This is another reason how PC gaming continues to fall

[PurpleGaga27 37]

Here comes another nominee for the 2013 most overrated game of the year: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-home

 

That type of game was similar to this HL2 mod which went indie: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dear-esther

 

Why did I mention the title header as that? People should not develop games with no traditional gameplay (not even with role-playing), just walking around touching things while looking at the graphical designs, hearing the amazing sounds and of course, hearing a story. It's like a movie game in a virtual world with no gameplay purpose at all. If more games continue to look like this, this is another reason how PC gaming continues to fall (and fail). I wish in the future game companies like EA, Activision, Square Enix, Ubisoft, Sony, Nintendo and others should not develop games like this at all.

 

According to this review comment from a user in Metacritic for Gone Home:

 

A terrible non-game. I've got Dear Esther for free and played it, but this, I wouldn't even take it if I were paid for it. It has no gameplay, simple as that. Dear Esther looked good at least, but this, this is just bad. If you're going to do nothing with the interactive medium, just go ahead and make it a movie. I hope we won't see more of these awful "cinematic experiences", they're just not games, and in this case it's especially laughable.

Edited August 21, 2013 by zocom7

[Plok 319]

Whatever happens to the industry, PC games > all others, always were and always will be.

 

PC games are mostly compatible with newer systems out of the box or through workarounds, and if you want a newer game, you just upgrade your PC, while console games for the good part aren't compatible with the new consoles (e.g. achieving mutual compatibility between Xbox games and Xbox 360 or PS1/2/3 games with the latest console is just luck). PC reigns supreme (also, PC's not ridden with crappy Japanese RPGs and platform games that much).

[Chimas 7]

I left a MOD recently because of that (the lack of gameplay).

The texturer and the coder took over and when I saw the game got a tutorial, new loading screens and a difficult cinematic opening meanwhile the mission was a crap.

The excuses were the usual: "you want to make the mission impossible" and "this is not canon".

So the mod is in hand of those that have knowledge, not necessarily imagination, unfortunately.

But I can't complain since my primary goals were achieved. It's just a pity for so many efforts will end up in nothing.

I mean, of course it will be released, but people will spent 5m over it and will ask "ok, give me more".

This is bad strategy.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

zocom, you're missing the point. Dear Esther is a different take on what a game can actually be. It may not be for you personally, but it's not less of a game because of it. In fact, it's a great example of expanding on what we can define as a game. It's also a great example of non-linear narrative. The problem is that people can't accept that games can be more than just combat. If you believe games like Dear Esther, Gone Home or Loneliness are bad for the medium, you're handicapping gaming as a form of artistic expression. Put simply: SHUT UP! It's fine not to play those games but saying they're not games is a sleight against the medium and a sleight against artists creating these works.

[Luk3us 63]

PC gaming isn't going anywhere, and the RANGE of games you get on PC far exceeds the cookie cutter **** that consoles get.

[Chimas 7]

I think Zocom's point is far from radical. It's just stating that some developers are so lazy that they prevent you from playing the game, what is absurd.

Medium and artists must respect us in first place, then we will respect them. It's not supposed to be the other way around.

And a game art is not constrained to visual aspects. Mission making, coding, machine performance, capabilities of units and etc are part of this art.

And that requires that you interact with the game, it is not restricted to stay passively watching it.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I think Zocom's point is far from radical. It's just stating that some developers are so lazy that they prevent you from playing the game, what is absurd.

Medium and artists must respect us in first place, then we will respect them. It's not supposed to be the other way around.

And a game art is not constrained to visual aspects. Mission making, coding, machine performance, capabilities of units and etc are part of this art.

And that requires that you interact with the game, it is not restricted to stay passively watching it.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the development process. It is not simple or quick to create an interactive experience that we laud as one of the greats. Developers are not lazy for attempting different approaches, especially if it presents what a game can become in a new or interesting way. It's fine if you don't like those types of artsy games, but to say that developers are lazy for trying a new approach or that they shouldn't be made is going to handicap the medium as a whole. However, when it comes to a game being art, the visuals and aesthetics are important but it's the emotions or feelings that the piece invokes that really drives the artistic expression of a piece. The reason we seek entertainment is engagement. If that's not your reason, you are doing it wrong. Very, very wrong.

[Chimas 7]

Now, I'm not understanding this debate anymore and I'll probably be out of the initial proposition. I think the standards are getting lower these days without people noticing it.

Sooner or later we will have people selling powerpoints calling it a game. It even can have gameplay, if they let you click to the next slide ...

[TheProwe 0]

I have no qualms about "cinematic experience" or games with not much gameplay.. Different people have different tastes.. There are people that just want to look around and there are those that'll blow up anything in sight..

 

Wouldn't you agree that it is also laziness when developers only focus on the current wants of [the bulk of] customers?. Barely improving anything and re-releasing the stuff year in and year out..

 

if you don't like it, then avoid it.. You fall under a different market or demographic--go buy stuff you like and only judge another genre if you are capable of being rational..

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Now, I'm not understanding this debate anymore and I'll probably be out of the initial proposition. I think the standards are getting lower these days without people noticing it.

Sooner or later we will have people selling powerpoints calling it a game. It even can have gameplay, if they let you click to the next slide ...

Not every game has to be based around combat, which is what it sounds like you're bitching about. The standards aren't getting lower, they're getting higher. Though, only marginally so since we're not demanding enough of development teams. Gone Home is not the problem. People caring about the medium and attempting new things are not the problem. People not caring enough will be the downfall of gaming as a whole. Gone Home is a step in the right direction. Not every game has to be the same and this proves it.

[Saracen 16]

zocom, you're missing the point. Dear Esther is a different take on what a game can actually be. It may not be for you personally, but it's not less of a game because of it. In fact, it's a great example of expanding on what we can define as a game. It's also a great example of non-linear narrative. The problem is that people can't accept that games can be more than just combat. If you believe games like Dear Esther, Gone Home or Loneliness are bad for the medium, you're handicapping gaming as a form of artistic expression. Put simply: SHUT UP! It's fine not to play those games but saying they're not games is a sleight against the medium and a sleight against artists creating these works.

 

I had to come out of lurking to say.... THIS ^^

 

The whole point in these games are to provoke thought and emotional response and tell a story that contains significant depth. The end result on completion is to have you go away and think about the journey and the experience. If you play these games with an open mind from the start, you find yourself quite drawn in, involved, and the game leaves an impression on you that remains.

 

Welcome to the power of indie games. From developers that take risks and do something beyond the cut and paste dystopia of what you're used to. This doesn't do bad things for PC gaming at all... It enriches it far beyond what most people realise.

[Chimas 7]

Ok, I'm not against the game, as long as I don't have to buy it, but I still don't follow you guys.

For me it's clear that less interaction with the game means less risk, QA and costs to develop it.

If you would be a developer, you'd be getting rid of the value you've added, it really doesn't make sense.

 

Also, if less interaction is desired, why not going to a movie, they have been doing it for a century now with greater budgets, casts and fx probably for a smaller price.

Take Pixar as an example. Or, if you wanna be bold, don't call it a game, call it something else with its own culture and community.

 

Publishers want more and more costless and riskless games to release, because they can throw it on us and they can have more time to sell it at the price they want to keep.

If this game is an exception it's ok, but if this is a trend, then it's one more dangerous trend. "Shelves" are not loaded with bad games by accident.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Welcome to the power of indie games. From developers that take risks and do something beyond the cut and paste dystopia of what you're used to. This doesn't do bad things for PC gaming at all... It enriches it far beyond what most people realise.

Indie games do not hold exclusive rights to this either. You're kinda missing the point of the indie and "AAA" industries. Indie developers push for innovation and take more risks but those ideas are not as polished as they would otherwise be. The other side, with all that money, is the master of polish and some great works just require a big budget. "AAA" prefers not to have the risk whereas indie is okay with taking more chances. Both sides are good and have their merits. I don't want to see any big budget studio bashing from you either. Because I know how you can be. >.>

 

Ok, I'm not against the game, as long as I don't have to buy it, but I still don't follow you guys.

For me it's clear that less interaction with the game means less risk, QA and costs to develop it.

If you would be a developer, you'd be getting rid of the value you've added, it really doesn't make sense.

 

Also, if less interaction is desired, why not going to a movie, they have been doing it for a century now with greater budgets, casts and fx probably for a smaller price.

Take Pixar as an example. Or, if you wanna be bold, don't call it a game, call it something else with its own culture and community.

 

Publishers want more and more costless and riskless games to release, because they can throw it on us and they can have more time to sell it at the price they want to keep.

If this game is an exception it's ok, but if this is a trend, then it's one more dangerous trend. "Shelves" are not loaded with bad games by accident.

Games with less interactivity are actually more risky than their counterparts. However, you're still missing the ****ing point because you're looking at games with a very shallow lens. They do not have to be the same thing over and over, which is exactly what Dear Esther, Gone Home and their contemporaries prove. Definitively. I don't understand people like you. You decry the "AAA" industry for never wanting to make anything new but when someone tries something different, you decry it for being different. If you're going to complain about everything, just quit playing games altogether. You'll save those of us who want to see the medium move forward and not be the same thing year after year a fair amount of headaches. You're doing a severe disservice to those who try something new by just dismissing it offhand while claiming that "it's not a game."

 

It's time to face it: video gaming is not a toy. Video games are an emerging mass media with artistic merit and trying to show us that games can enrich our lives after we leave the computer or turn off the television. Inevitably, there will be "artsy" games just like we have art films, concept music albums or books that are written in styles we wouldn't often see. All in an attempt to further move that medium forward. It is time that video games do the same and that we all accept that art is not the opposite of fun!

[Plok 319]

You decry the "AAA" industry for never wanting to make anything new but when someone tries something different, you decry it for being different.

Speaking generally (and not related to Dear Esther or any of the mentioned games), just being different is not enough for a good game idea. You can make everything different and produce one big piece of crap, because some things have never been tried for the simple reason they do not work out. Liking a game for the sole reason of being different than the others is downright senseless. The same goes for regular art forms. We've had that issue in the very series this site is made to praise, for instance.

 

The standards aren't getting lower, they're getting higher.

I, personally, believe the industry has been quite stagnant in the past five years or so, with only occasional "hiccups" to the positive direction like StarCraft 2.

 

Not every game has to be based around combat

Very true...

 

which is what it sounds like you're bitching about.

...but I believe you missed his point. It's not the combat-ness of the games that he refers to, but to the widespread impression that gaming has gone so low in terms of quality that PowerPoint presentations might even be the next step.

 

Not every game has to be the same and this proves it.

Also highly true, but, again, it doesn't have to go overboard with it. (Not saying these particular games do it, I'm speaking generally.)

 

If you're going to complain about everything, just quit playing games altogether.

Quit forcing people to avoid complaining on something. Seriously. It's annoying, undemocratic and you sound like a mindless fanatic.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

 

Speaking generally (and not related to Dear Esther or any of the mentioned games), just being different is not enough for a good game idea. You can make everything different and produce one big piece of crap, because some things have never been tried for the simple reason they do not work out. Liking a game for the sole reason of being different than the others is downright senseless. The same goes for regular art forms. We've had that issue in the very series this site is made to praise, for instance.

 

Quit forcing people to avoid complaining on something. Seriously. It's annoying, undemocratic and you sound like a mindless fanatic.

Hold on there, chief. I never said that being different constituted a good game on the basis of being different, just that people taking video gaming in new directions is not the problem. However, games that attempt new directions are a good thing even if they're not entirely polished. We just have to leave this notion behind that we cannot have art games, that games have to be like this or that and that are is not the opposite of fun.

 

 

I, personally, believe the industry has been quite stagnant in the past five years or so, with only occasional "hiccups" to the positive direction like StarCraft 2.

Whether it's your personal belief or not, you're wrong. And you're looking at the gaming industry in the most shallow way. Take a few minutes to look at the growing indie community, games on Kongregate or Steam Greenlight. There are hundreds of new games being released that are not your "standard fare." Just most of them fly under the radar. Even still, the "AAA" industry, which you're only looking at with the nostalgia glasses, is putting out gloriously incredible titles like Borderlands, The Last of Us, Bioshock, Fallout, GTA4, Dishonored and many others... are providing very captivating experiences.

 

 

...but I believe you missed his point. It's not the combat-ness of the games that he refers to, but to the widespread impression that gaming has gone so low in terms of quality that PowerPoint presentations might even be the next step.

Not every game needs a budget north of ten million to be made. The fundamental flaw in the argument is that every game has to have action at every moment. Not every game needs to be God of War, Call of Duty or Battlefield. Try some web based MMOs or a game like Depression Quest. They're made on small budgets but they're compelling or they enrich your life when you leave the screen.

 

 

Quit forcing people to avoid complaining on something. Seriously. It's annoying, undemocratic and you sound like a mindless fanatic.

I am not a mindless fanatic. I have seen gaming evolve since its infancy into what it is. It doesn't have the respect it deserves and people continually undermining the artistic merit it deserves drives me up a wall. Besides, I have a stronger connection with gaming than most people do so I want to see it move forward and people bitching that Dear Esther or Gone Home "aren't really games" doesn't help. People like that... I don't want them around.

[Chimas 7]

I always talked about playability and interaction.

Maybe you've anchored your perception in my personal preference with wargames, but I'm really talking in general, if you read again you'll note.

But it's ok, we are already repeating ourselves. Everyone can stick to its level of interaction, including comatose guys and their vital signs monitors.

[pichorra 4]

Bad games cames for all platforms, not just PC. What happens is that usually the first build of an unfamous game are for PCs, then just after a while it is ported to consoles, but of course there are a few exceptions. Maybe what is going on is that unexperienced developers are focusing in something they can see in the first plane, wich are the graphics. Interaction IS the key, otherwise why do you think online games became what it is now. Maybe a better example, why COMMAND & CONQUER became what it was, early? (Early c&cs, of course.) The Idea of building your OWN base, your OWN strategy, your OWN units, are what made it is. Interaction are not graphics, but how your personality affects how the game will work.

 

One day I saw a PSP game that the objective is to not get murdered, and it just run repetitive scenes until you get murdered. (I don't know if there is a way of winning that game) An just click and watch game, witch is in my opinion, something really boring.

 

Saying that PC gaming will fall is a ridiculous affirmation. Most people that I know prefer an PC rather than an Xbox, for example, and PCs got something that consoles nowdays are lacking: Freedom.

[Nmenth 289]

I've never heard of Dear Esther before this thread, and have never seen anything about it outside this topic since then either. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered.

 

I think DD is somewhat right, and this is my opinion on the matter.

 

Games are art, and art can go wherever the artist wants it to. If that means the septic tank, than that is the artist's prerogative, he need only worry about getting fired, or if he's a freelancer, never finding work again. Nevertheless, whether it appeals to the masses and makes money is irrelevant to art.

 

I think most art in general is only good for decorating the inside of a trash bin, but I acknowledge it is still art, and I acknowledge some people actually like the garbage.

 

I bought Myst way back in the day and personally thought it sucked beyond belief. It wasn't fun to me, it was clickable artwork. And yet, for some strange reason, many people actually liked that piece of fecal matter, making it a best-seller and prompting rereleases, remakes, and sequels.

 

Myst is still a game though, and I will neither stand in the way of them making even more of them nor people playing them (if playing with dung happens to be their thing).