/vr/ - Retro Games

>>10540605
But my point is that the function of the fire in Thief is that you have it, you're in a world full of things, and if you try to apply this fire to different things you'll get a response. And it's nice when you get a sensible answer. Someone playing Ocarina of Time can have the exact same experience. They have fire, they try things, and they can get sensible answers. I am concerned with final received experiences. Is the experience of Fire in Thief really that different to the experience of Fire in OoT?

I believe that in practice both games achieve basically the same thing, just LG did so in a way that had far more POTENTIAL. When you consider that both teams only wanted you encountering a limited number of things, all of which work, is there essentially a difference? Are they not two approaches to the same conclusion? Were these teams not TRYING TO MAKE THE SAME KIND OF EXPERIENCE FOR YOU?

>>10540597
You are confusing What with How further. To the point I can just show you how in your own post.

>you're just making shit up despite literally reading how the devs said to make an immersive sim
"How"

Do you not see that there is a desired experience here which is the point, with the rest being means? YOU are saying that an "immersive sim" is defined by its construction, by the means used to realise the end. I am saying that Thief and OoT should be considered the same class of game experience despite differences in construction because they aspire to, and largely deliver, the same class of experience.

Looking Glass do not say that their game is fundamentally different to others. They say that they hope to create the means to allow a player to improvise. On one hand, many of the strict, singular solutions in OoT resemble the natural logic of improvisation, and on the other, within the systems that are there improvisation is possible. There are 100 ways to win a sword fight with an enemy just with your sword, for example. Jump this way, that way, shield.

>>10221371
You seem to have missed the visual, thematic, and narrative significance of how the UNSC looks. Especially in CE. The UNSC are grey, sparse, efficient, flat, unadorned, big grey and earth toned solid shapes built for purpose. If they're impressive it's in the scale and dedication to purpose. The seriousness. This is something that they have in common with the forerunners. It's a visual theme shared across the cultures which suggests a likeness of mind between them which is not shared by even the most advanced covenant.

A fascination with ornamentation, decoration, excessive incidental detail, these are the traits of lower cultures and minds. The covenant are able to take far more direct inspiration from the forerunners but they choose to make everything a gaudy renaissance vatican naturalist kitsch nightmare of overdesign because they're wearing shoes that don't fit them.

Humanity with no connection to the forerunners build instinctively more and more like the forerunners. The Covenant, who can look at and build upon forerunner stuff for their whole history, are not inclined to build like them.

And you can say "yeah but the covenant stuff looks better" but that doesn't mean the game would be better if all forerunner stuff was purple, wavy, and glowing. The look of the forerunner creations is supposed to tell you who they were. They were a civilisation and culture which was beyond fascination with colour and decoration. They were too serious and high minded. Their works were too great for such things to matter. Maybe you think a gun with flames painted on it would look badass. But can you imagine the big bald alien from Prometheus doing that? That's why the forerunner stuff looks as it does, and why the UNSC designs look somewhat novel and organic but approaching that same standard of brutal high minded efficiency.