Disable GC entirely

[Jeff Nowakowski]

On 04/11/2013 04:17 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> No, you're just very persistent in trying to turn it into the "No True
> Scotsman" fallacy. I'm merely using terminology to distinguish between
> story-driven titles and gameplay-driven tiles.

Then you could call them "story-driven games" instead of "interactive 
movies", and also acknowledge that the gameplay element is still a 
strong component. Your insistence on denying the massive amounts of 
gaming elements that are still part of these titles shows you have an ax 
to grind, backed up by the fact that you even started your argument by 
saying your personal tastes may have been informing your theories.

> So we disagree on the categorization of a few titles. Big freaking deal.

Since it's the heart of your argument, it is a big deal.

> Yes, obviously Heavy Rain is a canonical example of "interactive
> movie", and for goodness sake, I *AGREED* with you and yet you're still
> complaining.

You just have a funny way of agreeing, what I'll call disagreeable agreeing.

> Oh for crap's sake. Yes, newer AAA/big-business games, on average, *do*
> direct significantly more of their emphasis on story/dialog/cinematic
> feel/etc than older ones.

Yes, there's no doubt about that, and do you know *why* they do this? 
It's because, just like movies, these big budget cinematic games tend to 
sell a whole lot more, both in quantity and dollar volume. And just like 
the movies, it's also a big risk. But they are still games, and it's the 
gamers who flock to these blockbuster titles.

As an aside, the interesting thing about GTA, especially GTA3, is that 
the budget wasn't about the movie elements, of which there were few. It 
was about creating an immersive *environment*. It's really the artwork 
that costs so much money. There was also a story arc, but you can find 
stories in games going back decades.

As to why the industry is "sick", in Manu's terms, it's probably just 
competition with other forms of entertainment given the mobile 
explosion. The games industry did very well post 2000, despite the move 
to cinematic experiences.

> And now you come along, slap the big generic "grumpy old man" "don't
> make them like they used to" labels over the whole thing, and now I'm
> supposed to believe not only that your "poisoning the well" tactics
> somehow *aren't* a logical fallacy, but also that I'm the one being
> categorically dismissive?

Yet your pet theory does amount to how they don't make them like they 
used to, and maybe that's the reason the industry is failing, which 
sounds a lot like a grumpy-old-man complaint, doesn't it? Along with 
your usual ranting, of course.

Last post for me.