Artistic games you’re not allowed to criticise

  • Thread starter Thread starter Folder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PkunkFury said:
I'd still like to know how a game with no clear objective can be considered tedious?
The same way real life gets tedious. You run thin on ways to occupy yourself. Routine and habit dull the senses. Either you snap out of it or you get entranced by it.

Everything you do in any game is "meaningless" outside the game -- same deal with Final Fantasy. The difference is that the collecting isn't meaningless in the game, inside Final Fantasy. You are building towards something, moving along a narrative, or headed towards some sort of goal. Animal Crossing directs you towards nothing. The lack of any progression and the pseudo-communication are what make it so strangely bleak. It is the anti-game, in the same way that Beckett's opus was the anti-play. (Not to say that the two are really equal in stature or artistic accomplishment....just a helpful parallel)
 
I can see where your coming from in a sense, but we differ at our definition of game. I would tend to consider a game to be any activity that amuses while passing time. Even when describing an activity with no immediate goal, when the goal becomes "to pass time" perhaps a game is born? Not that the only reason I ever played AC was to pass time, but I think this helps illustrate that we can find a goal and make games out of just about anything we try to do. I suppose I considered the act of deciding what to do each time I played AC a game in and of itself. Animal Crossing directed me towards nothing in particular but provided me with many avenues to explore.

I agree that when you run thin on ways to occupy yourself, AC would be the most tedious game available. When my friends and I lost interest in the game, however, we put it away. We started "breaking" the game (playing outside the formal rules) and after that we stopped playing it entirely. While we were into it, AC never broke down into any more routine than the average role-palying game would. Most every game I play ends with the same progression, where I beat the game, use codes or whatnot to get an extra kick out of it, and move on to something new.

When playing Animanl Crossing I found my own motivations and enjoyed pursuing them without any sort of necessity to complete them. You compare AC to life, and it's an easy comparison to draw when reading about how the game plays. But when I actually played AC, I found it to be the exact opposite of life because there were no consequences. A refreshing escape from the real world, it provided a place where I could experiment as I wished and not be punished if things went wrong.

I actually like the snowglobe metaphor someone tossed around earlier as an insult. I suppose sandbox is more appropriate, but the "sandbox gameplay" line has become sort of a cliche. A sandbox provides no immediate goals, however once you occupy one you discover ways to enjoy yourself within the boundaries it provides. eventually you grow tired of what the sandbox has to offer. At that point you move on and find something new to do, as opposed to scraping the bottom of the box for more sand to play with. I haven't played in a sandbox for decades now, but I can still remember enjoying myself in them when I was young.
 
Defining what makes a game is largely just a matter of academic distinction, and has been pursued in previous AC-related debates.....I'm not entirely interested in going that route but I would say that if your definition is as loose as "something amusing that passes time" then most everything becomes a game (reading a book, drinking liquor, flirting, collecting stamps, chatting on ICQ, whatever). Though making you realize that the great majority of human activity can be reduced to the categorization of trivial "game" might be construed as AC's goal in the first place.

You say that the distinction between real life and AC is that AC has no consequences. But in the cosmic sense, life has no particular consequences. Humanity is a blip on a radar spanning billions of years and billions of miles. Micro-life (our daily habits and actions) has consequences but in the span of things it doesn't really. Macro-life moves on and is basically unaffected by whatever we do. AC tries to force this realization by giving you a micro-life free of significant change or consequence....right from the get-go. Other sandbox games simply works towards a middling approximation of micro-life, and don't seem to point towards the futility of it all (primitive arcade games like Pac-Man did this in a sort of abstract way I think). The inability to effectively communicate with the other AC inhabitants emphasizes the idea that even at the micro level our interactions with others can't really provide solace or truth or transcendence. Access to the minds of others is hazy, and language is as much a barrier as it is a bridge. "Words, words..." says Vladimir. Some will try to define their own goals and be occupied even in this hopeless place, others will simply give up and despair.
 
border said:
Defining what makes a game is largely just a matter of academic distinction, and has been pursued in previous AC-related debates.....I'm not entirely interested in going that route but I would say that if your definition is as loose as "something amusing that passes time" then most everything becomes a game (reading a book, drinking liquor, flirting, collecting stamps, chatting on ICQ, whatever). Though making you realize that the great majority of human activity can be reduced to the categorization of trivial "game" might be construed as AC's goal in the first place.

You say that the distinction between real life and AC is that AC has no consequences. But in the cosmic sense, life has no particular consequences. Humanity is a blip on a radar spanning billions of years and billions of miles. Micro-life (our daily habits and actions) has consequences but in the span of things it doesn't really. Macro-life moves on and is basically unaffected by whatever we do. AC tries to force this realization by giving you a micro-life free of significant change or consequence....right from the get-go. Other sandbox games simply works towards a middling approximation of micro-life, and don't seem to point towards the futility of it all (primitive arcade games like Pac-Man did this in a sort of abstract way I think). The inability to effectively communicate with the other AC inhabitants emphasizes the idea that even at the micro level our interactions with others can't really provide solace or truth or transcendence. Access to the minds of others is hazy, and language is as much a barrier as it is a bridge. "Words, words..." says Vladimir. Some will try to define their own goals and be occupied even in this hopeless place, others will simply give up and despair.

04.jpg
 
chespace said:
Existentialism, kids. Ain't it a bitch?
I've always thought of the game as not so much in line with existentialism and modernism but more with postmodernism. The game points out the absurdity of modern society and instead of saying "We need to find something better to devote our lives to," it says "Hey, I bet a Hawaiin theme would make my house look really nice."
 
NLB2 said:
I've always thought of the game as not so much in line with existentialism and modernism but more with postmodernism. The game points out the absurdity of modern society and instead of saying "We need to find something better to devote our lives to," it says "Hey, I bet a Hawaiin theme would make my house look really nice."

Oh, I was refering to this drivel, actually... and usually, I'm down with postmodernity. As long as it's all taken with a grain of sugar cane.

Border said:
But in the cosmic sense, life has no particular consequences. Humanity is a blip on a radar spanning billions of years and billions of miles. Micro-life (our daily habits and actions) has consequences but in the span of things it doesn't really. Macro-life moves on and is basically unaffected by whatever we do.
 
ICO has no music.

"You was there" and intro music are better that lot of B.S.O combined

Everyone has a opinion, as player I need new experiences that are doen´t need to be attached to "gameplay" always. Team ICO said that they had in mind no to do a "game" with ICO, they wanted other thing.

I believe we need that kind of variety, but that doen´t mean you can´t critic them. As a reviewer I could say ICO is short and simplistic, but I would put my reasons to "feel" it and why I found so breathtaking the experience. But that something that depends mostly of the reviewer.

There are action film, fast films and then slow films wheren don´t happen anything in a hour, you can judge one class with the standards of the other. personally I´m glad this is tranlsating in some way to videogames becouse that creates a more rich media.
 
Drinky Crow said:
One word: SPONG.
One word: Nobody
Drinky Crow said:
Animal Crossing isn't even approaching hardcore. Dodonpachi Daioujou is hardcore. Alpha Centauri is hardcore. Umihara Kawase is hardcore.
Congratulations!
You win the Most Pretentious Post of the Month competition.
And a Prize too!
SAL-TEE-ATTENT-C.jpg

Why follow me into threads and derail anything I say becuase of the job I do?
In my book, that makes you a cock sunshine, simple as that.

Back to your badly-made and unexplained points, I think you are mistaking having a hardcore and cool-sounding Japanese (Alpha C aside) name with actually being hardcore. How can a game that requires you to log into it daily and requires such a huge investment not be classed as hardcore. If it were called ‘Super Animal Shonditsu Control’ I’m sure it would make your grade.

Which again leads onto the self-serving gamer pretentiousness issue, as has been flirted with throughout this thread.
 
JackFrost2012 said:
Folder, what is wrong with you?
If you're refering to the above post.

1. Drinky Crow attempts to negate any postings I make becuase of the job that I do. That's bullshit.
2. Drinky Crow self-servingly asserts that games need to have a hardcore-sounding name to actually be hardcore. That too is bullshit.

If you mean in general, the list is far too long for this thread my friend. Right now I'm trying to house an unwanted Valentine's Day goldfish for my buddy Moss. My life is a comedy.
:)
 
I hated Ico. I don't think there's ever been a game that I had such a negative reaction to. After about an hour I decided the forces of evil could have the retard, I didn't want anything to with her. If I could have pushed her in front of a bus I would have done so.

It cost me 3 pounds, and I still felt ripped off.
 
8bit said:
I hated Ico. I don't think there's ever been a game that I had such a negative reaction to. After about an hour I decided the forces of evil could have the retard, I didn't want anything to with her. If I could have pushed her in front of a bus I would have done so.

It cost me 3 pounds, and I still felt ripped off.

That's pretty strange...

What exactly did you hate so much about it? Were you having trouble with one aspect of the game?

edit - I didn't realize Folder wrote for Spong. Ha ha, OK, NOW I understand the origins of this thread. :P
 
dark10x said:
That's pretty strange...

What exactly did you hate so much about it? Were you having trouble with one aspect of the game?

edit - I didn't realize Folder wrote for Spong. Ha ha, OK, NOW I understand the origins of this thread. :P

I imagine it was partly because I had high expectations and was looking forward to playing it, but I found it completely devoid of fun. I play games for enjoyment, not to inflict someone's artistic statements on myself.

I'll concede that it looks very nice, but unless the game became radically different after an hour, I just wasn't willing to drag a girl by the hand around while fighting off smoke monsters that she is too stupid to recognise as a threat.
 
Folder said:
I think you are mistaking having a hardcore and cool-sounding Japanese (Alpha C aside) name with actually being hardcore.
If you'd played either DDP DOJ or Umihara Kawase, you'd understand why they can be considered hardcore. The fact that they have mouthfuls for names has nothing to do with it.
 
8bit said:
I imagine it was partly because I had high expectations and was looking forward to playing it, but I found it completely devoid of fun. I play games for enjoyment, not to inflict someone's artistic statements on myself.

I'll concede that it looks very nice, but unless the game became radically different after an hour, I just wasn't willing to drag a girl by the hand around while fighting off smoke monsters that she is too stupid to recognise as a threat.

It wasn't just about looking good, though. It was a very fun game (just a bit easy).

It sounds as if you were having difficulties with keeping Yorda safe (which is REALLY easy). What made the puzzles enjoyable was the fact that you had to find ways to bring her along. It wouldn't have been the same if only YOU had to make your way through the environment. You don't need to fight those enemies in most cases and the game is almost designed to keep you on the run. When you reach an idol door, all enemies are destroyed. Also, if the enemies grab her, it's so easy to save her that I couldn't possibly understand how someone could become frustrated. Once she is sucked into the "hole", you have a quite a while to rescue her before it's game over. Also, if you just grab her hand for a second and pull her up...you just bought yourself some serious time.
 
I can't even believe there are people willing to defend Animal Crossing. Much less use a trite (and so very, very wrong) term like "Hardcore" to describe it. It's about as hardcore as window shopping at Pier One.
 
I was going to say something, but then Jonny stepped up and did it for me. But basically, yes: to put it mildly, Folder's argument against Rez is horribly flawed. It's like saying, "Hey, yeah! If you take away all of the exploring and backtracking, Metroid Prime is just another boring FPS!"

Rez wasn't labeled "art" after the fact; the design - from the audio to the graphics - was intentional, and to paraphrase Tycho, "in the right environment it can be considered performance art." The fact that Kandinsky is in the credits - yes, that one - should be proof enough that this "game" was approached as interactive art from the the very beginning.

Whether you like the fact that the game is a rail shooter is somewhat irrelevant. If that's all you see the game to be, well, hey, whatever. But there is more to the game than just blowing shit up. It's one of the few games that you "experience" more than you play in the traditional sense.
 
"But basically, yes: to put it mildly, Folder's argument against Rez is horribly flawed. It's like saying, "Hey, yeah! If you take away all of the exploring and backtracking, Metroid Prime is just another boring FPS!""

Hell, I said that on the first page.

WHEREZ MY PROPS??
 
Tre said:
"But basically, yes: to put it mildly, Folder's argument against Rez is horribly flawed. It's like saying, "Hey, yeah! If you take away all of the exploring and backtracking, Metroid Prime is just another boring FPS!""

Hell, I said that on the first page.

WHEREZ MY PROPS??

My bad, I thought it was Just Another GAF List. :P

But, upon thinking about it, let's flip Folder's argument on its head. All's fair, you know:


"You can claim as much credibility as you want, be as honest as you can be, and be persistent to no ends. But at the end of the day, you still write for Spong." ;)
 
Folder said:
One word: Nobody

Congratulations!
You win the Most Pretentious Post of the Month competition.
And a Prize too!

Umm, isn't this entire thread just another "Hey everyone, I don't like the games you like. Pay attention to me!" exercise?

You start the thread off by discounting Rez, Ico, and Lumines by reducing it down to its "quite boring" core components. And then make no further attempt to respond to others in this thread who call you out on your bullshit by applying the same logic to games like GT4 ("it's a game where you drive cars. quite boring!") ... who's really the attention seeker?

sp0wng3d.

p.s. fuck Animal Crossing. :)
 
chespace said:
Umm, isn't this entire thread just another "Hey everyone, I don't like the games you like. Pay attention to me!" exercise?

Yeah, I think folder meant to name this thread "artistic games you're not allowed to like because I say so" :P
 
This thread rocks in spite of Folder, if only because of border's contributions. I had a moutful of water and narrowly avoided a spit-take over "Waiting for Godot KIDZ". Oh, and Nethack spanks Diablo 2 in every way. :D

BUY DROPSHIP
 
chespace said:
Umm, isn't this entire thread just another "Hey everyone, I don't like the games you like. Pay attention to me!" exercise?
You start the thread off by discounting Rez, Ico, and Lumines by reducing it down to its "quite boring" core components. And then make no further attempt to respond to others in this thread who call you out on your bullshit by applying the same logic to games like GT4 ("it's a game where you drive cars. quite boring!") ... who's really the attention seeker?

What are you talking about? I was merely asking whether they deserved their sacred cow status. There were many who agreed. If you weren't such a reactionary baby and typical forum moron you'd have bothered to read the entire thread. Noticed that I say I played all the games, two to completion, one completed more than once. You'd also have picked up on the post wherein this whole exercise was self-described as a well-intentioned troll. You'd then have noticed that many agreed that ICO, REZ and Lumines didn't hit the mark. For them. You might also have read the GT3 explanation, as provided in full.

chespace said:
sp0wng3d.

p.s. fuck Animal Crossing.
But seemingly. You are a a reactionary baby and typical forum moron. Why bother entering a thread, so aggressively at that, and not even read up before your baby spew started dribbling down your inbred shamechild chin?

JackFrost2012 said:
Yeah, I think folder meant to name this thread "artistic games you're not allowed to like because I say so" :P
So many posts. So little to say...
 
I never had a problem with Animal Crossing, and its fans. It's a game that would never appeal to me in a million years, but it has content that I know appeals to a lot of people. As long as a good game gets its just due, I'm fine. Unfortunately that's just not the case in the current marketplace. Ico is very stylized but with basic gameplay, but I hear the sequel or whatever is not comming to the states, that's unfortunate.

Besides, the snarkiness of this thread is just pathetic. I find possibly overrated artsy fartsy games far less annoying than those corporate board room designed games dominating this industry (EA, and others...ahem) that almost always get good to great ratings by the corporate gaming media. Hell, I could wax political about how much I did not enjoy Halo 2, and how very overrated the game, and its genre is, or how about the hit games are way too predictable in this industry, which can be directly compared to the toy industry where the big toys for christmas are known years in advance? Just goes to show that this industry and its fans will never grow up.

Besides, it's weak going after games with such low sales, low buzz, and a small hardcore following. Go up against the large corporate establishment and its companion corporate establishment gaming media (overpaid professional fanboy shills that they are), that takes more guts, and you'd actually be going after the real annoyance of this shit. We all you know you bend over willfully to corporate will, which just makes me laugh at all the snarky. :D
 
Why, ah done been called an "Attention Seeker" by a guy who starts threads in OT just to pimp out pictures of his new wife, and who's whored his hokey little rumor website across the span of this forum more times than I can count. I'd be offended, but I actually *come* to GAF for the hypocrisy.

Look, I'm guessing you don't know my history or what I'm about. That's okay, because it's ultimately pretty boring and geeky shit. But I'll decompress the bit you DO need to know, SPONG Boy: calling my "points" "unexplained and badly-made" demonstrates YOUR ignorance, not mine. I'm a lot of things -- pretentious and self-serving among them -- but you'd better believe I have a long history of not tolerating purely ad hominem attacks to legitimate arguments. My points are pretty clear, as the responses in this thread might indicate, and unless you wanna spend your time sulking in another forum, you'd better buck the fuck up and address the arguments I've presented.

Here: Spending time at a game doesn't make you HARDCORE. Each of the games I selected demonstrates several factors of what constitutes a hardcore game: difficult, exclusive, and ultimately clever mechanics that reward those who face up to the challenge. Their brilliance isn't immediately accessible, and they're games so completely entrenched in the conventions of their genre that they've become virtually opaque to most casual gamers. You're HARDCORE when you understand a gaming genre so thoroughly that the opacity doesn't exist; that design aspects that might prove cumbersome or unfriendly to outsiders seem utterly natural to you. HARDCORE games cater to those who have simply played so many games from a given genre that they've become oblivious to any possible hurdles to entry; HARDCORE games have deep and evolved mechanics unencumbered by the need for accessibility.

Dodanpachi Daioujou is a shooter for the bullet pattern fiend. If you don't like mesemerizing waves of bullets and pattern-based scoring mechanics wed to an exceptionally high reflex requirement, the game's appeal is inscrutable to you. I have friends who consider themselves 2D shmup fans who find the game too unforgiving, but the game has a very rabid fanbase among folks who are considered "hardcore" within the genre, myself included.

Umihara Kawase is a clever, physics-based platformer that's available on in Japan. It's a difficult, tricky game with an obscenely large number of platforming puzzles and secrets. If you want to play it, you'll have to import it for the SNES -- which qualifies the game as particularly "hardcore" for modern Western audiences. But if you're a 2D platforming fan, it's so worth it.

Alpha Centauri is the purest form of the 4x, right down to unfathomably abstract tech trees, heavy-duty terraforming exercises, and an uncompromising AI. Not only do you have to love navigating loads of menus for a tiny piece of numerical data, you have to be able to process the vast amount of contextual information that accompanies it. It's a fundamentally daunting game, loved by bearded gamer types and loathed by those to whom it appears as an Excel spreadsheet with little tanks and cities haphazardly placed within it.

Animal Crossing isn't hardcore: there're no barriers to entry. It's simple and stupid -- literally. It has no challenge save the limits of your need to pointlessly collect items. There are no failure conditions. It's just an idle waste of time that demands no real mental energy or reflex skill to participate in save the ability to navigate an ugly weeble dude around a virtual city full of repetitive weeble animals. It's a sort of crude social simulator that creates a quasi-immersive, non-threatening alternate reality, and it's eminently grokkable by ANYONE.

The fact that you don't recognize these games and what they offer to their audiences says more about your ignorance of gaming, not mine. WUZ I TROLLED?
 
Musashi Wins! said:
You start this lame ass troll thread and your trying to get me banned? ARGH.
I think this thread is great.
You think this is a troll thread? Pah, if I was going to troll here, I'd make it a lot more entertaining than this. And then, um let me think, not say it was a troll thread...
And no of course I'm not calling for your banning. It was a joke. Lighten up.
:)
 
I sincerely doubt Ookami will be given the same leeway Mizuguchi or Ueda's efforts enjoy, it's lacking a similar creator pushed "intent" philosophy/band-aid to cover any downfalls. Expect it to be mercilessly picked apart like everything Capcom does. :(
 
Drinky Crow said:
Why, ah done been called an "Attention Seeker" by a guy who starts threads in OT just to pimp out pictures of his new wife, and who's whored his hokey little rumor website across the span of this forum more times than I can count. I'd be offended, but I actually *come* to GAF for the hypocrisy.
I'm bleeding man. Check the hokey little rumour site's interview tomorrow. Really. Or not. Whatever. And I never started a thread to show pictures of my wife. I did that in other people's threads! :-P

Drinky Crow said:
Look, I'm guessing you don't know my history or what I'm about. That's okay, because it's ultimately pretty boring and geeky shit.
I believe this news

Drinky Crow said:
But I'll decompress the bit you DO need to know, SPONG Boy: calling my "points" "unexplained and badly-made" demonstrates YOUR ignorance, not mine.
Dude, you just rattled out a list of games. That's not explaining your points. You did that when prompted to do so in your follow-up thread. Please...

Drinky Crow said:
I'm a lot of things -- pretentious and self-serving among them
I believe this news.

Drinky Crow said:
My points are pretty clear, as the responses in this thread might indicate, and unless you wanna spend your time sulking in another forum, you'd better buck the fuck up and address the arguments I've presented.
No. You only made your points when prompted to do so. And you made them well.

Drinky Crow said:
Here: Spending time at a game doesn't make you HARDCORE. Each of the games I selected demonstrates several factors of what constitutes a hardcore game: difficult, exclusive, and ultimately clever mechanics that reward those who face up to the challenge. Their brilliance isn't immediately accessible, and they're games so completely entrenched in the conventions of their genre that they've become virtually opaque to most casual gamers. You're HARDCORE when you understand a gaming genre so thoroughly that the opacity doesn't exist; that design aspects that might prove cumbersome or unfriendly to outsiders seem utterly natural to you. HARDCORE games cater to those who have simply played so many games from a given genre that they've become oblivious to any possible hurdles to entry; HARDCORE games have deep and evolved mechanics unencumbered by the need for accessibility.

Dodanpachi Daioujou is a shooter for the bullet pattern fiend. If you don't like mesemerizing waves of bullets and pattern-based scoring mechanics wed to an exceptionally high reflex requirement, the game's appeal is inscrutable to you. I have friends who consider themselves 2D shmup fans who find the game too unforgiving, but the game has a very rabid fanbase among folks who are considered "hardcore" within the genre, myself included.

Umihara Kawase is a clever, physics-based platformer that's available on in Japan. It's a difficult, tricky game with an obscenely large number of platforming puzzles and secrets. If you want to play it, you'll have to import it for the SNES -- which qualifies the game as particularly "hardcore" for modern Western audiences. But if you're a 2D platforming fan, it's so worth it.

Alpha Centauri is the purest form of the 4x, right down to unfathomably abstract tech trees, heavy-duty terraforming exercises, and an uncompromising AI. Not only do you have to love navigating loads of menus for a tiny piece of numerical data, you have to be able to process the vast amount of contextual information that accompanies it. It's a fundamentally daunting game, loved by bearded gamer types and loathed by those to whom it appears as an Excel spreadsheet with little tanks and cities haphazardly placed within it.

Animal Crossing isn't hardcore: there're no barriers to entry. It's simple and stupid -- literally. It has no challenge save the limits of your need to pointlessly collect items. There are no failure conditions. It's just an idle waste of time that demands no real mental energy or reflex skill to participate in save the ability to navigate an ugly weeble dude around a virtual city full of repetitive weeble animals. It's a sort of crude social simulator that creates a quasi-immersive, non-threatening alternate reality, and it's eminently grokkable by ANYONE.
I agre with everything you have said. Just wanted you to explain your view. Oh, except Dodanpachi Daioujou. I thought that was shit and made fucking rick hard for it's own (dare I say self-serving) sake.

Drinky Crow said:
The fact that you don't recognize these games and what they offer to their audiences says more about your ignorance of gaming, not mine.
The fact you assume I was in ignorance of the above games surely proves my point that you are attention-seeking and self-serving. I merely asked you to explain your view, not outline the games (well-known) USPs as you deemed fit to do...

Drinky Crow said:
WUZ I TROLLED?
Mildly. But like I said at the start, with the best of intentions.
*offers handshake*
:)
 
Folder said:
Why bother entering a thread, so aggressively at that, and not even read up before your baby spew started dribbling down your inbred shamechild chin? ...

My what... what now? :)
 
Drinky Crow said:
Animal Crossing isn't hardcore: there're no barriers to entry. It's simple and stupid -- literally. It has no challenge save the limits of your need to pointlessly collect items. There are no failure conditions. It's just an idle waste of time that demands no real mental energy or reflex skill to participate in save the ability to navigate an ugly weeble dude around a virtual city full of repetitive weeble animals. It's a sort of crude social simulator that creates a quasi-immersive, non-threatening alternate reality, and it's eminently grokkable by ANYONE.



The person who said AC is hardcore doesn't even like it. And once again, your interpretation is pathetic. Are you arguing this as though someone else argued the opposite? I certainly never said I enjoyed collecting items, or that Animal Crossing realy stretched my mental energy and reflex skill. The rest of your post is just mocking the game, which you could do effectively with anything, including every one of your favorite games. Halo is just a quasi-immersive little vehicle-based romp through worlds of uninteresting enemies and contrived scenarios. Bla bla bla.

Quasi-immersive? So it somehow pretends to be immersive, but it's really not? Oh, not to you. Gotcha.

Crude social simulator? As opposed to advanced social simulators? On which console? Animal Crossing never claims to be the evolution of any genre. That's what makes it unique.

Non-threatening? I'm not particularly threatened by kicking soccer balls. When an opponent is about to score on my goal, I don't tremble in fear.

Finally, idle waste of time. I'm not busy, but I find AC to be worth some of my time. No more than about 30 minutes a day depending on the events, but still.

Nintendo has never published or developed a game in which there are barriers to entry. That is what Nintendo stands for at the very least. Why would a game dubbed a communication simulator have barriers to entry? Animal Crossing didn't sell a million copies because Mario was on it. F-Zero GX is tough as nails in story mode, and didn't sell at all. Guess accessibility pays off some times. And yes, I know, we all love singing fish and Britney Spears. Moronic retards are we.
 
Speevy's back. Now we can have a super-sized clusterfuck!
Folder said:
Oh, except Dodanpachi Daioujou. I thought that was shit and made fucking rick hard for it's own (dare I say self-serving) sake
I am still trying to figure this one out. Who is Rick and why is it self serving to make him hard? :lol

Unless maybe you meant "brick hard" ;) In which case I still don't get how this is a legit criticism. How is a game hard for its own sake? What does that even mean? Why is it bad? How can a game do anything for something other than its own sake?
 
Drinky Crow said:
Here: Spending time at a game doesn't make you HARDCORE. Each of the games I selected demonstrates several factors of what constitutes a hardcore game: difficult, exclusive, and ultimately clever mechanics that reward those who face up to the challenge. Their brilliance isn't immediately accessible, and they're games so completely entrenched in the conventions of their genre that they've become virtually opaque to most casual gamers. You're HARDCORE when you understand a gaming genre so thoroughly that the opacity doesn't exist; that design aspects that might prove cumbersome or unfriendly to outsiders seem utterly natural to you. HARDCORE games cater to those who have simply played so many games from a given genre that they've become oblivious to any possible hurdles to entry; HARDCORE games have deep and evolved mechanics unencumbered by the need for accessibility.

Nice definition of the hardcore. This got me thinking... Ninja Gaiden and the VF series certainly fall into this category as well -- the common link here is that almost all these examples are Japanese.

What are some other western developers and their hardcore games? Halo and a thousand awful computerized hex-world turn-based war games come to mind immediately. So do sports games.

This also leads to the inevitable question of where exactly is the cut-off for something before it becomes too inaccessible? Where is the hurdle too high for casual entry?
 
I just don't understand why we have to keep going over this. People have different opinions. I like Animal Crossing. Drinky Crow thinks it's a waste of time. I respect his opinion, but I can't respect condescension or childish name-calling.

AC may suck. AC may be one of the best games of this generation. I'm open to either possibility that's presented in a reasonable way.
 
Ico is one that I see as having a certain undeniable beauty and presentation...mixed with gameplay that simulates smacking smoke around with a stick. Ico fans will take offense no doubt.

But then anyone who dismisses any of the my beloved Panzer Dragoon shooters should be punished by electrocution, firing squad, lethal injection, and then run over a few times for added emphasis. I'm kidding...just one of those should do the job....;)

Really though, each to his/her own, whatever, who the hell cares. Some love PDO, some love Ico, etc. life goes on.
 
"What are some other western developers and their hardcore games?"

Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale, Age Of Shadows/Disciples, as stated earlier, Alpha Centauri, etc.? The flight sim market's pretty dead, but those as well.
 
Tre said:
"What are some other western developers and their hardcore games?"

Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale, Age Of Shadows/Disciples, as stated earlier, Alpha Centauri, etc.? The flight sim market's pretty dead, but those as well.

Turn-based PC military strategy is the most blatant example I think.
 
Speevy said:
People have different opinions.
You adopt this semi-relativist posture but the language you use still assumes that you have access to to some absolute truth that the haters just don't get:

Other people don't get what's so great about it at all....as though you know THE FACT that it's great and others are just unable to arrive at this knowledge. Also reeks of the condescension you say you abhor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom