?>
GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds





Yeah..................This is real life.........and this is really happening..........for better or worse.

¯\_(?)_/¯
There are 196 Replies
Page:
1 2 ... 19 20 Load all posts
settingsSettings

this is okay.....WHY THE HELL DOES SONIC HAVE TEETH.

Posted April 30th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Human teeth.

Posted April 30th by Q
Q
 

Welp, guess this is the next logical step after detective pikachu. 90's nostalgia, here we come!



Posted April 30th by Xhin
Xhin
Nature is beautiful

No why would you post this here, I thought I had escaped it by closing YouTube!

Not only does Sonic look... Like that... But the film itself looks just meh so it doesn't seem to even redeem it that way.

Posted April 30th by Moonray
Moonray
 

To be fair the Power Rangers movie was pretty dope.

this is hot trash. It must be really hard to be a Sonic Fan.

Posted April 30th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Not that anything we saw from him so far was any good, but... if we could get some maximum Jim Carrey out of this he could be the least worst part of the proceedings. Let's hope the rest of his scenes are way better than what they showed in the trailer.

It must be really hard to be a Sonic Fan.

Truer words were never spoken.

Posted April 30th by Famov

Ivan Ooze best villain

Posted April 30th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Anyone who expected a Sonic movie to be anything more than so bad it's good is kidding themselves. The correct approach is to simply laugh it off or simply ignore it regardless of what the movie becomes.

Edited April 30th by Knuckles4099

I'm actually pretty into it!

I mean, it's clearly awful. But it looks like it's just the right kind of awful to appeal to me. I kinda have a soft spot for garbage that you watch and wonder, "Wait...just how many people looked at this and said, 'Yep! That's great! Let's do that!'"?

Posted April 30th by Jet Presto

To be fair the Power Rangers movie was pretty dope.


The original 1996 one was, even if it had hilariously bad mid 90’s CGI lol.



Posted May 1st by Q
Q
 

The original 1996 one was, even if it had hilariously bad mid 90’s CGI lol.


I liked both the 90s ones. I also enjoyed the reboot/ remake. I am hoping for a sequel with a better megazord.

Posted May 1st by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

I didn't like how long it took them to become Rangers. It's probably because I grew up watching MMPR since the beginning so i'll always see the original rangers as the best but they managed to get a origin story and the rangers fighting within a span of 30 minutes. The new movie was 2 hours long and didn't feature fighting until the last 15-20 min. You could watch 4 episodes of the TV show in that amount of time seeing the rangers take down 4 different monsters.

But I guess this is a new Power Ranger movie for a newer generation.

I'll always consider these rangers to be the best ones:



Edited May 1st by Q
Q
 

I didn't like how long it took them to become Rangers. It's probably because I grew up watching MMPR since the beginning so i'll always see the original rangers as the best but they managed to get a origin story and the rangers fighting within a span of 30 minutes. The new movie was 2 hours long and didn't feature fighting until the last 15-20 min. You could watch 4 episodes of the TV show in that amount of time seeing the rangers take down 4 different monsters.


While I agree. I still enjoyed it. For a movie adaption it was pretty solid. As for the lack of action that is to be expected for an origins story.

While I love tommy, he is a dick in real life. My favorite ranger is the gold ranger.



Rocky will always be the best. Andros from In Space falling close behind.

Posted May 1st by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Sonic said: "Guess I gotta save your planet" or something similar.

So...is Sonic like an alien or something? I mean he lives on the planet, right?

Posted May 1st by Fox Forever

I don't know if it was ever canon to the Sonic games but a lot of people treat the world from the oldschool 2D games as being different from the Earth we see in the 3D games (I think some of the cartoon series even used this too). So probablly that, he's from the world in the 2D games and ends up in ours.



Posted May 1st by Moonray
Moonray
 

Sonic lives on earth in the video games and on a fictional planet called Mobius in the comics and some of the cartoons. The comic canon takes enough precedence in the minds of some fans that it has spawned its fair share of online arguments, but come to think of it that was probably more of a thing... fifteen years ago? When was I last on a Sonic the Hedgehog message board? A few Sonic games even take place in a near-future analogue of America and involve the President of the United States Federation as a side character.



2005 was a weird time, but aren't they all? It goes without saying that these are not necessarily the good Sonic games that I refer to.

There was always an underlying environmental theme (to the extent that we'll allow that an animal mascot platforming game can have "themes") to the early Sonic games, seen most obviously in Sonic CD. But it's as early as Sonic 1 that we see Dr. Robotnik capture small woodland creatures to serve as a biological energy source for his robot army. Ultimately his ambitions are to industrialize and roboticize (and rule) the world, though he generally doesn't get any further than his Death Egg, Egg Carrier, or some manner of mechanical metropolis that Sonic ends up breaking at one point or another. That's probably more or less what they're going to do with the movie, unless they have an even worse idea.

Edited May 1st by Famov

in the anime/ cartoon (not entirely sure where it fell under) they were on earth but trying to get back to their planet. I consider that to be the cannon. (Not a sonic fan)

Posted May 1st by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

The Sonic wiki actually contradicts some of what I said, and the issue is slightly more complicated than I let on. No wonder it used to start arguments!
https://sonic.fandom.com/wiki/Sonic's_planet

Posted May 1st by Famov
Moonray
 



I could not care less - but had to pop in to say that the left version looks awful. I mean, that is bad.

Posted May 1st by Vandy

once again






those fan redesigns definitely help, shame nobody involved in this dumb movie had that level of artistic sense and/or talent. Goddamn he looks bad.


A few Sonic games even take place in a near-future analogue of America and involve the President of the United States Federation as a side character.

(please tell me this video is going to be the scene where the president has a picture of sonic and shadow on his desk, like it's something he frequently looks to for motivation)

lmao yes thank you

Posted May 1st by Pirate_Ninja

He looks like a kid in a Halloween costume.

Posted May 1st by The Bandit

AOT did it better.



Posted May 1st by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

I feel like the art director for all these movies is someone who has no sense of appealing design whatsoever and spent his whole life trying to get other people to think it's great. UGH. Looks like vomit.

But damn... Jim Carrey's in it.

Posted May 1st by mariomguy

Personally, I think even this version of sonic looks better:



Posted May 2nd by Xhin
Xhin
Nature is beautiful

What the HELL is every complaining about?
The movie looks great!


Posted May 2nd by chiarizio

I think the main issue is that Sonic looks really bad. The movie itself doesn't look like anything good to me. Jim Carey playing Dr Robotnik playing Jim Carey is ok because the typical Jim Carey style actually sorta fits the modern versions of the character.

Posted May 2nd by Moonray
Moonray
 

I feel like the art director for all these movies is someone who has no sense of appealing design whatsoever and spent his whole life trying to get other people to think it's great. UGH. Looks like vomit.


Agreed. I also feel like the art director has never played or even seen a sonic game.




Posted May 2nd by Q
Q
 

Xhin that's Sanic, not Sonic. Completely different species and he doesn't appreciate being compared to this terrible movie Sonic at all.

Posted May 2nd by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Danny Devito in a sonic suit would be better.

Posted May 2nd by Vandy



Posted May 2nd by Q
Q
 

FYI



Posted May 2nd by Vandy

The amount of undertaking that would be D:

Seriously though, WTF. Director was alma mater at my college. Jeez man, he should know better.

Posted May 2nd by mariomguy

I kinda feel strange about them going back to revamp the character. The movie comes out in, what, 6 months? And almost certainly, they are going to over-work and under-compensate their staff to make Sonic look better...but his design isn't the reason it looks like a bad movie.

I'd be curious to find out whose decision it ultimately was. Was it the director's? Was it the producers? These types of films tend to get a lot of oversight from producers or company executives.

Posted May 3rd by Jet Presto

There had to be a chain of people to approve this, not just one person. Everything goes through the individual department directors first, usually be a design director, then the art director, for a main character that has to go through the film's director, and the producers all need to approve it (several people at Paramount). You don't just accidentally make something like this happen.

But before any of that happens, it needs to work out in concept! Concept artists make sketches of what the characters should look like and those have to get approved by basically the same chain of people mentioned above before moving on to 3D modeling. Once a character is rigged it cannot be changed without redoing the entire rig, so approvals must happen before the modeling even begins.

This is the title character of the movie. You can be guaranteed everyone working on the project saw this and said "yep, that looks good."

Posted May 3rd by mariomguy

You really can't guarantee that. I would totally be willing to be that there were designers and artists who didn't like the route the Sonic design was going.

I haven't read anything from any of those artists, but I have read a fair amount from others in the industry who talk about how this is actually a pretty common problem. That they will frequently disagree with the direction of something, or will vocalize criticism of a particular design, only to be shot down by the people higher than them.

I'd be pretty willing to bet that not everyone involved in this process agreed with the direction of the design.

Posted May 3rd by Jet Presto

There IS a chain of command. Anything the producers says goes: they are funding the project. Below them is the director, who is more hands-on and generally oversees everything. Below him are the department directors. If the movie is a big enough production there will be more specialized directors and leads, assistants, and the crew team.

While it appears the Producers are to blame for this, we can't always assume it's the Producer's fault. Even though they have power over everyone else and (usually) final say, and have a bad reputation for twisting the arms of everyone below them just to get something done, it's just as likely for an inexperienced team to pass this to higher ups and nobody bothered to strike it down. This would happen a lot if a film's budget or deadlines make revisions impossible and the scope was overly ambitious: quality gets thrown out the window in favor of getting something in on time. Basically all 3D Sonic games suffered from this. Not enough time spent on design.

Posted May 4th by mariomguy

At the end of the day enough people ok'd this that you have to wonder why they have their jobs because anyone should've seen this and been able to realise it wouldn't be well received.

I don't know if it's really worth them redoing Sonic though because the film itself probably isn't going to be that great.

Posted May 4th by Moonray
Moonray
 

I didn't say anything about a chain of command. I just said that it's almost more than likely that not everyone within that chain of command agreed on the direction of the design. A movie like this, I'd be inclined to imagine it is the producers who make the final call. These aren't really the types of movies in which producers respect the "filmmaker's vision." (These are films designed as commodities, not as art.)


I don't know that anyone shouldn't have a job because they poorly designed Sonic the Hedgehog in this one film. It's not impossible that most of the people working on the film aren't particularly big or passionate fans. Given the general history of these "live action with CGI creature" kids' movies, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of the team never even really played a Sonic game, never mind watched any of the cartoons or read any comics or played anything after the SEGA Genesis era Sonic games.

Posted May 4th by Jet Presto

To be clear Jet I don't blame anyone who designed the character because I don't believe they necessarily had much of a say in the end result. I fully expect what happen was the concept artists produced a selection of options based on what they were asked to create, some group of someones picked for that selection something resembling what's in this movie. Then the CGI guys made it from that with their own little touches added, and again, some group of someones said "Yep, that's the Sonic we want".

There were almost assuredly concept arts that more closely resembled the Sonic we know from the games.

I also don't think you have to have played the games or watched/read any of the additional media to realise how bad this design is compared to the actual Sonic and I would like to think if you're making a movie about a video game character you would at the very least lookup images of the character so you had something to work from. I'm pretty sure other movies of this type have at least got the character design right, irrelevant of if the rest of the movie worked out.



Posted May 4th by Moonray
Moonray
 

calling it now it was a complete ploy to garner attention.

Posted May 4th by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

I didn't say anything about a chain of command. I just said that it's almost more than likely that not everyone within that chain of command agreed on the direction of the design.

Oh, of course. But the higher up the chain of command, the easier it is to make decisions that screw everyone underneath. That's why it's best for the people upstairs to not make such sweeping decisions. This kind of decision was most likely from the Director or Producer.

Given the general history of these "live action with CGI creature" kids' movies, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of the team never even really played a Sonic game, never mind watched any of the cartoons or read any comics or played anything after the SEGA Genesis era Sonic games.

The unfortunate truth. Even ignoring how bad Sonic looks, this movie does not feel like Sonic anywhere else.

calling it now it was a complete ploy to garner attention.

Doubt it. Sonic already has enough negative attention.

Posted May 4th by mariomguy

I'm really not sure what is behind the conspiracy theory that they intentionally fucked up film production to garner attention. Like, it's *bad* press. The negative attention around Fant4stic didn't help that film. The negative attention didn't do Solo any favors.

Studios want press and they want attention, but they all know that this kind of negative attention isn't really going to help. It's also going to cost them more money to expand on post-production.

Posted May 5th by Jet Presto

Yeah. Nobody is going to say "yep, we're going to change the main character of the movie" unless they ROYALLY f-ked up. It's not as simple as fixing the proportions of the character and re-rendering: the character will likely need to be remodeled and reskinned and resurfaced from scratch. Every scene with the character will need to be rerendered and recomposited. If there was any manual work done on a per-frame basis, that will ALL need to be redone.

Posted May 5th by mariomguy

Or they already have something that is closer to what audiences want and they released this train wreck for the attention because they know there is no such thing as bad press.

Had they released something closer to the original mascot I doubt they would have gotten as much attention. Any who I'm just rambeling.



Posted May 5th by S.o h
S.o h
 

S.O.H, like I said, you can't just make two movies. The live action and animation all need to sync up. There are a LOT of processes that are one-way only, so you can't just change the design of something at-will. Detective Pikachu director said making Pikachu one inch taller would've required throwing out all the live action performance from Justice Smith.

Just because you watch a movie in an hour and a half doesn't mean it takes an hour and a half to make. It takes years and teams of hundreds, sometimes thousands of people to make one movie. It's not easy.

Posted May 5th by mariomguy

I never said they made two. They only needed to make one shitty trailer with a horrible version of the character.

You do know that you can create additional scenes that may or may not be in the final product right?

Posted May 5th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

They don’t need to make sonic shorter or taller. Just change his proportions to look more like classic sonic. Lots of movies do reshoots and special affects editing in post production.

Posted May 5th by Q
Q
 

Since when did everyone become a VFX expert? If you change the proportions of a ridiculously tall Sonic, he's going to look like a massive freak. Also, you CAN'T just create TWO versions of a movie with TWO Sonics. The content of the trailer is a culmination of no less than years of production with many steps of the process going one-way and a LOT of manual labor involved. You're not going to do double work for the specific purpose of pissing people off and generating negative publicity. At that cost you might as well release the terrible movie as-is and make the same return as two movies, one for the pissery, the other for saving grace.

You cannot just "change in post" your main character! Most of that work only goes one way: once it's finished, changing it requires redoing everything. In some cases it's easier to start over again than to fix it. This is why things are done very carefully, with many steps of approval and prescreening at lower res. Getting to the final result is super expensive, so nobody would ever do that.

Posted May 5th by mariomguy

I would have preferred if they just did a cel-shaded hand-animated style like Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Cool World. I guess that's not cool anymore because it doesn't look like it uses up millions of dollars of budget for VFX and you have to stringently adhere to the latest modern standard in order to have maximum appeal nowadays.

Reminds me of how the film adaptation of The Mist was supposed to be black and white (given that it was a old-school-zombie-style movie set in the fucking '50s), but the studio made them change it because "who's going to go see a black and white film nowadays".

(Cue The Artist winning almost a hundred fucking awards.)

Posted May 5th by Cruinn-Annuin

No one said they created two movies. Are you blind or do you have the reading comprehension of a gold fish?




Posted May 5th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

CGI can totally work for Sonic, but I dislike the idea that "gritty realism" is for movies while clean design is for cartoons. SA2 was very unapolagetic in its vision: cartoon characters and robots running around with humans and the President, and it worked. Everyone played their role properly. If you screw that up, you can't get anything better.

Posted May 5th by mariomguy

You cannot just "change in post" your main character! Most of that work only goes one way: once it's finished, changing it requires redoing everything. In some cases it's easier to start over again than to fix it.


Agreed I am no expert about making films but I doubt you are either. It would seem to me that it would be easier to simply replace one CGI character with another. You only have to look at the remasters of the original Star Wars movies to see where parts of movies that were filmed decades ago can be augmented with CGI. They don’t have to start all over and film scenes with Sonic interacting with real actors all over again.



Edited May 5th by Q
Q
 

If you change the proportions of a ridiculously tall Sonic, he's going to look like a massive freak


Yes. The solution is now clear, they must make it a movie about his Warehog days.



Posted May 5th by Moonray
Moonray
 

You cannot just "change in post" your main character!


Well, in the case of CGI characters, yes, you can. That's literally how you get the character in the first place. They're almost certainly shooting scenes with a guy in a suit or some sort of reference prop for the live action actors to play off. They literally sub in that person or prop with CGI in post production. They literally are changing the character in post production.

If they change dimensions, which they wouldn't need to do, then yeah, you could run into problems that might require some reshoots. But they totally can change Sonic without reshooting really anything in post production. Of course, their staff is going to get over-worked and under-compensated, and it won't ultimately have much of an impact on the quality of the film or its box office returns, but it's certainly possible.


I guess that's not cool anymore because it doesn't look like it uses up millions of dollars of budget for VFX and you have to stringently adhere to the latest modern standard in order to have maximum appeal nowadays.


Which is funny given that CGI replaced hand-drawn animation because it was cheaper and quicker to produce (and could more easily be funneled through the movie-to-television pipeline if popular enough to green light a show).

We've also seen the critical and box office success of some visually distinct CGI films that show us that people will gravitate to the cool-looking stuff (and, more importantly, stuff that actually looks like a good movie). Both LEGO Movies and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse did super well and were pretty much all computer animated.

Posted May 5th by Jet Presto

Agreed I am no expert about making films but I doubt you are either.
Yeah, except I literally went to the 2nd. most famous college in the world training people to do this :|

There is compositing software like Nuke that integrates with 3D software like Maya so you can mix 3D stuff with 2D video, but that doesn't mean you can just change it. It would be much easier to fix or tweak an animation than to completely change the rig! That work is not salvageable!

You only have to look at the remasters of the original Star Wars movies to see where parts of movies that were filmed decades ago can be augmented with CGI.

You can also see the artifacts where they tried to match the original footage, but it doesn't work seamlessly. In HD, these kind of mistakes would become a LOT more apparent.

They don’t have to start all over and film scenes with Sonic interacting with real actors all over again.

That's what Detective Pikachu director said if they had to change Pikachu at all.

They literally are changing the character in post production.

Please don't ever become an animation director ever. NVM, please do and live to tell the tale of how the workload doubled because you tried redesigning your VFX character after the movie had already been shot.

If they change dimensions, which they wouldn't need to do, then yeah, you could run into problems that might require some reshoots.

Remove "which they wouldn't need to do" and I agree with this sentence 100%.

Which is funny given that CGI replaced hand-drawn animation because it was cheaper and quicker to produce (and could more easily be funneled through the movie-to-television pipeline if popular enough to green light a show).

2D animation was popular on TV in the 90s as well. The problem was it became incredibly more expensive to do more complex things. If someone had to redo an animation, it required a LOT of work redoing pencil tests. Scenes like panning cameras were very complicated and would be the first thing cut from a budget project. If one movie failed, they would go bankrupt.

But in CGI, it's very easy to, say, place a light, then get perfect shadows. Perfect reflections. Tons of 3D moving shots with motion blur. HTTYD and Lilo and Stitch director Chris Sanders said he wanted to put a coffee logo on Nani's shirt, but it was too expensive in 2D animation, while in 3D it's literally just a texture slapped on the character.

And I can say from experience most of the difficulty in 3D comes in modeling, texturing, and rigging your character the first go-round. Once you create the digital puppet, moving and animating is not that bad.

We've also seen the critical and box office success of some visually distinct CGI films that show us that people will gravitate to the cool-looking stuff (and, more importantly, stuff that actually looks like a good movie). Both LEGO Movies and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse did super well and were pretty much all computer animated.

There are too many to count: Shrek, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Wall-E, Frozen (as much as I hate to admit it), etc.

Posted May 7th by mariomguy

Mariom, why do you suck so much at just having a palatable likeable personality? No matter what the topic is you have to act like you know everything and everyone else is an incompetent moron. Q is literally one of the nicest people on the site, there's no need to be a fucking dick just because you went to animation school. It is possible to explain why you're an authority on a subject and still be a friendly person while you do it. And if you can do that, people might even actually want to hear about your expertise and learn from you. Jesus man.

Edited May 7th by Renzokuken

“Yeah, except I literally went to the 2nd. most famous college in the world training people to do this :| ”

But was it the 1st famous? Didn’t think so.

Posted May 7th by Q
Q
 

What is the difference between some one who got accepted into the 1st famous animation school and some one who got accepted into the 2nd.


the person who got accepted into the 1st famous animation school doesn't brag about getting into the 2nd


This is a Cornell University joke please don't hate me

Edited May 7th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Please don't ever become an animation director ever. NVM, please do and live to tell the tale of how the workload doubled because you tried redesigning your VFX character after the movie had already been shot.


Please take the time to read what I have taken the time to write if you think I don't know that it will increase the workload. I have *literally* on *multiple occasions* noted that redesigning Sonic is ultimately a bad idea because it is going to put the animators in a completely avoidable crunch that will overwork them while knowing full well they will not be properly compensated. At no point have I even vaguely hinted at the possibility that changing the character design won't increase the workload or would be "easy." I have, however, suggested that they don't need to reshoot literally every scene Sonic is in. Which is objectively true. They do not need to reshoot the film in six months if they are going to change Sonic's design.


Remove "which they wouldn't need to do" and I agree with this sentence 100%.


You are right that limbs will probably change which will require even more animation work. But there isn't likely to be much need for reshoots if the height of the character and the eyeline of the character are kept in nearly the same place. Almost all of the work that they will do will be completely from the animation side. They don't need to make him taller, or shorter. They don't even have to really change the general location of the eyes, not in any way that would effect, say, James Marsden's eye line. There is going to be a shit ton of of animation work that will require almost completely redoing the whole thing in post-production, but my comment was more about how it would affect reshoots.


There are too many to count: Shrek, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Wall-E, Frozen (as much as I hate to admit it), etc.


I was speaking generally about the CGI films that have a distinct visual style. Most of those, save maybe Wall-E for the most part, all have a similar look. We can do more with CGI than the rather repetitive style that most studios provide.


Posted May 7th by Jet Presto

This is a Cornell University joke please don't hate me


Don't hate me cuz you aint me!

Q is literally one of the nicest people on the site, there's no need to be a fucking dick just because you went to animation school.


Thanks, I appreciate that but I am not sure I am the nicest. There have been times were I could have been nicer.

BTW here is a classic example of how CGI can be used to replace one character design with another:





Posted May 8th by Q
Q
 

Not to mention that Star Wars scene was originally filmed with a human actor for the theatrical release and only got edited many years later for the special edition. So it wasn't even filmed with a CGI character in mind.

Posted May 8th by Moonray
Moonray
 

Q is literally one of the nicest people on the site, there's no need to be a fucking dick just because you went to animation school.

He questioned if I knew what I was talking about. I mean, yeah, I know what I'm talking about, and so does the director of Detective Pikachu, hence the conversation. If you don't REALLY know something, ask first. Never assume.

What is the difference between some one who got accepted into the 1st famous animation school and some one who got accepted into the 2nd.

Whether or not you live in California :( Cal Arts is the school opened by Walt Disney himself, specifically for teaching animation. Since there were no schools able to do so and he needed to educate his staff. Most cartoon creators today hail from it including Brad Bird, John Lasseter, Craig McCracken, Chris Sanders, and the list goes on. A113 is a reference to the 2D animation room in Cal Arts where most Pixar employees got their training. Most of Nickelodean and Cartoon Network's staff also hailed from CalArts.

It's not just a school, it's the epicenter of all things animation! SCAD and Ringling are (supposed to be) good schools, but that's it. A lot of the industry takes Ringling graduates, but you just don't see a lot of Ringling directors... That's one reason why I'm shocked the Sonic director went to my school. The other reason is I know for a fact he would've gotten better training than this.

Posted May 8th by mariomguy

He questioned if I knew what I was talking about. I mean, yeah, I know what I'm talking about, and so does the director of Detective Pikachu, hence the conversation. If you don't REALLY know something, ask first. Never assume.


That still doesn't require you to be a dick. Why are you so bad at understanding what people mean when they blatantly state it for you?

Have you ever been tested for Autism Spectrum Disorder? I ask this with no ill will. I've been friends with multiple people that are on the spectrum, and I consider myself on good standing with people from GameTalk that are on the spectrum. I'm just asking because you're really tripping a lot of alarms in my head.

Posted May 8th by Cruinn-Annuin

thank you for the break down. that initial comment was originally a joke about Cornell that I heard.

Posted May 8th by S.OH.
S.OH.
 

He questioned if I knew what I was talking about. I mean, yeah, I know what I'm talking about, and so does the director of Detective Pikachu, hence the conversation. If you don't REALLY know something, ask first. Never assume.


I mean you have yet to prove your point. Especially when I cited examples and provided proof of my point. Apparently they don’t teach this at the 2nd most famous college.

Edited May 8th by Q
Q
 

Yes. The solution is now clear, they must make it a movie about his Warehog days.

Too soon! It will never not be too soon!

He questioned if I knew what I was talking about. I mean, yeah, I know what I'm talking about, and so does the director of Detective Pikachu, hence the conversation. If you don't REALLY know something, ask first. Never assume.

Man, I remember back on the original GT when you claimed that Elebits (a DS game, for anyone that remembers back to 2006) had physics equivalent to the Playstation 3. Now sure, that was over a decade ago and NGVS was filled to the brim with goofy console partisans, but the point is that you've been making incredible assumptions about things which you know absolutely nothing for at least that length of time.



Posted May 8th by Famov

TLoU review macro still being posted as a response to mariomguy 5+ years after the initial argument




the point is that you've been making incredible assumptions about things which you know absolutely nothing for at least that length of time.


And that's not nearly the most ridiculous thing that he's shot his mouth off about. Lest we forget, I have an archive of dozens of threads from a few years ago in order to objectively document the things that he posts.

Posted May 8th by Cruinn-Annuin

I wonder if you have an archive of threads for any other users.



Posted May 8th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Have you ever been tested for Autism Spectrum Disorder?

No. But I'm starting to think I may be somewhere on the spectrum. The eye contact thing is a problem, and my mind just seems to work differently than everyone else. Someone will pop something on me and my head instantly explodes with a million reasons why that thing is wrong. Seriously, if I wanted to, for fun, I could spend the next few hours explaining every single reason why it would be difficult to change Sonic's size in the movie considering a variety of different compositing processes. For fun.

My art school taught students to work through a process to figure things out and never use your first idea, but for me it comes all at once. It's purely instinctive, reactive, and it's perfect. When I have to explain why to people it's like I have to do the work of describing a forest by the leaves: there's like a trillion reasons, I don't know which reason will make you agree with me, so either you agree with me now or else we'll go down the list. And I'm really very happy to go down the list in detail because that's where new and interesting discoveries are made and ideas are challenged.

Man, I remember back on the original GT when you claimed that Elebits (a DS game, for anyone that remembers back to 2006) had physics equivalent to the Playstation 3.

1 - Wii game, not DS. I owned it.
2 - Everyone talked about PS3 physics, but the Wii demo proved it had immense capability for handling physics. The PS3, at the time, did not have an equivalent physics demo. Journey obviously proved me wrong, and the PS3 is obviously more capable given the CPU architecture, but my original point was everyone was praising something they haven't even seen. The Wii demonstrated it was capable of what most games were trying to achieve at the time.
3 - None of this matters now that physics are handled by GPUs. All consoles can play virtually anything. Just don't expect good 3D fluid systems anytime soon.

Now sure, that was over a decade ago and NGVS was filled to the brim with goofy console partisans, but the point is that you've been making incredible assumptions about things which you know absolutely nothing for at least that length of time.

I've seen the first few hours of TLoU via a let's play, and all my criticisms against it were fairly valid: it's a linear game, no world to explore, very limited decision making compared to an adventure/RPG, and no matter how good the first playthrough is, it's only a 15 hour game, more story and cutscenes than game, not something you'd want to play that long or again. What I didn't account for was the replay value of this initial story or multiplayer: at the time most of the games I played either had very good multiplayer and could be played endlessly, or very good single player that lasted for eons. By the time you beat it and started getting very near 100% completion, you wouldn't feel like playing it again. Perhaps TLoU was different in that regard.

But all the replies were "ughuhu you didn't play it" or "bast game avar" or "it got 10s everywhere, if you don't like it something's wrong with you." It's like... nobody was actually listening or responding to any of my criticisms. It took me hours to get people to concede and say "yes, it's a linear game." JESUS CHRIST it took forever!

Posted May 8th by mariomguy

You still didn't play it. If you don't experience something how can you critique it?

Posted May 8th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

It's like... nobody was actually listening or responding to any of my criticisms.


Because a lot of your "criticism" was purely about how you personally would not enjoy it, phrased in such a way that you were condemning the general craft and appeal of it.

Posted May 8th by Cruinn-Annuin

I see what you did there. Nice trolling.

Posted May 8th by mariomguy

Because a lot of your "criticism" was purely about how you personally would not enjoy it, phrased in such a way that you were condemning the general craft and appeal of it.

No, I was actually very nonchalant about the game UNTIL it won the game design award at GDC. It was basically refining a trend that had been going on trying to make games more cinematic like movies, which involves stripping away a lot of the autonomy games usually provide. At its core TLoU is a great experience, perhaps one of the greatest ever, but not great game design. That's what I was trying to say. People weren't having any of it.

Posted May 8th by mariomguy

But all the replies were "ughuhu you didn't play it" or "bast game avar" or "it got 10s everywhere, if you don't like it something's wrong with you." It's like... nobody was actually listening or responding to any of my criticisms.


I think most of the replies were about how people liked the game and thought it was great and you were attempting to tell them it wasn't great while not having played it.

Posted May 8th by Vandy

Can I walk to a specific town anytime I want? Can I take a break from the main story and do a sidequest? Do I have to actually play the game to know its limitations?

Posted May 8th by mariomguy

I have a really good friend with Autism, and while he does have his personality quirks, he also knows to share his expertise on the things he's super crazy autism levels of good at in a friendly way. It's a genuine pleasure to receive his assistance on the things he's great at. Like the guy knows the law inside and out and can cite many complicated or obscure references word for word without a law book in front of him. He hacks phones and knows all their specs on all the models the same way. He's never once been a prick about it. If I have phone troubles he treats me like a human being and helps me out.

Autistic people are usually just as smart as regular people, they're just more overspecialized. Almost like if you give your character in an RPG max stats in a couple of fields rather than averaging them out. They take a hit to Charisma in exchange for being able to hack or heal better.

Edited May 8th by Renzokuken

Any good reading material on how to deal with/ interact with autistic people?

Also we are banging our heads on brick wall that has become thicker over time.

Posted May 8th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

My best advice for dealing with autistic people: Talk to them one on one and be patient. They don't really like group conversations in my experience. All they want is loyalty and a bit of attention from someone they can trust and like and get along with. The same as you and me. They struggle at building bonds because people think they're weird and won't give them a chance. But once you know them well they're awesome people. Loyal and affectionate.

Edited May 8th by Renzokuken

Autistic people are usually just as smart as regular people, they're just more overspecialized. Almost like if you give your character in an RPG max stats in a couple of fields rather than averaging them out. They take a hit to Charisma in exchange for being able to hack or heal better.



Perfect analogy. Neurodiversity runs in my family and we're precisely like this. Singlemindedness is prominent, and we're good at a handful of specific things. It's why standardised tests are somewhat limiting, or standardised module scaling. I studied music in school and objectively did worse than students who picked Physics because Physics was deemed "more difficult" (not trying to say it's easy) because my mark scaled down whereas theirs went up.

But you put one of those physics students in front of a piano and they're not necessarily gonna know how to do what I know how to do. Same goes here, I don't know nearly as much about my smartphone as your friend. Doesn't make either of us smarter or weirder than the other. Just means we gotta help people find their calling, if they have one, and I think with wider awareness and acceptance we can get there. More specialised support, more nurturing of specific interest.


Posted May 8th by newplasticideas

Oops, ^that was me. forgot to change my name back.

Posted May 8th by El Chocco

No, I was actually very nonchalant about the game UNTIL it won the game design award at GDC. It was basically refining a trend that had been going on trying to make games more cinematic like movies, which involves stripping away a lot of the autonomy games usually provide.


Have you ever considered the idea that a game can have an in-depth cinematic side and also have good gameplay? *points to the Metal Gear Solid series*

At its core TLoU is a great experience, perhaps one of the greatest ever, but not great game design.


Can I walk to a specific town anytime I want? Can I take a break from the main story and do a sidequest?


Why are you supposing these to be the hallmarks of good game design?

Posted May 8th by Cruinn-Annuin

Oh hey it's another argue with Mariomguy about random dumb shit thread. My favorite.

Also I wouldn't just assume the root of the problem is autism. Many other things it could be (or may not even be) especially since so many people are "on the spectrum" anyway. If someone acts particularly strange and they are only "on the spectrum" it may well be something else. And no I wouldn't just go assuming narcissist either just because he appears full of himself to some.

I've been friends with multiple people that are on the spectrum, and I consider myself on good standing with people from GameTalk that are on the spectrum.


Diagnosed right? Not just assumed?

Edited May 8th by Knuckles4099

So Mariom, fresh slate.

Are you saying that The Last of Us has poor game design because it's easy, or linear, or has very simple puzzles? (all of which are true)

We're putting aside art style, and story, and writing, and voice acting, and concept which are all top notch and just talking about the core game elements. Throwing glass to distract the enemies, using sneak and cover to navigate around areas where you'd definitely die if you had to fight.

Personally, I think TLOU does a better job at game design than it's contemporary Resident Evil, even the beloved Resi 4. Because the enemies still inspire the same fear and dread but the gunplay and AI are far and away superior and it doesn't feel like the controls suck just to make the game scarier like in Resi 4 or the Original 2.

I tried playing Resident Evil 2 for the first time on N64 the other day and damn, how do you even steer your character? It's such a janky ass mess. If I'm gonna play an ugly ass similar game I'd rather play Hunter the Reckoning. And Resi 2 is one of the most loved games of all time. TLOU is smooth, the concepts in gameplay work fluidly, and you can apply the simple tricks your learn early on to much more complicated situations later on and have a lot of fun outsmarting fuckers who can OHKO you.

It might not be a pure video game in the way a Dark Souls, Super Mario, or Tetris is. A lot of it is an interactive movie because it's a story RPG with third person shooter elements. But for it's genre, it's damn near perfect and I think it made Resident Evil 7 and Resident Evil 2 Remastered better games.

Edited May 8th by Renzokuken

Diagnosed right? Not just assumed?


Yes. I lived with some of them for significant amounts of time and consider them good friends, even if our communication is rocky at times.

Posted May 8th by Cruinn-Annuin

At work people used to hate interacting with me, but everything they were upset about wasn't my fault. If I did things the way they were demanding, everything would fall apart (assuming it somehow got off the ground). Then they say stuff like they can do my job better, and that just pisses me off. Pissing me off and questioning my every motive and assuming everything about my work without any consideration for why things are done that way won't make anyone's life easier. My job is so complicated even our engineers have completely lost sight of it, but I've internalized it to the point where I can do it faster than our servers will let me, and I legit cannot explain to people how I do it without stumbling over myself.

Recently, in like the last few weeks, people have really started to genuinely show they like me. IDK what did it, but I think people are starting to realize there's actually a good reason and benefit to the way I do things. It's slower and requires more work, but it prevents a LOT of catastrophes, and it's a rock-solid approach that prevents angry customers and stress all around. There are situations beyond my control, but I am always doing the best that I can with what I have. People have started listening more, trusting me more, and it really helped. Now, the feeling I get from people is if I'm working on something, they're actually glad I'm the one taking care of it.

The big thing I'd like to see is people who ask more questions and assume less. Asking me a question is like asking to be my best friend: the answer is always yes! But if you assume and come against me when you're clearly out of line, that will trigger the List Of Ten Thousand Wrongs and you should hear every last one of them, but you never will. I will die before I'm done explaining the first 5.

Posted May 8th by mariomguy

Yes. I lived with some of them for significant amounts of time and consider them good friends, even if our communication is rocky at times.


Wait wait wait you said gametalk people. You lived with gametalk people or are you talking about other people now?

Edited May 8th by Knuckles4099

Wait wait wait you said gametalk people. You lived with gametalk people or are you talking about other people now?


I said that I was friends with people that are on the spectrum and that I knew people on GameTalk that are on the spectrum.

The ASD people that I am friends with are the ones that I have lived with.

Posted May 8th by Cruinn-Annuin

I think Knuckles is asking if the people who have autism on GT that you know are officially autistic or if you just assume they are.

Posted May 8th by Renzokuken

That's what I was asking previously but I got the answer to my question which I asked apparently because I can't pay attention.

Posted May 8th by Knuckles4099

Why are you supposing these to be the hallmarks of good game design?

Any game that gives you a beautiful world and only allows you to walk through a small part of it will always feel limiting and encumbering. Great if that's the purpose, but I wouldn't give any awards for that reason.

Are you saying that The Last of Us has poor game design because it's easy, or linear, or has very simple puzzles? (all of which are true)

Basically. It's not only very simplified, but very orderly and structured with not much leeway or headroom. I'm open to discussion on that.

Personally, I think TLOU does a better job at game design than it's contemporary Resident Evil, even the beloved Resi 4. Because the enemies still inspire the same fear and dread but the gunplay an AI are far and away superior and it doesn't feel like the controls suck just to make the game scarier like in Resi 4 or the original 2.

I would never berate a game for improving on controls. Good controls are never a reason for a game to be bad. Legitimate response to my concerns.

I tried playing Resident Evil 2 for the first time on N64 the other day and damn, how do you even steer your character? It's such a janky ass mess. If I'm gonna play an ugly ass similar game I'd rather play Hunter the Reckoning. And Resi 2 is one of the most loved games of all time.

I haven't played that, but I kind of feel this way about Super Mario World. Compared to the new games SMW controls like crap. At the time that was actually the best in class. But times change. 3D is no longer the amazing surprise it once was, and even the best games have to take it down a notch.

It might not be a pure video game in the way a Dark Souls, Super Mario, or teris is. A lot of it is an interactive movie because it's a story RPG with third person shooter elements. But for it's genre, it's damn near perfect and I think it made Resi 7 and Resi 2 remastered better games.

If we consider a linear shooter as a class, I'm 100% in agreement it's the greatest linear shooter ever made. But given how adventurous RPGs tend to be, with stories that sprawl multiple towns with backtracking, sidequests, and plenty of open exploration, I wouldn't consider such a linear game to be in the same class. It borrows from the storytelling of RPGs and certain inventory mechanics, but most of the interesting mechanics are too simplified to put it in any other class. Third person action game with heavy emphasis on shooters and very few, watered down elements borrowed from RPGs and adventures, like the "puzzles" in dealing with enemies and strategies.

OK, we've got a definition of what it is! But was that really the greatest game design that year? Not GOTY, I never argued against GOTY, specifically game design?

Best Design
- The Last Of Us (Naughty Dog/Sony)
- Grand Theft Auto V (Rockstar North/Rockstar Games)
- The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds (Nintendo EAD/Nintendo)
- Super Mario 3D World (Nintendo EAD Tokyo/Nintendo)
- Tomb Raider (Crystal Dynamics/Square Enix)

GTA is always great and Mario is always doing something innovative, but Zelda: A Link Between Worlds had a ton of fascinating new mechanics. Link merging into the walls and expanding the puzzles between 2D and 3D was really interesting. I thought for sure a Nintendo game would win Best Design, but TLoU won when it's so story-heavy and very minimal on the gaming front. I guess for some people less IS more, it makes you focus on what it does well and leaves no time to wander around the things it doesn't.

Posted May 9th by mariomguy

I haven't played that, but I kind of feel this way about Super Mario World. Compared to the new games SMW controls like crap.


Hey I think I can actually kind of agree with that.

Posted May 9th by Knuckles4099

Any game that gives you a beautiful world and only allows you to walk through a small part of it will always feel limiting and encumbering. Great if that's the purpose, but I wouldn't give any awards for that reason.


I wouldn't give a game a game design award for something that's much more relevant to art, environment design and lore, true. But that's because those things are disparate to the game design - in both ways. The fact that you can't run over there and climb that tree or whatever doesn't make it a bad game any more than being able to would make it a good game.

In Portal, you can see much more of the facility than you're able to get to. This, in combination with the dialogue and other bits, is designed to create a sense of confinement, oppression and paranoia. It has nothing to do with actually solving the puzzles.

In Borderlands, you can run and drive all over huge areas, jump up rock piles and buildings, etc. But this has very little to do with the core gameplay, which is about shooting, looting and leveling.

They're both great games for different reasons, which have little to do with how limited or unlimited the environment is. In fact, Portal is very specifically designed to be extremely linear and depend on a certain sequence of events to make sense. However, I'd say that it has generally better game design than Borderlands. Much tighter and specifically crafted experience.

Posted May 9th by Cruinn-Annuin

I haven't played that, but I kind of feel this way about Super Mario World. Compared to the new games SMW controls like crap




Posted May 9th by Cruinn-Annuin

How is he wrong though? SMW was such a tedious game to play at times and you just had to get used to it. Just because it makes you feel a sense of accomplishment for getting better at it doesn't mean it's designed the best.

Edited May 9th by Knuckles4099

You guys must really suck at super mario world. The controls are responsive tight and it is easy to pick up. Unless things are different in the snes version I have.

Posted May 9th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Well it was one of my very first games so I was prettyyyyy young when I played it. Even so though, newer Mario games came much more naturally to me and felt less tedious like, you're less likely to accidentally fall off a cliff or not jump in time or whatever while running just because it does some janky thing you don't expect unless you're completely used to it.

Posted May 9th by Knuckles4099

I mean I guess it's subjective because it depends on how your brain and fingers want to respond and when they want to respond and why but to me it wasn't most pleasant experience when it came to controls.

Of course I did go back to it when I was older but it still felt kind of janky.

Edited May 9th by Knuckles4099

I'm not sure if TLOU is a clear miles ahead winner for game design in 2013. But, 2013 was kind of a weak year for games, and GTAV was just a reshuffle of a well known and successful formula where as The last Of Us was built from the ground up. Mario and Zelda, again, are tried and true.

So while I think GTAV might technically be better from a game design perspective, or even Zelda although I never played it, The Last Of Us is up there and it's more original.

If anything Tomb Raider is the weaker interactive movie game. I played that Mario game and it was meh for a Mario game. The fact that it even made the top 5 shows how sad that year was.

Posted May 9th by Renzokuken

Super Mario World is kinda like Roger Federer in tennis. 16 years ago he was world number 1. Now he's world number 3. And he can still teach youngsters a thing or two. The deterioration is there, but it's gonna be a long time before Super Mario World isn't sexy or revolutionary. Modern Games can still learn from it. More than any other game, SMW stands the test of time due to it's fantastic gameplay and artistic design.

I'll concede that Odyssey is a better game in every single regard except maybe soundtrack. SMW's music is dope. Super Mario Galaxy, 64, and Sunshine were not better games in every way.

Edited May 9th by Renzokuken

Mariom, The Last of Us is also the only game in 2013's top 5 that is a new IP.

Posted May 9th by Renzokuken

can't believe it's 2019 and this convo is still happening

Posted May 9th by The Bandit

can't believe it's 2019 and this convo is still happening

http://gtx0.com/view.php?post=86547
It has been over five years.

Posted May 9th by Cruinn-Annuin

It does take multiple people for conversations to keep happening though.

Posted May 9th by Knuckles4543

Why can't I reply to that really old thread and bump it to the top?

Posted May 9th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

It's probably locked.

Posted May 9th by Moonray
Moonray
 

I kind of feel this way about Super Mario World. Compared to the new games SMW controls like crap.




-----

Back to my topic:

CGI, when used right, can replace or augment anything to make a film look better without having to do reshoots. I think it's safe to say that just about everyone here, with an exception or 2, can agree with this.

nuff said.

Edited May 9th by Q
Q
 

I've seen the first few hours of TLoU via a let's play, and all my criticisms against it were fairly valid: it's a linear game, no world to explore, very limited decision making compared to an adventure/RPG, and no matter how good the first playthrough is, it's only a 15 hour game, more story and cutscenes than game, not something you'd want to play that long or again.


These aren't "criticisms," though. You are stating facts about the kind of game it is, and then applying your personal preference as to whether or not those facts are "good" or "bad" design.

Like being a 15 hour game doesn't make it a bad game any more than making a Mario game that takes 60+ hours makes it a good one. That's not "good" or "bad" design. It's just a fact about the game.

A game being linear doesn't make it a bad game anymore than making an open world Mario game makes that a good game. It's just a fact about the game.

And, while you're objectively wrong when you say that it's more story and cutscenes than gameplay (like, for real, this is objectively not true in any capacity), the use of cutscenes doesn't make a game "bad" any more than a game that avoids them is inherently "good."

Great if that's the purpose, but I wouldn't give any awards for that reason.


And there it is. You have always, and continue to, missed the forest for the trees. "Great if that's the purpose" should be how you look at every single game. Design is not some ubiquitous thing in which there is a definite "good" versus "bad," and just saying that that is true doesn't make that the case. You always fixate on ONE design philosophy from an broader perspective and apply it to every single game, regardless of what that game and the developers are going for.

As I have noted time and time again, an open world design with the ability to backtrack simply would not work for what TLoU was going for. They had an intention with the game, and they designed around that. Conversely, the design philosophy of TLoU simply would not work for Zelda because of the purpose of that game. To act like one is "good" and one is "bad" without examining what exactly the designers are going for, and what the intended experience is supposed to be, is just foolish on top of an inaccurate way to view game design in general.

Art is not math. You don't just apply rules across the board and ignore intent or purpose. TLoU is a well designed game *because* of what the purpose and intended play is. It is cohesive and, on the most part (though certainly not always), fits a lot of its design elements together very well. I am not going to compare it in terms of "good/bad" to totally different types of games with totally different purposes and totally different design elements because that's just silly. To judge if a game is well designed, you have to look at that single game itself and see how all the different pieces fit, particularly in the context of what the intended play or experience is.

I know this is about the 9 millionth time I'm saying this, but I don't think it could be more obvious of a thing.

But also, you're really, really objectively, provably wrong when you say the game is more story and cutscene than gameplay, and the criticism of any game that it's "too short" is never *not* going to be a totally idiotic "criticism" that is not actual criticism. Being short as a source of "criticism" is stupid. There is no other medium in which you would apply that logic. You would not say a movie was bad because it was too short, or a show was bad because it was too short, or a movie was bad because it was too short. So why do we shit on games for being too short? That's not legitimate or valid criticism.

Posted May 9th by Jet Presto

Well it was one of my very first games so I was prettyyyyy young when I played it. Even so though, newer Mario games came much more naturally to me and felt less tedious like, you're less likely to accidentally fall off a cliff or not jump in time or whatever while running just because it does some janky thing you don't expect unless you're completely used to it.

Exactly. Even Miyamoto expressed disdain regarding SMW's rushed schedule and the finished product. Some notable features that make the game more frustrating than fun:

  • One-block jumps and tricky maneuvers over bottomless pits, even in early levels
  • Ghost houses with an unfair jumble of enemies lunging at you in random, incoherent ways
  • Very zoomed-in camera with large obstacles compared to other Mario titles
  • Several completely unexpected turns and nonsensical puzzles (including the looping level on Choco Island).
  • 1 hit to Small Mario
  • Yoshi not permitted in castles or ghost houses
  • Only saves at castles and ghost houses
  • Minimal recovery control compared to modern Mario games

    Games like Super Meat Boy and New Super Mario Bros Wii feature much better, more fluid controls than Super Mario World. Compared to SMB1 SMW was a huge step up, but by modern standards it falters a lot. If you take off the nostalgia goggles and actually play it recently, it doesn't go toe-to-toe with modern NSMB games. The game as a whole is great, but the controls are not up to standard. It was glorious back then, but out of everything the game has to offer, the controls suffered the worst.

    CGI, when used right, can replace or augment anything to make a film look better without having to do reshoots. I think it's safe to say that just about everyone here, with an exception or 2, can agree with this.

    That's not how CGI is used at all. If you are doing an all CGI movie, then yes, you can make a lot of changes in software. Not as easily as you think, but it is more readily doable. As soon as you include a camera, the process becomes very tedious, and sometimes impossible depending on the task. In some cases you can use matte paintings and smart algorithms to take care of the work. In others you really do have to reshoot the entire scene in order for the changes between both the film and CGI to match up. Keep in mind Hollywood movies use massive supercomputers to render this stuff. Disney/Pixar's supercomputer is one of the top 100 most powerful in the world. You have to schedule a render time. There are massive teams working on these movies, not just one person.

  • Posted May 9th by mariomguy

    That's not how CGI is used at all.


    This *quite literally* how CGI is used, like, all the time in cinema.




    Posted May 9th by Jet Presto

    And there it is. You have always, and continue to, missed the forest for the trees. "Great if that's the purpose" should be how you look at every single game. Design is not some ubiquitous thing in which there is a definite "good" versus "bad," and just saying that that is true doesn't make that the case. You always fixate on ONE design philosophy from an broader perspective and apply it to every single game, regardless of what that game and the developers are going for.

    There used to be an award at GDC called "Level design." It wasn't used for decades. In the rush to create more cinematic experiences, games lost a lot of what makes them a game instead of a disposable experience like a movie. If you like your games to play like movies, then yes, you will love TLOU. But if you demand something, anything more, I doubt you'll find it there. I know for sure I can have tons of fun in GTA V even if I'm not playing the story. I know my experience with TLOU will be extremely refined for 15 hours, but then what?

    I'm seeing in movies now, too, characters aren't often faced with very many dilemmas or choices. The story pushes them along this one path that seems fixated along the director's vision. The main character is often not in control of their own destiny, and I really don't like that. Oddly enough, this is something MLP is actually very good at! Characters are faced with clear choices and suffer the consequences. They don't always make the right choices, and sometimes what seems like the right choice ends up failing miserably. They falter, make mistakes, and learn from them. So here's another question: does Joel seem forced into this situation with Ellie? Do they have control over their own destiny? Or are they following some director's vision of a grand story?

    Posted May 9th by mariomguy

    Mariom, what's your opinion on this argument: The only original IP 2013's top 5 list that you presented, is The Last of Us?

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    disposable experience like a movie


    Excuse you, do you not watch movies more than once?

    If you like your games to play like movies, then yes, you will love TLOU.


    I'm a hardcore gamist but I still love the Metal Gear Solid series because linearity and having substantial cutscenes doesn't take away from gameplay.

    I'm seeing in movies now, too, characters aren't often faced with very many dilemmas or choices. The story pushes them along this one path that seems fixated along the director's vision. The main character is often not in control of their own destiny, and I really don't like that. Oddly enough, this is something MLP is actually very good at!




    I don't even know where to start.

    Posted May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    That's not how CGI is used at all.


    Yes it is. Go watch a MCU movie, any MCU movie. They literally have actors, like Robert Downing Jr, wear part of their costume and then CGI the rest.

    They have the same actor's act infront of sets that are only partially built agaisnt blue/green screens where CGI is used to fill in to make it look like a battle is taking place in the middle of New York, when in reality it's being filmed in a large warehouse studio.

    That is how CGI, when used right, can replace or augment anything to make a film look better without having to do reshoots.

    Here is a video literally showing you how CGI was used in Infinity War:



    Can we put this argument to rest now, mariomguy? You are literally the only person arguing against this right now.

    Edited May 10th by Q
    Q
     

    I'm seeing in movies now, too, characters aren't often faced with very many dilemmas or choices. The story pushes them along this one path that seems fixated along the director's vision. The main character is often not in control of their own destiny, and I really don't like that. Oddly enough, this is something MLP is actually very good at!




    Posted May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Im not sure why Null hasnt destroyed this guy with a wall of text already.

    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Im not sure why Null hasnt destroyed this guy with a wall of text already.


    1. I just don't care quite as much as I used to.

    2. Inasmuch as I do care, I've learned that it's better to respond with shorter, more decisive statements. The more material that you introduce to an argument with mariomguy, the more stuff will be taken out of context, misconstrued, etc. It just snowballs.

    3. I've been on my weekend, hanging out with my girlfriend. I try not to waste as much time when I'm with her.

    Posted May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    *sigh* Well, we'll do this one more time because I'm a masochist, I guess.

    I know my experience with TLOU will be extremely refined for 15 hours, but then what?


    Well, for me, I played it again to see what I missed, and to play try it on a harder difficulty, and often I revisit the game because I just - frankly - enjoy the act of playing TLoU. Or, of course, I move onto another game. There is nothing wrong with a game that ends. This will perhaps always be your single silliest source of criticism of TLoU, or any games that share its design philosophy. That a game ends or does not provide 50-60 hours worth of "content" does not and never will mean anything about the quality of the game or of its design.

    I love games like Dark Souls, where it has me exploring and running around and backtracking as I try to figure out how to advance. But i don't always want to spend 50-80 hours on a video game. Is it really better design to put so much stuff in there that I'm never going to be able to do, and might not even bother finishing the game because of how big it is? Is that really a "better" design philosophy than a more refined and focused experience that will have a more clear end point?


    If you like your games to play like movies


    I have tons of fun playing TLoU. I will literally revisit that and Uncharted 4 simply because I actively enjoy the way those games play. I can't honestly say I've played any game that "plays like a movie." If all it takes to "play like a movie" is to be linear and to have a focus on the story, then perhaps you don't understand cinema or video games as much as you like to think.

    games lost a lot of what makes them a game instead of a disposable experience like a movie.


    Just because YOU don't care about cinema doesn't mean everybody, or even most people don't care about cinema. You don't even have to watch a movie more than once for it to not be "disposable." This is such a heartbreakingly silly way to view cinema, or art in general. What, I read Moby Dick once so that means that literature is "disposable"? Please tell me you understand how dumb that sounds to suggest, yeah?

    Also, what makes you sure that games have ever been any less disposable? The entire industry is literally built upon the original concept of games being toys, literally the pinnacle of disposable content. They literally render previous consoles and many of the games with it obsolete. (That is literally what the industry does.) Just because you take longer to dispose of it doesn't make it any less "disposable."

    (If it sounds stupid to suggest games are "disposable," well, you should understand then why it's such an insane comment to make about a film or a book or a show, too. I don't look at any of this stuff as such, but arguably, video games are so much more designed today to be "disposable" than cinema is.)

    So here's another question: does Joel seem forced into this situation with Ellie? Do they have control over their own destiny?


    This supposes that those two concepts can't both exist within the story. Joel starts off with the situation forced upon him, but there is a very clear point in the game where he is clearly choosing to continue. So to answer your question, it's "both." I hear what you're saying about Hollywood films relying a bit too much on consequence, though I don't think that is inherently a problem. But see, the thing is, our lives are full of things in which we are forced into situations, and we make choices. If anything, TLoU is a great story in the way that it incorporates both. It's not a great example to use to make the point you're trying to make, so I'd probably steer clear of that one, especially given you can't be bothered to actually play the game.



    Also, you managed to say a bunch of stuff without even once actually addressing any of my points.

    Posted May 10th by Jet Presto

    I also want to point out that mariomguy talking shit about TLoU for not being as supposedly replayable as his favorite 'intendo shit is blitheringly dumb, as Mario/Zelda/Metroid/whatever is, in turn, not nearly as replayable as something like the Elder Scrolls, which literally can't be fully experienced with a single 100+ hour character.

    And that, in turn, it not nearly as replayable as something like Team Fortress 2 or Counter-Strike, games in which you can have a thousand hours of playtime and still get called a noob.

    Posted May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    I just fundamentally reject the idea that there is ever any one way to make a game, or any one purpose to a game. The point of a game is to *play* and *have fun.* Always. Even the super challenging games like Sekiro or Furi or some shit. As difficult as they are, the point is that you *have fun* in the act of trying and feel the satisfaction of getting good. You likely won't feel that same gratification if you find it a miserable slog (for me, I never had any fun playing Sekiro, so even when I overcame the obstacles that really wore me down, I felt more like, "Fucking finally. Thank god I never have to do that shit again" more than the Dark Souls feeling for me which was, "HOLY SHIT! I DID IT!" while looking forward to the next time I play the game to try again).

    A game being linear does not make it un-fun. It certainly *can.* (FFX and XIII are a bit too linear for my liking, although I still mostly enjoy X.) But you still have to actually play the game for something like TLoU, and personally, I really enjoy the gameplay. I find it fun and engaging. I don't play the game constantly for six, seven months at a time, but I only do that with From Soft games anyway.

    It's just so bizarre to me the idea that someone could claim to love gaming so much, but then be soooo dismissive to the overwhelming majority of games, and to gaming's own history. Like, I can't be the only one who enjoys going to an arcade and hitting up some of those classic games. What, am I supposed to think Contra is bad because I can't backtrack?

    Posted May 10th by Jet Presto

    Also, if cinema is "disposable", is music also "disposable"? I will fucking tear anyone apart on the topic of music if they start saying shit like that. You are vastly out of your depth on that point.

    Posted May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    I really do wonder what else is "disposable" in Mariomguys eyes.

    Ive replayed TLOU 3-4 times and found my self finding new things to love about the game. The only time I ever said fuck this in a non dark souls game happened while playing TLOU in its hardest difficulty level on a no death run. (I had reached Winter and playing as Ellie when I decided to sprint to pass a clicker...didnt work out well for me)

    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Games lost a lot of what makes them a game instead of a disposable experience like a movie.

    This is Mariom's one point I actually agree with, even though I still don't think it applies to TLOU. After you've watched a movie like endgame 2 or 3 times, you've spent 9 hours and it probably doesn't have anything left to offer you. Maybe 5 years later once you've forgotten it's plot largely you could get some enjoyment again.

    With a game though, even a story-based game like TLOU or Final Fantasy X, it takes hours and hours to beat it once. So when you do a replay through for the same third time that you gave to endgame, you've had 45 hours of fun in TLOU. And then there is insanity mode, and DLC like left behind which add more. And even though the areas of battle or small, you can use multiple different strategies. So it's not at all like a movie.

    Games do offer more than Movies though. Movies are definitely a disposable form of entertainment, at least a faster disposal rate than games. Tetris, and old school mario will never get old. Dark Souls never gets old. Because they're all about gameplay. TLOU CAN get old but at a much slower rate than any movie that's ever been released in the history of movies.

    One of my favorite movies of all time is Troy 2004, and even though I can watch it probably once every few years and enjoy it, the Trojans still always lose and Achilles still always dies. There's no DLC or alternate ending.

    I've gotten more hours of enjoyment out of my first play through of just Mass Effect 1 than I have out of Troy in all the times I've watched it. That ignores ME1's dlc, all of ME2 and it's DLC, and ME3 and all of it's DLC and all subsequent playthroughs of ME1.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    This is Mariom's one point I actually agree with, even though I still don't think it applies to TLOU. After you've watched a movie like endgame 2 or 3 times, you've spent 9 hours and it probably doesn't have anything left to offer you. Maybe 5 years later once you've forgotten it's plot largely you could get some enjoyment again.


    It really depends on the movie/game. Something like Schindlers list I would watch maybe once or twice in my life. (I havent felt the need to rewatch it in well over a decade since my first viewing) I rewatched Pacific RIm a total of 5 times in theaters and lord knows how many times on DVD. Then you movies like Home Alone 2, Tommy Boy, Billy Madison, etc etc that I can rewatch multiple times and still find them enjoyable.

    When it comes to games I can pop in Resident Evil 4 at any time and replay it and enjoy it (after a dozen+ playthroughs) I cant really say that with a lot of other games.

    Edited May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Home Alone is a good example of something that can be enjoyed once a year at Christmas. Not the second one though. It takes a sharp dip in quality. I could handle Home Alone 2 maybe once ever 5 years.

    Death Note is a series I watch once a year, but obviously it offers a lot more hours of content than a Movie.

    I will admit to (probably unsurprisingly) watching The Lion King well over 25 times at home and 7-8 times in theatres. But most of those were when I was a kid and before I owned a Nintendo so give me a break. I've probably watched it 3 times as an adult.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Home Alone is a good example of something that can be enjoyed once a year at Christmas.


    Muppet Christmas Carol for me. Every year with the family!

    Posted May 10th by Moonray
    Moonray
     

    After you've watched a movie like endgame 2 or 3 times, you've spent 9 hours and it probably doesn't have anything left to offer you


    First off, Endgame literally just came out, so trying to make a point of it's rewatchability is fucking dumb. I don't listen to the same album all day every day, either.

    Secondly, Endgame is a big AAA summer blockbuster movie. It's commercial art. There is detail and depth to it, but it's not kino.

    I have literally watched Forrest Gump, The Matrix and Drive over and over again and they still have rewatch value for me. Just a month or so ago, I sat down with my roomie and we watched The Matrix while we ate Chinese delivery food. It was fuckin' great. There are other movies like Hard to Be a God and A Scanner Darkly that I've only watched once or twice and can't wait to get back into in order to dig deeper into them, now that I have a solid overview of what the film is.

    Hell, my family used to watch National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation every year and we enjoyed the fuck out of that. We were noticing new shit ten years in.

    Posted May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Music is different. I could listen to the same song millions of times because I use it as a mood modifier and for focus and just because I fucking feel like it and it's really easy to multitask while listening to music. I'm not going to discuss music in this argument because I don't consider it apples to apples.

    And Null, even if you watch a movie 30-35 times and get great enjoyment from it (and I'm not saying you shouldn't, or that there aren't movies worthy of it. I happen to like the matrix films as well, but not the third one's last hour.) If I play a video game 35 times that I love it still offers exponentially more hours of enjoyment.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Home Alone is a good example of something that can be enjoyed once a year at Christmas. Not the second one though. It takes a sharp dip in quality. I could handle Home Alone 2 maybe once ever 5 years.


    well then you are wrong.

    It all depends on the movie. Something like Dia Hard I will watch once a year. My favorite MCU Movies I will rewatch a couple of times a year.

    When it comes to television I am on my dozen rerun of Seinfeld. Ive rewatched Friends, Malcom in the Middle, How I met your Mother more times than I can count. End of the day it just depends on the particular form of media you are watching.

    If I end up going to guatemala I plan to watch the extended versions of Lord of the Rings.

    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    I'm guessing it will be in Spanish there? How fluent are you in Spanish? Probably a dumb question right?

    Home Alone 3 is underrated.

    Posted May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are must watches for christmas.

    There are other movies like Hard to Be a God and A Scanner Darkly that I've only watched once or twice and can't wait to get back into in order to dig deeper into them, now that I have a solid overview of what the film is.


    A Scanner Darkly is a trippy movie, but very good. It also stars alot of talented actors like Robert Downey Jr.

    You know, now that I think about it, it's probably been over 10 years since I last watched that movie.

    Posted May 10th by Q
    Q
     

    First off, Endgame literally just came out, so trying to make a point of it's rewatchability is fucking dumb.

    Why? I went to see Logan 3 times in theatres, and decided a 4th was too much. Thoroughly enjoyed the three times.

    Posted May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I'm guessing it will be in Spanish there? How fluent are you in Spanish? Probably a dumb question right?

    Fluent enough to get by. Not fluent enough to lead a professional presentation. I can understand it perfectly. I do find it challenging to speak it depending on the situation.

    For Clarification I would watch them before I left.

    Why? I went to see Logan 3 times in theatres, and decided a 4th was too much. Thoroughly enjoyed the three times.


    YOU thoroughly enjoyed it three times. Other people might thoroughly enjoy it after watching it 8 times.

    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    I did enjoy it the 4th time a year later on netflix. And the 5th time when I watched it a few weeks ago. But 4 times would have been too much in such a short span for me. And again, even if I watched it 8 times in short succession that's still less than 24 hours of enjoyment and a lot of story based games are longer.

    Watching it 8 times in theatres would cost a lot more than buying a video game. And you wouldn't own anything.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    The point is it is far from being Disposable. I would have watched pacific rim 10 times in theathers if I had the money for it.

    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    If you get 8 shaves out of a disposable razor and thoroughly enjoy shaving it's still disposable. You don't own anything after going to see Logan in theatres and paying 8 times. It's disposable by definition regardless of enjoyment levels. The same as the cup you had your pepsi in while watching it that you also enjoyed.

    If you buy the Logan blu ray, digital download, or pirate it like a sensible person then it's not disposable.

    That's why Nullfather's music example is ridiculous unless we are talking about going to a concert. Going to a concert is disposable one-time entertainment.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    The same as the cup you had your pepsi in while watching it that you also enjoyed.

    I dont drink things when I watch movies.


    And uh Im pretty sure we are talking about it being a disposable experience.

    Watching something like Logan on your tv and watching it one a giant movie theater screen in 4k are two different experiences.

    You lose a sense of scale watching pacific rim on a 40 inch tv as oppose to watching it in the theaters.

    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    You're right, watching it in theatres is likely a better experience unless you have a 65 inch 2000 dollar LG OLED 4K TV with surround sound.

    Watching it in theatres is still disposable entertainment though.

    Do you like popcorn? Those bags are disposable too.



    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Why? I went to see Logan 3 times in theatres, and decided a 4th was too much. Thoroughly enjoyed the three times.


    This is why:

    But 4 times would have been too much in such a short span for me.


    Can you not put two and two together? Rewatchability isn't just how many times you would be OK with watching it in a day or a week. That's completely fucking arbitrary.

    That's why Nullfather's music example is ridiculous unless we are talking about going to a concert.


    Because you can only see movies in theaters, right? mariomguy didn't say shit about in theaters only.

    Posted May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Yeah but you commented on endgame being watched 3 times which would have to happen in theatres currently. AKA Watching it disposably. So sit down.

    Posted May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    so sit down.

    *waits for null to destroy every one in this thread*

    Posted May 10th by S.OH.
    S.OH.
     

    I threw that in there because I know this is going to be entertaining. But not disposably entertaining because I can reread it if I want without paying a second time.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    So you purposefully picked Endgame as it can currently only be seen in theaters, meaning that you picked a flawed and irrelevant example out of your misguided sense of reason instead of merely out of ignorance. The fact that Endgame doesn't have a wider release at the moment is as irrelevant to the pre-existing conversation about cinema, as I explained already, as your barely-functioning sense of logic is to my ability to shatter the feeble attempts at counterpoint that you muster.

    Edited May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Um yeah, I picked a movie still in theatres for a discussion about disposable entertainment. If you want to go spend dozens or hundreds of dollars to see it multiple times then you're just disposing more money.

    Secondly my argument isn't a counterpoint, it's me agreeing with mguy on one particular thing. You're the one trying, and mostly failing to counter my points.

    First off, Endgame literally just came out, so trying to make a point of it's rewatchability is fucking dumb.

    You offer no valid reasons to support this comment. It's literally because it's stuck in theatres that it's disposable. If you want to go spend 120 bucks and watch it multitudes of times thats your business, but it's certainly expensive.

    I'm not trying to counter you. Do you want me to repeat what I'm saying a third time?

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Um yeah, I picked a movie still in theatres for a discussion about disposable entertainment. If you want to go spend dozens or hundreds of dollars to see it multiple times then you're just disposing more money.


    Is going on vacation a disposable experience? You dont own the place where you vacation. What if you never go back there again?

    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Yes, going on vacation would be a disposable form of entertainment. Again, let me be clear: Disposable doesn't mean it's a bad or negative thing. It just means that it's a one-time deal. You pay a lump sum and you get an experience. You don't own anything when the deal is over.

    The most common form of this kind of deal is probably eating.

    When you buy a movie or pirate a movie or buy or pirate a video game that's not disposable. When you rent a game or pay to see a movie in theatres that's disposable entertainment.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    You don't own anything when the deal is over.

    You own the memory of said experience that you can share with others. That experience is solidified when you encounter some one who has also been there. By your logic everything is a disposable experience regardless if you buy it or not. Hello Jerry? Hellooooooooo??????????



    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    False. That's not what I'm saying. What gives you that idea?

    College is disposable, Trips are disposable, rent is disposable, taxes are disposable, movies(at theatres)/concerts/shows/events/plays are disposable, xbox live, photoshop subscription, microsoft office subscription, vpns, amazon prime, netflix, dlc, add ons, digital content is all disposable. That's why I have a beef with dlc and microtransactions. You can't sell it. You buy it once and you're stuck with it, or you rent it, or in other cases you stream it, you don't really own it. Owning a Blu Ray, or a disk or cartridge based game is not disposable.

    Owning a Movie on blu ray, or pirating it are literally the only way to make a movie not a disposable form of entertainment. Because you can sell your blu ray movie when you're done with it.

    There are a lot of things and forms of entertainment that are not disposable. If you buy two training swords and duel them with your friend they aren't disposable unless they break.

    Everyone wants to milk you for cash to use their service rather than letting you own it these days.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    No by your logic everything is disposable. You run the risk of losing everything you own therefore going by your logic it is disposable.

    Any who I dont even think you and mariomguy are on the same page. Until he can answer what else he believes to be disposable .

    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Well I guess you're right. Life is disposable. But that's more long term. So I compartmentalize it differently than the things I'm talking about. I don't want to be ripped off while I'm still around.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Um yeah, I picked a movie still in theatres for a discussion about disposable entertainment. If you want to go spend dozens or hundreds of dollars to see it multiple times then you're just disposing more money.


    Let me slow this down to the slowest possible speed for you, since you are unwilling or unable to think through this yourself, instead simply throwing words around because of a vague sense of intellectual hubris (cue your "no u" response).

    You are conflating a temporary access to a piece of media (i.e. a theater viewing of a film) with shallow design of the actual media. The argument as presented by mariomguy, the shit that everyone (including yourself) was talking about, was that movies (the entirety of movies, the media itself, the inherent essence represented by the sweeping term "movies") were a disposable media as evidenced by their overtly linear and invariable nature as compared to games (well, games that mariomguy approves of).

    You are not even being honest to the point that you are attempting to defend. In order to actually draw a direct comparison between a theater viewing of a movie and a video game, you would have to represent it as something like the theater viewing of a movie and an arcade video game (which, in my experience, are actually regularly found in movie theaters). In the argument with mariomguy, we are clearly talking about the inherent nature of the film medium, which has nothing to do with the vagary of a film being in theater. Film is a disposable medium like games are a disposable experience. Bringing up theater films as if the simple economic practice of limited initial releases is anything inherent to the medium simply allows someone to point to arcade games as "proof" that video games (all of them, inherently) are disposable experiences.

    Your argument is fuckin' retarded. You need to do everyone a favor and stop while you're behind.

    Posted May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Ah there is is folks, he took the bait.

    Guess this doesn't apply:

    1. I just don't care quite as much as I used to.

    2. Inasmuch as I do care, I've learned that it's better to respond with shorter, more decisive statements. The more material that you introduce to an argument with mariomguy, the more stuff will be taken out of context, misconstrued, etc. It just snowballs.

    3. I've been on my weekend, hanging out with my girlfriend. I try not to waste as much time when I'm with her.

    Posted May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king



    Posted May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Ah there is is folks, he took the bait.


    and you wonder why at times the community doesnt like you.

    Ah there is is folks, he took the bait.


    I really dont see any of those things as a rip off. But than again I rather have the experience of watching a movie with friends and talking about said movie afterwards than owning the movie and never watching it with them (or any one for that matter)

    Edited May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Guess this doesn't apply:


    Are you mariomguy?

    Edited May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    2 out of 3 aint bad.

    I got you, deal with it.

    Maybe cut out that superior-than-thou vibe you always carry with you. You're trapped in gtx0 like the rest of us.

    Edited May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    You can consume anything as "disposable" if you want to. That doesn't mean that's what it intrinsically is, though.

    You talk about it as if your access to it is the only thing that matters. That you watch a movie, it ends, and then you move on, therefore it is disposable. But there is SO MUCH MORE to art than that.

    I've seen the film Fantastic Woman exactly one time in my life. And it had a really profound impact on me. I don't own it, but I thought about that film for *months* after I saw it. I will still talk about it.

    So. Is that film "disposable"?

    You can make the same case with plenty of things, too. I've played Dark Souls III one full time. And while I did start a replay, I never got more than halfway before I stopped, put the game down, and haven't picked it up since. And yet, beating the Dancer of the Boreal Valley is still among my most memorable and gratifying moments ever in playing a video game. Is DSIII disposable because I put it down and haven't revisited it?

    Even with games I didn't like. I never even beat one of the true bosses in Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice before I couldn't take it any more and have traded it with a friend. I have literally "disposed" of the game. And yet, I still think about the game. I still talk about the game. I still remember the experience of playing the parts that I did. I would not count that as "disposable."

    Posted May 10th by Jet Presto

    This will be my last comment on the matter, as we're now derailing the thread into purely personal bullshit.

    2 out of 3 aint bad.


    You are aware, I presume, that simply saying things that are wrong does not make them so? Furthermore, I have to question the fundamental failings of personality that would be necessary in order for you to divert the conversation into pure "gotcha"-ism. I am still a little confused about exactly where the line between your imbecility and your iniquity lies, so I must ask: which one of those things did I say about you? Consider it for your own benefit, mind you, because I will not continue it in this thread.

    Maybe cut out that superior-than-thou vibe you always carry with you. You're trapped in gtx0 like the rest of us.


    My continual impulse to put myself in intensely personal confrontations with people on the internet is not something that I consider a flaw. I consider it, instead, a hallmark of my superiority in and of itself.

    Posted May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Is your copy of DS3 hard copy or digital? That'll answer your question for you.

    Edited May 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Suck it. You're just a passenger on the gtx0 train. I don't even care about the debate itself. Get memed Null.


    I am so happy that I am no longer this type of person.

    because he thinks he and his tastes are better than everyone on the site.

    thats more mariomguy than any one else. I never got any of that from Null. He is a cool guy that knows some cool stuff about the world.


    I never owned the mass effect trilogy and it left a lasting impression on me as one of my top 5 games. I fail to see how that experience is disposable.

    Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Have a nice day.



    Posted May 10th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Is your copy of DS3 hard copy or digital? That'll answer your question for you


    Again, your argument seems to be that unfettered access is what prevents something from being "disposable," whereas I am pointing out all the ways that that is not actually the case. My copy of DSIII is a hard copy. Conversely, I own many games digitally - from Furi to Braid to The Witness to Portal - all of which I have only played once and would never in a million years consider "disposable" because they still sit with me as some of my favorite experiences.

    This is the same thing about vacations being "disposable." If you feel like they are, that's your business. You should take better vacations, then. For my money, they have all been anything but. Not just in terms of the rest and fun they provide me in the moment, but for the experiences and memories I will have for a long time.

    Posted May 10th by Jet Presto

    you know things have gone terribly wrong when the mguy argument isn't the bad part of the thread

    Posted May 10th by Pirate_Ninja

    Well I thought I should take the heat off him.

    Posted May 10th by Renzokuken

    If you wanna read about why I'm such a fucktard the journal forum is your friend.

    Posted May 10th by Renzokuken

    I kept the same name forever, so, you'll never see me use another name anywhere.

    In any event, I find the longer a game is, the less I want to rewatch it. And there may be days I don't want to play the main story. The game I replayed the most is the original Paper Mario for the N64 - a 15 hour game depending on how you play, plenty of interesting places to visit, things to do, and just fun all around! I probably played through that game at least 10 times.

    Super Mario series has crazy good replay value, some more than others. Super Mario 64 was probably the best because it was so easygoing. But Super Mario Galaxy had such a great variety of really good levels I was happy playing it even after getting all 121 stars. Super Mario Galaxy 2 had an even greater length with all the green stars and Champions Road. So maybe if you race to completion you can beat everything in 20 hours, but the replay value and flexibility means you'll still have a great time long after that.

    So, for a linear experience, 15 hours is actually too long for a linear game, and too short for my time enjoying the game altogether.

    Posted May 10th by mariomguy

    So, for a linear experience, 15 hours is actually too long for a linear game, and too short for my time enjoying the game altogether.

    Final Fantasy XIII is like 50 hours.

    That makes The Last Of Us sound a lot more reasonable.

    Edited May 10th by Renzokuken

    So, for a linear experience, 15 hours is actually too long for a linear game, and too short for my time enjoying the game altogether.


    And you know what that is, right? It's personal preference. It is not a "problem" with the game itself or its design. It is just not the type of experience that you personally prefer.

    As I have mentioned, that is not the case for me. Besides taking every game as it is and looking at them in the context of what it is trying to accomplish (rather than by comparing it to what other games are trying to do), a 15 hour linear game is not a problem in the slightest. I'd rather a direct and focused experience than a pretty open one that I'm never going to bother to finish, on the most part. (Obviously, there are some exceptions. But I typically don't want to sink 50+ hours into a game.)

    And, as I mentioned before, for me, the game itself is actively fun to play, which is why I revisit it and why I think it's a great game. Because that is the goal of a good video game: to be fun to play.

    Posted May 10th by Jet Presto

    Sorry fer bein a prick Null, still love ya buddy.

    Posted May 10th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    The game I replayed the most is the original Paper Mario for the N64 - a 15 hour game depending on how you play, plenty of interesting places to visit, things to do, and just fun all around! I probably played through that game at least 10 times.


    The only problem with statements like this is the failure to acknowledge that it is just a subjective opinion I think. Because I also felt a similar about paper Mario but it is not a problem when I say it (I assume anyway) because I acknowledge that it's replayability is subjective. And in my subjective opinion stuff like the elder scrolls is also not as replayable as like paper mario for various subjective reasons. Now my interest in paper Mario has declined a lot over the years but comparing when paper Mario was in it's prime for me to when like skyrim was in it's prime for me the choice is clear and even then I'd still slightly prefer to replay paper Mario at the moment.

    Aside from that though I would be completely on Mariom's side on this if he just specifically acknowledged his opinion on it is entirely subjective. If his statements were just like this and he acknowledged them as subjective the way people react to him would be ridiculous but that's not what's happening or at least not happening very obviously.

    If that were to happen I may just cross over to the Mariomguy side.



    Edited May 11th by Knuckles40903

    People wouldn't react the way they do if he acknowledged his claims were subjective rather than presenting them as objective.

    Posted May 11th by Moonray
    Moonray
     

    I mean, I guess some people just really like a good story and would do anything for that, but I prefer a more malleable experience where you can have fun playing the game the way YOU want. This is a golden rule for me, all the games I made had many options and choices and ways to play, and you can change it all however you like in an instant.

    You gain good storytelling and drama with a linear experience, but all at the expense of a malleability. An ideal game should let you do both: play through a unique, fun, exciting and dramatic story while also allowing you to jump out, live in, and enjoy the world. A game like that would have actual depth in the gameplay so it's not just a one-shot experience, maybe done again with a higher difficulty or different set of rules. In an instant the game should be ready to adapt to the players' wants and needs, and linear games just aren't capable of that. It's a limitation inherent to their design.

    I think people like MGS because you have options to play stealth or action interwoven through the gameplay, so even though the story is linear your experience can change in an instant depending on your approach. But of course the adventure model takes this several steps further allowing you to traverse the world freely and progress at your own rate. These are the kinds of games that I miss.

    Posted May 11th by mariomguy

    I mean, I guess some people just really like a good story and would do anything for that, but I prefer

    Right, you prefer. As in you have an opinion.

    I happen to agree with you that Mario, Tetris, and Dark Souls are purer video games mechanically than a story based game like Final Fantasy or The Last of Us, but that's still an opinion.

    The Last Of Us is still a top tier experience. It probably deserved to top your top 5 list from 2013 for best game design because it's the only original IP on the list. Again, an opinion that you can freely disagree with subjectively if you want to.

    Edited May 11th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I mean, I guess some people just really like a good story and would do anything for that, but I prefer a more malleable experience where you can have fun playing the game the way YOU want.

    I haven't played TLoU, but even with a very linear game like Halo, there are still multiple ways to approach enemy encounters, which can make replays "malleable." Even the simple two weapon limit the game has will structure how you clear an area. You're going to play very differently if you have rockets/sniper instead of Assault Rifle/Shotgun. Given that this is *extremely* basic stuff and can still alter how you play the game, I would be shocked if TLoU doesn't have it as well.

    you know things have gone terribly wrong when the mguy argument isn't the bad part of the thread

    also this

    Posted May 11th by The Bandit

    Also note that you don't have to sacrifice gameplay for story. Having a well-defined game doesn't mean a "limited" game.

    Posted May 11th by Cruinn-Annuin

    People wouldn't react the way they do if he acknowledged his claims were subjective rather than presenting them as objective.


    I figure. I mean some people overreact to personal opinions of course but I don't think many would here unless they were that bored.

    Posted May 12th by Knuckles40903

    I happen to agree with you that Mario, Tetris, and Dark Souls are purer video games mechanically than a story based game like Final Fantasy or The Last of Us, but that's still an opinion.

    So, we don't need to go all the way back to Tetris or Mario to find a game that makes you feel like you have autonomy. How about Zelda?

    The Last Of Us is still a top tier experience. It probably deserved to top your top 5 list from 2013 for best game design because it's the only original IP on the list.

    The thing with original IPs is they're not entirely original, are they? Super Mario Galaxy 2 was a sequel to a series that itself lasted 30 years at the time of its release, yet it felt far more original and inspiring than any other brand new IP released at that time, like Heavy Rain.

    Making a new IP is exciting because you get to wipe the slate clean. But if you fill it back up with overused tropes and fluff, your new IP won't feel like anything new at all. Great new IPs filled with seriously new ideas like Little Big Planet don't come along that often.

    Even the simple two weapon limit the game has will structure how you clear an area. You're going to play very differently if you have rockets/sniper instead of Assault Rifle/Shotgun.

    OK, you can change playstyle, but you're still going through the same events in the same exact way with the same design. Changing the timing or your route or strategy a little bit does not compare to Super Mario 64 letting you hop back and forth between boss battles, red coin challenges, the first level, the castle stars, all the while being able to take shortcuts or go the long route and maybe collect 100 coins before your actual mission, which is a different mission than the one you chose. This is just not something you can do with a linear game at all: you have to play from A-Z. No skipping, no pausing, no side-stepping, you can't even WALK backwards. You either go through it, or you don't. Even the most amazing gameplay feels constrained when it's structured this way.

    Also note that you don't have to sacrifice gameplay for story. Having a well-defined game doesn't mean a "limited" game.

    Cause/Effect. The problem is linearity: it results in a better story, but a far more rigid experience. It's a real sacrifice: Bioshock, Metroid Prime, Paper Mario, and The Legend of Zelda put the player in control of the story themselves. When it comes to TLOU, the thing that makes it great is also the thing that constrains it.

    Just imagine TLOU 2: the world is actually explorable. Same great AI, same great scripted events, same great level design, but now you can go anywhere, make choices, alter the story, and solve problems in a very real and organic way, like an RPG.
    But making a game that flexible and that great at the same time is pretty much impossible.

    Posted May 12th by mariomguy

    I mean, I guess some people just really like a good story and would do anything for that, but I prefer a more malleable experience where you can have fun playing the game the way YOU want.


    I don't see it as an either/or situation. There is plenty of room for more focused and smaller scope games, and larger ones that allow more malleable experiences. The idea of being one style of play isn't inherently bad, and many games throughout the existence of gaming have been precisely that. Being malleable is fun, too, but doesn't always fit the general atmosphere or purpose of the game. Sometimes, it's better design to build your game around that preferred style. This can be especially true for games developed by smaller teams with less time and a really small budget. To be able to zero in on the desired experience can result in a superior game to alternatives within the frame of that production. It really just comes down to the games on an individual basis. As I've said multiple times by now, what works for Zelda wouldn't work for The Last of Us, and what works for the Last of Us wouldn't work for Zelda. They are going for different things and the same design philosophy should not be applied. It's sort of like what makes a good comedy film isn't what makes a good action-adventure film, and vice versa.


    OK, you can change playstyle, but you're still going through the same events in the same exact way with the same design.


    By changing the playstyle, you aren't going through the same events in the exact same way. With TLoU, many maps have different ways to handle the enemies, but also have different paths to getting around them. Yes, you still wind up from Point A to Point B, but the way you proceed through the levels can change depending on any number of factors.

    When it comes to TLOU, the thing that makes it great is also the thing that constrains it.


    Constraints are not always bad, though. Yes, it would be for an open world, exploration-driven game like Mario 64. Constraints are literally exactly why a game like Thomas Was Alone is so nearly perfect in its design. The idea that games should be limitless is itself a very limiting perspective on what games and a gaming experience can be.


    Just imagine TLOU 2: the world is actually explorable. Same great AI, same great scripted events, same great level design, but now you can go anywhere, make choices, alter the story, and solve problems in a very real and organic way, like an RPG.


    Ok, but TLoU *isn't* an RPG.

    But also, I don't really see much of a difference. For my money, the emphasis on choices in games is overrated. It's not that I think it's "bad" by any means, or that games shouldn't do that. But there are very few games in which being able to make choices that leave an impact actually have improved the gameplay.

    For me, the golden rule of a game is, "It should be fun to play." There is no one set way to do that, and we shouldn't expect one standard way. I can't imagine TLoU being nearly as good with those kinds of elements introduced. That's not to say there can't be new elements brought in to make the game more fun. The DLC introduced the mixing of human and infected enemies in the same level, and that really brought a new dynamic to the gameplay and made it more fun. Backtracking and more open worlds to explore doesn't really make that game more fun, in my opinion.

    Posted May 12th by Jet Presto

    The problem is linearity


    Linearity isn't a problem - full stop. Just because you don't like the way it plays doesn't mean that it's bad.

    it results in a better story, but a far more rigid experience


    the thing that makes it great is also the thing that constrains it.


    This is literally just spin words. It's not an argument, it's a colorful description slanted by your personal preference. I can (and will) just as easily describe the experience as focused, well-defined, razor tight, closely directed, etc.

    You are (indirectly) talking shit about the Metal Gear Solid series, which is one of the finest gaming experiences (and finest stories) that I have ever had the opportunity to enjoy in my like. And just because MGS 1, 2, 3 and 4 don't play like V doesn't make them bad.

    Posted May 12th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Changing the timing or your route or strategy a little bit does not compare to Super Mario 64 letting you hop back and forth between boss battles, red coin challenges, the first level, the castle stars, all the while being able to take shortcuts or go the long route and maybe collect 100 coins before your actual mission, which is a different mission than the one you chose.

    I'd very happily argue that having different playstyles in a game offers a more malleable experience than being able to do the same objectives in different orders. I can do the stars in SM64 in any order, but how I collect the stars is always the same (with the only possible exception being 100 coin stars, but even then, I imagine most routes are very similar). The experience isn't different from one person to another, it's simply rearranged.

    This probably goes even more for Galaxy, which has a ton of boring ass Rainbow Ride-like stars where you're standing on a moving platform and dodging obstacles. There's no player expression there.

    Even the most amazing gameplay feels constrained when it's structured this way.

    As has been pointed out only about ten bazillion times to you, Portal is one of the best designed games of all time, and every aspect of the game is constrained as an intended design choice because your character is a captive. Having a limitless, open, or malleable player experience would destroy the memorable atmosphere of Portal. "The cake is a lie" would have never become a meme if the game didn't go out of its way to make you feel oppressed, and then make you feel like you were bucking the system when you found the secret cake graffiti areas.

    There is plenty of room for more focused and smaller scope games, and larger ones that allow more malleable experiences.

    All of this is a waste of time because this is the point. Everything else is irrelevant.

    For me, the golden rule of a game is, "It should be fun to play."

    OK, this is also a really good point too I guess, whatever.

    Edited May 12th by The Bandit

    @Cruinn-Annuin

    Just because you don't like the way it plays sounds doesn't mean that it's bad.

    Would you apply this logic to music as well? I have a grasp of what music you like, but I'm not really keen on what music you don't like. I think you mentioned Breaking Benjamin.

    Would you say that Breaking Benjamin is objectively bad?

    Not looking to start an argument either, just curious what your take is across other mediums of art.

    Edited May 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Would you apply this logic to music as well? I have a grasp of what music you like, but I'm not really keen on what music you don't like. I think you mentioned Breaking Benjamin.


    Oh my god, is this where the "condescending about music taste" thing came from? No, I don't think Breaking Benjamin is bad. I think it's very commercial and that someone who talks about how good someone's music taste is for putting a pop "alt-metal" track from one of the most popular video games of all time in their playlist is mistaking "good taste" for "liking something that I like". I also don't like that the guy put Sabaton in his playlist, even though I'm OK with Sabaton, simply because Sabaton is a meme on /pol/ and that's the reason he included them. If we're being honest, the most tasteful choice that he made was the Beach Boys song. Even though they're a bit of a meme on /mu/, there's a lot more popular and viral choices, so that one is a little interesting. Overall, however, the guy's playlist was a microcosm of his manifesto and his crime: just a bunch of 4chan brain bugs. I didn't really convey that well with my smug offhand comment, though, and we got distracted with a bunch of other posts before we actually addressed the music point. We could have cleared this up immediately.

    Posted May 12th by Cruinn-Annuin

    It was the way you said it "Oh honey sweetie (which is worse really)..." when I said at least he has good taste in music. Which was just me stating my opinion, not an objective fact. That's pretty condescending, wouldn't you agree?

    I'm heading out, I'll read the rest of this when I get back.

    Edited May 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    It was the way you said it "Oh honey..." that's pretty condescending, wouldn't you agree?


    I mean, I said "sweetie". But yes, it was condescending. I don't have a problem with being condescending, though. I do have a problem with the fact that I did not properly convey what I was being condescending about. It wasn't simply the fact that he/you like Breaking Benjamin. It was the reasons why Breaking Benjamin (and the rest of the shit) was chosen and your facile response to it.

    Edited May 12th by Cruinn-Annuin

    I don't see it as an either/or situation. There is plenty of room for more focused and smaller scope games, and larger ones that allow more malleable experiences.

    I dislike the idea that you need a very large team to create a malleable experience. Super Mario Bros. had the ability to skip levels and take shortcuts, and the entire dev team was like 5 people back in the days when every single block had to be designated by hand on graph paper. Nowadays all you need to do is keep flexibility in mind with the design and you'll have it.

    Consider the quiz game I made: the quiz itself is shuffled for 3 easy questions, 3 medium, 3 hard, and one final, and you must progress through these in linear order. But you are permitted one wrong answer per question, and you have 3 lifelines, all of which behave differently as the quiz progresses (hints get harder, but change the question gets more useful with tougher questions). The choices are all entirely up to you. Most of the fun I see people have with the game is choosing when to use which lifeline and when to take a risk. Even a QUIZ game that only lasts 5 minutes and can't be skipped can present a great deal of choices to the player and create an experience that is highly malleable.

    Now, my quiz game only lasts for 5 minutes, so the "linearity" is not a problem: you won't feel like the quiz goes on for too long 5 minutes in. But if your game is 15 hours long, you need to consider players may not want to be beaten over the head with the story constantly. The world should allow the player to take a breath whenever they feel like it.

    As I've said multiple times by now, what works for Zelda wouldn't work for The Last of Us, and what works for the Last of Us wouldn't work for Zelda.

    Well, I'd like to see TLOU give it a shot. Make the world live and breathe, and give players the freedom to explore at their own pace.

    The idea that games should be limitless is itself a very limiting perspective on what games and a gaming experience can be.

    So, Thomas Was Alone was not the greatest gaming experience ever, and the constraints had a lot to do with it. World of Goo, however, was genius. The puzzles could be solved in a number of different ways, to the point of sheer amazement. And though it was a puzzle game, it felt like there was a grand world with real themes and locations. People who praise minimalism have probably been bombarded by poorly made over-the-top games, but minimalism should not be the end goal. A great game (perhaps only IMO) should not ever make the player feel artificially limited.

    For my money, the emphasis on choices in games is overrated. It's not that I think it's "bad" by any means, or that games shouldn't do that. But there are very few games in which being able to make choices that leave an impact actually have improved the gameplay.

    BTW, I'm not talking about morality systems or "choices" in that regard. Consider Paper Mario: you can level your health, capacity for special attacks, or badges. Some people beat the game without ever leveling up their health, relying entirely on special party members and badge setups. You can play the game the way you want and the amount you're able to do so is quite radical.

    Backtracking and more open worlds to explore doesn't really make that game more fun, in my opinion.

    It depends on how it's handled. Some games give you an end game quest to revisit every level you've ever been in order to find the "7 magic keys required to unlock the thing." This is a horrible implementation that requires players to stop what they're doing in order to backtrack. But say you come across a green door in Metroid early on, then halfway through the game you gain a laser that can hack the door open. Well now, backtracking would be optional and encouraged. You can rush through and the game will be more challenging, or you can take your time to explore and the game will take longer but be easier. Metroid actually has both great and poor examples of backtracking. At the end of the day the world should feel fully incorporated, not disposable or meaningless.

    This is literally just spin words. It's not an argument, it's a colorful description slanted by your personal preference. I can (and will) just as easily describe the experience as focused, well-defined, razor tight, closely directed, etc.

    The argument is TLOU has to sacrifice flexibility for its story, and I don't feel like we should be awarding a game design award for a design that has to made sacrifices. A good idea solves many problems at once, and TLOU just conceded to make the best linear experience it can. I would be just as upset if Thomas Was Alone won a design award over World of Goo: both are puzzle games, but World of Goo has far greater flexibility and a much more engaging and enthralling design.

    This probably goes even more for Galaxy, which has a ton of boring ass Rainbow Ride-like stars where you're standing on a moving platform and dodging obstacles. There's no player expression there.

    There are actually not that many levels like that, but they're all dramatically different. There's the dark matter Bowser level which has a segment of gravity switching in 2D, then there's Battlerock Galaxy which has you on a 3D disk with the fixed rounded gravity dodging Bullet Bills. Mario's controls are always expressive, and these segments don't last the entire mission. And there are 121 missions. Like, yeah, if the entire game played like that that would be a problem, but it's not.

    As has been pointed out only about ten bazillion times to you, Portal is one of the best designed games of all time, and every aspect of the game is constrained as an intended design choice because your character is a captive. Having a limitless, open, or malleable player experience would destroy the memorable atmosphere of Portal.

    Portal is a 3 hour game, and within that time the puzzles are enthralling enough to keep you focused and entertained. Not to mention the final portion which has you feeling like you broke the system exploring the back alleyways without clear solutions. The presentation is superb for a 3-hour game, but Portal never cost $60.

    Posted May 12th by mariomguy

    How did a thread about the Sonic movie turn into this?

    Edited May 12th by Q
    Q
     

    Read the rest of it, Null. I just don't have any comment to make.

    Edited May 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Well, I'd like to see TLOU give it a shot. Make the world live and breathe, and give players the freedom to explore at their own pace.

    I actually personally find the lack of direction or purpose of Breath of the Wild and Shadow of the Colossus nauseating. Every few months I try to start a new game and quit after an hour. You want The Last of Us to be more like Red Dead Redemption 2 basically and I certainly don't.

    I like my open world games to be more like Fallout 3, NV, Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim. Have the game give me some indication as to what I should be doing.

    Zelda BOTW is objectively a fantastic game, but subjectively for me it just doesn't fit into my tastes at all. I prefer Windwaker for Zelda.

    Edited May 12th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    The argument is TLOU has to sacrifice flexibility for its story, and I don't feel like we should be awarding a game design award for a design that has to made sacrifices.


    OK. Most Nintendo games don't do what I want them to do, so they're inflexible and shouldn't be awarded game design awards.

    I dislike the idea that you need a very large team to create a malleable experience. Super Mario Bros


    Super Mario Bros is one of the most linear, constricted and heavy-handed games ever made.

    Posted May 12th by Cruinn-Annuin

    it's so progressive that it denies you the ability to move the camera backward


    I was reading through that last mguy novella and was going to discuss, but then I hit the part about backtracking in Metroid and I am out

    Posted May 12th by Pirate_Ninja

    So, Thomas Was Alone was not the greatest gaming experience ever, and the constraints had a lot to do with it.


    No, but it is an incredible game with really smart, tight, and cohesive design that made it - to me - one of the most memorable games I've played.

    Like, do you even like games?

    Posted May 12th by Jet Presto

    even though I'm OK with Sabaton, simply because Sabaton is a meme on /pol/ and that's the reason he included them


    Wait really? I heard about this sort of thing before but I mean idk much about them and the most I heard of their songs was from other people and video games. I thought that sort of shit was just being exaggerated as being overwhelmingly beloved by fascists or it would at least blow over by now but apparently not. Also thought that guy was an outlier. Maybe they did something to become a meme among them but I wouldn't know for sure but they didn't seem to have a bias from what I heard.

    Edited May 13th by Knuckles40903

    Is this a record for most replies in a thread on gtx0? Anyway I didn't think the trailer was that bad. Sonic looks weird but Jim Carrey feels like 90s Jim Carrey.

    Posted Yesterday Evening by MarvaIo
    MarvaIo
     

    Nah, even just in the mariomguy Saga, we've had threads get over 300 replies (IIRC).

    Posted Yesterday Evening by Cruinn-Annuin

    Is mariomguy still around.. I miss that little runt

    Posted Yesterday Evening by MarvaIo
    MarvaIo
     

    I didn't think the trailer was that bad. Sonic looks weird but Jim Carrey feels like 90s Jim Carrey.


    Early 90's or Late 90's Jim Carey?

    Posted This Afternoon by Q
    Q
     
    Load next page Load rest of pages
    Reply to: Sonic the Hedgehog movie trailer released - and it's something
    Enter your message here

    Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
    GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on