Uniju said:
You mean kind of like games like Space Invaders? The ones that popularized the medium?
You mean the terribly outdated game that's mostly fun as a novelty? Not all games have to have complex stories, anyway, (there are children books for the literature section of this), but you're against advancing the medium at all, which is just stupid.
And it's a bad opinion. That's all.
That's less interactivity. I said less story, not less interactivity.
Alright, press a random button that appears on the screen every second or you die. This really doesn't change
anything at all.
"Common sense? Nope! I've never read a book that said that, so its not even true!"
I don't know what kind of odd "common sense" you have that would lead you to draw such an obviously incorrect conclusion, but if that's the case, we can pretty much disregard all of your opinions instantly, can't we?
I know, isn't it sad? I wish there were some form of interactive media that could do it instead...
Guess what you do in interactive media?
Actions.
Guess what a story does, more often that not?
Follow a sequence of events caused by one or more character's actions as they try to achieve some ultimate goal.
So, to portray anything that you've mentioned in said interactive media, you need a story.
oopsie
Right, right, because it's much better to only have control over half of something, too much control over something might make people feel like they're actually doing something. We wouldn't want people actually doing things, now would we?
Cutscenes are suddenly the only way to control a story? We're not in 1985 here, player's actions in-game tend to have a direct effect on how the story progresses, giving the player
more control in most cases.
No, they do feel immersed in the universe of said story. They feel exactly like they're sitting behind a bush watching the characters doing whatever they're doing and not being able to interact with them at all. If that's your thing, fine, but it's still fucking stupid.
Have you even read a book? I'm seriously starting to doubt you have.
If you have, then you've obviously read really shitty books,
or, and this is much more likely, you have absolutely no imagination and need everything presented to you in a simple manner, with neon lights pointing everything out to you, with absolutely no drama and the most primitive of storylines, just like in the old video games you refer to.
"I don't have a real argument, so I'm going to pretend I didn't understand what he said and hope everyone else misunderstood it that way too so they don't realize I'm wrong!"
"I can't say anything in response to what my opponent said, so I'm just going to respond to him in a really snarky manner and try to make him look like the idiot here, even though it's pretty obvious that I am!"
And, to prove how predictable your "responses" are, you're planning on saying something like "Why, yes, you are.".
Right, because anyone who tells you you're wrong must be a troll!
No, the fact that you disagree with me has nothing to do with it. The fact that you're a known troll is a bit more convincing.
I know you're just arguing with me because of some retarded fued you think we have, but this was just way too brain-dead to pass up responding to.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like you, but I normally only tend to argue with people who are incorrect. Shocking, I know. I don't say a word when I think you're right about something, just like everyone else. Of course, you wouldn't notice this because
I never say anything in response to them. hurr durr
![[ohgodpleasedelete]](/data/avatars/l/0/250.jpg?1564461486){kind=avatar}
