Quote:
Originally Posted by Sughly
Is a game like Uncharted though (which I love) really creating new mechanics? To me it was a third person action-shooter with very basic puzzles comparible to most other action-shooters. The difference was in it's writing. What makes that so different from a potential adventure point and click with the same level of writing? Again with Fallout, a first person RPG with better story and characters than others. They don't really offer new mechanics, just better writing within their genres.
|
I never said new mechanics, I said a new experience. In the case of Uncharted specifically, the storytelling techniques (yes, including the incredible graphics and motion capture work), the gameplay was on another level in terms of smoothness and playability and the story itself created an engrossing and fresh experience.
As far as Fallout 3 goes, I would call VATS a new mechanic, even if it was just an attempt to connect the games to their turn based past. But even beyond that, it was still a refining step in the genre and the experience was fresh even if the broad defining mechanics weren't necissarily revolutionarily new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo
The problem with those other genres is, they're largely action games. That's great if you like action games, but there are lots of people who would like to experience a story in video game format who aren't twitch gamers, and get frustrated trying to play them.
Like my Mom. As predicted, she couldn't finish Dreamfall because the action sequences and such were too difficult for her to work out. And yes, I know the action sequences in that game were not a good example of what action games have to offer, but that misses the point. More responsive action isn't the solution for people who simply aren't that dexterous, or who have arthritis and such.
Finally, though, and most importantly, Adventure Games have a pedestrian pace, which suits certain personality types much better than high octane action games and shooters.
I say all of this because I'm beginning to detect a bit of an elitist tone to these arguments in favour of other genres. Fine. They tell stories too. Some of them very well. But they all involve button mashing or complex combinations of buttons in timed sequences. Again, fine if you're into that, but it doesn't make the game better for people who don't get off on such things.
|
The only comments I see elitist here are these types of comments, these "action pfft" type of comments. Nobody is saying that the adventure genre needs action, but it's just ludicrous to dismiss these other genres as relevant to the conversation just because they have action.
I have considered myself an adventure game fan for 22 years, ever since in Grade school I found a copy of the original Zork behind all the regularly used copies of Oregon Trail in the school's computer lab. The thing is that, for the past decade, I feel like the genre has done nothing but let me down. They keep taking the same game, scraping off a superficial layer of icing and slather on a new layer. That's fine, but the cake underneath is so stale that, no matter how good the icing may seem, it's still dry and dusty underneath.
Before I became disillusioned with the genre, I would have considered adventure games by far my favorite, and while I still call it and consider it a favorite I find less and less to get excited about. It's not that my tastes have changed, it's that the genre hasn't. It's stale and stagnant.
The whole hotspot thing wasn't brought up by me, it was brought up by someone else and I just tried to explain why they had become emblematic of the problems with both the stagnation of the genre and the outsiders negative view of the genre, which I thought would be especially poingant given the outsider's negative view of Hotel Dusk.
