surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Before there was even Nintendo (yes, well before), gaming has attempted to give purpose and narrative to the games despite the claim, foolishly, by many a gamer. And yes, before anyone says "Derp, Nintendo was around over a hundred years, asshole," I am talking 3100B.C. Senet is among the worlds first KNOWN board games and even features the first known instances of dice, which were flattened sticks with marks on one side and unmarked on the other. Players would drop a set of sticks to "roll" so it could be said this was a d2. The game itself was a race exploring the purpose of life and the afterlife. Featured throughout the board were locations where one would encounter the gods and it was held in such high esteem among Egyptian society, it was often found in the tombs with other objects necessary for the journey into the afterlife. Many other games, throughout human history, had an abstraction of some story which, through time, we often neglect. Chess had a rich narrative theme, as did MANY of the native american games. Suttaku was a push your luck game that tried to teach players to be patient with what they have for greed will cost them everything. This tradition holds true in modern gaming with the advent and continued popularity of tabletop role playing games.
I mention all of this because, as gamers hate to do, they cannot imagine listening to a man tell you a 5 minute description of a cavern you're going to move small tokens through. In the minds eye, this place is dark, fearful, and loaded with dangers that may descend upon the party from the infinite darkness. In reality, it's a filled in space of giant grid paper.
Current video gamers have this notion that anything which does not directly involve the gameplay, is unnecessary and as such, useless. It's a cute notion and, while complaining about how things were much different in the old days, they really weren't. Technology has progressed and so those cut-scenes in Ninja Gaiden we ALL used to nut over have become more and more elaborate and, dare I say, better. If gameplay was king and held no purpose over narrative, then I couldn't mention "The lights are out, beware of the Grue" and have three fellow nerds laugh. That would have been a completely lost reference.
Now the problem you seem to be having is in titles like the Quick Time Event. This, I don't even understand. Games, as a medium, have gotten too complex for people who are not into them. We can debate this issue all you like but look at what Wii did. It said "fuck gamers and your overly complex annoying prattling bullshit" and was successful just because of that. Consider a game like God of War, as you have above. Without the QTE sequences, the game would be reduced to simple health bar reduction with no satisfying climax, ala Too Human. With the cinematic kills, it gives us an ending to an "epic" battle and creates a sequence of events that, should they be fully interactive, would be such a specialized set of commands, no one would bother to attempt it. This is also why fighting games became excessively niche, by the way. By claiming it should be something we simply watch, well then you fall into the other trap of it not being a part of the game and as such, should be fast forwared or skipped after the first couple times you do it. It's a slippery slope and one gamers claim to hate but QTEs engage the player while giving them a sequence of glorious awesome than only people 100% devoted to the game over years could actually experience. You claim it's less interactive and that may be fair, but it's a damn sight more satisfying than swiping a sword and watching something flash red.
As for being disappointed about something being on a linear path (Uncharted 3), this is yet another issue. Let's say I want to play Poker, but I don't like how I can't claim a players discard. Then I don't REALLY want to play Poker, instead, I want Rummy. It's not Pokers fault that it's not Rummy and as such, I shouldn't hold it against Poker. Instead, I should simply acknowledge that what I want from the game is NOT what it's designed for. You're young, consider this possibility. Uncharted 1 and 2 seemed less linear because you simply weren't good enough at games yet. I mention this because ALL Uncharted games I played were critical path adventures with overly obvious puzzles. This isn't a downfall in the third, it's a franchise thing.
All in all, I think gamers struggle with this concept of what they consider to be worthwhile gameplay versus what others want. Sony is, in essence, pursuing what their market wants. But it's not all they are doing as Sound Shapes and the new Sly Cooper both extole thevirtues you want. When you focus on one hand, you tend to miss the amazing shit the other is doing.
I mention all of this because, as gamers hate to do, they cannot imagine listening to a man tell you a 5 minute description of a cavern you're going to move small tokens through. In the minds eye, this place is dark, fearful, and loaded with dangers that may descend upon the party from the infinite darkness. In reality, it's a filled in space of giant grid paper.
Current video gamers have this notion that anything which does not directly involve the gameplay, is unnecessary and as such, useless. It's a cute notion and, while complaining about how things were much different in the old days, they really weren't. Technology has progressed and so those cut-scenes in Ninja Gaiden we ALL used to nut over have become more and more elaborate and, dare I say, better. If gameplay was king and held no purpose over narrative, then I couldn't mention "The lights are out, beware of the Grue" and have three fellow nerds laugh. That would have been a completely lost reference.
Now the problem you seem to be having is in titles like the Quick Time Event. This, I don't even understand. Games, as a medium, have gotten too complex for people who are not into them. We can debate this issue all you like but look at what Wii did. It said "fuck gamers and your overly complex annoying prattling bullshit" and was successful just because of that. Consider a game like God of War, as you have above. Without the QTE sequences, the game would be reduced to simple health bar reduction with no satisfying climax, ala Too Human. With the cinematic kills, it gives us an ending to an "epic" battle and creates a sequence of events that, should they be fully interactive, would be such a specialized set of commands, no one would bother to attempt it. This is also why fighting games became excessively niche, by the way. By claiming it should be something we simply watch, well then you fall into the other trap of it not being a part of the game and as such, should be fast forwared or skipped after the first couple times you do it. It's a slippery slope and one gamers claim to hate but QTEs engage the player while giving them a sequence of glorious awesome than only people 100% devoted to the game over years could actually experience. You claim it's less interactive and that may be fair, but it's a damn sight more satisfying than swiping a sword and watching something flash red.
As for being disappointed about something being on a linear path (Uncharted 3), this is yet another issue. Let's say I want to play Poker, but I don't like how I can't claim a players discard. Then I don't REALLY want to play Poker, instead, I want Rummy. It's not Pokers fault that it's not Rummy and as such, I shouldn't hold it against Poker. Instead, I should simply acknowledge that what I want from the game is NOT what it's designed for. You're young, consider this possibility. Uncharted 1 and 2 seemed less linear because you simply weren't good enough at games yet. I mention this because ALL Uncharted games I played were critical path adventures with overly obvious puzzles. This isn't a downfall in the third, it's a franchise thing.
All in all, I think gamers struggle with this concept of what they consider to be worthwhile gameplay versus what others want. Sony is, in essence, pursuing what their market wants. But it's not all they are doing as Sound Shapes and the new Sly Cooper both extole thevirtues you want. When you focus on one hand, you tend to miss the amazing shit the other is doing.
Well, like I said earlier, not all of the non gameplay elements are bad. Just not as important as gameplay itself. It's not that they have no purpose, just it shouldn't be the main focus, as it doesn't make a game.
The point you make about God of War not having enough substance without the quick time events I find a little irrelevant. I pointed to other games that have satisfying, full filling boss battles like Zelda does. QTE's don't really add much complexity or actual meat to the gameplay, just really kind of drag it out. Like my previous example of Zelda, what if there were specific places you had to attack with specific weapons to defeat bosses? They don't have to be just spamming some giant's toe until qte to win. What if, as an example you used Hade's weapon to grapple up an enemy before attacking a weak spot with the Cestus or something like that?
I'm looking for something with a little more challenge and something that provides good satisfaction for the player after they beat it. I've never beaten a boss in God of War with a QTE and thought to myself, "Wow, that was difficult and rewarding! I'm proud of my problem solving and new found abilities!" like I do after beating a boss in Zelda, or Megaman, ore something like that (But maybe in a little less dorky way).
With your points about Uncharted, I feel that the argument I presented in my editorial was more so aimed at making the game fun to play, not trying to have it previde something that it isn't. I know this strategy works, because I've seen it successfully put into action in Uncharted 2. Not just that it wasn't as linear, but more so that the gameplay elements were more fun. In terms of the linearity I mentioned, I don't mean doing something completely different, I just mean solving problems in different ways. Like climbing over different obstacles, or taking out enemies in different ways.
And yeah, it's not the only thing Sony's doing, and it's not limited to just Sony, I just used them as the example for this article. And I know about Sly Cooper, I'm a huge fan! I did a let's play of Sly 1 and of Sly 2 in HD on my youtube channel, and probably will do one of Sly 3 and 4 in the future.
Thanks for commenting! Oh, and would you give me a thumbs up please? Thanks.
The point you make about God of War not having enough substance without the quick time events I find a little irrelevant. I pointed to other games that have satisfying, full filling boss battles like Zelda does. QTE's don't really add much complexity or actual meat to the gameplay, just really kind of drag it out. Like my previous example of Zelda, what if there were specific places you had to attack with specific weapons to defeat bosses? They don't have to be just spamming some giant's toe until qte to win. What if, as an example you used Hade's weapon to grapple up an enemy before attacking a weak spot with the Cestus or something like that?
I'm looking for something with a little more challenge and something that provides good satisfaction for the player after they beat it. I've never beaten a boss in God of War with a QTE and thought to myself, "Wow, that was difficult and rewarding! I'm proud of my problem solving and new found abilities!" like I do after beating a boss in Zelda, or Megaman, ore something like that (But maybe in a little less dorky way).
With your points about Uncharted, I feel that the argument I presented in my editorial was more so aimed at making the game fun to play, not trying to have it previde something that it isn't. I know this strategy works, because I've seen it successfully put into action in Uncharted 2. Not just that it wasn't as linear, but more so that the gameplay elements were more fun. In terms of the linearity I mentioned, I don't mean doing something completely different, I just mean solving problems in different ways. Like climbing over different obstacles, or taking out enemies in different ways.
And yeah, it's not the only thing Sony's doing, and it's not limited to just Sony, I just used them as the example for this article. And I know about Sly Cooper, I'm a huge fan! I did a let's play of Sly 1 and of Sly 2 in HD on my youtube channel, and probably will do one of Sly 3 and 4 in the future.
Thanks for commenting! Oh, and would you give me a thumbs up please? Thanks.
"Games should be about gameplay" - yup, I agree with you there. I think that the problem is that so many people like different types of gameplay. Personally I hate games like Donkey Kong (which I only played in arcades) because I find it so repetitious - but other people thrive on the challenge. I too dislike Heavy Rain, which was ok... but more of an interactive movie than a game - but I can also see that many people would enjoy the slower pace and actually appreciate that it is an interactive movie.
I love online shooter games... yet many other gamers deride these as "all the same" when there are just as many different forms of shooters as there are platformers. Same goes for RPG's... I adore open world western games like Skyrim but others point to the lack of a decent story... personally I don't like JRPG's because they are so very story driven and mostly I don't "get" the stories involved (never having been a young boy!) LOL!
Anyway... I'm rambling, but gameplay means something different to everyone and I guess all we can do is celebrate that there are so many options out there nowadays - something for everyone, including each of us if we look around a bit!
... and welcome to Dtoid!
I love online shooter games... yet many other gamers deride these as "all the same" when there are just as many different forms of shooters as there are platformers. Same goes for RPG's... I adore open world western games like Skyrim but others point to the lack of a decent story... personally I don't like JRPG's because they are so very story driven and mostly I don't "get" the stories involved (never having been a young boy!) LOL!
Anyway... I'm rambling, but gameplay means something different to everyone and I guess all we can do is celebrate that there are so many options out there nowadays - something for everyone, including each of us if we look around a bit!
... and welcome to Dtoid!
I'm not saying someone should try to make a wonder game that appeases everyone, rather that games in general should focus on their gameplay over other elements, whatever that may be. I understand how you feel with Heavy Rain and other games like it.
Totally get your point about FPS. Most non-FPS players group all FPSs as the same, where we know no Halo plays like any CoD. And hahahaha! I was a young boy once, and even I don't get most of the stories lol.
Yep! And thanks.
Totally get your point about FPS. Most non-FPS players group all FPSs as the same, where we know no Halo plays like any CoD. And hahahaha! I was a young boy once, and even I don't get most of the stories lol.
Yep! And thanks.
Actually, I find most Zelda bosses fairly unexciting. I know, I know, weird. But I'm reminded when I was about your age, poor, and my new Step brother and friends were stuck on a boss in Link to the Past. As a Genesis player (did I mention I was poor and fuck $75 average game price?), my Zelda exposure was limited to NES. But having played a bunch of other RPGs including Landstalker and Wonder Boy in Monster World, I asked the simple question. "What item did you get in this dungeon?" When they answered the Hammer, my response was using the Hammer. They scoffed, laughed, and tried it. Sure enough, The Hammer was the answer. The item you get in that dungeon is ALWAYS the answer. It's not challenging or even difficult to figure out the solution as it is ALWAYS whatever item you found in that dungeon. Afterwards, you simply keep dodging until you can get your blow in, lather, rinse, repeat. This is the problem with a lot of Zelda games as they aren't so much of a puzzle, but rather brute forcing a solution. Only the Water Temple was remotely a puzzle and everyone bitched about that one for being "too hard" then we wonder why Zelda games nowadays have to explain shit to you 700 times.
I understand the fun and appeal of Zelda as I still dabble from time to time, but the complaint you have about the giants toe all ring true for me with Zelda bosses. Visually impressive, cinematic, yet not very hard to figure out the solution. In GoW, it's simply cycling the stagger combo and in Zelda it's wielding whatever magical mcguffin some dumbass monster leaves lying about.
I understand the fun and appeal of Zelda as I still dabble from time to time, but the complaint you have about the giants toe all ring true for me with Zelda bosses. Visually impressive, cinematic, yet not very hard to figure out the solution. In GoW, it's simply cycling the stagger combo and in Zelda it's wielding whatever magical mcguffin some dumbass monster leaves lying about.
Welcome and great job! I agree with you for the most part; especially in regards to the shift from Uncharted 2 to 3 and with Quick Time Events being pretty lame. Although, I must admit that I enjoyed Heavy Rain. I think it got away with QTE's because the whole game was designed around them. The thing that bothers me is action games that just suddenly throw QTE's at you out of nowhere. God of War, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil come to mind. I hate it when I'm immersed in a cut scene and then suddenly my character dies due to an unexpected quick time event.
I guess I'm one of the few remaining gamers that actually likes QTEs. After trudging thru Skyward Sword, I thought the Zelda formula should look to God of War And Uncharted for some inspiration. Boss battles need to evolve past "attack here 3-7 times" while the action in the levels felt static. Unpopular thoughts I'm sure.
Nice post.
I like you suggestions, but you hit the other extreme. Quick time event aren't bad in my opinion. They can enrich the game if they are placed right. God of War simply overdone it in this point. The game starts event during a battle and this is the wrong step. in this moment the player has already a plan what he will use and how he will fight and they are making a cut through his whole planing. They throw him out of his play. Give me a quick time event but only at the end of the battle where i can give the last blows to my enemy. Why should i battle through i cutscene if the oponen isn't defeated? I like awesome moments, i like cutscenes but in the right place.
And my next point goes to sheppy. Yes in Zelda it is simple to find out what tool you have to use to defeat a boss. But when and how exactly do you use it and are you able to use it under pressure? It is not only about figuring it out. It is about actually doing the thing you figuered out. In Ocarina of Time i managed to clear the water temple in one run without problems. And then i came to the boss I knew how to defeat him but after the battle started I realized it wouldn't be as simple as I though. After managing to play ping pong with boss as the ball against the wall using perfect timed hits I could defeat him. The challenge isn't finding the solution but to improve your skills and your timing in this battle.
And my last point goes to Elsa. You're right JRPGs are story driven. But they are also challenges. Try to defeat a weapon in FF or even a simple boss in Dragon Quest. OMG they beat the shit out of you in seconds. You need a perfect plan to defeat them. The right decision in the right place. Afterwards you get you next step in the story. The point is: You manage to reach the highest level and to get the best weapons ans skills but there is always an enemy you can't defeat using this tools randomly. Where are such enemies in western RPGs? For example Skyrim. After reaching the highes level and getting the best weapons I defeated the stronges enemy without sweat or any tactic. Just randomly spaming shouts and hits. Yeah I needed to find out what shout is the best in which situation. But finding out the solution was the only challange I had and this wasn't even a challange.
Give the player more than one step of challenge. First he needs to find the right tools. Second he need to find out how he have to use this tools and finally he need to use it. Don't stop after one of the steps and reward him afterward with a cool cutscene or even a quick time event. Because now every quick time event will enrich the situation. After managing so many challenges the player can finish his work with an awesome move. I guarantee you, nearly every player would like it, even in a slow pace game. I was one of the developers behing Anno 1404 and Anno 2070. It is an another genre but the structure is the same. We gave the player more and more challenges. Every challange should be harder than the one before that. We nearly managed that. And at the end he got the biggest challenge of all. Build a monument. He had to plan everything to reach this goal because he was under pressure. Ressources were consumed by the population and he needed them to build the moument. After he managed to build complex production chains, to fullfill the needs of his population and to pay the upkeep through taxes we gave him the last challange. Now build this big and awesome building. Try to build it having the whole economy, which was build up by yourself, in your backhead. After the player managed this final step he got the best reward he could get: HIS city, HIS work presented. He could look at his city, and notice the life in it. And he could say: This was done by me. I overcame so many obstacles and here i am, look how awesome it is. :-)
I like you suggestions, but you hit the other extreme. Quick time event aren't bad in my opinion. They can enrich the game if they are placed right. God of War simply overdone it in this point. The game starts event during a battle and this is the wrong step. in this moment the player has already a plan what he will use and how he will fight and they are making a cut through his whole planing. They throw him out of his play. Give me a quick time event but only at the end of the battle where i can give the last blows to my enemy. Why should i battle through i cutscene if the oponen isn't defeated? I like awesome moments, i like cutscenes but in the right place.
And my next point goes to sheppy. Yes in Zelda it is simple to find out what tool you have to use to defeat a boss. But when and how exactly do you use it and are you able to use it under pressure? It is not only about figuring it out. It is about actually doing the thing you figuered out. In Ocarina of Time i managed to clear the water temple in one run without problems. And then i came to the boss I knew how to defeat him but after the battle started I realized it wouldn't be as simple as I though. After managing to play ping pong with boss as the ball against the wall using perfect timed hits I could defeat him. The challenge isn't finding the solution but to improve your skills and your timing in this battle.
And my last point goes to Elsa. You're right JRPGs are story driven. But they are also challenges. Try to defeat a weapon in FF or even a simple boss in Dragon Quest. OMG they beat the shit out of you in seconds. You need a perfect plan to defeat them. The right decision in the right place. Afterwards you get you next step in the story. The point is: You manage to reach the highest level and to get the best weapons ans skills but there is always an enemy you can't defeat using this tools randomly. Where are such enemies in western RPGs? For example Skyrim. After reaching the highes level and getting the best weapons I defeated the stronges enemy without sweat or any tactic. Just randomly spaming shouts and hits. Yeah I needed to find out what shout is the best in which situation. But finding out the solution was the only challange I had and this wasn't even a challange.
Give the player more than one step of challenge. First he needs to find the right tools. Second he need to find out how he have to use this tools and finally he need to use it. Don't stop after one of the steps and reward him afterward with a cool cutscene or even a quick time event. Because now every quick time event will enrich the situation. After managing so many challenges the player can finish his work with an awesome move. I guarantee you, nearly every player would like it, even in a slow pace game. I was one of the developers behing Anno 1404 and Anno 2070. It is an another genre but the structure is the same. We gave the player more and more challenges. Every challange should be harder than the one before that. We nearly managed that. And at the end he got the biggest challenge of all. Build a monument. He had to plan everything to reach this goal because he was under pressure. Ressources were consumed by the population and he needed them to build the moument. After he managed to build complex production chains, to fullfill the needs of his population and to pay the upkeep through taxes we gave him the last challange. Now build this big and awesome building. Try to build it having the whole economy, which was build up by yourself, in your backhead. After the player managed this final step he got the best reward he could get: HIS city, HIS work presented. He could look at his city, and notice the life in it. And he could say: This was done by me. I overcame so many obstacles and here i am, look how awesome it is. :-)
