Three Things That Turn Me Off Modern Gaming
Sept 16, 2006 8:35:56 GMT -5
Post by kyouki on Sept 16, 2006 8:35:56 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not patient. Games are not art they are distractions to entertain me. I have very little time to goof around in games if they are going to get entertaining "later." I'm not patient with games at all. With books and movies, yes. I didn't like Half-Life because there was nothing that interested me in that game. Linear FPS with awful platforming elements? No thanks.
I'm not saying I need to play Arkanoid on PocketPC. The game does not have to be fast-paced to be entertaining. However, it has to grab me almost immediately, which I think is the job of a good game designer. Think of all the great books and movies (even the slow-paced ones) that start with an intriguing concept on page/scene 1!
I guess I just don't take video games seriously enough to sit there passively while the game goes on and on because the scenario writer/designer sincerely wanted to be a director but couldn't cut it in film school. There are better ways to get you into the story of a game than endless exposition. It would be like reading a story but the author decides the first quarter of the story is going to be a dull history lesson just so that you are "up to speed." Or watching a movie and having to sit through 20 minutes of characters telling each other how the world is because that's the only way the writer could think to school you on the thing he created. I'm a fan of the kind of game where the story is in the background and is something you figure out: SaGa series, Elder Scrolls, King's Field, Legend of Mana. These games say in atmosphere and simple images what other games take reams and reams of text to tell you.
I also love fighting games which definitely get better the more you play them and require an investment of time. However, all the best fighters are immediately fun to get into and offer highly technical play in order to reward spending time on your skills.
I'm not saying I need to play Arkanoid on PocketPC. The game does not have to be fast-paced to be entertaining. However, it has to grab me almost immediately, which I think is the job of a good game designer. Think of all the great books and movies (even the slow-paced ones) that start with an intriguing concept on page/scene 1!
I guess I just don't take video games seriously enough to sit there passively while the game goes on and on because the scenario writer/designer sincerely wanted to be a director but couldn't cut it in film school. There are better ways to get you into the story of a game than endless exposition. It would be like reading a story but the author decides the first quarter of the story is going to be a dull history lesson just so that you are "up to speed." Or watching a movie and having to sit through 20 minutes of characters telling each other how the world is because that's the only way the writer could think to school you on the thing he created. I'm a fan of the kind of game where the story is in the background and is something you figure out: SaGa series, Elder Scrolls, King's Field, Legend of Mana. These games say in atmosphere and simple images what other games take reams and reams of text to tell you.
I also love fighting games which definitely get better the more you play them and require an investment of time. However, all the best fighters are immediately fun to get into and offer highly technical play in order to reward spending time on your skills.