Computer Games Are Dead...

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I think what you mentioned above is more of a problem with GTA IV as opposed to your attention span. It's been noted on here before about how overly 'cinematic' it can be. There was at least some humour in San Andreas, for example. GTA IV seemed too...real.

For me, San Andreas and GTAIII are the po-faced ones, with San Andreas bordering on tasteless in all the wrong ways.

Vice City is hilarious and GTAIV is the greatest satirical work of the 21st century. Genuinely. Spiteful, organic, furious, dripping with disdain and creative energy around every single corner. It's a fully realised satirical world. Magnificent.

[mobias]

GTAIV is the greatest satirical work of the 21st century.

Eh??!! I though the satire in GTAIV was at best just naff but mostly just utterly juvinile. Vice city was superb. It didn't stretch itself too far and with the wealth of material available to it in 80's cheesiness it didn't over do it. San Andreas was definitely not as good but the humour was still there. It clearly struggled with it's material though. With GTAIV it just seemed uttery bankrupt of originality and genuine fun. Babies overnight.com - I mean fuck off, it's sixth form satire. You could tell the jokes were written by a bunch of games designers trying desperately hard to strike a balance between being funny and profound and failing dismally. It also jarred terribly with the with rest of the game falling over itself to be taken seriously and appear like an episode of the Wire. It was a monstrous backfire which I believe Rockstar themselves are close to admitting.

[I accept the terms of the]

YEAH HAHA

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I utterly disagree, but then that's obvious as you've just utterly disagreed. :)

In my opinion, there is a self-contained majesty to GTA IV- the only real let down is the again unbalanced car physics and poor shooting controls. Satirically I see no problem at all with the main character coming over to find that the American dream is a cynical featureless counterfeit played out in an urban jungle- I don't find that part of the story jars at all.

It seems to me every effort has been made to make a sort of consistent sandbox of satire on modern American culture- the level of detail, not necessarily in context with gaming, though it is rich, but in terms of a creative endeavour is astounding.

I was simply blown away by GTA IV- it is for me the first game since the original to break boundaries and provide an answer to the promise that GTA III, Vice City, San Andreas and all the spinoffs failed to live up to.

The sheer level of vitrolic, visceral distate, hatred of aspirational contemporary American urban life seeps through every single pore of this game. I don't find any of the lampooning or parodies to be lame at all, and I wonder if this is somehow not good, then what is good?

I'm not going over the top, I just find the game astounding- if Rockstar are doubting themselves over it then I feel sorry for them. It came as close as a game has ever done to taking personal deep seated cultural grievances and laying them bare. The just utter stinking sneering distate for the whole urban landscape, and life, and people, and culture is breathtaking.

I know a lot of people on here disagree, but then a lot of people on here support Spurs and think The Dark Knight and the Wii are good things.

[NaCl]

I utterly disagree, but then that's obvious as you've just utterly disagreed. :)

In my opinion, there is a self-contained majesty to GTA IV- the only real let down is the again unbalanced car physics and poor shooting controls. Satirically I see no problem at all with the main character coming over to find that the American dream is a cynical featureless counterfeit played out in an urban jungle- I don't find that part of the story jars at all.

It seems to me every effort has been made to make a sort of consistent sandbox of satire on modern American culture- the level of detail, not necessarily in context with gaming, though it is rich, but in terms of a creative endeavour is astounding.

I was simply blown away by GTA IV- it is for me the first game since the original to break boundaries and provide an answer to the promise that GTA III, Vice City, San Andreas and all the spinoffs failed to live up to.

The sheer level of vitrolic, visceral distate, hatred of aspirational contemporary American urban life seeps through every single pore of this game. I don't find any of the lampooning or parodies to be lame at all, and I wonder if this is somehow not good, then what is good?

I'm not going over the top, I just find the game astounding- if Rockstar are doubting themselves over it then I feel sorry for them. It came as close as a game has ever done to taking personal deep seated cultural grievances and laying them bare. The just utter stinking sneering distate for the whole urban landscape, and life, and people, and culture is breathtaking.

I know a lot of people on here disagree, but then a lot of people on here support Spurs and think The Dark Knight and the Wii are good things.

I agree with everything you said asides from the car physics- they're actually excellent, however what Rockstar failed to do was put an on-screen gauge of your speed, causing everyone to not realize they're trying to make a crack-stupid turn at 120mph. If you're using an Xbox 360 controller, play with the trigger sensitivity, its like operating a real gas/break pedal, where discretion is key.

[Space ghost]

I find that turning the auto aim off improves the shooting controls as well, you can set it so it doesn't automatically snap lock onto targets allowing you to aim 'free hand'

Much easier.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Driving on GTA has always been fun, but the cars tip over too easily. It makes driving ambulances and trucks especially massively too top heavy- they also topple in an odd slow-motion way.

If they're going to tip over at top speed the effect would be quicker and more powerful feeling, not the jelly like effect of that.

Bit nitpicky but it seems relatively easy to make driving games these days.

The shooting on GTA still needs quite a bit of improving.

It's a bit of an issue for the game because driving and shooting are its two main aspects of gameplay.

[Johnny Textface]

I thought they got the shooting pretty much nailed in Red Dead Redemption.

[Space ghost]

It's spot on in RDR, it almost makes it too easy. By halfway through the game I was bulls eyeing every enemy straight in the head within seconds of them making an appearance.  Couple that with the ability to slow down time and mark several targets at once and you're a rhinestone killing machine.

Was pretty mystified by the ' you just have to get lucky ' comment earlier in the thread.

[Papercut]

How can you not be excited about Everybody's Rhythm Heaven:

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/somj/index.html

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/somj/norinori/index.html

Most of Nintendo's 3DS stuff so far has been pretty damned great, not touched the PS3/360 for a while outside of Rock Band.

[mobias]

I think the reason GTA creates so much heated debate is that it tries to be so many different things to so many different people. It's created such a mass audience for itself and it's got to please everyone. Some people want it to be the gritty crime drama, some people want it to be a ridiculously over the top sand box game. I just want it to be fun but also engaging. GTAIV was just rarely that much fun. However good or bad it might of been at satirising US culture it can't escape the fact that it had been doing exactly same thing and saying exactly the same thing for three whole games before. The message was getting stale to begin with and as one critic pointed out having a pop at rampant US consumerism by one of the biggest and most rampantly powerful games companies out there is starting to seem a tad hypocritical.

Regarding it's driving physics, I actually quite liked them. There was a clearly a decision made to make them deliberately challenging so you you would have to become good by sheer skill.
Definitely agree about the shooting being better in RDR. I think in the next GTA there will clearly be lessons learned from RDR and it wouldn't surprise me if the facial animation detail from LA Noir was brought over too.

[Little Hoover]

There is certainly a problem with games taking too long to develop these days, it's not at all unusual for games to be in 3 year, 5 year development cycles. The thing is I want games to be out when their ready as opposed to being rushed out to suit publishers annual turnovers, but it's getting ridiculous and it feels like HD graphics have made things more restrictive, because creating big expansive 3d worlds takes too much time.

This affects modern FPS's where the maps are much more narrow, or FFXIII: Corridors. In a sense you had more freedom to explore in the 2d days because create branching paths in top-down 2d. It really feels like technology for creating graphics has got ahead of itself because each individual blade of grass has to be fully-rendered.

[BlueSkies]

The problem with computer games is that they're utterly shit compared to listening and playing and making music. If I devote a few days to a game (and I do a few times a year), I mostly come away feeling like it was a pointless waste of time. Where's the soul, brother?

Brandon Boyer, chairman of the Independent Games Festival, recently said this:

"People value music more because it adds an emotional pitch and rhythm and color to life, it speaks to something more essential, it reminds them of a place and time, it reminds them of where they were when they first experienced it and who they experienced it with... And there's no reason that we shouldn't also be aspiring to that same exact sort of resonance."

And he's absolutely right. For a long time now my interest in video games has been waning because, as I've come to appreciate all of the many, many ways I can use the limited time I have on the Earth, it's harder and harder to justify spending that time on something such as a video game, which is not emotionally rewarding or inspiring, doesn't change me as a person or make me appreciate the world around me more. All things which good art should do. There ARE exceptions though, games which have changed they way I see the world, and because a game like this crops up every now and then, I'll keep gaming in my life. I've long since given up on consoles, and mainly keep my eye on pc indie game development. Indie developers appreciate the art of games more, probably because these games are usually labours of love, made by a handful of people, if not single-handedly; games created by gamers for gamers, with no intent on profits. As such there's no compromise in artistic vision.

[eluc55]

Why does a game have to aspire to that, though? People never say of watching or playing sport, "it adds no emotional pitch and rhythm and color to life"; the same applies to cooking and eating good food, or appreciating architecture, fashion, or star gazing; games should be an experience in their own right, with no obligation to emulate the strengths of films, drama, and music. Indeed, they should focus on their own advantages; interactivity, rewarding experimentation, exploration, puzzle solving, creativity and reactions. The need to make them emotionally engaging, or life transforming is, in many cases, missing the point of what makes them so succesful in the first place.   

[Little Hoover]

But people do get emotionally attached to sports teams, forming a bond with an athlete or team is what makes it so exciting for people to watch, and similarly playing a game can be more involving if you care about the characters in the game. I understand your point and there's room for games that are just throwaway fun and plenty of games could do without forcing in a story, but plenty of games are enhanced by it.

There's also plenty of potential for games in using interactivity as a unique device in character development and storytelling.

[eluc55]

But people do get emotionally attached to sports teams, forming a bond with an athlete or team is what makes it so exciting for people to watch, and similarly playing a game can be more involving if you care about the characters in the game.

I'm not saying people can't form an emotional bond to games; rather that they shouldn't be required to produce the exact same emotional response as music or films. They're a different beast, and the response they produce from us can be different from the response we get to a film.

To use the sport example; football doesn't teach us about humanity, really. It can't teach us about the love of a brother, the loss of a wife, or the beauty of a moutain range... but it can produce a very different emotional response than any film, because it's an entirely different experience. Why do games have to produce the same emotional responses as films, or drama, just because it's a visual medium?

I understand your point and there's room for games that are just throwaway fun and plenty of games could do without forcing in a story, but plenty of games are enhanced by it.

I'm not saying games are throwaway fun, anymore than I'd say comedy, films or football are throwaway fun. The experience is just as valid as watching a film, or eating good food, or making love or posting on CaB. Its just a different experience that only seems less valid when we try and compare it against a genre, or experience, with a different aim or purpose.

There's also plenty of potential for games in using interactivity as a unique device in character development and storytelling.

This, of course, it true as well. It's just that it shouldn't be seen as the be all and end all, or the gold standard, or the definition of a "masterpiece" in gaming terms. I don't like the snobbery that surrounds "cinematic" games, over more allegedly frivalous ones.

[The Boston Crab]

I actually think all of the things you named, besides games, do add emotional pitch and rhythm and colour to life.

Games are nothing beyond distracting tools. Although they fail at s(t)imulating the emotional responses of any other artform (and I agree that they shouldn't be judged against such standards), they have nothing to offer beyond extremely mild gratification. They're of about the same value as a cigarette or throwing litter into a bin. That said, watching exceptional players in competition offers an enormous amount in terms of learning experience and the value of mental fortitude/concentration. I also admire the co-ordination and timing. Something like this, for example, gives me goosebumps after watching it hundreds of times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuSMEVhPvTY

[eluc55]

You never feel tension, or relief, or satisfaction, or frustration, or confusion, or amusement at a game? You've never been awed by the massive, beautiful world sprawling out before you, or overwhealmed by the possiblites newly opened up to you, or felt curious when exploring? You've never been thrilled when you pull something off and look fucking cool doing it, or when you're racing along, and even the slightest mistake could fuck it all up but my god you just went and bloody did it!!!!? You don't get competetive when playing against friends, or a sense of teamwork when working cooperatively with them? You haven't sat in a room with people all cheering and whooping as you kick their asses on smash bothers, or as you leap up and down playing mario kart, or any death match worth its salt? You haven't played a great game with other gamers, and everyone suggesting things and cheering things, or screaming "Jesus Christ he's got a fucking chainsaw!", getting worked up by the experience you're all sharing?

And even if you haven't, I still don't see what's wrong with a distraction or escape from the real world. Why's that so shameful; why's that something we shouldn't enjoy or want to do?

[The Boston Crab]

First of all, I'd divide multiplayer/group gaming and single-player as they're entirely different things. The former can be another great shared experience built around friendship dynamics much much more than the actual mechanics of the game. Yes, I've had enormous fun playing games with my friends. I've had similar experiences playing cards. I've fantastic memories of playing Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, SM3, SMB, Zelda 2 and SF4 with my brothers. I've vastly better memories of sharing good food with them and admiring architecture together, without even mentioning sport.

As for single-player, you've absolutely nailed it by breaking it down to tension/relief/satisfaction, which is exactly what I was saying. It's about gratification, satisfying hollow objectives which teach us nothing, improve nothing in our lives, and give us no lasting emotion. I don't deny that in the moment, I'm completely engrossed in maintaining a consistent line and my slide timing in Excite Truck, for example, and eking out every last millisecond of air to get as many bonus stars as possible. The moment when I cross the line and achieve my objective is an enormous relief and release of tension...and yet, there's no end to it. It means nothing. There's always another level to recreate that exact same artificial sense of purpose. I won't say I don't get fully involved in it; all I'm saying is that it has very little value beyond that precise moment. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that there are many many other things I could do which I'd enjoy more and learn more from...like, literally anything.

[VegaLA]

[mcbpete]

I wish I was slightly more eloquent when it comes to things like this as in my gut I really feel that I could write pages and pages, but as soon as pen hits paper (well finger hits keys) I completely dry up as to points I wish to make.

Suffice to say I find that the argument of 'computer games are dead' is akin to coming to the conclusion that 'music is dead' after only listening to top40 pop music, or 'films are dead' after only watching summer blockbusters. I agree that so many of commercial games nowadays are bland, derivative and largely soulless, but that's why I don't play those (in the same way that for a music fix I don't buy the latest, erm, Brittany Spears single - does she still make music)

If you spend most of your life deeply in a hobby (like I have with gaming for the last 20 or so years) you tend to gain rather niche interests in what appeals to you. So for me, any game that boasts some pointless over exuberant polygon count or the largest game world since records began I have no interest in. Again comparing this to films, if you're really into cinema I doubt you'd give two shits about it having the most impressive CGI, or is in super-3d-o-scope (in fact they would probably be warning signs for a lack of story) as you're more interested in story and emotional engagement.

For me, when I play a game I base its successes on how I can personally connect to the game and what emotional response I get back from it. And these aren't things like: 'Yeah, I'm going to knock 1/10th of a second off a track' or 'Yay, I killed the boss - I beat the game', the games that most appeal to me are more the calming joy of sitting back and seeing Yorda playing with the birds and childishly experimenting with her environment (Ico); the nostalgic exploration, wonder and wordless storytelling of countless surreal worlds (Knytt Stories, Seiklus, Alex Adventure and Painajainen); and memories and feelings of seemingly endless summer afternoons back in my home in Devon (Flower)

I know the games that most appeal to me are not the most mainstream, but likewise nor is my choice in films, nor in music. The majority of every medium is bland shite, you just have to make an effort to look for the niches that do appeal to you. As an example, my favourite mod for Half Life 2 isn't one that brings the most hardcore multiplayer weapons or highest bodycount - but one that essentially is just you plodding around a coastline for a bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR85LvKNLBU

It may be my pretentious sensibilities, but playing that definitely evokes as much long-term response to me as a film, book or music does.

[Viero_Berlotti]

For me, when I play a game I base its successes on how I can personally connect to the game and what emotional response I get back from it. And these aren't things like: 'Yeah, I'm going to knock 1/10th of a second off a track' or 'Yay, I killed the boss - I beat the game',

You see, I don't see what the problem with those things are. For me it's the sense of achievement, of challenge and reward that are the unique attributes of gaming. I wish more games would concentrate on innovation within those fundamentals rather than trying to create some kind of wishy-washy, open ended 'emotional experience' in an attempt to compete with books, music and films in terms of artistic validity.

[mcbpete]

Horses for courses innit.... luckily there's both types to ensure neither of us get disappointed

And then there's stuff in the middle - Essentially competitive/highscore focussed games but with enough artistic sensibilities to ensure even pretentious twunts like me remain interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8S8EGyVLEo

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It's not like it ought to be a thing that concentrates on one thing over another, both forms are equally valid.

Racing is never going to be much above finishing first or beating a time. Shooting is always going to be wasting the bad guys without being killed.

I do prefer games to be an experience that is something different, and I value unorthodox artistry in games very highly, because it takes a lot of balls to put real money on the line to do something that could backfire so badly. And they stand out so much, it is admirable.

The best games that connect with you emotionally do so in a non-narrative sense. When they compete with books and films on a narrative they quickly lose. However, when you are dealing with a combination of visuals, sound effects and music, the idea that games couldn't and shouldn't be trying to connect with you emotionally is abhorrent; the anathema of making anything.

[madhair60]

Meandering, poorly-written post follows.

I generally find "art" games excruciatingly irritating, especially those where the "art" aspects are clearly substitutes for decent mechanics.  Braid is good as long as I ignore the writing completely - the puzzle design is exquisite in places, and utterly shit in others ("Fickle Companion" is the worst level of anything ever).  Good videogames can deliver the same sort of thrill as a movie, though for me most of that is born from "oh fuck i'm about to die".  The closest I connect to videogames is in stuff like Robotron or Tempest, when stimulus outside of the game completely cease to exist, so demanding is the gameplay, and so perfectly synchronised are your actions with the graphics and sounds.  Unfortunately, only old arcade games (and to a lesser extent new imitations of old arcade games) have that sort of purity.  I could never feel that way about, say, Gears of War, since everything is so well defined that it keeps me firmly aware of what I'm seeing.  In, say, Tempest, it's such a leap to discern that the little claw you play as is a spaceship, that it doesn't matter, and you never think about it.  The gameplay never changes, it just escalates and gets more demanding and complex.  All that matters is those red bowties and green lines don't touch your ship.  There's no plot and no motivation besides a high score and the experience of playing.  When I get firmly into a game of Tempest or Robotron or anything like that, it can get to a point where you can almost lose a few minutes, X-Files style, to the game in a quasi-paranormal circumstance that some gamers ludicrously call "being in the zone".  You absolutely stop thinking about winning, or losing, or what you're doing at all, and you just play on autopilot.  Then you snap out of it, get a kick of adrenaline and immediately die.  Great stuff.

On topic and slightly strawmanny, I don't justify my love of videogames by comparing them to literature or cinema.  However, I don't love just blowing up stuff, I like blowing up stuff as a reward for successful manipulation of engaging mechanics.  I like Call of Duty because clearing a room with a series of difficult headshots is fucking taxing, and thus rewarding.  I like Far Cry 2 because you can walk around a beautifully realised Africa and take screenshots with F12.  I like any game as long as it's clearly done well, and is something more than a cookie-cutter example of its genre.  Christ, though - having said that, a new idea applied badly is still engaging to me.  That's why I find Daikatana fascinating.

[I accept the terms of the]

Fickle Companion is the best level of anything ever!

[madhair60]

The design is alright.  It's the fact that when you're going for the highest puzzle piece, it's extremely glitchy and I lose four times out of five because the key inexplicably flies off elsewhere in the level.

[I accept the terms of the]

It's not glitchy, it's just barely incompatible with the human mind. That's what makes finding a repeatable solution so satisfying.

When the key suddenly jumps 20ft in the air there's a reason for it.

[Viero_Berlotti]

....the idea that games couldn't and shouldn't be trying to connect with you emotionally is abhorrent; the anathema of making anything.

I'm not suggesting that games shouldn't attempt to connect with the gamer emotionally. It's just that I think games should be about what makes them unique as a form of entertainment. For me, the primary concern of a games designer should be the core gaming mechanics of winning and losing, this is where creative innovation, and 'unorthodox artistry' should excel. It's the things you can't see that should provoke the emotional response. The visuals, sound effects and music should compliment it rather than attempt to provide it.

[madhair60]

It's not glitchy, it's just barely incompatible with the human mind. That's what makes finding a repeatable solution so satisfying.

When the key suddenly jumps 20ft in the air there's a reason for it.

What's that?  I'm entirely willing to retract what I said if this can be proved with some consistency, but when playing the level and taking the exact same actions, I would get different results.  Very frustrating and rather inexplicable, especially when the key would launch off to somewhere I hadn't even been.

Edit: Shit!  Wait!  I'm thinking about this as I replay, and it seems like I'm misremembering it.  The reason the key is nipping off is because going up or down the ladder presumably qualified as "frozen/lost" time.  So the key wouldn't be shown to go up and down, it would just jump to the last "active" position, before following the route I took depending on if I walk backwards or forwards.  So the consistent solution seems to be not bopping the key-carrying enemy until he's to the left of the ladder, then going straight up it and right to the door.

Edit 2: Nope, because when I bounce off the enemy I land on the upper level, and when I retreat to get the key it pops onto the ground level.  Do not understand.