DioWallachia said:
I didn't exclude the music. I was referring, just in case, that i am not counting the music ALONE as being a factor on the atmosphere. Remember what you wrote about:
...
Still that doesnt mean that there was little plot to begin with, it exist only to reinforce the imagination and increase the atmosphere. Sort of like how Silent Hill makes a good atmosphere even if the plot is just "a father in search his daughter in a town that seems to be alive and malevolent" but that doesnt mean it doesnt work.
But the issue still remains with what you said and how you said it; setting is not plot. The atmosphere or environmental characteristics that are non-essentail to game play that contribute to the player experience are separate from the plot. The plot may dictate where the setting is, the participants/actors/characters within the setting, and the purpose for being in the current setting, but the setting and plot are still different elements completely.
Also, the Silent Hill example you are using is a general synopsis after playing the game and doesn't give an accurate picture of the whole plot. The "plot" in it's entirety, in any medium, is the complete story from my point of view; at any given time you can get a piece of the plot, but to know the whole of the plot you much watch/play from beginning to end.
It's comprised, first, of an introduction which generally lays out a plot line, or story line, that then builds toward a culminating point of conflict we call a climax, then ends with wrapping up the loose ends that were created before the climax and weren't resolved, the outro or in some cases the story finishes prematurely and an Epilogue is used.
All "atmosphere" can really be chalked up to is a subjective measure of how immersing the game or setting is from the author, for the player. For some it will be greater than others. As an example I won't be tapping an RPG, I'll be tapping Doom 3. It was designed, not to be a good, balanced FPS but to be a story driven shooter that places the player on Mars and is immediately engaging, forcing you to 'DO' everything and become the space marine. To add to my first experience to Doom 3 (and at the time, Thief 2: Metal Age as well), I played in the dark with headphones on. The user experience I found was paramount and legitimately made me jump on occasion, giving me the immersion of really being there. 3rd person games first detract from that because you are technically looking at yourself; your character. Although you are controlling your character, there is still this disconnect in that you are watching yourself complete an action and not really doing the action yourself, one of the major hangups I have with more 3rd person games (other than the Tomb Raider series actually).
I tangented a bit here, but I hope you are picking up what I'm trying to lay down here; atmosphere is an aspect of setting but setting and plot are vastly different. Plot affects the setting, because the plot dictates where, when, who, why, and how the setting will evolve out of it.
DioWallachia said:
...skinner box...
...more use of the term skinner box...
And you respond "Because OBVIOUSLY millions of people still play the game with the passion and love..." Sure they do, they have been....."indoctrinated" to love it. See what i mean now?
First, let's make something clear; conditioning is a form of indoctrination, but indoctrination doesn't have to include conditioning. Again, two separate things that you are lumping together.
AFAIK, from the psychological standpoint, a skinner box is a tool to condition a target. Simply put, anything formulaic that relys on repetition in a "carrot: stick" environment is a skinner box. (If I am getting this way wrong, please correct me.)
Going off of what you said, any game genre has a skinner box type of function, otherwise every game would have zero replay value. 'Tower Defense' is a genre of game that uses the same mechanics for all games, however the execution is done at the individual game level, and that execution determines the success. FPS games are the same way; use weapon to kill target; receive reward. The reward could be simply another frag on your score, or you could hit a cumulative score and given a bigger prize (badges anyone?
). Diablo originally played on the principles that you will get a prize, but not everytime will you receive a good prize, and the size and scarcity of the prize vary by randomness, through location difficulty and enemy difficulty. IMO, it was the randomness of the actual game it's self (the environment aka the changing setting) that provided this positive reinforcement through repetition because you were made to think that you weren't doing the same thing you just did 5 minutes before... because the environment is different. The differences that I have seen now reflect the downfall of Titan Quest like I said earlier.
So in short, no I don't see what you are talking about because the sheer idea of a game is to play with the possibility of both winning and losing; if we always won, it wouldn't be fun for very long. Those that really got excited and didn't have any expectations on Diablo 3, other than it will be a good game, are probably the most pleased. It's those persons that hold that their idea of what Diablo 3
should be is where the disappointment and resentment comes in. Even Blizzard said they aren't reinventing Diablo's identity (even though in part they did with no more random environments) the core game play mechanics were only tweaked and not overhauled, the skill trees simplified and expanded, and additional elements for cooperation, trading, etc. were implemented because they had a better idea of what players did when they weren't just grinding away.
