toblix

Yeah, except for the three that say GBA.

"Damn it, Fisher!"

What?!

PM me the addresses of where you live.

UncleSpaggles, you should work in the Bayonetta PR department. OR DOES HE ALREADY?!?!?!!

That would be surrey-al.

I wasn't really interested in this... until now.

That depends. If you mean direct combat, then yes, but all the urgent sequences were motivated by people chasing and/or shooting at you, which is still combat. If you removed that, it'd be a different game, more like Portal (ignore turrets and boss battle plz thx).

Compressed air is awesome. I have five cans at home. If you can, take the computer outside and airblast the fuck out of it. Just fucking spray that shit in every hole. Pump it deep and hard into every little fan, nook and screwhole. Blow that shit clean. If you have to do it inside, use a vacuum, blowing with one hand and sucking with the other.

There's a bunch of photography games, like the safari ones I can't remember the name of, and I think Fatal Frame? You could always argue that the camera is just a non-violent weapon. You're aiming at moving targets, etc.

Okay, I see. Thanks for clearing it up. So, if one imagines a scale of interactivity or freedom going from no interactivity at all (films) to full freedom (a theoretical real life simulator), games exists all over this spectrum, except for the extremes, which are either not games or not possible yet, respectively. At the non-interactive end, the games are talking toyou, like films and books are. You're told a story, and the interactivity is there to make things fun. At the fully interactive end, you're talking to yourself, since there would be no real feedback from the game, at least from the author's point of view, right? So, in the middle of this spectrum, which is where all video games lie, you're talking with the game. You're getting some degree of freedom and choice, and the game gives you feedback, both intentionally, in terms of the feedback the author has decided to give, and unintentionally, in terms of the scope and limitations of the game. Actually, I thought I was on to something when I started writing this, but now I'm not so sure. Apologies if you read this.

Okay, I misunderstood you. I'm not sure I understand you, though. In fact, I believe I may be missing the core of this discussion.

But if the game strived to be some sort of perfect simulation, allowing every possible outcome, etc., how would the game be able to speak to you in any way? Isn't the direction of the game, that degree of linearity (however subtle), really the game's voice? Isn't the spectrum of freedom of interactivity that goes from complete non-interactivity (like in books/films/music) to perfect freedom (like in real life), but not including any of those two, the thing that makes games special?

Combat is just one of an infinite number of possible ways to implement the obstacles-you-have-to-overcome, and it's mostly linked to reaction time, learning the controls, etc. There's a lot of side-mechanics in todays combat-heavy games that use other skills that are more typically associated with for example adventure and puzzle games. For example the motherfuckingly awesome Mario & Luigi games, which are based around the JRPG template with lots of random battles. This is a combat heavy game, but the "real" mechanic is learning to analyse the enemy by observing them, both alone and in groups. This type of mechanic could easily be used in a non-combat setting, for example in a Phoenix Wright game where you learn people's "tells" to see if they're lying. I also agree with juv3nal in that those games would still be totally awesome without combat. Obviously if you just removed it, it would be weird, but it seems that some adjustments could make some of these games less combaty. For example, they could make Altair/Ezio less of a fighter and more of an athlete/acrobat/whatever, and have it so getting into combat would most likely kill you. All the other mechanics would still work, but you'd have to avoid combat completely because it'd kill you, rather than avoiding it because it sucked (in AC1, at least).

I think the wear verb has been terribly underused, for example in Simon the Sorcerer. I've always been a fan of indirect control of a group doing non-combat stuff, like in the Settlers games, where you can only order your guys to do something, and the order can only be completed if all the prerequisites are filled, like resources and order priorities. Ah, screw it, I just realised I wasn't describing an interesting mechanic as much as I was describing The Settlers. As for the positive/negative feedback, would that really give the game enough information to do something interesting? Also, couldn't the feedback be indirectly given through your other actions rather than choosing a thing and nodding or whatever? I don't know what I'm talking about. Bonus kudos to everyone for the recent burst of intelligent video game discussion. edit: Also, I think disguises could be awesome, like in the Hitman games. It's a variation on the stealth genre (in plain sight rather than in the shadows) that could allow for really interesting stuff, especially if violence wasn't a huge part of things. Instead of just avoiding being spotted, you have to act naturally according to whatever role you're assuming (where you'd go, what you'd do and know, etc).

Thanks. You are awesome, too.

When thinking of awesome time travel games, DOTT always springs to mind. I know there's a Zelda game that does it, and there's the weird Japanese Xbox game where you carry a ladder with you. And Time Commando was pretty cool, but I think DOTT will be hard to beat, even with a DMC.

What about Jake? I heard somewhere he's done 80% of everything on that game, from UI to voice acting. His Fishburne is impeccable. Good point. I had totally forgotten about it (which means nothing, since I needed an article from 2008 to remind me of Batman), but it's definitely one of the best of the year. Holy Maloney.

I haven't tried it yet, but I expect CSI: DEADY INTENT will be my goty. Second place would most likely be GTA IV just for the amount of fun I've had from it during the year. Also, wtf is up with the year almost being over. Jesus, it was just Christmas 2008 people! Was World of Goo from this year? Fuck time. edit: Also, these should be helpful: http://www.1up.com/do/minisite?cId=3171537 http://www.gamesradar.com/f/100-most-anticipated-games-of-2009/a-2009011310192182096 http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/01/top-10-most-ant/ Holy shit: Bionic Assassin, or whatever it was called, the Super Metroid or whatever game with the foam gun. That was awesome right of the blue. And Batman, how could I forget. Batman was definitely the biggest awesome surprise of this year.

I'm starting to think someone has been lying on the internet.

Hey, did you want to shit into my brain? Sorry, I already (just) watched 2012. I intentionally set my expectations really low for the movie as a whole, as I was just watching it for its destruction CGI and I've seen some of Emmerich's other films. Even expecting a huge stinking piece of shit it managed to disappoint. It was weird -- the destruction sequences were amazing, and worth the price of admission alone, but all the scenes where continental shelves weren't flying through the air into exploding skyscrapers were even more awful than I had braced myself for. Especially the second half was just horrible. I hope they release a destruction-only cut of this on Blu-ray, because those scenes were glorious.

Has no one?

Don't you mean...

No, I feel bad because I made that up. I don't know anything about the crazy music people usually talk about here, so I was trying to see if I could fabricate something without it being noticed. I'M SORRY!

Now I feel bad.