• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Unpopular gaming opinions

Merlock said:
Games like either SMB
games that are basically repetition and level memorization
I can agree with this. They need to have flow/interesting mechanics to keep them interesting. It's one of the reasons why I vastly prefer Genesis Sonic games over the old marios. Also genesis does what nintendont
 
CrackedMarbles said:
I think games are a far better way to convey a story than movies, books, etc. I'm much more likely to get invested in a story if I feel like I'm making it happen, I.E Dark Souls 1, Half-Life, most TellTale story games.
Personally, I think that absolutely nothing matches the sheer depth of characterization that can be found in books. Not that games, movies, and short stories can't have good characters/character development, but IMO not on quite the same level in terms of depth as the all time great works of literature.

Merlock said:
Games like either SMB
games that are basically repetition and level memorization

Who memorizes stages in Mario? They aren't nearly hard enough to warrant that. I'd hardly call SMB3 repetitive also.

Dolfinh said:
Random battles are an incredibly outdated design and there is absolutely no excuse for games to have them.

I disagree. I think they work great for the simulation aspect, more so than having enemies that engage you visibly from the map. I wish SMT IV had kept the random battles, honestly, one other aspect that made the dungeons feel less substantial IMO. Still a great game though.
 
But SMTIV's real problem was Smirk and the lack of a defense stat.
 
DDB said:
But SMTIV's real problem was Smirk and the lack of a defense stat.
Yup. And being able to save in dungeons. Makes them feel less dungeony and more safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DDB
Squire Grooktook said:
Who memorizes stages in Mario?

Anyone who plays the games
Memorization is a result of repetition it doesn't have to be a "sit down with flash cards" experience
I'd bet most people could play through at least the first few stages pretty accurately in their head
 
Squire Grooktook said:
This is a bit too extreme for me. While I try to keep an open mind, I feel there should be some boundaries. I know there are many grey areas that are somewhat subjective, but at the same time I feel it's necessary to set at least some basic parameters for things that are definitely, definitely not games (while at the same time, respecting other peoples opinions). For example, I personally don't consider the microsoft word/power point examples in your post as games. Yes they are interactive, but they are meant purely for utility unlike every other form of art. They are examples of craft, not art. Now that's my own personal opinion, and you can disrespect it, but I'm not going to acknowledge those examples as games.
I'm not saying that those boundaries don't exist, because if they didn't everything would be a game. I'm pretty sure the chair I'm sitting on now is not a game.
I'm saying that the perfect definition of it doesn't exist. That you can't just come up with a handful of sentences that always accurately describe what a game is in all circumstances. Where those boundaries are really depends on context.

Squire Grooktook said:
But reason X might not apply to all visual novels, let alone games. Not to mention you haven't defined what X is in the particular VN. Maybe it's a VN with litter ally no choice whatsoever and the only thing you're doing is pressing a button to advance text. You do the same thing on a Nook or for a motion comic.
Don't entirely get why you still don't understand, but this is going in circles so I'm probably just going to dismiss this if you reply with the same thing again.
If you say "this is not a game and here's why" and go out to tell the world, you're building a definition of a game. You're restricting what a game is, and while it might be just your opinion it's not just affecting you.
I think the thing you're getting hung up on is if the restriction is only being applied to this game, and not meant to be part of any universal definition of a game, and I will give you that that's a significantly more valid view than most, I just pretty much never see it. At that point the only thing you really need to think about is, like I said, what do we gain if this thing isn't a game and what do we lose if this thing is a game?

Squire Grooktook said:
Video games can have elements of that thing or be close to that thing. If interactivity needs to be > 0 (which it does), than you could just add one point of interactivity to it and call it a day. Maybe not everyone will agree, but they shouldn't have to.
I have to say, "interactivity point" made me crack up. It's like I said before; how do you measure interactivity? That's kind of key to this statement. Is one interactivity point one choice? If that's true, does the choice of whether or not to pick up this cup make it a game? Is it one choice per minute? If so, where does that leave a turn based strategy game where one player is simply thinking out his or her next move?

Squire Grooktook said:
This does not discredit the "thing" in question. I'm sure there are plenty of visual novel addicts out there who consider them (some of them, vn's can be very different from eachother, from what I've seen. Hence case by case basis...) simply a form of manga and not a video game, but still greatly cherish them for what they are. You seem to be convinced that saying something isn't a video game is inherently an indictment, as if nobody should be allowed to make that thing or enjoy it, but this is an unfounded assumption. Some people might use "it's not a game it has no gameplay" as indictments of particular games they actively dislike, but that doesn't mean that everyone who have some sort boundary on what they define as a video game inhernetly dislikes things that don't meet those qualifications.
Absolutely; if something is trying to be a game, or at least has a large number of people who consider it a game, saying it's not a game is definitely an insult. Whether or not that's a well-founded insult is the fuzzy part.
However I'll digress and say that, if a VN specifically doesn't consider itself a game, I can agree that it's not a game, although I can't help but wonder if the creators or fans distinguish it as not a game because to them being a game is childish. I suppose it could be from an actual view where they don't think their vn meets some sort of existentialist ideal of what a game must be, but at the same time I doubt they would make a big deal out of it if that were the case.

Squire Grooktook said:
I was going to address each question, but honestly I'd rather not get into an extensive WHAT IS ART debate on the internet. I will say though that the last one was kinda silly IMO.
It's not silly, it's a pretty important question. But, for clarification:
If dear esther isn't a game, you just offended a bunch of people who consider it a game
If dear esther is a game, we lose nothing. The definition of a game is stretched ever so slightly, but the world goes on.
If a cup of coffee isn't a game, nobody cares.
If a cup of coffee is a game, you're stretching the word "game" so far that it's, at this point, meaningless.

I realize that the point where you've stretched the word "game" too far is different depending on the person, but you should really think about where it's gone so far that "game" is a meaningless term.

Squire Grooktook said:
Look, I understand your concern, but your starting to sound all "I MUST CRUSADE AGAINST THE BRO ARMY TO STOP THEM FROM RUINING GAMING", people not liking these genres or games aren't going to kill them. Most experimental shit is niche, in all mediums. Most of the experimental stuff in games are probably going to follow suit. But there will always be a demand, so whether people define them as games or not isn't going to stop them from being made.
It's still pushing them to the margins simply because they don't want to play them. Yes, experimental games are niche, but even the people who don't play them should be able to identify them as games. It's not that I'm trying to tell these people to really get into story based and experimental games, I just want to be able to coexist in the same medium as them, preferably without constant complaints about needing to get out.
But either way, experimental game designers get constant hatemail from these "not a game" folks, plenty of them tirade on forums and message boards every time one comes out about how it's not a game and we can't stand for this. If you don't see how this could discourage a hell of a lot of people from making experimental games, I don't know what to say.
I'm not saying all of them are doing this, but it's sure not going to stop while there's still tons of people on their side.

Squire Grooktook said:
Hell, these debates have been going on for centuries in every other medium. If you look back in art history, their are tons of professional classical painters arguing about what "real" painting is or what the boundary between art and random shit is. Their still arguing about it today, and they probably always will be arguing about it. This is not some unique problem killing the video game industry.
Absolutely; there's something to be said about academic discussions about the meaning of a game.
But that's not what we have here for two pretty distinct reasons:
1.) A good 99% of them are spreading already debunked definitions of games. That is not scholarly debate, that's beating a dead horse. In particular "It needs a winstate" or "it needs to emphasize its mechanics" or (worst of all, but you seldom see it anymore because it's the most obviously stupid one) "it needs to be fun", and while the definition of game is subjective to an extent, you can be outright wrong about it- which is what, in all practicality, any non-contextual definition of the game is. You can hold these beliefs personally, of course, but the moment you go out in public and start acting as the game police is where you need to come up with something that makes more sense. If you have such a wishy-washy definition of "game" you really shouldn't be announcing it to the world as truth.
2.) Again, the idea is based on rampant no true scotsman fallacy; it's an insult that pushes things out of their medium because they aren't very traditional in their "gameyness." I already talked about this before so you get the idea, but the point is that the games that are targeted are always games that don't target the interests of gamers. It's not even always things that are stretching the definition of a game; things like the sims and farmville and animal crossing have been challenged for, in many cases, seemingly no reason other than because they're games where you do things your average hardcore gamer doesn't really want to do. And it's fine to dislike this games for various reasons, but when you try to kick them out because hardcore gamers don't want to play a game about peacefully living in a small town; and whether you like it or not that's at the heart and soul of the current, overwhelming game police movement that I'm worried about.
 
Merlock said:
Anyone who plays the games
Memorization is a result of repetition it doesn't have to be a "sit down with flash cards" experience
I'd bet most people could play through at least the first few stages pretty accurately in their head

What repetition though? Unless you're speed running, there's no reason you have to play through each stage a million times.

Horseman said:
It's still pushing them to the margins simply because they don't want to play them.

I'm sure some people are doing that, but all I'm saying is that not everyone who doesn't recognize a certain kind of visual novel as a game means it in a way that is negative about the visual novel. Maybe they do have their own personal minimal requirement of interaction/whatever to be a game, but if they are mature people that doesn't mean they have to hate/want to end anything that doesn't meet that requirement, or even can't enjoy things that they don't consider games. Vn's in particular have been popular for more than a decade, and I'm sure not everyone who enjoys them thinks of them as games. They aren't going away or devolving just because of a few peoples semantics.

Part of this I think is that you seem to have a different context for these sorts of things. I've never met anyone who had a problem with visual novels or games like Proteus, so I'm not getting the whole hate mail/these games shouldn't be made thing. I'm not seeing any "gaming police", at most there are some people who think artsy experimental games are stupid, but than there are lots of people who think artsy experimental films are stupid.
 
Double posting because combining the above post with this one would be awkward.
destruction_adv said:
Curious, how do you feel about charge inputs? also what about down, down inputs, the easiest of inputs IMO.
Those are fine too, of course.
Charges I'm slightly annoyed by when used in a combo, but that's mostly just because it's fucking with my left hand's muscle memory.

Merlock said:
Anyone who plays the games
Memorization is a result of repetition it doesn't have to be a "sit down with flash cards" experience
I'd bet most people could play through at least the first few stages pretty accurately in their head
I can remember stage 1-1 vividly, really only because it's super iconic and referenced all the time.
I can vaguely remember stage 1-2, 4-1 and the last stage.
I've played super mario bros all the way through a good 3 or 4 times.
There's a massive difference between memorization and just remembering stuff. You don't need to memorize level 1-1 to beat it, you just beat it like any regular person, but if you play the game 100 times because you love it you'll consequently memorize it.

Squire Grooktook said:
Part of this I think is that you seem to have a different context for these sorts of things. I've never met anyone who had a problem with visual novels or games like Proteus, so I'm not getting the whole hate mail/these games shouldn't be made thing. I'm not seeing any "gaming police", at most there are some people who think artsy experimental games are stupid, but than there are lots of people who think artsy experimental films are stupid.
Just look on steam for an artsy game and browse it's forums for a while, you'll understand plenty.
The latter isn't what I'm talking about, it's fine to have differing tastes and it's not like experimental games are ever going to be part of mainstream pop culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squire Grooktook
My word, I HATE down-down inputs. SO much. They're the entire reason I can't play Jill in MvC3.
 
Down, Down is technically a double motion input right?
 
Erreip199 said:
Down, Down is technically a double motion input right?
down down isn't bad. I really really struggle with double quartercircles or double fullcircles(fuck playing hakan) in AE.

I could just get them with practice, but it just seems like an obnoxious barrier.
 
Horseman said:
Just look on steam for an artsy game and browse it's forums for a while, you'll understand plenty.

Ha ha, I know. But keep in mind that Steam forums/hubs/reviews are more often than not worse than opening up an anon board thread at random. In fact, I'd go so far as to say there are gaming communities out there that are far more ignorant and annoying than anything 4chan ever spewed at.

For example, in Phantasy Star Online 2 there is a certain English block that is almost always filled with a...certain type of player. I have not been to 4chan, but I have a friend who does go there and who assures me that even 4chan profoundly "loathes" that block and everyone in it. Every time the game randomly logs me into it, I feel an intense need to escape as an overwhelming avalanche of meme garbage text bubbles flood my screen.

But also, remember that just because a certain group of people are very vocal, doesn't mean they are particularly great in number or exercise that much power. Most Steam customers are pretty reasonable, but you just don't often run into that when browsing the review boards for certain games that have been hijacked by memes and whatnot.
 
Last edited:
Horseman said:
Every time I see this topic come up again, I cringe.
This thread will be the end of me, I swear.
Mind you that doesn't mean I hate them. Phoenix Wright is one of the best things I have on my 3ds.
 
zanestat said:
Mind you that doesn't mean I hate them. Phoenix Wright is one of the best things I have on my 3ds.
Phoenix wright pretty firmly sits in the adventure game genre, not visual novels.
Which is much iffier territory because it involves a lot of puzzle sections interlaced with all the dialogue. I'm genuinely curious why you don't consider it a game. Are puzzles in general not games, or is there some vague minimum number of puzzles you need to have in a game that uses them as its main form of gameplay?
 
CrackedMarbles said:
I think it's bad that male characters often get forced into niches that reinforce the whole "big, tough guy" stereotype and when it's not that, it's often wit that's supposed to come off as humorous, but more-often portrays itself as obnoxious or boring quips. That's actually one of the reasons I really liked Heavy Rain, mostly because of Ethan Mars. He had a really believable personality and appearance. He reminded me of people I actually know, and you could feel in the story how much it meant to him to not lose his son.

Missed this one before, but yeah I agree. Not a fan of the action move aesthetic and I don't really relate to that kind of male character at all.

UNLESS it's in a kind of self aware way. Like for example, I really like Bill Rizer in Contra, and the aesthetic for the series in general. It's so macho, it takes things into absurdity, but does so in a very tongue in cheek way and has some self aware fun with it.

*edit* One more:

I think Marvel Vs Capcom 3 (at least, last time I checked) has the same "only 8 characters in a tournament setting" problem that Mvc2 had, but for a completely different reason.

In Mvc2, the low tiers were almost impossible or at least ridiculously hard to play in a tournament setting against high tier characters. But the low tier characters themselves were really fun and unique, and if you played them in a low tier tourney or low tier casuals, a lot of that really shined through. They just weren't viable for the most part though outside of those special settings.

Mvc3 on the other hand, I think most of the characters are viable, even if not all of them are great. But they all feel so samey. Why play X mid tier character, when you can play the better version of X character? And IMO that's why you see the same teams over and over again in Mvc3 even though it's a much, much better balanced game than mvc2 (or at least, that's what I was seeing last time I was following the game, don't know about the most recent year or so). IMO it's a symptom of the games ultimate flaw, which is really generic and half assed move-set design, most of them just feel thrown together to me. But I dunno, that's just my opinion of mvc3.
 
Last edited:
Horseman said:
Phoenix wright pretty firmly sits in the adventure game genre, not visual novels.
Which is much iffier territory because it involves a lot of puzzle sections interlaced with all the dialogue. I'm genuinely curious why you don't consider it a game. Are puzzles in general not games, or is there some vague minimum number of puzzles you need to have in a game that uses them as its main form of gameplay?
Yes puzzles are games.
I have to be directly involved with everything not just a text fed story. I have to feel I contributed to the overall game. If the majority of what I do is sitting back and reading it is not a game, even if they game has fps elements are actions gameplay if it isn't mostly game play I write it off as a visual novel. You also seemed well versed in the visual novel territory. Could you recommend some?
 
zanestat said:
Could you recommend some?

999, if you haven't played that.
It's actually got a really interesting mechanic,
I guess you could call it a mechanic,
it's hard to describe.

But it is heavily puzzle based and not just walls and walls of text.
 
zanestat said:
Yes puzzles are games.
I have to be directly involved with everything not just a text fed story. I have to feel I contributed to the overall game. If the majority of what I do is sitting back and reading it is not a game, even if they game has fps elements are actions gameplay if it isn't mostly game play I write it off as a visual novel. You also seemed well versed in the visual novel territory. Could you recommend some?
So the puzzle part of phoenix wright is a game, but the dialogue in between isn't? And because there's too much dialogue in between, it suddenly makes the whole thing not a game?
Does that mean a JRPG with long cutscenes isn't a game? What about a turn based strategy game where you take roughly 20-30 seconds deciding your actions and significantly longer watching them play out, like fire emblem awakening? How are these things different from a game designer pacing an action game by using long, calm, nearly non-interactive moments between fast paced action scenes?

And for some recommendations of games that are similar to phoenix wright:
999 (as mighty box said)
Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective
Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havock
Wolf Among Us
The Walking Dead
 
I consider Phoenix Wright a game.

also i've never felt like I wasn't contributing in a phoenix wright game. It felt like what I did ACTUALLY mattered (shoutouts to cases 2-4 and 3-5)
 
I think Pheonix Wright should count as a game, but I feel visual novels can both be games and at the same time not games.

like, Katawa Shoujo and Always Remember Me I would consider just visual novels, but not game.

whereas games like Zero Escape, I would consider games as well as visual novels, as they have other forms of gameplay, not just the visual novel aspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back