Do you agree?
>>316573316
Main reason is basic sociology tendencies to form in and out groups.
Same reason I look down at some guy in Prius when I'm driving down the road in my supercharged 5.0.
I don't know, I have no idea what he's even trying to say.
>>316573316
no
people dont consider them games because people are casual shitters used to hallways with chest high walls and cluttered HUDs
>>316573316
>tactical planning
>walking simulator
So do I plan on walking to the store and back or something?
>>316573316
I guess.
Main reason I loved Outer Wilds was that I had a finite amount of time to see what I wanted to see and had to plan my trip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRQU1o8SrAI
>>316573316
who here is /tacticool/?
no, it's because your interaction with the game is relatively limited
They mostly aren't "proper" games because they barely have any sort of gameplay. I don't call e-books games just because I need to interact with a device to see more of the story.
>>316573316
Hypothesis: Why are all these "gender studies" faggots so attached to video games? Is this what they're teaching them?
And don't they have more important things to bitch about like TV or THE REAL WORLD? Why video games of all things.
>>316573792
This.
Games need to have gameplay
>>316573843
>Why are all these "gender studies" faggots so attached to video games
New frontier so to speak. TV, film, books, etc have been done to death.
The vidya well has kindof dried up for them too so I've seen a spike in them pushing against anime:
>>133509682
>>316573316
No. The main reason why *some* people don't like story driven, linear, games is because they solely focus on pure mechanics and disregard setting, art design, characters or plot because those are reserved for movies only in their mind. Well, this and some people are just dense motherfuckers with a "only MY opinion is valid" mindsets.
>>316573843
what does gender studies have to do with walking simulators?
>>316574012
Have you ever seen a person who likes walking simulators and does argue how sexist video games are?
>>316573316
Who lacks tactical planning, the "many ppl"? The games? There's nothing to agree or disagree on here, the sentence is broken.
Anyway, many people feel that non-games aren't games because they lack goals and challenge. If there is a challenge and there are goals, it's a game. If there is a challenge, but no goals, it's a toy. If there are neither, it's something else, i.e. an interactive storytelling piece or some such.
>>316573963
Whoops, fucked that up. Here I go again:
>>>133509682
I recognize them as games but the interaction required is so minimal and thoughtless it might as well be a choose your own adventure goosebumps book
>>316573316
It's because they aren't fucking video games.
>>316573896
People call The Last of Us an interactive movie and it has plenty of gameplay.
>>316574132
There's literal meaning and then there's figurative, see.
>>316574132
I guess if the product focuses on gameplay it's called a game, if it focuses on story then it's interactive movie with maybe some gameplay slapped on to it.
So where do we draw the line? I don't fucking know.
>>316573316
Nope. Example: Pathologic is a walking sim, yet if you skip planning (on any level including tactical) you are fucking dead.
The reason people don't consider interactive movies games is that they are not games. They do not fulfill the definition.
>>316574059
rephrase
>>316574502
>The reason people don't consider interactive movies games is that they are not games. They do not fulfill the definition.
please enlighten us, wittgenstein, what are games?
>>316574264
Are you implying that people who call TLoU interactive movie in figurative sense? Because I'm pretty sure you're giving them too much credit.
Some people like to define video gamse by possibility of failure due to player's incompetence. So if there is no win/lose condition at all, it would not qualify as a game.
>>316574564
*does not argue
Literally every single one of them tweets how sexist this or that is. Oh why is this person male, why is this woman clothed such and such, why is this not a black tranny
>>316574754
yes i have
>>316573316
>Tactical Planning
Nope it's because they're boring as shit.
Where's any challenge, fun or goal to work towards?
Even in games like Animal Crossing with no action in them you can make a goal to create the best town for you with thousands of creative ideas and that's enjoyable.
If I want to look at an 'interactive movie' then I'd just rather watch a movie.
>>316573316
It's because they aren't very engaging. They just aren't. You don't particularly care to push onward because there's not much in it for you.
>>316573843
Hollywood and TV didn't put up with their bullshit, they've gotten attached to videogames largely because people who play videogames have been belittled by all sectors of society for decades, so it's a case of an easy target built mostly out of a demographic they can represent as a privileged group(white guys) which makes gamers "fair game".
The reason it's been allowed to happen is a combination of "white guilt" on the part of both producers and consumers of videogames media, the privileged place in the media that is given to women, people of colour, and their advocates, and more broadly the sort of regressive liberalism that has been blowing up in the news over recent years(universities as "safe spaces", black lives matter, and the brand of feminism that obsesses with victimization taking root in videogame culture). As well as the fact that the only voice consumers have had in all of this has been whether or not they buy a game, so they make for a pretty passive target for both berating and serving propaganda to.
>>316577239
>combination of "white guilt"
*combination of "white/male guilt"
>>316575906
I feel this way about a lot of games, like MMO's. Most of the time I feel a game doesn't give me any "feedback", I don't feel like I'm actually doing something because there seems to be no impact to my gameplay, unlike a platformer or such.
>>316573316
I think its because they lack a lot of things
specifically anything that is associated with games
>>316573316
what kind of tactical planning?
>>316573316
You know these kinds of games asstealth games
>>316573316
Get a grip Thomas.
Hypothesis: The reason why people think walking sims and interactive movies aren't games is because they lack gameplay and are the result of hacks too incompetent to stand out using the non-interactive mediums they idolise such as films and books.
>>316574437
The Order is an interactive movie
CDi had interactive movies
TLoU is a game
Walking sims and interactive movies are basically just visual novels. I don't see why they should be considered full games, when they have little gameplay. I really enjoyed Until Dawn, but it's basically an interactive movie. The gameplay is entirely walking around and QTEs.
>>316574619
Games don't need final win/lose conditions (because so-called infinite games exist, for example world of warcraft, where winning and losing both means you'll just continue playing).
However, they do need a set of challenges to be overcome. These challenges can be game content such as puzzles or difficult bosses/levels or they can be other players, but there need to be challenges and a set of rules whereby you overcome (or not) said challenges.
A true interactive movie is one where you don't really overcome challenges, you just wait until the story progresses. Maybe you'll perform some actions to make it progress, but if the outcome of those actions are not dependent on skill, there is no challenge overcome and thus those actions are not gameplay.
>>316573316
I'm sure theres a strong overlap between starcraft players and walking sim fans.
Wait what?
>>316573659
That's kind of exactly what it's saying innit
I don't because I don't see what that has to do with tactical planing.
And I fucking love "walking simulators" like Dear Esther or Beginner's Guide.
>>316573843
Maybe you should be asking instead why video gamers are attracted to "gender studies" (probably not actually gender studies if we're being accurate, but media criticism).
>>316579253
Interpretation is the challenge.
>>316579253
>because so-called infinite games exist, for example world of warcraft, where winning and losing both means you'll just continue playing
You know infinite games exist yet you use WoW as an example, a game that has a lose condition (dying, while not permanent is still a lose condition).
They are called games because anything else is too long. Linguistically it's more convenient to just summarize them as games. Language has an inherent tendency to simplicity.
>>316574627
Well, you can never really tell on /v/. And you can't tell a joke someone on /v/ won't take seriously.
>>316573316
No.
>>316574619
Didn't Wittgenstein have a thing or two to say on games, precisely because they are so hard (if not impossible) to define, but people know them when they see them anyway? Isn't that actually kind of the opposite argument of the one being made here?
Hypothesis: The main reason why ppl feel Goosebumps: Choose Your Own Adventures aren't "proper" books is because they lack tactical planning.
>>316579631
Its funny too because at endgame WoW is one of the most punishing games.
Takes 500+ tries for the best players to kill the hardest bosses.
People think that failure state means gameover->try again, but thats not the case.
>>316577239
>the privileged place in the media that is given to women, people of colour, and their advocates
I love how you're adopting the language and rhetoric of social justice to paint yourself as the victim while complaining about people obsessed with victimisation.
>>316579825
Do you not know what a lose condition is?
Here's a hint: It doesn't mean game over.
>take a cool shooter game
>remove guns
>remove enemies
>remove several hours of gameplay
>add pretentiousness
>add feminism
>add smug, pseudo-intellectual game bloggers
Oh darn. Why don't more people want this?
How the fuck does Gone Home and Stanley Parable require tactical planning? This is the most nonsensical shit I've seen in a long time
>>316579825
>>316579975
Nevermind, misread the post.
>>316579010
>they lack gameplay
This is only true in a relative sense, which might make them less of a game, but still games.
>>316579736
The Goosebumps books are high literature and an indelible aspect of our culture.
t. /lit/
>>316573316
That's a retarded hypothesis.
People say they aren't real games because they often lack
• objectives (besides walking to the end)
• challenge (besides walking to the end without getting bored)
• win or loss conditions (besides walking to the end or not walking to the end)
• meaningful player interaction (and walking to the end is not meaningful)
• meaningful player decisions (and deciding which path to take is not meaningful when the paths converge)
>>316579351
I realise the grammar is ambiguous but use your common sense man.
>>316579631
Non-permanent loss conditions aren't really loss conditions at all. A proper loss or win means game over. Otherwise you get into a massive indefinable grey area.
>>316573316
>what is game?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blj91KLOvZQ
>>316573316
>tactical planning
>for observing your surroundings at your own pace with absolutely no conflict getting in your way
or
>shown a sequence of commands in which you have to follow in a Simon Says fashion
It's amazing these shitheads don't forget how to breathe.
>>316579736
I think you'll find CYOA books require more tactical planning than most other books.
no. plenty of simple and casual games dont have any tactical planning either.
they're not proper games because they lack actual gameplay.
>>316579253
I would say that while a game doesn't necessarily need a fail state, it does need obstacles--I mean, a puzzle game may not have actual fail states, but you do have puzzles obstructing your progress, for example.
>>316573316
Someone make a walking sim with a Rainbow Six styled planning phase where you have to map out routes for multiple AI pedestrians in each stageah fuck it, it'd still be boring
>>316580446
I'm trying to use my common sense, but I seriously cannot think of a game that requires less tactical planning than a CYOA game
>>316580606
Oh, for fucks sake.
"They" refers to the games, not to the players.
>>316573316
Does he mean the person? Cause that makes no sense. When you've played one spoopy house walking game or walk a set path for muh art walking game you have played them all. They are very easy to figure out and the genre lacks a nuance, they are basically a game of find the progression blocker or keep moving forward
If he means the games then he is right, many don't set stuff out very well. Take Gone Home, you have very personal letters just lying in hallways and scenes that occurred months ago still set up (the pillow fort, bath tub hair dye). There is no hunting and no thinking
>>316580695
So the games lack tactical planning? How is that a good thing?
>>316580942
It is, so this tweet hypothesises, the reason people don't consider walking sims games. That's all it says.
>>316573316
No, they are not games because they don't have challenge or require creativity.
Just look at most basic games. Things like chess or tag or hide and seek involve challenge. You mgiht win or lose, it takes skill or strategy to win. Things like games of pretend or legos require creativity.
Things like listening to a story, reading a book or watching a movie require neither. So these aren't considered games.
Story based games are essentially listening to a story. No challenge or creativity involved. So they aren't games, they are methods of storytelling. Just like movies, novels, TV shows, comics, etc. That means they are as good as the story they are telling is good.
>>316573843
Can you imagine a book critic reading only the first 90 pages and saying the book is shit?
Imagine a cinema critic saying how movie goers are retards with no social life.
The game industry (specially game journalism) is a cottage industry. People would get fired if they behaved like this in a real job.
>>316581002
>No, they are not games because they don't have challenge or require creativity.
You mean, like, tactical planning?
>>316581026
>Can you imagine a book critic reading only the first 90 pages and saying the book is shit?
>Imagine a cinema critic saying how movie goers are retards with no social life.
I can imagine both those things easily. For example, if the book is indeed shit, or if the movie goers in question are the people who lap up a new Transformers sequel every other year.
>>316579736
way back when I was a kid, I had a friend who was reading one of these choose your own scare books, and he was just reading the pages in order
I said what the fuck are you doing and explained what the book was, and he said he knew, but he wanted to see everything that happened
The reason why people don't feel that interactive movies are proper games are that
a) people are ignorant dicks
b) most interactive movies are pretentious or just plain garbage
>>316580605
>"Watch out! Don't let the pedestrians bump into each other!"
>"Pay attention to where each pedestrians' gaze is! You lose points for each second of eye contact!"
>"Be careful when crossing the street! If any one of your pedestrians get hit by traffic you have to restart!"
>>316581221
I remember one of the last roger ebert reviews I read before he died, it was about either avengers 1 or 2
he essentially said 'uh it was good I guess but comic book fan need to have sex', and he meant it earnestly like it was really bothering him, I found a part:
>it's time for desperately needed movies to re-educate nerds in the joys of sex.
>>316581345
2015 lemmings?
>>316581452
Man, if Roger Ebert had a real job he would've been fired for sure.
>>316581452
>some weird mutant fuck like Ebert can get more sex than me
I did not expect to feel this feel today
yes because NOTHING requires tactical planning like walking from A to B
>>316573316
Tactical walking simulator when?
>>316581632
How do so many of you read it wrong? Is it because this reading allows you to feel personally attacked?
>>316581221
>or if the movie goers in question are the people who lap up a new Transformers sequel every other year.
I don't have the image, but I saw here a game journalist literally saying that "gamers" are retards with no social life who should get hit at school.
I can guarantee I would be fired on the spot if I said such thing to a costumer (I sell car parts), the same goes to a cinema critic.
>>316581792
>I can guarantee I would be fired on the spot if I said such thing to a costumer (I sell car parts),
Yes.
>the same goes to a cinema critic.
No.
Maybe the problem is with your job, not theirs :^)
>>316581473
Depends, can you make them explode?
>>316581926
>Australian game site says something like this: "If gamers are not happy with us, they are free to leave and never come back"
>4 months later
>"we're closing"
>>316581221
I mean when you think about it, if a critic writes a review of Transformers that DOESN'T contain a condemnation of the audience that consumes this drivel with regularity, the shameless director pandering to their shallow tastes, and everyone else involved, how can you take that critic seriously?
>>316579921
Not even that guy but he specifically explained how original gamers were being targeted. Don't be dense.
>>316580535
The fail state for puzzle games is the halting or a complete standstill of progress. Its basically the same as losing unless you want to count gameovers and return to title screen.
>>316582372
Explain whatever you want, I just made an observation.
>>316573316
More like "they don't require skill of any kind so they might as well not be video games"
>>316579736
That's actually better than those games because it actually has 20 different endings that happen depending on each path you take as opposed to all paths converging to the same choice of 2-3 endings.
>>316573316
No it's because they're boring. I'm sure 200000 other people have said this already though
game1
É¡eJm/
noun
1.
a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules.
2.
an activity that one engages in for amusement.
They do not fill either of these criteria, therefore not games.
>>316583930
It's the extremely broad second definition that they are working off.
>>316582179
That would be just ISIS simulator though.
>>316573843
only degenerates play video games
>>316584172
Few video games meet the first one.
Can you just watch a let's play and get the full experience? If yes then it's not a game.
>>316583405
>Books are better video games than Bioware games
>>316573316
Main reason is becasue most of these "Walking Sims and Movies Games" are simply terrible.
You don't see half as much people saying "Until Dawn isn't a game" as you see with Heavy Rain or other Daviud Cage games, mostly cuz David Cage games are terrible and UD was at least entertaining.
Walking Sims are the same. People will sing the praises of Amnesia all day, but shit on A Machine for Pigs with a force. For a "story focused game" Gone Home has a very boring story, with only a few interesting plot points, I could get better stuff by going on Dynasty Scans and picking a series at random.
>>316585090
>Movies Games
If a game wants to be a 'movie game' why don't they just do a Metal Gear? Why does a heavy story orientation HAVE to mean worse game play and QTEs?
>>316585504
Cuz making a MGS is hard.
MGS has a lot of cutscenes and "cinematic moments", but those are very distinct from the core gameplay. The core gameplay is as "gamey" as they come. There aren' cutscenes to introduce new enemy types of places, the player is left to understand how the status quo has changed and deal with it.
Compare lets say, Heavy Rain with MGS3.
MGS has hours of cinematic cutscenes, but after the second scene with Ocelots, you are left to explore the enviroment and olve the challenges the game throws at you in you own way, mostly through the use of iteams. HR has none of that.
>>316585090
>Main reason is becasue most of these "Walking Sims and Movies Games" are simply terrible.
That is to say, there is no reasoned argument, it's simple elitism.
>>316579975
Actually, lose condition do mean game over. As in, you have to load a save or similar to start where you were. Dying in WoW is not a lose condition for the entire game, but it can be a lose condition for whatever you were doing - a subgame such as a raid or whatever.
>>316573316
I have no idea. I mean super Mario Bros is highly liked and it's simple as fuck like a walking simulator so it's weird.
>both are just walk from A to B
>both have items to pick up
>both have interactions with things
>both are atmospheric
>both have a simple single objective
>>316586638
Yes, but as an actual game it has a FAILURE STATE. The one thing that none of these walking simulators actually have is a way to fucking fail. If you cannot fail you cannot 'win' as there is nothing to beat. If there is no challenge and no punishment for fucking up (or no way to fuck up in the first place) then you're not actually interacting with something, you're tagging along for the ride. This is something that they don't seem to fucking understand.
>>316573718
>forward facing flag
who is that asshole? most pretentious drivel ever
>>316587307
What is pretentious or assholeish about saying walking sims don't require much in the way of tactics?
>>316582584
>My thoughts are immune to criticism I refuse to partake in discussion.
>>316588146
Okay, fine, nerdy white boys are the real oppressed minority and those bitches and niggers have no reason to whine. How dare THEY act like the victims?
>>316573316
Is he saying people who don't like walking sims lack the ability to tactically plan? Or walking sims have no elements of tactical planning incorporated in the gameplay?
>>316587867
>hypothesis
>>316588259
Typical, when people call you out on avoiding criticism you throw a tantrum. Keep up the shit posting.
Do these kinds of people think visual novels are video games?
>>316588425
You're not acknowledging any of my criticism.
>>316573316
walking sims attract dudebros and normals whom are just desperate for a better looking second life in which they can be a bully again, just like the good old days of high school
>>316584313
Most do actually.
>>316573974
you seem to misunderstand, he's not talking about story driven games, he's trying to promote stroy driven 'experiences' like Gone Homo et al.
>>316589416
What are you competing against in a single-player game? The game itself? Then why can't the same be said about a walking sim?
>>316589390
Nothing you say makes sense and also you're misusing "whom".
>>316573316
sure, but there's no tactical planning because there are no interesting choices to make or interactivity
>>316574564
Have you ever met
A whiner that actually likes the Vidya?
>>316586638
So in other words Mario Bros is a walking simulator with tactical planning?
