"Blizzard spoke thus; Thou shalt not BM. And the players replied Nay, I shall Play my hand with Lethal already on the board. And so Blizzard sent unto them this Brawl of Yogg, As a lesson for their sins of Pride and Greed, for he is the Prophet of Madness and RNG. On that day, the tavern descended into an era of chaos and darkness, until the weekend passed and everyone forgot all about it. Amen. Book of SMOrc, Verse 20, Chapter 4." - Feam T
im perfectly fine doing something i wouldnt want to do in a video game, IF its something the actual character would do, if a good character im playing as decided to just go and murder people for no reason i wouldnt like that
however if those people were the reason the characters friend/child/spouse was killed/stolen/kidnapped then it would be good
and either way doesnt it immerse you more into the game and get you thinking more if something happens in the game that you morally wouldnt do? say in the last of us
Spoilers for The Last Of Us
if every game let you have the choice of killing the bad guy or letting him go or something wouldnt games get stale because you yourself would pick the same ending/decision because thats what you would do? every ending would be "And so -insert main characters name here- killed -insert bad guy here- and saved -insert world here-" or "And so -insert main characters name here- sacrificed his own life so -insert world here- would be safe", my point is it feels nice to experience something that i wouldnt do myself because its different, yes i want things to end my way or for things to happen how i want them but its not like i get heartbroken because the game made something else happen instead, in fact that makes it better for me
however if those people were the reason the characters friend/child/spouse was killed/stolen/kidnapped then it would be good
and either way doesnt it immerse you more into the game and get you thinking more if something happens in the game that you morally wouldnt do? say in the last of us
Spoilers for The Last Of Usif every game let you have the choice of killing the bad guy or letting him go or something wouldnt games get stale because you yourself would pick the same ending/decision because thats what you would do? every ending would be "And so -insert main characters name here- killed -insert bad guy here- and saved -insert world here-" or "And so -insert main characters name here- sacrificed his own life so -insert world here- would be safe", my point is it feels nice to experience something that i wouldnt do myself because its different, yes i want things to end my way or for things to happen how i want them but its not like i get heartbroken because the game made something else happen instead, in fact that makes it better for me
Thanks to TheNamelessBard for the signature
DillButt64 wrote:
im perfectly fine doing something i wouldnt want to do in a video game, IF its something the actual character would do, if a good character im playing as decided to just go and murder people for no reason i wouldnt like that
however if those people were the reason the characters friend/child/spouse was killed/stolen/kidnapped then it would be good
and either way doesnt it immerse you more into the game and get you thinking more if something happens in the game that you morally wouldnt do?
if every game let you have the choice of killing the bad guy or letting him go or something wouldnt games get stale because you yourself would pick the same ending/decision because thats what you would do? every ending would be "And so -insert main characters name here- killed -insert bad guy here- and saved -insert world here-" or "And so -insert main characters name here- sacrificed his own life so -insert world here- would be safe", my point is it feels nice to experience something that i wouldnt do myself because its different, yes i want things to end my way or for things to happen how i want them but its not like i get heartbroken because the game made something else happen instead, in fact that makes it better for me
Good point, decent argument.
I am leaning towards that end too though.
I think it's mostly just me being real pissed off at that cheap cop-out in Bioshock Infinite.
Psst, spoiler
The moment a religious person unknowingly calls his own ways stupid: "And lol. I highly doubt you have magic powers. If you proved it I would believe you, but since you 'refuse to', I choose not to."
i agree that what they did with Bioshock Infinite was really lame, instead of that controlling the bird part at the end they should have had some kind of boss battle, they give you all of these options for weapons (sort of) but instead of having a good boss battle with someone that is essentially you in another dimension (at least from what i remember of the ending thats what it is), just imagine the lines you could have during the battle while you were fighting him, but nope lets summon a bird to land on a flying airship, storywise i felt bioshock infinite was great but gameplay it was poor, especially when compared to bioshock 1 and 2
Thanks to TheNamelessBard for the signature
I don't have a terribly deep response to the video yet, unfortunately. I watched it earlier today and have been thinking about it a bit since. Still, wanted to throw this out there for now, at least.
One thing that's gonna' make discussing this difficult is our wonderful human ability to extend our sense of selves through the use of tools. Extra Credits, which I suggest anyone interested in game design watch, talks about this a little. When I'm driving a car, I don't think that I need to turn the wheel to go make my car go left, I just think that I need to go left and then the rest gets taken care of without any conscious thought on my part. And when I'm driving my car, I accelerate and I brake and I take exit 45 so that I can get to work on time, rather than thinking that I make my car do these things. Similarly, if I have a hammer, and I use that hammer to drive a nail, I think about and talk about that thing as "I drive that nail" rather than that I'm using a tool. The tool becomes an extension of my own body and self in my mind.
I bring this up because one of the things the Idea Channel mentions is that the avatar is the player's (often only) tool to interact with the game world. And when we press buttons and move sticks and such to make the character do things, we think about that and talk about that as if we, ourselves, were actually doing those things.
And the problem is that this isn't what the video is talking about. They're making a different distinction, and I don't want this tool-extension thing to be a barrier in the discussion. Just because, in a video game, we think that we ourselves are doing all the things doesn't mean that we actually identify, on a really personally level, as that character. Idea Channel is getting at something a bit deeper than just that, I think.
I'll see if I can formulate a real response to the video later.
One thing that's gonna' make discussing this difficult is our wonderful human ability to extend our sense of selves through the use of tools. Extra Credits, which I suggest anyone interested in game design watch, talks about this a little. When I'm driving a car, I don't think that I need to turn the wheel to go make my car go left, I just think that I need to go left and then the rest gets taken care of without any conscious thought on my part. And when I'm driving my car, I accelerate and I brake and I take exit 45 so that I can get to work on time, rather than thinking that I make my car do these things. Similarly, if I have a hammer, and I use that hammer to drive a nail, I think about and talk about that thing as "I drive that nail" rather than that I'm using a tool. The tool becomes an extension of my own body and self in my mind.
I bring this up because one of the things the Idea Channel mentions is that the avatar is the player's (often only) tool to interact with the game world. And when we press buttons and move sticks and such to make the character do things, we think about that and talk about that as if we, ourselves, were actually doing those things.
And the problem is that this isn't what the video is talking about. They're making a different distinction, and I don't want this tool-extension thing to be a barrier in the discussion. Just because, in a video game, we think that we ourselves are doing all the things doesn't mean that we actually identify, on a really personally level, as that character. Idea Channel is getting at something a bit deeper than just that, I think.
I'll see if I can formulate a real response to the video later.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
I'm eagerly awaiting your comment Baka (now you have to do it >:D)
i agree that what they did with Bioshock Infinite was really lame, instead of that controlling the bird part at the end they should have had some kind of boss battle, they give you all of these options for weapons (sort of) but instead of having a good boss battle with someone that is essentially you in another dimension (at least from what i remember of the ending thats what it is), just imagine the lines you could have during the battle while you were fighting him, but nope lets summon a bird to land on a flying airship, storywise i felt bioshock infinite was great but gameplay it was poor, especially when compared to bioshock 1 and 2
The "boss battle" was actually really good. What the **** are you on about? Many people and reviewers agree that they did a great job with the final battle. Many "boss battles" nowadays turn into QTE fights (see Far Cry 3, most CoD games), which I hope you realize is to the detriment of the game.
My problem is with the piss-poor delivery of the ending (which could have been amazing if delivered right) and the sequence with the airship where you kill the old man by pressing E.
DillButt64 wrote:
i agree that what they did with Bioshock Infinite was really lame, instead of that controlling the bird part at the end they should have had some kind of boss battle, they give you all of these options for weapons (sort of) but instead of having a good boss battle with someone that is essentially you in another dimension (at least from what i remember of the ending thats what it is), just imagine the lines you could have during the battle while you were fighting him, but nope lets summon a bird to land on a flying airship, storywise i felt bioshock infinite was great but gameplay it was poor, especially when compared to bioshock 1 and 2
The "boss battle" was actually really good. What the **** are you on about? Many people and reviewers agree that they did a great job with the final battle. Many "boss battles" nowadays turn into QTE fights (see Far Cry 3, most CoD games), which I hope you realize is to the detriment of the game.
My problem is with the piss-poor delivery of the ending (which could have been amazing if delivered right) and the sequence with the airship where you kill the old man by pressing E.
"Well, basically you should treat me like a prostitute." - TotalBiscuit
Spoiler: Click to view
Thanks to TheNamelessBard for the signature
You need to log in before commenting.
I can get very bothered by when games force you to do something that you wouldn't want to choose to do. It's okay if it happens for a good reason, but let's just bring up the most prominent example of this I've encountered: the infamous "Press 'E' to stop _____, smash his skull open and drown him.".
That doesn't mean that I always am however. It might just be that specific part of that game, because I feel like it was a really cheap cop-out to set up the poorly delivered ending.
So I dunno.. What do you guys think?
(in essence that is a question of controlling vs being a character)