Erkki

Passage wasn't really an example of that quote, it was a more general example where I think a message through a game can be more effective than through other medium. The Pigeons game was a better example I think, though the gameplay was still only making dialogue choices. Do you mean you don't see it as having any message at all or that it's not a game design related message? I might tentatively agree with the latter, but it's done as a game and I think you get the whole message only if you play several times. But isn't 'interactive story' a subform of game basically?

I didn't want to post this in the conference-inspired rambling thread, since it goes more into design. I know this isn't a design forum (if anyone knows a good one, please recommend) but I think quite a few people here might have ideas about this. What do you think could be some of the game mechanics/verbs that could replace the popular jump/shoot/use? And could any of them become as prevalent as shooting things? Let's leave out strategy games and other more specific genres, though, and focus on games where you control a character that goes through some kind of a journey. Some thoughts I've had: Context-based _tup_ _tdown_ responses. Not necessarily dialogue responses (which GTA: SA had, but they were a really minor part), but compared to shooting things, this wouldn't have as easily predictable results. I imagine it like this: Q and E buttons are mapped to _tup_ and _tdown_ respectively and are used throughout the game in all kinds of situations where the player could react negatively or positively. In a very limited way, it would enable the player to tell the game how they feel about something, and the game could react to that. Hm. I just realized... doesn't Fable do this? I haven't played it yet. It could also make possible a lot of quick exchanges with an NPC that don't take you out of context of what you're currently doing (but some recent games do this already). What Heavy Rain does is similar to this, I think.

Ok, so I thought of two small games that I think are good examples. And you can play them in just minutes if you haven't (probably the case with the latter one as it's not well known I think). 1) Passage. Somebody already brought this up in this thread, I think. It could be done as a silent movie, but the system would not become apparent, it might evoke slightly different emotions or thoughts. (I think The Path works similarly) 2) Deirdra Kiai's Pigeons in the Park and/or The Little Girl Nobody Liked. Either could be done as a choose-your-own-adventure book or interactive DVD movie, but these are niche forms that I think can be considered inferior to games in that they offer only a small subset of what games could do. Bonus) Far Cry 2. I think this would not have worked quite as effectively in any movie or book.

I think I'll start replaying Far Cry 2. Or should I go with Vampire: Masquerade: Bloodlines instead? I haven't played that yet. Or Stalker: Clear Sky.

The way I argued was knowingly hyperbolized, but all I'm really saying that while movies make use of other 'mediums' and it's accepted that they add their own thing to that, the same is true for games: it's not fair to say that the only way a player can experience something insightful while playing games only comes from the other mediums that the game makes use of. I still have to think about good examples though... For one thing, you can learn something of how systems work if a game exposes that well enough and the system is not completely made-up fantasy. It's harder to learn that in real life or through other mediums.

Games have their language as well. It is not as well established yet and will probably never be as well defined because games can have more variety due to their non-linearity or just the huge difference between some genres. I can't agree that cinematography has a language and game design doesn't. And cinematography is based on photography so you could say that if a movie says something through the "cinematic language", it stops its own media and imposes photography. For example, Tarkovsky's Stalker. Most movies perhaps don't stop for that, but also in games like GTA you are told parts of the story while playing. Not sure if I have good examples, I'll think about it...

Congrats, Stevan!

I'm with Chris and PiratePoo on this. In a way, the game designer is just an enabler, and the player decides if the game talks to them or not. But I think to a lesser extent you could say the same about movies: it's the story in the movie that talks to you, not the moving pictures. It's not the movie that talks, it's the storytelling. And for people who only watch movies for action or boobs, the author's message might not get across either because they are refusing to see it or haven't developed the capability to do so. In case of a movie like Mulholland Drive, the author is talking to even less people, those who make a big investment into hearing what David Lynch had to say with it. But I think in games the designer can also talk by forcing a choice on the player where the choice itself is a message, or choosing either path might reveal a different message or show a different perspective of the same overarching message.

That's exactly what I'm talking about: combat has become so natural in games that removing it seems limiting. Maybe it's because it's so prevalent currently and historically or is it just in the nature of games that fighting enemies is the easiest obstacle the designer can put in front of the player or the easiest thing to relate to for players, even though most of us don't do it in real lives? It could be escapism: we want to do in games what we are not able to in real life, but I don't think that's necessary the prevalent reason we play games. Could games have evolved differently to a place where combat is not seen as the 'default' mechanic? Yes, Mirror's Edge is a good example where combat could be easily removed without making the game lacking something.

Another way to put my question is: take combat out of Far Cry 2, Half-Life 2, GTA IV, Assassins Creed, BioShock... Simply doing that would make those games feel empty, but what could replace that? I don't think what I suggested is enough by itself (Edit) oh yeah, the hitman games are a pretty good example of this. At least some levels

Well, I'm not really asking you to give me ideas for my game, in fact I probably shouldn't have brought that up as it's only slightly related to the topic [edit]deleted that paragraph from the original post[/edit], but I'd like to hear what other people think are the actual mechanics that could replace combat in games generally. Far Cry 2 is a really amazing game, but still it's most core mechanic is combat. A lot has been said by many people about there being too much shooting, but few seem to have good ideas about what to replace it with (without turning a game into an adventure game). Maybe there isn't a common mechanic that can replace it? Is shooting/hacking people in the face the only least common denominator that works almost anywhere? Also, I'd like to note that by context sensitive negative/positive responses I didn't mean a completely context-based approach where most actions are unique. The contexts may be rather general, such as dialogue (agree/disagree), walk past an NPC you haven't seen for a while (say hi or just nod at them), door (open normally or kick), stray zebra in a city (pet or call 911). Of course mostly having just two options in situations might impose stupid limitations.

Chris posted this in a slightly different form on gama too: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/25037/Opinion_Looking_For_Meaning_In_Games.php

My honorable mentions: Shadow Complex -- nearly a perfect game, except for the crap story Brütal Legend -- graphically one of the most amazing game worlds I've had the pleasure to experience. Dragon Age -- most addictive Risen -- least buggy Gothic yet!

Far Cry Too! Or was that last year?

I turned the graphics details down now and it works fine even in the large battles.

Is anyone else having performance problems with the PC version? I noticed earlier that it must have a memory leak or something: after a couple of hours of playing, things slow down. So I restarted the game after every couple of hours. But now, after being to the Alienage, this happens after every couple of minutes and it slows down so much that it becomes unplayable. The alienage started it, but after that it happens everywhere.

Well, the combat and other stuff is fun if you like other BioWare games. The writing is not all bad, although rather generic and full of stereotypes. There is at least one really interesting character.

The Elven forest is a bit better than the Dwarwen mines, but I still dislike that it's a closed off area where you can't go to your camp or eslewhere without walking through several maps.

Well, someone on a shacknews thread that Toblix linked to in twitter said that "new Idle Thumbs episode tomorrow". I think that was yesterday or the day before.

So when's the next episode due? I thought it was today.

The reviews have been good, but I will wait for the PC version, I think.

I just killed F. That felt both unclimatic and also had a slight taste of game over. I fear that for me, the most interesting parts of the game are over now.

So I did go back and finish the Dwarven quests. The last battles actually did make me use most of the potions I bought, so it was a good investment. I hope I won't have to go back to that stupid place again. Now perhaps I'll do some random side quests and then go looking for the elves.

Same here. I've spent too much money on games lately. Also, I'll wait for reviews and/or the "Certified for our listenersreaders" Bargo Busters seal of approval. I have periods where I'll buy a lot of games when they come out and then periods where I don't play (or buy) anything for a couple of months.

Wait, but according to this (article about EA), Pandemic is That was quite a surprising statement, I had to look them up to see what games they've made.