Home
Now if I were to give you a reason, it would be because I love to mechanically disassemble games and appreciate the design of each element and how it contributes to the whole product overall. I don't know, I'm starting to also get enraptured in them for the way you described in your article for the first time too ironically. I'm starting to get sucked into the worlds and invested in the characters, and its a good thing. I do the same with films and books. Let them take me away or just plain entertain some friends and I.
Anyway, it is sincerely a beautfiul article. The almost casual dialogue made it seem like listening to a conversation with a good friend rather than interpreting cold text, indeed very appreciated. Also very... uplifting."
Developers don't need to necessarily lessen or remove violence, they just have to believably reinforce the consequences of using such means to achieve your ends. There is almost no game that does this on an effective scale. Some games (Mass Effect/Fallout) have dabbled in it, but come nowhere close to portraying it how it needs to be.
Otherwise, I do agree that we need more concepts than just mowing down faceless combatants with fifty calibur bullets. This is where I think the indy and downloadable game space really excels, because they can afford to tackle more imaginative ideas.
The sad truth however is that humans are natrually attracted to conflict, and conflict is a key component to conveying a narrative, and violence is often inherent in conflict.
&nbs"
Anyone can find entertainment in a genre of storytelling. Games don't need to "fun", they need to capture our interest, same as a movie or book. "Fun" is just this vague synonym we attach to the feeling of satisfaction we get from being entertained in some way."
Anyone can find entertainment in a genre of storytelling. Games don't need to "fun", they need to capture our interest, same as a movie or book. "Fun" is just this vague synonym we attach to the feeling of satisfaction we get from being entertained in some way."
This Shay Pierce isn't nearly as big an asshole as Brendan McNamara (the L.A. Noire lead). Building games on exploited labor? That's what we should be talking about.
I can accept games being made by assholes; half the guys who work in programming or art probably hate their lives and had their dreams crushed. They're doing it just to collect a paycheck most of the time. But when we document a director or producer swearing on twitter, then the fans think its time to protest.
If we really saw how much blood, sweat, tears, and profanity it takes to get a game to market.... we probably wouldn't know whether to feel humbled or disgusted..."
I think the Playstation, for its sometimes minor inconveniences, offers significantly more as a product than the Xbox. Certainly the Xbox can be more simple to navigate and instantly gratifying, but there are always costs to those wonderful conveniences. Not installing a game for example can fry an older Xbox, it also drasitcally increases loadtimes. The Xbox Live service is much more accessible than PSN, but it also costs 60 bucks a year, while PSN is free (not paying a subscription service for an online experience comprable to Live is about as convenient as it gets). I'm also convinced that "slow blu-ray drive" is responible for some of those PS3 exclusives with visuals I don't even see the 360 having the power to process (Uncharted, MGS4, GoWIII).
I'll agree that those mandatory installs are a pain that Sony overlooked, but I think its also a growing pain. And everyone goes through growing pain, therefore everyone should be entitled the chance to slip-up at least once in that regard. Even in our self-satisfying digital entertainment world, it still holds true that suffering through the inconvient is the only thing that prevents us from perceving everything as worthless.
If everything was convenient, there would be no incovnenience, therefore no struggle, therefore no opportunity to grow, therefore no inherent worth."