Ares42

Personally I've been looking forward to it. I absolutely love open-world games and there's still plenty of room to impress. SR4 was great, I was not overly impressed with GTA 5 as an open-world game and I'm not expecting Batman Origins to blow me away, so if Ubisoft delivers it'll be a nice upswing in quality. I don't really think most people will play all of them back to back anyways, but I do see the concern of putting out AC and Watch_Dogs so close to each other though. What's even worse is that if you're waiting to play on next-gen or PC they are literally availbale on the same day.

The exploration is definitely a big part of it, both the world and the mechanics of the game. Secondly though it's a fresh melee combat gameplay system that's well executed, and by pushing the challenge level you're forced to engage with it. After having played the Souls games a lot I find it hard to get engaged in western RPGs (like Skyrim or Amalur) and even action titles like God of War or Diablo, just because the combat feels so bland. The beauty of the Souls combat system is that it really focuses on what is special about melee combat, every swing being meaningful and impactful and the brutality of close quarter combat all while presenting it in a way that makes it seem somewhat genuine.

The really weird thing is that the site is turning more and more towards things they've made fun of and rejected in the past. I guess business is business and they gotta do what they gotta do, but it's still sorta strange when juxtaposed to what GB used to be.

There is a very clear distinction though. A "fluff movie" and an arthouse piece are both expressions of the creators imagination. They are both stories told the way the creator designed them, they both have clear direction of what they are supposed to be.

When it comes to games however. You have the "experience" games that follow the traditional concepts of art, but then you have the "game" games which is the complete opposite. They don't have a designed story, they don't have any clear direction. They are rules and laws and leaves the user the power to direct. They allow us to create art ourselves (if we want to), but they aren't art in and of themselves.

Take a game like Minecraft. By itself there is no expression there. You cannot just play the game and follow the guidelines (in the same way you have to actually read a book or watch a movie) and you'll be treated to a wonderful or exciting experience. It's all up to the player to manifest the expression.

Is it though ? Over the last few years I've found myself playing more and more games where I'm not actually enjoying the interaction part, but only keep on playing because of the other stuff. Not that I disagree with you, I do enjoy games that focus on the interaction much more. But there's a very clear trend in the business lately where it's ok to make games that have "functional" gameplay, as long as they have story, characters or settings to keep your attention.

I think you're onto the real question, and this quote from Eberts blog just punctuates it:

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

He draws a very clear line between what is and isn't a game, yet we see so many products being released these days labeled videogames that doesn't fit his definition. They aren't games about rules, points and objectives, they are about the journey. You don't win them, you finish them, just like you finish reading a book. So ye, the question isn't really if videogames are art, it's "Are videogames games?". Which is another can of worms ofc, but things would've been much simpler if we actually started drawing some clearer lines. Unfortunately it will never ever happen due to marketing and business reasons.

(also, his point about validation is very much spot on.)

While you're throwing around plenty of superlatives I don't quite agree with, this is probably the part I disagree with the most. To me GTA V just felt like an old horse trodding along. If there's one thing they need to change, it's to look around and see what others have done with open world games. GTA might be king when it comes to driving around and campaign missions, but as far as being an open world game it's fallen quite far behind. Having finished the main story and all the Freaks and Geeks quests I'm looking at the legend on the side of the map and basically nothing there excites me in any way.

Gotta agree with this. With this kinda button placement it's pretty much impossible to make a game where you're always in control of one stick, which in most action games is pretty essential. Playing your standard shooter with this controller will basically mean that there will be moments where you're forced to stand completely still.

And this is exactly why stripping away anonymity won't change a thing. I was just communicating the way I'm used to, but obviously that was too edgy for you. You have to remember that we all come from different cultures, all over the world, what's normal for you is abnormal for me. Just think about how many people you encounter on the internet, and then think about how often you meet people in real life you don't get along with, it's just inevitable that we fight on the internet.

Every time I hear this notion I just wonder what kinda dream world you live in. If you really think people will stop having stupid arguments and yell insults at each other just because they are no longer anonymous you need to broaden your perspective.