EGM scores. Some pretty big games.

[OB1]

It has nothing to do with ego or you supposedly winning and me refusing to admit it. I am not admitting you "won" because I don't think by any decent standards that you have. This is nothing like the PSP thing where I admitted something. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever by any standard to say that two games that play the same and for which the gameplay experience is overall pretty much identical are in totally different categories. That just DOES NOT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE.

This is completely about your ego. Even though you know very well that I was right about the PSP thing, you refused to admit that you were oh-so wrong. And why was that? EGO! I am seriously trying to educate you here and I've been trying my best to do it in a non-insulting manner, but now I know that that's impossible to do. But that's your loss. Your ignorance is your loss.

Anyway, I did not bring up Zork to bring back this arguement. I mentioned Zork because it is obvious that when you say "movies have always influenced games more" and I was closer to the other side, I would mention the best example possible to prove my case (just you do with MGS). And that example is, clearly, interactive fiction. If I wanted the next best thing I'd talk about early adventure games, which play similarly to interactive fiction just with graphics (King's Quest, etc). Same arguement really, as that game is pretty much a text-based adventure, just with pictures...

How many times are you going to make me repeat myself? I never said that movies have influenced games more! I've said that what--TEN TIMES already??! What I stated very clearly is that books can not translate into a game nearly as well as movies can.

I think that this is the first time I've heard you say this...

I said that when I first played Metroid Prime, I said that when we first had this debate, and I've said it several other times in the past. I like those log things. What I've always said is that those logs are not a good method of story-telling! They're a nice supplement, some cool background info in the game. But not as the driving force of the plot, which they are.

No. Games require interaction. Thus, you cannot put a movie in a pc box and call it a game. That would actually be less interactive than reading a novel on a computer screen as you wouldn't even need to flip the pages.

You're right about MGS's influences, but my point is that because they are making something different from movies any influence they do get from them, in the majority, is not going to be straight. It is going to be mixed with many other things, including influences from books. You suggest that movies are the top influence... I don't really think so.

That's because you don't know a thing about any of this. You are entirely ignorant to every single one of these topics. You base your "knowledge" on blind speculation and feeling and don't have one concrete opinion that is shared by any expert in these fields. You're like a punk kid who thinks he knows everything, trying to argue with someone who studies these topics full-time. It's sadly pathetic.

Of course you cannot put a movie in a box and call it a game. I never said that. I've clearly stated that you can put movies into games, not substitute the games for movies! Try that with a book and the game will most assuredly suck! Case in point: The MGS series.

I did the best I could with what I thought it meant, but if you think it's something dramatically different why not...

I could give you give you an entire semester's worth of lecturing and you'd still understand absolutely nothing. You can't even understand a single one of my sentences, so what are the chances of you understanding entire paragraphs?

Your attack on if text-based games were video games dodged the point I was making. That is really not relevant, as I explain above. So by not talking about the issue I raised and instead attacking me on what essentially was a non sequitor, you dodge the issue.

Could you be more vague then that? Quote something specifically!

Attacking a totally different point does not invalidate that.

If you actually understood the English language and knew how to decode our "paragraphs" and "sentences" you would clearly be able to see that I obliterated your "point".

Just no. And anyway, I'm just about as sure about you not really understanding what I mean as you seem to be with me about you.

I've understood just about everything you've said here, which makes this so frustrating. I understand what you're trying to get across, as incredibly idiotic as your posts are.

Huh? Sure, you need some kind of description for your words. Which is why, exactly as I said, games use all the tools available to them, with the main two being visual and textual descriptions!

Uh, no they don't! Having two static charactes and word balloons do not account for visual narration!

(First, do I need to repeat that I think it is both visual and written? I think I even did it in this post... so let's just skip the fifth or so rewrite of that idea and move on. But make no mistake, that is my primary rebuttal to your thesis here that they are primarially visual.)

Yeah, that's what that paragraph was for, Einstein. That movies are not both written and visual mediums.

Actually, as I've said many times, in some of these games there ARE written description of places. And I think it's a great help, as graphics can't do everything. Baldur's Gate? It doesn't have a lot of them, but it does have some descriptions of places (some voiced in the chapter intros and stuff, some in stuff you read or conversations). So I think that your idea that games are, like films, so focused just on the visual medium is wrong. Otherwise Eternal Darkness would not have those written descriptions of items. As you say, this is something films don't do (and you have slightly different reasons, but we ended up with the same conclusion -- that no films count as being written mediums).

As for Baldur's Gate, I think that there was a lost opportunity somewhat here. I would have loved to see a more adventure-game-like system (or Torment's, with more than BG but still less than an adventure game) with lots of things to click on and get better descriptions. I think that in games such things help set the tone and describe the world much more effectively than just graphics alone can. And, as I played through BGII, I noticed how dissapointingly few the places where I could click to get descriptions were (generally, points that I could in some fashion interact with). So fine, that's a flaw in the game.

Oh yeah, and one of your last points is something very close to what I said in my last few posts, you know: changing text into voice acting does not make massive changes to the way the game works or from what it's influences came from.

You ignored all of my points! Every single one of them! Amazing.

You ignored my point about The Passion, about visuals doing the story-telling and the only text being dialogue. You completely ignored that and just reiterated your terribly ignorant points. You just repeated yourself, showing that you either did not read my post or failed to comprehend it.



Brian, as bad as this sounds, I really hope you learn your lesson in life. I hope this enormous ego and unwillingness to learn anything new and not being able to admit defeat really makes life really tough for you. I hope this because that is the only way you will ever learn. And this will hurt you, you can bet on that. You're still under the care of your parents, you've never had a job, etc. You've yet to enter the real world. When you do so, prepare to get bitchslapped, both literally and figuratively.

That final statement. Hmm... very interesting. I disagree with the fundamental assumption there that electronic games need visuals to matter. I don't think the amount of visuals in the game is relevant in any way for classification, and see no reason why they should (beyond the obvious idea of categorizing them for the kind of visuals they employ -- 2d, 3d, etc -- which is not relevant to the overall categorization I'm talking about).

Sure, electronic games can be of just about any variety. Light Bright is an electronic game! I'm talking about video games, and there is only one broad classification for them: visual medium. That is a fact. Argue it as much as you want to, you're still wrong.