"Gamer" expectations discussion.

[Neo Rasa]

<a href="http://s3.cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.asp?board=32495&topic=5148971" target="_blank">http://s3.cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.asp?board=32495&topic=5148971</a>

I don't expect all of you to read this entire link so I'll post up the notable content right here (the game being discussed is Metroid Prime):

"Well why is this game so popular and why did it get such great reviews!? Is it just for the gameplay!? I really don't care for gameplay even though that's the reason games are made for. But I get games for their story, characters, atmossphere, character development. It would also help if it had cut scenes, FMV's, or voice acting. But this isn't the case for Metroid except for a few cut scenes. Anyway tell me what will make me like this game more by these reasons that I posted."

Why does this person not read books or watch movies? Why even "play" videogames?

Does "playing" a videogame now mean to experience an interactive movie instead of immersing oneself into the game?

I feel very old reading this thread. The reason is because I try to keep a reasonably broad range to my taste in entertainment. I think The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari from 1919 is just as good as Bladrunner from 1982. I play the 1986 game Rush 'N Attack just as much as I play the 2002 game Contra: Shattered Soldier and I like the storyline in 1997's Fallout just as much as 1987's Ninja Gaiden. I like level busting in 1988's Ultima installment just as much as in 2001's Shadow Hearts, and I like blasting zombies in House of the Dead just as much as I like running away from my own guilt and madness in the Alone in the Dark and Silent Hill serieses.

That said, I used to always consider gaming to be a "new" enough form of entertainment that anyone could potentially enjoy a game from any age if they seriously gave it a chance. Nowadays though it seems like the Shadow Moses of gaming's "fission mailed" and not everyone can make the transformation from Raiden to Snake.

Now, looking at this person's thoughts, does he really like videogames in the first place? If his tastes are such that only games originating from Japan made in 1996 and later from two companies give him enjoyment (which is the case judging by this thread) then how would you classify him? I don't call myself a fan of rap music because I can count on one hand the number of rap songs I like, you're not a car afficionado if you only know about cars made after 1970, and you're not considered a wine taster if you drink a twelve pack of Coors once a week.

So why is it that someone in a similar position with regards to taste in videogames is considered a gamer?

It's 4AM. Time for sleep.

 

[SPINMASTER X]

Originally posted by Neo Rasa:
<strong><a href="http://s3.cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.asp?board=32495&topic=5148971" target="_blank">http://s3.cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.asp?board=32495&topic =5148971</a>

I don't expect all of you to read this entire link so I'll post up the notable content right here (the game being discussed is Metroid Prime):

"Well why is this game so popular and why did it get such great reviews!? Is it just for the gameplay!? I really don't care for gameplay even though that's the reason games are made for. But I get games for their story, characters, atmossphere, character development. It would also help if it had cut scenes, FMV's, or voice acting. But this isn't the case for Metroid except for a few cut scenes. Anyway tell me what will make me like this game more by these reasons that I posted."

Why does this person not read books or watch movies? Why even "play" videogames?

Does "playing" a videogame now mean to experience an interactive movie instead of immersing oneself into the game?

I feel very old reading this thread. The reason is because I try to keep a reasonably broad range to my taste in entertainment. I think The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari from 1919 is just as good as Bladrunner from 1982. I play the 1986 game Rush 'N Attack just as much as I play the 2002 game Contra: Shattered Soldier and I like the storyline in 1997's Fallout just as much as 1987's Ninja Gaiden. I like level busting in 1988's Ultima installment just as much as in 2001's Shadow Hearts, and I like blasting zombies in House of the Dead just as much as I like running away from my own guilt and madness in the Alone in the Dark and Silent Hill serieses.

That said, I used to always consider gaming to be a "new" enough form of entertainment that anyone could potentially enjoy a game from any age if they seriously gave it a chance. Nowadays though it seems like the Shadow Moses of gaming's "fission mailed" and not everyone can make the transformation from Raiden to Snake.

Now, looking at this person's thoughts, does he really like videogames in the first place? If his tastes are such that only games originating from Japan made in 1996 and later from two companies give him enjoyment (which is the case judging by this thread) then how would you classify him? I don't call myself a fan of rap music because I can count on one hand the number of rap songs I like, you're not a car afficionado if you only know about cars made after 1970, and you're not considered a wine taster if you drink a twelve pack of Coors once a week.

So why is it that someone in a similar position with regards to taste in videogames is considered a gamer?

It's 4AM. Time for sleep.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That my friend is the late 20th century-21st century gamer. This is the type of gamer i mentioned in s7cbassplayer's topic about the review for shinobi. They like games alot but they aren't hardcore. they need interactive movies not games.

 

[ForeverSublime]

What they need are fansubbed Gamest combo videos.

 

[toy_brain]

I can sort of see where this guy is coming from.
He mentions Resi in his second post. When you think about it, the actual gameplay in Resi is pretty bad. Stiff controls, limited movement, sluggish action etc etc, but the game is so well packaged and presented that it is verry compelling to play (I'm a huge Resi fan).
Also there are games like Myst which have a huge following (I like playing them now and again) which, again, barely have any 'gameplay' but are compelling due to their story and atmosphere.

Playing games like these is a lot like reading a book or watching telly, only with the added satisfaction of solving a puzzle or getting through the odd tricky section. You can also play and explore them at your own pace - and they last longer than a film.
They don't appeal to everyone, and I personally couldnt play them all the time, but some people like to be able to play a game that does not rely on fast reflexes and an innate knowlege of the combat engine.

 

[X]

You know what I miss? Remember getting a brand new game you have never palyed or seen before. Lets take Super Mario Bros. You start playing without a freaking introduction you just know that you need to get from point A to point B without getting killed. Then you play Ninja gadien same thing sure you can watch the cutscenes but they are skippable and once again get to point A to point B without getting killed. You did not need no freaking tutorial or manual you just played. Look at the first castlevania. What is the real point of the game you ask? getting from point a to point B without getting killed. Those were the days. Some games were not so linear such as Zelda, Metroid, and Balster Master, but those game were stil pure gamepaly. To go from point A to B without anyone telling me what to do, those were the days.

 

[rarehero]

Originally posted by Neo Rasa:
<strong>
I think The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari from 1919 is just as good as Bladrunner from 1982. </strong><hr></blockquote>

i agree with all you said.
but i just wanted to chip in that you have some
good tastes in movies to sir.

 

[JHendrix]

Rasa, he's just a RPG fan who hates most other games.

Peace

JHendrix

 

[Neo Rasa]

Originally posted by rarehero:
<strong>

i agree with all you said.
but i just wanted to chip in that you have some
good tastes in movies to sir.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thank you rare.

toy_brain:

This all brings up another thing I don't understand though:

Graphically Metroid Prime obliterates just about every console game I've ever played. The overall design and atmosphere reaches a level I've only seen in maybe three other games. Part of why I posted this thread in the first place is because only area the game is "lacking" in is the cutscenes and its plot not being filled with deus ex machina twists. What rubs me the wrong way is that the person starting the thread in question can't understand why the game is popular at all because it doesn't have cutscenes or cgi graphics. I don't have a problem with him liking console-style RPGs, but that he completely fails to recognize that other people can enjoy games that aren't console RPGs.

I think anyone who plays both survival horror games knows the advantages of NOT having pre-rendered graphics in the game. Look at how the graphics engines in Carrier, Code Veronica, Silent Hill, etc. exist SOLELY to create more atmosphere. It accomplishes this with flying colors while giving you the impression of having more freedom of movement than other Resident Evil games simply because of the amount of space you can run around on per "screen."

Half the reason many people are hailing Metroid Prime as so good is because the polygonal graphics already look like they could BE cgi most of the time. How could one not notice this having played the game at all? It's a first person perspective game so it's not like you could miss the graphics.

What I can't comprehend is what this person considers to be "good" graphics and cutscenes and what is "bad." Especially when what he considers "good" has been done better in about a billion times previously.

I think Shigeru Miyamoto put it best when he said that the reason you'll never see Link/Mario/etc. say anything beyond the basic "Wahoo!" and "Ow!" is because he wants YOU to imagine the voice for yourself so that you can feel more immersed in the game world. I think this works, it makes me feel more like I'm really in the game and not a spectator. I don't see how someone can only count something happening outside of gameplay as "atmosphere." Even in the Resident Evil series, it's your low amount of ammunition and the monsters taking very random amounts of damage from normal bullets that makes the game so tense.

Edit:

I posted an almost identical thread at <a href="http://www.forumplanet.com/PlanetDreamcast/orochinagi/topic.asp?fid=1820&tid=883631" target="_blank">http://www.forumplanet.com/PlanetDreamcast/orochinagi/topic.asp?fid=1820&tid=883631</a> to get as much input on this as possible.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Neo Rasa ]</p>

 

[SSS]

lol, that guy sounds like my little bro. he only plays RPGs with the word Squaresoft on it. thinks Neo Geo is the dumbest console ever made. funny, he can't stand the old FFs. according to him the first videogame system was Playstation. oh well, I don't bother him. let him believe what he wants.

 

[Neo Rasa]

Your bro sounds pretty dumb. Hook him up with Suikoden.

 

[toy_brain]

Originally posted by Neo Rasa:
<strong>

Thank you rare.

toy_brain:

This all brings up another thing I don't understand though:

Graphically Metroid Prime obliterates just about every console game I've ever played. The overall design and atmosphere reaches a level I've only seen in maybe three other games. Part of why I posted this thread in the first place is because only area the game is "lacking" in is the cutscenes and its plot not being filled with deus ex machina twists. What rubs me the wrong way is that the person starting the thread in question can't understand why the game is popular at all because it doesn't have cutscenes or cgi graphics. I don't have a problem with him liking console-style RPGs, but that he completely fails to recognize that other people can enjoy games that aren't console RPGs.

I think anyone who plays both survival horror games knows the advantages of NOT having pre-rendered graphics in the game. Look at how the graphics engines in Carrier, Code Veronica, Silent Hill, etc. exist SOLELY to create more atmosphere. It accomplishes this with flying colors while giving you the impression of having more freedom of movement than other Resident Evil games simply because of the amount of space you can run around on per "screen."

Half the reason many people are hailing Metroid Prime as so good is because the polygonal graphics already look like they could BE cgi most of the time. How could one not notice this having played the game at all? It's a first person perspective game so it's not like you could miss the graphics.

What I can't comprehend is what this person considers to be "good" graphics and cutscenes and what is "bad." Especially when what he considers "good" has been done better in about a billion times previously.

I think Shigeru Miyamoto put it best when he said that the reason you'll never see Link/Mario/etc. say anything beyond the basic "Wahoo!" and "Ow!" is because he wants YOU to imagine the voice for yourself so that you can feel more immersed in the game world. I think this works, it makes me feel more like I'm really in the game and not a spectator. I don't see how someone can only count something happening outside of gameplay as "atmosphere." Even in the Resident Evil series, it's your low amount of ammunition and the monsters taking very random amounts of damage from normal bullets that makes the game so tense.

Edit:

I posted an almost identical thread at <a href="http://www.forumplanet.com/PlanetDreamcast/orochinagi/topic.asp?fid=1820&tid=883631" target="_blank">http://www.forumplanet.com/PlanetDreamcast/orochinagi/topic.a sp?fid=1820&tid=883631</a> to get as much input on this as possible.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Neo Rasa ]</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not going to even attempt to defend the guy on Gamefaqs, because his initial statement of 'not caring how the game played' was just plain stupid.
Though I think you may be paying too much attention to the issue of a games graphics, whereas he was also interested in the games plot, how it was presented (as dull text or gripping cutscenes) and how 'polished' the overall package was.

Ok. put it this way. You can have a game like Metroid where (apparently - havent played it yet so I'm going off what I've heard) the plot is progressed via scanning things and getting a text description, then piecing the puzze togeather yourself. Or you can have a game like Resi where the plot is told largely via cutscenes and most things are explained for you.

Which is better? Well thats your choice, personally I like both, but this guy obviously does not.
What also strikes true with me is that this guy seems to need a strong plot to motivate him through the game. I can sort of identify with this. Its always good to have your efforts rewarded in some way, and if its just with more text to read, or another area to explore, this may not be enough for some. Again I should stress that I dont share this persons view totally, but I can see where he is coming from.

For some people, overcoming a great challenge, only to be 'rewarded' with another challenge may be more offputting than rewarding. So its nice to have a big flashy cutscene to sit and watch, to make you feel like you actually acomplished something big.

Back to graphics then.
Well its always hard to quantify what is 'good' and 'bad' graphics.
Do you mean good technicaly? or just that the single onscreen image is more detailed.
Again, compare Resi to Metroid. Resi has more detail on each image - but a lot of it is pre-rendered, so technicaly its not as impresive. It depends what you look for in a game.
And I agree with you about Silent Hill being more atmosphec than Resi. Konami have really created a chilling world that is far more 'unnerving' than Capcom's 'old mansion and giant bugs' routine.
Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder though. What works for some may not work for others. I gues we just have to respect that.

Again, I'll stress that I think the gamefaqs guy was a bit of an idiot to say he didnt care about gameplay, but for some people a strong plot and polished production can make or break a game.
After all - thats why consoles and games have gotten bigger and faster. The speed of a CPU does not dictate how well a game plays - only how good it looks and sounds. If graphics and cutscenes didnt matter then we would still be using cartridges and 16-bit machines.

Welcome to Neo-Geo.com <img src="graemlins/tickled.gif" border="0" alt="[Tickled]" />