On 04/10/2013 05:22 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
For many (admittedly, not all) of them, I really don't believe "games" is an accurate term (Don't misinterpret that into a statement of "Only true 'games' are legitimate" because I never said such a thing.)
But that's essentially what you *are* saying by downplaying the gameplay that lies at the heart of the "interactive movies" you've used as examples. It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Let's take a statement from your original post:
"Modern AAA/big-budget titles are interactive movies, not videogames, because their focus is story, dialog and cinematics, not gameplay."
Which is untrue when it comes to games like BioShock or GTA. At the end of the day both games are mostly shooters along with other gameplay elements (like driving in GTA), and you will spend most of your time playing the game and not watching cinematics. I gave you a canonical example of what would be an interactive movie, and you tried to wave it away because it really was an interactive movie.
It might be a bad thing if the industry focused too heavily on them, but that would be a completely different complaint.
Which has been the essence of your complaint, based on how games used to be and your particular tastes, sounding a lot like a grumpy old man who thinks the industry is suffering because they don't make them like they used to:
"Maybe I'm just projecting my own tastes into this, or maybe this is just because I don't have sales/profits/etc charts for the last 10-20 years to examine, but lately I'm finding it difficult to believe that "AAA" games aren't becoming (or already) a mere niche, much like high-performance sports cars. (Ie, big money, but small market.)
Part of this is because, as I see it, the "big/AAA games" *as they used to exist* up until around the early 2000's don't seem to be around much anymore."
And really, is it so damn horrible to have and voice a negative opinion on something?
Not at all, but when the constant refrain is grumpy-old-man ranting, it is pretty horrible.
