Is there a surge in interactive point-and-clicks and dialog-heavy, no-action games/visual novels this gen? I think they're boring, but it puts things like FMV games and the bulk of the Philips CD-i library in a new light
Overwatch Uncharted The Last of Us Journey (I love it but it's not a game) Battleborne (soon at least RIP) [insert VN for the Vita here] Most of the PS3/360 library in my eyes
Uncharted 3 is more than 50% video files. If you think I'm gonna sit here and be told that a game that frequently plays itself, and has that much video data, then we got a problem The last of us is in the same boat, but an "interactive movie". I would not consider this a game in the slightest. Same with Lifes Strange Let's not get into the Overwatch one yet.
This game and Last of Us aren't even remotely related. Life is Strange is a modern take on the classical genre of point and click adventures. As are all TellTale games and most quanticdream games. Point and Click adventures are still, however, games. It's a specific genre. Last of Us is a true-blue action adventure, just like Uncharted series (haven't played Uncharted 3 yet though). No, let's get into it. You're the one who brought it up. Finnish what you started.
Even if it's heavy on the cinematics, TLOU is clearly a game. You spend most of the time sneaking past/ramming through Zombies, the cutscenes are only there for the (incredibly well-made) storytelling. I'd agree that they should be skip-able, because you should be free to play how you like, but that doesn't make it less of a game. OOT has unskipable dialogs too, they just aren't in the form of video files. And they're also annoying, especially when I was a young kid that didn't speak English at all.
A point and click game implies you point and click, modern or otherwise. If I wanted a modern take on it, it certainly wouldn't be this. Tlou and Lifes Strange are shallow. Sure make the player do stuff, but in a bigger picture you're not really doing much. If I wanted an action adventure game, I sure as hell wouldn't be playing either of those. I'd be playing Megaman Legends 1 and 2 where which are by far more action adventure games than tlou or something made by telltale Finnish you say? Any developer putting graphics first in a game as the focus is a developer I genuinely don't like to see. Yes by all means have graphics, make your game look good, but dont make it the focus because chances are it's not getting the attention it needs on gameplay. It's been a trend I've seen since PS2 (but has existed much longer) where the shift from gameplay to graphics has ruined potential for games. There used to be limits, making the developers create clever tricks to get past these limitations like spyro's draw distance or crash's animation compression. Now all the main developers and companies will focus on visuals over glaring flaws letdowns or problems with their titles. I'm open to having good visuals in a game but I really dont like when it's the focus, something like every game must now focus on even for stylistic choices.
While I agree with your criticism of video quality over gameplay, I think you're missing my point completely. That a game isn't exactly as the staples of the game-type that you liked when you were young is beyond the point of whether it's a game or not. A game doesn't has to fit in a box like its predecessors and different people can like different takes, or angles, on different genres. e.g. I like the story telling and immersion in Metroid Prime games, I scan everything and I read the lore; some people run through the game and finish it without really understanding the story. Whatever floats your boat. TLOU focused heavily on story telling. You might not like that, but I feel like you would understand our point that it is as much a game as Megaman, if you played it through. Sure it's pretty for a ps3 game, but I wouldn't say the emphasis was placed on graphics. It was placed on acting and storytelling. The UX and gameplay is great too.
That's exactly what you do in Life Is Strange. You point at objects/people and then you click. It would be very weird if you wanted to play an action-adventure game and then go for Life Is Strange, a Point & Click game. Because, obviously, it's not an action-adventure game. Do you even read before you type? Is anybody there? Hello? All telltale games are point & click games. Not action adventure. Not. Very mature how evade finishing what you started and instead resort to teasing me for not having english as my first language. gg
You probably won't play most of these "walking simulators" more than once, but I find e.g. Dear Esther to be a nice diversion from all those shooty-explody pretty-much-multiplayer-only Call of Battlefront 7: Medal of Modern Warfare Ops titles. But to each his own, don't like it? Just play sth else, the market is saturated. And I also absolutely adore the old Lucasfilm/Arts and Sierra adventure games, so I'm very much okay with the (mostly "indie"-)"point-and-click"-style games too. Blackwell? Technobabylon? Yes please! That genre has been dead for far too long. Telltale can pretty much go and suck a duck though.
I don't think anyone has the right to say something that is clearly a game is just not one. Talk to your grandpa, he'd tell you his favorite game when he was a youngin involved a hula hoop and a stick. Are you gonna argue that it wasn't a game because it didn't include side scrolling action? A more appropriate title for this thread would be "Games I'd like to shit on because it's not a genre I like"
Just let me be mad that I havent enjoyed a game post 2002 because of a shift from gameplay to visuals. I seized my opportunity. Every aspect of that """game""" is a joke. From its players to its developers to its CMs.
I can respect and relate to that. It feels nice to be mad about this or that once every once in a while.
Yeah, pretty much. Cinematic games with very little/afterthought or gameplay. The best games are games. The best movies are movies. Film-adapted games usually suck, now game-adapted films are appearing to suck just as much. A fine balance If Telltale Games starts the 2nd Video Game Crash with "E.T.: A Story", we will know for sure.
Game to movie adaptations have always sucked. Have you ever seen Super Mario Bros.? That movie came out in 1993, and it's famous for how awful it is. The vast majority of such movies (game to film adaptations) have been pretty terrible.
I'm going to be stubborn and repeat that I consider TellTale & quanticdream point & click adventures with a taste of visual novel. These type of games have always existed in one form or another. It's just that now the visuals are on par with hollywood productions. The Resident Evil movies weren't all bad. True, but some are said to be good. Arkham Asylum and Disney games on the Mega Drive for example.
There are lots of good games based on movies. Star Wars games anyone? Star Trek Elite Force series was good also, especially Voyager game. Toy Story and mentioned above Disney games. For movies based on games, well it's a different story. Only a few were well... ok. That's why i kinda want BattleTech/Warhammer etc. movies to happen but at the same time i don't if they will be crappy. And chance of that is very high.
Agreed re: Star Wars and Star Trek, remember Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight and Bridge Commander? Two other great examples would of course be GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough (N64 Version) - (TWINE never gets as much credit as it deserves IMO). NightFire and Everything or Nothing are great too. Also, the first Godfather game was a lot of fun. Plus, you can't forget Scarface: The World Is Yours, The Simpsons: Road Rage, and The Simpsons: Hit and Run - all by Radical Entertainment.
