I am going to elaborate more on what Appears to be a rant towards The Legend of Zelda series in the Skyward Sword topic. Which by all means wasn't meant as an attack to the series, but revealing the truth behind the business we know as "video games".
I'd like to bet that 90% of us don't play video games for fun, even though we claim we do, but that's fine, we are supposed to think that, we are made to believe it's fun.
Take Skyward Sword for example, many of us can see the fun factor in the new control scheme, and the novelty of that is pretty sweet! I love it!! But the reality hit me, that of course is only a "hook", an intention grabber to lure into another "addictive" save the world journey that video games have been making billions off for the past 20 years.
I once posted a topic in the quest discussion forum for quest makers on the keys to make a game addictive (regardless if they are fun or not). It of course caught a bit of attention.
Years ago, Nintendo created Zelda, and Squaresoft created Final Fantasy, and both companies made a huge discovery that has revolutionized the entire gaming industry, they discovered how to create an addiction.
It is no known secret that few of the most enjoyable movies and storybooks stimulate our senses of "being important" through our imaginations. We read a book, and relate to the characters.
But Nintendo and Square realized that they had the technology and the minds to make a story where we could become part of.
You see, it boils down to our human desire to feel important in a reality that doesn't share our same personal views.
Before this type of video game revolution, many games we PAC-man styled games, they were focused on "fun" but they did not have the sauce that could keep Tge industry going, thus lead to the Video Game industry crash of 1983.
Both Zelda and Final Fantasy stimulated the "reward centers" in our brains. I believe it all started when everybody realized how rewarding it was when players first beat the Mario Bros. Game for the NES, because that of course was huge. That, for the next decade defined video games during that time. Really hard video games that were nearly impossible to beat.
However, it was Nintendo and Squaresoft who knew games didn't have to be difficult (or even fun) to be addictive or compelling. That comes to no surprise since both franchises still make successful video games to this day.
Now it is 30 years later. During this time frame Alttp and Oot was released, and let's not forget final fantasy 6 and 7. (I know I'm ignoring other great game in both those series, but that's not the point). And during this time there have been numerous games released using the same "recipe". But right now, the list is getting endless. There are just so many games out there now today designed for the sole purpose of making us keep pressing buttons for hours and hours.
Nintendo, it seems to me now resents what they created, that's why the Wii is trying to make games out of pure enjoyment, but they know they can't betray fans of Zelda, Mario, donkey kong, or any of their main games without alienating us, so they are forced to create these video games under the boundaries of the curse they have created "video games that are addictive". Nintendo is also stuck now either having to conform a little (though still being intuitive at the same time) or be left behind by Microsoft and Playstation who in my opinion still dominates the core video game industry.
In a way. That kinda makes Wii-U a really really sad thing. It tells us Nintendo has to sell out their intuitive imagination to lure back core gamers, or completely find an entirely new strategy, which could drastically change Nintendo forever, I won't discuss that though, as interesting as it may sound. So of course, Nintendo chose a less drastic choice, and looked at the positives, the Wii did it! It sold big time, but now they need to compete aggressively with the "big boys" (and yes, I call them the big buys even though Nintendo made more money with the Wii and the DS).
Now everything I just typed may be so much to take in, so I'll simplify in this conclusion. Nintendo and Square learned how to make video games addictive by stimulating to reward centers of our brains, and produces a sense of importance that reality doesn't seem to give us the same desired results. Than the industry grew massive with many companies taking sweet advantage of this psychological affect on the human mind. I believe Nintendo wanted to change the formula because of how evil and competitive the video game industry was, they made big, but are still alienating core the core gamers they themselves have created 20 years ago. Now they want to bring back core gamers with the Wii-U, but it's not going to happen. But that's fine, video games and perhaps Nintendo will be with us for a very very very long time, even after we produce a thousand more first person shooters, and a thousand more RPGs.
It sounds about right to me. I know not how to add anything more to this topic, other than saying that I have not actually enjoyed playing a game for months.
Not necessarily. I mean yes, that's true-- if I get extremely annoyed by a game, I wont play for a while until I get bored again. I play games to kill time, but also because they're enjoyable. They also give me an odd sense of accomplishment. In my uneventful life, I haven't accomplished much in my mind, but when I finish a game, it feels good :I
Eh, disagreed. The game still has to be fun for me to want to play it again later, and some games I'll just stop playing if it's not in a series I care about. Take Other M. Horrible, terrible game, one of the worst games I've ever played, and more than once I've considered stopping playing it; if it weren't a Metroid game, I would have. There was never any feeling of reward in that game, especially when they kept the good stuff from you until stupid moments. I won't ever be playing that game again.
If the same thing happened to a Zelda game, I'd do the same. Fortunately I've yet to encounter the Zelda game that's so boring or unfun that I've wanted to quit. And I disagree; Nintendo is very earnest about their gaming, just ask any developer. So while you're partially right about games being addicting, whether or not they're fun does matter (unless it's a big-series name) to me, and Nintendo still cares about innovating gaming.
Not once did I claim Nintendo wasn't innovative, but they created a multi-million dollar industry that we now today call video game industry, much of which have hired on brilliant minds who know how to pay money for games. It is my opinion (keep in mind most of this is theories and speculation, with some research behind it) that Nintendo wants to branch away from that to be innovative, as Miyamoto's famous child-like line would say "dinosaurs would keep battling each other out of extinction."
Than comes the Wii, proof that Nintendo is different, and than what did Sony and Microsoft do? Copy that innovation, as predictable they would. But of course it wasn't Nintendo, it sold, but not sold well.
Nintendo had something worth copying because they made money. But there is no denying that Nintendo alienated the very core gamers they created back in the 80's and early 90's.
But is that a bad thing? Perhaps gamers of the 80's and early 90's should probably realize there are more to life than video games. But they don't, video games are now just as much a thing for all ages now as televisions are.
Their sole purpose is to be addictive.
But don't get me wrong, they aren't gonna say "let's make a game that's not fun". Of course many games are going to be fun. But it comes second priority. The ultimate focus is to rub the reward centers of our brains, that's how these companies make money.
Nintendo knew this, they did not like it, they created the Wii which is a "fun" system for a cheap price, and they were successful. But for some reason, they want their core gamers back and want to follow the standard approach that many companies already follow.
Am I saying is it wrong?
Not really, if something is not broken, why fix it? And so what if a video game is addictive, we are genetically programmed to be addicted to something.
I am going to stop here before I get too sidetracked.
Used the wrong word, meant "intuitive" instead of "innovative." And you realize the Wii U is fully compatible with Wiimotes right? It's not like they're done with motion gaming.
Not necessarily. I mean yes, that's true-- if I get extremely annoyed by a game, I wont play for a while until I get bored again. I play games to kill time, but also because they're enjoyable. They also give me an odd sense of accomplishment. In my uneventful life, I haven't accomplished much in my mind, but when I finish a game, it feels good :I
Ego boost?
This entire post is in favour of the argument, whether you realize that or not.
This entire post is in favour of the argument, whether you realize that or not.
He claims that we do annoying things to chase the next fun part of the game. I was saying that I return to it to kill time and to get a sense of accomplishment. It's not exactly the same thing.
You, sir, have a massive misunderstanding of games. I don't enjoy games that are purely addictive, like Farmville or the countless flash games out there. Stuff like tower defense, Angry Birds, and Bejeweled can be fun, but it is more an addictive waste of time than anything else. (In my opinion)
Zelda, on the other hand, follows a format that provides a sense of accomplishment. You can beat the game. You face different challenges each session. You just don't get that out of single-sitting time-wasters and pure "fun games."
While "social games" have the level of continuous gameplay, they suffer two problems: they aren't actually social, but rather a "bum off your friends" kind of game that happens to be played on social networks, but also have a total lack of accomplishment due to the inherent properties of sim games.
"New" isn't always a good thing. Sometimes, a designer should take a step back and evaluate what worked and what didn't. If you add too many new things and forget to retain the old but good things, you are doomed to fail.
My biggest criticism with SS's control scheme is that you can't cut grass while moving, not the motion controls. Motion controls give a little extra dimension to your sword without becoming a button replacement. I'm unsure about the motion-controlled steering, but it does help with the ambiguity that exists in analog sticks.
Nintendo is also shifting to tablet controls because the motion control market is stagnating. Look at all the shovelware on the Wii. Motion controls didn't help with the underlying quality of games and really just stand as a gimmick. It really takes expert design to improve gameplay with motion controls. Tablet controls, on the other hand, are already perfect for games. (And terrible for productivity) Nintendo's trying to get ahead again because their competition copied them, so they're making use of a REALLY powerful graphics chip and tablet controls.
...TL:DR warning ahead. But the good news is that there are videos and pretty images to keep you entertained.
QUOTE(NewJourneysFire @ Jan 11 2012, 06:40 AM)
I'd like to bet that 90% of us don't play video games for fun, even though we claim we do, but that's fine, we are supposed to think that, we are made to believe it's fun.
After having played video games for years and years, I no longer play them unless I actually find them fun. Sure, early on, when I was a kid with a lot of free time, I would spend a lot of time "vegetating" on video games, and at times it was more of an idle pastime than a fun activity. But as an adult, I have to weigh my priorities when deciding whether or not to play a game on any given day.
If video gaming is an addiction, most people are eventually forced out of it by that annoying process called "becoming an adult."
QUOTE(NewJourneysFire @ Jan 11 2012, 06:40 AM)
Take Skyward Sword for example, many of us can see the fun factor in the new control scheme, and the novelty of that is pretty sweet! I love it!! But the reality hit me, that of course is only a "hook", an intention grabber to lure into another "addictive" save the world journey that video games have been making billions off for the past 20 years.
And some of us saw the control scheme -- the novelty part -- as merely a distraction, and the rest of the game as the continuation of what we knew and expected. Recreating the same type of enjoyment in a slightly different way is not necessarily something to be ashamed of.
For instance, Indiana Jones is largely modeled after much older movies and TV shows. (I know this isn't a video game, but I want to make a point about reused ideas.) So, I recently watched a video which laid out in great detail how Raiders of the Lost Ark took from other movies and shows, in a shot-by-shot comparison:
And yet, I don't think Indiana Jones is a worthless ripoff, or a rehash, or a repackaging. Classic stories may be worth hanging on to, but they need to be retold in different ways if they are to be relevant to a newer generation. The original Superman and Batman stories just aren't relevant to us in the same way that they were to previous generations, and that's why superhero movies get remade. It's true for everything else, too. Years later, we find that we have different cultural norms, we use different language, and we have different tastes. And all signs point to the likelihood that all of those things are changing at a faster and faster rate as time goes by.
Sorry, I've gone off on a bit of mini-rant here.... I think I'd better move on.
QUOTE(NewJourneysFire @ Jan 11 2012, 06:40 AM)
Before this type of video game revolution, many games we PAC-man styled games, they were focused on "fun" but they did not have the sauce that could keep Tge industry going, thus lead to the Video Game industry crash of 1983.
That's not how I heard it. I watched a documentary about video games on the History channel, and here's what they said:
Early in the life of the video game industry, there was no established benchmark for quality. After awhile, anyone could throw together a crappy game and try to sell it to consumers. The emphasis on quantity over quality started to become a real problem. The game makers had over-responded to increased demand, and the market was flooded.
You mentioned Pac-Man. It's true that Pac-Man had something to do with the video game crash of 1983, but it wasn't the arcade game that was the problem. It was the crappy Atari 2600 home version of the game. The arcade version of Pac-Man was a total hit, and the Atari 2600 home version was highly anticipated. But when it came out, people were extremely disappointed, because... well.. I think even the youngest generations will understand what went wrong if they just take a look at this horrible clip:
...Yep, that's ACTUAL GAME FOOTAGE. Doesn't it look horrible? Soooo... after that absolute disaster (which followed on the heels of 1982's "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" Atari 2600 game, also a complete disaster), video games hit a brick wall.
The NES came pretty soon thereafter and fillled Atari's shoes, but it wasn't just about quality... they also had a pretty ingenious ad campaign that weaseled its way around the stigma that the phrase "video games" had acquired in 1983. That's why they called it the Nintendo "Entertainment System," and came out with the "Power Pad" to attract the attention of parents with fat kids.
QUOTE(NewJourneysFire @ Jan 11 2012, 06:40 AM)
Both Zelda and Final Fantasy stimulated the "reward centers" in our brains. I believe it all started when everybody realized how rewarding it was when players first beat the Mario Bros. Game for the NES, because that of course was huge. That, for the next decade defined video games during that time. Really hard video games that were nearly impossible to beat.
Note: You said "Mario Bros.," but I think you mean "Super Mario Bros." Mario Bros. was a different game from SMB. It appeared on the NES, but it was bigger in the arcade, on personal computers, and on earlier home consoles.
Anyway, about game difficulty... I've heard it said that game difficulty served a couple of purposes back then. It made up for how primitive the graphics and sound were, by giving the player a "rush" from overcoming huge challenges. It also made up for the limited file capacity, which kept even the simplest of games from containing too much content. Some games also "looped" after the player finished them (Zelda's 2nd Quest was born from this idea). "Sure, you managed to get through all the levels, but let's see how you fare against all the levels again at DOUBLE SPEED..." ...etc.
QUOTE(NewJourneysFire @ Jan 11 2012, 06:40 AM)
However, it was Nintendo and Squaresoft who knew games didn't have to be difficult (or even fun) to be addictive or compelling. That comes to no surprise since both franchises still make successful video games to this day.
It's true that game developers slowly started to figure out what motivates players, but don't just give all the credit to Zelda and Final Fantasy, or even just to Nintendo and Square. Dozens of developers popped up, and they all learned from each other (one could even say they all copied each other ).
In the next section, which I've decided not to quote, you talk about how the unique points of the Wii are basically the most positive thing Nintendo has done lately, but I'm going to present an opposing opinion...
Here's how I see video game controls: They are merely a means of the player transmitting their commands to the computer. In general, the easier it is to send those commands, the better the controller is. Why? Because if the controller is not efficient, it only serves to frustrate. When we take part in an activity, we generally want good equipment.
Some games actually find ways to put the fun INTO the novelty factor of the game, but I only think these are significant if they seriously change the way the player thinks about it. For instance, I have played quite a bit of DDR (Dance Dance Revolution). Since the game is extremely physical, certain things come into play that wouldn't in other situations: one of them is player stamina. You can actually become so tired that you can't keep up with the controls, even though your mind might be able to follow it just fine.
But for most games that use Wii motion controls and regular controllers, the controller is simply a tool of communication or expression. The Wii remote is actually more elegant than a series of buttons in some cases, but it is basically just a cross between a mouse and an analog stick. Don't understand what I'm getting at?... Well, let me categorize for you the different types of controls:
1. Buttons - press a button, something happens.
Digital D-pad
Traditional buttons and triggers
Dance pads and most musical controllers
The Wii nunchuk "shake" function (since it apparently doesn't have any analog or directional sensitivity, it basically works like a button)
2. Analog Directional Controls - move the control in any direction, 360 degrees, and also control how FAR you tilt in that direction. The movement is always relative.
traditional analog stick
3DS slider
Most steering wheel controllers (and similar steering devices)
The "tilt" function of a Wii remote
(There are analog buttons, too, which are a combination of the previous two, but I didn't feel it was worth another category)
And lastly...
3. Grid-based Controls - the controls function by specifying coordinates within a grid.
DS touch screen
any computer mouse
The spatial function of a Wii remote (moving forward/back/left/right without tilting)
Different types of controls in the same category are more similar than you might think. After I learned to play Dance Dance Revolution on a dance pad, I was able to transfer most of that skill to playing Drum Mania with a pair of drumsticks.
Similarly, using the tilt function of a Wii remote to control Link's swimming in SS feels a LOT like it did with an analog stick in TP -- the only real difference was that the remote wasn't housed inside plastic casing; I had to figure out the boundaries of the steering by trial and error, rather rather than pushing a plastic stick until it hit the edge of the controller frame. And anytime I use the Wii remote as a pointer, it feels a lot like a mouse or a DS stylus. The only difference is that it's slightly harder to keep my hand steady.
So anyway, what I'm getting at is this: novelty has its place, but ultimately, if you want a video game that is used for an immersive adventure, you're going to have to have a control scheme which is EASY to use effectively, so the player can spend less time figuring out the controls and more time getting involved in the game itself. Motion controls have their place, but I think they are going to be added to -- rather than replacing -- all the other controller functions out there. That's why I don't think the Wii-U is sad. It's just the next logical step. Hopefully Nintendo can gets finger back on the pulse of modern gaming, and stay in this race.
Personally, I don't think Nintendo's out yet. But they need to grow up a little bit. They can't totally control how 3rd party developers function -- they have to make a system that developers can use as a tool for creating games, rather than using the games as a tool for merely presenting the console.
The Wii U can succeed, but it needs to be capable of doing most or all of the things the other consoles do. That means having buttons and other features in the places they are needed, and having enough power under the hood to attract multi-platform game ports. Does it do well enough in these areas to attract 3rd party developers?... It's too early to say, but I definitely haven't written them off yet.
