Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@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.

@DefHalan: It would be completely possible to add a health/death system to Kirby's Epic Yarn and fundamentally remain the same game. It's designed like any platformer, it just doesn't punish the player that much for messing up, but there is a kind of punishment/failure state. There is no form of failure state of any form in Gone Home, Dear Esther, of the Stanley Parable (although the Stanley Parable arguably contains perceived failure states and I can't speak with complete confidence about the other two games).

Non-Directed Remainder of Post:

For something to be a "video game" to me it has to fit this criteria:

1. It has to be digital, running on some form of computing device.
2. It must be interactive, in which either a single person or multiple people control either a single or multiple entities, physical or non-physical, through some kind of input device. The interaction must be able to produce some form of narrative.
3. It must include visual feedback on a visual display capable of showing changing images.
4. It must be created to entertain the user.

This is the most seamless I could get the criteria. It's not perfect, since a program in which could freely look around while stuck in a fixed position while a red square orbited you could technically fit my criteria. I'm trying to leave it open enough to include something like Proteus. The part about narrative and interactivity is meant to cover that, but it's not quite perfect.

Obviously walking simulators have minimalistic gameplay, but said gameplay is an important aspect of the experience (at least in the Stanley Parable and, to my knowledge, Gone Home). As long as that gameplay or interaction is a key element to the experience, it's a game to me. Obviously this discussion comes down to where someone draws their own line. I can't exactly convince anyone of anything in that regard, but I'll certainly try to hyper-qualify my stance.

@CanisWolfred
See, the thing is, though, interactivity is pertinent to the definition of what a video game is, whereas the other stuff you mentioned... isn't. I understand that the primary paradigm of video game design is one of competition, either between the computer and the player or between multiple players, but that doesn't mean that the entire medium is limited by it. The tent is big enough for games like Dark Souls and Flower, or Shin Megami Tensei and The Stanley Parable.

You can call Gone Home a walking simulator. I can call Doom a walking and trigger-pulling simulator. Neither answer is strictly wrong, but I think we both know that these conceptualizations are disingenuous because they ignore the context of the action.

Who cares what a video game is "supposed to be?" It doesn't even matter. Play what you wanna play, and enjoy it.