Disable GC entirely

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:24:14 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:39:01AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > The last 10 or so years, big-budget games have tended to be designed
> > specifically so that anyone can get to the end without much effort.
> > The lack of challenge makes them tedious and boring.
> 
> OK, now I'm not so sure what I meant anymore, because I find this
> tedium and bore really tiring, whereas something like, say, the
> ancient Lode Runner with its incredibly complicated time-sensitive
> maneuvres is actually stimulating and, paradoxically enough,
> relaxing. OTOH, things like Quake and other FPSes I find exhausting,
> even if they're no more than mindless shoot-everything-that-moves
> deals.  Maybe the difference lies in the simplicity of rules in the
> older 2D games -- yes they can be challenging but the mechanics are
> easy to grasp, whereas in 3D environments, the complexity of movement
> possibilities can be overwhelming.
> 

Ahh, I see what you mean, and I can relate.

Maybe part of it is sensory overload. There's a lot more to take in.
And there's more visual/auditory  information to process and mentally
filter out all the details to reach the "core" elements like "this is
an enemy, shoot here", "this is an area of interest, go here", "this is
dangerous, avoid" etc. And like you say, freedom of movement.

> Big-budget hold-your-hand "games", OTOH, are tiring in another way,
> in a click-through ads kinda way. I have very little patience for
> anything with video clips, 'cos I rather be doing stuff instead of
> watching a video (I might as well watch youtube instead, etc.), yet I
> feel like I can't really get "into" the game if I don't endure
> through all those clips, 'cos I might miss some interesting
> game-world exposition or important story twist, etc.. So the result
> is that it's very tiring.
> 

Interesting points, yea. Personally, I don't feel afraid of missing out
on such things unless it's a JRPG (whether action JRPG or menu-based)
or it demonstrates a high degree of storytelling quality (*and* grabs
my interest) right from the start, like Disgaea, Splinter Cell 1-3,
Izuna, or Max Payne. (Just as examples.)

> Hmm. I beat nethack. Several times. I don't know of any other game
> that is as difficult to beat! But OTOH, its difficulty comes not from
> hand-eye coordination, but from the block-shuffling-puzzle type of
> inherent difficulty -- you have all the time in the world to think
> before making your next move, but your decision could mean the
> difference between life and death (i.e. the loss of the last 40 hours
> of gameplay, due to permadeath). I guess personally I prefer that
> kind of challenge to the how-fast-can-you-react kind.
> 

I like both kinds :) At least, provided that the
"how-fast-can-you-react" also requires active thinking and accurate
execution, too, as a good bullet-hell shmup or MegaMan, Contra, etc.

> But you see, that's precisely the kind of thing that wears me out. I
> feel like I'm not getting the max out of the game if I don't watch all
> the cutscenes / read all the dialogs, but then I have to endure
> through the whole thing when it's poorly written and then it's not
> enjoyable anymore. This is one of the things I really liked about the
> older Ultimas: the technology was such that dialogs were minimal, but
> that meant that they got the point across without needing to sit
> through long cutscenes / sift through convoluted dialogues. The
> trigger keywords were more-or-less obvious, so you just hit town,
> chat up the few obviously-important NPCs using the obviously
> important keywords, get the info you need, and move out and do stuff.
> 

I never really played the Ultimas (I've always been drawn more to JRPGs
than to the D&D/Tolkien-esque western RPGs). Although I do have a vague
recollection of spending a few minutes in some 3D Ultima on DOS.

But I do get what you're saying: I *love* Zelda 2-style dialog:

"Stop and rest here."
"Sorry. I know nothing."
"Only the hammer can destroy a roadblock."

They cut straight to the chase and then shut up. I *love* that. Then
the 16-bit ones expanded a bit and added a nice dash of character, but
not overdone and still generally good. But modern NPCs talk the way my
Dad does: They'll give you half their life story and entire social and
emotional profile before finally getting to the point, and then they'll
restate the damn point twenty times. Cliffs notes, people! ;)


> The free-exploration style of the old Ultimas was also something I
> liked very much. I find sequence-breakers in many modern games very
> mimesis-breaking, especially when it's something trivial like
> exploring and beating an area before talking to the NPC who was
> supposed to tell you to go there, thereby breaking some
> poorly-written script that assumes you haven't been there yet.
> Forcefully railroaded games I also find annoying (why is that
> gigantic boulder sitting there on the road blocking my way for no
> good reason other than that the game devs don't want me to go there
> yet? how does talking to an NPC magically make that boulder vanish
> into thin air?). I much prefer open-exploration games where you have
> to actively search out stuff and discover what you have to do, rather
> than just being strung along by the arbitrary sequence the game devs
> decided must be how the story will pan out.
> 

Yea.  I did get used to things like "talking to the right NPC magically
advances time and triggers events" back in the 16-bit days, so I don't
personally mind that except when it's done really poorly.

But, actually playing the game *myself*, and using my *own* brain to
get through is exactly what I always found compelling about videogames.
Ie, *I'm* the one overcoming the obstacles, not the player-character
doing it on my behalf. So when modern games present me with a problem
and then outright *deny* me the opportunity to actually solve it by
solving it *for* me, that kinda pisses me off. It was *supposed* to be
interactive, not passive! If your game is just going to solve it's own
obstacles, then don't deceive me by claiming it's more of an
interactive game than a passive movie spiced with some token movement
controls. Ever see the second episode of Futurama, with the Moon theme
park? Just like Fry, I want a lunar rover, but I just get a patronizing
"Whaler's on the Moon" ride instead.

I do like both open-exploration and linear games, but in either case,
the game has to let *me* play it. It can't just simply start playing
itself whenever it's afraid I might be too dumb to succeed at anything
requiring actual thought or skill. That's the *fun* part! The rest is
window-dressing.


> What *really* cinches it for me is when a well-written storyline is
> made to unfold *while* allowing free exploration (and multiple
> possible solution paths) at the same time.

*cough* Splinter Cell 3 *wink wink, nudge nudge*  Gaming perfection.

> This gives me the freedom
> to plan ahead -- take advantage of the open exploration to prepare
> for what I anticipate is coming, so that I can beat the boss monster
> my way. Hidden secret bonuses that can only be found via free
> exploration is also something I really enjoy.
> 
> I guess I just like active entertainment over passive entertainment (I
> don't even own a TV!).
> 

Heh :)  Even if I absolutely hated passive entertainment, I'd still
have a TV just so I wouldn't have to game at my desk or my computer. I
spend so much time working on this thing I'd feel like brain-in-a-vat
if it was my entertainment box, too.

But I do love a lot of passive entertainment, too (I'm a complete anime
addict. And 90's/early-2000's SciFi is pretty damn addictive, too, as
are other minimally-dramatic shows like Monk, Hunter, MacGyver.)