Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

... or a bad film altogether!

It is true that tension must build up to some extent for a good jump scare, but they rely on reflex rather than real fear. Jump scares are relatively easy to create, but a sense of fear, and not just a fear of something suddenly appearing and making you jump involuntarily when there's nothing you could do about it, is much harder to create. If a horror game consists of too many jump scares most players will get tired of it and find it predictable. They're cheap because they're easy to manufacture and pale in comparison to the creation of a true sense of terror, one that doesn't hinge on a player not wanting to have to endure a sudden surprise. If anything they act as a measure of how good a horror game is. If a horror game is still very scary but has little to no jump scares, you know it did its job very well. If it had to rely on jump scares for most of the horror, then it probably wasn't anything special. They're equivalent in story telling terms to a predictable overused cliche. They can be used well in small amounts, but they're not difficult to think up, and relying on them just shows a lack of confidence and skill in actually creating something scary.

It's also worth noting that creating tension through music and atmosphere is surprisingly easy. Since that's all jump scares rely on, they work very easily. Try watching a horror film with lots of jump scares on mute without the music that ramps up the tension - the effect of the jump scares will be lessened considerably. Fear and tension are not wholly the same.

Who are the idiots saying The Stanley Parable isn't a game? A book? An interactive book? Well that would be true, except there aren't any pages, there is no book to hold ergo that comparison is dumb. The arguement in itself is dumb as well, where do we draw the line? Anything that doesn't fall into defined categories, with a game over screen, score and guns? Who decides these categories? Then what happens for popular series like all of Telltales' games? Journey, for many the GAME of the year in 2012? The previously mentioned Kirby's Epic Yarn? Then if Telltales' games are out because they're 'interactive books' does that also rule out Another Code? Ace Attorney? Professor Layton? There's just no way you can draw the line, as every game I mentioned has gameplay, and is interactive and unique to each player (what order you play through TSP's scenarios and how long it takes you to spot a contradiction in Ace Attorney), saying games aren't games only stifles the uniqueness and creativity that is left in this industry, and plays into the hands of Activision and EA that if you're not shooting someone, it's not a game worth your while. The argument is moot IMO.

See now this is what I meant when I say a large majority of the problem is people actually being insulted when being told that something they enjoy shouldn't necessarily be classified as a game, as if being something other than a game is inherently worse, despite context and understanding. There's also the implication that all discussion about what makes a game forfeits our souls to the demons of EA and Activision, which is a humorous notion that one could only expect from a Nintendo site.

You ask who decides on these categories; the answer is gamers as a collective. When enough of these pieces of software emerge that a large group of gamers come up with terms to describe them other than games, it is for the good of everyone. It comes down to knowing what you're purchasing and knowing what to expect. One could possibly and simply take all of these games which contain absolutely minimal gameplay/interaction and make it a genre - but the problem is that traditional genres still apply to these programs, such as adventure, romance, horror, and for people interested in having these experiences, those titles should be the main focus. However, at the same time, a regular horror game fan probably wouldn't be interested in a horror program that he/she could barely interact with, just as they may not be interested in watching horror films or reading horror novels.

I think the important thing is that the people who care about making these distinctions and helping people pick the products they actually want can and are actively doing so anyway. People can fight all they like about the fact that they think Dear Esther and Mountain are games, but all I care about is knowing that they contain very little interaction and aren't the experience I am personally looking for, and luckily there are enough people who feel the same way to label these products for my benefit. I'm sure over time better labels will come to describe these products that give them more respect, because in the end, someone not wasting money on something they really didn't actually want is more important than someone getting personally insulted that something they like has a new label, at least in my opinion.

@Geonjaha: well there you go you say people who like horror games won't like horror games with little interactivity, what have been some of the most popular horror games over the last few years? Well I can tell you, Outlast, PT and Five Nights at Freddie's. Each one sent the internet into a storm upon release, yet have very little gameplay between them other than jump-scares and running down hallways. People aren't being mis-lead when these games are labeled as games, because that's what they bloody are, they just need to research and see that they're not Xenoblade Chronicles or Batman Arkham Knight, but rather games designed to give you a unique experience that games with amazing gameplay cannot give. What other games are like Telltales' or Thatgamecompany's? Oh and kudos to the Nintendo bashing there, except when I listed about 7-8 games only 1 was a Nintendo game, so yeah, don't know where that came from. -_- EA and Activision are scum and always will be.

Genre labels are quick sorting feature that make doing research on games 1000x easier - could you imagine having to look through every game's features to figure out whether or not it's the type of game you enjoy, when you already know you're looking for a certain type of game?

Regardless of whether or not Stanley Parable-types are games isn't as important as simply being labeled as product with minimal interaction.

Also, @TheLastLugia: If the amount of interaction is the same as turning a page to get to the next story bit, then the comparison is sound. Walking Sims are just a baby step up from Visual Novels, which themselves are questionable as to whether or not they count as games, but more importantly, they have their own genre label that tells people what to expect going in.

This discussion is really difficult on a gaming site, since a lot of gamers tend to look down on movies and books, so comparing a game to a movie or book will always be taken as an insult. But they aren't lesser mediums - if anything, Movies and books are still superiour methods of storytelling, and since WS' are focused on story, the comparison is much more apt, even positive. If you're in it for the story, why have any needless interruptions taking away from it? And if you play games for gameplay, what benefit is there to have to class Stanley Parable in the same general Adventure category as Zelda and King's Quest? Because I can assure you, you probably won't enjoy it nearly as much, if at all.

@CanisWolfred: it seems you and the person I was speaking to above have opposite opinions to me on this issue, but it's not the labaling of 'Visual Novel' that is the issue here, at least for me, but rather the scorn that comes towards these games from 'gamers' who consider them to be beneath them and not worth their time because they're not massive open world RPGs with 100s of hours of content or yet another online FPS. Now I'm not implying that anyone here falls into this category, I'm just arguing things from my side where even if a game only has you going through the motions walking down corridors a la The Stanley Parable, it still is a game because that interactivity is there. Not everyone got the basic ending(s) first, not everyone saw all the endings, not everyone entered the Broom Closet (look it up) and fewer stayed in it long enough to get the full satisfaction from that genius moment. Can books and films provide things like that scene? No they cannot, at least not in the same way, which is why I prefer games to them, where yes even TSP has more interactivity and enjoyment by being a game than it would do if you just say and watched it for two hours at a cinema or read the words in a book where you lack the brilliance that is the narrator's voice. Another Code R had it on the box that it was a 'Visual Novel', yet I still absolutely loved it, I don't think anyone can play that game and say it's not a game, there is just no grounds for that arguement that I can see. Ace Attorney is my second favourite series, behind only Pokemon and ahead of Zelda, and lemme tell 'ya nothing quite satisfies like spotting a contradiction and pointing it out, which counts as gameplay as do the investigation sections. Sure Zelda gives better overall gameplay as well as variety but who has the right to decide that Ace Attorney and Journey can't exist in the same medium as it and Skyrim, Mass Effect, Mario et all? I never intended to come across as being degrading towards films and books either, I love both and have almost certainly watched more films than I have played games, and there's always a book that I'm reading, it's just that there is little to compare between them. The Professor Layton film was alright, nowhere near great, and I only enjoyed it because I was such a huge fan of the games, but I've still only watched it once whilst I've played most of the games several times. Seeing a puzzle solved before you is just not the same at all as doing it yourself, and if/when we get to a point where these creative minds behind Layton and Ace Attorney have to abandon ship and try making films and books full time is a sad time indeed.

This post is a visual novel

@HollywoodHogan: I think you meant to but a full stop after 'novel', see I can do it too with Kandoo! (but seriously couldn't care less if my wall of text offends you, I was making a point and didn't care about spacing).

The Stanley Parable is very clearly a game. A short, narrative-heavy, linear game, but a game nonetheless. I've yet to see a reasonable rationale as to why something like that or Gone Home ISN'T a game. As if certain categories of games should be excluded from the medium altogether because they're not high on interactivity.

@Ralizah: this +1, though I feel I explained my point more than enough above. I'm still not sure which side of the argument is the unpopular opinion though lol.

Lego Hobbit's main story is fun and was worth the $4 I spent to get it.

Also M&L Dream Team was the best in the series, it was the only one that didn't bore me into unconsciousness with tiresome colors and graphics

Ok I don't clearly understand this.

When gamers demand sequels of a franchise, Companies that give a reasonable response like Nintendo are being ranted like getting a new F-Zero. But yet, when Sakurai-san doesn't make sequels, everyone's fine with it because of.....what logic?

Actually, now going into it and I mean this in a constructive criticism, Sakurai-san is completely egoistic and stubborn when making games. He doesn't trust anyone other than himself which causes only more pressure towards him and fans because we would only believe that he's the one who can make Smash good and not even Nintendo can come close to his creativity. He doesn't care about his health other than to make sure that he makes deep experiences. And his idea of collaborating with other companies is absurd.

Because other than Nintendo and Q entertainment, I don't see SEGA, Capcom or Konami hiring him because why would they even want his talent when they themselves can make attempts to make quality games? I can vision Sakurai-San making a Sonic or a Phantasy Star game but then again, seeing SEGA 's infamous development schedules STILL happening, I doubt if he will even release the games let alone releasing it halfway. If he wants creative freedom so much, why not just work on Nintendo instead of being independent? Even better, why not just be an Indie-developer and make games multiplat and taking his sweet time making games? That way, he won't have to worry about his health one bit.

I'm willing to bet that if Nintendo makes the next Smash on the NX on their own without Sakurai-san, Lots of people will be concerned instead of getting hyped. That alone proves how valuable he is to Nintendo which is why I admire Shigeru Miyamoto better than him because he leads someone else in charge of the brand like Eji Anouma for The Legend of Zelda series.

I can see freelance work can actually work for composers and artists but game designers? Really? What logic does that make?

Because it's not just interactivity...I've said this 3 times already. Video games are a goal-oriented medium. You can't have a video game where you can't lose - a game has to have some type of risk vs. reward. It doesn't matter what the goal is, so long as you're working towards something, and there's something to stop you from achieving that goal that you must overcome.

Everything has something working against you, it is called life. How do you determine what the goal is in a game? In a game like Gone Home, your goal is to find information about the people living in the house. It is up to the player to discover as much information as they want. What is the goal in Minecraft? What is the goal in The Sims? Games are not always about overcoming obstacles to reach an end point. When there is no goal, does it stop being a game? No. Sometimes a game just wants to provide players with tools and it is their job to figure out what to do with them.

There is an End-goal in Minecraft. There are things that work against you in The Sims. The goal of life is clear-cut - survive and spawn the next generation. Video games are like an allegory for life itself, which is why I find it so hard to classify a walking sim a game when it's much more like a dream rather than life.

So what is the difference between danger and perceived danger in a game? If I go through a game, like Super Mario Bros, and never die, how is that different than going through a game I cannot die? In both games I progress through areas and reached an end point, one of them has death obstacles in the way the other does not. How do we classify Kirby Epic Yarn, since there are no obstacles that kill you one can say there is nothing that can stop your progress. Why does Kirby Epic Yarn get called a game while Gone Home is called a walking simulator?

@CanisWolfred: If Minecraft released creative mode as a standalone would that not be a game? Your reasons seem to indicate not as there is no goal or fail state. On that note, is the creative part of Minecraft not a game? Also, saying Minecraft has an end-goal line that is stretching it. I think less than 1% have actually encountered that dungeon, and less have bothered wth it.