Journey - PSN

[moozooh]

I see no problem replaying Super Mario World or SMB3 nowadays. They're awesome games and great fun.

Out of curiosity, how much time would you spend playing them now, and what goals would you aim for when playing them? Are these games challenging to you in any way nowadays?

[Skykid]

Too much complexity makes the game too complicated to play and turn most people away. Just look at Dwarf Fortress or DOTA.

And the relative popularity of the strategy genre in general.

I see no problem replaying Super Mario World or SMB3 nowadays. They're awesome games and great fun.

Out of curiosity, how much time would you spend playing them now, and what goals would you aim for when playing them? Are these games challenging to you in any way nowadays?

I was playing Rockman last night. Perfect blend of challenge and simplicity, and way too tough for today's casual gaming scene.

I'd argue the likes of Metroid, Zelda and Mario bros are as challenging as they need to be: it's more the harmony of game design that warrants scrutiny. In answer to the question, I'd happily play through any classic Miyamoto production today because I can't find much that's managed to supersede its quality.

The fact Miyamoto's work is even in question makes me wonder if folk haven't taken leave of their senses; but then perhaps he didn't bestow the same magic on your childhood as he did on mine. I have a feeling Siren may be young enough that he missed that boat.

[njiska]

The fact Miyamoto's work is even in question makes me wonder if folk haven't taken leave of their senses; but then perhaps he didn't bestow the same magic on your childhood as he did on mine. I have a feeling Siren may be young enough that he missed that boat.

Well are we looking at his work in the 8-bit era/16-bit era, or his entire body of work? Because some of his recent releases *cough*Wii Music*cough* have been relatively poor, unimpressive and showing the signs of a man that may be past his prime.

[Skykid]

The fact Miyamoto's work is even in question makes me wonder if folk haven't taken leave of their senses; but then perhaps he didn't bestow the same magic on your childhood as he did on mine. I have a feeling Siren may be young enough that he missed that boat.

Well are we looking at his work in the 8-bit era/16-bit era, or his entire body of work? Because some of his recent releases *cough*Wii Music*cough* have been relatively poor, unimpressive and showing the signs of a man that may be past his prime.

I figure we're talking about what he did for gaming during Nintendo's genesis as a console power. The company has different direction today and no choice but to experiment with ideas that appeal to casual audiences (and suck.)

Mario Galaxy is still showing competitors how it's done though.

[njiska]

The fact Miyamoto's work is even in question makes me wonder if folk haven't taken leave of their senses; but then perhaps he didn't bestow the same magic on your childhood as he did on mine. I have a feeling Siren may be young enough that he missed that boat.

Well are we looking at his work in the 8-bit era/16-bit era, or his entire body of work? Because some of his recent releases *cough*Wii Music*cough* have been relatively poor, unimpressive and showing the signs of a man that may be past his prime.

I figure we're talking about what he did for gaming during Nintendo's genesis as a console power. The company has different direction today and no choice but to experiment with ideas that appeal to casual audiences (and suck.)

Mario Galaxy is still showing competitors how it's done though.

My indifference to Galaxy and all 3D Mario games aside, I can agree that his work was important to the genesis of the company. Though I'm still kind of perplexed as to how we went from a 3 page too long Journey rantfest to bashing an icon.

[Hagane]

Dragon Blaze is art. Ketsui is art. Super Turbo is art.

This thing is just a bad game.

[Skykid]

My indifference to Galaxy and all 3D Mario games aside, I can agree that his work was important to the genesis of the company. Though I'm still kind of perplexed as to how we went from a 3 page too long Journey rantfest to bashing an icon.

You and me both, but...

This thing is just a bad game.

Some things we'll never figure out. :shrugs:

[moozooh]

I was playing Rockman last night. Perfect blend of challenge and simplicity, and way too tough for today's casual gaming scene.

Rockman isn't a Miyamoto game. In fact, I'd probably rate the series a lot higher than any Miyamoto games if Capcom wasn't so insistent on remaking it over and over and over and over under different titles.

Again, what entices you in SMB nowadays—survival challenge, speed, scoring? I don't need weasel mumbo jumbo about quality and magic, just the goals you put when you play it as an adult.

The fact Miyamoto's work is even in question makes me wonder if folk haven't taken leave of their senses; but then perhaps he didn't bestow the same magic on your childhood as he did on mine.

I just happened to have started with other games: TMNT series (TMNT 1 was my first!), Contra series, Excitebike, Bucky O'Hare, Battletoads & Double Dragon, said Tetris, Darkwing Duck, Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, Nekketsu series... By the time the initial excitement had gone, SMB and Zelda failed to impress and certainly didn't seem like the holy cow of 8-bit era gaming. The situation largely repeated itself on the SNES.

I find it ironic that you question the lack of senses in people who happen to have already back then preferred more interesting gameplay than holding right and sometimes jumping. I mean, I'm 26 and for the last ten years most of the games I have loved and spent dozens and hundreds of hours upon are complex, convoluted, or highly technical. If something isn't interesting to me now, I don't care if it was back then; nostalgia is highly overrated (and can fuck itself).

[njiska]

Again, what entices you in SMB nowadays—survival challenge, speed, scoring? I don't need weasel mumbo jumbo about quality and magic, just the goals you put when you play it as an adult.

Why does someone need to have any goals when they want to play a game, aside from just wanting to have fun? When I go back and play SMB or SMB3, it's because I just enjoy the experience. The levels are well designed, the controls are nice and the music is great. I'm not playing for score, or speed or even survival. It's just a nice fun way to pass the time. The same reasons I pop in Sonic 2 every now and then, even though I usually don't play past the 3rd Zone.

[Hagane]

Games need goals. Otherwise you would be pressing random buttons and random stuff would happen.

[Ruldra]

Again, what entices you in SMB nowadays—survival challenge, speed, scoring? I don't need weasel mumbo jumbo about quality and magic, just the goals you put when you play it as an adult.

Why does someone need to have any goals when they want to play a game, aside from just wanting to have fun? When I go back and play SMB or SMB3, it's because I just enjoy the experience. The levels are well designed, the controls are nice and the music is great. I'm not playing for score, or speed or even survival. It's just a nice fun way to pass the time. The same reasons I pop in Sonic 2 every now and then, even though I usually don't play past the 3rd Zone.

I was going to reply to moozooh but njiska summed it up perfectly. Apparently "having fun" is not an acceptable reason to play nowadays.

[Skykid]

I was playing Rockman last night. Perfect blend of challenge and simplicity, and way too tough for today's casual gaming scene.

Rockman isn't a Miyamoto game.

I know, it just happened to be a good example of a challenging, simple game.

Again, what entices you in SMB nowadays—survival challenge, speed, scoring? I don't need weasel mumbo jumbo about quality and magic, just the goals you put when you play it as an adult.

This is getting silly now. SMB attracts me not for survival, speed or scoring, and it doesn't need to. It's a platform adventure game with terrific stage layouts, and is enjoyable simply to get from A to B. I don't need anything else from it. I'm not sure why, like Journey, games need to have specific conditions to qualify as having intrinsic value.

I just happened to have started with other games: TMNT series (TMNT 1 was my first!), Contra series, Excitebike, Bucky O'Hare, Battletoads & Double Dragon, said Tetris, Darkwing Duck, Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, Nekketsu series...

Me too; and Gun.Smoke, Wrath of the Black Manta, Double Dragon II, Bionic Commando, Guerilla War, Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden, etc etc, and a bazillion arcade games I had the luxury of playing as I grew up.
Zelda and Mario were just mixed in with all the rest, and they were terrific. It's no-one's fault if you didn't have a connection with them, but you are the minority. That's a point worth noting.

I find it ironic that you question the lack of senses in people who happen to have already back then preferred more interesting gameplay than holding right and sometimes jumping.

I think we're done here.

[njiska]

Games need goals. Otherwise you would be pressing random buttons and random stuff would happen.

Like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD_%28video_game%29

And the question posed was not that games need goals, but that people playing games need goals and I challenge that. In the given example of Super Mario Mario Bros., the game clearly has a goal (finish the level), but I the player do not need a desire like survival or score to actually play it.

[Udderdude]

Here's a new goal for you in Journey - try to glitch yourself into the world geometry in as many places as possible!

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?t ... #msg709606

[Hagane]

Like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD_%28video_game%29

If it doesn't have a goal, it isn't a game. You can call it an "experience" or whatever, but not a game. And if a game relies more on an experience rather than its mechanics and how complex it is to reach its goals, then it is a bad or inferior game.

The key here is differentiating experiences from games. Something may be a good experience but not necessarily a good game (Citizen Kane is an awful game, for example). LSD could be a nice virtual representation of drug hallucinations, but it is a terrible game.

[Ruldra]

Dragon Blaze is art. Ketsui is art. Super Turbo is art.

According to Google Images, THIS is art.

[njiska]

Like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD_%28video_game%29

If it doesn't have a goal, it isn't a game. You can call it an "experience" or whatever, but not a game. And if a game relies more on an experience rather than its mechanics and how complex it is to reach its goals, then it is a bad or inferior game.

The key here is differentiating experiences from games. Something may be a good experience but not necessarily a good game (Citizen Kane is an awful game, for example). LSD could be a nice virtual representation of drug hallucinations, but it is a terrible game.

See, now you're trying to argue semantics. Which is a moot point because the word being used here is not the dictionary definition of a game, but the colloquial term used to refer to anything that is marketed and sold under the classification of video games. I am aware that many video games are not true games and I've been arguing for years that Interactive Entertainment is a far more accurate description, but that doesn't change the fact that games in this context include "experiences" and you cannot write off Journey as a bad game in any academic sense based solely on it's minimalist mechanics. You can have the opinion that it's a bad game based off whatever the hell you want, but you can't prove the point your trying to prove.

[Hagane]

You are just misusing the term game. You can say "I found Journey to be an enjoyable experience", which is fine and there's nothing I can argue against that. But I can say it is a bad game, simply because its well below the standards set by games that came before it, as its mechanics and the mastery needed for attaining its goals are laughable compared to the best efforts in the medium.

Yes, these are semantics. But if terms are misused then no proper arguing can be done. And I think there's no real argument or conflict here by the way, since we are talking about different things.

[Estebang]

LSD has goals, however unapparent they may be. You're trying to find all the cutscenes and FMVs, something that can't easily be accomplished by random wandering about, and requires some conscious trial and error. Simply sightseeing in the same few areas with different glitchy textures over and over again gets old really fast. (I find its lo-fi 3D aesthetics interesting, but I don't think it's a good game.)

I am aware that many video games are not true games and I've been arguing for years that Interactive Entertainment is a far more accurate description

Back in the day, the industry called those CD-ROMs. Some of them were pretty great, even though they weren't games, and had no pretensions towards being called such! Also, agreed-upon semantics are necessary for substantive argument to take place.

but that doesn't change the fact that games in this context include "experiences"

That context was invented solely to further the agendas of the artgame crowd. You can't say that Myst introduced the idea of "game as 'experience'," either, since it was a legitimate adventure game with puzzles. If you showed some of this shit like Fatale and The Path to the gaming press twenty years ago, after they got over their amazement of the graphics, they wouldn't know what the hell they were looking at. If you told them it was a game, they'd just laugh at you.

Didn't you read that famous George Orwell essay on language in high school?

Too much complexity makes the game too complicated to play and turn most people away. Just look at Dwarf Fortress or DOTA.

First of all, DOTA is considerably simplified from the game that spawned it, WCIII. Really, what's more complex: commanding an entire army, or controlling a single high-health unit? League of Legends is even more dumbed-down.

Secondly, you seem to be correlating popularity and accessibility with quality. If a very complex game turns most people away, does this automatically mean the game is inherently flawed, or is it just reflective of people's laziness and short attention spans? Is CoD better than Battle Garegga because it has more players? Alternate wording: Don't hate the game, hate the playa.

I was going to reply to moozooh but njiska summed it up perfectly. Apparently "having fun" is not an acceptable reason to play nowadays.

Apparently challenging oneself and pushing one's own limits of dexterity and logical deduction do not qualify as "fun," if that's what you're saying. Furthermore, who do you think is having more fun: Mom on her iPad with Angry Birds, or a DDP high scorer?

Icy's views on complexity are less draconian than some of you assume--he makes a clear distinction between...

good implementation of complexity (as, say, in UFO: Enemy Unknown, Alien vs. Predator, or Homura) and bad implementation of complexity (as in Colonization, Cyborg Justice, or Radiant Silvergun), but the difference is a matter of aesthetic judgement on a per game basis. It is, in other words, debatable.

And...

Complexity itself, at least as far as intelligent human beings are concerned, is by definition a good thing -- if for no other reason than because it's interesting.

Also, RE: Miyamoto - what the hell? SMB3 is a pretty damn complex platformer! This is the one time you'll see me agreeing with Skykid here, to a point.

[njiska]

Yes, these are semantics. But if terms are misused then no proper arguing can be done. And I think there's no real argument or conflict here by the way, since we are talking about different things.

Colloquialisms are not incorrect, nor are the considered to be misused terms. Calling Journey a game is not wrong, because it's a common, widely understood, informal use of the term. It's a matter of conversational language vs. formal language. This is basic linguistics. That said, I think it's become pretty clear that this point that a lot of this argument has been caused by confusion (not incorrectness) over the definition and I hope you are right that no real argument exists.

As a game, by the dictionary definition of a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance, Journey is rather simplistic and lackluster. Taken solely on mechanics and ignoring every other aspect including graphics, sound and story because those are elements of art, it does not present an interesting experience. Though by this definition a lot of interesting games lose their charm.

As a game, short for video game which is colloquially defined as interactive media, Journey is incredible. It still has simple mechanics, but this definition which allows art design, sound design and emotional resonance to be taken into account, and they make it a significantly more robust experience.

Apparently challenging oneself and pushing one's own limits of dexterity and logical deduction do not qualify as "fun," if that's what you're saying. Furthermore, who do you think is having more fun: Mom on her iPad with Angry Birds, or a DDP high scorer?

The Mom by far. She is playing. The DDP high scorer is working. Though honestly your entire comment is completely unfounded as no one is saying that challenging oneself isn't fun. You however are saying that it is a requirement of fun and that is where we disagree. A person can derive fun from whatever brings them pleasure.

Back in the day, the industry called those CD-ROMs. Some of them were pretty great, even though they weren't games, and had no pretensions towards being called such! Also, agreed-upon semantics are necessary for substantive argument to take place.

No, the industry never called any games CD-ROMs. That is just ludicrous. I assume you're trying to refer to FMV games like Dragon's Quest (LD Game btw) and those most certainly are games. Many require good reflexes and responsive timing.

That context was invented solely to further the agendas of the artgame crowd. You can't say that Myst introduced the idea of "game as 'experience'," either, since it was a legitimate adventure game with puzzles. If you showed some of this shit like Fatale and The Path to the gaming press twenty years ago, after they got over their amazement of the graphics, they wouldn't know what the hell they were looking at. If you told them it was a game, they'd just laugh at you.

Didn't you read that famous George Orwell essay on language in high school?

Are you seriously trying to bring Politics and the English Language into this? This is not a case of Newspeak. This is a case of evolving media. At least Hagane is having a proper debate and I understand his points for the most part, but you just seem to be unable to accept that other views can exist and seem threatened by them.

[Hagane]

I should correct myself then - I consider products such as Journey, Flower, LSD bad games, going by a dictionary definition of "game". Nothing wrong with enjoying them by what they are, but I believe calling them good games is false and misleading and I sincerely think stating such a thing is an offense to high quality games.

I also consider that a game that depends mostly on experience (things such as plot, characters, visuals, music, etc.) is an inferior game, as its worth should mostly rely on how complex and difficult to master its mechanics and goals are.

Finally I also think they are worthless as "art", but that's another can of worms and I'll just end the argument there.

[Skykid]

And...

Complexity itself, at least as far as intelligent human beings are concerned, is by definition a good thing -- if for no other reason than because it's interesting.

Brb just going to get my gun.

[njiska]

I should correct myself then - I consider products such as Journey, Flower, LSD bad games, going by a dictionary definition of "game". Nothing wrong with enjoying them by what they are, but I believe calling them good games is false and misleading and I sincerely think stating such a thing is an offense to high quality games.

I also consider that a game that depends mostly on experience (things such as plot, characters, visuals, music, etc.) is an inferior game, as its worth should mostly rely on how complex and difficult to master its mechanics and goals are.

Finally I also think they are worthless as "art", but that's another can of worms and I'll just end the argument there.

I think by that definition your point is completely justifiable and fair. I will also agree with you that "game" is a bad description for anything that depends on elements outside of raw mechanics and as I stated earlier I would like to see a different descriptor used. That said, the english language is the English language and the common word for them is still games. It's a holdover from the origins of the form that is now woefully out of date, but it is still the standard.

I would like to ask you a question though since colloquialism's came up. I do realize i'm making assumptions, but since you're based out of Argentina am I correct in assuming that English is not your native tongue? If so, what is the word in your language for video games and does it literally translate with a different meaning other than video and games? Just curious now.

[Hagane]

Video games are just called "video juegos", which is the same thing word by word.

[moozooh]

SMB3 is a pretty damn complex platformer!

I don't think we have the same definition of complexity in platformers. For me it's a combination of route branching (both overworld and in-stage), traversal complexity (how much safe ground there is, how simple it is to overcome obstacles), survival challenge (how often you meet dangerous things), hidden items/paths, and player characters' capabilities in terms of dealing with things.

SMB3 was, without a shred of doubt, an order of magnitude more complex than SMB, but most of its complexity was superfluous in the sense that it wasn't at all required to easily and conveniently beat the game, which puts it just lightly above average among NES platformers. Most of the time it's still "hold right for justice". Stuff like tanuki suit actually trivialized it.

Examples of actually complex platformers? Sure, why not.

Sonic the Hedgehog series (most of them): large complex stages, fast pace requiring good control of the character, secret paths, multiple moves player character is capable of (aside from running and jumping).

Metroid series (most of them): large contiguous world, lots of hidden paths and items, complex platforming puzzles, environments that can be traversed in a multitude of ways, lots of documented and undocumented traversal capabilities.

Umihara Kawase series: advanced wireframe physics, branching routes, lots of insta-death traps, hidden exits.

Yoshi's Island: large complex stages, hidden items, in-stage branching, using projectiles to interact with stage elements and pick up items, some versatility in movement.

Some of the later Castlevania games: large contiguous world, hidden paths and items, environments that can be traversed in a multitude of ways, lots of various traversal capabilities.

La-Mulana: large contiguous world, hidden paths and items, puzzles, numerous traversal capabilities, high survival difficulty.

Kid Chameleon: heavily branching routes, complex stages, hidden paths, numerous traversal capabilities.

N series: heavily technical platforming puzzles, high survival challenge, makes use of collision physics, most stages have open routes.

Well, you get the idea. SMB3 isn't even close to complex when you compare it to things that are complex. I haven't even delved into things like Elasto Mania.

[Hagane]

To me Metroid / Metroidvania is the complete opposite of complexity in platforming. Basically because in pretty much every one of them missing a jump is a non-issue. I agree with Umihara games being truly complex platformers though.

[moozooh]

To me Metroid / Metroidvania is the complete opposite of complexity in platforming. Basically because in pretty much every one of them missing a jump is a non-issue.

Missing jump being a fatal mistake is difficulty, not complexity. For instance, DoDonPachi's scoring system is simple (opposite of complex), but its execution is difficult. Imperishable Night's scoring is complex but easy to execute.

In Metroid games there are numerous difficult jumps, but the difficulty becomes more prominent in alternative routes when you're tackling some environments underpowered and/or underprotected. Umihara is both complex and difficult throughout.

[Hagane]

Just as you say, difficulty and complexity aren't mutually exclusive. Umihara Kawase games are great because the platforming is difficult, and the difficulty forces you to use all the tricks available, which enhances complexity.

In Metroidvanias the general lack of difficulty makes any apparent complexity moot since you aren't forced to fully utilize the many tools at your disposal. Which ends up actually making them simple games, especially when it comes to platforming since there are virtually no risks associated with missing a jump.

It would be like playing a shooter where bullets don't kill you. The complexity of having to develop strategies to avoid them would be gone.

[Skykid]

I never want to hear the word 'complex' ever again.

This is such a non-argument it sounds like the word is being misused and misunderstood. It's really grating.

[Ruldra]

First of all, DOTA is considerably simplified from the game that spawned it, WCIII. Really, what's more complex: commanding an entire army, or controlling a single high-health unit?

I'd say DOTA is as complex as WC3. While you only control a single unit, you still need to know the entire game inside out to do well - knowing what each hero can do and how to counter every tactic from the enemy - as well as coordinate your game with other human players. That probably requires as much effort as WC3.

Secondly, you seem to be correlating popularity and accessibility with quality.

A quality game will be more popular, yes. But quality doesn't necessarily mean complex.

If a very complex game turns most people away, does this automatically mean the game is inherently flawed, or is it just reflective of people's laziness and short attention spans?

It's the game's fault for turning people away, for being too convoluted.

You need a balance between accessibility and complexity. Make it too accessible, people will think the game is too dumbed-down. Make it too complicated, people won't bother playing it. Complexity is good up to a certain point.

Remember, people play games to relax and enjoy themselves. If even learning the game seems like too much work, why bother? Would you call players lazy for not wanting to read Falcon 4.0's manual?

Speaking of which, that's the entire reason the flight sim genre died. For being too complex for their own good.

Is CoD better than Battle Garegga because it has more players?

CoD has more players because it's more accessible. Garegga only became popular here after Icarus and the others dissected the game mechanics. Before that, it was completely forgotten.

Which game is better, that depends on personal taste.

Alternate wording: Don't hate the game, hate the playa.

Hate the dev for not making a game that catches the interest of people.

Apparently challenging oneself and pushing one's own limits of dexterity and logical deduction do not qualify as "fun," if that's what you're saying.

I never said that. Challenging yourself is fun, as well as just enjoying your trip in Journey.

Furthermore, who do you think is having more fun: Mom on her iPad with Angry Birds, or a DDP high scorer?

If both are enjoying themselves, it doesn't matter.