The Video Game Industry

case in point. Undertale and Deltarune work within the medium, not even having cinematic cutscenes and engaging in Gameplay and Story Integration to a point where something taken for granted in other games is an actual plot point (the abiltiy to save files and use them as checkpoints)

Edited by MorningStar1337 on May 6th 2024 at 2:37:03 AM

Would be nice to have some specific examples instead of just "AAA bad".

It chose to do so, quite possibly out of pique that Sony withdrew the game from sale in 177 regions.

It didn't hurt that Sony's decision possibly opened Steam up to issues with EU law.

I wish companies would stop it with all the scripted stuff that takes away from the experience of actually playing a game.

Yes, I know that when Nathan Drake/Lara Croft/whoever jumps to that ledge, it'll break off, the character will be holding on by one hand, and I'll be told to rapidly press the A button to climb up it. That's not shocking, that's not surprising, it's not gameplay. It's predictable and stupid.

I feel like the indie scene has a better idea of how to tell stories mixed with gameplay. Deadly Premonition (made before the indie scene of today was a thing, but it was originally sold for 20 bucks back in 2010) gave players an open world and let them interact with characters at different times of day, different weather conditions and different locations, and see their very different dialog, which even changed based on chapter in the story. While the story played out the same way no matter what (the murders would always happen, the plot twists would always happen), there was still so much interactivity otherwise, as I could explore the town and see people go about their routines across time of day and weather changes (people are afraid of rain due to fear of the "raincoat killer"), do 50 side missions that all connect to the story in some way and reveal information about the characters, and more. It felt alive and interactive in a way that Heavy Rain, released the same year to way more attention, didn't.

But Road 96, now that was a game that really knew how to tell a story and make it feel interactive. Sadly, many things still play out the same way no matter what. But so much of it was interactive and in the player's control that my niece, nephew and teen cousin were all hooked, to the point where my teen cousin asked if it was on other consoles, then later bought it, beat it 3 times, and showed it to friends who also liked it.

Road 96 has video gamey elements like a life meter and money, and roguelike elements as well, such as randomized selection of "chapters" in the story, and based on what money and how much life you have, your experience in the chapter (and what you're able to do) could be different. There's even genuine moral quandries such as do you protest, emphasize the importance of voting, help other people who need money or keep it for yourself, and other stuff. Not the immature "do the good thing or the obvious evil thing" morality meter crap from 2000s games.

There's better ways to tell stories than the "look, it's suddenly a movie now" scripted stuff that you see in games like, say, Spider-Man: Miles Morales (to name a game that I like). But big companies seem to think that's what impresses people, even though people have seen it a million times and just aren't impressed by "hold up to slowly crawl forward because the story said so" and "walk through this linear place and talk to people until the story progresses."

may I direct you to Soulslikes? It seems like that genre is the least likely to engage in that kind of behavior (mostly because most of the story or lore is either implied or tied up in obscure flavor text or environmental storytelling AFAIK)

That aside I have to wonder if much of the issue started with cut scenes?

Edited by MorningStar1337 on May 6th 2024 at 8:02:46 AM

@Phoenix Act & Silasw

I started noticing that around the time that TLOU was christened the holy saviour of videogames as the first game to have a "deep, complex, and emotional story" and TLOU 2 as the "Schindler's List" of videogames. There's always been a sort of embarrassment at videogames that aren't "serious", "emotional", or talk about "complex issues" as not being art or artistic enough. Asia in general has damn near always gotten the absolute most brutal hits of this since the industry got big.

TLOU has a good story, but it is in no way the absolute pinnacle of video games. At it's core, it's yet another cinematic game where you fight zombies After the End.

I should have made it more clear that I was being sarcastic and derisive, but yeah I 100% agree. It's especially irritating when a ton of games especially from Japan have also had great stories that have dealt with deep and complex themes and had great emotional moments and impact.

My comment was more a criticism at how the game is viewed in the greater media sphere here in the west as far as games as art is concerned.

Edited by doomrider7 on May 6th 2024 at 12:23:15 PM

Am I justified in thinking that the snobby video game critics (think of a Yahtzee type) unintentionally push the idea video games are not art?

Kind of a contradiction, but I always find them not happy with any game, even ones you can call artsy and pick them apart so harsh that says or implies "most games are compromised product than artist endeavors". As if video games are past that time when artistic expression was legitimate or has not reached that point.

Are you kidding? Snobby critics are proof that video games are art. Every art form attracts snobby critics like moths to a flame.

I'm sure there were plenty of Yahtzee equivalents talking shit about Shakespeare's plays back in the day.

Edited by M84 on May 7th 2024 at 12:43:50 AM

For what it's worth, during the time of Shakespeare, Theater was not particularly well-regarded. Shakespeare's works were popular, but were considered to be pretty low-brow entertainment at the time.

That is my point. A lot of what we consider art has roots like this.

An issue I have with critics and other discussions of "videogames as art" it's how it's so limited. Basically if it doesn't look like a Hollywood film or talk about "deep complex issues", it's not viewed as art. My go to examples of games that would fall outside of those limited metrics would most likely be Okami and Viewtiful Joe, both ironically made by Clover Studios(may the gaming gods rest its soul). Ignoring the lack of "serious" content, you CANNOT POSSIBLY not see the art in those games designs, music,and just love and affection for storytelling and in the case of Viewtiful Joe, Tokusatsu shows and media.

Edited by doomrider7 on May 6th 2024 at 1:00:06 PM

"Verily, it do sucketh gonads!"

Edited by TheDarkMantis on May 6th 2024 at 4:59:44 PM

As much as I love it, Okami is a straightforward Zelda-like that semi-convincingly apes traditional art, and Viewtiful Joe is a beat-em-up that homages hokey merchandise-driven children's shows. I don't think either really helps the case in the eyes of anyone who doesn't already see artistic merit in the medium.

Edited by Chortleous on May 6th 2024 at 12:15:20 PM

So I'm assuming the absolutely gorgeous artwork and soundtrack in Okami and Viewtiful Joe being a love letter to those cheesy, but lovable Tokusatsu shows and B-movies and amazing visuals don't matter since it's not "serious artistic material" or "it's been done before". That's my point. What is or isn't viewed as art and why is purely arbitrary nonsense often with a snobby elitist bend to it. There's no reason to NOT view those games as well as several others as art.

Pokémon Go players are altering public map data to catch rare Pokémon: OpenStreetMap contributors have been dealing with Pokémon Go players for years.

Pokemon Go has the annoying feature of tying pokemon to real life biomes. This means that if you don't have mountains or a beach close by in real life, you are just shit out of luck for catching certain pokemon. Don't ask what they do for cave dwellers.

So some players try to cheat the system by creating fake map data in real world maps. This is obviously very disruptive to those real map projects, and doesn't even work that well since the game doesn't update map data that often anyway. My guess is it is mostly kids who just don't know any better.

Even the original FF 7, which had some of the craziest cutscenes in history at the time, knew when it was time to stop cutscening and put the player into the game.

Oddly, I don't see as many cutscene-overdosed games anymore, but maybe that's because I'm playing the wrong genre XD

@Bonsai Forest: I don't think it's big companies that want to impress people with pseudo-interactive movies, from my understanding - it's usually on the developer end when someone with delusions of auteurship wants to make a movie, but is making a video game.

Edited by Ramidel on May 7th 2024 at 12:26:29 AM

Kinda wack for me that to think Disney movies being recreated in Kingdom hearts was fine but on III when it looks extremely close to the movies, the charm dies

Edited by M1gamiTensei on May 7th 2024 at 3:10:04 AM

Probably because when you try to recreate the original movie too closely, you don't leave much room for the KH characters to be involved in it, and they turn into bystanders rather than participants. And seeing a novel spin on a well-worn Disney movie (which you are likely to have seen dozens of times already) by throwing in outside characters is fun and entertaining in itself.

Nah, I find it even more charming.

The Priates World in KH 3 in particular is so detailed even with Sora, Donald and Goofy's models that it could be mistaken for the live action film. In 2019, on the severely outdated PS 4 and Xbox One consoles at the time, thats impressive as hell.

Is there a reason why Kingdom Hearts slavishly recreates Frozen yet can't be assed to put in more Final Fantasy bosses that aren't Sephiroth?

Because what’s his name from Six doesn’t have the fangirls Sephiroth has.

Nintendo is supposed to announce a successor to the switch in the next fiscal year. Here’s hoping for backwards compatibility.

You take that back, Edgar is very popular with the ladies.

The thing about video games as a medium is that they have one element that all other media lack: the game part. Interaction. The player getting to do stuff, make choices, have an impact on the experience.

All of the artistic trappings (Award Bait stories, beautiful artwork, hour-long unskippable cutscenes) that people layer on may be fantastically done but they aren't what gaming is about at its core.

There is a separate argument, which Yahtzee made about TLoU2, that many people think that extreme emotional drama = artistic, when this seems to be another award-bait trope that the industry has adopted.

While I appreciate the "games as art" concept, I play them to have fun, not to wallow in the misery of the human condition. Other people may feel differently, of course, which is why we have so many to choose from. Give me silly robots over irredeemable psychotic murderers any day of the week.

Edit: Perhaps I'm phrasing it wrong. "Games as art" people often miss that a yellow circle with eyes and a mouth chasing ghosts around a maze is every bit as much art as the most lavish, ray-traced landscape full of dirty people having emotional trauma that Unreal Engine 5 can render.

"Yes, David Cage, Elliot Page's lookalike crying in a ditch because her ghost buddy won't let her make out with hunky boys sure does look realistic. Now were you going to give me something to do besides press buttons to advance your dramatic tale of angst?"

Edited by Fighteer on May 7th 2024 at 9:11:08 AM