garbagewrappedinskin

The biggest problem with Coherence is that the whole plot revolves around a fundamental misunderstanding of the Schodinger's Cat postulation. The scientific criticism letter in which "Schrodinger's Cat" was coined actually uses the example to cast doubt on the old observer theory principle. The way it's commonly used now actually is the opposite of what was originally intended.

Unfortunately for Coherence, the way they use the theory (the common parlance way) is also completely messed up and opposite the way the misunderstood quantum coherence postulates. Everything it does is wrong both in a real sense and in a "kayfabe" sense.

If you can get over that, the characters do the dumbest things (which is only hand-wavingly explained by an "infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters" sort of way) and get grand motivations from the smallest things. Everyone seems completely unhinged.

The Simon Parkin piece is brilliantly written, as usual, but it completely misses the mark.

People aren't shooting into a cave for hours on end because they want fancier clothes to improve their social status, they're doing it because it is the most efficient way to bypass the inherent gating that blocks out users from what has been widely cited as "the best content in the game". They have a goal; the gear is a means to an end.

It would be like saying that runners only run every day so that they can run every day. But really, they do it to compete in events that will allow them to participate in the Boston Marathon (for example).

I agree with you on pretty much every point. I've played AC2/B/R and enjoyed them for what they were: content delivery machines.

But I'll say the absolute highlights were the code breaking side missions in AC2. The carrot to climbing and exploring the thematically interesting historical buildings to find the sigils were the actual code breaking missions: they delivered the crazy fun illuminati storyline through legitimately interesting code breaking puzzles. They were collectibles in the good sense because they leveraged the core gameplay (climbing, back when it was still fresh and new) to deliver both thematic chunks and more importantly, more interesting gameplay.

On the other hand, the nadir of the collectibles in AC2 were the feathers. They were primarily there to give reason to the empty open world. The designers would make a cool space that wouldn't get featured in a mission, so they would throw a feather or two there to incentivize the user to actually look at the work they put in. But it doesn't leverage the actual core mechanics well; looking around isn't a skill that one can improve. Furthermore, while the designer of a subsection in AC may have worked hard on a certain environment, it's still made up of the standard building blocks used elsewhere (everywhere) so busily it starts to resemble a noise map. Which is also a nice metaphor for doing the same zero-variance thing in collecting the feathers: noise.

@brodehouse: The problem with Assassin's Creed isn't that there is too much to do, it's that the content is based around a core gameplay loop that isn't good. It's streamlined to a fault. It's ten miles wide and an inch deep. Most of the quest structures actually hinge on their thematic principles; boiled down to their essentials, they are going to a point marked on a map and pressing X. GPS gaming.

For a test of whether the gameplay is any good try stripping the game of all thematic elements; when all story is gone, when the environment is just grey boxes and the mobile units just pink blobs, is the game still interesting/fun? I would argue that the AC games require their thematic hooks to be interesting. Mario 3 would be nearly as fun with squares of pixels.

Collectibles aren't inherently bad; they are a carrot, a means to an end. The schism appears when the collectibles have no real gameplay associated with them. When they are shown on your map and you just walk over to them to pick them up, that is not gameplay. If, say, like in Zelda A Link to the Past, you have to solve a little box shoving puzzle to acquire a quarter heart piece, or analyze your surroundings to jump off a cliff in the proper way to land on an out-of-sight platform that is hinted at from below, the collectible is a means to gameplay. As a player, you are motivated by the collectible to overcome (even a minor) challenge.

When the collectible is acquired simply by pressing up on the stick, that is not gameplay.

That said, upon encountering a game which has 300 collectibles that give you a new cape upon completion, I can easily ignore it. As long as progress to interesting things is not gated by these knick-knacks.

A video game like Dark Souls 2 is a perfect example of the way games have closed the gap between themselves and movie blockbusters: It offers epic quests built on a complicated mythology, it inspires serious devotion from its fans, and it’s mostly just exhausting. The point of the game is not to enjoy playing it but merely to say you made it through. It sprawls massively before us, bending our will to its own. It exists simply to exist.

Credit Carleson

While DS2 may have been disappointing for many (I would still argue that it's an excellent game), this is wildly off base. It also shows that the writer values thematic material over actual ludic gameplay. The reason of "why" in games is entirely secondary to the actual doing. Dark Souls' core gameplay is fun inherently; the challenge is a means to an end. Anyone who crows about beating Dark Souls is really focusing on the wrong things.

Similarly, open world games offer a plethora of content to just apply thematic context to core gameplay systems. While the reason for hunting down seven special tigers in a select arena with just a bow and arrow doesn't make any sense in Far Cry 3, but it's just a context hook for what is important: actually doing it. As a player, having dozens of optional side missions I can choose to take on means nothing to me thematically, but quite a bit to increasing the value of the core gameplay loop. If I like shooting dudes in the ruleset they've provided, I'm glad there is more there if I want it. If those missions need to be culled because it doesn't appear to fit with the narrative structure, I don't care. Gameplay first.

The main point seems to be: Please have restraint in your design because I am incapable of restraint as a player;

Just because it is there, doesn't mean you have to do it. Saying people complete these tasks out of validation is, frankly, insulting. This insistence on thematic context is misguided.

Essentially, keep your movies out of my games.

" So it's troubling to think that a game like Mass Effect or Dragon Age gives young players the idea that nobody will ever treat them differently once they find out they're anything other than straight, rather than give them the tools with which they can start to understand and accept the discrimination they may end up facing in their lives."

I understand what the writer is saying here and it is valid. As a counter point though, I think there are a lot of benefits to showing a completely normalized homosexual relationship (free of bigotry or even comment) to young players that are not gay. Not to say that games are role models, but that idealized fiction shows the flat equivalency of the relationships.

That idealization shows its transgression by being so divorced from the unfortunate reality.

This is in no way a valid reason to pirate anything.

@patrickklepek: "A requirement for Wolfenstein is kicking Nazi ass, so obviously you’re kicking Nazi ass. But these days, nazis are the go-to popular villain if you want to have bad guys."

Do you honestly believe this is the case?

I don't think we've seen Nazis since Call of Duty WaW. PMCs, aliens, the government, brown people, Russians, Eastern Europeans, crazy people with British accents, and robots get a lot more play these days.

Blair Witch Project is to found footage as Gears of War is to cover based shooting. Video games.

I know they take a lot more work and time than the off the cuff, quick-look style videos, but some scripted material with more focus on depth could really round out the Giant Bomb video content. Even short, 3-5 minute videos studying a singular feature of a game/games would be great. Possible ideas:

• Look at the gameplay system design evolution of a developer (company or person) over the course of a number of games they developed
• A look at the music in select games, what themes, compositional techniques, and melodies complement or clash with the game design
• A look at plot holes or tonal inconsistencies in games writing and how it detracts from the overall experience
• Conversely, an in depth look at atmosphere or mood in a game and what techniques, either borrowed from film, art, or wholly original, are used to create it
• A study on weakness in games; how limitation is used to create interesting scenarios (in opposition to "It makes you feel so badass!")
• A series on mobility in games; what types of physics interactions and avatar traversal means create "fun" experiences. Talking to designers and developers about what they streamline and assist and what they leave up to the player to create a system that allows for a skill curve while still being intuitive would be amazing.
• Any single gameplay system you love and why you love it. All the meaty bits.

I know this is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but even a monthly in depth video or article would be really something unique in a sea of fun but snack-like content. Regardless, can't wait to see what you do, seeing you dig into bad games will still be great.