Disable GC entirely

[Paulo Pinto]

Am 10.04.2013 19:14, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:38:26 -0400
> Jeff Nowakowski <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote:
>
>> On 04/09/2013 04:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>> - Starcraft?: Starcraft is 15 years old, so it isn't an example of a
>>>     modern AAA title in the first place.
>>
>> StarCraft II came out a few years ago and sold very well. They also
>> just released the second installment of it within the past month or
>> so, and considering it is essentially an over-priced expansion pack,
>> it also sold very well.
>>
>>> In the ones I identified as "interactive movie", cinematic
>>> presentation deeply permeates the entire experience, gameplay and
>>> all.
>>
>> Translation: Wearing your gumpy-old-man goggles, you dismiss games
>> that feature lots of cinematics as "interactive movies", even though
>> there is plenty of core gameplay to be had.
>>
>
> "Dismissing" isn't the right word for it (Although I have gone
> straight from "teenage angst" to what can be interpreted as "old dude
> crotchetyness"). Like I said, I do like CoD: Modern Warfare (at least
> what I've played). I'd also confidently toss the Splinter Cell series in
> the "interactive movie" boat, and yet that's actually one of my all-time
> favorite series (at least 1-3, and to a slightly lesser extent 4,
> wouldn't know about 5). Same goes for the Portal games (although I
> would have *very much* preferred they had actually included a
> "fast-forward / skip-ahead" feature for all the scripted sequences.
> Every movie in existence can handle that no problem, it's a *basic*
> *expected* feature, why can't a videogame with a whole team of
> programmers actually manage it? A true FF/Rewind obviously has
> technical hurdles for real-time cinematics, but a "skip" sure as fuck
> doesn't).
>
> I guess I haven't been entirely clear, but the complaints I do have
> about what I've been calling "interactive movies" are that:
>
> A. I think the non-indie industry has been focusing way too much on
> them, to the detriment of the medium itself, and possibly the
> health of the industry (and yes, to the determent of my own opinion on
> modern videogaming as well).
>
> It's strongly analogous to the irrationally high obsession with "3D" in
> the mid 90's: 3D isn't bad, but it was WAAAAAY over-obsessed, and it
> certainly isn't the *only* good way to go. A *good* 2D game would
> have sold well: Rayman and Castlevania: SoTN proved that. The
> problem was, publishers and developers pulled this notion that "Gamers
> will only buy 3D" *completely* out of their asses, with absolutely zero
> meaningful data to back it up, and instead shoveled out load after load
> of mostly-bad, and mostly-ugly 3D games. I still consider that easily
> the worst console generation. "Cinematic" is very much the new "3D".
> Everything still applies, and history is repeating itself.
>
> B. Most of them (from what I've seen) are very poorly done. Just to
> rehash some examples:
>
> - Skyward Sword is easily one of the worst Zeldas ever made. Same with
>    the last Metroid (the one from the Ninja Gaiden reboot developers).
>    Personally I thought Metroid Prime 3 had taken the series straight
>    downhill too, but I guess I'm alone in that.
>
> - Assassin's Creed (at least if AC2 is any indication) is one of the
>    absolute worst multimedia productions ever created, period. It's just
>    inane BS after inane BS after more inane BS. You may as well watch a
>    soap.
>
> - And the first 45 minutes of Bulletstorm is wretched as well. The
>    "walking on the skyscraper's wall" *could* have been
>    absolutely fantastic - *if* there had actually been anything to *do*
>    besides listen to horrible dialog while walking to the next cutscene.
>
> Portal and Splinter Cell did their story/dialog/presentation very well
> (despite Portal's asinine *forcing* of it, which is a royal PITA when
> you just want to play the puzzles), but quality in "interactive movie"
> storytelling is extremely rare in general. And the thing is, if you
> can't do a feature *well*, then it doesn't belong in the finished game,
> period.
>
> I guess I've rambled again clouding my main points but basically:
>
> Cinematic/Story/etc is the new 3D: It's not inherently bad, but it's
> usually done bad, and even if it weren't done badly it's way too heavily
> focused/obsessed on and over-used, to the detriment of the medium and
> possibly the industry.
>
>
>> There *are* games that are essentially interactive movies, like Heavy
>> Rain for example, or LA Noire, but putting shooters like BioShock
>> Infinite or GTA (when doing the missions) in this category is
>> ridiculous.
>
> Well yea, Quantic Dream goes WAAAAAY off into the "interactive movie"
> realm. (Ex: Indigo Prophesy started out looking promising but quickly
> devolved into one long quicktime event). Quantic Dream is basically the
> new Digital Pictures or...whoever made Dragon's Lair.
>
> Keep in mind, I'm using "interactive movie" largely for lack of a
> better term. "Videogame" definitely isn't the right word for them. But
> at the same time, these "interactive movie" things tend to swing back
> and forth (within the very same game) between "more of a game than a
> *true* interactive movie" and "literally *less* interactive than
> a Hollywood movie, because you can't interact with a cuscene *and* you
> can rarely fast-forward past it". (And then there's...dumb...shits like
> Nintendo that *do* put in a skip feature, for *some* cutscenes, and
> then deliberately *disable* it on any save-game that hasn't gotten at
> least that far. Seriously, they could write a book on how to be an
> asshole developer.) And for the record, in case anyone at Valve,
> Irrational, or Human Head ever reads this: A cutscene that you can walk
> around in while you wait is still a f&*@#*$ cutscene.
>

This is what makes me happy while travelling on the bus and train:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.larvalabs.gurk

--
Paulo