Why are video games not looked down on the same way things like movies are?

[Schizophretard]

 

And yet, Monopoly is pretty much the same as it ever was, and even console/pc versions don't change much.

 

I'm not following. That seems to be an example of people highly regarding it. The Super Bowl just happened and football doesn't change much.

[Kismet]

 

I'm not following. That seems to be an example of people highly regarding it. The Super Bowl just happened and football doesn't change much.

 

The point there is that Monopoly, or Football doesn't need a video game adaption to "preserve" the experience of it. More people have played monopoly than football, but you can still watch people play both, or you can play it in a video game to know what the rigid game rules were like. What you don't get from the video game experience in both is how house rules, or coaching affects gameplay. Yet people will still watch recordings of football highlights, they don't watch competitive monopoly players.

 

At any rate, with video games, you can not preserve the experience, you can only preserve the storyline to games that have one by recording it. One of the oddly useful things that comes out of gamefaq's/youtube walkthroughs/lp's and data mining is that it helps preserve the game rules, even if the developer doesn't want people to ruin the experience.

 

So an adventure game is utterly ruined by those efforts, but at the same time, players may miss half the stuff in the game and not feel compelled to sit through the first 20 hours of the game to unlock that extra 2 hours of gameplay they missed by saying no to a NPC's sidequest somewhere along the line. Pretty much if people want the game experience, they need to be able to play the game without any of this other stuff being required to play it, and some people simply can't play a game without a walkthrough because they are incapable of solving puzzles where the answer isn't standing in front of them.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Kismet