5 ms·

Huh? The gaming community has spent the last 10 years or so fighting to get games recognized as an art form and now you think that limiting expressive freedoms

by blister 11y ago

Huh? The gaming community has spent the last 10 years or so fighting to get games recognized as an art form and now you think that limiting expressive freedoms is a good idea just so copyright infringement doesn't happen? One of the most impactful games I've ever played was a PS3 exclusive called "Heavy Rain"[0]. That game, while having several branching storylines that create vastly different endings, was basically an 8-hour long interactive movie. It is one of the best games I've ever played but I doubt I'll ever play it again. I'm certain that I would make most of the same choices and reach the exact same outcome. Another recent game that I really enjoyed is called Firewatch[1]. It's basically a three-hour movie. I don't even think it has different outcomes. You experience the story they give you. That game was excellent (though really short for being $15). That sort of game would not exist in your worldview. I watch Let's Plays almost exclusively as my digital content of choice. I first discovered Firewatch through an early pre-release copy that Marbozir played[2]. Luckily his pre-release copy only took you through the first 45 minutes or so and I was able to enjoy the full game on my own. Despite enjoying the game, the first 45 minutes of my game was incredibly dull because I'd already seen it played. Had I watched a full Marbozir playthrough, I would have probably never purchased the game. Without giving away any spoilers, once you've seen the whole game, there's really nothing left to experience. I'm really torn about this article. I'm a game developer myself, so I definitely want to encourage people to buy games and support developers, but I have a family and rarely find enough time to actually play games. I get all of my enjoyment in late-night Let's Play sessions. This is a really tricky problem to solve, and I think being dismissive of a genre is dangerous ground to tread. Thanks for your comment, though. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Rain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Rain [1]: http://www.firewatchgame.com/ http://www.firewatchgame.com/ [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_gwFDm21zA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_gwFDm21zA

adnzzzzZ 11y ago
>and now you think that limiting expressive freedoms is a good idea just so copyright infringement doesn't happen? I don't know why you think I said this. What I said is that games with little replayability will be easily watched instead of played. And when games are easily watched instead of played they will not make as much money for the obvious reason. As such, if you want to make a successful game and have a successful business making games, you either figure out a way to work with Let's Players so that you make money from views (or ban Let's Players from playing your game), or you make a game that provides additional value when it is played on top of being watched, such as a game with high replayability like roguelites, for instance. I'm not saying that those games shouldn't exist, I'm just saying that you have market disadvantages if you choose to go that way, both because a lot of people don't think those games are actually games and because of the Let's Player effect. And yes, you can point to Firewatch or Gone Home but in my opinion those games are outliers boosted/distorted by media outlets that like those types of games or by studios that spend a lot of money on marketing. If you're not willing to do the homework (i.e. spend a lot of money on marketing) then you shouldn't expect a game like this to be a success because I don't think the market is there at all. Whereas for a game more focused on gameplay the market is obviously there.

by blister 11y ago

adnzzzzZ 11y ago

>and now you think that limiting expressive freedoms is a good idea just so copyright infringement doesn't happen? I don't know why you think I said this. What I said is that games with little replayability will be easily watched instead of played. And when games are easily watched instead of played they will not make as much money for the obvious reason. As such, if you want to make a successful game and have a successful business making games, you either figure out a way to work with Let's Players so that you make money from views (or ban Let's Players from playing your game), or you make a game that provides additional value when it is played on top of being watched, such as a game with high replayability like roguelites, for instance. I'm not saying that those games shouldn't exist, I'm just saying that you have market disadvantages if you choose to go that way, both because a lot of people don't think those games are actually games and because of the Let's Player effect. And yes, you can point to Firewatch or Gone Home but in my opinion those games are outliers boosted/distorted by media outlets that like those types of games or by studios that spend a lot of money on marketing. If you're not willing to do the homework (i.e. spend a lot of money on marketing) then you shouldn't expect a game like this to be a success because I don't think the market is there at all. Whereas for a game more focused on gameplay the market is obviously there.