The lights are on
Veteran Member - Level 12
· We are once again back for another Gaming interview. If you're new reading, this is how it goes. I, Juanolo, will ask 6 questions about gaming. Then, I ask 2 questions that are random that can be about gaming, but probably events happening today. Then you get a question from a GI User. This week, our guest is Gimmick. Finally, they'll get a question from my little brother Jordolo(Title May change). Shall we begin? This week we are interviewing the delicious, I mean the wonderful Turkey. Turkey is a great guy who's out spoken and participates in the GIO community.
11.Do you think it's a smart strategy from Sony to have a big focus on Indie games, and with this focus, how do you think it will impact Indie gaming?
I totally support Sony's endeavor to let indies self-publish and issue updates for their games free of charge. In fact, I think in the next five years we're going to see independent games explode into what we consider ''AAA experiences'' because technology (Unreal Engine 4, for instance) is allowing even inexperienced developers to make top-notch products in short amounts of time. If Sony keeps supporting indie devs, they're going to end up having a lot of first-party content pouring in at a very rapid rate, and Microsoft is going to miss out big-time.
Still, the sorts of indie games we see right now aren't all that innovative, so I don't expect the landscape to change right away in Sony's favor. We're still a few years away from the kind of accessibility I was talking about, which means we'll still be depending on the big companies to deliver those AAA experiences (most of which are third-party). What I'd really like to see is the opposite of what's going on right now in the industry: Big companies that have the power to craft fun gameplay and intricate stories are stifled because of their lack of creative direction; look at games like Remember Me, Fuse, and Army of Two: The Devils Cartel. Reviewers will criticize things like the ''bad graphics'' and glitches, but really it was the bad design that ruined those games. Indie developers on the other hand have a totally different issue; they don't have the power to make their vision come to fruition, however good it may be. AAA game developers have no excuse; they should be making great games with all the power they have, but they're wasting their abilities. That's why I think indies will take over the scene eventually as the power to create big games becomes more accessible.
2. What makes a videogame in your opinion great?
Unlike most people, I don't believe quality is subjective to each person's tastes in genres. I don't even believe genres exist (which I talk about in one of my blogs). But if I were to put my finger on the single most important thing in a video game, it would have to be empowerment. And I don't just mean getting to use a giant raygun that destroys everything in its path; that's not necessarily empowerment. True empowerment gives you the ability to do something in a game, and then see the consequences of your actions; what you do means something (gameplay-wise and story-wise), even if you didn't have a lot of choices. I find that developers nowadays think that giving the player a bunch of choices with different outcomes will make their game great; still others (like Telltale, which made the Walking Dead game series) give players a lot of different choices, but all of the consequences are bad, and none of them really affect the gameplay. They focus more on quantity than individual quality. That sort of game design isn't something I respect. Anyone can make a great quantity of choices in-game if they have enough time to do so; what takes talent is when you can make a decision really affect the game, and do it seamlessly.
I think it takes more creative talent to trick the player into choosing something (and then make them think it's their idea) than to create a smorgasbord of options that don't have any real consequences. Even if there's really only one route for the player to follow, if he ends up choosing it because it mattered to him rather than just because it was the right way to go... then you've got something (and I believe that applies to every aspect of a game; the level design, the weapons, tactical choices, etc.). I wish we saw more variety in gameplay, too.
3. Where do you stand: PS4 and xboxone, and what's will be your launch game, and why?
I choose the Playstation 4 over the Xbox One for a variety of reasons: It comes with a mic (unlike the Xbox, which won't even support mics without an adapter; Microsoft said they want us to use the Kinect for voice-chat). It's $100 cheaper. It supports backward compatibility through the Cloud (which Sony claims they've already tested on the Vita, since it can stream ''virtually all PS4 games''). It lets you take HD videos of gameplay and broadcast it on Twitch instantly with the Share button; you can also let your friends play the same game with you online, even if they haven't purchased it (although Sony has yet to elaborate on this mechanic). Playstation+ is also cheaper than the Xbox One, and will let you stream old PS1, 2, and 3 games as long as you have a membership.
There are other reasons as to why I like the PS4 better, but it also boils down to the fact that I just can't trust Microsoft anymore. With the whole fiasco they pulled earlier this year, it's hard to take them seriously anymore. They still haven't even fixed their seesaw D-pad, or their batteries on the controller.
As far as exclusives go, I don't really see much innovation on either side of the first-party spectrum. I'll probably get Destiny and all of the other high-profile games coming out, but I really think the best next-gen games appear after the console has been out for a while.
4. What's your favorite feature on Gameinformer? Who's your favorite editor? Do you think you could work there one day?
Gameinformer has a lot of entertaining features, but I think the best one they have going for themselves is their loyal online community. I've been to a lot of other websites like 1Up, IGN, Xfire, and Gamespot, and none of them come close to having such a dedicated, diverse family of opinionated and friendly people. With that said, I don't think I could ever work with them. The editors and I would constantly debate about objective criteria, what makes a game great, and how we ought to treat game developers in interviews. I think my favorite editor is Jeff Marchiafava; his recent article on the Xbox One echoed my thoughts exactly.
5. As you look back at this generation, what's been some of the greatest moments in your opinion?
Well, unfortunately for me, I didn't actually get my hands on a 360 or PS3 until around 2009. For a lot of people, it must have been fantastic; seeing how far we've come graphically was probably most people's greatest expectation. But the change was actually disappointing to me, since I was expecting to see a huge leap in gameplay innovation, and in reality it was only marginally different aside from aesthetic enhancements. Some of my favorite games include Portal, Batman: Arkham City, and LittleBigPlanet, but I wouldn't say anything really stuck with me. The next generation will hopefully be the end of this crusade for ''better graphics,'' and result in more focused objectives regarding gameplay and story-telling innovation.
I don't have many ''favorite moments'' to speak of, but arguably the moment that had the biggest effect on me was when I first tried out Call of Duty 4's multiplayer. The game had been rated Game of the Year, and was considered the new standard for multiplayer gaming... but to me, it felt like a step in the wrong direction in many ways; the reduced hip-fire accuracy, the advantage of higher-level players (who have better weapons), and the overall lack of variety didn't satisfy my hunger for innovation.. Still, I played the heck out of that game (and each of the subsequent CoDs), so I don't hold a vendetta against it or anything.
6. What do you think will happen next, and why: Battlefield 5 or Bad company 3?
Each of the Bad Company games felt different from the original Battlefield franchise (thanks to their destruction mechanics and lead characters), but the newest entries in the core Battlefield series (the upcoming Battlefield 4 in particular) seem like they're going to be taking a leading role once again. I think Battlefield 5 will come out before Bad Company 3. Hopefully it'll innovate upon all of the gameplay mechanics previously introduced in the Bad Company games, and maybe add a sci-fi flair to it all. Seriously... we need to get out of the near-future modern setting.
Honestly, I used to play the Call of Duty games way more than Battlefield. My best buddy Carson got me into Bad Company 2, which I started to respect much more than CoD because of all the variety in gameplay; CoD usually just has you running around looking down your iron-sights, but BC 2 forced me to use vehicles, work around destructible environments, and help my buddies using various classes (my favorite being the medic). I never thought I'd say it, but I believe Battlefield will eventually overtake Call of Duty in sales and popularity.
Random questions from me
7. Do you think it's the right that Obama to stall with Syria, and wait for an attack, or do you think he should take action against Syria?
I was brought up in a pretty conservative home, so my thoughts on the matter probably aren't ''politically correct.'' Obama and Bush both seem to think that America is the World Police, like it's our job to go put out every fire that starts up in another nation. I don't agree with this notion at all. As sick as it is that all those people were killed (possibly by the Syrian government, but even that isn't known), there's no reason why America should get its hands dirty with yet another war. ... Not that I'm at all worried that Syria poses a threat; it's just not our job to right every wrong that exists in the world, especially at the expense of the already-dwindling national debt.
8. What were the last few movies you've seen?
I've heard a lot about The Road from interviews with Naughty Dog creative director Neil Druckmann and game director Bruce Straley. They said it was their ''inspiration'' for The Last of Us. So one day I happened to come across it on Netflix and got all excited. After watching it with my dad, I must say... it wasn't all that impressive. A common theme with post-apocalyptic games these days is that they all like to ''toy with morality.'' Druckmann actually claimed that it was one of the emotional selling points of TLoU. But all that The Road did was provoke me, and make me wonder why in the world anyone would be so irrational, even in the apocalypse. Should you deny an old man food when you're dragging a cart-load of rations that you could never eat alone? Why do the bandits seem to get along just fine in their own ranks, while the peaceful people can't get along with each other? The characters did irrational things at every turn, for no other reason than to shock the watcher.
Another movie Druckmann and Straley said inspired them in the development of TLoU was No Country For Old Men, so I recently gave that a try, too. Now that movie was well-made (although it was very depressing). While the characters certainly did shocking things, their motives were straightforward and honest. The story was about how there are more evil people in the world than ever, and that we're headed for utter chaos if there aren't people who stand up and sacrifice themselves for the greater good (unfortunately, the star was and old sheriff, and he just couldn't take it). Never once did I feel that the movie was moving nowhere (like I did with The Road), or that someone's character wasn't fully understood. Overall, I'd recommend it over The Road any day.
Question from GI user(Gimmick)
9. White or dark meat?
Are you suggesting that I'm some sort of cannibal?! That I would eat another bird such as myself?! Really though, I can't taste the difference between the two. I believe that if you were blind and I gave you a bite of each, you wouldn't be able to differentiate which was light and which was dark; people just pretend to have a preference. ;) It's the same with my brothers; when we're playing split-screen, some of them pretend that the top screen is better, while the others prefer the bottom. I don't get it! Ultimately, I blame this fickle, irrational nature on girls; they started it. Have you ever tried giving a flower to a girl? She'll put it up to her nose and pretend to smell something, but I'm telling you, there is no aroma at all! They just pretend to smell something so that we can labor in the fields trying to find a meaningless plant!
Question from Jordolo
10. Do you prefer first person or third person in gaming?
If you asked the common gamer which genre seems to be the most popular, the consensus would probably land on first-person shooter. As over-done as it is, the first-person perspective just gives so much immersion to the experience. You aren't just watching someone else do something; it's all right in front of you as it is in real life. Still, third-person shooters have their time and place. It can actually be a blessing to see your character from the outside; it gives a better awareness of your surroundings, and likely eases the burden most developers face when writing up a character's interactions with the environment (after all, in FPSs the programmers have to design the heads-up display arms separately from the model other players see in a multiplayer session).
That's a wrap. Thanks goes out to Gimmick and Jordolo. Huge thanks goes out to Turkey for participating. This was fun my friend. So what do you think? Agree or diagree with Turkey? So who's next? Thanks again for reading and commenting. Adios Amigos!