don't and have some serpent-creatures bow to you, with absolutely no explanation for what either ending variation means.

Really, their writing isn't considerably worse than it's previously been
Eh, I'd say what I've played of their earlier games is considerably better. Not brilliant by any means, but Final Fantasy 4 and Chrono Trigger sure weren't full of irritating, repetitive melodrama and unlikable idiot characters like Final Fantasy 13, and their endings actually made at least some degree of sense. But I'm also not a big Square-Enix fan: the only series from them that I've followed for a long time is Dragon Quest, and the stories in that series have always been on the simple side, just going for basic fantasy fun. I have no trouble saying that I don't think Final Fantasy has ever been a great series, at least from what I've played of it. Since you brought it up repeatedly I should also mention that I can't speak to Xenogears comparisons, since I've never played it.

But their integration of narrative and game story is, because their games have become progressively more constricted and linear, more Xenogears disc 2 and less disc 1, and the player has had progressively less to do to make a story, rather than to just pursue the next cinematic presentation.
I can honestly say that I see no problem whatsoever with how linear their games are. Hell, I'll take that over the modern trend of "open-world" games any day.

But no more so than many other games. Or even parts of the same game. People like the Rannoch storyline in general despite the Quarians picking right now to reclaim their homeworld being not just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic but making sure you bagsy your favourite one when you just got woken up by hitting the iceberg. It just stands out more because of how particularly egregiously and suddenly the game forgets the player's involvement and ditches all of its previous gameplay mechanics and the expectations which grew out of them.
Oh, the Quarians were idiots for doing what they did when they did it, no doubts there. But that fits with what we already knew of them anyway, and overall that plotline was quite well handled. So no, I would argue that is not at all comparable to the ending, where so much comes right the heck out of nowhere, the explanation of why the Reapers do what they do doesn't make a lick of sense, and pre-Extended Cut there were even more problems like the abrupt nature of it and lack of closure, or the implied potential galactic genocide.

I can't even honestly say I know what you're referring to with that last, really.

One thing I will give the Wii U props for - it is still trying to be a game console, and not a crappy scaled-down PC with worse specs and half the features like the other two are. Consoles are, or should be, kings of the living room - bombastic split-screen party-style multiplayer and games that take best advantage of the space and a d-pad. They cannot and should not try to be PCs. They will never win the online multiplayer war, not when you are paying more for a worse experience with less features (e.g. no keyboards, minigames or alt-tab while waiting for a lobby); they will never win the breadth of titles war, not when they eschew backwards compatibility and render whole genres (like RTS) all-but impossible to play; they will never win the power war because their specs will always be worse than a current-gen PC and textures are fixed; they will never win the replayability war because you can't use mods, and they will never win the convenience war because they are still treating digital distribution like a live adder instead of embracing it.
As long as ease of use is an issue, there will always be a reason for some of us to get a console over a PC, regardless of specs or the like. And unless something drastic changes with Japanese developers, there will always be games coming from them that you can only got on consoles, never PCs. Plus first-party titles that will never come to PCs.

Forum Explorer

2014-11-12, 07:08 PM

Personally I've got a Wii U, and a PC and I don't see me getting any other consoles. The Wii U has games that are exclusive to it, and more importantly, are multiplayer. My PC does have a few multiplayer games (like Civ), but can't handle the same type of multiplayer games that the Wii U has (Mario Kart, Hyrule Warriors, Smash Bros).

Playstation and X-Box just don't offer me anything that my PC can't provide beyond a few exclusive titles that are more likely going to be on PC eventually anyways.

deuterio12

2014-11-12, 07:10 PM

Well, it's been out longer, and Nintendo has a lot more good will than Microsoft right now. They really messed up in a lot of ways. Not to mention that AAA games are selling for more than a low number of games on the system.

The Wii U is a product of an arrogant, console gaming company that claims to be the savior of the industry by doing everything we hate about it. Relying on peripheral equipment. Console exclusives. Endless reruns of sequels. Mismanaging licenses. Tyrannical actions against fair use.

Does not compute. Everything you complain of Nintendo doing bad, Microsoft did much, much worst. Wii U at least is the cheaper option with the peripheral included. It offers a lot more console exclusives. The sequels actually offer new stuff and/or try new formulas. It doesn't treat their licenses as a bad joke (cough how capcom has been treating megaman cough). And microsoft, sony and sega all have taken actions against fair use, don't pretend Nintendo is the only one doing it.

Sony is just playing it safe after the PS 3 disaster. Shinier graphics. More of the same. Zero risks taken. Plenty of propaganda. Working well for them, but I'm personally not interested on "quick event game:the quick eventening" and "game I could get on PC".

At least Nintendo is trying to do something new on mechanics terms, even if I agree they have an insistence on using the same old characters when they want to try new ideas. The gamepad is key because it's the console's default. Someone designing a game for PC can't expect the player to have a tablet at hand to link. The game designers for the Wii U can always count on the player having a touchscreen. And did I mention it's cheaper than either option of the competition?

Also Nintendo knows how to make sturdy hardware. My PS 2 command stopped working a couple years ago, while my gamecube command is still rocking. And I played a lot more my gamecube than my PS 2.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-11-12, 07:14 PM

That's not a story, it's the gameplay. The "story" of Dark Souls is wholly unclear: there's no motive for you to do what you do, nor even an explanation for what the heck you actually accomplish in the end. You beat a bunch of monsters, then finally some guy called Gwyn, then either light a big bonfire that consumes you or don't and have some serpent-creatures bow to you, with absolutely no explanation for what either ending variation means.

Look, I don't think the story of Dark Souls is presented in the best way, I doubt items would really come with pamphlets with bits of lore, and if the character already knew that it's a bad way of showing it, but the point kind of is that it really isn't about you. You happen to qualify, but that doesn't mean the serpents have to tell you everything. It doesn't even mean the serpents know everything.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 07:30 PM

Nonsense, coins are everywhere. They are even used as affordances (i.e. go this way, fall down this pit, you did the right thing by removing that wall, etc.) It gives you lives slower than seeking them out manually of course, but you can absolutely get enough coins to 1-Up just by heading straight for the objective, because your amount collected persists between levels and even attempts. It's not like sonic where you start every level at 0 rings.

Not in the modern 3D Mario games. Indeed, in Mario 64, which is the template there are sometimes not even enough to meet the 100 for a star without getting some from enemies, and the 100 coins objective is intended to push players to explore. In Galaxy there are frequently very few coins per level.

You are conflating two separate mechanics - lives, and being returned to the spot you failed to try again. Mario ties the two together (and doesn't even do it well - see below)

You've asserted this, but I don't think you've supported your assertion.

but they do not have to be at all. Meat Boy returns you to where you failed so you can try again too. So does Rayman. In fact, they do it better because they typically drop you right where you failed instead of needing to tie your iterations to the beginning of the level or an arbitrary "checkpoint." This minimizes iteration time and lets you experiment and refine your technique much more efficiently and effectively.

They don't have to be, but "return to checkpoint" is still a valid gameplay design choice, limited tries is still a valid gameplay design choice, and combining the two is, yes, still a valid design choice. You prefer to be able to start immediately where you failed, but that's not the same as it being objectively better.

Oh, I know that. It's still bad. It puts your out of game desire (collaboration: play with friends) in direct opposition to your in-game desire (execution: jump where you intend to jump, collect the powerups you intend to collect.) That is not opinion, that is fact.

And comparing it to Mario Party - which IS intended to be a purely competitive/backstabbing game - is just silly.

Right, but you have assumed that the game is build to support that out of game desire, but that isn't the case, the game is deliberately designed with mechanics which let you get one over on other players and ranks the players at the end of each level, it is intended as a competitive experience.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-12, 08:10 PM

I'm seperating these into two because they're very different conversations with different people, in case this ends up a double post.

I
You might complain about that - I find that to be entirely natural and far better than trying to force the story and gameplay to be integrated. Separation of the two is an important thing so that neither holds back the other.

No, thinking about how they integrate is important so that each advances the other. When a game is made properly the story acts to the benefit of the gameplay and the gameplay acts to the benefit of the story, and the story is expressed as much as possible through gameplay itself. The player is an active participant, not a passive audient. Forget that and it all goes horribly wrong.

That's not a story, it's the gameplay. The "story" of Dark Souls is wholly unclear: there's no motive for you to do what you do, nor even an explanation for what the heck you actually accomplish in the end. You beat a bunch of monsters, then finally some guy called Gwyn, then either light a big bonfire that consumes you or don't and have some serpent-creatures bow to you, with absolutely no explanation for what either ending variation means.

Your distinction between story and gameplay is artificial, the physical experience of playing a game is itself a story, and that's the case even when there isn't a fixed narrative. There is a story in this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwp1dZFwGak), for instance. And the designer's narrative is not more important that those emergent stories. Your motivation in Dark Souls is what you wanted it to be. What motivates the chosen undead is that you keep playing the game (this extends the metaphor that abandoning a character is that character's hollowing, because as with the other NPCS in the game, going hollow is when you run out of the will to continue).

You're looking for easy answers and easy presentation, Dark Souls gives you none. You have to put as much effort into finding and piecing together the lore (which would let you draw conclusions about the whats and the whys) as you did at actually getting through the game itself.

Eh, I'd say what I've played of their earlier games is considerably better. Not brilliant by any means, but Final Fantasy 4 and Chrono Trigger sure weren't full of irritating, repetitive melodrama and unlikable idiot characters like Final Fantasy 13, and their endings actually made at least some degree of sense. But I'm also not a big Square-Enix fan: the only series from them that I've followed for a long time is Dragon Quest, and the stories in that series have always been on the simple side, just going for basic fantasy fun. I have no trouble saying that I don't think Final Fantasy has ever been a great series, at least from what I've played of it. Since you brought it up repeatedly I should also mention that I can't speak to Xenogears comparisons, since I've never played it.

If you didn't think that Final Fantasy 4, the game where five people sacrifice themselves on four seperate occasions (and all but one get better) so you can escape a thing, is not full of repetitive melodrama you weren't playing the same game I was. I mean I love the game, but it's pretty cheesy and not what I'd call really good storytelling.

Ironically, to as great a degree as was possible in the limitations of its engine, FF4 does integrate narrative and gameplay. The Dark Elf battle with Edward's echo harp breaking the enchantment so you can use your good gear, the battle with Golbez in the dwarf kingdom where he nukes all your characters and then Rydia enters the battle to save you in her new adult form, Tellah casting Meteor to try and take down Golbez, Cecil's redemption into a paladin being a literal battle with his evil nature which is won by allowing it to exhaust itself not by attacking it, everyone praying for you to res you at the end, having to use the Crystal as an item in battle before you could win the final fight. It all happens in the battle engine, in the most interactive gameplay element of a Final Fantasy game, and it happens in a context which allows it to change the rules of a particular battle to service the narrative.

All that ****? Totally forgotten in modern FF games. (Also why FF4 is my favourite in the series)

I can honestly say that I see no problem whatsoever with how linear their games are. Hell, I'll take that over the modern trend of "open-world" games any day.

Openworld games serve a different gameplay aesthetic. They're about discovery. You apparently don't value that in your games, but emergent narratives don't require open world design, and gameplay/narrative integration certainly doesn't. Journey is about as linear as it gets, and that is a complete integration of narrative and mechanics.

So no, I would argue that is not at all comparable to the ending, where so much comes right the heck out of nowhere, the explanation of why the Reapers do what they do doesn't make a lick of sense, and pre-Extended Cut there were even more problems like the abrupt nature of it and lack of closure, or the implied potential galactic genocide.

Well yes, all those things are bad. But the ending to Mass Effect 2 didn't make a lick of sense either (the collectors are building a spaceship terminator as a new reaper because of reasons, they must be stopped immediately because one more reaper would just be so terrible ps a fleet of infinity of them is literally five minutes drive away. (and the whole game basically doesn't advance the plot of the trilogy at all) and nobody cared because the ending to Mass Effect 2 represents the culmination of all of the mechanics of the game. It didn't matter that the underlying narrative was bollocks, because the personally constructed narrative of who was loyal and who wasn't, who survived and who didn't, and why those things happened, were outcomes of the player's interaction. Mass Effect 2 remembered that the player was there and doing things, all the way to the end. Mass Effect 3 forgot and that was a major reason why it sucked (at least for the London mission onwards and whenever Kai Leng was on screen). If the reapers' motivation had been just as silly but everything the player had done all the way through even that one game had had a specific payoff and they had played all the way to the end using all of the mechanics of the game not having all the shooting, interrupts, and dialogue choice basically stripped away or rendered meaningless, then people would have been far less annoyed.

I can't even honestly say I know what you're referring to with that last, really.

You didn't notice that the ending completely ignores all of the Mass Effect gameplay mechanics? The combat is absent, the interrupt mechanics are overriden by cutscene powers and the dialogue choices have less impact here than they have done at any point in the trilogy to date, even the goddamn tutorial of the very first game. It is the point where nothing the player can interact with affects anything any more, and it happens just at the point where all those things should be reaching apotheosis.

It's just a really dumb cutscene where you have to press A or hold the stick forward and is unnecessarily plodding and bad.

Zevox

2014-11-12, 08:49 PM

No, thinking about how they integrate is important so that each advances the other. When a game is made properly the story acts to the benefit of the gameplay and the gameplay acts to the benefit of the story, and the story is expressed as much as possible through gameplay itself. The player is an active participant, not a passive audient. Forget that and it all goes horribly wrong.
We simply don't agree on this in the slightest I'm afraid, and I'm not sure that there's any way we'll do much but talk past each other on the subject. Our disconnect seems too fundamental.

Your distinction between story and gameplay is artificial, the physical experience of playing a game is itself a story, and that's the case even when there isn't a fixed narrative.
No, it isn't. Gameplay and storytelling are two different things. You can try to make them coexist as best you can if you wish, but that will not make them the same.

Your motivation in Dark Souls is what you wanted it to be. What motivates the chosen undead is that you keep playing the game (this extends the metaphor that abandoning a character is that character's hollowing, because as with the other NPCS in the game, going hollow is when you run out of the will to continue).
So, there is no in-world motivation whatsoever then. The character is just a puppet for the player, not an actual character. In other words, there is no story, only gameplay.

If you didn't think that Final Fantasy 4, the game where five people sacrifice themselves on four seperate occasions (and all but one get better) so you can escape a thing, is not full of repetitive melodrama you weren't playing the same game I was. I mean I love the game, but it's pretty cheesy and not what I'd call really good storytelling.
Cheesy, sure - it's an old fantasy game. Good, not in any deep sense, no, but it's decent, especially for the time it was made. And I didn't say it was good, just significantly better than their more recent work, which is awful.

And yes, some of those character deaths could probably qualify as melodramatic, and personally I was disappointed that it reverses all of them, since it takes much of the weight out of them. But whatever you might call melodrama in it is not as constant or aggravating as in FF13, nor are the characters as annoying, and the ending actually makes some sense in the context of the story as told up to that point. All quite unlike FF13.

Journey is about as linear as it gets, and that is a complete integration of narrative and mechanics.
I watched a play-through of Journey once. It looked incredibly boring, and I wouldn't say anything in it qualified as a narrative. If that's supposed to be an example of what you're arguing for, I remain completely unmoved.

But the ending to Mass Effect 2 didn't make a lick of sense either (the collectors are building a spaceship terminator as a new reaper because of reasons, they must be stopped immediately because one more reaper would just be so terrible ps a fleet of infinity of them is literally five minutes drive away.
A new Reaper would've resumed Sovereign's task of letting the others in via the Citadel, obviously. And the fleet of them was years away using other means, they were just willing to make that journey when all else failed. So no, the ending to ME2 most definitely made sense, quite unlike its sequel.

If the reapers' motivation had been just as silly but everything the player had done all the way through even that one game had had a specific payoff and they had played all the way to the end using all of the mechanics of the game not having all the shooting, interrupts, and dialogue choice basically stripped away or rendered meaningless, then people would have been far less annoyed.
I can honestly say my opinion of the ending would not be affected by that in any way.

You didn't notice that the ending completely ignores all of the Mass Effect gameplay mechanics? The combat is absent, the interrupt mechanics are overriden by cutscene powers and the dialogue choices have less impact here than they have done at any point in the trilogy to date, even the goddamn tutorial of the very first game.
Of course there's no combat, they opted against a final boss battle. It's arguable whether that was a good idea or not I suppose, but I'm neutral towards it myself.

Interrupts do exist, albeit only in the confrontation with TIM. But they were hardly present in every cutscene in the game anyway, so their absence should not be a big deal.

And your choices at the ending determine the fate of the entire galaxy on a scale far beyond any single choice you've been asked to make before, so that last isn't even opinion-based, it's just factually incorrect.

Snowbluff

2014-11-12, 08:53 PM

Does not compute. Everything you complain of Nintendo doing bad, Microsoft did much, much worst. Wii U at least is the cheaper option with the peripheral included. It offers a lot more console exclusives. The sequels actually offer new stuff and/or try new formulas. It doesn't treat their licenses as a bad joke (cough how capcom has been treating megaman cough). And microsoft, sony and sega all have taken actions against fair use, don't pretend Nintendo is the only one doing it.
Nintendo's work is the one most notable, partially because they publish a larger portion of the games on their systems. Microsoft isn't a company I haven't happy with for 3 consecutive generations, so don't mistake my preferences.

Metroid Other M was a Nintendo game with a prominent female protagonist in the gaming world that was licensed to Team Ninja. Now, I'm no SOCJUS, libel-spreading jerk. If you do something wrong, I'll make sure you actually did it. Team Ninja clearly wasn't ready to handle the game with the finesse it deserved.

As an aside, screw Capcom. If it weren't for Monster Hunter, I would be playing none of their games.

Before Destiny came out many people claimed it would be game of the year based off of the company's previous record and pre-release information. You have claimed Bloodborne would be game of the year based off of the company's previous record and pre-release information.
I got a prerelease gameplay from a person I trust for Destiny. He had concerns that it was overhyped and wasn't that great. Not to mention that Bungie doesn't have a spotless record as far as I am concern. They make good games, just not "OMFG MASTERPIECES."

I've been watching beta footage from Dark Souls community members I trust. They like what they see. We know who on the staff makes the difference between a good game, and a great game at From.

danzibr

2014-11-12, 09:32 PM

And the so-called main feature of the Wii U's tablet controller - being able to keep playing when someone else wants the TV - is aimed at children and college dorms, not independent adults.

...So, of my friends from college, 2 (families) of them have kids.

Of those households, they each have 1 TV.

Being able to pull out the tablet while the TV is tuned to yo gabba gabba (don't bite your friends!) is a sanity-saver for some of them.

Sure, if you're either "independent" (no kids, spouse, or roommates? Is that what this means now?), or can easily afford another TV setup (read: no kids), fine.

It means "I can use electronics that I own during my free time whenever I choose to and however I choose to."

Ok, so no kids, spouse, or roommates.

Yes, if you never have any need to share a television with anyone else, the "play on the tablet" is useless, unless you prefer the feel of it.

Defining adulthood by "I don't need to share," and dismissing all others as children or dorm residents seems a bit off, though.

I'm not "dismissing others." I'm pointing out the demographics Nintendo most likely had in mind when they created it - the ones who would benefit most from that kind of technology.
Interesting exchange to follow.

That... is such a strange definition of independent. I support my wife and 2 kids. We have 2 TV's, an iPad, a couple laptops, and a couple desktops. We have plenty of technology (for us at least), but sometimes want to hang out in the same room, watching Frozen for the millionth time and I can still play the Wii U.

Some people may find that feature totally useless, but I do not, and I do not believe it is limited to children and dorms. Nor do I think the Wii U was necessarily aimed at those types of people, and I can't say anything about the likelihood of what Nintendo had in mind. However, I seem to recall it being advertised as a party system.

Just sayin' some find it useless and some don't.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-13, 05:37 AM

I watched a play-through of Journey once. It looked incredibly boring, and I wouldn't say anything in it qualified as a narrative. If that's supposed to be an example of what you're arguing for, I remain completely unmoved.

At this point, go and watch the two Extra Credits episodes on Mechanics as Metaphor and the one on The Hero's Journey (which actually dissects Journey itself). (Also the Foldable Human episode on Games as Art)

They explain in a lot greater detail the things I am talking about, and how play creates stories.

You wouldn't say anything in Journey qualifies as story, but that's because you're making invalid assumptions at the fundamental level about what story can even be.

A new Reaper would've resumed Sovereign's task of letting the others in via the Citadel, obviously. And the fleet of them was years away using other means, they were just willing to make that journey when all else failed. So no, the ending to ME2 most definitely made sense, quite unlike its sequel.

Right, and then they arrive literally a few months later in Arrival. And even if they weren't they've been waiting 50,000 years. Rebuilding a reaper so they can turn on a device which will save them less than a tenth of a percent of that time is like inventing a portal gun, and building a robot to drive downstairs to shoot the orange portal, to get beer out of your fridge.

I can honestly say my opinion of the ending would not be affected by that in any way.

Maybe you, and you might actually just not have critically examined why your opinions form in certain ways. The greater level of player investment that would result from having their choices and involvement respected by the game would have, for most people, gone a long way to overcome the fact that the narrative itself was silly.

This is one of the reasons that people herald certain videogame stories as "good" when they're actually, dispassionately examined, cheesy bollocks. The greater level of engagement with the story which comes from having been an active participant helps people to ignore the rougher spots unless they're egregiously bad or they break the participatory element ("player gets captured in cutscene" is a particular offender, people hate the hell out of that.)

Of course there's no combat, they opted against a final boss battle. It's arguable whether that was a good idea or not I suppose, but I'm neutral towards it myself.

Not having a final boss does not necessarily imply not having a climactic combat event (usually the hardest and most impressive in the game, defending the bathysphere at the end of Bioshock 2 for instance, or the path to Konrad's HQ in Spec Ops). ME3 does (defending the launchers), but it's too far removed from the actual ending to the game so its impact on the player has faded. And after the run to the conduit Shepard is broken and staggering but the amount of time you are intended to use her in that state is long enough that it becomes tedious and annoying not dramatic.

Interrupts do exist, albeit only in the confrontation with TIM. But they were hardly present in every cutscene in the game anyway, so their absence should not be a big deal.

They do, but TIM gets to override them with Magic Cutscene Powers. Gameplay elements the player could previously rely on are taken away.

And your choices at the ending determine the fate of the entire galaxy on a scale far beyond any single choice you've been asked to make before, so that last isn't even opinion-based, it's just factually incorrect.

But not in a way that flows naturally from what has gone before (why you get what choices, or even why the indoctrinate and synthesis choices are even there, Indoctrinate is only foreshadowed in the context of being a reaper lie and Synthesis is a complete asspull) or that will give knowable results (especially Synthesis), and those choices are not made in the way you had traditionally made choices in Mass Effect.

They're a false choice because you have no metric by which to judge the choices.

Forum Explorer

2014-11-13, 06:51 AM

Right, and then they arrive literally a few months later in Arrival. And even if they weren't they've been waiting 50,000 years. Rebuilding a reaper so they can turn on a device which will save them less than a tenth of a percent of that time is like inventing a portal gun, and building a robot to drive downstairs to shoot the orange portal, to get beer out of your fridge.

Not having a final boss does not necessarily imply not having a climactic combat event (usually the hardest and most impressive in the game, defending the bathysphere at the end of Bioshock 2 for instance, or the path to Konrad's HQ in Spec Ops). ME3 does (defending the launchers), but it's too far removed from the actual ending to the game so its impact on the player has faded. And after the run to the conduit Shepard is broken and staggering but the amount of time you are intended to use her in that state is long enough that it becomes tedious and annoying not dramatic.

They do, but TIM gets to override them with Magic Cutscene Powers. Gameplay elements the player could previously rely on are taken away.

But not in a way that flows naturally from what has gone before (why you get what choices, or even why the indoctrinate and synthesis choices are even there, Indoctrinate is only foreshadowed in the context of being a reaper lie and Synthesis is a complete asspull) or that will give knowable results (especially Synthesis), and those choices are not made in the way you had traditionally made choices in Mass Effect.

They're a false choice because you have no metric by which to judge the choices.

They were building a new Reaper. Which is what they would do anyways when they get there. I saw it more as softening up Humanity in preparation for the main invasion. Or perhaps they would have just kept it up to see how many Reapers they could pop out before anyone did anything about them.

In retrospect sure, but at the time, I was pretty tense cause I could still shoot and move, so I was expecting a tough battle where weak foes were suddenly incredibly deadly due to my injuries.

Honestly I think the ending would be much improved by the story just flat out having the Star Child be lying, that Control just leads to a bad ending, and Synthesis just is sort of a neutral one.

Overall though? I actually found the ending to be pretty tolerable. The worst part of it for me was Joker fleeing cause that made no sense to me.

Zevox

2014-11-13, 06:26 PM

At this point, go and watch the two Extra Credits episodes on Mechanics as Metaphor and the one on The Hero's Journey (which actually dissects Journey itself). (Also the Foldable Human episode on Games as Art)

They explain in a lot greater detail the things I am talking about, and how play creates stories.
No. Frankly, an argument on the internet is not worth spending my time watching a video that makes arguments I'll likely just be disagreeing with anyway. If you'd care to make the argument yourself, we can continue the conversation, though as I said at the start of my last post I suspect we're just going to be talking past each other here.

And as for "Games as Art," that's a topic I don't even care about. Not that I don't think they probably can qualify, but whether or not they do is ultimately irrelevant to me personally.

And I think I'm going to cut off the Mass Effect tangent, since that's already looking to grow too large, as discussion of that topic is wont to do, and is ultimately a distraction from our broader disagreement.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-13, 07:41 PM

No. Frankly, an argument on the internet is not worth spending my time watching a video that makes arguments I'll likely just be disagreeing with anyway. If you'd care to make the argument yourself, we can continue the conversation, though as I said at the start of my last post I suspect we're just going to be talking past each other here.

I have been making the arguments, though I've been summarising heavily and the videos go into a lot more detail and have a lot more specific examples than I can easily replicate here.

Though there's a problem in that you make the core assumption that only the narrative imposed by the writer counts as story, and you are wholly wrong. It's not even a point of my opinion versus yours, you're as wrong as you would be if you were insisting that 1+1=3. Claiming that videogames portray meaning and story only through the writer's narrative is like claiming that films can only portray a story through the script, the words the characters say, rather than the actions they take (or framing or editing or use of lighting or colour, which are all significant parts of the language of film)

The actions the player takes, all of them, contribute to the story that player experiences as well as the narrative the writer imposes. Even things like the number of times you fail and the feeling of frustration that difficulty can engender can be part of the story. The final ascent to Konrad's HQ in Spec Ops is deliberately very difficult compared to the rest of the game, (the game is noticably harder in its whole final act) because it draws the player into Walker's mental state, the fact that when hit he swears and whimpers with pain at this point, where he didn't before, heightens the tension and feeling that the player is being punished for being hit.

All the videos I referenced make that point, with specific examples and argumentation. The "Games as Art" video is more about the language of games, which includes the conventions of mechanics and how those mechanics can be used to communicate to the player. Because that's an important point in the idea that story comes from the player's actions, the mechanics of a game are a way for the game to communicate with the player. The point of referencing it was not the games as art argument but that some of the reasons discussed are relevant to the discussion of how games deliver story through mechanics and how players create story through play.

Consider the end of Metal Gear Solid 3 (and I mean spoilers, but the game's a million years old now). I'm choosing this specifically because Metal Gear Solid is particularly known for its cutscene heavy presentation, but right at the end of MGS3 the player has defeated the Boss and Snake is standing with a gun pointed at her head waiting to take the final shot, but he doesn't. He doesn't until the player does. The game specifically uses its mechanics to underscore the gravity of the character's action, especially potent in a game which had otherwise presented most of its narrative in a barely interactive format.

The fact that you don't think of games this way is probably why you don't see the attraction of open world games. In an open world game like Skyrim the "main story" is actually just an introductory tour of the features of the real game, which is the world itself. (This is why Fallout 3's original ending stopping play was so badly considered, because it runs counter to the core of Bethesda's design). The real story of one of those games is where you went, what you did, and what you found along the way, and you decide that and the motivations for doing it are your motivations. There isn't an intermediary layer between the player's motivation and the character's motivation because there isn't an intermediary layer between the player's story and the character's story.

But all of that only becomes available to you once you realise that the actions you the player take in the game are part of the story. Denying that isn't valid argumentation, it's simply a wrong statement.

This is also, as I've said, the root of a lot of problems people have with videogame narrative. All (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidityIsTheOnlyOption) of (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutsceneIncompetence) these (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryOverwrite) things (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotlineDeath) are narrative stumbling blocks in games, things which irritate players because they bring the imposed narrative into conflict with the story the player is telling via their actions.

Zevox

2014-11-13, 08:13 PM

Though there's a problem in that you make the core assumption that only the narrative imposed by the writer counts as story, and you are wholly wrong. It's not even a point of my opinion versus yours, you're as wrong as you would be if you were insisting that 1+1=3.
Frankly, I would say the exact same thing about your argument. Gameplay in a video game simply is not a story: a narrative is. That's literally the dictionary definition of "story," even, if you'd care to look that up. A movie portraying a character's actions is part of a story, but that's because all of those actions are part of the prescribed narrative. The actions of a player during gameplay portions of a game are not.

To be blunt, your claim that the story of a game is or can truly be interactive is what is wrong, even for games that go out of their to give the illusion to the contrary. It's part of the nature of the medium: everything you're doing is just progressing through pre-scripted events, with at most a small number of possible outcomes (and usually only one), because all such things have to be created by the writers and programmers of the game before the player ever touches it. Short of the creation of an AI capable of acting as a built-in GM for a game, that won't ever change. So the story of the game is exactly what is created by the developer, no more and no less. Details like how many times you might die progressing through the game, or how much time you spending wandering around wherever, are ultimately irrelevant and not a part of the story in any way, shape, or form. Hell, in most games you dying is even literally removed from the story because there's no actual in-world resurrection going on, you're just returned to a previous point in the game to pick up from there and try again.

But remember what I said about us talking past each other? Seems likely that's already happening here, given I sincerely doubt what I've said above will be any more convincing to you than your own arguments are to me. We both seem thoroughly convinced that the other's viewpoint lacks any grounding in reality, and I don't think that's likely to change.

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-13, 11:31 PM

Frankly, I would say the exact same thing about your argument. Gameplay in a video game simply is not a story: a narrative is. That's literally the dictionary definition of "story," even, if you'd care to look that up. A movie portraying a character's actions is part of a story, but that's because all of those actions are part of the prescribed narrative. The actions of a player during gameplay portions of a game are not.

To be blunt, your claim that the story of a game is or can truly be interactive is what is wrong, even for games that go out of their to give the illusion to the contrary. It's part of the nature of the medium: everything you're doing is just progressing through pre-scripted events, with at most a small number of possible outcomes (and usually only one), because all such things have to be created by the writers and programmers of the game before the player ever touches it. Short of the creation of an AI capable of acting as a built-in GM for a game, that won't ever change. So the story of the game is exactly what is created by the developer, no more and no less. Details like how many times you might die progressing through the game, or how much time you spending wandering around wherever, are ultimately irrelevant and not a part of the story in any way, shape, or form. Hell, in most games you dying is even literally removed from the story because there's no actual in-world resurrection going on, you're just returned to a previous point in the game to pick up from there and try again.

But remember what I said about us talking past each other? Seems likely that's already happening here, given I sincerely doubt what I've said above will be any more convincing to you than your own arguments are to me. We both seem thoroughly convinced that the other's viewpoint lacks any grounding in reality, and I don't think that's likely to change.

I actually looked up the definition for story. Narrative is indeed one of the definitions, but so is "the plot or succession of events". I think that could easily describe game-play. I think you are using a very narrow definition of what a story is, or what it can be. Video games are one of very few interactive mediums where we can influence the events that take place, thus changing the story, ie the succession of events. It's like a choose-your-own adventure book, the choices you make impact how you view the story, and you get different emotional results based off of that. You can do a pacifist run in a video game and have a very different experience or story than someone who simply murders his way through the whole thing. You have a very close-minded definition of story, and I think that by broadening that definition, only by a little bit, you can understand a different point of view.

Zevox

2014-11-13, 11:50 PM

I actually looked up the definition for story. Narrative is indeed one of the definitions, but so is "the plot or succession of events". I think that could easily describe game-play.
Not really, no. "Plot" most certainly doesn't - that's another synonym for narrative. "Succession of events" may sound like it on the surface, but the events of gameplay do not constitute a story in themselves, nor do they tend to influence the overall story of a game in any way. At most, you get a choose-your-own-adventure book style multiple-choice story, which is still a finite set of pre-determined possibilities you simply choose between - and often don't actually differ that much in the grand scheme of things.

You can do a pacifist run in a video game and have a very different experience or story than someone who simply murders his way through the whole thing.
That, perhaps, is a better term for what GloatingSwine is talking about: experience. The player's experience of the game is certainly defined by the gameplay as much as by the story, but the player's experience of the game is not the game's story. You could make a story out of it, but it would be either fan fiction or just the story of the player playing the game, not the story of the game itself, which is something else entirely: the narrative of the characters and events.

Infernally Clay

2014-11-13, 11:52 PM

That's only because Nintendo decides to make everything exclusive. Sure there's only one PS4 EXCLUSIVE he really wants (which is different from "fairly well recieved"), but that doesn't mean that other games available on the system won't be bought. Or that he supports Nintendo's practice of making everything exclusive.

I'm sorry, but what? Are you implying that Nintendo's own games, and the games they fund, shouldn't be exclusive to Nintendo consoles? You do realise this is what everyone does, right? You can't play Halo on a PS4 any more than you'll be able to play Bloodborne on an Xbox One. Exclusives are what drive a console's sales so the very idea that Nintendo should release their games on other consoles because a few people are too stingy to buy a Nintendo console is pretty laughable.

Where does all this dislike for Nintendo come from, anyway? It's Nintendo for crying out loud. They saved the industry back in '83 and they've been making excellent games for the last 31 years. Their first party titles are generally better than those of their competitors, but due to the popularity of guns and explosions they don't sell as well except in the case of a few core franchises that blow everything else out of the ocean in terms of sales. Let's not forget, either, that Nintendo is the innovator of the industry as well. The analog stick, rumble and off screen play are all things Sony and Microsoft do but Nintendo did it first. The Wii U pad might be a little goofy, but it's merely an evolution of the GameCube-GBA connectivity from a decade ago.

Besides, without Nintendo there wouldn't even be a Bayonetta 2. That has been made very clear. No other publisher was even remotely interested so if I had to choose between a game I wanted not being made or being made on a console I didn't own, I think I'd go with the second option.

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-14, 01:50 AM

Not really, no. "Plot" most certainly doesn't - that's another synonym for narrative. "Succession of events" may sound like it on the surface, but the events of gameplay do not constitute a story in themselves, nor do they tend to influence the overall story of a game in any way. At most, you get a choose-your-own-adventure book style multiple-choice story, which is still a finite set of pre-determined possibilities you simply choose between - and often don't actually differ that much in the grand scheme of things.

That, perhaps, is a better term for what GloatingSwine is talking about: experience. The player's experience of the game is certainly defined by the gameplay as much as by the story, but the player's experience of the game is not the game's story. You could make a story out of it, but it would be either fan fiction or just the story of the player playing the game, not the story of the game itself, which is something else entirely: the narrative of the characters and events.

I think we disagree and there is no real discussion going on. I believe that story is much more than just the narrative construct the game designers intended, and players can easily tell their own stories, through glitches, alternate playstyle, or just through playing the game normally but experiencing something different than someone else playing the same game. You believe otherwise. I think honestly the best game stories I've experienced or ones I've created, in open world games like The Elder Scrolls series or something like Fire Emblem where you can choose which characters develop relationships.

Zevox

2014-11-14, 02:06 AM

I think we disagree and there is no real discussion going on. I believe that story is much more than just the narrative construct the game designers intended, and players can easily tell their own stories, through glitches, alternate playstyle, or just through playing the game normally but experiencing something different than someone else playing the same game. You believe otherwise. I think honestly the best game stories I've experienced or ones I've created, in open world games like The Elder Scrolls series or something like Fire Emblem where you can choose which characters develop relationships.
Fire Emblem supports are an example of the multiple choice stories I mentioned, on a small scale at least. And really, aside from who marries who it's more a matter of choosing which relationships you want to see - or even just seeing them all in Awakening, where there's no limit besides only one S-rank per character.

The other part, yes, we simply fundamentally disagree. I don't consider stories you made up while playing a game to be a part of that game's story, nor do I see any way in which glitches, playstyle, etc can ever be said to impact the story of a game. (Well, aside from a glitch preventing you from completing a side-quest or something perhaps, but I doubt that's the sort of glitch you meant.) The story of a game is precisely its narrative as it is presented within the game, no more and no less.

Knaight

2014-11-14, 02:09 AM

Honestly, a lot of the commentary on this thread regarding stinginess and independence and the utility of the side screen seems to be ignoring people who don't have huge chunks of money to spend on consoles. It's hardly stinginess to get one console total, given that keeping up with one console works out to about $50 per year (less if delaying), paid in a lump sum up front. That's a fair amount of cash for a lot of people.

I like Nintendo, personally. There's a case to be made that they'd be better off as a pure software company, but I have no problem with the niche they fill. I've owned (in conjunction with other people) exactly two consoles - the gamecube and the wii. It still makes sense to me that people find their model frustrating, given that it's simultaneously the only way to access a number of their first party games, and seriously lacking in third party content compared to other consoles. Then there's their continued business with Team Ninja, which has pretty much been in the irritating people business for the last few years.

Zevox

2014-11-14, 02:20 AM

It still makes sense to me that people find their model frustrating, given that it's simultaneously the only way to access a number of their first party games, and seriously lacking in third party content compared to other consoles.
Aye, that is definitely a frustration I can understand. I imagine there's even a fair number of Nintendo fans out there who would shed few tears if Nintendo had to stop making their own consoles and started publishing on Sony and Microsoft's consoles, just because of the money it would save them.

deuterio12

2014-11-14, 04:14 AM

Aye, that is definitely a frustration I can understand. I imagine there's even a fair number of Nintendo fans out there who would shed few tears if Nintendo had to stop making their own consoles and started publishing on Sony and Microsoft's consoles, just because of the money it would save them.

Actually, if Nintendo stopped making their own consoles and started publishing on the other consoles, Nintendo fans would have to spend a lot more money.

Because not only the Xbox one and PS 4 are more expensive base, not only are their games more expensive base, Microsoft and Sony are now both demanding monthly subscriptions for their online services. 10 bucks per month, 120 per year, 600 bucks over a 5-year old cycle just to play multiplayer, then an extra 10 bucks per game, no thanks.

So money saved? What money saved? With all the extra bills Sony and Microsoft suck from their players, I could buy a freaking high-end computer to play all those third-party titles that aren't on Nintendo's consoles! Not to mention the high-end computer has plenty of other uses.

Wait, that's what I did. I don't make that much money, but since I'm buying cheaper Nintendo consoles whose games are also cheaper and don't demand a subscription or fancy memory cards that are so expensive they may as well be made of gold, I can easily afford a high-end computer that serves for both gaming and work. And then save even more money by buying third-party games on Steam.

If SSB came out only in PS4 and Xbox, costing more and demanding a monthly payment, yeah, sorry Nintendo, got better things to spend my limited income on.

thethird

2014-11-14, 05:47 AM

Personally I'm a ruthless mercenary with no brand loyalty at all. I started gaming with a NES and a SNES good times all. Then when 64 came out I didn't like the control and switched to a ps1 (which had a similar enough control to the SNES) again good times. When the next generation started I actually didn't have enough material space to fit a xbox, so I discarded that, and most of my friends had a PS2 so I just went with that. It was during that generation that I started to realize that differences between boxes and stations were growing slimmer, there were only a small set of titles that were distinct from each other, a small set that was greater when it came to compare it to Nintendo. So for the next generation I waited till a game I really really wanted to play and was exclusive came out. It was Alan Wake. When Alan Wake came out I got a 360, getting the slack from my pro-Sony friends, and enjoyed it A LOT. The fact that the Wii was considerably cheap ended making me get another one, for the most part while 360 was my singleplayer fix, wii was my multiplayer (I enjoyed though some unique exclusive games, No more heroes was really good).

Now my 360 is up and running. When it burns out, whenever I finish all the 360 games I want to play, or when a new game comes out that I REALLY want to play but can't in 360, I will move out of it. Right now the most attractive for me is a PC. Because there is a really small subset of games exclusive to XBOX and/or PS, and since my friends do have a wii U my living room multiplayer experience is assured.

While writing this I realized I have control loyalty. Would anyone now of a xbox control that looks like an old snes or nes control?

Zevox

2014-11-14, 07:33 AM

Actually, if Nintendo stopped making their own consoles and started publishing on the other consoles, Nintendo fans would have to spend a lot more money.

Because not only the Xbox one and PS 4 are more expensive base, not only are their games more expensive base, Microsoft and Sony are now both demanding monthly subscriptions for their online services. 10 bucks per month, 120 per year, 600 bucks over a 5-year old cycle just to play multiplayer, then an extra 10 bucks per game, no thanks.

So money saved? What money saved?
I think it's pretty plain I was referring to Nintendo fans who also buy one of the other consoles due to their more extensive third-party support. If you only buy Nintendo consoles, then you're correct, that wouldn't save you money, due to Nintendo's console being the cheapest of the three.

Also, as a factual correction, you're greatly exaggerating the actual cost of Microsoft and Sony's online services. They're only that expensive if you pay on a month-by-month basis: pay for a full year at once and the cost is half what you said in Microsoft's case, and a bit less than that in Sony's ($50 per year).

BeerMug Paladin

2014-11-14, 12:00 PM

Back when I used to play a lot more games, I was too busy playing games to argue about what console was best. Way back in the day, I had lots of SNES games. And no Genesis. But Toejam and Earl was a great game I enjoyed when I got the chance to play it.

I don't really care to play games as much as I used to. Of the new generation, there's only a Wii U around this household, but I've played only virtual console games on it and Pushmo World. I've played various Wii U Mario games (and Kart, DKC:TF), though it's just because someone else is playing it and wants me to join. Apparently Smash is going to be on the console when that comes out, but for some reason I'm not really excited for it.

The biggest flaw with Nintendo is also their biggest strength. If I ever feel like playing a Mario or Zelda game, I can just play any new one, and they'll be just the same sort of thing as I remember, just more modern and slick. Whenever they make something completely new, it usually is a new franchise.

I've never really gotten into many of the newer big franchise games. When I try one of the hugely popular games, they often seem kind of bleh and uninteresting.

I think it's probably just those franchises began to pick up popularity around the time I was getting out of games in general, so I never played the earliest incarnations of those games. And by the time game 3 or 4 comes out the franchise gets this massive reputation as a pivotal moment in gaming. So when I happen to play it a bit, I am underwhelmed by the massive hype, and generally have my opinion set by that experience.

Of course I try to ignore hype and evaluate an experience on its own merits, but knowing that it would be good to do that, and actually being able to do it are two different things. I think that general thing probably happens to a lot of people who dislike things for no good reason.

Psyren

2014-11-14, 03:29 PM

At this point, go and watch the two Extra Credits episodes on Mechanics as Metaphor and the one on The Hero's Journey (which actually dissects Journey itself). (Also the Foldable Human episode on Games as Art)

They explain in a lot greater detail the things I am talking about, and how play creates stories.

You wouldn't say anything in Journey qualifies as story, but that's because you're making invalid assumptions at the fundamental level about what story can even be.

Agreed on all points, mechanics and gameplay are as much a form of storytelling as the actual narrative. Or at least they can be; not all games use mechanics this way (or at least, not all do so intentionally or effectively), but some do, particularly the higher-quality ones.

deuterio12

2014-11-14, 03:49 PM

I think it's pretty plain I was referring to Nintendo fans who also buy one of the other consoles due to their more extensive third-party support. If you only buy Nintendo consoles, then you're correct, that wouldn't save you money, due to Nintendo's console being the cheapest of the three.

Also, as a factual correction, you're greatly exaggerating the actual cost of Microsoft and Sony's online services. They're only that expensive if you pay on a month-by-month basis: pay for a full year at once and the cost is half what you said in Microsoft's case, and a bit less than that in Sony's ($50 per year).

And I think it's pretty plain that I pointed out that if you want third-party games, then your best bet is a good PC. It may be a bit more expensive that the current PS or xbox at first, but you can also use it for work, and after the first year you'll actually be saving money because there was no subscription and you could buy cheaper games. Also more choices and mods and a bunch of nice extras.

In a 5-year cycle, the money you'll save from cheaper games and not having to pay a subscription is more than enough to afford a Nintendo console along your PC. So you can have Nintendo exclusives and top-quality third-party for the same price you could buy a locked PC that's soon gonna be obsolete and can't add mods PS or xbox! Win-win!

Zevox

2014-11-14, 06:23 PM

And I think it's pretty plain that I pointed out that if you want third-party games, then your best bet is a good PC.
The PC v console argument is another matter entirely, and consoles have their points in it. Among them exclusives that do not come to PCs, including all first-party titles created by Nintendo and Sony and at least some from Microsoft (I think some of the Halo games had PC releases? Never payed much attention though, not being a shooter guy.), and a great many games made in Japan, where the PC market is too tiny for the developers to want to make games for it. I can honestly say that of the games I tend to pick up, only Bioware's get PC releases. Aside from series I play from time to time but am not a big fan of (like Assassin's Creed) and very rare exceptions where a Japanese game gets a PC version (like Street Fighter 4), I'd be losing out on a ton if I switched from console gaming to PC gaming.

Plus there's of course the matter of ease of use. With consoles you simply plug them in, put the game in, and you're good to go: no tech know-how required, ever. That's appealing to some people, myself included.

Knaight

2014-11-15, 12:29 PM

Plus there's of course the matter of ease of use. With consoles you simply plug them in, put the game in, and you're good to go: no tech know-how required, ever. That's appealing to some people, myself included.

Consoles are getting less and less like this though.

Zevox

2014-11-15, 03:04 PM

Consoles are getting less and less like this though.
Only if you want to do extraneous things besides play games. Simply playing them is still exactly that simple, updates (which are only even required when playing online anyway) are automated, and DLC is easy to deal with via simple menus, usually from within the games themselves even. All much less complicated than dealing with PC games can be.

Snowbluff

2014-11-16, 02:42 AM

The Wii U pad might be a little goofy, but it's merely an evolution of the GameCube-GBA connectivity from a decade ago.
You just proved the problem.

People have 3DS. Why do we have a crappy tablet attached to the Wii U?

Nintendo should hire me. I would make them millions. I would also fire that Mario/Zelda spammer. It would lose them millions, but I would make up for it in giving them back their dignity. :smalltongue:

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-16, 03:31 AM

You just proved the problem.

People have 3DS. Why do we have a crappy tablet attached to the Wii U?

Nintendo should hire me. I would make them millions. I would also fire that Mario/Zelda spammer. It would lose them millions, but I would make up for it in giving them back their dignity. :smalltongue:

I'm curious, how much time have you actually spent playing the console? Because the WiiU pad may seem clunky but it doesn't actually weigh that much, and the touch screen can be quite cool.

Snowbluff

2014-11-16, 04:34 AM

I'm curious, how much time have you actually spent playing the console? Because the WiiU pad may seem clunky but it doesn't actually weigh that much, and the touch screen can be quite cool.

A little bit. That mario game where you make the platforms. I'm not at all unacquainted with using a touchscreen, but I prefer controls that I don't have to look at. Just don't forget that they had a totally baller handheld that could have fulfilled the role of touch screen. I just like having a lot of clutter when it comes to my games. It's bad enough I have charging cables, headsets (I generally dislike wireless peripherals), ethernet, and HDMI coming out of my PS3. Adding in a larger controller that doesn't also do something else is troublesome to me.

danzibr

2014-11-16, 09:12 AM

Nintendo should hire me.

I'm curious, how much time have you actually spent playing the console?

A little bit.
Something seems wrong here... can't quite place my finger on it though.

huttj509

2014-11-16, 09:21 AM

I'm curious, how much time have you actually spent playing the console? Because the WiiU pad may seem clunky but it doesn't actually weigh that much, and the touch screen can be quite cool.

Every time I hold the WiiU pad, I wind up looking down, seeing the size of it, and wondering "how is this comfortable? It doesn't look like it should be."

Zevox

2014-11-16, 10:00 AM

Just don't forget that they had a totally baller handheld that could have fulfilled the role of touch screen.
At the cost of requiring people to buy a whole second system that cost a couple hundred dollars to use the feature? Yeah, no, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they made the right call on that one.

Snowbluff

2014-11-16, 10:20 AM

Something seems wrong here... can't quite place my finger on it though.
It's more than most people. I'm a customer of their good department.

At the cost of requiring people to buy a whole second system that cost a couple hundred dollars to use the feature? Yeah, no, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they made the right call on that one.
HAHAHAHAHAH!

No. They could have bundled. Remember that the tablet had development and construction costs, too. It's essentially another computer, and I reckon that it wasn't a cheap addition. 3DS have been on the market for a while, so the cost of making them would be lower than it was initially. Consoles are designed to be loss leaders, anyway. The Wii U was sold at a loss for a long time, and so did the 3DS Not to mention that this would expand the install base of the 3DS even further. Tack on the fact that getting 3DS would be an incentive for adopters. "Oh man, it comes with this popular handheld?!" I would have bought a Wii U if it came with a 3DS and was only a $100-$150 more than buying the handheld alone.

See, danzibr? More savvy that you can hold on 2 screens.

EDIT: Not to mentions:
3DS are available at different price points. 3DS XL, 3DS, and 2DS could all be available for bundle.

The tablet does not have to be mandatory. I don't think I've played a game that made me go "wow I can't live without it." The gimmick isn't necessary, and may be detrimental to the console from a developer and customer relations standpoint. See: 2DS. Costs would be less if it weren't for the tablet.

You can only have 1 tablet. Wouldn't it be great if you could use more than 1 system? The best experience I've had was me not using the Wii U; I was playing local multiplayer with a Wii U in Monster Hunter. This allows for a lot more secretive gameplay.

See 1 and 3. You can by the system without the tablet (actually a 3DS) at a discount using your existing handheld. The 3DS has updateable software. Barring that, a cartridge could be made available (Which I dislike. It's been shown to be a problem with things like the gameboy player on gamecube).

Zevox

2014-11-16, 10:37 AM

HAHAHAHAHAH!

No. They could have bundled. Remember that the tablet had development and construction costs, too. It's essentially another computer, and I reckon that it wasn't a cheap addition. 3DS have been on the market for a while, so the cost of making them would be lower than it was initially. Consoles are designed to be loss leaders, anyway. The Wii U was sold at a loss for a long time, and so did the 3DS
Gonna have to ask for sources on those numbers. Everything I've heard in the past is that Nintendo is the one console-maker that doesn't do that: that's part of why their consoles are less powerful than their competitors', so they don't have to. I'm almost certain I heard that they only started selling the 3DS at a loss when its initial poor performance forced a big price drop much earlier than is normal. And I find it hard to believe that the gamepad cost more for them to make than a 3DS, which is its own system, designed to play its own games, connect to the internet, and have a ton of other features, where the gamepad is just a controller with a built-in screen that can stream the video from the Wii U.

Snowbluff

2014-11-16, 12:16 PM

You can take a second to look it up. Both the Wii U (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wii+u+sold+at+a+loss) and the 3DS (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=3ds+sold+at+a+loss)were sold at a loss initially.

Also, look at the game pad. It has wireless connectivity, a larger, higher res touch screen, motion sensors (last time I checked). It's a 3ds on a larger scale in a lot of ways.

tonberrian

2014-11-16, 03:18 PM

You can take a second to look it up. Both the Wii U (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wii+u+sold+at+a+loss) and the 3DS (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=3ds+sold+at+a+loss)were sold at a loss initially.

Also, look at the game pad. It has wireless connectivity, a larger, higher res touch screen, motion sensors (last time I checked). It's a 3ds on a larger scale in a lot of ways.
Except that it doesn't do any actual processing. It's a screen with a wireless connection. It doesn't do the actual work.

Knaight

2014-11-16, 06:06 PM

Snowbluff

2014-11-16, 07:31 PM

Except that it doesn't do any actual processing. It's a screen with a wireless connection. It doesn't do the actual work.

There's the processing needed to get a signal out of the screen, but that's really not all that complicated - it's basically just a capacitor bank in glass, where the capacitors are almost certainly just the point at which two sets of parallel lines perpendicular to each other come closest, with some glass in between them, which then have the capacitance read and the signal sent. Plus the signals for the controls themselves, which are generally just a wire or few wires each.

Basically, I'd be very surprised if it cost anywhere near as much to make as the DS, or as even low end smart phones.

True, it doesn't seem to have a strong processor. Which is partially irrelevant, because I've tagged it correctly as a loss leader either way. I never said it wouldn't be cheaper, just not that much more expensive. Nintendo can (well, could have at the release) take the loss and profit off of the games, anyway.

From the cursory research I'm doing right now, a 3DS and a Wii U (Gamepad included) would cost ~$328. This is using a 2013 number for the Wii cost ($228), and 3DS are estimated to cost under $100. I think it's worth it for a more capable console (4 3DS versus 1 gamepad) that would also be more popular.

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-16, 08:03 PM

True, it doesn't seem to have a strong processor. Which is partially irrelevant, because I've tagged it correctly as a loss leader either way. I never said it wouldn't be cheaper, just not that much more expensive. Nintendo can (well, could have at the release) take the loss and profit off of the games, anyway.

From the cursory research I'm doing right now, a 3DS and a Wii U (Gamepad included) would cost ~$328. This is using a 2013 number for the Wii cost ($228), and 3DS are estimated to cost under $100. I think it's worth it for a more capable console (4 3DS versus 1 gamepad) that would also be more popular.

You're acting like the WiiU is failing. Currently, it is not. If you were talking about this a year ago then you'd be relatively correct but since then there have been several big releases, and with Smash coming out within a week the system is selling on par with other consoles.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-16, 09:03 PM

If you think you can replace a dual analog 12 button controller with a single analog, 8 button 3DS you are wrong.

The Gamepad doesn't just have a touchscreen, it also has all the features of a full controller. I personally don't like it and use the pro controller instead wherever possible, but it's nonsense to say you could use a 3DS instead.

Knaight

2014-11-16, 09:39 PM

The Gamepad doesn't just have a touchscreen, it also has all the features of a full controller. I personally don't like it and use the pro controller instead wherever possible, but it's nonsense to say you could use a 3DS instead.

Then there's the quality of the analog stick. The 3DS has a pretty impressive one for a mobile device, but it's kind of awful by controller standards.

Zevox

2014-11-16, 11:43 PM

You can take a second to look it up. Both the Wii U (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wii+u+sold+at+a+loss) and the 3DS (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=3ds+sold+at+a+loss)were sold at a loss initially.
Alright, fair enough, I'd heard wrong there.

If you think you can replace a dual analog 12 button controller with a single analog, 8 button 3DS you are wrong.
This, however, is something very important that I should've brought up earlier. There's major differences between the gamepad and the 3DS besides just that the 3DS plays its own games and has a ton of other features as an independent system. The 3DS simply doesn't have all the buttons or the second analog of a standard modern controller; the gamepad does. The 3DS might work as a controller for some Wii U games that don't require those features (I know it's one of the options for Smash Brothers), but if it were the primary way they tried to work having a touch-screen controller, it would be a severe limitation for many games. Bayonetta for instance would not work with a 3DS as the controller: camera control and the buttons used for Umbran Climax and weapon switching would be lost.

Plus there's the matter of the larger screen size. The 3DS has a smaller one by necessity, because it has to fit in peoples' pockets, since that's a big part of the point of a handheld device. But for a console, which does not need to be that portable, a larger one such as the gamepad has is preferable.

And really, there's nothing at all wrong with the gamepad. It's surprisingly comfortable and entirely functional. I've used it when playing both Bayonetta titles and had no cause for complaint, and anticipate it being a perfectly good controller for Smash Brothers when that hits on Friday as well.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 12:11 AM

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-17, 12:47 AM

Nothing wrong with the game pad?

1) You can't replace them, as far as I can tell.

2) They are huge. Like, physically large even if not massive. You should get to choose how big it is.

3) You can only have 1 for the system. Gameplay limited, 0/10 lobotomize the inventor.

4) They are proprietary. -1/10 they didn't want it doing anything else.

Ergo, it was a waste of human ingenuity.

For the record, the 3DS is capable of having it's hardware expanded, too. If people asked for better joystick, $20 thingy with good joysticks. Circle Pad Pro U, which is something they should release anyway. Not to mention 2DS could be built with better joysticks, since it was designed afterwards, IIRC. Having a touchscreen is an important part, since extra functionality may be mapped there. You will really have to take a moment to think of solutions rather than let your bias towards this mechanical travesty (that I am trying to fix!) cloud your creative thinking. :smalltongue:

For screen size, 3DS XL. I'm a little embarrassed that I had to point it out.

WAIT: 12 buttons? What Wii U game actually needs that? This isn't exaxtly a console that Armored Core is Released on. :smallannoyed:

And, for the record, the Wii U is a failure as far as I, and the majority of gamers and developers, are concerned. It's a joke to say otherwise, even if the recent stream of "OMG WTF where was this at launch?!" and "omg we didn't want to see more of this" games have arrived to kick up the sales. Currently, financial failure. This may change in the future. It will always be a failure of integrity and confidence.

1 is completely untrue, you can send in a damage gamepad to Nintendo and if it's under warranty they will replace it. You can also buy a new one, though it will cost you a pretty penny. As for two, why is that a problem? It's not big enough fitting it on a table or anything like that would be difficult. The size means you can actually play games on it with no problem seeing all the information on the bigger screen. Having only one per system is kind of a bad thing in terms of making games for it, but as shown by Smash Bros there are ways to get around that and still make a compelling experience. As for being proprietary, so? Like it doesn't make any difference.

I don't understand this personal vendetta you seem to have against the console. The 3DS XL still doesn't compare to the tablet, in terms of resolution or clarity. Most modern games use a lot of different buttons, as well as two sticks that were originally designed for the console. The circle pad is annoying and won't be necessary for many games because the console wasn't originally designed that way. You say the majority of gamers and developers ay the WiiU is a failure? From this thread you are the only saying it is a failure, though I've seen maybe half a dozen people have complaints about it. As for developers, have you heard from any of them recently? Legitimate question, I haven't heard many opinions recently about the console aside from the few Youtubers who I listen to who seem to be enjoying it much more than the competition. As for a failure of integrity, how? That is utter nonsense.

Zevox

2014-11-17, 12:55 AM

2) They are huge. Like, physically large even if not massive. You should get to choose how big it is.
They're bigger than your standard controller due to having a big screen, since that's kind of the point of the thing, sure. I'd hardly say only coming in one size is a big problem, though. As many of us have attested, they're surprisingly comfortable despite their size. Nintendo seems to have done their homework on figuring that out.

3) You can only have 1 for the system. Gameplay limited, 0/10 lobotomize the inventor.
How is this a problem? No game will be designed to use more than one given that anyway.

4) They are proprietary. -1/10 they didn't want it doing anything else.
No idea what you mean by this.

For the record, the 3DS is capable of having it's hardware expanded, too.
It's not capable of having additional buttons put on it - they'd have had to make the New 3DS at the same time and release it alongside the Wii U to fix that. And the extra circle pad peripheral is just that, an extra peripheral, and thus even more cost, to either Nintendo or the consumer.

For screen size, 3DS XL. I'm a little embarrassed that I had to point it out.
The 3DS XL is not comparable to the gamepad's size.

WAIT: 12 buttons? What Wii U game actually needs that? This isn't exaxtly a console that Armored Core is Released on. :smallannoyed:
The standard array of buttons for a modern controller: 4 face buttons, 4 shoulder buttons, start and select, both control sticks capable of acting as additional buttons (often called L3 and R3 on the X-Box and Playstation controllers). And yes, some games do use all of them. Bayonetta 2 does - or perhaps comes up only one short, as I don't think the left analog stick is used as a button in it.

And technically there's also a few more: the home button, power button, and tv button, but those aren't related to gameplay functions, and the 3DS has two of them. No tv button, though what that's used for I have no idea.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 01:11 AM

How is this a problem? No game will be designed to use more than one given that anyway.
How is this a problem? Is this some kind of sick joke? If 4 was an option, you could have so many more options for the extra screen. For example, Diablo 3 ( if it was a Wii U title) menu navigation without pausing everyone else. If we gave the option for 4 controllers, people would have the option to make games that do that. Right now, it's impossible.

I mean, people build games for weird, asymmetric gameplay. Who is to say they wouldn't have built them for the obvious uses that are much easier to accommodate?

It's not capable of having additional buttons put on it - they'd have had to make the New 3DS at the same time and release it alongside the Wii U to fix that. And the extra circle pad peripheral is just that, an extra peripheral, and thus even more cost, to either Nintendo or the consumer.
Expandable software, remember? Update it. The circle pad is already an extra joystick.

The 3DS XL is not comparable to the gamepad's size.

Proof of concept. Large 3DS possible.

Zevox

2014-11-17, 01:54 AM

How is this a problem? Is this some kind of sick joke? If 4 was an option, you could have so many more options for the extra screen. For example, Diablo 3 ( if it was a Wii U title) menu navigation without pausing everyone else. If we gave the option for 4 controllers, people would have the option to make games that do that. Right now, it's impossible.
...so what? "Even more could have been done with it" does not make it a bad product as-is. In other words, it's not a problem, it's just an extra feature you wish it also had.

Proof of concept. Large 3DS possible.
But not a 3DS as large as the gamepad. That would lose the convenient portability that is a big part of the point of a handheld system.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 02:18 AM

...so what? "Even more could have been done with it" does not make it a bad product as-is. In other words, it's not a problem, it's just an extra feature you wish it also had.
Well ,it just feels like the opposite of what they should be doing. How do you arrive at asymmetric before symmetric?

And for the record, it does. Every thing can be improved. PS3 controllers have their joysticks too close and the power cables are too jiggly and cause interruptions. XBOX ones have the left joystick too far forward and use backwards AA batteries. 3DS sticks are bad for smashbros. I've lived my life pretty much never being content, and I grew into a person who could pretty much could spot the flaws in anything. Do you know what happens when people don't do that? People grow complacent and lazy, and nothing gets any better. So screw not thinking this through critically. It ain't perfect, so it isn't good enough.

But not a 3DS as large as the gamepad. That would lose the convenient portability that is a big part of the point of a handheld system.

Actually, now that I look at it, the 3DS might have a similiar total screen size to the pad, but with the benefit of being foldable. I can't crunch the math right now. 6.2 inch versus a pair of 4.88 inch screens.

Not that they really cared about portability. Portability is the last concern of everyone who owns a 3DS XL. Larger hands and bigger screws take precedent over pocket size.

Zevox

2014-11-17, 02:44 AM

And for the record, it does. Every thing can be improved.
Again, "can be improved" and "is a bad product" are two wholly different claims. The Wii U game pad is a good controller as it is: a fully functional modern controller with the strict upside of the touch screen. Its size isn't an issue as Nintendo managed to make it rather light and comfortable to hold and use despite that. At that point, it's a good product. Suggesting improvements is fine, but acting like it's terrible because it doesn't do everything you can imagine it doing is absurd nonsense at best.

Actually, now that I look at it, the 3DS might have a similiar total screen size to the pad, but with the benefit of being foldable. I can't crunch the math right now. 6.2 inch versus a pair of 4.88 inch screens.
Two small screens and one large one are very different things for these purposes, however. Especially when the only one you actually care about is the touch screen, since the whole idea was "controller with a touch screen."

Not that they really cared about portability. Portability is the last concern of everyone who owns a 3DS XL. Larger hands and bigger screws take precedent over pocket size.
A 3DS XL is still small enough for portability. As is to be expected, since again, that's part of the point of a handheld device.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 08:53 AM

Again, "can be improved" and "is a bad product" are two wholly different claims. The Wii U game pad is a good controller as it is: a fully functional modern controller with the strict upside of the touch screen. Its size isn't an issue as Nintendo managed to make it rather light and comfortable to hold and use despite that. At that point, it's a good product. Suggesting improvements is fine, but acting like it's terrible because it doesn't do everything you can imagine it doing is absurd nonsense at best.

I was pointing out a flaw with your approach, not making a claim about mine.

GPuzzle

2014-11-17, 10:12 AM

That reminds me of the saying "you can please some people some of the time, you can please some people all of the time, you can please all people some of the time, but you cannot please all people all of the time."

I prefer Nintendo, and I'm saving up for a 2DS because of monetary reasons, BUT: Galaxy didn't play like Sunshine which didn't play like 64 but all were amazingly fun. Galaxy 2 was amazingly good gameplay wise, even if it felt a bit same-y. OoT didn't feel like MM which didn't feel like TP which didn't feel like SS which didn't feel like The Four Swords, yet, all were good.

On the other hand, there were games I felt that were too same-y, and those fell in the "next-gen brown" area. That's really what I didn't like about those games - some were great but most felt the same.

But ultimately that's my own opinion, and I'm not gonna force into anyone because everyone is different,

tonberrian

2014-11-17, 12:25 PM

Also, the Wii U has been able to support two gamepads since ever.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 12:30 PM

Also, the Wii U has been able to support two gamepads since ever.

Great. That's a start. Can you use 4 and buy extra ones?

Psyren

2014-11-17, 02:12 PM

Speaking for myself personally, the tablet controller is not very comfortable to hold, and I have pretty big hands (I use phablets like the Galaxy Note series exclusively.) More power to you if it worked for you but the only Nintendo controller I've ever really been happy with is the Gamecube.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 02:46 PM

I'm not really a fan of Nintendo controllers in general. The Gamecube controller's layout isn't one I am a fan of. However, it is my preferred Smash Bros controller. Lately, they don't seem as responsive as the Wii ones, which means my performance tanks when I use them. :smallfrown:

Rakaydos

2014-11-17, 02:50 PM

Great. That's a start. Can you use 4 and buy extra ones?

Given they way they handle it, having 4 tablets would mean a framerate on the controller of 7 frames per second.
60 frames per second, shared between 2 tablets (the current limit) gives two independent screens with 30 frames per second streamed from the console.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 02:54 PM

Given they way they handle it, having 4 tablets would mean a framerate on the controller of 7 frames per second.
60 frames per second, shared between 2 tablets (the current limit) gives two independent screens with 30 frames per second streamed from the console.

Well, point to my 3DS idea, even if means download play instead of streaming. They can render their own graphics.

Looks like they would have to lower the graphics to support more screens, right? I would say that it is depressing, but I'm not a huge graphics guy in the first place. Better graphics is better except when it comes at the expense of gameplay.

Rakaydos

2014-11-17, 03:03 PM

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 03:16 PM

That's what Playstation tried with the Vita. Latency is what killed it.

The WiiU gamepad has a latency less than the post-processing of most high def TVs- the screen responds instantly, which is nessisary for fast paced games like smash. The Vita, meanwhile, has to process it's own video, lagging by many frames behind what is actually happening. Microsoft's SmartGlass tech has the same problem- there's no reason to believe 3DS would be somehow immune to it.

Well, this one is a no-brainer. The 3DS only needs to send controller information to the console with low latency for twitch games like smash. This isn't any less true for the gamepad. Other things, such as menus, # of lives, and secret information, don't have to be so precise.

As for the actual amount of latency, we don't know for sure in the first place. I did have some issues with framerate while playing 4 player smash on the 3DS on some stages, but I don't think I experienced very bad lag over all.

EDIT: Sony Remote Play issues seem to be mostly attributed to using the Wifi (PSV -> Wifi -> PS4) rather than a direct connection (PSV -> PS4). People are saying that if they can get their systems to ignore that, it improves. (http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/691087-playstation-4/67850672)

Rakaydos

2014-11-17, 03:21 PM

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 03:27 PM

Framerate is only an issue when the Latency changes. a high latency simply means that, for instance, you push a button, but it doesnt do anything for half a second. (or in this case, you dont see what your opponent pressed for half a second, by which point it already hit you.)

Nothing about my statement suggested otherwise. I was merely saying latency was good, even if framerate was bad. However, certain games are coded so that framerate is a vital component. I don't know this is the case for Smash, but CoD only makes calculations and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq9rk9vzogs)checks other things on frame. (http://www.reddit.com/r/CODGhosts/comments/1smqxv/all_about_fire_rates/cdzinwg)

tonberrian

2014-11-17, 05:20 PM

If you wanted the 3ds to function as a wii u controller, you'd need a 3ds redesign. It's not feasible now, it wouldn't have been feasible then.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 05:22 PM

If you wanted the 3ds to function as a wii u controller, you'd need a 3ds redesign. It's not feasible now, it wouldn't have been feasible then.
I'd like to know what your support for this is.

tonberrian

2014-11-17, 05:41 PM

I'd like to know what your support for this is.
The 3DS lacks the dedicated hardware to have nearly the same latency as the gamepad. Currently we're waiting for a different 3ds redesign to emerge, and a 3ds redesign announced RIGHT AFTER it was launched would have been suicide, especially right after the price drop fiasco.

Edit: there's a lot of give and take here. I'm shooting for a 3ds that mimics the abilities of the current gamepad perfectly, while assuming that the release 3ds stays as it was. You could patch the current 3ds so it functions like a gamepad, but you'd end up with a crappier gamepad with a smaller screen with an even smaller touch area and less inputs, including not having a second analogue stick. You could instead design the 3ds to function as the controller from the get go, you'd likely have an even more expensive launch, exascerbating the launch issues the 3ds had. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 06:12 PM

I call shenanigans on "dedicated hardware." What about the gamepad makes it more dedicated? Can you prove (against my precedence) that there would be latency issues for use as a controller? How about changes made with this in mind during the planning stages of both consoles?

If anything, the Gamepad is frakking the Wii U. Framerates drop when the Gamepad is used. :l

Dumbledore lives

2014-11-17, 07:25 PM

GloatingSwine

2014-11-17, 07:49 PM

I'd like to know what your support for this is.

Common sense.

You'd need two proper analogue sticks.

Minimum.

This is not optional for a modern home console.

The 3DS is simply not an acceptable input device for a home console. End of story.

Snowbluff

2014-11-17, 08:06 PM

Can you provide any evidence of that?
See above. Multiple game pads cause framerate drop. Some games drop, like Sonic Boom (may be a result of poor programming). Either way, the Gamepad does tax the console's power, since it streams the graphics processing. There is no question that the theoretical performance of the console's graphic are superior without it.

Common sense.

You'd need two proper analogue sticks.

Minimum.

This is not optional for a modern home console.

The 3DS is simply not an acceptable input device for a home console. End of story.

Expandable hardware. (https://store.nintendo.com/ng3/browse/productDetailColorSizePicker.jsp?productId=prod105 17)We know this for a fact that it's possible with the existing handheld's ability to have equipment attached to it. Imagine a 3ds with a Wiil style attachment that gave it a similar profile to the Gamepad. Clunky, sure. Impossible? It's been the '10s for half a decade now, and we had this figured out for a long time again. Additionally, if they had the foresight to consider this for their console before hand, it would have been possible to set up a second sticks, and make improvements on the current one. This alternate version of the Nintendo line up would include a 2DS (released concurrently with the Wii U) with a proper set of joysticks. Some 3DS games can support 2 joysticks already.

Now, having to repeat myself would normally make me want to snark you to hell and back, but you seem like a reasonable person. You know what you did wrong, and I think you'll laugh it off.

tonberrian

2014-11-17, 08:27 PM

See above. Multiple game pads cause framerate drop. Some games drop, like Sonic Boom (may be a result of poor programming). Either way, the Gamepad does tax the console's power, since it streams the graphics processing. There is no question that the theoretical performance of the console's graphic are superior without it.

Expandable hardware. (https://store.nintendo.com/ng3/browse/productDetailColorSizePicker.jsp?productId=prod105 17)We know this for a fact that it's possible with the existing handheld's ability to have equipment attached to it. Imagine a 3ds with a Wiil style attachment that gave it a similar profile to the Gamepad. Clunky, sure. Impossible? It's been the '10s for half a decade now, and we had this figured out for a long time again. Additionally, if they had the foresight to consider this for their console before hand, it would have been possible to set up a second sticks, and make improvements on the current one. This alternate version of the Nintendo line up would include a 2DS (released concurrently with the Wii U) with a proper set of joysticks. Some 3DS games can support 2 joysticks already.

Now, having to repeat myself would normally make me want to snark you to hell and back, but you seem like a reasonable person. You know what you did wrong, and I think you'll laugh it off.

The base 3ds joystick is not console quality. The second stick peripheral is not console quality. Any version of the 2ds designed to be able to function as a stand-alone portable gaming console cannot have a console-quality joystick. It needs the nub in order to not be awkward in pockets and things, but any nub design will be inferior to a traditional control stick by virtue of being a nub. That's just how it works.

Rakaydos

2014-11-17, 08:59 PM

See above. Multiple game pads cause framerate drop. Some games drop, like Sonic Boom (may be a result of poor programming). Either way, the Gamepad does tax the console's power, since it streams the graphics processing. There is no question that the theoretical performance of the console's graphic are superior without it.

You misunderstand the gamepad framerate issue.

It's not that multiple gamepads are taxing... it's that the system was designed to handle sending out 60 frmes per second to the gamepad with almost zero latency, and a different 60 frames per second to the TV, and if you have multiple gamepads, they take turns drinking from the gamepad output. That's not an issue with the pad's hardware, that's a product of the compromises nintendo had to accept to get screen latency of a wireless controller so low. It CERTIANTLY doesnt affect the console's HDMI output, which holds a solid 60 FPS on most of the games I've played, whatever the action on screen.

That is also why the 3DS as a controller wouldnt work. Grab a PSVita, synch it to the PS4, and play a PS4 game on it. It will have noticable lag. (you see something, react, the controller transmits it, the system receves it, processes it, sends out a ne image, the controller receves it, processes it and displayes it. then you can react again.) The gamepad does not, because nintendo put a lot of optimization into it.

danzibr

2014-11-18, 12:56 PM

Rather than quote a bajillion things:

1) I'm quite certain you can connect (at least) 2 gamepads to a Wii U.
2) Controllers don't need 2 analog sticks.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-18, 01:02 PM

Rather than quote a bajillion things:

2) Controllers don't need 2 analog sticks.

They really do.

Not having two analog sticks massively reduces the variety of games you can effectively deliver. All first and most third person games simply need camera control which is far better achieved without taking away other functions by placing it on an analog stick.

There's a reason dual analog very swiftly became the norm for console controllers, it's simply better than having one.

danzibr

2014-11-18, 02:07 PM

They really do.

Not having two analog sticks massively reduces the variety of games you can effectively deliver. All first and most third person games simply need camera control which is far better achieved without taking away other functions by placing it on an analog stick.

There's a reason dual analog very swiftly became the norm for console controllers, it's simply better than having one.
The Oculus Rift is going to be modern gaming soon. I don't think its controller would need two analog sticks.

GloatingSwine

2014-11-18, 02:34 PM

The Oculus Rift is going to be modern gaming soon. I don't think its controller would need two analog sticks.

And 3D is the future of movies.

Oh wait.

Oculus Rift is going to predominantly start as a niche experience, and quite frankly the majority of modern games are simply not suitable for it, given what it requires. Third person perspective is still by far the most common which is bad for VR, VR absolutely requires high frame rates which are not currently being achieved, etc. (and Sony's project Morpheus is even further from utility, too narrow FoV, frame rate, and resolution make a perfect storm of simulation sickness)

danzibr

2014-11-18, 02:50 PM

Common sense.

You'd need two proper analogue sticks.

Minimum.

This is not optional for a modern home console.

The 3DS is simply not an acceptable input device for a home console. End of story.
Niche or not, the rift is (soon to be) a modern home console, is it not?

GloatingSwine

2014-11-18, 04:30 PM

Niche or not, the rift is (soon to be) a modern home console, is it not?

Err, no.

It's a PC only peripheral which requires games to be specifically made or adapted for it. It will also need a relatively powerful graphics card given that it absolutely requires high frame rates (60fps minimum, people report that 120 is better).

Rakaydos

2014-11-18, 07:05 PM

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/e3-2014-miyamoto-tries-oculus-rift-what-s-your-dream-nintendo-vr-game/1100-6420464/

Given that Miyamoto is nintendo's golden child and can ask for whatever hardware he wants to make any game... given that Nintendo has already experienced the pitfalls of VR gaming with the Virtual Boy... Do you think the next generation Nintendo system will have VR support? What did nintendo do wrong with the Virtual Boy that they can fix his time around? What technoligies have improved to make it a viable system?

BeerMug Paladin

2014-11-18, 10:17 PM

I suspect VR is ultimately not going to be a thing for a while yet. Don't get me wrong, the idea is neat. But I have seen 3d movies in theaters and played 3d games on my TV, and had friends do the same, and generally have noticed mostly negative reactions ranging from mild quesiness to finding it too 'busy'.

Few people seem to like it all that much. I don't care for 3d movies or games much myself. I mostly keep the 3d off on my 3ds. (But I thought Uncharted 3 was pretty great.) I can only imagine that VR games would be generally less well recieved than that. Since there's the same problems with 3d, but amplified due to the conditions of the VR.

And even though the idea of VR is neat, it seems to me that very few game types would actually be served well with a first person perspective. Not that a gimmick like that couldn't just be used to give the player a third person perspective, but that would only serve to highlight how pointless the technology would be. 3d TVs can already do that stuff and it's not catching on.

Not that a technology being pointless will stop a company from trying to roll it out. But those tries don't tend to work very well.

Man, I remember when the consoles had more inputs on them than the controllers. I'm fine with one button gameplay if the gameplay is good. I don't think the quantity or type of inputs matters all that much compared to how the gameplay actually works.

Now back to Maboshi's Arcade.