Comment by roymurdock | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roymurdock | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're talking about two different types of games: Games of Sport vs. Games of Immersion

The difference: Context

Starcraft multiplayer is a Game of Sport, where character and story are nonexistent and mechanics/"interaction" are all that matters in a game of chess completely removed from any context other than the tournament you are playing in.

Switch over to campaign mode and the context becomes the story line and plot. Sure, the game still relies on mechanics but you advance through different scenarios where you meet new characters, form alliances, explore new worlds, and even switch sides and play as a different race based on the plot of the story. Solo play is a Game of Immersion.

The Dark Souls franchise has a good balance of the two. You advance across the world (semi) linearly in a movie-like fashion, learning about the various NPCs and lore of the world. You are also regularly invaded by other players, and then the game becomes completely mechanics/interaction-based until one of you wins the duel.

You're basically arguing that video games are/should be more like a football game than a movie. They can span both forms of entertainment, and people will choose to engage with one or the other based on personal preferences.

You can certainly have both types, but it's annoying and sad that the people whose jobs are to write about video games can't tell the difference between the two, and routinely write articles judging mechanically innovate games by their fluff.

I would say that Dark Souls is still fundamentally driven by mechanics, as most of the gameplay stems from you adapting to various enemies/AI patterns and physically learning to overcome them, while the depth of the story is mostly up to you to piece together.

Sure, you're right that good mechanics are a prerequisite to a good game. But they're not everything. Driving to work every morning requires mechanical mastery and adapting to various environmental factors, but I'm not masochistic enough to call it a game :)

In real life: do you derive pleasure from understanding and mastering the physical laws of the world, or from spending your time creating a mental narrative for yourself and building emotional relationships with those around you? Perhaps a combination of the two?

The Souls franchise became popular solely because it dared to provide complicated mechanics and harsh trial-by-fire instruction in a time where the vast majority of AAA games are dumbed-down handholdy themepark rides with all of their edges filed off. The kind of people that play games only for their stories would never have suffered through any Souls games if it weren't for the massive hype that the "mechanical gamers" generated around it.

Likewise, Starcraft had a story, as did Command & Conquer. But one of those games is played to this day, both in its original incarnation and its sequel, on a massive scale that makes people question their definitions of the word "sport." I don't think this author would have cared to write filler about the story of Command & Conquer today.

> complicated mechanics and harsh trial-by-fire instruction

Super Metroid anyone?

>and people will choose to engage with one or the other based on personal preferences.

Thank you for this comment and the distinction between Sport and Immersion. I love the story mode and do not enjoy multiplayer matches.

You don't necessarily have to engage with one or the other. There's plenty of space in the middle. Most video games have pretty simplistic plots, and I don't get to attached to them, but I recognize that they play a role in tying the whole experience together.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com