3 ms·

I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude that games are there to be "beaten". That the aim is to beat it, and then you're done. If games were seen as so

I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude that games are there to be "beaten". That the aim is to beat it, and then you're done. If games were seen as something to be played and explored rather than beaten, perhaps people would approach them differently and get a lot more out of them, even if they'd already completed a playthrough.

numo16 8y ago
I read an opinion piece[0] recently that suggested one of the (many) reasons that No Man's Sky was so poorly received at launch was due to the fact games have commonly been boiled down to constant action and "gotta beat the game" mentality, and that players don't know how to just explore and enjoy games as an open-ended single player experience. As someone who plays almost exclusively single player games across a vast numbers of genres, I enjoyed No Man's Sky's "exploring and discovering the unknown" game play at launch and have ever since, as they add more and more content. 0: http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-multiplayer-problem-gamers-solitude-problem/ http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-mul...
- setr 8y ago
  I’m pretty sure the bigger issue was that it was a very weak simulation, with relatively little interaction. Exploring a simulation/procedural generation is not about getting to view the infinite permutations that randomness gives us — it’s to explore the rules that create the simulation, and then to manipulate those rules. The reason sim city and dwarf fortress are intersting, and NMS and Spore were not, is because the simulation is sufficiently expanded as to be worth manipulating (while of course not being so expanded to hinder understanding your manipulations; this is the craft); whereas NMS and Spore had very trivial rules: they didn’t really have any. Which is also why when Dwarf Fortress breaks down, its interesting, while in NMS, it’s pathetic. Note that I’m only referring to NMS on release; though I doubt the simulation has been developed since (I’d bet that the game has since gotten prettier worlds, but not more interesting ones) Tldr; it was poor simulation/generation game, regardless of whether the current market has ADD
babuskov 8y ago
We're talking Metal Slug here. It's completely linear game. Once you complete it, you have seen it all. Well, there are 2 branching paths you can take on some levels, so you should play the game twice to see it all. But that is it, once you played it twice, there's nothing new to see or explore.

numo16 8y ago

I read an opinion piece[0] recently that suggested one of the (many) reasons that No Man's Sky was so poorly received at launch was due to the fact games have commonly been boiled down to constant action and "gotta beat the game" mentality, and that players don't know how to just explore and enjoy games as an open-ended single player experience. As someone who plays almost exclusively single player games across a vast numbers of genres, I enjoyed No Man's Sky's "exploring and discovering the unknown" game play at launch and have ever since, as they add more and more content. 0: http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-multiplayer-problem-gamers-solitude-problem/ http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-mul...

setr 8y ago
I’m pretty sure the bigger issue was that it was a very weak simulation, with relatively little interaction. Exploring a simulation/procedural generation is not about getting to view the infinite permutations that randomness gives us — it’s to explore the rules that create the simulation, and then to manipulate those rules. The reason sim city and dwarf fortress are intersting, and NMS and Spore were not, is because the simulation is sufficiently expanded as to be worth manipulating (while of course not being so expanded to hinder understanding your manipulations; this is the craft); whereas NMS and Spore had very trivial rules: they didn’t really have any. Which is also why when Dwarf Fortress breaks down, its interesting, while in NMS, it’s pathetic. Note that I’m only referring to NMS on release; though I doubt the simulation has been developed since (I’d bet that the game has since gotten prettier worlds, but not more interesting ones) Tldr; it was poor simulation/generation game, regardless of whether the current market has ADD

babuskov 8y ago

We're talking Metal Slug here. It's completely linear game. Once you complete it, you have seen it all. Well, there are 2 branching paths you can take on some levels, so you should play the game twice to see it all. But that is it, once you played it twice, there's nothing new to see or explore.