Worried that Downpour will be too "casual."

[Kenji]

Why is rewarding the hardcore players a "penalty" for casual players?

Because you're taking something away from them.

Note The Adversary's feelings: He wouldn't be alone in thinking that way, and he wouldn't be in the minority. A slightly askew parallel would be Capcom's habit of making players pay for DLC, which is really just unlocking things on the disc: It's not giving the player something, it's selling the player something they already bought There's a large difference, and that difference pisses people off.

The content is on the disc, but sealing it away to higher difficulties is just that: Sealing it away. That's a penalty, and knowing it exists can cause more than a little anger and frustration.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing a game casually, and games should always try to be accessible to new players. But should casual players be automatically entitled to experience *all* of a game's content handed to them on a silver platter? Are you saying that it's wrong to reward effort?

Locking out players who aren't willing or able to devote that kind of time and energy isn't inviting. Being unable to pay your tab at a restaurant in front of your more affluent friends and therefore buying an appetizer for dinner isn't inviting. It's off-putting at best and embarrassing at worst.

Should effort that offers absolutely no contribution to others be rewarded? Think about what we're talking about, here. This isn't creating a new invention, writing a new piece of entertainment, formulating a new business model, or climbing to a doctorate. This is leisure like reading a book or watching a movie. Beyond the minimal requirement of learning the language, should access to a book or movie be restricted based on level of commitment? Why should games? This is the difference between games being legitimized as a mass media of interactive entertainment and being forever sidelined like comic books.

[Tillerman]

Should effort that offers absolutely no contribution to others be rewarded? Think about what we're talking about, here. This isn't creating a new invention, writing a new piece of entertainment, formulating a new business model, or climbing to a doctorate. This is leisure like reading a book or watching a movie. Beyond the minimal requirement of learning the language, should access to a book or movie be restricted based on level of commitment? Why should games? This is the difference between games being legitimized as a mass media of interactive entertainment and being forever sidelined like comic books.

*That's* the difference? I dunno about that. I'd say that the only thing required to "legitimize" games is that they make money, and in that sense they are already well past comic books and butting into movie territory.

And I guess we see games differently. To me, a game is not like a book, or a movie. It's not something where you just experience content and then are done with it, and in fact that sort of undermines the very purpose. If you want to just experience a story, other media is better at that. The point of games in my opinion are to challenge yourself. Not only for video games, but also for sports, boardgames, and any other type of game you can think of. Challenging yourself is fun. That doesn't mean games can't have good stories, but if you remove the element of challenge, then what's the point of even making it a "game"?

[Kenji]

*That's* the difference? I dunno about that. I'd say that the only thing required to "legitimize" games is that they make money, and in that sense they are already well past comic books and butting into movie territory.

Believe it or not, games are still very niche. A game that sells 5 million copies is termed "successful" and there are almost seven billion people in the world. 1.3 billion if you only count the three main games markets (North America, Europe, and Japan). There's no comparison between games and movies in terms of market penetration. That they're comparable in production costs makes it even worse.

When I talk about the level of commitment and comics, I mean the business model that the major publishers (i.e. the only ones that make significant bank) employ to sell issues: Vast interconnection and voluminous mythologies. Keeping up with just one favorite character requires a large investment of time and money to track down the various parts of his/her story. Understanding the other characters and situations that one character interacts with requires a much larger commitment.

It makes the publishers money, but it also restricts the readership of comics and prevents it from becoming a mass entertainment medium. Who but those willing to make that kind of investment can get into these stories? And that's wholly ignoring the puerile attempts at "maturity" that comic writers and publishers have been indulging in the post-Watchmen world. Games aren't showcasing themselves much better, another point of comparison.

The way I see it, games are differentiated by interactivity, not difficulty. Unlike a book or movie, the player becomes the primary agent in a game and creates their own story within the framework of themes, setting, and restrictions on action that games provide. Take a game like FFXIII, which can be difficult but restricts player agency to the point of irrelevance. Is that a good game? Does it anywhere near approach the potential of games as a medium? Will it appeal to anyone who isn't already sold on the post-FFVII methods of Square?

You are right, though, that differing ideologies ultimately make a difference, but I thought it fair to make these points before the conversation moves on.

[Tillerman]

Believe it or not, games are still very niche. A game that sells 5 million copies is termed "successful" and there are almost seven billion people in the world. 1.3 billion if you only count the three main games markets (North America, Europe, and Japan). There's no comparison between games and movies in terms of market penetration. That they're comparable in production costs makes it even worse.

That's not true according to what I've read. Check this out: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry

And also, the fact that production costs are comparable is a clue to how huge the video game market actually is. They wouldn't be spending that much money if they weren't making that much.

It makes the publishers money, but it also restricts the readership of comics and prevents it from becoming a mass entertainment medium. Who but those willing to make that kind of investment can get into these stories? And that's wholly ignoring the puerile attempts at "maturity" that comic writers and publishers have been indulging in the post-Watchmen world. Games aren't showcasing themselves much better, another point of comparison.

Hey, if you want to bash the comics industry, I'll be happy to join you. I pretty much echo your complaints. I also agree that the level of writing in games is generally WAY lower than film, and comparable to comics.

The way I see it, games are differentiated by interactivity, not difficulty. Unlike a book or movie, the player becomes the primary agent in a game and creates their own story within the framework of themes, setting, and restrictions on action that games provide. Take a game like FFXIII, which can be difficult but restricts player agency to the point of irrelevance. Is that a good game? Does it anywhere near approach the potential of games as a medium? Will it appeal to anyone who isn't already sold on the post-FFVII methods of Square?

Yes, I think FFXIII is a great game. Though the points you raise have been intriguing me lately... this whole idea of "immersion" and "interactivity." I think they are exciting ideas, but I wonder if they really represent the ideal of what "games" should be. If you take video games to their logical conclusion, where they become virtual reality like a Star Trek Holodeck, then they don't even necessarily need to be "games" anymore. If you can make a person appear in virtual reality and just sit down and talk to them, you are "interacting," but is that really a "game"? I would say no, that no longer fits my definition of "game," but it certainly sounds like a compelling experience. And of course, there could still be real games that use virtual reality, like some sort of spy game where you are James Bond. And since it's a "game," it'd have to have rules, challenge, and a way to win. The game might force you to play out it's plot, rather than chat up the bartender.

So I think that for me, I can't agree that the focus of games needs to be "interaction." I think that technology-wise, we're in a weird place right now where people are trying to get two competing experiences from one type of media... a game experience, and an interactive experience. So in the case of FFXIII, while it might be poor as an interactive experience, it's a great game. Personally, I think technology isn't at a sufficient level yet to provide a "real" interactive experience... I don't find games like Dragon Age that try to force it by giving you tons of multiple choice options to be compelling. I don't know if you've played a game called "Facade," but in terms of games that provide an interactive experience, that's about as close as anyone's gotten to making one. And it's still nothing but a cheap illusion, once you understand how it works. For me, there are no games that provide real satisfying "interactive experiences," and there won't be until A.I. starts to catch up to the complexity of a human. When games do catch up, I'll be excited to try them, but for now I play games for the challenge and fun, and don't really care about interactivity. That's just me, though.

You are right, though, that differing ideologies ultimately make a difference, but I thought it fair to make these points before the conversation moves on.

Those are all fair points, save for the fact that I think you have your facts wrong about the size of the game industry. (Unless that article I quoted is just ridiculously wrong, which is possible I suppose.) Other than that, you're right, we have different ideologies. Anyway, I feel that game developers should be trying to accomodate all kinds of players, both casual and hardcore, and I think throwing a little extra bone to the hardcore players is not asking for a lot.

[Soulless-Shadow]

I see where you're coming from. But how much of a "punishment" it actually is really depends on the nature of the unlockable ending itself. For example, take Parasite Eve's "bonus ending." In all honesty I can tell you that if you didn't see that, you missed very little... the ending you get at the end of the regular game is pretty much all you needed.

I haven't played Parasite Eve. I don't think it was released in PAL territories. >_< But I understand what you're saying. As long as the content isn't important to the story line then there's no problem, but like with the example I used (Project Zero 2/Fatal Frame 2) it's really annoying. It was a completely different ending that, if I recall correctly, was not only...only available on the Xbox version, but only achievable after beating Nightmare mode. >_< That ending and the canon/normal ending were completely different. That's the kind of content that shouldn't be restricted to hardcore gamers.

Now, in a hypothetical extreme case where the normal ending to the game is complete crap, and the hard mode ending is awesome, then yeah, I would agree with you that casual gamers are being "punished." But I'm having a hard time thinking of cases where that actually happens...

Like I said, Project Zero 2/Fatal Frame 2. I won't spoil it for anyone, but the normal ending and the Nightmare mode/difficulty ending were so completely different.

Anyway, that's not really the direction I'd like to see them go either... if there is gonna be an excusive hard mode ending, I would rather it be more of a bonus ending that you don't need to see in order to understand the story. Or, like I said, it doesn't even need to be an ending, in fact I would prefer an extra boss for hard mode if I had a choice.

I'm happy with extra bosses on hard mode. Other games have done that sort of thing for people who really want a challenge. For example, Emerald and Ruby Weapons from FF7. By the time one is powerful enough to defeat them, the story is all but over, and all items/materia have been obtained. The only reason one defeats them is for the satisfaction (or bragging rights, depending on ones maturity level).

[lain of the wired]

^^Oh, wiki, wiki, wiki... let's do please note the numbers haven't been updated since 2009, yes? And it never specifies what sales numbers = the failure and discontinuation of a series. Nor, for that matter, does the number of sales automatically = a successful game. There have been some regrettably terrible games that were HIGHLY anticipated and preordered, only to the disappointment and disillusionment of their fanbase (I'm looking at YOU, ET the Extra Terrestrial). Can you honestly say you've never, ever experienced that deep sadness from a game you waited for for so long?

Look, I get freaked out pretty easily. I have a very immersive personality, to the point that I'll jump if I get too into a Stephen King book and someone touches me. I literally cannot play SH without already knowing exactly where everything will be that I need or that controller is getting lodged in the wall. When you say "casual gamer," you're talking about me and less. Casual gamers are the Guitar Hero ONLY players; people who play brightly colored games because they want to be with their friends, not get super into unlocking the achievements; the people who play Tetris and Angry Birds on their cell phones and call themselves "gamers." If you're worried that the designers of the new SH game are turning against their fanbase- their lifeblood, their bread and butter- that's just stupid.

The only way for SH- which is a super niche series- to appeal to the rest of the gamer population is to ease up on the cult and become more like RE: you can pick it up and know EXACTLY what's expected of you within seconds, and you know what to look for to get rewards (shiny=good!). What you're talking about is more like... let's say, Eternal Darkness. Fuck the player UP kinda game. You hand that to some seven year old calling you n00bfag in a dark room and see how far they get. But that's a certain fanbase- a certain level of gamer. The same thing can be said of people who appreciate fine art vs. those who like, say, a clever printed t-shirt. Which one do you think will make the most money, overall? And I'm not talking about truly recognizable to the layman, like Manet or Picasso- I mean like Gustave Courbet. Ever heard of him before you googled him? Bet you didn't! But I bet you'd buy this before you'd buy a Courbet... get it?

SH attracts a certain crowd. We generally aren't satisfied by a generic shootemup: just because there're monsters and maybe a troubled protagonist doesn't meant we're buying it. At the same time, you won't see parents wander in to GameStop and request a game for young Billy's birthday and see the clerk hand them Silent Hill 2. There's more money in the populous than there is in the niche, is what I'm saying. But you know, I'm ok with that, and I don't think it'll be any sort of issue, because they're playing to their audience at this point. They know their niche, and they know we want to support them. It's a balancing act, but once the balance is upset, why not enjoy the ride down to the trampoline beneath? I believe the developers behind the SH series are coming to embrace the adrenaline rush of the fall, and I don't worry about them trying to get back up on the beam, even if the rest of the world prefers the beam, you dig?

If you're so worried, just be sure to set it to "hard" the first time through. That's what difficulty settings are for, after all- otherwise my collection of SH would be still untouched.

[Kenji]

That's not true according to what I've read. Check this out: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry

As my father would say, a number by itself can be misleading. Let me throw out a couple of trends that would affect the numbers:

1) The obvious: A console costs between $100 and $400, and a new game costs $50 or $60. A movie ticket is still just below $10, and DVDs are now less than $20.

2) Theater attendance and DVD sales have been declining. This doesn't mean that movie and television viewership have also declined, though: With high-speed internet and P2P sharing, it's easier, cheaper, and more convenient to wait awhile and download a movie than it is to go to the local theater and see it. One of the reasons the movie industry has so enthusiastically embraced 3D and has been trying so hard to make it a phenomenon (which hasn't been working) is because 3D is one of the few things a theater can offer that current PCs and televisions can't. The same ideology is behind Blu-Ray and HDTVs: To offer an experience that PCs and pirated movies can't.

3) PC gaming aside (which is why we have DRM), games are generally more difficult to pirate than movies.

I can't speak for or against that site's numbers, but please keep these trends in mind. I don't think it's a question that more people watch movies than play videogames, but it's infinitely more difficult to track movie viewership than gamership. It doesn't help that the box office only tracks money and not unit sales.

I pretty much echo your complaints. I also agree that the level of writing in games is generally WAY lower than film, and comparable to comics.

Comics and games frustrate me in similar ways. There's a lot of storytelling potential in sequential art and interactive entertainment that can convey certain ideas better than cinema or print. I don't think the answer is simply to bring novelists on board, either: It's a different medium that should be run by a different ideology.

I think the cinematic model that game developers have been chasing since the first PlayStation is the wrong idea (not that there isn't a market for it or that such a market doesn't deserve to be satisfied). As bad as Hollywood has gotten, it still makes better movies than game developers. I don't see that changing.

Though the points you raise have been intriguing me lately... this whole idea of "immersion" and "interactivity." I think they are exciting ideas, but I wonder if they really represent the ideal of what "games" should be.

Actually, I would go so far as to say that Super Mario Bros. and Missile Command fit the interactive bill. How you go about saving the Princess, whether you rely on mushrooms and flowers or take it all on in normal form, whether you fight or flee, these are all examples of player agency. Likewise, making the strategic decision to sacrifice a city to make it easier to defend the others is another example of agency. It's as simple and as difficult as knowing where to leave blanks for the player's imagination to fill in.

Demon's Souls, for instance, has a very simple plot. Instead, the lines of dialogue and item descriptions are used to build setting. The player is left to create the story with his/her actions and use their imagination to figure out what Boletaria was like before the fog rolled in. It's very engaging and, I think, very instructive.

In other words, I don't think these ideologies are mutually exclusive. I'm caught among many different forces: I enjoy hard games and believe gameplay should be at the center of development, but I also want gaming (or interactive entertainment) to be inclusive and realize its full storytelling potential. I liked Shattered Memories, but my favorite game is still the original Super Mario Bros., and I think that dichotomy sums it up pretty well.

[Soulless-Shadow]

I mean like Gustave Courbet. Ever heard of him before you googled him? Bet you didn't! But I bet you'd buy this before you'd buy a Courbet... get it?

Ok, don't google what's-his-name if you're at work. I got lots of paintings of boobies, and at least one of lady bits, and another of what I can only assume are lesbian lovers.

If you're so worried, just be sure to set it to "hard" the first time through. That's what difficulty settings are for, after all- otherwise my collection of SH would be still untouched.

Same here. While for the most part I'm more of a mid-core gamer, if I'm playing a game (especially a SH game) for the first time, I like to have it on Easy. Otherwise I wouldn't have the patience to finish. Subsequent playthroughs are when I dare increase the difficulty.

[SPRINGS02]

Eh i have to play silent hill on normal for the first time. I guess as far as difficulty goes it's different for me with different games. Most horror games i play on normal, while some hack and slash games like god of war i prefer on hard. Then of course sports games like nba 2k11 i play on higher difficulties, and super smash bros i have to play on the highest difficulty. It varies game to game. I play a lot of games, but silent hill isn't a game i play for challenge. I play it to hopefully get freaked out. I know you said that the idea of having to start over can make the game more tense and scary, tillerman. But i have to disagree, i don't think it really adds to the game or makes it scary. It can make you a little more nervous about dying but i don't think it actually makes the game itself more scary. The game should be able to be scary itself and create fear and tension with the whole atmosphere instead of worrying about continuing. I've played horror games that are harder and it kind of detracts from the atmosphere when you keep dying. The suffering 2 did this, a lot.

[lain of the wired]

Ok, don't google what's-his-name if you're at work. I got lots of paintings of boobies, and at least one of lady bits, and another of what I can only assume are lesbian lovers.

Look for his Desperate Man- I've been lucky enough to see it IRL, and it's one of my favorite pieces. I may reference it more often 'round here as need be, in fact.

Though the points you raise have been intriguing me lately... this whole idea of "immersion" and "interactivity." I think they are exciting ideas, but I wonder if they really represent the ideal of what "games" should be. If you take video games to their logical conclusion, where they become virtual reality like a Star Trek Holodeck, then they don't even necessarily need to be "games" anymore. If you can make a person appear in virtual reality and just sit down and talk to them, you are "interacting," but is that really a "game"? I would say no, that no longer fits my definition of "game," but it certainly sounds like a compelling experience. ...The game might force you to play out it's plot, rather than chat up the bartender.

O fellow Student of Psyche, where hast thy training gone? Did you never study child psych? Don't you know what the fundamentals of "games" are? It's all about the simulation! You "play" house, you "play" soldier, and you "play" video games... the very definition of a game is play in accordance with set rules- the competition you seem to thrive upon is entirely secondary! So, hate to say it, but your whole holodeck star trek scenario? That's a game! Interaction with others, within a set of rules that don't necessarily apply to RL, that's a game!

Face it: long before we had the interwebs to brag about our accomplishments on, we were STILL playing those fucking games! It wasn't about the competition then, was it? No, it was about US saving Peach! This is what I did! I, I, I! Ego, the only person really able to appreciate the interaction we had in the game whilst bouncing off the goomba's heads! Perhaps you believe you've moved on and it's become all about bringing home the biggest pelt to brag to all the other cavemen, but you should know better than anyone here about Maslow, and recognize that games are part of that tip-top of the pyramid, and therefore all about the immersion of self and interaction within the game before the interaction of spectators.

[Soulless-Shadow]

Ok, don't google what's-his-name if you're at work. I got lots of paintings of boobies, and at least one of lady bits, and another of what I can only assume are lesbian lovers.

Look for his Desperate Man- I've been lucky enough to see it IRL, and it's one of my favorite pieces. I may reference it more often 'round here as need be, in fact.

Oh, yeah. I saw that when I googled what's-his-name. I thought the Desperate Man looked a lot like Johnny Depp from Pirates of the Caribbean. Of course, I then had a look at Google images, and right after the close-up painting of lady bits (which was also painted by Gustave. Origin of the World, I think it was called...Don't Google image it >_< ) was a close-up Desperate Man's eyes... The look on his face...I don't know who was more shocked at the Origin of the World painting - me or him. But from what I've seen, Gustave Courbet was one talented artist. I digress though.

Eh i have to play silent hill on normal for the first time. I guess as far as difficulty goes it's different for me with different games. Most horror games i play on normal, while some hack and slash games like god of war i prefer on hard. Then of course sports games like nba 2k11 i play on higher difficulties, and super smash bros i have to play on the highest difficulty. It varies game to game. I play a lot of games, but silent hill isn't a game i play for challenge. I play it to hopefully get freaked out. I know you said that the idea of having to start over can make the game more tense and scary, tillerman. But i have to disagree, i don't think it really adds to the game or makes it scary. It can make you a little more nervous about dying but i don't think it actually makes the game itself more scary. The game should be able to be scary itself and create fear and tension with the whole atmosphere instead of worrying about continuing. I've played horror games that are harder and it kind of detracts from the atmosphere when you keep dying. The suffering 2 did this, a lot.

I try not to get a character killed in a game, regardless of where I'll end up. I don't know about anyone else, and I don't know how insane this makes me (little help, lain? ), but I always think of the character as an extension of myself. If they die, I "die", so to speak. They're safety is my safety. After all, they're my avatar in their little world and journey, and as such I feel the apprehension that I think they (would) feel. So, for me the annoyance of restarting from there rather than here doesn't add to the fear or experience, though unless it's a really difficult game it doesn't normally bother me. The fear comes from trying to keep "myself" safe in an uncertain and dangerous place. A game can be scary and have numerous checkpoints.

[lain of the wired]

I know you said that the idea of having to start over can make the game more tense and scary, tillerman. But i have to disagree, i don't think it really adds to the game or makes it scary. It can make you a little more nervous about dying but i don't think it actually makes the game itself more scary. The game should be able to be scary itself and create fear and tension with the whole atmosphere instead of worrying about continuing. I've played horror games that are harder and it kind of detracts from the atmosphere when you keep dying. The suffering 2 did this, a lot.

I try not to get a character killed in a game, regardless of where I'll end up. I don't know about anyone else, and I don't know how insane this makes me (little help, lain? ), but I always think of the character as an extension of myself. If they die, I "die", so to speak. They're safety is my safety. After all, they're my avatar in their little world and journey, and as such I feel the apprehension that I think they (would) feel. So, for me the annoyance of restarting from there rather than here doesn't add to the fear or experience, though unless it's a really difficult game it doesn't normally bother me. The fear comes from trying to keep "myself" safe in an uncertain and dangerous place. A game can be scary and have numerous checkpoints.

Yeah, that's kinda how it's supposed to work, actually. If you're dying too much, it breaks the fluidity of the experience if you feel completely fearless: "why, you're nothing but a pack of pixels!" Who cares, then, if that pink and white blob of lights is ever saved from the big green and yellow blob of lights by that little red blob of lights? A good gaming experience makes you either care about the protagonist by making them an extension of yourself, or makes you care about them as a character (again, interaction is key here! Who really cared deeply about Henry's personal well-being?). That said, I see nothing wrong with a well placed, not-so-obvious check point after an especially difficult area. As said, it breaks the flow if you have to go back over and over, and the scare becomes mere annoyance.

Tillerman: I'm sorry, dude, but you are jaded as fuckall if "it's still nothing but a cheap illusion, once you understand how it works." I've dedicated my career to studying and utilizing what you just called nothing but a cheap illusion. So, you're saying that once you understand that it's nothing but lines on paper, art's pretty meaningless too, huh? Movies and TV are just people wearing costumes pretending to be things they totally aren't, as well- just a bunch of pretentious asses prancing about saying words they don't mean, right? Also, the things that happen in books aren't real. Even the non-fiction isn't actually happening when you read it, so there's no reason to get all caught up by the events or care about the people they're happening to. That's some drained imagination you've got there... maybe you should stick to sport competition IRL, or puzzle games with no ludology factors, since it doesn't matter to you.

...Do you see how silly that statement is, yet?

[Tillerman]

I can't speak for or against that site's numbers, but please keep these trends in mind. I don't think it's a question that more people watch movies than play videogames, but it's infinitely more difficult to track movie viewership than gamership. It doesn't help that the box office only tracks money and not unit sales.

While I think all of your points are valid, my original point was that videogames are not a niche market. So even if more people watch movies than play video games, what matters is how much money videogames make. And in terms of money, videogames are very mainstream.

In other words, I don't think these ideologies are mutually exclusive.

I agree. And by the way, I do love Demon's Souls. What I love about the game is that it doesn't coddle the player, quite the opposite... if you make a mistake the crushes you like a maggot. If you want to get anywhere you need to conquer that game. That's really refreshing to me considering that most games tend to go the opposite direction, and while I don't think every game needs to be that hardcore, sometimes it's really fun to play a game that is!

Anyway, yeah, those ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive, but there's room for different approaches. The one thing I don't want to see is all games heading down the same path. It's nice that people are trying to make games more interactive now, but those types of games don't really do it for me yet... when I play a game like Bioshock it bothers me that my character never talks. I like games with cinematics and I hope they'll keep making them.

I play a lot of games, but silent hill isn't a game i play for challenge. I play it to hopefully get freaked out. I know you said that the idea of having to start over can make the game more tense and scary, tillerman. But i have to disagree, i don't think it really adds to the game or makes it scary. It can make you a little more nervous about dying but i don't think it actually makes the game itself more scary. The game should be able to be scary itself and create fear and tension with the whole atmosphere instead of worrying about continuing. I've played horror games that are harder and it kind of detracts from the atmosphere when you keep dying. The suffering 2 did this, a lot.

I might be giving you the wrong impression... I don't really play horror games for challenge either. At least, not in the same way I play a game like Demon's Souls or Bayonetta. I think there has to be *some* level of challenge, but in my opinion a very careful balance is needed, it has to be challenging enough that you are worried, but not so challenging as to be frustrating. If you want an example of a recent game that has the perfect level of challenge, I would say Minecraft... if you've never played it, and you like horror games, you need to play it! It's amazing how effective that game is at being scary without even trying. What makes it such a good balance of challenge is that the game really isn't that hard, if you're careful you should never die... but it's not easy to be careful all the time, and one slip could lose all of the items you're carrying. I think that *has* to have a psychological effect on just about any player, it certainly does for me.

So let me ask you a question... what if a horror game lets you respawn in the same spot you died an infinite number of times, with no penalties? In other words, a horror equivalent of Castlevania 2. Can you say that honestly would not sabotage the fear of the game at all for you?

Tillerman: I'm sorry, dude, but you are jaded as fuckall if "it's still nothing but a cheap illusion, once you understand how it works." I've dedicated my career to studying and utilizing what you just called nothing but a cheap illusion.

I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that the A.I. in the game "Facade" is nothing but a cheap illusion. If you've played Facade and you wanna debate that, that's cool... but the point I was trying to make was simply that A.I. has a very long way to go before it's even close to the point where it can be used convincingly in games. We're a very long way from having games where you can interact with A.I. that seems like a real person. In fact, I don't even think we're capable of having A.I. that can understand complex sentence structures. Facade is the boldest game I've seen that tries to be "interactive," where you can just type in any sentence and the characters are supposed to react, but it's so limited and the characters get confused very easily, and only seem to respond to key words. That's where we seem to be with A.I. right now. Do you disagree?

[Doctor Eggnog]

I play some games for the gameplay and some games for the story. I don't play games to challenge myself, or even with neccesarily the goal of beating it in mind. I play a game to experience it, to see what it is and if I like it, which well help me to decide if I should also buy similar games. I find RPGs really easy, because for most of them, especially turn based, all you need is the patience to grind to win, so I play really hard RPGs. I like games where you know what you're supposed to do (unless it's specifically a puzzle you're doing) but doing it can be difficult. I think that the best thing for games to eliminate, and are eliminating, is the confusion of knowing where to go and what to do. That makes a game seem casual, but not really when the things you have to do are still difficult.

It really depends on the game though. I generally play Silent Hill for the experience, atmosphere, and story. Silent Hill 2 is my favorite game, but the combat is boring and easy. Would the game be better with better combat like Silent Hill 3? A little. Would it be better with challenging combat and a crappy story? HELL NO! I like that Silent Hill 3 has so many great options for making the game harder, and some incentives for doing so. It expands the game a little and gives more incentives for replayability, but it doesn't make or break the game for me. It's just nice, and I'd like to see a return of the Extreme modes in Dounpour, but I think easy mode should be pretty damn easy for those who just want the experience. A lot of people just play Silent Hill games on the lower difficulties because they only care about the experience and not the challenge. Should they miss out on some extra weapons and maybe a few little tidbits (that they could check out online anyway) because of that? Yes. Should that make or break the game for them? No.

There are some games I play just for the challenge. Like Etrian Odyssey. And while the story and graphics and all that stuff is nice, Crisis Core on Hard mode makes me not able to imagine having nearly as much fun on Normal. Also, I haven't bought Final Fantasy 1 on PSP because I've heard they've dumbed down the difficulty some. Why play FF1 if not for the challenge? It's not like it has a riveting story.

[Kenji]

While I think all of your points are valid, my original point was that videogames are not a niche market. So even if more people watch movies than play video games, what matters is how much money videogames make. And in terms of money, videogames are very mainstream.

I judge popularity based on unit sales, not dollar sales. After all, you can make a pretty penny peddling to lolicons in Japan, and they have quite a bit of excess income to spend on this industry, but that doesn't mean (one would hope) that pedophilia is mainstream, regardless of what Sankaku says. "Mainstream" and "niche" are terms of popularity, which can figure into profitability (though not necessarily).

[Tillerman]

I think if we're talking about how important a market is, sales is really the way to judge. It's tough to judge popularity, but just through my own experience it seems like pretty much everyone I know owns a game system of some kind. Either way, I definitely don't think you can call the game market "niche." Whether it's beating the movie industry is another matter, but the fact that it's even comparable is pretty amazing. It's certainly in another stratosphere from the comics industry, which is definitely still niche, and is sort of kept on life support by the success of the movies.

You know, the interesting thing about games in Japan is that even games themselves aren't "mainstream." They might be in terms of money, but there's still a huge social stigma around gaming that doesn't exist in the U.S. In Japan, games are still very much seen as something for kids, and you are expected to give them up once you reach adulthood and give your life to "the company" or whatever. If you still play games as an adult, you certainly don't talk about it in public, or else you are regarded as a freak.

I guess I don't play every game strictly for "the challenge," but I think there has to at least be an element of challenge in every game I play, or else it doesn't feel like a game anymore.

[lain of the wired]

^The game market itself is no more "niche" than the movie market is "niche." HOWEVER, the genres and series CAN be niche markets. I like horror movies, but I despise Rom-Com genre. I have a friend who is the precise opposite. BY DEFINITION, the horror movie genre becomes a particular niche of movie experience. Furthermore, I enjoy zombie movies, but not slasher movies: this further narrows the niche of horror movies I enjoy. Furthermore, I enjoy studio-produced zombie movies over student films, YET STILL narrowing that niche that I'm all about. STILL FUCKING FURTHERMORE, I like the Romero zombie movies over other studio produced zombie movies. THIS IS A NICHE. THIS IS A NICHE WITHIN A GENRE WITHIN A MEDIUM. THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY SH IS A NICHE GAME.

Do you understand what is meant by "niche" yet?

Tillerman: I'm sorry, dude, but you are jaded as fuckall if "it's still nothing but a cheap illusion, once you understand how it works." I've dedicated my career to studying and utilizing what you just called nothing but a cheap illusion.

I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that the A.I. in the game "Facade" is nothing but a cheap illusion. If you've played Facade and you wanna debate that, that's cool... but the point I was trying to make was simply that A.I. has a very long way to go before it's even close to the point where it can be used convincingly in games. We're a very long way from having games where you can interact with A.I. that seems like a real person. In fact, I don't even think we're capable of having A.I. that can understand complex sentence structures. Facade is the boldest game I've seen that tries to be "interactive," where you can just type in any sentence and the characters are supposed to react, but it's so limited and the characters get confused very easily, and only seem to respond to key words. That's where we seem to be with A.I. right now. Do you disagree?

Yes, I do. I've played Facade, and it's no better than a MUDD with pictures. It's about as interactive as a Japanese dating sim. There were more groundbreaking titles in interaction back in 1987.

Why would you pick such a terrible game as your posterchild for "the best AI available?" It's so limited by its own definition of "interaction" as to be obsolete in comparison to modern games. That's not AI: that's all but literally inputting binary. You are SO not trying to argue that a game from six years ago is THE PINNACLE of AI technology in a game, when the industry has made such great leaps and bounds in programming, AI and simple acting voice acting standards since then- I do not accept this.

You play something recent, then get back to me and we'll have a decent debate. Your standards are really, really skewed here. I'ma give you the benefit of the doubt and either wait for you to take it back because of "the language barrier," or let you admit you haven't played a single video game since 2005 with a free pass for no mocking.

[Tillerman]

THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY SH IS A NICHE GAME.

You're a little confused... we weren't talking about Silent Hill. We were talking about whether video games as a whole are a "legitimate" market. Kenji said he thought they were more of a niche market, that's how the term "niche" came up.

I've played Facade, and it's no better than a MUDD with pictures. It's about as interactive as a Japanese dating sim. There were more groundbreaking titles in interaction back in 1987.

Sounds like we agree about Facade. I've never played "The Lurking Horror," but I was talking more about A.I. than interactivity. I think "interactivity" is a more generalized category, tons of games are interactive, but what I'm specifically talking about is a computer A.I. that can understand complex ideas and can fake personality.

Why would you pick such a terrible game as your posterchild for "the best AI available?"

I wouldn't claim that Facade is the "poster child" for the best A.I. available, but it did receive a lot of attention and there were certainly a lot of people claiming it was a revolutionary game for it's A.I. I am not one of those people, so I'm a little confused why you're trying to argue with me... honestly, I have no idea if better attempts have been made at doing what Facade was trying to do, but if there are I would love to know about them. Mind enlightening me?

[Yuki]

I might be giving you the wrong impression... I don't really play horror games for challenge either. At least, not in the same way I play a game like Demon's Souls or Bayonetta. I think there has to be *some* level of challenge, but in my opinion a very careful balance is needed, it has to be challenging enough that you are worried, but not so challenging as to be frustrating. If you want an example of a recent game that has the perfect level of challenge, I would say Minecraft... if you've never played it, and you like horror games, you need to play it! It's amazing how effective that game is at being scary without even trying. What makes it such a good balance of challenge is that the game really isn't that hard, if you're careful you should never die... but it's not easy to be careful all the time, and one slip could lose all of the items you're carrying. I think that *has* to have a psychological effect on just about any player, it certainly does for me.

So let me ask you a question... what if a horror game lets you respawn in the same spot you died an infinite number of times, with no penalties? In other words, a horror equivalent of Castlevania 2. Can you say that honestly would not sabotage the fear of the game at all for you?

To each their own, then. The risk of losing everything in a game does have a psychological affect on me: annoyance. It doesn't make it scarier.

For instance, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. It had a weird checkpoint system where you'd start at certain points in the chase sequences. There was no consequence for dying, yet running for my life was still tense (if not outright scary, because the game itself didn't scare me too much). It's all in the atmosphere for me, and I should think for a lot of other people.

I don't see a game and think "OH MY GOD I CAN LOSE MY ITEMS THIS IS SO SCARY!".

[SPRINGS02]

So let me ask you a question... what if a horror game lets you respawn in the same spot you died an infinite number of times, with no penalties? In other words, a horror equivalent of Castlevania 2. Can you say that honestly would not sabotage the fear of the game at all for you?

Hmm honestly, if the game was actually really scary, no it wouldn't really. dying can add some to the game's atmosphere, but i honestly think the majority of the scariness comes from the game itself and the creepy atmosphere. To go off of what yuki said, i found shattered memories not even remotely scary, but it wasn't due to the amount of checkpoints everywhere. It was because the game was seriously lacking in atmosphere, and the rawshocks weren't scary. I will say that i don't a horror game not having checkpoints everywhere though, i just don't think it actually adds to the horror. Im pretty neutral about checkpoints(as long as the game doesn't have ridiculously long stretches with no checkpoints or save points)