Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 2013 Video Game Baftas are on tonight at 9pm, any TV channel showing it?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Falthyron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    Danny O'Dwyer at GameSpot.co.uk made a very good point last night during the live stream that it would appear journalists found this niche title which caught many by surprise and decided to give it almost everything. It happens with film too (I thought Slumdog Millionaire was an average film, but there you go).

    I can't stress enough the praise I give to Journey as an independent and exciting little title, but to give it 'Best Multiplayer', I mean really.. come on. :P


  • Options
    #33
    Falthyron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    And that's where you just don't get it. Journey doesn't need any of that because it takes the status quo of multiplayer and turns it on it's head. It's not like anything that has gone before it. It doesn't need clans or community. It just isn't that type of game.

    I have no problem with that. I really enjoy when game developers take something familiar and challenge it or alter it to produce new results. Perhaps if Journey had been a more 'complete' game, something like Demon Souls or Dark Souls and actively engaged with this idea more thoroughly, to see how far they can push it, I would understand awarding them 'Best Multiplayer'. But, it's a rather short game with little emphasis on the multiplayer aspect.

    Hell, I would go so far as to say Trials Evolution is more multiplayer than Journey. You can challenge people's times, watch their performances, etc. But I wouldn't equate buying a multiplayer game with Trials, and neither would I with Journey. If I want a multiplayer title, I would purchase a game emphasising the importance and significance of multiplayer in that title.

    Ultimately what I am trying to say is; as much as Battlefield 3 is a clear and obvious multiplayer title, Journey is a clear and obvious single player title. The effort put into Battlefield's single player campaign is about the same as the amount of effort put into the multiplayer of Journey, and with that criteria it becomes transparent how much importance each company places on how they define their game.

    EDIT: One last thing. When a game wins an award called 'Best Multiplayer' don't you think it will make a lot of people looking for a good multiplayer game to go out and buy it? If your friend came up to you and said I want a really good multiplayer game, what do you recommend? Does Journey lie at the top of your list?


  • Options
    #34
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,810 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Again just because it' short doesn't mean it should be discounted from the awards. It does what it needs to do in those 4 hours and does it brilliantly with no need for padding or needs less grinding. It doesn't make it any lesser of an experience. I'd much prefer a short focused game like Portal or Journey that fully explores it's gameplay than something that is padded out needlessly. Again length is not a factor.

    As for someone asking about a game recommendation, not to sound like a hipster now but it would depend on their taste in games. Journey is a hard sell because there's nothing else like it but I have recommended it to everyone I know that is interested in games. If they just want to shoot people that's fine but again that isn't all there is to multiplayer and thankfully games like journey are broadening that definition. Even within genres there's wide divergence and it's the same in multiplayer.
    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #35
    Magill
    Registered Users Posts: 5,732 ✭✭✭Magill


    Falthyron wrote: »
    Danny O'Dwyer at GameSpot.co.uk made a very good point last night during the live stream that it would appear journalists found this niche title which caught many by surprise and decided to give it almost everything. It happens with film too (I thought Slumdog Millionaire was an average film, but there you go).

    I can't stress enough the praise I give to Journey as an independent and exciting little title, but to give it 'Best Multiplayer', I mean really.. come on. :P

    Exactly, i mean jesus... its not like the multiplayer was anything special...its no different than bumping into a random player in guildwars while doing a quest or something and tagging along with each other and helping them kill something or find a viewpoint... i couldn't count the number of times this has happened to me in those sort of games. What, because you can't chat to each other and theres some somber music in the background makes it much better *Multiplayer experience ? Not for me.


  • Options
    #36
    Falthyron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Again just because it' short doesn't mean it should be discounted from the awards. It does what it needs to do in those 4 hours and does it brilliantly with no need for padding or needs less grinding. It doesn't make it any lesser of an experience. I'd much prefer a short focused game like Portal or Journey that fully explores it's gameplay than something that is padded out needlessly. Again length is not a factor.

    As for someone asking about a game recommendation, not to sound like a hipster now but it would depend on their taste in games. Journey is a hard sell because there's nothing else like it but I have recommended it to everyone I know that is interested in games. If they just want to shoot people that's fine but again that isn't all there is to multiplayer and thankfully games like journey are broadening that definition. Even within genres there's wide divergence and it's the same in multiplayer.

    I have never complained of Journey's length. I agree with you and if a game does something very well in a short space of time, it is much better than a long game doing something mediocre.

    You seem convinced that Journey should be put in the same category as World of Warcraft, or Guild Wars or Call of Duty for the multiplayer aspect. Different, but still regarded as a wholesome multiplayer experience. Looks like we agree to disagree, but for me - it is an innovative single player sociable experience, and that is the best way to categorise it while the term 'multiplayer' suggests titles such as those mentioned above.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,094 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Magill wrote: »
    What, because you can't chat to each other and theres some somber music in the background makes it much better *Multiplayer experience ? Not for me.

    Now you're just being reductive. Fair enough it's not for you, but the whole game is designed around and significantly enhanced by your ability to play with another person. Games - particularly multiplayer ones - tend to struggle to offer anything other than simple excitement and accomplishment / disappointment (frustration from time to time). For many, through its multiplayer components, Journey offered a whole lot more. For example this post (and I hope Big Knox doesn't mind me using it as an example) shows how Journey achieved something much more profound than a successful raid or good kills:death ratio possibly could.

    'Best Multiplayer' is a completely vague term to be fair - everything from co-op to PvP to leaderboards are theoretically encompassed. No harm in disagreeing with that. But even discounting descriptors like 'innovation' and 'experience', a lot of gamers and clearly the BAFTA voters felt Journey offered simply the best multiplayer of 'em all.


  • Options
    #38
    Logical_Bear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 799 ✭✭✭Logical_Bear


    krudler wrote: »
    there was a thingy in it that let you see through walls, it was like a whole new franchise.

    ah yeah the official wall hack as implemented by tryar$e :pac:


  • Options
    #39
    Magill
    Registered Users Posts: 5,732 ✭✭✭Magill


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    Now you're just being reductive. Fair enough it's not for you, but the whole game is designed around and significantly enhanced by your ability to play with another person. Games - particularly multiplayer ones - tend to struggle to offer anything other than simple excitement and accomplishment / disappointment (frustration from time to time). For many, through its multiplayer components, Journey offered a whole lot more. For example this post (and I hope Big Knox doesn't mind me using it as an example) shows how Journey achieved something much more profound than a successful raid or good kills:death ratio possibly could.

    'Best Multiplayer' is a completely vague term to be fair - everything from co-op to PvP to leaderboards are theoretically encompassed. No harm in disagreeing with that. But even discounting descriptors like 'innovation' and 'experience', a lot of gamers and clearly the BAFTA voters felt Journey offered simply the best multiplayer of 'em all.

    I didn't say I didn't enjoy it, i thought it was a good game. The example you posted isn't what everyone is likely to experience tho, its like saying... CS is amazing because i was in this 1v5 situation to win the match and i managed to win the round. A lot of MP games can produce those amazing moments. Again i enjoyed Journey for what it was, but I still think other games had better MP.

    P.S. Obviously the BAFTA voters can't be taken seriously :P


Advertisement