Video Game News and Miscellany

[SpecialKO]

Wait, I just re-read the article and noticed that the graphics card in those things is going to be equivalent to an 860M.

On the lower-end system, that's not bad, but it's not great. That's basically the same as an XB1, much less powerful than a PS4, and the general rule that (for gaming) consoles perform better than PCs of equivalent paper spec still applies. When you consider that the lower-end one will cost more than a console...

For the higher-end ones, I'm assuming that they're have much more capable video cards, otherwise, what's the point if you can't upgrade the cards?

 

[GasBandit]

I've always thought the "steam machine" was a bad idea.

 

[SpecialKO]

I'm not sure who they think this ultimate implementation of the idea is for.

Hardcore PC gamers know immediately that they can do better, both in bang-for-buck and pure performance terms, in building their own rigs or buying from a specialist vendor at the right time of year. If they already own a new-ish rig, even the lowest-end Steam Machine seems like a very pricey way to do streaming (plus a NUC is smaller).

Console guys who prefer living room play but haven't made the jump to the current-gen yet are going to be shopping on price, and they're going to be hard-pressed to leave the console ecosystems they're familiar with for an non-upgradable experience that may only be marginally better and costs a lot more up front (the higher-end steam machines) or is at best (and probably won't be) on par with current-gen and still costs more (the lower-end steam machines) and won't play most of the games they're probably waiting for.

Console guys who already own an XB1/PS4 have no reason to buy one because they're already playing experiences of comparable quality. If they're interested in going PC, they'll probably be more interested in going all-out with a vendor rig to blow their console out of the water or they'll figure out how to build one.

Road Warrior gamer-types want laptops.

Casual gamers interested in stepping up their game (so to speak) will probably want the cheaper option...by buying a refurb last-gen console for nothing.

 

[CynicismKills]

I mean, most modern TVs (and PCs now) can plus right into each other, and I had thought part of the point of Steam's Big Picture Mode was allowing the use of a controller and such so you could couch surf to play games.

I just don't see the point in a weirdly restricted PC-Lite system that costs as much, if not more, than a better-built PC.

 

[GasBandit]

Horrible people who make horrible games are upset about Steam's new refund policy.

 

[CynicismKills]

To be fair, at least, Visual Novels are similar to the "games" these people make. Granted, the art's likely leagues better in the VNs and they're generally long enough to dump about 5-6 hours into if you read non-stop.

I dunno, I mean, if you want to get people to "experience" whatever story you're peddling, make it longer than a 5-minute demo, I guess. Put more work into it and make people want to keep it, even if it's short, instead of bitching.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

The developer they quote boggles me because so far, all of their listed games are completely free. So...what are they losing out on, exactly?

Also, I really don't like that the article's author called Gone Home a not-game. Or that their only examples of game length are huge, sprawling sandbox games, RPGs, and rogue-like which has limitless replayability.

 

[GasBandit]

The developer they quote boggles me because so far, all of their listed games are completely free. So...what are they losing out on, exactly?

Also, I really don't like that the article's author called Gone Home a not-game. Or that their only examples of game length are huge, sprawling sandbox games, RPGs, and rogue-like which has limitless replayability.

Gone Home is a very controversial title. There are a lot of people who despise it and/or say it's not actually a game, and a lot of people who adore it and/or insist that it is.

 

[AshburnerX]

I really wish folks could just leave Gone Home alone. No, it's not a game... by definition it cannot be because there is no win/lose state. That doesn't mean it's not an interesting idea done well (and it IS done well, as pretentious as it is) or that it isn't deserving of praise for what it actually is (an interactive piece of fiction). I mean really... I'd be singing praises of it alongside Dear Esther if they just dropped the game angle. Maybe they need to start calling it Exploratory Fiction or something.

Regardless, it's a dead horse. We need to let it go.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Gone Home is a very controversial title. There are a lot of people who despise it and/or say it's not actually a game, and a lot of people who adore it and/or insist that it is.

I'm sort of in between. I enjoyed it and think it deserves to be called a game. On the other hand, I think the people that have praised it have gone overboard. It's by absolutely no means a 10/10 perfect game. If I were to score it, I'd go somewhere around the 6/10 mark. But to flat out say it's not a game is ridiculous.[DOUBLEPOST=1433525879,1433525815][/DOUBLEPOST]

I really wish folks could just leave Gone Home alone. No, it's not a game... by definition it cannot be because there is no win/lose state. That doesn't mean it's not an interesting idea done well (and it IS done well, as pretentious as it is) or that it isn't deserving of praise for what it actually is (an interactive piece of fiction). I mean really... I'd be singing praises of it alongside Dear Esther if they just dropped the game angle. Maybe they need to start calling it Exploratory Fiction or something.

Regardless, it's a dead horse. We need to let it go.

LucasArts adventure games don't have a fail state, either, but they're considered games. They're the same as Gone Home as far as needing to complete certain tasks in order to push forward. In fact, there are plenty of great games without a fail state: Journey, Harvest Moon, to name two others.

 

[AshburnerX]

To be fair, at least, Visual Novels are similar to the "games" these people make. Granted, the art's likely leagues better in the VNs and they're generally long enough to dump about 5-6 hours into if you read non-stop.

Visual Novels have win/lose states. If I go for the harem ending in School Days, one of the girls goes nuts, kills me, then kills the other girl. If I don't stop the meltdown in Analogue: A Hate Story, both AIs and I go up in an atomic fireball. The only way I can lose Gone Home is to not play it. That's why a visual novel is a game and Gone Home is not.[DOUBLEPOST=1433526233,1433526068][/DOUBLEPOST]

LucasArts adventure games don't have a fail state, either, but they're considered games. They're the same as Gone Home as far as needing to complete certain tasks in order to push forward. In fact, there are plenty of great games without a fail state: Journey, Harvest Moon, to name two others.

Last time I checked, it was possible to lose in Manic Mansion by getting all my kids killed or taking too long to free Sandy. Dr. Jones can get die to Nazis in Fate of Atlantis. It's actually an odd man out in which you can't die.

You can lose in Harvest Moon by not raising enough money to save the farm or completing some other objective like in Save the Homeland.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Visual Novels have win/lose states. If I go for the harem ending in School Days, one of the girls goes nuts, kills me, then kills the other girl. If I don't stop the meltdown in Analogue: A Hate Story, both AIs and I go up in an atomic fireball. The only way I can lose Gone Home is to not play it. That's why a visual novel is a game and Gone Home is not.[DOUBLEPOST=1433526233,1433526068][/DOUBLEPOST]

Last time I checked, it was possible to lose in Manic Mansion by getting all my kids killed or taking too long to free Sandy. Dr. Jones can get die to Nazis in Fate of Atlantis. It's actually an odd man out in which you can't die.

You can lose in Harvest Moon by not raising enough money to save the farm or completing some other objective like in Save the Homeland.

That was early LucasArts, before they changed their policy. How about the Monkey Island games (minus 1, where you need to spend 10 real time minutes to drown), Sam & Max, Day of the Tentacle, etc?[DOUBLEPOST=1433526349][/DOUBLEPOST]

Visual Novels have win/lose states. If I go for the harem ending in School Days, one of the girls goes nuts, kills me, then kills the other girl. If I don't stop the meltdown in Analogue: A Hate Story, both AIs and I go up in an atomic fireball. The only way I can lose Gone Home is to not play it. That's why a visual novel is a game and Gone Home is not.[DOUBLEPOST=1433526233,1433526068][/DOUBLEPOST]

Last time I checked, it was possible to lose in Manic Mansion by getting all my kids killed or taking too long to free Sandy. Dr. Jones can get die to Nazis in Fate of Atlantis. It's actually an odd man out in which you can't die.

You can lose in Harvest Moon by not raising enough money to save the farm or completing some other objective like in Save the Homeland.

Also, this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9765-Its-Not-a-Video-Game[DOUBLEPOST=1433526416][/DOUBLEPOST]

Visual Novels have win/lose states. If I go for the harem ending in School Days, one of the girls goes nuts, kills me, then kills the other girl. If I don't stop the meltdown in Analogue: A Hate Story, both AIs and I go up in an atomic fireball. The only way I can lose Gone Home is to not play it. That's why a visual novel is a game and Gone Home is not.[DOUBLEPOST=1433526233,1433526068][/DOUBLEPOST]

Last time I checked, it was possible to lose in Manic Mansion by getting all my kids killed or taking too long to free Sandy. Dr. Jones can get die to Nazis in Fate of Atlantis. It's actually an odd man out in which you can't die.

You can lose in Harvest Moon by not raising enough money to save the farm or completing some other objective like in Save the Homeland.

And this.

 

[CynicismKills]

Visual Novels have win/lose states. If I go for the harem ending in School Days, one of the girls goes nuts, kills me, then kills the other girl. If I don't stop the meltdown in Analogue: A Hate Story, both AIs and I go up in an atomic fireball. The only way I can lose Gone Home is to not play it. That's why a visual novel is a game and Gone Home is not.[DOUBLEPOST=1433526233,1433526068][/DOUBLEPOST]

Last time I checked, it was possible to lose in Manic Mansion by getting all my kids killed or taking too long to free Sandy. Dr. Jones can get die to Nazis in Fate of Atlantis. It's actually an odd man out in which you can't die.

You can lose in Harvest Moon by not raising enough money to save the farm or completing some other objective like in Save the Homeland.

I uh, I wasn't talking about Gone Home at all. I was talking about the novel-like games mentioned early in the article. If you want to let the GH argument go, start with yourself.

 

[Ravenpoe]

To be fair, at least, Visual Novels are similar to the "games" these people make. Granted, the art's likely leagues better in the VNs and they're generally long enough to dump about 5-6 hours into if you read non-stop.

I dunno, I mean, if you want to get people to "experience" whatever story you're peddling, make it longer than a 5-minute demo, I guess. Put more work into it and make people want to keep it, even if it's short, instead of bitching.

I feel like "Your 'game' has to be longer than five minutes for anyone to review it" seems pretty fair.

 

[figmentPez]

LucasArts adventure games don't have a fail state, either, but they're considered games. They're the same as Gone Home as far as needing to complete certain tasks in order to push forward. In fact, there are plenty of great games without a fail state: Journey, Harvest Moon, to name two others.

I've said this before, but LucasArts games do have a fail state. If you can't figure out how to solve a puzzle, you can't progress. That is a fail state, even if the words "Game Over" don't come up on screen. I know little about Gone Home, so I don't know if it has fail states. Dear Esther doesn't (unless you count getting lost, if that's possible for some people, or game bugs where you can get trapped in the level geometry), so that makes it a lot harder to argue for it being a game.

This does bring up the question, do Choose Your Own Adventure books count as games? Looking at it this way, I guess they do. They have player choice, and they have fail states. Many adventure games aren't that different from what an exceedingly complex CYOA would be.

The "choices" in Dear Esther aren't even as significant as in a CYOA book. You choose where to walk, and that influences if you hear certain bits of dialogue, but it doesn't change the story. It has more in common with a ride at Disneyland than with with adventure games. That doesn't make it a bad thing, in fact I quite enjoyed it, but I'm not sure it's a game. Though, I do see the prejudice that comes with not calling it a game. It comes across as an insult, because the assumption is that an interactive computer experience is trying to be a game.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I've said this before, but LucasArts games do have a fail state. If you can't figure out how to solve a puzzle, you can't progress. That is a fail state, even if the words "Game Over" don't come up on screen. I know little about Gone Home, so I don't know if it has fail states. Dear Esther doesn't (unless you count getting lost, if that's possible for some people, or game bugs where you can get trapped in the level geometry), so that makes it a lot harder to argue for it being a game.

This does bring up the question, do Choose Your Own Adventure books count as games? Looking at it this way, I guess they do. They have player choice, and they have fail states. Many adventure games aren't that different from what an exceedingly complex CYOA would be.

The "choices" in Dear Esther aren't even as significant as in a CYOA book. You choose where to walk, and that influences if you hear certain bits of dialogue, but it doesn't change the story. It has more in common with a ride at Disneyland than with with adventure games. That doesn't make it a bad thing, in fact I quite enjoyed it, but I'm not sure it's a game. Though, I do see the prejudice that comes with not calling it a game. It comes across as an insult, because the assumption is that an interactive computer experience is trying to be a game.

I haven't played Dear Esther or The Vanishing of Ethan Carter to have an opinion on those. But I do know that if not progressing is considered a fail state, then Gone Home has one, too. You can't progress in the game unless you explore the house, interact with items, and unlock rooms. There's not much gameplay looking at it like that, but it's still an experience that requires interactivity in order to progress and complete the game. It won't finish on its own, just like most (or any?) games. To use Ash's example of just standing around as failing, you could say that of almost any game. You won't win or lose at Half-Life if you don't get off the train, either.

As I said, I'm not going to defend it as some kind of great, revolutionary second coming of gaming itself. It's not a great game. It's okay, at best. But Gone Home is still a game.

 

[AshburnerX]

That was early LucasArts, before they changed their policy. How about the Monkey Island games (minus 1, where you need to spend 10 real time minutes to drown), Sam & Max, Day of the Tentacle, etc?

It's still a convention in many other adventure game titles, especially European ones. Lucas Arts is not the be all, end all of the adventure game genre. It's not even the end all, be all of American adventure games when guys like Sierra are in picture and it's a rare Sierra game where you couldn't get yourself killed on just about every screen.

And this.

What Jim fails to mention/understand in this is the idea that these works could be something completely new and different from games altogether... a new and emerging form of art/medium all of it's own, with it's roots in the world of games but with qualities unique to it's own medium. By calling them games and judging them as games, we are condemning them to be poor examples of THAT medium instead of pioneering examples of this new form of art. Why shackle them to the old when it's clear they are something new?

Think of it this way: What if in the future it's possible to use virtual reality to "experience" a work by actually entering it in a sense... possibly taking on one of the characters and switching characters as I desired. I can't change what needs to be done or how the plot will play out, but I can explore and experience each scene in whatever manner the developers have foreseen to include. The story will always be the same but how I experience it is up to me and I can do it at my own pace (or as circumstances in the story allow). There are no important elements I can skip and my only involvement is in initiating each major scene, not in how it happens. I can only experience the work as the developers allow. My skill is not challenged, but I am being presented with a compelling story.

That sounds a lot more like Gone Home or Dear Esther than something like Skyrim or GTA, because I can actually LOSE the last two but the narrative styles of the first two dictate that I must always be moving forward to keep the narrative flowing. It's not a reward for clever thinking or quick fingers... it's just being given to me because the story is an end onto itself and not something to be given as a reward for good work. In fact, the mechanics present aren't even relevant to the story as being presented. This is why the latter are games but the former are something completely different. Something NEW.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

It's still a convention in many other adventure game titles, especially European ones. Lucas Arts is not the be all, end all of the adventure game genre. It's not even the end all, be all of American adventure games when guys like Sierra are in picture and it's a rare Sierra game where you couldn't get yourself killed on just about every screen.



What Jim fails to mention/understand in this is the idea that these works could be something completely new and different from games altogether... a new and emerging form of art/medium all of it's own, with it's roots in the world of games but with qualities unique to it's own medium. By calling them games and judging them as games, we are condemning them to be poor examples of THAT medium instead of pioneering examples of this new form of art. Why shackle them to the old when it's clear they are something new?

Think of it this way: What if in the future it's possible to use virtual reality to "experience" a work by actually entering it in a sense... possibly taking on one of the characters and switching characters as I desired. I can't change what needs to be done or how the plot will play out, but I can explore and experience each scene in whatever manner the developers have foreseen to include. The story will always be the same but how I experience it is up to me and I can do it at my own pace (or as circumstances in the story allow). There are no important elements I can skip and my only involvement is in initiating each major scene, not in how it happens. I can only experience the work as the developers allow. My skill is not challenged, but I am being presented with a compelling story.

That sounds a lot more like Gone Home or Dear Esther than something like Skyrim or GTA, because I can actually LOSE the last two but the narrative styles of the first two dictate that I must always be moving forward to keep the narrative flowing. It's not a reward for clever thinking or quick fingers... it's just being given to me because the story is an end onto itself and not something to be given as a reward for good work. In fact, the mechanics present aren't even relevant to the story as being presented. This is why the latter are games but the former are something completely different.

Again, I haven't played Dear Esther to judge it. But a game is something where you need to have agency and interact with it in order to progress, right? Press buttons to make stuff happen? Because you need to do that in Gone Home. Nothing happens, I believe, in Dear Esther or Ethan Carter unless you actually move around. You need to interact with it, unlike a movie where you have no agency in how things transpire. If you're talking about challenge, really, most games aren't very challenging compared to the old days when the difficulty was through the roof in order for people to get their money's worth or to plug more quarters into them.

I look at literature as the best comparison. There are dozens and dozens of sub-sections of literature: poetry, novels, short stories (and within short stories, micro-stories and others), comics, picture books, fiction, non-fiction, biographies, plays. The list goes on. And yet it's all considered literature in some form or another. I really don't understand why games need to be so limiting in their definition.

As far as other adventure games, you're absolutely right. My favourite adventure game developer these days is Wadjet Eye and none of their games has a fail state in terms of a game over screen or needing to reload your game.

 

[figmentPez]

I haven't played Dear Esther or The Vanishing of Ethan Carter to have an opinion on those. But I do know that if not progressing is considered a fail state, then Gone Home has one, too. You can't progress in the game unless you explore the house, interact with items, and unlock rooms. There's not much gameplay looking at it like that, but it's still an experience that requires interactivity in order to progress and complete the game. It won't finish on its own, just like most (or any?) games. To use Ash's example of just standing around as failing, you could say that of almost any game. You won't win or lose at Half-Life if you don't get off the train, either.

As I said, I'm not going to defend it as some kind of great, revolutionary second coming of gaming itself. It's not a great game. It's okay, at best. But Gone Home is still a game.

If exploring the house is all that it takes to finish Gone Home, I'd say that we need a new classification for what to call it. Because exploration isn't a puzzle unless it presents a significant challenge. Is walking around Disneyland a game? I guess to you it might be, but to the average person just going to a theme park doesn't count as a game.

As to why I consider failing to complete a puzzle in Grim Fandango different than failing to walk off the train in Half Life 2, it's the difference between refusing to do the obvious (and if getting through the opening sequence in HL2 isn't obvious to you, then you've got some sort of mental difficulties and should see a healthcare professional), and the inability to solve a puzzle. Consider a puzzle game like World of Goo. You can try levels as many times as you like. You can undo your last move(s) to an extent. You never reach a point where you have to start the whole game completely over. But you still have to figure out how to solve each level to advance. You can't fail in any way other than not being able to figure out how to solve the puzzle. Just the same as as in Grim Fandango, or the Curse of Monkey Island, or Sam & Max Save the World.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

If exploring the house is all that it takes to finish Gone Home, I'd say that we need a new classification for what to call it. Because exploration isn't a puzzle unless it presents a significant challenge. Is walking around Disneyland a game? I guess to you it might be, but to the average person just going to a theme park doesn't count as a game.

You're not just walking around, though. You're picking up items, looking for clues, following a map, etc. It's not just some walking simulator.

 

[AshburnerX]

Again, I haven't played Dear Esther to judge it. But a game is something where you need to have agency and interact with it in order to progress, right? Press buttons to make stuff happen? Because you need to do that in Gone Home. Nothing happens, I believe, in Dear Esther or Ethan Carter unless you actually move around. You need to interact with it, unlike a movie where you have no agency in how things transpire. If you're talking about challenge, really, most games aren't very challenging compared to the old days when the difficulty was through the roof in order for people to get their money's worth or to plug more quarters into them.

If your argument is that these works have fail states because you can refuse to experience them, then I would argue you have the same agency when it comes to films because you can simply not watch them and that books have it too because you can decide not to read them... but I'd hardly call that a win/lose state for books or films, so I wouldn't call it one for games ether. We have to assume some bare level of interaction on the part of the audience, whether it's reading a book or walking through the house.

EDIT - ARGH! I wanted this argument to die and I raised the monster myself instead! Is this how Frankenstein felt!?

 

[ThatNickGuy]

And I want people to stop saying Gone Home isn't a game, because it is.

But fine. Fine. Whatever. It's not a game. It's never been a game and it'll never be a game. There, happy? Argument over.

 

[figmentPez]

. I really don't understand why games need to be so limiting in their definition.

I don't see the term "game" being very limited in it's definition at all. It covers everything from chess, to poker, to football, to jacks, to hopscotch, to Quake, to Animal Crossing, to Putt Putt Goes to the Moon, to Monopoly, to Trivial Pursuit, to... It's a hugely inclusive term. Do you want "game" to include novels as well? Should visiting the Louvre be a game now because you have to explore it's hallways to see all the art? Is viewing live theater a game because you get to choose where to look onstage, unlike movies that pull close ups and choose where the camera focuses?[DOUBLEPOST=1433529165,1433529105][/DOUBLEPOST]

And I want people to stop saying Gone Home isn't a game, because it is.

But fine. Fine. Whatever. It's not a game. It's never been a game and it'll never be a game. There, happy? Argument over.

But WHY do you consider it a game? All you've said, as far as I can tell, is that it takes exploration. So do a lot of things that are not games.

EDIT: missed where you said that you pick things up, follow a map, etc. It's sounding more game like. Still not all that different from a trip to Disneyland.

 

[AshburnerX]

And I want people to stop saying Gone Home isn't a game, because it is.

But fine. Fine. Whatever. It's not a game. It's never been a game and it'll never be a game. There, happy? Argument over.

I didn't mean I wanted you to stop debating it JUST BECAUSE. You're expressing valid opinons... I just don't agree with them. That doesn't mean I think they are completely without merit or that your viewpoint is baseless. What did you think this is, the Politics Tab?

 

[Frank]

You have some agency in Gone Home, you don't in novels/movies.

 

[Ravenpoe]

If exploring the house is all that it takes to finish Gone Home, I'd say that we need a new classification for what to call it

Why? "Walking Simulator" covers it pretty well, and is a way to describe games like that. People who have experienced them will know whether or not they like them, and can gravitate towards/away as they see fit.

 

[Bubble181]

The all-encompassing name closest to "literature" is "software", not "computer game", though. I don't see "not a game" as an insult - it's a description. A CYOA book isn't literature (they're single-player games, really).
Anyway, I haven't played either Dear Esther or Gone Home, but AFAIK they're both sort of hybrid interactive storytelling software. Whether that's a class apart or a subclass of "computer game" is really just a name game. I'd be inclined to put it separately because I'd say "game" is in some ways a diminutive. Up to a point, it feels like calling "War and Peace" a novel. I can much more easily see interactive storytelling software as a separate form of art than as "just another type of game".

 

[AshburnerX]

Polygon article on how indie developers might have to try new tricks to survive on Steam with the refund policy.

As often as Polygon does something stupid (like the recent Rockband 4 review), they also put out gems like this. It feels like sitting down and listen to some con artists talk shop... time delays, bundling, holding back content... the indie scene is gonna be weird soon and it's all because the only way they could make money before was because they didn't have to give it back.

 

[figmentPez]

You have some agency in Gone Home, you don't in novels/movies.

You have some agency in live theater, at art museums, and at amusements parks. Doesn't make them games.[DOUBLEPOST=1433542295,1433542127][/DOUBLEPOST]

Why? "Walking Simulator" covers it pretty well, and is a way to describe games like that. People who have experienced them will know whether or not they like them, and can gravitate towards/away as they see fit.

Because the games aren't about the walking. "People who have experienced them..." but what about drawing in new people? Do you think people would have flocked to play Diablo if they'd called it an "inventory management simulator"?

 

[Ravenpoe]

Polygon article on how indie developers might have to try new tricks to survive on Steam with the refund policy.

As often as Polygon does something stupid (like the recent Rockband 4 review), they also put out gems like this. It feels like sitting down and listen to some con artists talk shop... time delays, bundling, holding back content... the indie scene is gonna be weird soon and it's all because the only way they could make money before was because they didn't have to give it back.

They could try making better games.[DOUBLEPOST=1433542362,1433542297][/DOUBLEPOST]

You have some agency in live theater, at art museums, and at amusements parks. Doesn't make them games.[DOUBLEPOST=1433542295,1433542127][/DOUBLEPOST]

Because the games aren't about the walking. "People who have experienced them..." but what about drawing in new people? Do you think people would have flocked to play Diablo if they'd called it an "inventory management simulator"?

I can think of plenty of people who have flocked to games because they were called "Diablo clones." Though, "Action RPG" would be the more correct term, something that still has no real meaning if you haven't played one before.

 

[figmentPez]

I don't see "not a game" as an insult - it's a description.
...
I can much more easily see interactive storytelling software as a separate form of art than as "just another type of game".

I'm thinking similar thoughts. Why be bothered by it not being a game? I'm excited by the thought that experiences like Trauma, Dear Esther, Gone Home, etc. might be a whole new branch of media. So what if they're not games? They're something interesting. Potentially amazing. We're reaching the point where the story that can be told with computer graphics is engaging enough that it doesn't have to have game elements in order to make it work. It's not Myst where the graphics are impressive (for the time), but few people would explore the island for very long without puzzles to solve. This is a chance to have a whole new type of storytelling develop, one that doesn't have game elements, but still gives the viewer some choice over how they experience the story. Lots of possibilities are floating through my head, and some aren't yet possible with the current tech and budgets these types of experiences have, but may well be amazing.

 

[GasBandit]

They could try making better games.

HEYOOOO

 

[Ravenpoe]

HEYOOOO

I feel like this is representative of a girl's first year in college.

 

[GasBandit]

I feel like this is representative of a girl's first year in college.

Except there, the dicks are putting drinks IN her hand, not knocking them out of it.

 

[PatrThom]

they were called "Diablo clones." Though, "Action RPG" would be the more correct term, something that still has no real meaning if you haven't played one before.

"Dungeon crawling clickfest"

--Patrick