4 ms·

Because it draws on your imagination and creativity more vs being told this world exists like so with games nowadays.

grugagag 6y ago
Also because the pattern of the game is more visible and easier to grasp and also easier to asses whether you find the logic of the game compelling or not. And that combined with some creativity can take your mind/imagination somewhere else. Games which are immediate depictions of reality or very detailed kind of keep you right there, there's too much going on to give the imagination some leeway. The same is true for films, music, etc.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  I stopped gaming ages ago but the few I see in videos or at family reunions bores me to death. The immense landscapes and rendering gives you basically the same amount of control as zelda III (I'm exagerating). It doesn't stimulate you much more if at all.
  - grugagag 6y ago
    I stopped playing gaming as well except for simple logic games (chess, board games, word games, puzzles etc), but did play with some younger friends a few games a while back and while fun they got boring pretty fast and didn't feel compelled to play again. We played a game called Halo, it's a very immersive game and it is well made but it did not engage creatively at all. You have to shoot one another, that is the main premise of the game but it surely gets complex, you have some missions, etc. The patters of the game is the same with other modern action games - the shoot to kill type of game only what's changed is the decorum, weapons, characters, but it's the same recycled idea over and over. I found games that break that paradigm rarer. Anyways I'm not willing to sink hours into video games, life is short after all
    - agumonkey 6y ago
      Halo is old already, but this line of games seems very similar. My cousin made me play something quite recent (CoD or something like that) and it was a more action paced Counter Strike without all the finesse. Something is lost in that generation.
      - grugagag 6y ago
        Yes, last time I played that type of game was 10 years ago. I've seen the new call of duty you mentioned and while it's realistic I don't find it too interesting. Sure, it may be used for training for soldiers or something, that type of simulator has good use cases but it leaves me cold.
Lerc 6y ago
I think it's more than that. The abstract nature allows for higher information density. The more you depict reality, the more you are constrained by the real world. To take the game from the article as an example. http://www.voja.rs/PROJECTS/GAME_HTM/screen1.jpg http://www.voja.rs/PROJECTS/GAME_HTM/screen1.jpg This one screen depicts seven floors and a bunch of objects. You can see a lot of things well before you need to interact with them. A lot of 3d views limit the scope of what you can see so that the game becomes 'Here's a thing, deal with it! Here's three more things, deal with them! Here's another...' There's also a bit of a disconnect between the visuals and reality of a lot of modern games. When everything looks near photo realistic, you expect to be able to walk through that gap in those rocks over there, but actually your hitbox is a little large and you won't fit. You don't get those ambiguities so much in 2D. Partially because of the abstract nature makes traversable/non-traversable quite distinct, but also because the view you are seeing will have been seen by the level creator. Arbitrary points of view allow you to look at a game in a way the creator didn't and can potentially expose missed details. I think some of the changes are just styles of design that have drifted over the years, some of those may have been driven by technical issues but now exist on their own. For instance early 3D games had much lower frame-rates which mandated a type of gameplay. Those limitations are now gone, but I think it left a lasting effect on the style of game that people made.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  > I think it's more than that. The abstract nature allows for higher information density. The more you depict reality, the more you are constrained by the real world. I guess that is why Lego and Minecraft are fantastic.

Also because the pattern of the game is more visible and easier to grasp and also easier to asses whether you find the logic of the game compelling or not. And that combined with some creativity can take your mind/imagination somewhere else. Games which are immediate depictions of reality or very detailed kind of keep you right there, there's too much going on to give the imagination some leeway. The same is true for films, music, etc.

agumonkey 6y ago
I stopped gaming ages ago but the few I see in videos or at family reunions bores me to death. The immense landscapes and rendering gives you basically the same amount of control as zelda III (I'm exagerating). It doesn't stimulate you much more if at all.
- grugagag 6y ago
  I stopped playing gaming as well except for simple logic games (chess, board games, word games, puzzles etc), but did play with some younger friends a few games a while back and while fun they got boring pretty fast and didn't feel compelled to play again. We played a game called Halo, it's a very immersive game and it is well made but it did not engage creatively at all. You have to shoot one another, that is the main premise of the game but it surely gets complex, you have some missions, etc. The patters of the game is the same with other modern action games - the shoot to kill type of game only what's changed is the decorum, weapons, characters, but it's the same recycled idea over and over. I found games that break that paradigm rarer. Anyways I'm not willing to sink hours into video games, life is short after all
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    Halo is old already, but this line of games seems very similar. My cousin made me play something quite recent (CoD or something like that) and it was a more action paced Counter Strike without all the finesse. Something is lost in that generation.
    - grugagag 6y ago
      Yes, last time I played that type of game was 10 years ago. I've seen the new call of duty you mentioned and while it's realistic I don't find it too interesting. Sure, it may be used for training for soldiers or something, that type of simulator has good use cases but it leaves me cold.

Lerc 6y ago

I think it's more than that. The abstract nature allows for higher information density. The more you depict reality, the more you are constrained by the real world. To take the game from the article as an example. http://www.voja.rs/PROJECTS/GAME_HTM/screen1.jpg http://www.voja.rs/PROJECTS/GAME_HTM/screen1.jpg This one screen depicts seven floors and a bunch of objects. You can see a lot of things well before you need to interact with them. A lot of 3d views limit the scope of what you can see so that the game becomes 'Here's a thing, deal with it! Here's three more things, deal with them! Here's another...' There's also a bit of a disconnect between the visuals and reality of a lot of modern games. When everything looks near photo realistic, you expect to be able to walk through that gap in those rocks over there, but actually your hitbox is a little large and you won't fit. You don't get those ambiguities so much in 2D. Partially because of the abstract nature makes traversable/non-traversable quite distinct, but also because the view you are seeing will have been seen by the level creator. Arbitrary points of view allow you to look at a game in a way the creator didn't and can potentially expose missed details. I think some of the changes are just styles of design that have drifted over the years, some of those may have been driven by technical issues but now exist on their own. For instance early 3D games had much lower frame-rates which mandated a type of gameplay. Those limitations are now gone, but I think it left a lasting effect on the style of game that people made.

Fnoord 6y ago
> I think it's more than that. The abstract nature allows for higher information density. The more you depict reality, the more you are constrained by the real world. I guess that is why Lego and Minecraft are fantastic.