I didn't mean to infer the difficulty or gameplay of DKC Tropical Freeze was juvenile, I meant more the presentation and aesthetic. Compare to the original DKC trilogy, where it had this cool ethereal tone to it... Tropical Freeze feels too "bouncy" and jovial, so the theming of it all totally disengages me. The "darker" feel of the original Trilogy (even DKC3!) was a big driver in my interest in the series. This new one just feels too... obnoxious? Like a faked smile.

I certainly got that from the first world, too. Very generic jaunty and a bit irritating. It gets more interesting after that, for the most part. Some levels and pieces of music look/sound exceptional.

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 1st, 2020, 12:18 pm Using in-game cameras as an example, there are too many games to count or name from the fifth & sixth generations that featured poorly implemented cameras [..] the fact that the technical implementation of in-game cameras in 3D space has broadly improved from then to now, is almost undeniable to me.

Okay, if I understand your reasoning (and please correct me if I don't!), you're considering a game camera to be little more than a dry technicality to be evaluated based on one factor and one factor only: namely visibility and whether or not it gets in the way of the action. That's totally fair. The reason I completely disagree with the above statement is that I view it as a fully-fledged mechanic which, when designed properly of course, is capable of enriching the rest of the game in a way that a universal system simply cannot. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of examples of completely atrocious old-school camera systems, and of course modern cameras are significantly easier to adjust to, broadly speaking. But there are also a lot of babies that have been thrown out with that particular bathwater over the years.

Let's use Horizon: Zero Dawn or Uncharted 4 as a few examples. I assume you don't have any severe objections to those games' camera, correct? It's perfectly amenable, never gets hung up on anything, never brings any attention to itself and keeps Aloy / Nate center-frame at all times. It's as consumer-friendly as it can get. But I would also describe it as sterile and unfortunately completely devoid of any kind of artistic merit.

On the flipside, a lot of 6th Gen 3D polygonal AAA action games like Metroid Prime, REmake, Resident Evil 4, MGS3, DMC3, God Hand, Õkami, Shadow of the Colossus and God of War all make use of unique camera systems with their own little touches and properties that are meant to underline their presentation in a way that is best conductive to their respective experiences. But of course, alternative or experimental camera systems almost always require the player to relinquish control in some form, sometimes even taking mechanical control away from them entirely. And one thing that they all have in common is that they were all lambasted for it sooner or later to the point where 99% of modern AAA games are now simply using standardized first person or third person camera systems without a second thought.

Personally, I think it's a loss.

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 1st, 2020, 12:18 pm On the dumbing down of control schemes point, I agree with you here in that there are definitely examples where games have been overly simplified to the detriment of the experience and suffered a backlash as a result (which was the example you were thinking of by the why- I couldn’t guess!). But then you have to ask why? I’d wager that in many cases it’s to try and broaden the appeal of the game, and make it more accessible to a wider audience and thus ultimately generate more sales.

For the record, I was talking about Devil May Cry 5, which recreated the control scheme of 3 (and 4), as opposed to the streamlined and simplified version of the Ninja Theory reboot. And the reason they did that was not to mess with the audience for shits and giggles, it's because the type of input complexity it allows simply wouldn't translate to any other control scheme. Personally, I'm very glad they stuck to their guns on that one because it is incredibly well thought-out and works like an absolute charm despite its slightly elevated barrier of entry.

And yeah, obviously it's all about the money most of the time. But then I have to point out that sacrificing a work's creative potential in order to accommodate the lowest common denominator, as it often happens, is very rarely a good idea in the long term.

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 1st, 2020, 12:18 pm Wipeout 2048 > F-Zero GX
Bioshock > Metroid Prime
Pikmin 3 > Pikmin (cheating a bit obviously, but I do think it’s better and possibly a reason why they don’t bother re-releasing the original).

Don’t hate me!

No, I don't hate you. I am however a tad disappointed at the sheer number of Awakening fans who casually dismiss older Fire Emblem games more or less sight unseen, and I also have to very strongly object to lumping Metroid Prime and BioShock within the same category. But I suppose that's a discussion for another day.

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 1st, 2020, 12:18 pm But all art is viewed through the lens and context of the time in which it is created and every day/week/month/year that follows. Societal norms, cultural trends, personal experiences - they all have a completely unavoidable influence on one’s interpretation of art, and in this case, a game. And all of those things are in a constant state of flux. You can’t evaluate something in a vacuum. Yes the game has not changed, but everything else around it (including you!) has.

Well, I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you make it out to be here. Yes, obviously evaluating something in a complete vacuum is not technically possible. But short of that, there's also something to be said about evaluating it based on its own merits first and foremost, which is what I'm trying to do most of the time. When I experience someone else's game / movie / novel, I want to understand what they were trying to do, how they went about doing it and whether or not it succeeds at it. Of course getting older deepens my understanding and influences my interpretation of certain things, but how exactly would societal norms and cultural trends impact my appreciation of, say, The Odyssey? I really don't see it. I have basically the same appreciation of the book now as I did in the 90's when I first read it.

Speaking purely of video games, whenever I revisit the first Metal Gear Solid for example, of course there's a small initial hurdle on account of how fundamentally different that game is from the kind of game that is being released today. But what I do is simply take the time necessary to re-learn the controls and re-adjust to the graphical fidelity of the console. Once I've done that, my appreciation for the game is basically the same as it always has been. I really don't think I deal with this "constant state of flux" in the way you're describing.

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 1st, 2020, 12:18 pm For example you can’t begrudge or invalidate the opinion of someone coming fresh to an older game today and comparing it to something more recent that they have played.

I very much can if I think that they're holding it to unfair standards, or if they're working backwards from their conclusion, or if they haven't taken the time and/or the effort to understand and/or appreciate its inner workings. In the same vein that I don't put much stock in the "opinion" of someone who decided to watch a dubbed version of Lawrence of Arabia on their phone's cracked screen while doing the dishes and checking their emails or something to that effect.

As an example of what I mean by unfair standards: I also don't pull up to painting galleries in my free time and start telling the people there that their beloved medium has been rendered obsolete since the invention of sculpture and that those flat things on the wall just "don't hold up" "in this day and age" since they're "missing a dimensional axis". Slightly exaggerated and not completely literal scenario of course, but hopefully it gets my point across.

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 1st, 2020, 12:18 pm You could in fact argue that theirs is the most objective opinion as, as far as possible, the time of the older game’s creation is less relevant to them. They’re simply comparing two things in the here and now, with none of the historical influence or nostalgia that comes from you or I looking back on something we’ve loved for years.

You make it sound so... self-evident that the appreciation someone would have for an older game would be due to these external factors like historical influence and nostalgia. I'm sorry but I just fundamentally reject this idea of holding up the "here and now" as this grand objective circumstantial metric of quality. Modern norms and conventions are just that: norms and conventions. Nothing more, nothing less. A game either following or not following them says absolutely nothing whatsoever about its inherent quality in my book.

One other point I'd like to make is about the concept of "nostalgia". The definition of nostalgia is "sentimentality for the past; a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition". Based on that definition, I certainly feel nostalgic about certain events that took place during my childhood, for example. But I never have any "nostalgia" for any piece of media, for the simple reason that I just reread / rewatch / replay it whenever I feel the urge to, and therefore never allow it to somehow slip into the "past". As long as something is available to me, it's as much part of the present as it was when it first came out.

I think it's a word that gets thrown around a lot, oftentimes in order to dismiss or rationalize somebody's perfectly legitimate appreciation for something that has grown out of fashion. Not a huge fan, personally.

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 1st, 2020, 12:18 pm Just briefly on the point of whether looking at technical considerations as a factor when evaluating art has ‘traction’ in other mediums, I think it does. So from personal experience, I have a film degree (mostly theoretical, some practical) and am a film buff as much as I am a gamer. Debating how a shot or scene was achieved, discussing how the art form’s technical aspects have developed over time, and comparing works from different eras as part of that is absolutely commonplace and part of the community.

To be clear, the phrasing I used was "putting technological considerations front-and-center in one's evaluation of an artistic product" i.e., making them the ultimate deciding factor. I have absolutely no issue making them a factor among others, but these wonderfully balanced debates and discussions you're talking about simply aren't taking place within the gaming community. Not nearly as often as I'd like, anyway. Of course when movie buffs discuss an older film like Seven Samurai they will talk at length about the technological aspects of the film. But those observations are in service of a greater purpose, because the lion's share of the conversation is gonna be centered around what the creators were able to achieve, how they were able to make the best out the tools they had at their disposal and work around the limitations they were confronted with. And I think it's because movie buffs, by and large, respect their medium and cherish its legacy in a way that most video game enthusiasts just don't do. Simply put, there is no other medium which allows such pure recency bias to dictate so much of the conversation, and I think it's a big reason (if not the biggest reason!) why it has proven so difficult to establish video games as a valid form of artistic expression.

For a minute, just imagine somebody like Mark Kermode declaring GoodFellas to not be a top-of-the-line gangster movie "any more", and, when asked for a clarification, casually admitting that he only ever watched the first few minutes of the film on his mate's telly fifteen years ago and that is has since been surpassed by a more modern example of the genre based on the latter's higher native resolution or editing technique or some other technical metric. Sounds silly, doesn't it? And yet...


In any case, I don't think we're meant to agree very much on this subject. Food for thought, I suppose.

KSubzero1000 wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 6:11 am In any case, I don't think we're meant to agree very much on this subject. Food for thought, I suppose.

Really appreciate the considered response KSub, and I think you and I are clearly destined to never quite see eye to eye on this, although there's a lot in there that I do partially agree with - maybe if we kept at it for another week or so we'd find a bit of common ground!

Love the debate though! Always been the strength of this forum and its patrons that we can have passionate but civil discourse without it turning into mud-slinging!

For now though we should probably let everyone else have their 'Videogame News' thread back!

Until next time!

I'm just not sure the comparisons between games and movies and music etc work because movies and music are still fundamentally made the same way they were 50 years ago. We might have HD and better recording techniques but you're still pointing a camera at someone and asking them to act, or you're still getting in a studio and laying down a drum track. The technology available to game devs has changed so dramatically over the last 30 years that its almost an entirely medium with so many more options available. You might not criticise a film saying it doesn't hold up to today's standards, but you might very well suggest the special effects look privative compared to films now or something like that. I understand where you're coming from Ksub, it's a point you've made several times over the years, but I still don't think it's wrong of people when they say things like X game hasn't aged very well or the camera control is fiddly compared to games of today.

But speaking about camera control specifically, that's only really with 3D games. Fixed camera games like the early ResEvil and MGS games still function perfectly well (well I mean if course they do, they've not changed) but when you take a game like Super Mario 64 I don't think anyone could argue that the camera control in something like Odyssey isn't easier and more intuitive to use. I know you're very much of the opinion that games exist as they are, and shouldn't be judged against any external standard - usually people's modern day expectations - but I do think that this is how most people view things, and it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.

Alex79uk wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 9:33 am I'm just not sure the comparisons between games and movies and music etc work because movies and music are still fundamentally made the same way they were 50 years ago. We might have HD and better recording techniques but you're still pointing a camera at someone and asking them to act, or you're still getting in a studio and laying down a drum track. The technology available to game devs has changed so dramatically over the last 30 years that its almost an entirely medium with so many more options available. You might not criticise a film saying it doesn't hold up to today's standards, but you might very well suggest the special effects look privative compared to films now or something like that. I understand where you're coming from Ksub, it's a point you've made several times over the years, but I still don't think it's wrong of people when they say things like X game hasn't aged very well or the camera control is fiddly compared to games of today.

It's a really good point you raise Alex about the difference in the rapid and continuous advance in game tech vs other mediums. I think this is the reason it is such a prominent consideration when evaluating games. As much as artistic expression, the medium has been repeatedly revolutionised at its core by the rapid advance of the technologies used to create and play games. Therefore it is inevitably going to be a significant topic of discussion when evaluating them, and perhaps even more so when looking at an older title, because to some unavoidable extent a game is the way it is because of the state of tech used to create and play it.

Damn it! I've been sucked back in!

Alex79uk wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 9:33 am You might not criticise a film saying it doesn't hold up to today's standards, but you might very well suggest the special effects look privative compared to films now or something like that.

Of course you might, and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself as a simple observation. But I think you might be missing the forest for the trees when referring to individual commentators. My point is that there is a rather unhealthy feedback loop at play here which tends to dominate the entirety of our medium, and I very rarely hear it being acknowledged, let alone challenged.

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 1st, 2020, 12:18 pm more than happy to continue the discussion

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 8:48 am For now though we should probably let everyone else have their 'Videogame News' thread back!

Oh wow, I really fell for the bait-and-switch this time, didn't I?!

What 'Videogame News', btw? All the devs are stuck in their igloo, there aren't gonna be any videogame news for another six months anyway.

Sinclair Gregstrum wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 10:35 am Therefore it is inevitably going to be a significant topic of discussion when evaluating them, and perhaps even more so when looking at an older title, because to some unavoidable extent a game is the way it is because of the state of tech used to create and play it.

See, I disagree here. This only holds true for the presentation aspect of a game, which you might very well say about movies as well (i.e. camera lenses, projector evolution, screen resolution, etc.).

Miyamoto designed his characters and drew levels with pen and paper. Ron Gilbert most probably typed out the plots for his adventure games. Shimomura composed her music using traditional means. Will Wright wrote design documents.

This hasn't changed much over time, only in that many teams have become bigger, and a game is more than just its purely technical aspect, i.e. the code and the limitations of the technical specs of the hardware it's designed for. That would be a very clinical way of looking at it. The code is "just" how a multidisciplinary creative project like a video game comes together in the end.

I'mma chime in and say art is subjective in the absolute. If you wanna meticulously trace the origins of gaming and hold reverance for all the stops along the way to a destination you presently like, good on you. If you're someone whose first console was a GameCube, and you're unconcerned with anything less advanced, that's also fine.

If we accept that art is subjective, we must also accept that appreciation and standard-setting of art is also subjective. To compare to critical analysis beyond media, one could easily (and truthfully) posit that a humanist, an existentialist, a nihilist and an anarchist may look at an event or idea and all perceive it in fundamentally different ways despite the reality of it.

For me personally, nostalgia plays a role in my gaming tastes, but I don't view that as a detriment. It's simply consequence of my existence, the lens from which I view the world. So for instance, my first console was the Sega Genesis. I never played the NES or Atari growing up, nor the Amigas and ZX Spectrums of the world. So for me, I have very little reverance or appreciation for that era of gaming. I find the history fascinating, as a sort of curio, but I'd have to be bored out of my mind after the end of the world to pick up OG Castlevania or Tecmo Bowl. And by the same token, I don't share the reverance many commentators have for something like Shovel Knight - though I recognize why people like it, it deliberately relies on audiovisual cues that exploit, yes, *nostalgia* (the dirty word of the day) to make the game work. While someone born in 2010 CAN appreciate Shovel Knight, they might be LESS LIKELY to connect with it in a meaningful way.

And to be frank, I don't think setting standards for "historical value" has any, well, value. At the end of the day, it's all going to be a popularity contest. I could tell you all the reasons why I feel .hack//GU is the greatest JRPG of all time (thus far), and I could make those arguments well. But it doesn't have nearly the same cultural footprint as Final Fantasy X - so which one will be remembered? And which one had more copies printed, and more advertising behind it? Does it mean FF10 is somehow more worthy of remembrance? I don't think there's a right answer to that.

Michiel K wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 12:56 pm See, I disagree here. This only holds true for the presentation aspect of a game, which you might very well say about movies as well (i.e. camera lenses, projector evolution, screen resolution, etc.).

Miyamoto designed his characters and drew levels with pen and paper. Ron Gilbert most probably typed out the plots for his adventure games. Shimomura composed her music using traditional means. Will Wright wrote design documents.

I take your point, but Miyamoto's pen and paper designs aren't what you get in the final product. What you get are versions of his original designs generated on screen via the capabilities of the technologies used to create and play the game. How many times have we looked at hand drawn or hand painted art & design work for a game and then you see the final product and there's a chasm between the two. The sketches or paintings are what the creator would want to put on screen if they were able to, but the final game is what was actually technically achievable.

I'd say the same would go for Shimomura's compositions - I can't imagine her work on Super Mario RPG ended up sounding exactly as she would have wanted it to having first composed it with real instruments, or that if it was possible for her to have a fully orchestrated score in the game she wouldn't have jumped at the opportunity. The end product was constrained by the end-use technology.

Michiel K wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 12:56 pm a game is more than just its purely technical aspect, i.e. the code and the limitations of the technical specs of the hardware it's designed for. That would be a very clinical way of looking at it

Absolutely agree! I don't think anyone is saying that looking at the technical aspects of a game is the be-all and end-all. I suppose the context of how we got here (in case you've not read all of the many essay's in the thread so far! ) is that KSub was of the view that it was not important and/or shouldn't be considered, and I was on the side of it being a very important aspect to review.

It's a really interesting debate!

Magical_Isopod wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 1:27 pm I'mma chime in and say art is subjective in the absolute. If you wanna meticulously trace the origins of gaming and hold reverance for all the stops along the way to a destination you presently like, good on you. If you're someone whose first console was a GameCube, and you're unconcerned with anything less advanced, that's also fine.

If we accept that art is subjective, we must also accept that appreciation and standard-setting of art is also subjective. To compare to critical analysis beyond media, one could easily (and truthfully) posit that a humanist, an existentialist, a nihilist and an anarchist may look at an event or idea and all perceive it in fundamentally different ways despite the reality of it.

For me personally, nostalgia plays a role in my gaming tastes, but I don't view that as a detriment. It's simply consequence of my existence, the lens from which I view the world. So for instance, my first console was the Sega Genesis. I never played the NES or Atari growing up, nor the Amigas and ZX Spectrums of the world. So for me, I have very little reverance or appreciation for that era of gaming. I find the history fascinating, as a sort of curio, but I'd have to be bored out of my mind after the end of the world to pick up OG Castlevania or Tecmo Bowl. And by the same token, I don't share the reverance many commentators have for something like Shovel Knight - though I recognize why people like it, it deliberately relies on audiovisual cues that exploit, yes, *nostalgia* (the dirty word of the day) to make the game work. While someone born in 2010 CAN appreciate Shovel Knight, they might be LESS LIKELY to connect with it in a meaningful way.

And to be frank, I don't think setting standards for "historical value" has any, well, value. At the end of the day, it's all going to be a popularity contest. I could tell you all the reasons why I feel .hack//GU is the greatest JRPG of all time (thus far), and I could make those arguments well. But it doesn't have nearly the same cultural footprint as Final Fantasy X - so which one will be remembered? And which one had more copies printed, and more advertising behind it? Does it mean FF10 is somehow more worthy of remembrance? I don't think there's a right answer to that.

Can't disagree with much of this...

What I'm really trying to say is all the creative input of a game is its heart and soul.

If the technical representation or backbone of all these elements is what hinders someone's enjoyment, that is fair. Just trying to make clear that there is a huge deal that goes into a game that exists outside of the technical side and I personally rather enjoy seeing and experiencing how much of it ends up in the game code and in which clever ways it does so.

Michiel K wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 1:58 pm What I'm really trying to say is all the creative input of a game is its heart and soul.

If the technical representation or backbone of all these elements is what hinders someone's enjoyment, that is fair. Just trying to make clear that there is a huge deal that goes into a game that exists outside of the technical side and I personally rather enjoy seeing and experiencing how much of it ends up in the game code and in which clever ways it does so.

Can't disagree with this either! Discovering the creative motivations and process that goes into a game from the germ of the idea right through to release is fascinating, including the role that technology has played in that.

I've really enjoyed the books by Read Only Memory - SEGA Mega Drive/Genesis: Collected Works and SEGA Dreamcast: Collected Works - which really look in depth at the both the games and systems themselves from a creative and tech standpoint, with everything from beautiful concept art to console tech blueprints. Worth checking out for anyone who loves this kind of thing!

https://readonlymemory.vg/shop/book/seg ... ted-works/
https://readonlymemory.vg/shop/book/seg ... ted-works/

Great stuff, thanks!

The Last of Us Part II and Iron Man VR have been delayed until further notice.

chase210 wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 7:05 pm The Last of Us Part II and Iron Man VR have been delayed until further notice.

I wonder if a part of that is due to good taste.

It's got to be hasn't it ?

Suits wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 7:08 pm

chase210 wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 7:05 pm The Last of Us Part II and Iron Man VR have been delayed until further notice.

I wonder if a part of that is due to good taste.

It's got to be hasn't it ?

Naughty Dog's statement on twitter says its because of logistical issues.

Suits wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 7:08 pm

chase210 wrote: April 2nd, 2020, 7:05 pm The Last of Us Part II and Iron Man VR have been delayed until further notice.

I wonder if a part of that is due to good taste.

It's got to be hasn't it ?

Hm... That's a good point, I wouldn't have thought of that.

I would have thought it's more to do with it may not even be finished yet, and how are they going to distribute it properly. But even then, yeah it would be in fairly poor taste I guess. I wonder if it'll even come out this year, I'm thinking probably not.

So I just checked my digital FFVII pre order was downloading (it was) I thought I'd check on my Last Of Us 2 one.

It has completely vanished from the store which is weird obviously as I've paid up £60 already.