computer games dont really make you think though
more so I'd say. You are the passive observer in film and TV whereas games put you in the drivers seat. Thats why sometimes I am 'to tired' for games. And thats not a euphamism for wrecked on substances either, I just want to watch/read a story. But when you are in the mood to be the story-maker well. Well well well. I'm whistling a dixie theme as I load up on guns and head out to do battle. Sporting a fetching hat, swinging an arcane shotgun and followed by a hound called Julius. When the man comes around.Lots of games make you think, sometimes just as much as TV or film.
Then you've not played the right games, basically - but, and no offence intended, what's the point of trying to illustrate that if you're never going to play them?whats the story though? kill someone, jump over something, score some points, collect something, do some other premeditated task. Its just work with a scoreboard for me.
I get how a football match is a story...every time its like an unscripted improvsied bit of story telling. But ultimately the stories follow a pattern. The stalemate, the drubbing, the comeback, the underdog, etc.
Dont really see how any of that makes you think.... you have to concentrate yes - thats a kind of thinking - doesnt actually make you think as in question anything though.
Computer games are games. A bit of fun at best. Most of them feel like work to me rather than fun though. Ive got enough problems on my plate to have to solve some problems a puzzle maker has set

I dont really follow computer games but its getting quite amazing how games look
Ive come across a couple today that really shocked me in the way they look
cuphead - which looks like a vintage cartoon
and Unravel, which looks like a modern animation
any other games out there breaking boundaries? whether in look or gameplay?
do give the thread a bump in the future
yeah true enough, and thats why i dont feel fussed about playign them....feel like i a lready have. However the mechanics on Unravel are ingenius - but both do something new in that they push the artistic aspects of a platformer to new levels. Its hard if not impossible to be totally original, but theyre definiltey trying something a little differentStill just boring platform games. Nothing new game wise except advancements in graphics technology.
From your link:Here you go ska invita, this piece is basically for you. From the sadly defunct Grantland, and looping back to LA Noire:
Press X for Beer Bottle: On L.A. Noire

In This War Of Mine you do not play as an elite soldier, rather a group of civilians trying to survive in a besieged city; struggling with lack of food, medicine and constant danger from snipers and hostile scavengers. The game provides an experience of war seen from an entirely new angle.
In the case of RRR, very hard indeed. The production was a mad crazy crunch and the engine was a semi upgrade of the old GTA4 engine with some bits of the GTA5 engine strapped on, all done by the San Diego studio, who don't handle the main engine development. No PC version was maintained during development (as it was for GTA4 and 5) and it would be a horrible job to go and unpick the mess.How hard can it be to make a port goddamit
I think the Outsiders are the company. The game is "Project Wight".I just saw this. 'The Oustiders' is being developed by an ex Battlefield designer, you play as a hunted creature rather than the Viking human hunter and your abilities change as you grow from a baby to adult
Battlefield designer reveals promising-looking Viking monster game
Another way of looking at this whole thing is the inverse - what isn't innovative, and what isn't novel.
For some people's money, Half Life 2 (2004) was the last first person shooter to do something new, either in terms of serious mechanics or in experiences. Personally I'd argue a couple of exceptions, like Superhot (SUPER! HOT!™), and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - you might exclude either from the genre I guess - but it's actually a surprisingly difficult argument to counter.
Then there's the overwhelming number and volume of certain pattern-moulded games, like the Ubisoft favourite of collect-em-up open world games (Assassins Creed etc), or overlapping with that, any franchise that puts out a version every few years.
So if you focus on those - the genre of FPS, the market of AAA games - you will experience something stagnant and conservative, in large part thanks to the very moneyspinning nature of it. But obviously, my advice is: don't do that.
Another way of looking at this whole thing is the inverse - what isn't innovative, and what isn't novel.
For some people's money, Half Life 2 (2004) was the last first person shooter to do something new, either in terms of serious mechanics or in experiences. Personally I'd argue a couple of exceptions, like Superhot (SUPER! HOT!™), and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - you might exclude either from the genre I guess - but it's actually a surprisingly difficult argument to counter.
I'd never heard of this before, soWhat about the glory that is Splatoon!?
- but: third person shooter, and an arena platformer as compared to e.g. Half Life's serious FPS.I'd never heard of this before, so- but: third person shooter, and an arena platformer as compared to e.g. Half Life's serious FPS.
