Not a fan of harder difficulties

[Squire Grooktook]

It does not beg the question. It leads one to ask the question, maybe, but it does not beg the question.

Oh ok.

It leads me to ask the question.

We have definitely veered away from the topic of the thread but I'll keep talking.

Do you think that The Walking Dead game would have been better as a book, comic, or movie?

It actually IS a comic, and was one before the tv show or game. In fact a friend told me that the game is at least inferior to the comic, though your mileage may vary on that one.

A good story can make a good game better, but it can't make a bad game good (we're getting a bit of topic here I think :p)

I might actually play a bad game if I liked the story enough. But I would admit the games story was bad.

 

[Lunerstep]

Dude who cares what others think if you use regular mode or whatever just play the game as you see fit, I know people who refuse to use anything except easy ^^;.

In the long run if I feel like going to hard difficulty I do otherwise just play the game for fun like your supposed too, that's my two cents on the topic.

 

[Denizen]

I'm talking about the GAME right now, I know about the comic and show, jeez.

I'll ask again, would The Walking Dead GAME be better as part of the Comic and TV series?

 

[SanoBaron]

just letting you guys know

 

[Lunerstep]

LOL although I do agree no fighting I cant help but smile and laugh at that X3

 

[Squire Grooktook]

I'm talking about the GAME right now, I know about the comic and show, jeez.

I'll ask again, would The Walking Dead GAME be better as part of the Comic and TV series?

I have no idea actually. I didn't actually play it (or watch/read the rest of the series). I'm personally not too interested, it's on my Steam wishlist, but it's at the very bottom, ha ha.

I could probably form an opinion on the subject, but I'd have to play it first. My statement about properly utilizing your medium (and picking the right one for the job) was more generalized then The Walking Dead in particular (which I hear is good).

 

[View619]

Here's the thing though, if you want anybody to believe that you're good at anything in this life, you have to PROVE IT. If I said I'm a world class level athlete but just don't feel like performing anymore, nobody is going to believe me. It's the same with skill at a hobby, nobody is going to believe that you're good at it unless you can show them.

Now, on the topic of the OP not liking "harder", that's his concern. If he tells me he's an amazing Halo player (for example) but doesn't convince me by actually playing and proving his point, then I won't believe him. And he should not care. If you say you're amazing at anything and you can't convince some random stranger of the fact, then does it matter? If you avoid challenges in games, nobody is going to believe that you're any good. But does it really matter what they think about you? You're not here to prove yourself to them, do what you want.

/Thread

 

[Squire Grooktook]

But proving a statement of skill is not the point, as I don't think the op was claiming to be good or anything like that. I think the question is "what is fun about challenge?"

 

[Denizen]

View619 The argument your making has nothing to do with the question of the post. Also, we are talking about games here, a form of entertainment. It's not the same as being a world class athlete and playing games on hard mode does NOT make you a greater person than someone who plays on easy, which is the real point here.

Squire I haven't played it either, but I have watched play throughs of it and my advice to you is to move that game up your list. It is the perfect example of how a story can make a bad game great.

 

[SanoBaron]

But proving a statement of skill is not the point, as I don't think the op was claiming to be good or anything like that. I think the question is "what is fun about challenge?"

sort of yes and no.

 

[Denizen]

But proving a statement of skill is not the point, as I don't think the op was claiming to be good or anything like that. I think the question is "what is fun about challenge?"

I totally agree with your first sentence. Actually the question was "I don't like playing games on hard mode and elitists always put me down for it. What difficulty does everyone play on and why? Also what do you all think about this elitist attitude?"

Then immediately after that a whole bunch of elitists came in and did exactly what he was talking about, even if they didn't realize it.

 

[View619]

I actually jumped on that post about "playing on easy does not mean you're bad at the game", which is true but you have to prove it if you want people to believe you. As far as the OP, made my case as to why difficulty is great and dude should just do what he wants. Not even sure why this thread was made to be honest, what elitist are you meeting in real life that puts you down for doing what you want in video games? Sounds like an Internet issue to me.

 

[DARKNESSxEAGLE]

Squire I haven't played it either, but I have watched play throughs of it and my advice to you is to move that game up your list. It is the perfect example of how a story can make a bad game great.

Dude, we're trying to talk about how gameplay is important over story in games and that if someone only wants to tell a story they should use a medium that focuses on that. For a game to have "NO gameplay" defeats the purpose of it being a game in the first place, the fact that you haven't played the game and have only watched it to attain a positive view of the game just shows that it could easily have just been a movie of TV series over a video game. Watching someone play ICO on the other hand isn't going to help you bond with Yorda anywhere near to the extent playing the game with the light rumble of the controller as you tug her along behind you will. It's a similar situation with Journey.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

Squire I haven't played it either, but I have watched play throughs of it and my advice to you is to move that game up your list. It is the perfect example of how a story can make a bad game great.

But see here's the thing, if it's a bad game, then why is it not preferable to simply watch a playthrough of it on Youtube? In which case why is it a game and not just a web series?

I don't want to get into a long drawn out argument about the merits of The Walking Dead (off topic as it is), I'll get around to playing it, but I definitely want to pick up Spelunky/Nexiuz/Ys Chronicles/etc. on Steam before I do so. Besides, I've been reading a lot of Ray Bradbury lately, so I've got my fix for the moment on emotional and compelling story telling with a hint of the fantastical.

Actually the question was "I don't like playing games on hard mode and elitists always put me down for it. What difficulty does everyone play on and why? Also what do you all think about this elitist attitude?"

Okay then. I would say there's no justifying that kind of attitude. Putting people down because they don't share your interests is always wrong. The difficulty of the games I play is usually dependent on how hard the game is, what kind of game and challenge it provides, and how much I'm into it, etc.

The only thing I will say though, is I advise the OP to at least keep an open mind to challenge and other such experiences (open mindedness when it comes to entertainment is a good thing to have in general). One thing that always saddens me is when friends come to me on Steam and say that they are bored, and then I look at their game history and find out that they have 200 games but only play tf2 and skyrim. If you're bored, if you want excitement, try a new experience or playstyle sometime.

 

[DARKNESSxEAGLE]

I totally agree with your first sentence. Actually the question was "I don't like playing games on hard mode and elitists always put me down for it. What difficulty does everyone play on and why? Also what do you all think about this elitist attitude?"

Then immediately after that a whole bunch of elitists came in and did exactly what he was talking about, even if they didn't realize it.

And no one tried explaining it either, they just complained that people didn't understand and told us to figure it out for ourselves...

 

[KaboomKid]

I don't mind games with different difficulty settings, especially puzzle games you can play quickly, but I do hate it when a game trolls you to play multiple times to get the full ending.

Like, I hated when I beat Rocket Knight Adventures for the first time, only to discover that I HAD to beat Hard mode to get the full ending. The game's hard anyway, so it takes a lot of work to reach the end, even on Easy Mode.

In those cases, I'd rather have Easy/Normal mode just end the game prematurely before the final stages, kind of like in Golden Axe. At least that way you get to save a little time, and treat the experience like a demo mode or something.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

In those cases, I'd rather have Easy/Normal mode just end the game prematurely before the final stages, kind of like in Golden Axe. At least that way you get to save a little time, and treat the experience like a demo mode or something.

Another example of Contra knowing where it's at.

An alternative is the way Cave does it in Dodonpachi. The true path is only unlocked by playing excessively well, so even if you find the default difficulty easy, you'll still have to play it amazingly (which will be more challenging) in order to unlock the second loop and the true final boss.

 

[Denizen]

I actually jumped on that post about "playing on easy does not mean you're bad at the game", which is true but you have to prove it if you want people to believe you.

Yeah but we are talking about entertaining ourselves. I'll play hard mode to prove to someone else that I'm good, but Im not playing hard mode to entertain myself. Just like if I can break cement with my hands I will break cement to prove to someone that I can, but I will smash lots of wood in my own time for fun.

Eagle & Squire, you need to understand that Story and Gameplay are both equally important parts of making a game. You may prefer one over the other but your preferences do not make a fact. A game with good story and bad gameplay is not objectively worse than it's opposite, a game with bad story and good gameplay. Once again it is all about the player.

Yeah I haven't played The Walking Dead, but I have played the demo and I've watched play throughs of it and that's enough to tell me that this game is great even without any gameplay. It is still a game and it would NOT be better as part of the comic or TV series.

I think we all need to stop this stupid argument and go play each others games. Maybe that will bring us to some real understanding and betterment here.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

Eagle & Squire, you need to understand that Story and Gameplay are both equally important parts of making a game.

I disagree. There are plenty of games out there that have virtually no story (or very little) and yet are regarded as some of the best. You have to remember that a story, like art and music, is something separate from a game. A game can have story and art, and it helps to have them, but it doesn't need them to be good. A story doesn't need gameplay either to be good, and the question is: Since a story can function without gameplay, then why should it have gameplay if it's not fun and adds nothing of value to the story?

Remember, I'm not saying that a story telling game cannot be good. I'm just saying that if it's a game, it has to justify its placement within that medium some way.

It is still a game and it would NOT be better as a movie or TV series.

Okay, now here is where this argument has to go. The question is: Why would it not be as good if the gameplay were excised? If the gameplay has no value, then in what way would the story suffer if the gameplay were excised?

Or, put another way: If the game is 100% focused on story, then what does the gameplay add to the story?

 

[Denizen]

But see here's the thing, if it's a bad game, then why is it not preferable to simply watch a playthrough of it on Youtube? In which case why is it a game and not just a web series?

I guess you don't know much about the game. Being able to make choices that affect the story is an integral part of The Walking Dead Game. You can't make those decisions in a book or movie. Real involvement is what the gameplay adds to the story and it would suffer without it.

I disagree. There are plenty of games out there that have virtually no story (or very little) and yet are regarded as some of the best. You have to remember that a story, like art and music, is something separate from a game. A game can have story and art, and it helps to have them, but it doesn't need them to be good. A story doesn't need gameplay either to be good, and the question is: Since a story can function without gameplay, then why should it have gameplay if it's not fun and adds nothing of value to the story?

Remember, I'm not saying that a story telling game cannot be good. I'm just saying that if it's a game, it has to justify its placement within that medium some way.

Let's use good and great as two different levels. A game with good gameplay and good story is a great game. A game with great story but bad gameplay is a great game (The Walking Dead). A game with bad story but good gameplay is a great game (Contra). Do you see where I'm getting at here? It's not just gameplay that defines video games. A video game is a culmination of hundreds of things and we can use ALL of them in differing ways and varying amounts to make a great game. Writing, Music, Art, Programming, Math, etc. It is hard to define what a video game really is because it is so many things at the same time, not just the one thing you attribute to it. Video games have changed over the years, the original definition of it no longer applies.

As for your last two questions please see what I said above.

 

[Denizen]

This discussion has turned into "What is a Game and what is the most important aspect of a Game?"

The answer is that there is no answer.

 

[destruction_adv]

I guess you don't know much about the game. Being able to make choices that affect the story is an integral part of The Walking Dead Game. You can't make those decisions in a book or movie. Real involvement is what the gameplay adds to the story and it would suffer without it.

Even though I know the game, you did say it had NO gameplay earlier, that's probably what confused people. Anyway, I agree to the notion that unless the gameplay adds something to the expirence, it should be in another medium. However, gameplay does not have to be the main draw of a game.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

I guess you don't know much about the game. Being able to make choices that affect the story is an integral part of The Walking Dead Game. You can't make those decisions in a book or movie. Real involvement is what the gameplay adds to the story and it would suffer without it.

Well there you go. If those are well executed and couldn't be done in another medium, then it justifies its place in the genre.

Let's use good and great as two different levels. A game with good gameplay and good story is a great game. A game with great story but bad game play is a great game (The Walking Dead). A game with bad story but good gameplay is a great game (Contra). Do you see where I'm getting at here? It's not just gameplay that defines video games. A video game is a culmination of hundreds of things and we can use ALL of them in differing ways and varying amounts to make a great game. Writing, Music, Art, Programming, Math, etc. It is hard to define what a video game really is because it is so many things at the same time, not just the one thing you attribute to it. Video games have changed over the years man, the original definition of it no longer applies.

As for your last two questions please see what I said above.

First off, Contra has great gameplay, not good.

Second, I partially agree, but at the same time we have to acknowledge the separate parts of a game for what they are. A game is first and foremost a game, it's in the title of the medium. If the gameplay parts are bad, then it's a bad game. No amount of story behind that will make it good as a game. However, such a game can still be good as a story, but I do not think one should make pretense of it being a good "game" and should simply say "it's a good story" or "it's a bad game with a wonderful story" or even "it's a wonderful story with a shitty game attached to it".

I acknowledge that a game with bad gameplay can be worth playing and have value, but at the same time, games are defined by their gameplay. It's in the title of the medium. GAME.

Another example: If E.T for the Atari had a riveting story in between all the climbing out of pits you do, would it therefore be a good game? I would say no. I would say it's a bad game with a good story. Worth playing? Sure. But not a good "game".

Or alternatively, you can't read me Shakespear sonnets and plays in between rounds of Candy Land (as part of the game) and then tell me that Candy Land is a brilliant game.

 

[Horseman]

I disagree. There are plenty of games out there that have virtually no story (or very little) and yet are regarded as some of the best. You have to remember that a story, like art and music, is something separate from a game. A game can have story and art, and it helps to have them, but it doesn't need them to be good. A story doesn't need gameplay either to be good, and the question is: Since a story can function without gameplay, then why should it have gameplay if it's not fun and adds nothing of value to the story?

Remember, I'm not saying that a story telling game cannot be good. I'm just saying that if it's a game, it has to justify its placement within that medium some way.

Because gameplay can and should add to the story, and vice-versa; a good game's story is not separate from the game itself, but irreversibly entangled with it. When the game employs immersion and interactivity properly in its storytelling, it transcends what either story or gameplay can do on its own.
The walking dead is a terrible example of bad gameplay- because of the way immersion and interactivity are employed, each action within the game feels meaningful even when it has a negligible impact on the story as a whole, and meaningful play is the end goal of all game design, whether it's super mario bros or proteus- therefore the gameplay does achieve what it's meant to do. If it had bad gameplay you would have been bored when story events weren't unfolding, and that's not the case, as much of the game is simply quick time events- but these manage to engage you anyway. Simplistic or otherwise not-fun-focused gameplay isn't bad gameplay, it's gameplay that's taking a different route to entertain you.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

Because gameplay can and should add to the story, and vice-versa; a good game's story is not separate from the game itself, but irreversibly entangled with it. When the game employs immersion and interactivity properly in its storytelling, it transcends what either story or gameplay can do on its own.

While it's obviously better to have the different parts of your mind that respond to music, visuals, gameplay, story, etc. all stimulated at once, I don't think having them all going at once "transcends" anything. The joy of making a tight reaction vs wondering over visual art are two completely different feelings that never truly blend and are always separate (to me at least). Having good music to go along with the good gameplay may have the benefit of also entertaining the audio part of your brain, but it won't enhance the pleasure of the gameplay.

Or like I said, that's what I believe.

As for the rest of The Walking Dead, I can accept all that. Denizen's argument was simply somewhat contradictory to me as he states that the gameplay is both "bad" and that there is "no gameplay", which whether it's true or not, contradicts what you just said.

 

[Denizen]

I should really put gameplay in quotes when referring to The Walking Dead. I admit it doesn't have "bad gameplay" it's just not "gameplay" as you would normally define it. It's hard to even call it "gameplay", it's more like just being able to control things.

I really wish there was a better word instead of "game"play because I no longer believe that is the defining aspect of a game anymore. They've changed too much over the years to be held back by that assumption. When video "games" were first made they were called that because their primary method of entertainment was your ability to "play" with them. Years later those names and attitudes about games have still stayed, even with the introduction of hundreds of different aspects that make up games today. Games have transcended what they once were but people still call them "games", and when "games" are hard to use, yes they are bad.

Considering what they are today, I would call video games "Electronic Experiences" and gameplay "Interactivity." It's more appropriate to my belief that Electronic Experiences are a culmination of many different things and that not one of those things is required to make a Great one, even Interactivity. It's a hard philosophy to explain but I'm trying my best here.
But now I don't even care, It's just semantics.

By the way I would love playing Candy Land if it was Shakespeerean themed, but that's just me.

I'm leaving for a little while.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

Before I respond to that, one other note:

Contra doesn't have a bad story. It's actually amazing. It's a perfect, tongue in cheek, affectionate parody of Hollywood action movie machismo.

I mean, come one.

Anyway, if you want to call The Walking Dead something else besides game, in much the same way V for Vendetta is often called a "Graphic Novel" instead of a comic book, then that's fine. Personally I don't think all games should have this applied to them. Persona 4, even though it uses its story and interactivity perfectly with its gameplay, I'd still call it a game at the end of the day.

Also I really should try and find out if there is a Shakespeerean themed Clue or Monopoly.

 

[Horseman]

While it's obviously better to have the different parts of your mind that respond to music, visuals, gameplay, story, etc. all stimulated at once, I don't think having them all going at once "transcends" anything. The joy of making a tight reaction vs wondering over visual art are two completely different feelings that never truly blend and are always separate (to me at least). Having good music to go along with the good gameplay may have the benefit of also entertaining the audio part of your brain, but it won't enhance the pleasure of the gameplay.

Or like I said, that's what I believe.

As for the rest of The Walking Dead, I can accept all that. Denizen's argument was simply somewhat contradictory to me as he states that the gameplay is both "bad" and that there is "no gameplay", which whether it's true or not, contradicts what you just said.

You don't quite understand what I was saying. They aren't just all going at once, they're interrelated in meaningful ways.
To use your example of music... good game music can get away with simply being good music in and of itself. Great game music doesn't simply sound good- it reflects the tone of what's happening in the game. It involves itself with the game so that it can reinforce it. Story should be used in the same way. The gameplay, the art, the music, and the writing should all combine to move forward in whatever direction the game wishes to go.
The problem being that games with a narrative slant traditionally throw gameplay away (see visual novels) and games that traditionally focus on gameplay throw story away (see most NES sidescrollers) when they could both be even better if they utilized the other well. That doesn't mean that fate/stay night should have a first person shooter section, or that super mario bros. should end with Mario getting PTSD after having brutally murdered hundreds of turtles, but that also doesn't mean that these games should simply try their hardest to be rid of their gameplay/plot.
For the record... that also doesn't mean that the story has to be going on right in your face 100% of the time. There are ways of telling a story subtly that don't detract from the gameplay, even in something that's straight up action.

I should really put gameplay in quotes when referring to The Walking Dead. I admit it doesn't have "bad gameplay" it's just not "gameplay" as you would normally define it. It's hard to even call it "gameplay", it's more like just being able to control things.

I really wish there was a better word instead of "game"play because I no longer believe that is the defining aspect of a game anymore. They've changed too much over the years to be held back by that assumption. When video "games" were first made they were called that because their primary method of entertainment was your ability to "play" with them. Years later those names and attitudes about games have still stayed, even with the introduction of hundreds of different aspects that make up games today. Games have transcended what they once were but people still call them "games", and when "games" are hard to use, yes they are bad.

We don't need new words for that sort of thing. That's the beauty of language, as the culture around them changes, so does the meaning of game, gameplay, play, all of that. As videogames gain more respect as an artistic medium, I guarantee the definition of those words will change, and people will no longer think of them as childish.

\Anyway, if you want to call The Walking Dead something else besides game, in much the same way V for Vendetta is often called a "Graphic Novel" instead of a comic book, then that's fine. Personally I don't think all games should have this applied to them. Persona 4, even though it uses its story and interactivity perfectly with its gameplay, I'd still call it a game at the end of the day.

...just don't do this, that hurts the medium as a whole. Every time you do something like this, you limit what a game can actually be. So if you want gaming to mature and become greater than what it is, please, for the love of god, don't pretend that this is a game and this isn't. As with all words that are at all general and not literal, once you begin to analyze it you realize that any attempt to define it will get really messy.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

I do understand what you're saying. I'm just saying that while I agree that it's certainly good to have that clever interrelation of elements (no argument here), such a relation between the elements does not actually strengthen the base enjoyments of the elements themselves.

Music that fits the mood = Yes. Do want.

But still, even with mood fitting music, it does not increase the base enjoyment of the music or the game. There is a bridge between them, yes, but these two disparate elements don't change on their deepest level because of their interaction with each other.

At least to me they don't. Obviously this is subjective.

...just don't do this, that hurts the medium as a whole. Every time you do something like this, you limit what a game can actually be. So if you want gaming to mature and become greater than what it is, please, for the love of god, don't pretend that this is a game and this isn't. As with all words that are at all general and not literal, once you begin to analyze it you realize that any attempt to define it will get really messy.

I personally don't. But I was just saying to him: If you don't feel comfortable calling it a game, then don't. It's up to you.

There may be some validity in it, I don't know. Not really interested in etymology.

 

[Horseman]

I do understand what you're saying. I'm just saying that while I agree that it's certainly good to have that clever interrelation of elements (no argument here), such a relation between the elements does not actually strengthen the base enjoyments of the elements themselves.

Music that fits the mood = Yes. Do want.

But still, even with mood fitting music, it does not increase the base enjoyment of the music or the game. There is a bridge between them, yes, but these two disparate elements don't change on their deepest level because of their interaction with each other.

At least to me they don't. Obviously this is subjective.

Of course they do. When the music fits the tone, the emotional connection is stronger and you're more immersed in the game. You might not stop playing if the music was unfitting or not present, but you're certainly more entertained when it's done properly.
For example, have you ever been playing a game when all of the sudden, the music goes silent? Don't you get a feeling, like something important is about to happen? Doesn't it make the upcoming moment have more impact? Or what about boss fights- I personally consider a great, intimidating song one of the most important elements of a great boss. If the boss simply had the same music as the rest of the level, wouldn't he feel insignificant? Like he was just another enemy that happens to be bigger?
This relates to the story, too. If a boss is just the hard enemy at the end of the level, you're going to care a lot less than if he's introduced earlier. If, in megaman, they simply listed the stage names instead of giving you a level select screen with each of the robot master's faces on them, and took out the part where the robot master poses after you select his stage, wouldn't the boss battle at the end feel almost inconsequential? Like that was just kind of some guy at the end of the level that tried to kill you?

 

[Squire Grooktook]

Of course they do

Not for me.

You can right all the paragraphs you want, but they will not change my experience.

Rayforce in my opinion is an example of a game where the beautiful music and mute sprite puppet show of a story brilliantly work with the excellent gameplay. But would the gameplay be any less enjoyable for me if I was playing with the music muted, or if the beautiful sprite artwork was removed? Nope. I LOVE the gameplay, and the rest of the elements are just a bonus.

There is an emotional connection thanks to these other elements, yes. But there is also an emotional (maybe) connection and stimulation from the gameplay itself, which would not be diminished in the slightest if the audio, visual, and lore elements of the game were removed.

Would the game technically be "greater" in a 2 > 1 kind of way with the addition of story, art, and music? Yes. But is the gameplay itself "greater" because of these elements? No. 1 still = 1. Story, art, and music are not added to that sum, even though they add to the sum of the games content and value itself.

Similarly, if you took out all the quirky art in Skullgirls, and replaced all the sprites with stick figures, I would still find the gameplay exactly as satisfying.

If, in megaman, they simply listed the stage names instead of giving you a level select screen with each of the robot master's faces on them, and took out the part where the robot master poses after you select his stage, wouldn't the boss battle at the end feel almost inconsequential? Like that was just kind of some guy at the end of the level that tried to kill you?

Bro, I've played a thousand shmups where the bosses at the end were either faceless generic machines or generic loli's, and those battles were still more fun and exciting then any Mega Man robot master.



Allow me to sum up my opinion again:

Art, gameplay, music, story, all create different kinds of pleasure. When they compliment eachother, it creates a new kind of feeling (relating to the AESTHETIC, which is also separate from gameplay), but does not change the base "value" of any individual element. In essence, what you are talking about is using the interrelation of elements of a game to add additional emotions to the experience, rather then improving or changing the existing emotions or feelings of the game which are provoked by its base elements and remain the same regardless of what else is added to the experience through their interrelation.

For example: The feeling of awe at a boss might be added through the aesthetic, BUT, the base "fun factor" or "excitement" of the boss remains constant (regardless of whether the music is muted or the cut scenes skipped) and can only be increased or decreased through the DESIGN of the gameplay.

This is my belief.

 

[Denizen]

Oh My God Horseman, in 3 posts you said everything I was trying to say and more.

I have nothing more to say, I leave the rest to you...

 

[View619]

Walking Dead is a standard example of a game...it's a point and click adventure game. Maybe not many people remember or know what that is now, but those were pretty popular in the early 90's. Problem solving and exploration to progress the story is what those were all about. So, calling The Walking Dead anything but a game is nonsense.

 

[Horseman]

stuff

I wasn't doubting that gameplay on its own could be entertaining, but it's still better when everything comes together. Movies got by without any spoken dialogue for years, and they were entertaining too, but Citizen Kane couldn't have been made without it.

Also, DON'T YOU FUCKING INSULT MEGAMAN YOU WORTHLESS WHORE.

Perhaps a better example for philistines that don't like megaman is that touhou games use the same principal by having you talk to the boss before you fight, and having them jump in for half a minute in the middle of the stage before you really fight them. None of them are fully characterized antagonists, but they're also not just another enemy- they have build up, they feel important, they feel more challenging because they feel more important, and they feel more rewarding after you beat them because of all these things. You could argue that skipping the cutscenes and the pre-boss fight wouldn't make the boss dull or unenjoyable, but the point is that these elements make the entire experience more enjoyable, and not that they're the black and white difference between a good boss fight or a bad one.
Although if you want an example of something besides gameplay making a lackluster boss into a great boss... try Marceline in Adventure Time: Hey Ice King, Why'd You Steal Our Garbage? If you analyze the boss by herself, she's a rather simple boss with no really great qualities aside from two things:
1. You're fighting Marceline the vampire queen. Remember that thing she did on the show? That was great.
2. Dat background music.
If I were to analyze her as a boss just on her gameplay, I would give her like a D, maybe a high C. But with those two elements, this fight gave me chills.

Walking Dead is a standard example of a game...it's a point and click adventure game. Maybe not many people remember or know what that is now, but those were pretty popular in the early 90's. Problem solving and exploration to progress the story is what those were all about. So, calling The Walking Dead anything but a game is nonsense.

The reply to this is that the majority of the time is spent making story choices and doing quicktime events, and that the actual point and click bits are all very simple and easy.
Of course the people who argue this completely forgot that the point and click genre was never built as a puzzle game, but as a story-based game, and that games like maniac mansion, full throttle or monkey island would be terrible games without their narrative. Of course, these are the same people who say "Proteus isn't a game because it's not fun" so you should probably expect that sort of silliness from them at this point.

On a side note, remember when this thread was about challenging games?

 

[Squire Grooktook]

Hey I like Mega Man. Actually I feel that classic Mega Man had superior level designs and inferior boss battles, while the X/Zero/Zx series had inferior level designs and superior bosses. But that's just me (also it varies from game to game in the series).

Also I DO in fact skip the dialogue and cut scenes in Touhou (As I said I hate Touhou's dialogue lol). A better example would be Exceed 2nd, where the characters actually did grow on me, and the cut scene before the final boss was actually pretty impressive.

Anyway like I said: The interrelation between music/art/story/gameplay may add new emotions that add to the experience, but they do not improve or alter the existing emotions provoked by those elements by themselves. All the cut scenes in the world won't make the satisfaction of a tight reflex based dodge more or less satisfying.

The advantage of this interrelation is that you simply have additional emotional experiences besides the base satisfaction of the gameplay or pleasure of the music, which remain the same despite the interrelation.

Feeling of awe added by music or story =/= feeling of excitement from the battle itself. The gameplay aspect will not "enhance" the story/music aspect, and the story/music aspect will not enhance the gameplay aspect. The reason why it is better to have both is you simply have more experiences at once. And more is always better.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. Rayforce has a sequel called Raystorm. They both have good soundtracks. Raystorm has a superior soundtrack, but Rayforce's soundtrack is vastly more fitting to the mood and atmosphere. Do I like Rayforce's music better? No. The fact that it gels with the gameplay better does not increase my enjoyment of the music itself. However it strengthens the atmosphere of the game which is something completely different from the music or gameplay. It's something new added to the game through their interrelation.

Now, whether you would choose the atmosphere of Rayforce over the superior composition of Raystorms ost really comes down to which you subjectively prefer: The music or the atmosphere?

That is my experience and feeling on the matter.

 

[DARKNESSxEAGLE]

So after being told the Walking Dead had no gameplay it turns out it does have gameplay and that the gameplay is one of the most vitally important parts of the game's story as, without it, you get a linear story instead of one that branches on the choices you make during the interactive parts of the game.

Even here, difficulty exists as I would imagine making the wrong choices leads to unfavourable story events, so the difficulty exists in a different form to the common game over screen

 

[SanoBaron]

So after being told the Walking Dead had no gameplay it turns out it does have gameplay and that the gameplay is one of the most vitally important parts of the game's story as, without it, you get a linear story instead of one that branches on the choices you make during the interactive parts of the game.

Even here, difficulty exists as I would imagine making the wrong choices leads to unfavourable story events, so the difficulty exists in a different form to the common game over screen

there is a difference between difficulty in skill and difficulty as "who must I choose to die?"

 

[Lumen Fortuna]

You're allowed to date me only if you can get Pure Platinum on all levels on Bayonetta's Non-stop Climax difficulty.

 

[destruction_adv]

You're allowed to date me only if you can get Pure Platinum on all levels on Bayonetta's Non-stop Climax difficulty.

I'll pick you up at 8. (though I've since sold the game and can't really prove it.)

This reminds me of that when a friend told me the only way to date a Korean girl was to beat her father at Starcraft 2.

 

[Denizen]

So after being told the Walking Dead had no gameplay it turns out it does have gameplay and that the gameplay is one of the most vitally important parts of the game's story as, without it, you get a linear story instead of one that branches on the choices you make during the interactive parts of the game.

Even here, difficulty exists as I would imagine making the wrong choices leads to unfavourable story events, so the difficulty exists in a different form to the common game over screen

Ugh... No that's not what anyone told you. Horseman puts it in better words than I could but if I must say something again...
What we're saying is that if you stripped The Walking Dead of it's story it would be a terrible as shit game.

Also Sano is right, don't compare video game difficulty to moral dilemma, that's really cold hearted.