Video Games...Discuss Them

[Dukefrukem]

You can't die in the latest Prince of Persia game. Verdicty: not a game.

You can't die in Wii Tennis. Verdict: not a game.

So floating around makes it a game? I didn't mean my post to be taken so literal (as it always is).. but there's just no real challenge involved when you're playing.

There's no score.
There's no death.
There's trophies.

If there wasn't trophies, there would be no point to playing. Aside from a an arguable standpoint that the game is extremely relaxing.

[Dukefrukem]

Also I finished RE5 today. Worst game in the series so far.

[Winston*]

So floating around makes it a game? I didn't mean my post to be taken so literal (as it always is).. but there's just no real challenge involved when you're playing.

There's no score.
There's no death.
There's trophies.

If there wasn't trophies, there would be no point to playing. Aside from a an arguable standpoint that the game is extremely relaxing.

There is a score, the flower on the windowsill changes depending on how many petals you've collected. If you collect them all the flower fully blooms. There are levels that you progress through in a linear order to advance the narrative and get to the end, which even has a final boss. Even evaluating this on a narrow definition of gaming, this is clearly a video game.

I'd be more inclined to use a definition like this:

Video game: An interactive experience for the purposes of entertainment played on an electronic screen.

[EyesWideOpen]

So floating around makes it a game? I didn't mean my post to be taken so literal (as it always is).. but there's just no real challenge involved when you're playing.

There's no score.
There's no death.
There's trophies.

If there wasn't trophies, there would be no point to playing. Aside from a an arguable standpoint that the game is extremely relaxing.

Have you actually played through the game? Because this post makes me believe that you haven't.

[Dukefrukem]

Have you actually played through the game? Because this post makes me believe that you haven't.

PSN: Dukefrukem

[Sycophant]

Did you just ask him to look at your PSN profile instead of answer him "yes" or "no"?

[D_Davis]

Did you just ask him to look at your PSN profile instead of answer him "yes" or "no"?

On the internet, where "pics or it didn't happen" is a common phrase, and people poke holes through reviews by checking the gamertag of the reviewer to see how far they got in the game, Duke's post makes sense.

[Dukefrukem]

On the internet, where "pics or it didn't happen" is a common phrase, and people poke holes through reviews by checking the gamertag of the reviewer to see how far they got in the game, Duke's post makes sense.

rep for DD

[D_Davis]

This discussion reminds a lot of the podcast I mentioned earlier. The discussion of the different ends of the gaming spectrum - games that are purely system-based versus games that are purely experienced-based - can be interesting.

But what is happening here feels more like a pissing match where people are bashing Duke for his own definition of what makes a game a game, as if his opinion on Flower is unique - the questioning of its gameyness as been raised by many people since its release, and not in ways that belittle the game, which I don't think he was doing.

Flower is more of an experience; yes it is a game, but it is more defined by the emotions it causes and by the world the player experiences, while not being defined by a rigid game playing system.

It's goal seems more to tell a tale and envelop the player in its world, while the trophy system adds a level of gameyness to it by creating objectives if the game player wishes to indulge him or herself.

So basically, it's the best of both worlds, and by adding the trophy system to the experience of the game, the developers have, in theory, expanded their audience and the game's appeal.

The ListenUp podcast had a great discussion on this game; John Davidson's perspective, and how his wife reacted to the game, are great. I believe he also discussed it on an episode of the What They Play podcast.

[EyesWideOpen]

PSN: Dukefrukem

I would have believed you, I just figured you hadn't since you said all you do is float. Their are levels, where to make progress in the levels you have to complete objectives. I don't comprehend how someone can say it is not at it's base a game. An artsy game yes, but a game nonetheless.

[Dukefrukem]

I would have believed you, I just figured you hadn't since you said all you do is float. Their are levels, where to make progress in the levels you have to complete objectives. I don't comprehend how someone can say it is not at it's base a game. An artsy game yes, but a game nonetheless.

It's called exaggerating and of course it's a video game. :frustrated:

This discussion reminds a lot of the podcast I mentioned earlier. The discussion of the different ends of the gaming spectrum - games that are purely system-based versus games that are purely experienced-based - can be interesting.

But what is happening here feels more like a pissing match where people are bashing Duke for his own definition of what makes a game a game, as if his opinion on Flower is unique - the questioning of its gameyness as been raised by many people since its release, and not in ways that belittle the game, which I don't think he was doing.

Flower is more of an experience; yes it is a game, but it is more defined by the emotions it causes and by the world the player experiences, while not being defined by a rigid game playing system.

It's goal seems more to tell a tale and envelop the player in its world, while the trophy system adds a level of gameyness to it by creating objectives if the game player wishes to indulge him or herself.

So basically, it's the best of both worlds, and by adding the trophy system to the experience of the game, the developers have, in theory, expanded their audience and the game's appeal.

The ListenUp podcast had a great discussion on this game; John Davidson's perspective, and how his wife reacted to the game, are great. I believe he also discussed it on an episode of the What They Play podcast.

I question more the value of Flower. Is it worth $10? Now that is a more relevant discussion. I would have liked a few more landscapes.

[EyesWideOpen]

I found more value in the $10 I spent on Flower then 95% of the games I spend $60 on.

[Skitch]

Anyone play Army of Two?

[Ezee E]

Anyone play Army of Two?

Didn't like it at all.

My roommate loved it though.

[D_Davis]

Flower is most definitely worth $10. That's cheaper than going to a movie.

[bac0n]

Flower is more of an experience; yes it is a game, but it is more defined by the emotions it causes and by the world the player experiences, while not being defined by a rigid game playing system.

Right on. I would lump the latest Prince of Persia in with Flower as more of an experience as a traditional game. You could make an argument that Bioshock would fall into this category as well. I like this trend in videogames, as games that really envelope me and take me in are my version of a calgon bath.

[Ezee E]

What is this new Prince of Persia game all about anyway?

[Skitch]

Didn't like it at all.

My roommate loved it though.

I got it cheap...and Dead Rising cheap as well. Prolly crack one of 'em today.

[Skitch]

What is this new Prince of Persia game all about anyway?

Give it a swing when its ten bucks.

Its really fun at first, then when you realize you can't die...it loses its challenge. Then it just gets repetitive.

[bac0n]

Give it a swing when its ten bucks.

Its really fun at first, then when you realize you can't die...it loses its challenge. Then it just gets repetitive.

There are parts toward the end that it took me a while to get past, so there is a challenge. And some of the boss fights are tough. And no, you don't die - your sidekick rescues you and drops you off on the previous ledge. So, it's sorta like re-spawning in other games - the idea is the same, just the implementation is what's different.

[Dukefrukem]

I found more value in the $10 I spent on Flower then 95% of the games I spend $60 on.

Touche... I've been very disappointed with some of the big titles released lately. RE5, Fallout3, Far Cry 2...

[Justin]

Braid is an incredible game, I hate myself for not buying it earlier. I really see absolutely no faults in the game at all, just a perfect experience.

[Winston*]

Braid is an incredible game, I hate myself for not buying it earlier. I really see absolutely no faults in the game at all, just a perfect experience.

That is the only game I wish I had an XBox 360 for. Hope it comes to the PSN or PC at some point.

EDIT: Well, hey it's coming out on Steam next week.

[megladon8]

I love "Braid", but I admit I still have no idea what it means.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Am I the only person on the planet that thought RE4 was fairly meh? It's sooo repetitive, the puzzles was brain-dead easy and much of the writing and delivery (I consider these important things) was soooo shit. A few good scares and set-pieces, but not really enough for me to outright champion the game as a masterpiece of the form. Also, gah! I hated the entire Ashley stuff. Nothing worse in game design than having to protect imbecile AI.

The Ashley stuff can be irritating, but I think it's mostly minimized, and luckily the game lets you lose her a couple of times. You should avoid the Wii version of Dead Rising. I wanted to crucify the survivors I had to protect.

I wouldn't call RE4 repetitive. The environments are continually changing, the enemies are continually changing, each boss is new and exciting. Even when you've seen it before (El Gigante), you have a new way to approach it and fight it. And with your constantly expanding arsenal, there's never a shortage of ways to attack.

You didn't love the knife-fight with Krauser? The Thing-inspired wolves? The fiery dungeon pit with enormous stone dragons hanging from the ceiling? The creepy mood in the Spanish village? The first time a chainsaw bastard cuts your head off?!

Do you not like good things?