V8_Ninja wrote:

Having watched the David Cage speech, it almost amazing how easily his last points can be turned against him.

David Cage: "We need to establish new relations with Hollywood!"

Every Cynic Ever: "Why should we even try when you freely admit that games are fundamentally different than movies?"

David Cage: "Reviewer's need to stop being terrible and shallow!"

Every Cynic Ever: "What, so they can 'Appreciate' all your 'Subtlety' and 'Nuance' which are 100% undoubtedly in your games?"

David Cage: "Video game players need to stop buying crap!"

Every Cynic Ever: "...So that they can buy your games, which are proven to NOT be crap?"

Also, David Cage states that the video games aren't "Mass Market". Rovio would like to talk to you, sir.

Sony_70 wrote:

Games a being different from movies doesn't mean there can't be input between the two mediums. For examples look at how Lucasfilm, Skywalker sound, and Ondiustrial light and magic are working on Star Wars 1313 as if it were the next movie or show.

Bankai wrote:

To be fair, Cage is right with the critics comment.

Game critics really do need to stop listing the features of a game, saying "this is good" or "this is bad" and slapping a score at the bottom. The sooner critics understand that game writing is not press release writing (when they give it a good score) and it's not a buyer's guide (when they give it a low score), the better for the games industry.

Bankai wrote:

Trainer_DJ wrote:

Bankai wrote:

What has that got to do with philosophy?

Xenoblade is surface level. Everything in that game is spelled out for players in flashing neon lighting. There's no puzzling through deeper themes, there's no being engaged on an intellectual level.

That's not to say Xenoblade is a bad game (certainly I prefer it to modern Zelda games), but it's an emotional, surface-level engagement. The themes of Zelda games certainly take more work to really get to the bottom of them.

If you'd really studied philosophy you would understand the difference there, surely.

Doesn't change the fact that the questions the book was asking could be used for a ton of games. Also, just because the philosophical element isn't as direct doesn't make the concepts any deeper. That's like when some philosophers are super indirect about the concepts they talk about. Yeah, you can get down to the point of the matter but was all that metaphor or having the idea come in some sort of dialogue really necessary?

LordLzGlad wrote:

Gameplay has very little to do with the themes behind the story...

...Ok. And...
I don't know get what you are saying. Nobody said they were. I said games are often about gameplay and games can be good because of a good story but it is not necessary. The Last Story gameplay wise isn't all that great, but the story made the game memorable. Super Mario World has the most basic story ever, but the gameplay and level design of that game make it a masterpiece in my opinion.

You seem to be getting confused between me saying a game has virtually no meaning and me saying a game is bad.

I wasn't commenting on Xenoblade's quality as a game. I was pointing out that it's about as philosophically deep as a baby's pool.

In fact, I know there are plenty of gamers out there that quite specifically don't like thinking while they play games and would get upset if the meaning of Xenoblade was more ambiguous or less easy to digest.

But that doesn't change the fact it's not Dark Souls, or Nier, or Ni No Kuni, or Pandora's Tower.

V8_Ninja wrote:

Bankai wrote:

To be fair, Cage is right with the critics comment.

Game critics really do need to stop listing the features of a game, saying "this is good" or "this is bad" and slapping a score at the bottom. The sooner critics understand that game writing is not press release writing (when they give it a good score) and it's not a buyer's guide (when they give it a low score), the better for the games industry.

I do agree with the sentiment, but it came from a man who is trying extremely hard to be so "Innovative" that he restricts player interaction, arguably THE advantage of video games, to the equivalents of quick-time events. And from what I can tell, David Cage tends to try to enforce emotions onto his audience rather than throw his audience into a situation in which that audience may react to events with their own emotions.

kkslider5552000 wrote:

the closest example I can think of is the end-game Gods thing and even than I'll admit it's only somewhat less obvious than staring at the camera to tell the audience. Not that I believe they would do that and force a point onto the audience since again, just interested in making a good JRPG.