Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Timst]

Just to make it clear, I define content as what happens in gamers head when he plays the game. Everything else is just bits and pixels.

Yep, that's not what other people think when they see the word "content". Especially considering that what you describe is the result of the combined aspects of graphics, music, gameplay, characters, etc.

[Nintenlord]

Since this is different from how most other people define content, I'm not suprised that people misunderstood you. Perhaps "immersion" or "the gaming experience" would illustrate your point more clearly?

Gaming experience is too gaming specific and immersion doesn't really cover all ways of gaming. I want a term that is universal in both all ways of gaming and all forms of entertainment. And I can always explain myself as I have now.

That's a very unorthodox interpretation. I guess you must consider DLC - downloadable content - a misnomer altogether.

Not really, since it's the game that makes the content appear and you can create new content with downloadable quests and such.

Yep, that's not what other people think when they see the word "content". Especially considering that what you describe is the result of the combined aspects of graphics, music, gameplay, characters, etc.

For me, gaming as about content and all parts of game effect it's content. There is no right way to enjoy games and if 2 people enjoy the same game different ways, no-one can say which one is correct.

[Protactinium]

If you're adamant on calling flavor, immersion, and mental roleplay as "content", be prepared to be misinterpreted every time you talk about "content" then. The standard idea of game content is "stuff to do" or "stuff to use" in the game.

If I'm understanding you correctly though, it is 'flavor' that you're saying is more important in differentiating games than game mechanics. And I don't know if I disagree or agree.

What would the reaction be if Fallout 3 was actually in Oblivion setting but with the level up, VATS, item augmentation, ranged-gameplay focus, and other game mechanics?

Edit: I'm asking this as an opinion question. I have no real prediction.

[Shima]

While flavor can definitely make a game funner or more exciting, when it comes right down to it, gameplay is the first and foremost thing that makes it fun.  A game can have the best setting and such ever, but it means nothing if it controls like a tank that doesn't have an engine, or a boat without sails or oars.

[Protactinium]

While flavor can definitely make a game funner or more exciting, when it comes right down to it, gameplay is the first and foremost thing that makes it fun.  A game can have the best setting and such ever, but it means nothing if it controls like a tank that doesn't have an engine, or a boat without sails or oars.

I am not so confident about that. When you have real immersion going on, it can allow you to look past some gameplay flaws.

[dragnar]

Both are important, but gameplay more so. Old arcade games like tetris and pacman had no real setting, no immersion, the gameplay was just really fun. Flavor can improve a game vastly, but it can't hold a game up all on it's own, gameplay can.

[Nivim]

 Reading through the last part of the discussion, I was thinking that I would favor gameplay, but then realized I don't find flash games out there very fun. Once I understand the mechanics of the game; it completely stops being fun for me (Pacman's fun ended after the first two games). But even when I understand the mechanics of a game with high immersion and background (by my standards*); it continues to be fun because I get to use those mechanics for imagination fuel.
 The other situation is when a game's mechanics are more complicated than what I can hold in my mind or even understand completely. In this case the content and immersion make little difference as I am still learning the game (still having fun). However, I want just enough content/background to apply logic to the situation; a base of quasi-non-arbitrary rules. Both Arcomage and Warlocks fill this niche (although Warlocks might not last much longer), because the game mechanics are representations for the concepts in question. Arcomage does have a rather nasty hole involving "Reuse the Rubble" in that you can reuse the rubble of a construction you haven't even built yet if you just destroy the opportunity a turn before.
 *I have no suspension of disbelief, so I only get immersion when the universe stands up to all my scientific knowledge. I can still get a kind of immersion for other games (like Dwarf Fortress) because even though parts do not make sense as a universe, they do make sense as a game program. So I immerse myself in the fact that it is an awesomely coded program.

[dragnar]

So do you hate the majority of fantasy games? Or do you just mean the game's rules have to be internally consistent? (eg. there is an explanation for anything that defies logic/physics)

[Nivim]

 I do hate the majority of fantasy games; however I can explain some of them through use of multi-planar logic (multiple universe connected). I wont accept anything that breaks conservation of mass/energy. This is only for immersion though; if it is complicated enough I will accept internally consistent.

[dragnar]

I usually don't have a problem with things like that, the only thing that really hurts immersion for me is when a world has immensely powerful magic that seems to have absolutely no use outside of combat. If people can generate fire from their hands and heal any injury instantly, I would think life would be very different from what we are used to.

I'm fine with a game world having different laws of nature, but they have to actually make sense. My problem comes from this for the most part. For example, Aeris's death in ff7 makes no sense, why not just resurrect her? The deaths in ff4 on the other hand are fine, the body is always destroyed/rendered completely inoperable, or in one case, a character destroys his own life-force, leaving nothing to bring back.(or course, only one of those "deaths" actually sticks, but still)

[Shima]

For example, Aeris's death in ff7 makes no sense, why not just resurrect her? The deaths in ff4 on the other hand are fine, the body is always destroyed/rendered completely inoperable, or in one case, a character destroys his own life-force, leaving nothing to bring back.(or course, only one of those "deaths" actually sticks, but still)

It could be argued that the Masamune steals the lifeforce of what it kills, but honestly, that's just applying logic where there is none - which is a folly at best.  It doesn't even have mythological precedence to say such, because it would be a Muramasa that does that, not a a Masamune.  Which just furthers the proof that it makes zero sense in the context set up here.

[Draco18s]

I do hate the majority of fantasy games; however I can explain some of them through use of multi-planar logic (multiple universe connected). I wont accept anything that breaks conservation of mass/energy. This is only for immersion though; if it is complicated enough I will accept internally consistent.

You might like ShadowRun.  It violates some physics (cough, levitate), but there are very clear boundaries on what magic can and can not do, namely altering the same-time continuum (you can't go back in time, you can't teleport*, and you can't resurrect the dead).  Every spell can be used at any time (though combat spells generally have functionally little use outside of combat, but a fireball will light things on fire) and typically require no more than the concentration needed to cast the spell (a complex action--no hand waving, no words, no material components, etc.  Unless you impose limitations (geas) on your magic such that it only functions that way).

*Maybe when the mana levels rise a bit more, in Earthdawn (a "might as well be the same universe, but 10,000 years in the past" game) there is a semi-teleportation spell or two.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I simply require fun.