Interestingly enough the Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon were both huge hits that stayed on the top 10 lists for much longer than the average shooter. Both are pretty non-violent. Sure you can abuse your Sims, or build coasters that kill - but doing so won't get you further in the game. The puzzle genre has also spawned games with wide appeal such as Bejeweled and Bookworm. Maybe all of these games sell well because they appeal to a large number of players of both sexes.
Re:Education decaying into retold legends of glory
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 1
True. You couldn't just talk your differences out with the Orcs over a pint of brew in Ultima IV. And although you had to meditate on the virtues at shrines to get them, in order to get experience and "level up" you had to kill tons of monsters. Black and white was a bit interesting when it came to "moral" decisions. As your "good" or "evil" behavior reflected upon your pet and you could focus on being benevolent and drawing worshippers away from the other god via your good acts. Oddly enough most Civ games or RTS games have a very weak diplomacy component if they have it at all. The standard victory condition is overpowering the other nations/factions through force. Civilization has always had a peaceful victory option and these options have gotten a greater focus in the more recent in iterations. In Civ 4 you can win a peaceful victory by:
1. being the first to build a space ship and reach alpha centauri 2. developing cities with a huge cultural level 3. being elected head of the United Nations
Culture, which was introduced in Civ 3, is a quantification of non-violent improvements and developments in your nation. Developing art, philosophy, religion etc. boosts your nation's culture value. It might seem a bit contrived, but it is a useful element as a measurement for those pursuing a peaceful win. So in Civilization it IS possible to win playing as a pacifist, but even there you will likely need to fight - if only defensively. Of course that pretty much mirrors the real world, where even the most pacifistic cultures have had to defend themselves.
There are a number of games that don't involve killing, although they tend to be either more abstract puzzle games or economic type simulations (aside from sports and racing oriented games). The Sims is also a good example of a game that doesn't resolve around fighting. Interestingly both the Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon (economic) computer games were huge best sellers and had much longer lasting sales than your standard FPS or RTS. Indeed Rollercoaster Tycoon spawned a huge number of economic tycoon games that unfortunately have generally been poorly constructed and generic. Overall this has had a negative impact on the genre. I might be a bit of an odd gamer but I really enjoyed games like Capitalism, Restaurant Empire and Railroad Tycoon.
Re:Education decaying into retold legends of glory
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 1
"The reason games don't attempt to score things on a moral basis is because the media would have a shit fit if games took that trend. What moral set are you using? Who decides the weight of those moral choices? What's immoral?"
Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar, was a game that revolved around you becoming the paragon of morality in the land. There was no evil magician at the end. There was just the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom. Only accessible by one who was pure in all the eight virtues of the land. Who's morality? Why Lord British (Richard Garriott) the creator of the game of course. In more modern games the common moral element is one of given a choice (although usually a black and white, either or choice) to the player - such as in Knights of the Old Republic. Be bad, be good either way you can win. Perhaps the odd thing is that often times in games being "bad" is easier or more straightforward than being "good". Someone comes up and pleads to you for help with some annoying problem, do you help him hoping for a reward? Do you butcher him, rob his corpse, go butcher those he spoke to you about and rob them too? Do you build a benevolent nation in Civilization aiming to win through piece and diplomacy? Or do you systematically exterminate every other nation in the game? Hell, I wouldn't mind something like Ultima 4 again. Just because it was different and interesting.
"How did, say, super mario brothers, pirates, doom, black & white, MGS, or civilization make you reflect upon the human condition(we're coming from an english lit background here, remember gotta work in that phrase, "human condition")?"
Anonymous coward had a pretty good reply for this, I'll add in some comments from personal experience. As with films, not all games are going to make you "reflect upon the human condition" or more generally expand your thinking process (although I would argue even a twitch game increasing your hand eye coordination is more useful than Deuce Bigelow 2). For particulars:
Pirates. Well I hated pirate movies when I was a kid. I just didn't find anything interesting about the whole pirate era. I avoided everything pirate related. Until this game came out. One of the first open ended games, in a way Pirates is like a pre-cursor to what critics harp on about GTA (come on you sail around in your pimped out err ride, scoring spanish bling, boat-jacking, hooking up with a ho in every port... ok I'll stop). All of a sudden this era was exciting to me. The game made me interested in the nature of piracy and privateers in that era and the interplay between the nations in the new world. It compelled me to learn more about the era. Everything from the economics and politics to the music (thanks to the Commodore 64 renditions of classical music included in the game). Civilization was more of the same. Civ put me on a total non-fiction reading kick (keep in mind I tend toward sci-fi and the likely geek suspects) because I became fascinated in how civilization developed and how technology, resources and location impacted the growth of nations and empires. Sure Civ is not 100% accurate, but certain things that have proven true in the history of the world apply in Civ. Controlling resources, developing trade routes, being the first nation to develop certain technologies. Even the difference between being isolationist versus being actively involved in the politics of your neighbors. The oddest one of all would probably be Black and White. While not the greatest game, it was a great experiment. It goes down in my personal history as being the first game to make me "feel bad" for an action I took. The pet you have in the game has certain "emotional" reactions. In my case I was frustratingly dealing with my villages when my pet gets upset because he's not getting enough attention. He starts acting up. Throwing poop at my villagers, stepping on them, eating them. Basically throwing a complete tantrum. I'm so pissed off at this pet I grab him and whale on him. Of course he becomes very sad and despondant after that. Molyneaux had modelled typical actions of a kid "acting out" in response to lack of attention. And I reacted and played the role of bad parent by beating the crap out of the pet. Reflect on the human condition? It sure made me.
"any such revelations or insights aren't provided by the "auteur" they're provided by the player"
I disagree about this. In a linear story driven game it is provided by the auteur in the same manner as revelation in a book or film. In an open ended game the specific event that you experience is not dictated directly by the auteur, but the game and rule system that allows the event to happen IS dictated by the auteur. The moment I had in Black and White is precisely the type of response that Molyneaux was working for. Indeed one of the problems with the game was that so much focus was placed on creating the interaction between the gamer and the pet that the rest of the game seemed tacked on. As such it's obvious (and confirmed by interviews with Molyneaux during the game's production) that the imprint of the auteur is in that interaction. He and the development team was so enamored of that aspect of the game that it shines at the expense of the actual gameplay. And to be fair it is the one element of the game that was truly ground breaking. And for the record, I do generally like Ebert's reviews, but I don't really agre
"Altering the resolution won't let you see people further away from you in Battlefield 2."
True the draw distance is what determines that. However on a higher res display a character displayed at max draw distance is represented by more pixels with greater detail to differentiate body parts. It makes getting a headshot from a distance easier. Resolution in strategy games allows you to see a greater amount of the playing field. This means you can monitor more troops/cities/locations without actively scrolling. Additionally, the increased resolution allows more information to be presented on the screen in a much clearer fashion. Compare the interface of the original Civilization (320x240) to the current Civilization 4. The interface in Civ 4 simply would not be possible in 320x240. It isn't just strategy games, any fairly complex game benefits from enhanced resolution. RPGs and MMOs in particular need the space for action bars, inventory, notifications, chat windows etc. Interface completely affects game design which impacts gameplay. If you had to open a seperate window and page to select a spell in World of Warcraft, you would not be able to respond to threats in time. And if you were using a 320x240 screen that is exactly what you would need to do. WoW becomes somewhat crowded even running at 1280x1024 just because there are so many elements that you need to have access to and so many things you need to have up for notifications (party members, buffs, map, enemy target, chat window, action bars, inventory etc.).
"Nah, citizen kane isn't overrated. It just has a hell of a lot to live up to. You go into a movie like that expecting the greatest thing since sliced bread without a bunch of context and you're going to be disappointed."
Exactly my point. You quite simply refute the opinion I state by saying it's based on ignorance. And to say "Citizen Kane is boring" is based on ignorance. Obviously a well thought out response from Ebert on the film would be more useful. It's his area of expertise. I think that there are "auteurs" in the gaming world. Sure their may not be many, but people like Will Wright, Peter Molyneaux, Sid Meier and John Carmack definately imprint their touch upon the games that come out of their studios. Even if they aren't the lead designer - their touch is obvious. On the otherhand did the director of Deuce Bigelow 2 imprint his auteurship upon the film? There is just as much shovel ware in film as there is in gaming. I do understand where Ebert is coming from, I just don't feel that his analysis of gaming (at least what I have read) shows him coming from an outsiders viewpoint. His comments about how gamers are wasting away their precious hours in particular bothered me. Just thinking about how many precious hours Ebert has wasted away watching shit like Deuce Bigelow 2 for example. I guess he would say he suffers so that his viewers need not. Or something.
"You've heard people say Citizen Kane is BORING? Let me guess, they think appreciatively of Armageddon?"
That's probably about right. There is a reason a lot of crap movies come out of Hollywood, apparently a lot of people enjoy crap.
"Further, he has a right to speak about games, because..."
Sure he does. I would never say that he didn't have a right too. I am merely saying his opinion on games is not worth all that much. It isn't his field of expertise. He can talk all he wants but when you hear what he has to say it's obvious how removed he is from gaming.
The level of graphical details makes *no* difference to gameplay. A game will play the same at 320*256 in 32 colours to a game at 1280*1024 in 32 bit colour.
Tell that to the Counter Strike snipers that jack up their res in order to see (and head shot) people farther away from them. I understand your point, but in certain cases resolution does add to gameplay. For strategy games it is particularly important.
Re:Wasn't this one of the point Ebert made?
on
Why Ebert Was Right
·
· Score: 1
I agree that the majority of reviewers in the industry are pretty useless. I also don't know why half of every magazine has to filled with re-written press release previews. Well, I do know why and it has everything to do with advertising dollars and nothing to do with quality reporting on the industry. To be fair, just because a game may be "good" doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it. It's all subjective. What I usually look for in a review is explanation of the gameplay itself. That's about the only information that a reviewer can give me which will allow me to judge if I think the game will be enjoyable. I would love to see more indie game reviews myself. One of the reasons I like Computer Games magazine is because they will review some oddball items. Web only releases or niche products such as hardcore sims or wargames. Some of the most fun I've had recently was with a game called Oasis. Computer Games is the only place I've seen it reviewed. Which is a pity because it is a great little puzzle/strategy game which is really a lot of fun. I couldn't care less about the latest Madden but I am really interested in unique games that due to lack of exposure slip through the cracks.
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make because I've heard plenty of people say "Citizen Kane is boring" etc. It may be subjectively so in their opinion but they are not necessarily qualified to critique the film within the greater context of movie making as a whole. As Ebert is not qualified to critique gaming.
Citizen Kane is overrated. And Touch of Darkness contains lame cliched stereotypes of Mexicans and pot smokers. Ebert can bite me. He is probably less qualified to comment on games than I am to comment on movies. I'm sure I've watched more movies than he has played games and read more books on film and hell even edited broadcast video. The art in games is not just the matter of telling a good story. Games are not experiences where you passively absorb a story that is dictated to you. Game mechanics and design are just as important if not more important than story, art or music. Ebert tries to interpret games in the same manner that he does movies, as a visual and aural experience. He completely misses the point. Which isn't surprising given where he's coming from. Just wait another 30 years and games will be an excepted art form just as movies are today. Recall that when movies came out they were considered inferior to stage plays. As TV was considered gimmicky compared to radio dramas. It's just the old guard's reaction to a new medium.
I think this is supposed to be touted more as a feature than an evil thing. Its supposed to let you take a look at people you play with and see "oh he's playing halo, I'll jump in", or "oh hes watching a movie, I won't bug him". I'm not agreeing with how it's implemented just saying that this is supposed to be one of those "community building" types of features of Live.
I agree that the two "shake outs" are not completely comparable. Gaming didn't die in 1984, but console gaming (which had become mainstream) pretty much did. Every console collapsed regardless of popularity and the followup consoles bombed. Atari 2600 and 5200, Intellivision, Colecovision etc. Cutting edge gaming moved from the console platform over to computers, with a great number of early classics for Atari, Apple and Commodore computers being produced in the years of 83-86. Electronic Arts was incorporated in 1982 and initially was a hotbed of innovation in gaming producing influential games such as Archon, Seven Cities of Gold and MULE. To me the fall out that occured in the console area allowed developers to move to a less restrictive (keyboard vs one button joystick) environment that helped push forward game design tremendously. The truth is though, that until Nintendo hit in 86 - console gaming was dead. Atari went from being cool to lame overnight. The Colecovision went from being an object if envy to hideen under the bed. Pop culture dropped it's love affair with all things video game. I do think a lot of people stopped gaming after that. I think that is evidenced by the difference between the "Atari generation" and the "Nintendo generation" - a lot of people my age who group up with Atari don't play games any more. Almost everyone I know who grew up on Nintendo has a PS2 or other system.
Yeah exactly. Because OS X is UNIX based and we all know there are NO UNIX hackers in world. I mean who could possibly have the knowledge to exploit a known vulnerability on a UNIX or Linux system? I wouldn't even know where to go to look for that imaginary beast.:P
Oh yes I would agree. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can be an attention whore and an artist. Many artists have been. In fact it's probably a good thing for an artist to be as it motivates them to promote themselves. I'm not a big fan of Warhol myself but it's hard to argue that he didn't make a huge impression on the art world. Indeed the his images of soup cans and coke bottles were put out there to ask viewers that question of "is this art?" Given his commercial design background it was a logical progression.
"That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept."
Really shows exactly how clueless he is about games. Notice how he mentions "artistic importance as a visual experience". Of course he would think of it this way, the films he watches are only audio/visual experiences and as a non-gamer this is how he perceives games. Because you see, interactivity is not allowed in his definition of art:
"...writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."
Never mind that outside of video games interactive art is a very real field. So is an interactive art exhibit which encourages visitors to manipulate the piece devoid of merit?
Ebert fails to recognize that there IS "authorial control" in games. And I'm not talking about just the graphic and sound design or the plotting and story. The core component in any game is the rules of the system. This is what should truly be looked at as the "script" for the game. The behavior and rules set that encompasses the interaction are really the core art of game design. Without a solid rule set, the prettiest, best written and best sounding game will not be enjoyable. Interaction is the core of gaming and the rules and behaviors of the game are what drive the interaction. And why is this question so new? I consider Chess to be a work of art. The design is simple yet the game truly complex and mind boggling in its variety.
"But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."
Now here is where you really see it hit home. Ebert doesn't play games (except perhaps in passing) and has never had a gaming experience affect him emotionally or intellectually. So here he throws out a pot shot essentially branding gamers as less cultured, uncivilized and unempathetic. We are wasting our precious hours. Well, Ebert how many hours have you spent watching films that you have given a thumbs down too? The film industry is full of crap that has no artistic merit whatsover. There is as much shovel-ware in cinema as there is in video games. The basic situation is that Ebert does not understand games and is just the old guard of an older medium. Obviously what he has dedicated his life to has more merit. He can't see that on a very real level that the Sid Meiers, Will Wrights and so forth of the gaming industry are artistic giants in a young artistic medium. And for us gamers, Ebert's opinion doesn't matter one iota.
I don't think that's how it works. Executable for the Xbox 360 needs to be "signed" to run on the hardware. This means it has to be Microsoft certified. I don't think you can just post a game for sale. Any programs being made available via Live will have to go through Microsoft for licensing and certification. I believe the items end users can sell are more like cosmetic changes for games such as skins.
of not terribly well balanced games. Empire Earth was a game I really wanted to enjoy. An Age of Empires game that spanned a huge time frame from the beginning of Civilization all the way to a mech laden future. Sounds great. Didn't play that great. Empires: Dawn of the Modern World was a pretty fun game but in my opinion really unbalanced. The national differences were quite large which is good in that the nations didn't feel entirely cookie cutter, but bad in that some nations had serious advantages. The U.S. only nuclear weapon (while being historically accurate for the era) was usable without any repurcussions and was completely devestating. Also the English ability to create buildings that provided food, rather than use units to do the same was a huge advantage in the early game. I admit I did enjoy Empire for all of it's goofiness. The end game nuke-fest was a site to behold. In terms of recent RTS games, Empire Earth and Empires couldn't hold a candle to Rise of Nations in terms of RTS innovation, balance and quality of AI.
Quite a few. And just as with new properties they vary in quality. I quite enjoyed Call of Duty 2 and think that Civilization 4 packs some truly excellent interface design. On one hand you could say these are the same old formula, on the other hand they are significant updates. I think there is a place for updates of older games but we do need more innovation. Katamari was excellent because it was a unique gaming experience and had a unique sense of style and whimsy. Good graphics and high production values bring something to the table, but they don't make a game fun. Good gameplay can be an elusive thing. Some of the most fun I've had recently has been playing Oasis a clever little puzzle/strategy game. In spite of the rash of high profile holiday releases, I find myself loading it up for a quick game very frequently.
"(Have you played Civ4? Whooooooo what FPS we are getting, cough, choke, spit.)"
I don't know what kind of setup you are running but I haven't seen any problems with Civ 4. I run it at 1280x1024 on a 3.2GHz P4, 1GB DDR 400, 6800GT setup.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough the Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon were both huge hits that stayed on the top 10 lists for much longer than the average shooter. Both are pretty non-violent. Sure you can abuse your Sims, or build coasters that kill - but doing so won't get you further in the game.
The puzzle genre has also spawned games with wide appeal such as Bejeweled and Bookworm. Maybe all of these games sell well because they appeal to a large number of players of both sexes.
True. You couldn't just talk your differences out with the Orcs over a pint of brew in Ultima IV. And although you had to meditate on the virtues at shrines to get them, in order to get experience and "level up" you had to kill tons of monsters.
Black and white was a bit interesting when it came to "moral" decisions. As your "good" or "evil" behavior reflected upon your pet and you could focus on being benevolent and drawing worshippers away from the other god via your good acts.
Oddly enough most Civ games or RTS games have a very weak diplomacy component if they have it at all. The standard victory condition is overpowering the other nations/factions through force. Civilization has always had a peaceful victory option and these options have gotten a greater focus in the more recent in iterations. In Civ 4 you can win a peaceful victory by:
1. being the first to build a space ship and reach alpha centauri
2. developing cities with a huge cultural level
3. being elected head of the United Nations
Culture, which was introduced in Civ 3, is a quantification of non-violent improvements and developments in your nation. Developing art, philosophy, religion etc. boosts your nation's culture value. It might seem a bit contrived, but it is a useful element as a measurement for those pursuing a peaceful win.
So in Civilization it IS possible to win playing as a pacifist, but even there you will likely need to fight - if only defensively. Of course that pretty much mirrors the real world, where even the most pacifistic cultures have had to defend themselves.
There are a number of games that don't involve killing, although they tend to be either more abstract puzzle games or economic type simulations (aside from sports and racing oriented games). The Sims is also a good example of a game that doesn't resolve around fighting. Interestingly both the Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon (economic) computer games were huge best sellers and had much longer lasting sales than your standard FPS or RTS. Indeed Rollercoaster Tycoon spawned a huge number of economic tycoon games that unfortunately have generally been poorly constructed and generic. Overall this has had a negative impact on the genre. I might be a bit of an odd gamer but I really enjoyed games like Capitalism, Restaurant Empire and Railroad Tycoon.
"The reason games don't attempt to score things on a moral basis is because the media would have a shit fit if games took that trend. What moral set are you using? Who decides the weight of those moral choices? What's immoral?"
Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar, was a game that revolved around you becoming the paragon of morality in the land. There was no evil magician at the end. There was just the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom. Only accessible by one who was pure in all the eight virtues of the land. Who's morality? Why Lord British (Richard Garriott) the creator of the game of course.
In more modern games the common moral element is one of given a choice (although usually a black and white, either or choice) to the player - such as in Knights of the Old Republic. Be bad, be good either way you can win. Perhaps the odd thing is that often times in games being "bad" is easier or more straightforward than being "good". Someone comes up and pleads to you for help with some annoying problem, do you help him hoping for a reward? Do you butcher him, rob his corpse, go butcher those he spoke to you about and rob them too? Do you build a benevolent nation in Civilization aiming to win through piece and diplomacy? Or do you systematically exterminate every other nation in the game?
Hell, I wouldn't mind something like Ultima 4 again. Just because it was different and interesting.
"How did, say, super mario brothers, pirates, doom, black & white, MGS, or civilization make you reflect upon the human condition(we're coming from an english lit background here, remember gotta work in that phrase, "human condition")?"
Anonymous coward had a pretty good reply for this, I'll add in some comments from personal experience.
As with films, not all games are going to make you "reflect upon the human condition" or more generally expand your thinking process (although I would argue even a twitch game increasing your hand eye coordination is more useful than Deuce Bigelow 2).
For particulars:
Pirates. Well I hated pirate movies when I was a kid. I just didn't find anything interesting about the whole pirate era. I avoided everything pirate related. Until this game came out. One of the first open ended games, in a way Pirates is like a pre-cursor to what critics harp on about GTA (come on you sail around in your pimped out err ride, scoring spanish bling, boat-jacking, hooking up with a ho in every port... ok I'll stop). All of a sudden this era was exciting to me. The game made me interested in the nature of piracy and privateers in that era and the interplay between the nations in the new world. It compelled me to learn more about the era. Everything from the economics and politics to the music (thanks to the Commodore 64 renditions of classical music included in the game).
Civilization was more of the same. Civ put me on a total non-fiction reading kick (keep in mind I tend toward sci-fi and the likely geek suspects) because I became fascinated in how civilization developed and how technology, resources and location impacted the growth of nations and empires. Sure Civ is not 100% accurate, but certain things that have proven true in the history of the world apply in Civ. Controlling resources, developing trade routes, being the first nation to develop certain technologies. Even the difference between being isolationist versus being actively involved in the politics of your neighbors.
The oddest one of all would probably be Black and White. While not the greatest game, it was a great experiment. It goes down in my personal history as being the first game to make me "feel bad" for an action I took. The pet you have in the game has certain "emotional" reactions. In my case I was frustratingly dealing with my villages when my pet gets upset because he's not getting enough attention. He starts acting up. Throwing poop at my villagers, stepping on them, eating them. Basically throwing a complete tantrum. I'm so pissed off at this pet I grab him and whale on him. Of course he becomes very sad and despondant after that. Molyneaux had modelled typical actions of a kid "acting out" in response to lack of attention. And I reacted and played the role of bad parent by beating the crap out of the pet. Reflect on the human condition? It sure made me.
"any such revelations or insights aren't provided by the "auteur" they're provided by the player"
I disagree about this. In a linear story driven game it is provided by the auteur in the same manner as revelation in a book or film. In an open ended game the specific event that you experience is not dictated directly by the auteur, but the game and rule system that allows the event to happen IS dictated by the auteur. The moment I had in Black and White is precisely the type of response that Molyneaux was working for. Indeed one of the problems with the game was that so much focus was placed on creating the interaction between the gamer and the pet that the rest of the game seemed tacked on. As such it's obvious (and confirmed by interviews with Molyneaux during the game's production) that the imprint of the auteur is in that interaction. He and the development team was so enamored of that aspect of the game that it shines at the expense of the actual gameplay. And to be fair it is the one element of the game that was truly ground breaking.
And for the record, I do generally like Ebert's reviews, but I don't really agre
"Altering the resolution won't let you see people further away from you in Battlefield 2."
True the draw distance is what determines that. However on a higher res display a character displayed at max draw distance is represented by more pixels with greater detail to differentiate body parts. It makes getting a headshot from a distance easier.
Resolution in strategy games allows you to see a greater amount of the playing field. This means you can monitor more troops/cities/locations without actively scrolling. Additionally, the increased resolution allows more information to be presented on the screen in a much clearer fashion. Compare the interface of the original Civilization (320x240) to the current Civilization 4. The interface in Civ 4 simply would not be possible in 320x240.
It isn't just strategy games, any fairly complex game benefits from enhanced resolution. RPGs and MMOs in particular need the space for action bars, inventory, notifications, chat windows etc. Interface completely affects game design which impacts gameplay. If you had to open a seperate window and page to select a spell in World of Warcraft, you would not be able to respond to threats in time. And if you were using a 320x240 screen that is exactly what you would need to do. WoW becomes somewhat crowded even running at 1280x1024 just because there are so many elements that you need to have access to and so many things you need to have up for notifications (party members, buffs, map, enemy target, chat window, action bars, inventory etc.).
"I just don't feel that his analysis of gaming (at least what I have read) shows him coming from an outsiders viewpoint."
Duh. This should be:
"I just feel that his analysis of gaming (at least what I have read) shows him coming from an outsiders viewpoint."
"Nah, citizen kane isn't overrated. It just has a hell of a lot to live up to. You go into a movie like that expecting the greatest thing since sliced bread without a bunch of context and you're going to be disappointed."
Exactly my point. You quite simply refute the opinion I state by saying it's based on ignorance. And to say "Citizen Kane is boring" is based on ignorance. Obviously a well thought out response from Ebert on the film would be more useful. It's his area of expertise.
I think that there are "auteurs" in the gaming world. Sure their may not be many, but people like Will Wright, Peter Molyneaux, Sid Meier and John Carmack definately imprint their touch upon the games that come out of their studios. Even if they aren't the lead designer - their touch is obvious. On the otherhand did the director of Deuce Bigelow 2 imprint his auteurship upon the film? There is just as much shovel ware in film as there is in gaming.
I do understand where Ebert is coming from, I just don't feel that his analysis of gaming (at least what I have read) shows him coming from an outsiders viewpoint. His comments about how gamers are wasting away their precious hours in particular bothered me. Just thinking about how many precious hours Ebert has wasted away watching shit like Deuce Bigelow 2 for example. I guess he would say he suffers so that his viewers need not. Or something.
Yes, thanks. Heston rocks.
"You've heard people say Citizen Kane is BORING?
Let me guess, they think appreciatively of Armageddon?"
That's probably about right. There is a reason a lot of crap movies come out of Hollywood, apparently a lot of people enjoy crap.
"Further, he has a right to speak about games, because..."
Sure he does. I would never say that he didn't have a right too. I am merely saying his opinion on games is not worth all that much. It isn't his field of expertise. He can talk all he wants but when you hear what he has to say it's obvious how removed he is from gaming.
The level of graphical details makes *no* difference to gameplay. A game will play the same at 320*256 in 32 colours to a game at 1280*1024 in 32 bit colour.
Tell that to the Counter Strike snipers that jack up their res in order to see (and head shot) people farther away from them.
I understand your point, but in certain cases resolution does add to gameplay. For strategy games it is particularly important.
I agree that the majority of reviewers in the industry are pretty useless. I also don't know why half of every magazine has to filled with re-written press release previews. Well, I do know why and it has everything to do with advertising dollars and nothing to do with quality reporting on the industry.
To be fair, just because a game may be "good" doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it. It's all subjective. What I usually look for in a review is explanation of the gameplay itself. That's about the only information that a reviewer can give me which will allow me to judge if I think the game will be enjoyable.
I would love to see more indie game reviews myself. One of the reasons I like Computer Games magazine is because they will review some oddball items. Web only releases or niche products such as hardcore sims or wargames. Some of the most fun I've had recently was with a game called Oasis. Computer Games is the only place I've seen it reviewed. Which is a pity because it is a great little puzzle/strategy game which is really a lot of fun. I couldn't care less about the latest Madden but I am really interested in unique games that due to lack of exposure slip through the cracks.
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make because I've heard plenty of people say "Citizen Kane is boring" etc. It may be subjectively so in their opinion but they are not necessarily qualified to critique the film within the greater context of movie making as a whole.
As Ebert is not qualified to critique gaming.
Citizen Kane is overrated. And Touch of Darkness contains lame cliched stereotypes of Mexicans and pot smokers.
Ebert can bite me. He is probably less qualified to comment on games than I am to comment on movies. I'm sure I've watched more movies than he has played games and read more books on film and hell even edited broadcast video.
The art in games is not just the matter of telling a good story. Games are not experiences where you passively absorb a story that is dictated to you. Game mechanics and design are just as important if not more important than story, art or music.
Ebert tries to interpret games in the same manner that he does movies, as a visual and aural experience. He completely misses the point. Which isn't surprising given where he's coming from. Just wait another 30 years and games will be an excepted art form just as movies are today. Recall that when movies came out they were considered inferior to stage plays. As TV was considered gimmicky compared to radio dramas. It's just the old guard's reaction to a new medium.
I think this is supposed to be touted more as a feature than an evil thing. Its supposed to let you take a look at people you play with and see "oh he's playing halo, I'll jump in", or "oh hes watching a movie, I won't bug him".
I'm not agreeing with how it's implemented just saying that this is supposed to be one of those "community building" types of features of Live.
I agree that the two "shake outs" are not completely comparable. Gaming didn't die in 1984, but console gaming (which had become mainstream) pretty much did. Every console collapsed regardless of popularity and the followup consoles bombed. Atari 2600 and 5200, Intellivision, Colecovision etc.
Cutting edge gaming moved from the console platform over to computers, with a great number of early classics for Atari, Apple and Commodore computers being produced in the years of 83-86. Electronic Arts was incorporated in 1982 and initially was a hotbed of innovation in gaming producing influential games such as Archon, Seven Cities of Gold and MULE. To me the fall out that occured in the console area allowed developers to move to a less restrictive (keyboard vs one button joystick) environment that helped push forward game design tremendously.
The truth is though, that until Nintendo hit in 86 - console gaming was dead. Atari went from being cool to lame overnight. The Colecovision went from being an object if envy to hideen under the bed. Pop culture dropped it's love affair with all things video game.
I do think a lot of people stopped gaming after that. I think that is evidenced by the difference between the "Atari generation" and the "Nintendo generation" - a lot of people my age who group up with Atari don't play games any more. Almost everyone I know who grew up on Nintendo has a PS2 or other system.
Yeah exactly. Because OS X is UNIX based and we all know there are NO UNIX hackers in world. I mean who could possibly have the knowledge to exploit a known vulnerability on a UNIX or Linux system? I wouldn't even know where to go to look for that imaginary beast. :P
Oh yes I would agree. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can be an attention whore and an artist. Many artists have been. In fact it's probably a good thing for an artist to be as it motivates them to promote themselves.
I'm not a big fan of Warhol myself but it's hard to argue that he didn't make a huge impression on the art world. Indeed the his images of soup cans and coke bottles were put out there to ask viewers that question of "is this art?" Given his commercial design background it was a logical progression.
And that my friend is an opinion, not a fact.
This quote from Ebert:
"That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept."
Really shows exactly how clueless he is about games. Notice how he mentions "artistic importance as a visual experience". Of course he would think of it this way, the films he watches are only audio/visual experiences and as a non-gamer this is how he perceives games.
Because you see, interactivity is not allowed in his definition of art:
"...writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."
Never mind that outside of video games interactive art is a very real field. So is an interactive art exhibit which encourages visitors to manipulate the piece devoid of merit?
Ebert fails to recognize that there IS "authorial control" in games. And I'm not talking about just the graphic and sound design or the plotting and story. The core component in any game is the rules of the system. This is what should truly be looked at as the "script" for the game. The behavior and rules set that encompasses the interaction are really the core art of game design. Without a solid rule set, the prettiest, best written and best sounding game will not be enjoyable. Interaction is the core of gaming and the rules and behaviors of the game are what drive the interaction.
And why is this question so new? I consider Chess to be a work of art. The design is simple yet the game truly complex and mind boggling in its variety.
"But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."
Now here is where you really see it hit home. Ebert doesn't play games (except perhaps in passing) and has never had a gaming experience affect him emotionally or intellectually. So here he throws out a pot shot essentially branding gamers as less cultured, uncivilized and unempathetic. We are wasting our precious hours. Well, Ebert how many hours have you spent watching films that you have given a thumbs down too? The film industry is full of crap that has no artistic merit whatsover. There is as much shovel-ware in cinema as there is in video games. The basic situation is that Ebert does not understand games and is just the old guard of an older medium. Obviously what he has dedicated his life to has more merit. He can't see that on a very real level that the Sid Meiers, Will Wrights and so forth of the gaming industry are artistic giants in a young artistic medium. And for us gamers, Ebert's opinion doesn't matter one iota.
Yeah, it'll likely be more expensive to play NES games on the Revolution than on my Xbox today.
Of course it will also be legal...
I kind of liked Diablo's multiplayer for that aspect. ;)
I don't think that's how it works. Executable for the Xbox 360 needs to be "signed" to run on the hardware. This means it has to be Microsoft certified. I don't think you can just post a game for sale. Any programs being made available via Live will have to go through Microsoft for licensing and certification.
I believe the items end users can sell are more like cosmetic changes for games such as skins.
of not terribly well balanced games. Empire Earth was a game I really wanted to enjoy. An Age of Empires game that spanned a huge time frame from the beginning of Civilization all the way to a mech laden future. Sounds great. Didn't play that great.
Empires: Dawn of the Modern World was a pretty fun game but in my opinion really unbalanced. The national differences were quite large which is good in that the nations didn't feel entirely cookie cutter, but bad in that some nations had serious advantages. The U.S. only nuclear weapon (while being historically accurate for the era) was usable without any repurcussions and was completely devestating. Also the English ability to create buildings that provided food, rather than use units to do the same was a huge advantage in the early game.
I admit I did enjoy Empire for all of it's goofiness. The end game nuke-fest was a site to behold.
In terms of recent RTS games, Empire Earth and Empires couldn't hold a candle to Rise of Nations in terms of RTS innovation, balance and quality of AI.
"How many are rehashes and sequals."
Quite a few. And just as with new properties they vary in quality. I quite enjoyed Call of Duty 2 and think that Civilization 4 packs some truly excellent interface design.
On one hand you could say these are the same old formula, on the other hand they are significant updates.
I think there is a place for updates of older games but we do need more innovation. Katamari was excellent because it was a unique gaming experience and had a unique sense of style and whimsy.
Good graphics and high production values bring something to the table, but they don't make a game fun. Good gameplay can be an elusive thing. Some of the most fun I've had recently has been playing Oasis a clever little puzzle/strategy game. In spite of the rash of high profile holiday releases, I find myself loading it up for a quick game very frequently.
"(Have you played Civ4? Whooooooo what FPS we are getting, cough, choke, spit.)"
I don't know what kind of setup you are running but I haven't seen any problems with Civ 4. I run it at 1280x1024 on a 3.2GHz P4, 1GB DDR 400, 6800GT setup.