The Gamer's Quarter

Ketch · . Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 420

Most (action) games are basically a set of twisty corridors that you go down, and shoot / fight / run from monsters in, and solve the occasional puzzle. But you don't really interact with the environment / characters in meaningful ways, you just get from a to b. The interest is in how you get from a to b. Rather than in how you interact with characters, or plots or the effects that you have on allies / enemies.

Almost everything you can do, often must be done because there is a specific path preset by the designers.

Games like Deus Ex put more emphasis on things other than getting from a to b.

Surely games are capable of being interactive in more interesting ways than just combat?

sawtooth · . Joined: 02 Nov 2005 Posts: 419

human interaction and all of the subtleties it carries with it are very difficult to replicate with a few buttons. It's tough enough with a keyboard. I mean, hell, try and guess what mood I'm in right now.

Also; killing people is more exciting/entertaining/cathartic than interacting with other people/the environment, most of the time. Unless you have a gravity gun, or something like that.

Ketch · . Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 420

So could this be summed up as being that we are still in the rollercoaster stage of gaming? Sights and sounds and interaction to get the blood pumping.

player 2 · . Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 585 Location: Madison, WI USA

Games are getting there. Analog controls in Mario 64 start to pick up on nuances that we make that are more subconscious than conscious. Super Monkey Ball only heightens this effect.

But yeah, less variety in output is a direct effect of less variety in input. More buttons isn't necessarily the answer, though.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

Lackey · . Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 1107 Location: Canada

Mostly what you're getting at is the monolithic and rather static content that most mainstream games are made up of. That's not neccessarily a bad thing, but its not the only approach. To my mind this seems more like an artifact of other cultural industries, like film, than anything else.

When you talk about Deus Ex, you're talking about the same thing but with more time and effort put into having multiple tracks from a to b, c, and d.
_________________
| Little bird fighting against a bat sect game |

sawtooth · . Joined: 02 Nov 2005 Posts: 419

More games need biofeedback. And I'm not talking about that new agey-type adventure that got released a few years back.

horror games could be taken to an entirely new level just by measuring your heart rate. analog input is definitely where it's at.

Is having a dynamic, player-affected game world the same as having more interactivity? Are we talking about scenarios or pushing buttons? Subtleties of movement, emotion? Where am I? Neutral

dark steve · . Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 1110

Everyone go dig up a rom of rampage like right now.

Ketch · . Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 420

I think that Will Wright's games point out a possibility for games which don't come down to do the right thing (or retry the level), where interaction isn't just with a bullets or fists.

kuzdu · Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:54 pm Post subject:

Ketch, I think the problem you're having is with most games linearity, not their interactivity.

Ketch · . Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 420

friedchicken · . Joined: 16 Mar 2005 Posts: 496 Location: Port Land, OR

ApM · Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:17 pm Post subject:

Videogames have always, and will always, lie to the player to get what they want. Facade is probably the closest thing to a piece of truly interactive storytelling that exists, and it has to trick the player into doing what it wants more than anything else I've ever seen.

I don't think most people moaning about "linearity" or "lack of interactivity" really know what they're asking for. If you want a satisfying story where you determine the outcome, sit in front of a word processor and write it. If you want a truly interactive experience where you can create anything that you can imagine, learn Ruby.

You don't, though, because those are work, and there's inherently no dialogue between a creator and you, because you're it. There needs to be pong as well as ping. There needs to be a coherent framework for you, as a player, to exist in. And if a game is going to say something about people, the people are going to have to oblige.

Now, if you want to talk about giving games meaning, or about providing interesting consequences, that's another thing altogether. Start looking at well-made adventure games and IF. Essentially this means, how do you trick the player into existing in this world that you create, adopting the values that you espouse, and doing what you want? I mean, suspension of disbelief is essentially hypnosis. (I just had an awesome argument with my wife about the precise definition of suspension of disbelief and various brain states that culminated in my suggesting that some researcher should sit down with furries in front of FurryMUCK and measure their brainwaves. My wife is awesome.)

kuzdu · Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:36 pm Post subject:

Techniques for creating meaing in video games is a big and interesting subject, but I think what Ketch is saying is something we could all agree with at least in part. There don't seem to be a lot of games that strike a balance between very open-ended, non-linear gameplay (typified by Civilization and SimCity) and narrative driven, linear interactivity (such as Halo or MGS).

I think that problem is that the more options that you give a player, the harder it is to invest each of those options with narrative meaning, which is why, as ApM says, developers try and trick players more often than not into making the right decisions.