Brainless games reign above all. WHY!?!!!!

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Complex games/brain utilization does not equal bordem if the game is made correctly.... but if course, people like to "spawn shoot die, spawn shoot die" over and over and over and over again. No tactics, brainless... Thats the pure definition of insanity...

Sad that thats what sells....

The idea is to minimize the dying/re-spawning portion. Even though these games may not take much thought in the way you are arguing, they still take skill. The best UT players, for example, will own you... and it won't matter how good you are at another game that takes "thought". This sort of reminds me of sports. There are a lot of pro-athletes that may not be all that bright, but they still have a lot of skill in what they do. You like games that take more thought, but other people like games that take more twitch and hand-eye coordination... so what?

 

[Coldkilla]

I'm not saying there a bad thing, I'm saying the "brainless" games dominate the markets, the "thought games/smart games" are only brought up like once every five years unlike these "brainless games" that are shot out every 2 weeks.

 

[covert24]

brainless is a negative connotation therefor you are saying its a bad thing....

i have no idea where you thought this thread would go but it probably wasnt worth it

 

[Xavier434]

I don't know about you, but I play video games to have fun. Some of the games I play take what I would consider a fair amount of intelligence to successfully complete. Others involve tasks which my 5 year old could do better than I could do because he has played it more. No matter you slice it though, this entire thread boils down to just one simple thing. Video games are played to have fun and intelligence have never been a perquisite for fun. Everything else can be argued but really holds no value in terms of this argument.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Hoookay, this'll probably start a flame-off, but for those who take pure 100% liking to brainless shooters like: Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament, Team Fortress, Crysis, BF2, Call of Duty, the list goes on and on. The only defense on Crysis is that it doesn't have to be played as brainlessly as the rest. And no, the modifications don't count, sure Project Reality, Obsidian Edge, etc are great but they are not the game in its own right.

It's like a bag of dough nuts + a hooker every Friday night. It's satisfying, its fast, its (sometimes) cheap , and its suits its purpose. But eventually it's gotta get old at some point, right? There's gotta be a point where this person turns a corner and starts to play the game a different way right? Unless its like Cocaine, well... then, theres no hope for them then is there?

Where are games like WW2 Online, Operation Flashpoint, Combat Flight Simulator just to name a few. Where you actually have to use your brain in order to out-think your opponent. Silent Hunter is nice but PVP is horrific, and older games like Sim City 4 are brain intensive but again, no PVP worthy to speak about.

It's like at brainstorming meetings at a developers studio, "Oh, since most people don't have brains and/or choose not to use them, lets make a brainless game so we can maximize the profit. As long as we have graphics! Oooh boy graphics graphics GRAPHICS!". Graphics get old no matter how good developers make them. We're getting close to the threshold on graphic computing anyways, now we need severe mechanics and game play enhancements... *Sigh* I'd be happy with graphics from 1999', but with severe mechanical upgrades compensating for nearly everything else that is lacking today.

Edit: Ok, I get that people play games for a quick fix to "get away" from reality, but the satisfaction of outsmarting/out flanking/out maneuvering someone is just as satisfying in my view.

One of the factors is brainly games last longer. Most people don't get to sit down for a long game. Some can't peel themselves away from hours of fps, but that is just to kill time. The same person may not want to use up more brain power playing a game. Mindless games are best when you get home from work and is mentally exhausted. As simple as that. I am still playing Enemy Territory.

 

[VashHT]

I don't understand why people choose sides on this, I play games with a lot of depth/puzzles/thinking as well as tons of mindless games that are more reflex or "twitch" based. Is there really a reason to sit on one side of the fence when you can play both?

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
I'm not saying there a bad thing, I'm saying the "brainless" games dominate the markets, the "thought games/smart games" are only brought up like once every five years unlike these "brainless games" that are shot out every 2 weeks.

SHAME on the free market economy responding to demand, instead of tailoring everything to YOUR needs.

There are plenty of games for you. If you truly cannot find any, pick a new hobby.

I hear calling everyone on The Internet stupid is popular.

 

[40Hands]

They're only brainless if you make them that way.

 

[schizoid77]

Originally posted by: 40Hands
They're only brainless if you make them that way.

Also agreed.

USER ERROR.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: CP5670
I would have liked Far Cry just as much even if the graphics weren't great. It was one of the few genuinely nonlinear FPSs from the last couple of years.

But it IS linear...you have objectives and you're forced to go from point A to point B...just because you can sometimes choose how to get there doesn't make it nonlinear. Heck, the scripted checkpoints on most open levels pretty much make sure you have to follow somewhat of a set path. It's a linear FPS, you just have much larger environments than the norm.

This is exactly what nonlinear means in this context. The game usually lets you decide exactly how you want to complete the levels. The majority of FPSs since then have completely put you on rails and often make you feel like you're in some kind of assault course world that exists only for you to run through it. (haven't played Crysis yet and can't comment on that)

Granted, you can do better than this, but among FPSs, I can only think of a few other games in the last four years that have actually managed it. Considering what the norm among FPSs is these days, I'll take any nonlinearity I can get.

As for the checkpoints, they didn't really matter if you were using the quicksave functionality. I often missed some of those in the outdoor levels.

You really don't know what true nonlinear means. Far Cry makes you go from point A to point B - whatever path you choose that's still going to be a line. If you wanted to ignore the particular objective and swim or drive a boat to another island you'd get shot down by a magical helicopter.

And you obviously don't understand the 'checkpoints' I'm talking about - there are many levels where you do have some freedom to choose how to get from point A to point B, but you'll be forced to visit a 3rd point along the way or else point B won't exist.

Whenever you start out on a level where you have two fixed points you start out on and end on, that is a linear game.

The only major difference between Far Cry and other typical FPSes is the massive outdoor environments.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
You really don't know what true nonlinear means. Far Cry makes you go from point A to point B - whatever path you choose that's still going to be a line.

Uh, if you're talking about the actual definition of a line, there are an infinite number of paths between any two points. A line is simply the shortest one.

This is irrelevant though. All I'm saying is that a game that allows you to choose between several distinct paths to get from A to B is preferable to one that gives you only a single path.

If you wanted to ignore the particular objective and swim or drive a boat to another island you'd get shot down by a magical helicopter.

I only remember that happening when you went beyond the map boundary. It was annoying, but was easy to avoid and didn't really get in the way if you knew what caused it.

And you obviously don't understand the 'checkpoints' I'm talking about - there are many levels where you do have some freedom to choose how to get from point A to point B, but you'll be forced to visit a 3rd point along the way or else point B won't exist.

I cannot recall ever seeing anything like this in the game. A certain area is not present in the level at all unless you visit another area? What is there in its place? Can you show screenshots of this or something?

You may be right, but I simply can't remember seeing this at all.

Whenever you start out on a level where you have two fixed points you start out on and end on, that is a linear game.

It's just a matter of how you define things. But what would you call games like, say, Half Life 2 or COD4? These games not only make you go from point A to point B, but force you to follow a single, well defined path to get there, with no alternative at all. This is what the majority of FPSs are like these days, and I think Far Cry's map layouts, whether you want to call them linear, nonlinear or whatever, are much better.

 

[Hajpoj]

I Suicide NADE people in DOD:S. It's all I do for hours on end and it's way more fun than shooting people.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: CP5670
It's just a matter of how you define things. But what would you call games like, say, Half Life 2 or COD4? These games not only make you go from point A to point B, but force you to follow a single, well defined path to get there, with no alternative at all. This is what the majority of FPSs are like these days, and I think Far Cry's map layouts, whether you want to call them linear, nonlinear or whatever, are much better.

I think you guys are really debating degrees of linearity. bunnyfubbles is right in that main objectives are still completed in a specific order and there are still check points as you progress where scripted events and story progression occurs. OTOH, Crysis is far less linear compared to many games in terms of how you can complete an objective. At least in the first 2/3s of the game, you aren't funneled to objectives on a tight path. You usually have a myriad of way to approach and accomplish an object. And sometimes you can opt to go from B to A instead of A to B.

But what would a truly non-linear game be anyway? A puzzle game? A basic multiplayer shooter? You have to have some structure to have an actual story. Compare games to books for example. There's clearly no form of non-linearity in books, but that's because they are telling a specific story by the author. In order for a game to tell a story it too must adhere to some form of linearity or the story breaks down. At that point you may as well be playing any old multiplayer game.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
But what would a truly non-linear game be anyway? A puzzle game? A basic multiplayer shooter? You have to have some structure to have an actual story. Compare games to books for example. There's clearly no form of non-linearity in books, but that's because they are telling a specific story by the author. In order for a game to tell a story it too must adhere to some form of linearity or the story breaks down. At that point you may as well be playing any old multiplayer game.

Have you not played RPGs?

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Dumac
Have you not played RPGs?

Not one that still wasn't linear in one way or another.

 

[IEC]

Obviously you have not played FPSes competitively. Good tactics and smart plans win the day just as well as twitch reflexes and aim.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
I think you guys are really debating degrees of linearity.

Yes, that is basically what it's coming down to. Far Cry does have plenty of room for improvement, especially when you look at other types of games like RPGs and even a few select FPSs like Deus Ex, but it's still safe to say that it is nonlinear compared to most FPSs.

But what would a truly non-linear game be anyway? A puzzle game? A basic multiplayer shooter? You have to have some structure to have an actual story. Compare games to books for example. There's clearly no form of non-linearity in books, but that's because they are telling a specific story by the author. In order for a game to tell a story it too must adhere to some form of linearity or the story breaks down. At that point you may as well be playing any old multiplayer game.

There should be some sort of balance with it. As far as FPSs go, I think the best way is what Deus Ex did. It has a few main, overarching goals in each level but lots of smaller, sub-objectives that you can choose between and approach in different ways.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Not one that still wasn't linear in one way or another.

You've seriously never played a game with branching storylines, multiple paths/ending, or, I dunno, at least some simple choices?

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Compare games to books for example. There's clearly no form of non-linearity in books, but that's because they are telling a specific story by the author.

I guess you never read any Choose Your Own Adventure books or RPG books when you were a kid.