The Extra Credits thread!! EC is amazing!

[The Derrit]

Thus, the Extra Credits crew can declare this video a complete success. Why? It got people talking about this.

i also disagree with this, it would be a complete success if they gave a *good example* and demonstrated their point eloquently as opposed to attempting to throw out a crazy example that would make people go WHOA and not being entirely correct in doing so

[JCvgluvr]

i also disagree with this, it would be a complete success if they gave a *good example* and demonstrated their point eloquently as opposed to attempting to throw out a crazy example that would make people go WHOA and not being entirely correct in doing so

Exactly. It isn't a thought provoking plot if almost no one put in any thought to it.

[The Author]

It's also about what they could do with the technology of the time.

But don't pretend there is no narrative in missile command, it's just not as much in your face as most narratives we get in life. And yes, there has to have been some reflexion over the narrative, even if it wasn't discussed in such terms. But overall, this theory of Missile Command being a narrative presented through gameplay alone example has my support. The arguments are good and it makes sense.

Now have fun and try to find one other example.

Pong has no narrative and even Custer's Revenge had cutscenes...

[The Derrit]

It's also about what they could do with the technology of the time.

But don't pretend there is no narrative in missile command, it's just not as much in your face as most narratives we get in life. And yes, there has to have been some reflexion over the narrative, even if it wasn't discussed in such terms. But overall, this theory of Missile Command being a narrative presented through gameplay alone example has my support. The arguments are good and it makes sense.

Now have fun and try to find one other example.

Pong has no narrative and even Custer's Revenge had cutscenes...

i continue to be the bastion of common sense

missile command has narrative sure, but no more than a game of sharks and minnows. 'we're sharks you're minnows run away from us'

missile command: 'you're getting bombed shoot down the missiles'

ok its not that you can't argue that these things are there *upon closer inspection* if you want to philosophize but to say that it is intended to be a thought provoking narrative with gut wrenching decisions attached to it is over-exaggeration at its finest. people seem to be getting premise confused with narrative

also merry christmas

[BardicKnowledge]

... with gut wrenching decisions attached to it is over-exaggeration at its finest.

also merry christmas

Merry Christmas to you too!

I disagree that the gut wrenching decisions were unintentional, as they form the entire concept of the gameplay. I'd agree that perhaps we are reading too much into said decision, but the decision itself was entirely intentional.

[Imagist]

I don't know about you guys but when I first played Missile Command I just tried to keep all the cities alive because I thought that was my objective. Then one inevitably got destroyed and I saw that it was fine, and over time I realized that it was easier to let them get destroyed until I was down to the last one. There was no "gut-wrenching" involved, no moral decisions, nothing, because the game never told me in any way (written word or graphic presentation) that there was some kind of weight attached to what was going on. There was simply a game presented, and over time, with trial and error, I learned how to play it. Finding any extravagant narrative there is just reaching in retrospect.

[JCvgluvr]

You want another example, Mr. Author? I already gave one. Portal. Ignore the final cutscene and the song. They're not necessary to grasp the narrative. Half Life 2 is another great example. Ignore the book-end cutscenes, and the rest of the entire story is told through exposition, intuition, and close inspection of the game. Now then, what say you?

[The Derrit]

You want another example, Mr. Author? I already gave one. Portal. Ignore the final cutscene and the song. They're not necessary to grasp the narrative. Half Life 2 is another great example. Ignore the book-end cutscenes, and the rest of the entire story is told through exposition, intuition, and close inspection of the game. Now then, what say you?

well the person in the background talking doesn't help

zircon's example was a really good one

[JCvgluvr]

What person? Glados? Dr. Breen? Why does that matter?

[Gario]

Probably because they were looking for a story that was told through game mechanics only. Emphasis on only. It doesn't matter that the story might have been just as effective without the cutscenes or whatever, the point is that the games you reference still use those are a way to push the story, at least in part, so they are naturally disqualified.

[The Author]

You want another example, Mr. Author? I already gave one. Portal. Ignore the final cutscene and the song. They're not necessary to grasp the narrative. Half Life 2 is another great example. Ignore the book-end cutscenes, and the rest of the entire story is told through exposition, intuition, and close inspection of the game. Now then, what say you?

Dialog isn't a gameplay mechanic, at least not in a strict definition of gameplay mechanic.

[Imagist]

well the person in the background talking doesn't help

zircon's example was a really good one

See, even Don't Look Back doesn't portray a real narrative, though. It's little more than a concept, just like Missile Command. There is no character development, as you know little to nothing about these figures on the screen, and there is no sequence of meaningful events. I hate to say it, but I honestly can't conceive of a way to convey a well-developed story (with deep, intriguing characters) with absolutely no use of either dialogue or visual cues. The thing is, though, dialogue and cutscenes do not have to interfere with gameplay, nor do they have to hand the story to you on a silver platter. I think pretty much any Valve game is a decent example of this. Even when games like Half-Life do stop and say "Look! Listen!", more often than not you retain full control of your character, and you can still affect and interact with your surroundings in the meantime. Exposition does not have to mean force-fed explanation.

[KyleJCrb]

See, even Don't Look Back doesn't portray a real narrative, though. It's little more than a concept, just like Missile Command. There is no character development, as you know little to nothing about these figures on the screen, and there is no sequence of meaningful events. I hate to say it, but I honestly can't conceive of a way to convey a well-developed story (with deep, intriguing characters) with absolutely no use of either dialogue or visual cues. The thing is, though, dialogue and cutscenes do not have to interfere with gameplay, nor do they have to hand the story to you on a silver platter. I think pretty much any Valve game is a decent example of this. Even when games like Half-Life do stop and say "Look! Listen!", more often than not you retain full control of your character, and you can still affect and interact with your surroundings in the meantime. Exposition does not have to mean force-fed explanation.

Except in Valve games, you will get locked in a tiny room with characters that keep talking no matter how much you shoot them in the face and nothing to interact with in the room until the door magically opens as soon as the other characters are done talking. You may maintain full control, but when there's nothing to do and the doors are locked, you are still being spoon fed information through what practically amounts to a cutscene.

[Imagist]

It's not a... perfect example.

[The Derrit]

to imagist, you don't *know* what's going on in don't look back but it becomes pretty evident pretty quickly. if you have an imagination

[JCvgluvr]

Dialog isn't a gameplay mechanic, at least not in a strict definition of gameplay mechanic.

Well, if even dialog comes under question, then I just give up. What kind of story can we tell in a game without cutscenes, exposition, or dialog? Going along with that, do we want a story like that? I don't see much potential in it.

[Cyril the Wolf]

Well, if even dialog comes under question, then I just give up. What kind of story can we tell in a game without cutscenes, exposition, or dialog? Going along with that, do we want a story like that? I don't see much potential in it.

Super Metroid.

I don't really consider them cutscenes, and then they don't last that long. Just sayin.

[JCvgluvr]

For what it's worth, this weeks entry seemed much more grounded, and made sense to me. Another great episode.

[Schwaltzvald]

Super Metroid.

I don't really consider them cutscenes, and then they don't last that long. Just sayin.

Don't forget the following please...

Metroid

Hell, can't it be said that

essentially brought about the concept of cut-scenes with dialog..?

[KyleJCrb]

Mailbag #2

I'm a little disappointed that the amount of emails in your inbox isn't OVER NINE-THOUSAAAAAAAND.

[JCvgluvr]

This week's episode was pretty much on the ball. Where I'd like to disagree, however, was Sephire's/James's view on Sonic. What he, and so many people are mistaken about, is what Sonic's core gameplay concept is. Seph described it as "moving ridiculously fast." You see, that concept isn't actually what Sonic's about. Sadly, this view is what's holding him back.

No, what Sonic is about, is solid platforming, pinball physics, and speed as a reward for skilled players. At this point, you might be wondering what makes me qualified to designate what Sonic's gameplay is about. Well, truth be told, I'm just expressing my opinion. But I'm 100% convinced that I'm correct, and the genesis games themselves can back me up on this. If you go back to those games, the good games, ask yourself how many times you actually got Sonic to go fast. If you think about it, you will probably only come up with a handful of sweet, blissful moments of speed. Then you'll remember places like Marble Zone and Sandopolis Zone.

Until people realize that Sonic is more about solid platforming than speed, developers will keep making games like Sonic Rush and Sonic Unleashed's day stages, and the unpleasable fanbase will continue to shun Sonic, and what he's become. Once we can all break past that "all speed, all the time" mindset, Sonic can and will rise back on top. That's what it will truly take to get Sonic out of his slump.

[sephfire]

This week's episode was pretty much on the ball. Where I'd like to disagree, however, was Sephire's/James's view on Sonic. What he, and so many people are mistaken about, is what Sonic's core gameplay concept is. Seph described it as "moving ridiculously fast." You see, that concept isn't actually what Sonic's about. Sadly, this view is what's holding him back.

No, what Sonic is about, is solid platforming, pinball physics, and speed as a reward for skilled players. At this point, you might be wondering what makes me qualified to designate what Sonic's gameplay is about. Well, truth be told, I'm just expressing my opinion. But I'm 100% convinced that I'm correct, and the genesis games themselves can back me up on this. If you go back to those games, the good games, ask yourself how many times you actually got Sonic to go fast. If you think about it, you will probably only come up with a handful of sweet, blissful moments of speed. Then you'll remember places like Marble Zone and Sandopolis Zone.

Until people realize that Sonic is more about solid platforming than speed, developers will keep making games like Sonic Rush and Sonic Unleashed's day stages, and the unpleasable fanbase will continue to shun Sonic, and what he's become. Once we can all break past that "all speed, all the time" mindset, Sonic can and will rise back on top. That's what it will truly take to get Sonic out of his slump.

I actually feel similarly about Sonic; it should be more about momentum than speed. I remember that 2D Mirror's Edge demo EA released a while back being the most fun Sonic game I ever played for that reason.

[BardicKnowledge]

This week's episode was pretty much on the ball. Where I'd like to disagree, however, was Sephire's/James's view on Sonic. What he, and so many people are mistaken about, is what Sonic's core gameplay concept is. Seph described it as "moving ridiculously fast." You see, that concept isn't actually what Sonic's about. Sadly, this view is what's holding him back.

No, what Sonic is about, is solid platforming, pinball physics, and speed as a reward for skilled players. At this point, you might be wondering what makes me qualified to designate what Sonic's gameplay is about. Well, truth be told, I'm just expressing my opinion. But I'm 100% convinced that I'm correct, and the genesis games themselves can back me up on this. If you go back to those games, the good games, ask yourself how many times you actually got Sonic to go fast. If you think about it, you will probably only come up with a handful of sweet, blissful moments of speed. Then you'll remember places like Marble Zone and Sandopolis Zone.

Until people realize that Sonic is more about solid platforming than speed, developers will keep making games like Sonic Rush and Sonic Unleashed's day stages, and the unpleasable fanbase will continue to shun Sonic, and what he's become. Once we can all break past that "all speed, all the time" mindset, Sonic can and will rise back on top. That's what it will truly take to get Sonic out of his slump.

^I agree with this entirely. I do think that Sonic Colors is a step in the right direction though -- surprised that it didn't get a mention.

[JCvgluvr]

I actually feel similarly about Sonic; it should be more about momentum than speed. I remember that 2D Mirror's Edge demo EA released a while back being the most fun Sonic game I ever played for that reason.

I'm glad you feel that way, Seph. Once more people realize this, the better off Sonic will be.

Now, my question to you would be: If you realize that Sonic is more about momentum-based platforming, why didn't you say that in the video? Saying Sonic is about "moving ridiculously fast" only reinforces that negative stereotype that plagues Sonic today.

[sephfire]

I'm glad you feel that way, Seph. Once more people realize this, the better off Sonic will be.

Now, my question to you would be: If you realize that Sonic is more about momentum-based platforming, why didn't you say that in the video? Saying Sonic is about "moving ridiculously fast" only reinforces that negative stereotype that plagues Sonic today.

Partially because James is the writer and it was a point he wanted to add. Partly because "speed" is widely accepted as being the games' key element and we didn't really have time to go into a long spiel about what they should really be about.

And it's not like speed isn't a key element of the Sonic games either. I don't personally think it's the MOST important element, but it's up there.