SupremeAC said:You're just putting words in a random order now, aren't you?
Works for me. 
travo said:Works for me.
Now you're doing it too! 
I don't find the subtexts of UN incompetence and corruption, nihilism (often in the rejection of it), the war on drugs/terror, economic crisis, masochism, the impotency of big government, and the importance of submitting to magical saviours being themes that are nearly as prevalent (with the exception of the magical saviour, but it comes across as a bit different when you yourself are the magical saviour and not subservient to it) as common in videogames as they are in superhero films, so I'm not sure I buy that the rise in popularity of superhero films and the change in games are definitely related; especially when you consider the technological changes and growth in audience affecting games over the same period of time.
But the last Call of Duty I played in full was 4, so maybe I'm just playing the wrong games. There is solid crossover, however, in people's criticism of the "political correctness" in the latest batch of superhero films and games. That and sadism...
Alternatively, which is more in line with your two bob's worth, the vapidity of those much lamented masses has sucked the dramatic, aesthetic, and thematic potential out of blockbusters to the point where all that remains is a husk composed of the standard American subtext; just as all that remains in games is the subtext of a narrative being there by default which was previously pretty much irrelevant beyond its use as a compositional crutch, but is now all that remains, and therefore the focus.
Foolz said:False: your definition of depth is, so far as I can tell, "complex and good";
This actually irks me, because no it's not. Nothing I focused on is just "complex". We been over this. My definition of depth as it pertains to games, is the total number of possible game states minus the redundant game states. Or the total number of relevant and interesting decisions available to the player in a possibility space. Which doesn't need to be complex, as something like Mario n Divekick have a substantial amount of depth around simple systems.
Otherwise nah mate, any academic writing of film is 100% about some sort of analysis through a feminist lens, historic lens, auter theory, what have you. Those subjects still have some sort of object base they work from, and it's usually rewarding a more well rounded work which has a direct correlation to how depth is used when discussing cinema. More to it, good criticisms in those fields don't completely throw the virtues of their mediums at the waste side. Film critics didn't suddenly ignore the pillars of cinema n visual language for a bunch of verbose movies with basic shot/reverse shot dialogue n heavy exposition over more layered flicks that manage their time better, and illustrate more stuff visually to keep the story flowing.
Art criticism hasn't regressed from the renaissance era, in fact it's built on those core tennants. Literature, eh that's more your domain, I'm not opening up that can of worms. But either way like I said they don't throw the core defining characteristic of the art form at the waste side, because fuck it. Maybe Television? But I'd argue in their case they have at least tried to establish that the core defining feature of TV is the serialized nature of it, which sure is a fools errand and shouldn't ignore how suspect the visual story telling is.
If you want to argue that my language itself could use some work, yeah I agree lol. But I figure I write enough of a fucking novel as it is, so I shorten it. Even the fortnite thing I had to pair it down a whole chunk.
SupremeAC said:However, your argument in itself is a dinosaur. Most games have stopped being about play a long time ago. The Mainsteam don't want to play, they want to idly move their tumbs about and see stuff happen on screen. It's the same reason superhero movies are all the rage these days. Play just isn't what most games are about anymore these days. Play is the Neanderthaler of gaming. it was once a large part of most game, but these days is, save for a few long running franchises, as good as extinct.
Okay so this goes back to the fallacy thing. Take your pick the general public (argumentum ad populum) or the glorified bloggers being paraded around as critics n journos (appeal to authority). It assumes that because something is believed to be true, that it is true.
And the notion that gameplay stopped mattering in relation to the experience doesn't check out. Because Mortal Kombat sells a butt load by putting more emphasis on graphics n story than other fighting games, but it has a less popular competitive scene (both played n viewed). An entire scene built around rewarding the deeper games. And not a shocker, but MK had a proper comeback, when they finally fixed the gameplay. Competitive gaming numbers across the board are rising, and it's not like those games are shallow unless they Call of Duty. Dota 2 n League of Legends are fairly complex games, Starcraft on a downswing is killing it, Siege is significantly more demanding of the player, and fighting games speak for themselves.
The most popular games on the planet, happen to also make themselves available to a casual audience because of their gameplay as much as "mah experience". Call of Duty's campaign has never drawn the money n crowd its multiplayer has. Even in other fields even if the critics picks don't line up with the biggest block busters (moonlight for instance being wildly regarded as a great flick, but being one of the lowest selling best picture winners, ever), they still don't sacrfice the virtues of the medium for a half baked puppet show. The general public tends to make mistakes and create excuses for why they love eating shit. I however have no desire to join them nor am I accepting of "well you have to accept this way, because it's the popular thing". My criteria focuses on what's actually fucking exclusive to this medium, the interacting with it part. And it bothers me that everyone has decided to create a playbook of buzzphrases that are secretly "the gameplay sucks, but mah story" such as "more than sum of its parts" or "holistic experience" or when in doubt a "a more complete package".....because somehow you are more of a complete package if you suck at the thing that defines the medium.
And it be easier to swallow, if the people describing "mah experience" were fucking good at it. For all the stock they put into graphics, no fucking review I have ever read in my life has explained what lighting engine the game is using, how it benefits the games visuals versus a more standard use of lighting. OR how the shadows are different from one game to another, or why one would use MXAA over FXAA as far as Anti-aliasing. Because surely if visuals are going to be given this much credit, you would think someone can actually fucking explain things in a more concrete manner|
Story stuff? again I get routinely told a character is deeper now, how? how are they deeper now? how did they become more developed, what do they offer that the previous character arc didn't? How does that actually impact the larger story?
Back to a point: I'm not disagreeing that the larger dialogue around game is built around some shitty marriage of ludology n narratology, but I'm not buying the kool aid anymore. At the least I'm not buying poorly argued n reasoned kool aid. When the fucking forum crowd is better at describing the gameplay systems, the graphics, the story, the whatever, than what is supposed to be the more critical, more educated, more knowledgable members of the conversation than I lean towards we fucked up somewhere. Because way too many game devs, clearly also still give a shit about the gameplay. Because even Dad of War here, put more effort than fucking Rockstar or something in their sad and in a forest game between the axe n unlocking moves, having pause combos, n all that shit.
SupremeAC said:You cite some examples of great, deep, games that are still played today. They are also all at least a decade old. When you look at the great beacons of gaming today, you'll see games like Minecraft, GTA V and Fortnite. One could argue that Minecraft is deep as well, but I don't think that the same could be said of GTA V or Fortnite.
Those decade old games still get entries today, all of which get played today, and celebrated today. DBFZ sold 2 million copies this year, and by virtue of being a fucking fighting game it has more depth than God of War could hope to have. Nioh sold a million copies last year. Nier Auto Tomato might be beloved for its narrative n shit, but Platinum didn't exactly skimp on giving the player expressive tech options with the games core combat systems, even if they did skimp out on the enemies. Last years Zelda actually had more overlapping links between its many interactions, as opposed to the usual round of oh look this item, only works with its representative key hole. Hell Mario Odyssey for all its filler, had Mario's deepest moveset to date. Dark Souls, exists.
Going back to my definition of depth. Technically speaking all games have depth, to go further on Tomas's questions, but not all games are deep. A coin flip for instance has a depth of two. Heads or tails. Minecraft has plenty of micro decisions you can make in terms of how you dig (what angle, what item), where you dig, what materials you go after, and what you build (which again has its own set of choices). All of which obviously create their own set of relevant states. Because it's fairly obvious what's the different game state from you building yourself a moat in minecraft to you making yourself a vertical wall to be one side of a larger building, etc.
Likewise, Fortnite isn't shallow. It's no fucking Unreal Tournament, but sure it captured a larger audience because its mechanics play out nicely. Personally not a fan of the shooting, as its RNG, but you get the obvious stuff with the weapons. Shotguns work great up close, Snipers work great from afar, SMGs n Assault RIfles are more both mids that also work well closer (Smg) or well far (ar) but still lose it to more specialized type weapons. The fucking most basic thing any shooter can do. Added bonus you have a jump which allows you to strafe, get to a higher point, dodge bullets. Then you have the building itself which can build you a fort, or you can build yourself cover while you are in combat, or you can build yourself a stair case to grab a treasure for more gear, or you can build yourself a bridge because you are a sitting duck in watter, or you can build yourself in combat, and start raising your fort up so you get cover and a higher vantage point, or you can buiild yourself cover, build higher, to bait the other player and actually flank, or you can build to the sides to flank in a different way. Generally you're getting the point here. The mechanic where you can "build something" is flexible enough that it actually has varied n distinct uses, without some over bearing win all mechanic that nullifies their usefulness.
Because naturally there is a difference in the props you use while building: pyramid top, flat pannel, wood, metal pannel, traps, etc.
And then yeah there is a looting system that's about getting better guns, having healing supplies. The health system requires you to be a sitting duck if you want to heal. NO instant pick up heal or regen health. You have to find shield, which you may or may not get during a playerthrough. And then there is how the game handles drops, which I'm also actually not a fan of, but on top of giving you a range of places to go, you actually have to adjust how you descend to an area and remember that after a certain point being over a tree pops your parachute. Which can impact how slowly you are going to descend to the ground, so players take expanded routes to compensate so they can actually land quicker (of all fucking things).
GTA V is a basic bitch ass turd person cover shooter with lock on shooting. It's a rockstar game, pretty as fuck, but the actual game is a double stuffed shit barrel. It being as popular n shitty as it is, to me is the exact reason I give no fucks for what the general public argues is a good game versus what I'm arguing is a good game. I'll freely admit that gameplay by itself can't sell a game, but I think people are misguided when they think play doesn't matter to the general public.
Gagan said:This actually irks me, because no it's not. Nothing I focused on is just "complex". We been over this. My definition of depth as it pertains to games, is the total number of possible game states minus the redundant game states. Or the total number of relevant and interesting decisions available to the player in a possibility space. Which doesn't need to be complex, as something like Mario n Divekick have a substantial amount of depth around simple systems.
Is the issue with the word complex that you don't care if states or decisions are interconnected or not? If you don't care, this would be utterly absurd, as I can't think of a game where that would even be true lol.
All you offer here in your definition of depth is a basis for judging complexity on a subjective mathematical formula. Complexity is still the only objective part of your critical foundation.
So, even if you claim Mario and Divekick have simple systems, your evaluation of their simple systems is still based on complexity. For example, although Mario's jumping mechanic is simple, it allows for many possible game states/decisions; therefore your judgement of its simple jumping mechanic still judges it based on complexity.
Or am I missing something?
Gagan said:Otherwise nah mate, any academic writing of film is 100% about some sort of analysis through a feminist lens, historic lens, auter theory, what have you. Those subjects still have some sort of object base they work from, and it's usually rewarding a more well rounded work which has a direct correlation to how depth is used when discussing cinema. More to it, good criticisms in those fields don't completely throw the virtues of their mediums at the waste side. Film critics didn't suddenly ignore the pillars of cinema n visual language for a bunch of verbose movies with basic shot/reverse shot dialogue n heavy exposition over more layered flicks that manage their time better, and illustrate more stuff visually to keep the story flowing.
Art criticism hasn't regressed from the renaissance era, in fact it's built on those core tennants. Literature, eh that's more your domain, I'm not opening up that can of worms. But either way like I said they don't throw the core defining characteristic of the art form at the waste side, because fuck it. Maybe Television? But I'd argue in their case they have at least tried to establish that the core defining feature of TV is the serialized nature of it, which sure is a fools errand and shouldn't ignore how suspect the visual story telling is.
I've never read any art criticism from the renaissance (that isn't by artists or philosophers, and they don't count), but art criticism today is certainly a far cry from pre-modernist art criticism lol. The feminist lens wasn't very popular pre-modernism, the historic lens was completely different, and auter theory didn't exist. Nor did cinema, for that matter. And in your example, you've used four different traditions of criticism, each vastly different to one another; none of which use "depth" as their objective basis for criticism; none of which favour complexity over simplicity, none of which praise simplicity only by analysing its potential for hidden complexity.
Then I guess to a point I am using them interchangeably.
But more so to me complex is the raw number. When you include redundant shit. Twilight Princess for instance has a slash, back roll n slash, side slash, and then like 10 other moves right that you can learn from skeleton man, right? Cool, follow? cool. Okay so I know you've heard me say that part of the issue with those moves is, that they are optional, thus the game isn't built to have them in mind. So they are irrelevant to a lot of the combat. Which is half true, but 100% missing the fucking point. It was missing the actual problem with them. Plenty of deeper games have optional unlock mechanics (be it a move or a weapon in bayonetta), that isn't necessary to beat the game, but makes the players job more efficient. The problem is more often than not those extra moves are not efficient, and more so they do not interact with any other set of mechanics in the game. They suffer from the exact same problem I have with 3d Zelda items. they are keys to a lock. The moves you learn from skeleton man similarly work that way. There is a difference between how those work and say something like after burner kick in Bayonetta which launches, which can now let you continue your standard combo, which links with a variety of different weapons that have their own properties (the whip having a grab for instance), or works with other specia abilities. It still has a niche (its a launcher), but it is flexible in its uses and pairs with other systems. So the decisions remain interesting.
To me a lot of stuff that gets called complex, but not deep, is because the complexity was on a superficial level. Bayonetta's dial combos for instance suck. Beyond just the simple fact that there are far too many for any human being to fucking remember, they all play the same until the tail end of the dial combo when the wicked weave part of the dial gives you a distinct property from the other dials. Which creates more varied routes for combo extensions.
I use the complexity of the total raw complexity of the game with the depth being when said complexity has been culled of its throw away elements. My bread n butter is the difference between Halo's 2 weapon system versus the one in CoD. Halo it fucking matters what two guns you pick, because there is a fucking difference between what the Battle Rifle can do and what the Assault Rifle can do. In CoD, it really doesn't matter if you go with the AK, the m16, the m4, the famas, the Bal. Are there smaller differences statistically n tuning ways? Objectively of course. Is the actual game state that different to even be relevant? Not really.
Otherwise i think a mechanic or gameplay element should have a niche where it doesn't have some sort of perfect overlap or overshadows other mechanics/elements, is varied in its uses, can be manipulated n modulated to obtain better results or fit a variety of uses based on context or the way it's used, and has synergy with other elements in the game. Halo's guns fit that, the parade of CoD guns don't fit that. Ergo CoD is complex because it has like a 100 guns, but Halo's 2 weapon system n gun roster has more depth by simply having 10-15 distinct guns vs 100 samey guns.
You would probably be correct that depth by itself probably still isn't my end all be all criteria. At least not just mechanic, I do care for situational depth. I still give a fuck about things like pacing n the juice aspects of game feel.
Also fuck me those God of War reviews from earlier this year. "God of War (201
made me a better parent", how much do you suck dick as a parent that the prickazoid who butt fucked the entire planet n murder ass murdered fucking everyone is the guy you are taking parenting advice from because now he says things like "no little shit head, do not kill for pleasure, only defense, but make sure you get that shit in their neck boyo".
That makes sense to me. The only suggestion I'd have (but with how depth is usually used today you using depth probably wouldn't confuse anyone) is to pick complex instead of depth as your word of choice, as complex already emphasises interconnectedness which is fundamental to your criticism. E.g. the 100 guns of CoD sucks compared to the 15 guns of halo 2, because the 100 guns of CoD are more directly connected to other mechanics that result in interesting decision making etc.
Good morning wall of text.
I agree with Gagan's concept of depth, that is how I understand it as well.
Gagan said:Those decade old games still get entries today, all of which get played today, and celebrated today. DBFZ sold 2 million copies this year, and by virtue of being a fucking fighting game it has more depth than God of War could hope to have. Nioh sold a million copies last year. Nier Auto Tomato might be beloved for its narrative n shit, but Platinum didn't exactly skimp on giving the player expressive tech options with the games core combat systems, even if they did skimp out on the enemies. Last years Zelda actually had more overlapping links between its many interactions, as opposed to the usual round of oh look this item, only works with its representative key hole. Hell Mario Odyssey for all its filler, had Mario's deepest moveset to date. Dark Souls, exists.
I'm not saying that those series aren't relevant anymore today as in they see no new releases, I'm sayng that their base design originated in another timeperiod.
Your talk on how Fortnite is succesful in part because of it's depth, where it allows you to build stuff and thus has many more gamestates is, to my opinion, not accurate. Fortnite was an utter failure before Epic decided to just copy PUBG. The masses did not flock to it because of its deep gameplay, they flocked to it because it became exactly like PUBG, only more widely available and for free.
As for minecraft... Eh, I don't know if I would call the game 'deep'. Your interactions are fundamentally very limited and repetitive. The minute by minute gameplay is very samey, it's what you can achieve through repetition that gives it a very wide array of possibilities. It is basically a sandbox that went viral because it gave millenials what they were searching for: a way to express themselves right at the moment when streaming became mainstream.
My first point wasn't about how you should, from your point of view, lower your bar because modern day gaming doesn't focus on deep gameplay systems anymore. It was there to indicate that the ruleset you use to judge games is subjective and personal as well, therefor you can not claim it to be 'better' than that of other people. You can claim you're a better critic, but you can not claim that your ruleset by which you judge games is better than that of someone else, because 'better' is purely subjetive.
SupremeAC said:Good morning wall of text.
I agree with Gagan's concept of depth, that is how I understand it as well.
I'm not saying that those series aren't relevant anymore today as in they see no new releases, I'm sayng that their base design originated in another timeperiod.
Your talk on how Fortnite is succesful in part because of it's depth, where it allows you to build stuff and thus has many more gamestates is, to my opinion, not accurate. Fortnite was an utter failure before Epic decided to just copy PUBG. The masses did not flock to it because of its deep gameplay, they flocked to it because it became exactly like PUBG, only more widely available and for free.
As for minecraft... Eh, I don't know if I would call the game 'deep'. Your interactions are fundamentally very limited and repetitive. The minute by minute gameplay is very samey, it's what you can achieve through repetition that gives it a very wide array of possibilities. It is basically a sandbox that went viral because it gave millenials what they were searching for: a way to express themselves right at the moment when streaming became mainstream.My first point wasn't about how you should, from your point of view, lower your bar because modern day gaming doesn't focus on deep gameplay systems anymore. It was there to indicate that the ruleset you use to judge games is subjective and personal as well, therefor you can not claim it to be 'better' than that of other people. You can claim you're a better critic, but you can not claim that your ruleset by which you judge games is better than that of someone else, because 'better' is purely subjetive.
Walls of text don't have spaces n proper use of paragraphs. I gave you essays, not walls of text. There is a difference ; p
Fortnite was a commercial work in progress as a game that never released because they've never come together as far as making the PvE thing right (it's development has basically halted now), it only moved to PUBG's genres, its base systems however aren't 1:1 to PUBG. PUBG doesn't have building, pubg is more about positioning as TTKs are quicker than that of fortnite, and PUBG guns aren't built around rng down to their shooting. Just in terms of drops. Similar games because of genres, but wildly different execution. It is however not a game lacking in depth and what makes it enjoyable as a battle royale game in spite of the fact that the shooting feels poor, is its depth.
Again depth is a matter of game states, its relative game by game basis. All games have depth, not all games are however deep or that deep, to be more efficient. A coin flip has a depth of two. Heads or Tails. Binary choice. Minecraft isn't going to be mistaken for Starcraft, but there is plenty of variation to work with on Minecraft's systems. As I don't lean towards "repetitive" itself being that big of an issue depending on the systems. Doom is go shoot guys, but it's a far deeper game than say Uncharted or CoD4. Which are more "varied" shooters in terms of their change of pace scenarios, but have a far smaller skill ceiling for their core systems. Personally not a fan of Minecraft as I find it to be busy work more than engaging, but I don't think it's a product of being shallow. As much as the game lacks any sort of difficulty curve to extrapolate that depth.
Eh, I'd say my rule set leads to a better game. Because my ruleset focuses on its defining characteristic. I find that often the other way of judging games, sort of isn't judging a game. It's more about judging software's place as a story telling device. Which has its merits, software opens up its own avenues for story telling. But in the same breath I think it's a joke when someone says Gone Home or Telltale's Walking Dead is a game. Because they fucking aren't. And if they are, holy shit are they bad ones. But fair point otherwise on that last sentence.
Woah lol.
Gagans you point on depth of gameplay is fine, I agree with a lot of it, the most important aspect of gaming are the option so the player has to interact with the game. But your opinions have a reductionist point of view, everything is about the mechanics. If game doesn't have this much depth to its combat/puzzles/whatever it is trash or some degree of trash. Gameplay is not just mechanics, gameplay incorporates level design, enemy design, AI, and pacing all coming together to create the gameplay experience. DMC 3 and 4 have the deepest combat mechanics of a hack and slash action game, does that automatically make it the best action game? Plenty of people what more of their games, not depth in combat but more variety than just being great at combat. You may argue go play something else, now you are just dismissing their opinion.
It's a fallacy to say the masses cater to simplistic shit and people CONVINCE themselves to like shit, that's the kind of arrogant I'm better than you bullshit mentality that instantly ruins any argument. In reality a lot of the most popular stuff is some of the best in gaming. Sure you have your CoDs and Madden people, certain games sell based on name alone and not quality. But go through the list of the all time greatest games, they usually sell well and have a big general consensus to them. The best platformers in the world are the best selling ones. The best action adventure games are usually great sellers. And to say it's getting worse, that's straight up absurd. Back in the 16-but days any pile of crap with a movie tie in would outsell great games all the time. We have essencially killed off the movie cash in game because consumers wisened up and demand better quality. This goes to supreme as well, Games are BETTER now, the way the general public reacts to quality is better than ever. The problem is some people get hung up on a few genres that may have regressed (RPG mainly) and long for the good old days when there was no direction, you can do anything you want even break a game, but that was great cause it was PURE. Games are in a bit of an innovative rut but in general games now play way way way better than ever.
Back to personal taste in games, Gagan you say Zelda games have crap level design because it's mostly handholding, ok then your thoughts are what, all linear games are crap? My favorite action game ever made is RE4, it's linear as hell but the level design is unmatched. Every single new location is merticulously designed to tweak up how the player approaches that combat encounter. In one area enemies will rush at the player so it's about creating space between you and your attackers. In another area distant enemies may be stealing Ashley so now sniping is needed but at the same times enemies are coming at you so there are two levels to worry about. New enemy types change up the way you prioritize the combat, el garrador shows up and now shooting Willy nilly will get you a claw in the gut. And so on and so on for about 14 hours of perfectly paced action. Are the mechanics deep in RE4, not exactly but no game cares to put the player in constant changing situations like RE4 does, level design and pacing are greater than mechanic depth to me.
My favorite games of all time generally follow those traits. We just had the most open zelda, Mario, and MGS games ever made. MGSV is mechanically brilliant, the depth to any one situation is unmatched in the genre and yet everything around those mechanics took a step back. BOTW is exactly what Gagan seems to want from a zelda game, open ended non key puzzles, options to how to approach any encounter, but once again level design and pacing fell off, not my favorite zelda.
So we can disagree there in what makes a game great, I am curious what your favorite games are, it would give a little more insight into your views.
I don't have the time to proof read that last post, my phone tends to completely change words around so if something makes no sense I. Lame the phone lol.
edgecrusher said:
Beating a dead horse not a horse beating off!
I'm going to throw my 2 cents onto the heap here:
Gagan, you're base point seems to be that what makes a truely good game is depth, where depth is a meassure of how flexible gameplay or the base mechanics are. You're reasoning is that games are a device of play, ergo, the more you can stretch the base mechanics, the more satisfying it is to play. And I wholehartedly agree with you on that point. I'd rather take a deep game mechanic over a scripted event. However, your argument in itself is a dinosaur. Most games have stopped being about play a long time ago. The Mainsteam don't want to play, they want to idly move their tumbs about and see stuff happen on screen. It's the same reason superhero movies are all the rage these days. Play just isn't what most games are about anymore these days. Play is the Neanderthaler of gaming. it was once a large part of most game, but these days is, save for a few long running franchises, as good as extinct.
Having established that play, and the depth related to it, is no longer a mainstay of videogames, you can not fault contemporary criticism, or even popular opinion, for not holding it as high as you do. You can not judge modern art by the standards of the rennaissance painters. You can say you prefer one over the other, but that does not establish anything universal. And just as with rennaissance paintings, you will have the odd current day artist who enjoys creating such works and excels at them, as well as people who will find this to be the only worthwhile and true form of art.
You cite some examples of great, deep, games that are still played today. They are also all at least a decade old. When you look at the great beacons of gaming today, you'll see games like Minecraft, GTA V and Fortnite. One could argue that Minecraft is deep as well, but I don't think that the same could be said of GTA V or Fortnite.
I get your point, game are inherently interactive, so the holy grail to judge them by is how interactive they truely are. I just think that gaming as a whole didn't go down that route, which would then make your argument a moot point.