Random Gaming Thoughts

[Ack]

No golf collection is complete without Ribbit King.

But that is a Frolf game.

Never deny those the game of Frolf -The Golf Gods

There were a bunch of satirical golf games out in the heyday of the PS2 and GameCube, but there was one that I remember actually enjoying. I believe the characters were crude stereotypes, but the golf itself was a lot of fun and fairly challenging. May have been on the Crube.

Outlaw Golf?

[alienjesus]

No golf collection is complete without Ribbit King.

But that is a Frolf game.

Never deny those the game of Frolf -The Golf Gods

There were a bunch of satirical golf games out in the heyday of the PS2 and GameCube, but there was one that I remember actually enjoying. I believe the characters were crude stereotypes, but the golf itself was a lot of fun and fairly challenging. May have been on the Crube.

Outlaw golf?

Edit: Literally posted at the same time as Ack.

[Luke]

Outlaw Golf?

*checks youtube for gameplay*

Could be, but I remember the characters being a bit more cartoonish looking. Gameplay looks similar, but it is a golf game after all.

I know you had something called a super shot/powershot, you could heckle your opponent, and that's about it.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Hots Shots Golf 3 was one of my go-to games in college. It is awesome, and my roommates and I probably put as many (if not more) hours into that game than we did GTAIII.

[Luke]

Yup. That's it, HOT SHOTS golf.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

You do understand I was being facetious, do you?

Yes, but many wise words are spoken in jest.

Here, you state that easy games cannot be great, thus setting your criteria for greatness in video games as the opposite, meaning hard...

One criterion, not all the criteria.

You based your argument on a subjective variable...

By basing your initial argument on difficulty being the most crucial decider of quality, you completely knock out any sort of aesthetic or immersive quality.

Let me clear this up, once and for all.

The difficulty of a single-player game is quantifiable. In a multiplayer game, the skill ceiling is quantifiable. It's present in the code from the beginning. A player's skill is also quantifiable. The only subjective part is our experience, but that is the whole point of videogames. It follows that the visuals and music and whatnot can also be very important. Aren't those things a matter of preference too?

We're talking about art, so of course my judgement is subjective. I'm not going to stop having standards because mine differ from others'.

Right now, you're evaluating my standards based on your standards of what a standard should be. Completely subjective, but it doesn't automatically make you wrong. I did the same thing to several other members in that Chrono Trigger thread.

Difficulty does not mean quality.

Not by itself. Did you think I thought it did?

You imply with your response that hard games cannot be mindless. This is incorrect...Some excellent video games are based around coordination and response time, memorization, or motion tracking.

These are also kinds of thinking.

You should also consider that in some games, if you are thinking, you are not yet good enough at the game. Fighting games are a prime example where true dedication and overcoming the game means the player has been able to let go of their mind and is now able to react to all situations presented. It is this state of 'no mind' where the game has become engrained to the point it is natural and spontaneous.

That zen-like state is pretty common among gamers, but it's not a lack of thinking. It's thinking without words to slow things down. The high-level fighter or shmup player processes and plans far more efficiently than the noob who can't beat Storm Eagle in Mega Man X, even if the noob has no chance of winning and the master is fighting an equal. I won a 32-person Soulcalbur II tournament recently and I'd just laugh my ass off if the runner-up told me I wasn't using my brain because I was good at the game.

Video games can be used to foster teamwork, educate, rehabilitate, entertain, and explore...To say such a generalization is to limit thousands of creative entities and possibilities and to shut yourself off from an incredible array of works as varied as the human mind.

My position here is the same as it is with visual novels and Cooking Mama. A software might count as a videogame, but really have a different purpose. It's not fair to judge Tsukihime or Wii Fit as games because, if you're trying to enjoy them as a game player, you're missing the point. If you just want to burn six calories or fawn over anime maids they're pretty good.



So, I'm not shutting myself off from useful tools or other kinds of digital art. I'm just taking them as they are.

Focus on this and try to explain what it is about these things you enjoy and want future game players and designers to notice. Just try to keep an open mind about what a game can be and what about them can be of quality.

That's what I'm doing. I know you read some of that Chrono Trigger thread, and that probably added to your opinion of me as the traditional player stuck in the past. Sure, I called it a bad game for being too easy and simplistic, but I praised the sprite work, didn't I?

You'll get infinitely more enjoyment out of your hobby. Because right now, you have what appears to be such a narrow view. Stop, you're missing out! Stop, you're missing out! Lose yourself for a few hours in Endless Ocean, wander through the world of Zork, and lay waste to the plucky heroes in Dungeon Keeper. Run screaming down the streets of Silent Hill, or crash an airplane into a squad in Battlefield 4. Knock someone into the wall in F-Zero or fire wildly at Aerosmith in Revolution X.

I'm not having enough fun? How could I have gone so wrong!?

[Cronozilla]

Any one recognises the tune that kicks in at 1:30 ?

It's just the Gusty Garden Galaxy theme from the first game.

[Ack]

Here, you state that easy games cannot be great, thus setting your criteria for greatness in video games as the opposite, meaning hard...

One criterion, not all the criteria.

But it is the criteria that all others appear to be subordinate to in your reasoning.

You based your argument on a subjective variable...

By basing your initial argument on difficulty being the most crucial decider of quality, you completely knock out any sort of aesthetic or immersive quality.

Let me clear this up, once and for all.

The difficulty of a single-player game is quantifiable. In a multiplayer game, the skill ceiling is quantifiable. It's present in the code from the beginning. A player's skill is also quantifiable. The only subjective part is our experience, but that is the whole point of videogames. It follows that the visuals and music and whatnot can also be very important. Aren't those things a matter of preference too?

We're talking about art, so of course my judgement is subjective. I'm not going to stop having standards because mine differ from others'.

Right now, you're evaluating my standards based on your standards of what a standard should be. Completely subjective, but it doesn't automatically make you wrong. I did the same thing to several other members in that Chrono Trigger thread.

I agree with most of this, but I do not perceive gaming skill as quantifiable beyond relative ability in relation to others. If there is a quantifiable level of skill in a game, it is in relation to a perfect game, beating it as swiftly as is possible within the confines of the game with a perfect run. But this is a rare event and is not known.

But I feel it should be noted you gave your judgement as an absolute, at least in my perception.

Difficulty does not mean quality.

Not by itself. Did you think I thought it did?

Considering it was the only factor you presented, and based on your statements in the CT thread regarding what makes a quality RPG, yes, I felt you implied this. I am happy you don't think so though.

You imply with your response that hard games cannot be mindless. This is incorrect...Some excellent video games are based around coordination and response time, memorization, or motion tracking.

These are also kinds of thinking.

Of course. And there are natural and normal reactions to stimuli. Do you mean to consider this within your definition of thinking?

You should also consider that in some games, if you are thinking, you are not yet good enough at the game. Fighting games are a prime example where true dedication and overcoming the game means the player has been able to let go of their mind and is now able to react to all situations presented. It is this state of 'no mind' where the game has become engrained to the point it is natural and spontaneous.

That zen-like state is pretty common among gamers, but it's not a lack of thinking. It's thinking without words to slow things down. The high-level fighter or shmup player processes and plans far more efficiently than the noob who can't beat Storm Eagle in Mega Man X, even if the noob has no chance of winning and the master is fighting an equal. I won a 32-person Soulcalbur II tournament recently and I'd just laugh my ass off if the runner-up told me I wasn't using my brain because I was good at the game.

At a high level, you weren't. Were you thinking "Oh, I need to use this move, and I need to follow with this move, oh, I should block right now"? No, because doing so would have hindered your gameplay. If anything, you let your mind go blank and your eyes unfocus slightly, and you reacted. I do not think of this as thinking, or specifically, not thinking at the level of concentrated thought.

Video games can be used to foster teamwork, educate, rehabilitate, entertain, and explore...To say such a generalization is to limit thousands of creative entities and possibilities and to shut yourself off from an incredible array of works as varied as the human mind.

My position here is the same as it is with visual novels and Cooking Mama. A software might count as a videogame, but really have a different purpose. It's not fair to judge Tsukihime or Wii Fit as games because, if you're trying to enjoy them as a game player, you're missing the point. If you just want to burn six calories or fawn over anime maids they're pretty good.



So, I'm not shutting myself off from useful tools or other kinds of digital art. I'm just taking them as they are.

But I can treat both Tsukihime and Wii Fit as games, one of which follows a specific path of progression while the other gets played for a score. Do you consider Tetris as only a stimulator for memory or Battlezone as a simulation to teach you to drive a tank?

Focus on this and try to explain what it is about these things you enjoy and want future game players and designers to notice. Just try to keep an open mind about what a game can be and what about them can be of quality.

That's what I'm doing. I know you read some of that Chrono Trigger thread, and that probably added to your opinion of me as the traditional player stuck in the past. Sure, I called it a bad game for being too easy and simplistic, but I praised the sprite work, didn't I?

Actually, I don't consider you a "traditional player stuck in the past" at all. I view you as heavily interested in mechanics to the point that the rest of the package seems unimportant or trivial, and you seem to see no point in playing a game(or, at the very least, enjoying it) if the mechanics do not meet your standards of difficulty and complexity. Otherwise, you appear to cast it aside and deride it for being a "visual novel," which is a claim you made about Chrono Trigger.

And if you recall, I agree with you that it is a relatively easy game, though I did point out a few factors you hadn't seemed to consider. You did, and the conversation moved on, but this also provided the opportunity for you to continue to expound your ideas.

You'll get infinitely more enjoyment out of your hobby. Because right now, you have what appears to be such a narrow view. Stop, you're missing out! Stop, you're missing out! Lose yourself for a few hours in Endless Ocean, wander through the world of Zork, and lay waste to the plucky heroes in Dungeon Keeper. Run screaming down the streets of Silent Hill, or crash an airplane into a squad in Battlefield 4. Knock someone into the wall in F-Zero or fire wildly at Aerosmith in Revolution X.

I'm not having enough fun? How could I have gone so wrong!?

All sarcasm aside, I consider your theories fascinating and have done my best to make you debate and define them. I apologize if this has appeared to be antagonistic, but your ideas have at times appeared cryptic and unconventional to members of the community.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

I apologize if this has appeared to be antagonistic, but your ideas have at times appeared cryptic and unconventional to members of the community.

Don't worry about that. I've never interpreted your comments as antagonistic, and even if I did, I wouldn't care. I'm here for discussion after all.

But it is the criteria that all others appear to be subordinate to in your reasoning...I view you as heavily interested in mechanics to the point that the rest of the package seems unimportant or trivial, and you seem to see no point in playing a game(or, at the very least, enjoying it) if the mechanics do not meet your standards of difficulty and complexity.

Yes. We still have good difficulty and bad difficulty:

Sid Meier's definition of a good game - or maybe just a game; I forget - is "a series of interesting choices." At the least we can say it's a useful definition. We can get somewhere with it. If a game's choices are too easy to be interesting, the game's just bad.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying a bad game with a cool feature. Senran Kagura: Skirting Shadows comes to mind.

My thinking here is pretty simple. For this artwork to achieve its goal, does it even need to be a game? For games I consider to be good, the answer is always yes. If a game's choices are immaterial, it would have been better off without them - i.e. by not even being a game.

Having written that...the rest of this post might be pointless.

If there is a quantifiable level of skill in a game, it is in relation to a perfect game.

In that game, sure. Measuring a game's difficulty against some other game's would be a much more involved process, but there's not really any need to do it.

there are natural and normal reactions to stimuli. Do you mean to consider this within your definition of thinking?

I'm not really sure what you're asking, but I'll try and answer anyway. Every reaction to every stimuli is natural. The ones that involve your brain are likely to qualify as "thinking," and I'm confident that any mental skill you'd use for a videogame counts. Physical skills, like inputting commands, are of course included.

At a high level, you weren't.

Linguistic thought is slow and imprecise by nature. It's natural those who have internalized the concept a word represents must do away with the word to excel. It's a level above, not below. That doesn't even make sense on its face - the better a competitor is, the less complex his thoughts become?

By the way, in that last match, my opponent was a strong but defensive Mitsurigi player. He was an expert at counterattacks, and totally okay with doing nothing the whole match, taking draws until the fifth round. This problem was exacerbated by the fact SCII is a 3D game and lacks projectiles. The whole time, It was on me to attack - not to react, but initiate. Interesting fight to say the least. It could only be called a battle of wits.

As for the unfocused eyes, this makes sense no matter how skilled you are. Focusing on one area of the screen is often suicide.

But I can treat both Tsukihime and Wii Fit as games, one of which follows a specific path of progression while the other gets played for a score. Do you consider Tetris as only a stimulator for memory or Battlezone as a simulation to teach you to drive a tank?

That's backwards. Tetris is useful for memory improvement, but it was intended to be a fun game. Tsukihime has a specific path of progression, as any story does, but it could be made into a DVD video without losing anything important.

As for Battlezone...I hope no one thinks it will help them drive a tank. There's a jump button.

[RCBH928]

Any one recognises the tune that kicks in at 1:30 ?

It's just the Gusty Garden Galaxy theme from the first game.

I played the first game, and I realised I noticed the tune back then. I am 100% I heard it on a tv show or movie.