Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Ah, the inclusion of definitions and dictionary entries into an arguement, that's always a bad sign.

@CanisWolfred: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=... Here. Also, even with the definition you showed me, so called "Walking Simulators" would still fit the bill.

It really wouldn't, it'd just change the classication so people know what to expect. That's all these terms are for. You're not limited by words, you're limited by your audience, and your audience goes into your "non-game" expecting a game, it's going to color their experience in a negative light. But if you gave it some other classication, one that's more representive of what they should expect, your audience is more likely to be attracted to your product. It's simple, really. Do you go into Point & Click adventure games expecting an FPS? If you wanted an FPS, wouldn't you look for games that describe themselves as such? It's the same case here.

So far we've got "walking simulators" and "interactive experiences" as alternatives to "non-games," too, so at the very least, I'll agree that using the term "non-games" is not necessary, but only because I think there are much more descriptive terms that can be used.

@CanisWolfred: I meant giving "Video Game" a strict "Has a beginning Middle and End" "Has a failure state" definition

I agree with so much of that.

Your link didn't work. Also, no, a walking simulator does not fit that definition. There's no skill, strategy, or competition at all in those games. It's more than just a "win or lose" thing, it's about how you win and what it signifies. In most singleplayer games, you're competing against the computer (or rather, the developer and the challenges they've placed). You have a goal, and you have obstacles to that goal that you must overcome in some fashion.

Most "non-games" generally lack an obstacles, and that's where the difference lies. If you take out the challenge, what's left?

Of course, not everyone needs something to overcome if they want to enjoy something. And I think it would be helpful to those people to have a better term.

Why do we have to classify what is and isn't a video game? It does nothing to advance the industry. Trying to define things as a game or not is just trying de-value a game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blj91KLOvZQ

@CanisWolfred:
1. Just type "Define Video Game" into google
2. Your definition said "a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure" It's a mental activity with rules (The code) that people do for entertainment.

@DefHalan: Exactly. I'm trying to say that video games being digital and interactive is enough.
Also, you watch extra credits too?

Not liking "walking simulators" is fine, but they're still games. I believe the Sims had the same issue for not having an objective, but that's not a thing anymore (I may be wrong on this part though). Now I don't like the Sims, but it's for different reasons entirely. As for visual novels, They're games if you make choices in them. If it's a kinetic visual novel though, then it's not game. It's a novel with illustrations you read on the computer.

Extra Credits is one of my favorite shows. I also like James Recommends but have been skipping their history stuff and their Dark Souls stuff. Have you watched those?

Extra History has a tendency to be innacurate and I haven't watched the dark souls episodes. But Extra Credits itself is great.

@GrizzlyArctos: And that quality will only stick to him and nothing else and when he dies, that quality isn't transferred to anyone else.

@CanisWolfred: So you're saying that Miyamoto's creativity isn't good enough to sell huge compared to Sakurai? Really 3D Land when it first arrived sold 5 million units compared to Uprising which sold around 1 million. Granted, he didn't do much in the game but the fact that he offered suggestions and encouraged the team to do things on their own just proves how he motivates others to lead which Sakurai seems to lack.

@DefHalan: Doubtful whether Extra Credits is great at all. They only cover the ones that they feel are worth covering yet somehow they make it sound like its a critical thing but its rather just their opinion. I mean, how is Witcher 3 the best detective game when it has nothing to do with solving crimes and I can tell because even though I haven't played the series, I can tell that the series is centered around the medieval period. If it was something like Phantasy Star maybe, then yes I would agree but its not.

Why bother defining anything anyway. It doesn't add anything. I do have an idea of what is and isn't a game, but debating it is completely meaningless.

I'm sorry, I fail to see and understand. Characters and story has to a big part. If every gym leader was bland and didn't have a nature to them, then that would kill the Pokemon 'anime' and it would feel like battling any other trainer in a game. It would give less means for people to prepare and tackle a gym. Now the entire point of TM's being infinite was because people would never use or accidentally waste their only TM which they could never get again because of a mistake. It was a means for making newcomers feel free to do whatever they want and experiment.

Extra Credits is an opinionated show, but everything about Design is opinionated. Breaking other's opinions on what makes a good game is how we see new innovative games. I think Extra Credits just does a good job at putting a spotlight on some issues and talking about things normally overlooked or taken for granted.

@Artwark: well in Witcher 3, in some of the quests, you hunt for clues, you follow tracks, you talk to witnesses. some of the quests are mystery based.

Everything has its place: Story, Characters, Batting, Collecting, Caves, etc. The "Unpopular Gaming Opinion" was about how people focus so much on the Pokemon series needing to improve its Story and Characters, and rarely on other aspects of the games. We should talk about all parts of the games and not just Narrative.

At least that is what I took away from the post.

@Tubalcain: Same thing can be said about Zelda. Most of the quests have clues that are required to solve them.

@Artwark: not like that, i mean in the game you literally investigate things. who is the murderer, where did the beast run off to, things like that. in many quest you have to look for tracks, signs of fighting, blood etc. its not about merely clues to solve a quest, its the ILLUSION that your investigating a murder, or an event.

just to add, the side quests of the Witcher kinda ruins every other RPG. almost every quest have substantial dialogue and there's no generic fetch quest such as go here kill x number of x monsters or collect x flowers. Mark my word, every RPG that will be released in the near future will be compared by reviewers to the side quests of Witcher 3.