In the communities I live and work in, the number of people who self-identify as "gamers" is very small. Some would say this represents the irrelevance of "gamer" as an identity, but I don't agree; I think there is still a cultural stigma attached to gaming for both valid and invalid reasons. There are some who still, even today, don't realize how much gaming has evolved as both a medium and an art form. And there are others who justifiably take issue with some of the less admirable aspects of gaming, the things we're frequently embarrassed to admit to non-gamers.
.
Why does anyone care what some third party thinks of their hobby? Why are they giving any weight to the opinions of the kind of people who judge others for what they're into without bothering to get to know them as a person?
I run into this with people in the furry community. They don't mention to people that they're furry because the fandom has a stigma. Some people think all we do is run around in fursuits shouting 'Yiff! Yiff!' and having weird sex all the time. Sure some of us find that to be a good time but it doesn't make it wrong nor does it represent the majority of furries. Bronies get the same crappy treatment.
I'm not about to stop being proud of being a part of the furry and brony communities because of all the joy they bring me and good they do for people just because some idiot who doesn't even know me focuses on the rare times someone in either fandom happens to have issues unrelated to either fandom.
Tl'dr: Yeah-some gamers are assholes. News flash-some people are assholes. Just because someone is a human being doesn't instantly make them an asshole. The opinions of people who prefer being judgmental bigots instead of attempting to get to know you in order to get a more informed view of what you're really like don't deserve any consideration .
The problem is that there is a line between criticism and attacking. I wish I could still find that image macro that was floating around during the Play Asia dust up that had a bunch of articles attacking both the game and it's fans as misogynists and neckbeards, because much of what tries to pass as innocent criticism passes far beyond that line.
I think what really served to underscore all of this is when PA called this out as SJW nonsense. They weren't pointing fingers at specific sites/people or even feminism, but the very real and very loud SJW minority that stir shit about anything and everything that "triggers" them. After that, you had the usual peanut gallery showing up to bitch about using that term, including Kotaku's own Luke Plunkett who has in the fairly recent past taken issue with censorship himself. It was a shitstorm over a word that their vitriol over only served to further prove what assholes they are.
It's no wonder that Tycho is so fed up with eggshell throwers. I'd say a solid majority of gamers probably are at this point.
Funny that this comic and discussion came just now; I was heavily considering dropping out of Biotechnology to get into Game Dev, because I believed games were evolving into a superior form of art, just like movies did; That soon we would reach a point where you could find games to kill some time (not that I have anything against those) and games that are more of an experience, a piece of art carrying a message. But since the last Game Awards I started to realise my notion was more or less a delusion. Sure, there are some games that show amazing stories, that break the chains of the usual, but their are the minority, and they are actually considered to be worse than the traditional games. And since then I have only found more and more evidence to prove this new view.
Nowadays, visuals and gameplay are more important than story and depth of the message they carry, and it just doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon. And don't get me wrong, I don't think the Game Industry should be like I want it to be because I'm right and everyone else is wrong; It's just wish it could be a bit more open.
Funny that this comic and discussion came just now; I was heavily considering dropping out of Biotechnology to get into Game Dev, because I believed games were evolving into a superior form of art, just like movies did; That soon we would reach a point where you could find games to kill some time (not that I have anything against those) and games that are more of an experience, a piece of art carrying a message. But since the last Game Awards I started to realise my notion was more or less a delusion. Sure, there are some games that show amazing stories, that break the chains of the usual, but their are the minority, and they are actually considered to be worse than the traditional games. And since then I have only found more and more evidence to prove this new view.
Nowadays, visuals and gameplay are more important than story and depth of the message they carry, and it just doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon. And don't get me wrong, I don't think the Game Industry should be like I want it to be because I'm right and everyone else is wrong; It's just wish it could be a bit more open.
For example, the Witcher series is a deeper, more fascinating story and world than almost any movie or book I've read in the past several years.
You just killed whatever hopes for art I had left -.-
It's always been like that. Games with good writing and storylines take time to make, because they are usually longer games. Not everyone has the talent for that kind of thing. RPG's have always been fairly rare in comparison to other genres, at least the good ones.
Also, what is wrong with the Witcher? Please don't tell me that your standard for writing or art is something like Gone Home.
I get the news post. IMO the death of good art is too much second guessing. The moment you become more concerned about your critics than you are about your own vision you're screwed. These days the social pressure on media, art and especially games is so strong and very, very public, and you certainly feel that breath on your neck. Eggshells indeed.
People can go on all they want about needing criticism and how it is right and essential... but id put forward that the amount of pressure and the number of "critics" are at an all time high. We've never had so many people putting so much pressure onto content makers in so public a way. It's worth thinking about the sheer number of "eggshells" being tossed out there
Given the sheer variety and quality of art is higher than ever I can't say I'm particularly concerned.
Nowadays, visuals and gameplay are more important than story and depth of the message they carry
People prioritize gameplay in games? O tempora! O mores!
If my favorite game is Tetris, partly because it's pure gameplay, does it mean I don't take games seriously?
Or maybe I take them seriously, but as a ludologist rather than a social commentator.
Seriously though, I feel like gaming needs both kinds of games and critics: the serious, "social" ones, and the pure fun pure gameplay ones. And everything in-between. Considering how the indie scene exploded, how gaming is part of everyone's life now, there is enough room for everything to co-exist. Plus, gaming being part of society means it has to be regarded as such, including in criticism.
Honestly, I don't care what an imaginary third party thinks of me. I play games. Games are fun. They're everywhere. I'm not ashamed. Hell, the only shame I have felt for being a gamer in the recent years didn't come from its critics or from the "outside" world, but from the behavior of gamers and from the reaction of gaming communities to any kind of criticism of their hobby which they treat as a Way of Life.
at what point does using sjw as a pejorative start to fall under the glorious edict
Excellent question.
Though in this case it's not being aimed at a specific person, it's just your average dumb insular community code word, like libtard or Micro$oft. You reveal more about yourself than the person you're mocking when you use it.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+9
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Funny that this comic and discussion came just now; I was heavily considering dropping out of Biotechnology to get into Game Dev, because I believed games were evolving into a superior form of art, just like movies did; That soon we would reach a point where you could find games to kill some time (not that I have anything against those) and games that are more of an experience, a piece of art carrying a message. But since the last Game Awards I started to realise my notion was more or less a delusion. Sure, there are some games that show amazing stories, that break the chains of the usual, but their are the minority, and they are actually considered to be worse than the traditional games. And since then I have only found more and more evidence to prove this new view.
Nowadays, visuals and gameplay are more important than story and depth of the message they carry, and it just doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon. And don't get me wrong, I don't think the Game Industry should be like I want it to be because I'm right and everyone else is wrong; It's just wish it could be a bit more open.
For example, the Witcher series is a deeper, more fascinating story and world than almost any movie or book I've read in the past several years.
You just killed whatever hopes for art I had left -.-
It's always been like that. Games with good writing and storylines take time to make, because they are usually longer games. Not everyone has the talent for that kind of thing. RPG's have always been fairly rare in comparison to other genres, at least the good ones.
Also, what is wrong with the Witcher? Please don't tell me that your standard for writing or art is something like Gone Home.
Gone Home uses similar game mechanics to something like Telltale's The Walking Dead. I'd consider it more of a game than skinner boxes like Candy Crush, actually, since Candy Crush is little more than rolling the RNG over and over until it gives the correct combinations.
I haven't played the Witcher myself because it has zero appeal for me and it was designed that way. If you take the advice in Jerry's newspost and the PA comic, it shouldn't matter a whit what I or Tigerorjo think about the Witcher and Gone Home.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Funny that this comic and discussion came just now; I was heavily considering dropping out of Biotechnology to get into Game Dev, because I believed games were evolving into a superior form of art, just like movies did; That soon we would reach a point where you could find games to kill some time (not that I have anything against those) and games that are more of an experience, a piece of art carrying a message. But since the last Game Awards I started to realise my notion was more or less a delusion. Sure, there are some games that show amazing stories, that break the chains of the usual, but their are the minority, and they are actually considered to be worse than the traditional games. And since then I have only found more and more evidence to prove this new view.
Nowadays, visuals and gameplay are more important than story and depth of the message they carry, and it just doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon. And don't get me wrong, I don't think the Game Industry should be like I want it to be because I'm right and everyone else is wrong; It's just wish it could be a bit more open.
Funny that this comic and discussion came just now; I was heavily considering dropping out of Biotechnology to get into Game Dev, because I believed games were evolving into a superior form of art, just like movies did; That soon we would reach a point where you could find games to kill some time (not that I have anything against those) and games that are more of an experience, a piece of art carrying a message. But since the last Game Awards I started to realise my notion was more or less a delusion. Sure, there are some games that show amazing stories, that break the chains of the usual, but their are the minority, and they are actually considered to be worse than the traditional games. And since then I have only found more and more evidence to prove this new view.
Nowadays, visuals and gameplay are more important than story and depth of the message they carry, and it just doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon. And don't get me wrong, I don't think the Game Industry should be like I want it to be because I'm right and everyone else is wrong; It's just wish it could be a bit more open.
For example, the Witcher series is a deeper, more fascinating story and world than almost any movie or book I've read in the past several years.
You just killed whatever hopes for art I had left -.-
The Witcher may not be your kind of game but it develops an extremely detailed world and story over the course of three games. There are few games that put as much effort into making such a complex and detailed setting. If most movies or TV shows put even half the effort into their own fictional worlds we'd have plenty of decent content on our hands. Books are pretty much built on their stories (barring those that survive on stylistic quirks) but it's rare to find Grade A fantasy writing these days.
I'm not particularly attached to you liking or disliking the game, you do what you like lol. But I'm curious why that "killed your hopes for art". What, were you expecting War and Peace, the game?
I dunno, there's definitely a whole lot of folks out there who don't take games seriously. But I do agree with the comic you should never need people, even those close to you, to validate your every opinion and take seriously everything you take seriously.
What people should realize is that "gaming" has become as much a large and varied medium as cinema, painting, whatever. Seeing construction workers playing candy crush proves about as much as the same guys going to see an adam sandler flick. It doesn't make the medium any more "serious", it just proves it's more ingrained in our culture these days.
It's always been like that. Games with good writing and storylines take time to make, because they are usually longer games. Not everyone has the talent for that kind of thing. RPG's have always been fairly rare in comparison to other genres, at least the good ones.
Also, what is wrong with the Witcher? Please don't tell me that your standard for writing or art is something like Gone Home.
Well, there is nothing WRONG with the WItcher, just like there is nothing wrong with novels like The Da Vinci Code; they are cool and fun, but to pretend they are some kind of literary wonder (like a LOT of fans do) is ridiculous; They are another generic fantasy-themed saga with a plain main character and not much innovation (outside of the sexual content). I mean, I LOVE Eragon, but I would never pretend it to be a superb piece of literature.
About Gone Home, I must confess I hadn't heard about that game before (I did read something about the LGBT/PAX incident but I was too lazy to investigate more) but it does sound like the kind of game I would enjoy AND the kind of game most people dislike because it tries to distance itself from what's traditional.
I'm not particularly attached to you liking or disliking the game, you do what you like lol. But I'm curious why that "killed your hopes for art". What, were you expecting War and Peace, the game?
THAT is another of the things that drove me away from game dev; a lot of people I know and respect, and even more random people on the internet, when someone questions the quality of the writing in a game they like, they just say "well, what were you expecting? It's just a game". I mean, if even GAMERS themselves can't take their medium seriously, if they can't believe it can express ideas just as complex as literature or cinema, then how can we pretend that non-gamers see videogames as art?
As for my hopes in art dying, well, after 50 Shades of Gray and Twilight I didn't have too much left; that comment was just the final blow.
Nowadays, visuals and gameplay are more important than story and depth of the message they carry, and it just doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon.
I'm going to be frank here. I have no goddamned idea what you're talking about. I've been playing video games for 25 years, and graphics and gameplay have ALWAYS been prized. That's never changed. Expectations on story, on the other hand, have grown and evolved over this timeframe. Many people absolutely adore Bioshock: Infinite, but I have yet to see a single person praise the gameplay. The Last of Us was considered GotY by the bast majority of the gaming community, based mainly on the story. The Walking Dead's story was so highly praised, that it make the gaming community retroactively consider David Cage a hack. Undertale is considered by many to be this year's GotY, and has a devoted fanbase. Personally speaking, one of my favorite games is To the Moon, and I am STOKED for Zero Time Dilemma and am a huge fan of the Ace Attorney series. All story-based games.
Hell, the three biggest megatons of E3 this year were the continued development of a game that's part of a series praised for it's atmosphere, the remake of a game that pioneered cinematic storytelling in games, and a sequel to a game that pioneered QTEs. Story isn't being undervalued, it's valued now more than ever. It's just that gameplay and visual fidelity are also being valued, as well. Which is not a bad thing.
It's always been like that. Games with good writing and storylines take time to make, because they are usually longer games. Not everyone has the talent for that kind of thing. RPG's have always been fairly rare in comparison to other genres, at least the good ones.
Also, what is wrong with the Witcher? Please don't tell me that your standard for writing or art is something like Gone Home.
Well, there is nothing WRONG with the WItcher, just like there is nothing wrong with novels like The Da Vinci Code; they are cool and fun, but to pretend they are some kind of literary wonder (like a LOT of fans do) is ridiculous; They are another generic fantasy-themed saga with a plain main character and not much innovation (outside of the sexual content). I mean, I LOVE Eragon, but I would never pretend it to be a superb piece of literature.
About Gone Home, I must confess I hadn't heard about that game before (I did read something about the LGBT/PAX incident but I was too lazy to investigate more) but it does sound like the kind of game I would enjoy AND the kind of game most people dislike because it tries to distance itself from what's traditional.
It's always been like that. Games with good writing and storylines take time to make, because they are usually longer games. Not everyone has the talent for that kind of thing. RPG's have always been fairly rare in comparison to other genres, at least the good ones.
Also, what is wrong with the Witcher? Please don't tell me that your standard for writing or art is something like Gone Home.
Well, there is nothing WRONG with the WItcher, just like there is nothing wrong with novels like The Da Vinci Code; they are cool and fun, but to pretend they are some kind of literary wonder (like a LOT of fans do) is ridiculous; They are another generic fantasy-themed saga with a plain main character and not much innovation (outside of the sexual content). I mean, I LOVE Eragon, but I would never pretend it to be a superb piece of literature.
About Gone Home, I must confess I hadn't heard about that game before (I did read something about the LGBT/PAX incident but I was too lazy to investigate more) but it does sound like the kind of game I would enjoy AND the kind of game most people dislike because it tries to distance itself from what's traditional.
I'm not particularly attached to you liking or disliking the game, you do what you like lol. But I'm curious why that "killed your hopes for art". What, were you expecting War and Peace, the game?
THAT is another of the things that drove me away from game dev; a lot of people I know and respect, and even more random people on the internet, when someone questions the quality of the writing in a game they like, they just say "well, what were you expecting? It's just a game". I mean, if even GAMERS themselves can't take their medium seriously, if they can't believe it can express ideas just as complex as literature or cinema, then how can we pretend that non-gamers see videogames as art?
As for my hopes in art dying, well, after 50 Shades of Gray and Twilight I didn't have too much left; that comment was just the final blow.
You can dislike the story all you want, but it was an incredible exercise in world building and narrative inside the structure of a game.
I write for a living, it's not like I don't realize the difference between Hemmingway and Witcher. But imo making games tell a truly deep abd immersive story is like writing a best selling "make your own adventure novel". it's just a tough format to work with. I'm thrilled people are making games that can carry the narrative structure of literature, even if it's only a start. Considering the factors of playability and the visuals, it's quite the accomplishment.
Id call some games art alone just for pure visual style, add more deep and comprehensive writing and you're closing in on something very special.
Also, I'm curious what "Complex ideas" are expressed by modern cinema that haven't been touched on in some recent game masterpieces. Last of Us for example had massive depth and hit the fatherhood angle like I haven't seen in cinema for over a decade.
As for my hopes in art dying, well, after 50 Shades of Gray and Twilight I didn't have too much left; that comment was just the final blow.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green and The Thing About Jellyfish By Ali Benjamin are well worth your time and are proof that there's still a lot of great writing, cinema and games being created. It's silly to judge the entirety of creative works because you aren't into a particular writers efforts. It's a bit melodramatic, you know?
In the communities I live and work in, the number of people who self-identify as "gamers" is very small. Some would say this represents the irrelevance of "gamer" as an identity, but I don't agree; I think there is still a cultural stigma attached to gaming for both valid and invalid reasons. There are some who still, even today, don't realize how much gaming has evolved as both a medium and an art form. And there are others who justifiably take issue with some of the less admirable aspects of gaming, the things we're frequently embarrassed to admit to non-gamers.
.
Why does anyone care what some third party thinks of their hobby? Why are they giving any weight to the opinions of the kind of people who judge others for what they're into without bothering to get to know them as a person?
I run into this with people in the furry community. They don't mention to people that they're furry because the fandom has a stigma. Some people think all we do is run around in fursuits shouting 'Yiff! Yiff!' and having weird sex all the time. Sure some of us find that to be a good time but it doesn't make it wrong nor does it represent the majority of furries. Bronies get the same crappy treatment.
I'm not about to stop being proud of being a part of the furry and brony communities because of all the joy they bring me and good they do for people just because some idiot who doesn't even know me focuses on the rare times someone in either fandom happens to have issues unrelated to either fandom.
Tl'dr: Yeah-some gamers are assholes. News flash-some people are assholes. Just because someone is a human being doesn't instantly make them an asshole. The opinions of people who prefer being judgmental bigots instead of attempting to get to know you in order to get a more informed view of what you're really like don't deserve any consideration .
A bunch of the time this is basically because there's no real reason to publically show enjoyment of the thing and showing it gets you tons of micro aggression garbage thrown at you.
Though in this case it's not being aimed at a specific person, it's just your average dumb insular community code word, like libtard or Micro$oft. You reveal more about yourself than the person you're mocking when you use it.
Little Known Fact: Words that come out of your mouth reveal stuff. Shock!
Looks like G&T are as sick of the people reflexively exclaiming "Gaming MUST evolve and grow up as an art form (because I'm pushing forty and still writing for a glorified video game blog and I wish my job was respectable)" as anyone else.
I agree. Change IS bad and scary.
Five or ten years from now the current "games press" will be a withered husk almost completely supplanted by Youtube, and le glorious revolution will have died alongside it. Because let's face it, you guys are mostly just a noisy fringe. If there were enough of you to influence the market through purchasing power, you'd just do it.
Looks like G&T are as sick of the people reflexively exclaiming "Gaming MUST evolve and grow up as an art form (because I'm pushing forty and still writing for a glorified video game blog and I wish my job was respectable)" as anyone else.
I agree. Change IS bad and scary.
Five or ten years from now the current "games press" will be a withered husk almost completely supplanted by Youtube, and le glorious revolution will have died alongside it. Because let's face it, you guys are mostly just a noisy fringe. If there were enough of you to influence the market through purchasing power, you'd just do it.
There are no "you guys" here. There are people who like different things than you. And it's perfectly fine.
Looks like G&T are as sick of the people reflexively exclaiming "Gaming MUST evolve and grow up as an art form (because I'm pushing forty and still writing for a glorified video game blog and I wish my job was respectable)" as anyone else.
I agree. Change IS bad and scary.
Five or ten years from now the current "games press" will be a withered husk almost completely supplanted by Youtube, and le glorious revolution will have died alongside it. Because let's face it, you guys are mostly just a noisy fringe. If there were enough of you to influence the market through purchasing power, you'd just do it.
There are no "you guys" here. There are people who like different things than you. And it's perfectly fine.
The way many perceive it, though, is that there is a segment of the gaming press who have appointed themselves to sit in judgment and tell other people whether or not the things they like are "perfectly fine" though.
Looks like G&T are as sick of the people reflexively exclaiming "Gaming MUST evolve and grow up as an art form (because I'm pushing forty and still writing for a glorified video game blog and I wish my job was respectable)" as anyone else.
I agree. Change IS bad and scary.
Five or ten years from now the current "games press" will be a withered husk almost completely supplanted by Youtube, and le glorious revolution will have died alongside it. Because let's face it, you guys are mostly just a noisy fringe. If there were enough of you to influence the market through purchasing power, you'd just do it.
There are no "you guys" here. There are people who like different things than you. And it's perfectly fine.
The way many perceive it, though, is that there is a segment of the gaming press who have appointed themselves to sit in judgment and tell other people whether or not the things they like are "perfectly fine" though.
That just means that games are now subject to all of the same levels of criticism as every other form of art. Welcome to the club, video games!
Looks like G&T are as sick of the people reflexively exclaiming "Gaming MUST evolve and grow up as an art form (because I'm pushing forty and still writing for a glorified video game blog and I wish my job was respectable)" as anyone else.
I agree. Change IS bad and scary.
Five or ten years from now the current "games press" will be a withered husk almost completely supplanted by Youtube, and le glorious revolution will have died alongside it. Because let's face it, you guys are mostly just a noisy fringe. If there were enough of you to influence the market through purchasing power, you'd just do it.
There are no "you guys" here. There are people who like different things than you. And it's perfectly fine.
The way many perceive it, though, is that there is a segment of the gaming press who have appointed themselves to sit in judgment and tell other people whether or not the things they like are "perfectly fine" though.
That just means that games are now subject to all of the same levels of criticism as every other form of art. Welcome to the club, video games!
Honestly, it's about time the gaming press did that. For years we wanted video games to be taken seriously as an art form so people stop saying they're just little toys for kids we'll grow out of. Finally, they're being treated like an actual media.
Looks like G&T are as sick of the people reflexively exclaiming "Gaming MUST evolve and grow up as an art form (because I'm pushing forty and still writing for a glorified video game blog and I wish my job was respectable)" as anyone else.
I agree. Change IS bad and scary.
Five or ten years from now the current "games press" will be a withered husk almost completely supplanted by Youtube, and le glorious revolution will have died alongside it. Because let's face it, you guys are mostly just a noisy fringe. If there were enough of you to influence the market through purchasing power, you'd just do it.
In 5 to 10 years, YouTube may not even exist. I don't think we are in the position to judge what will be the new media of the next decade, really. Maybe posting on YouTube will die off and be seen as a fad, like MySpace pages or Geocities. *shrugs*
Video games probably will be different, too. It's not going to be the same forever and ever. And thank god.
EDIT: For perspective, 10 years ago, YouTube was founded in Feb 2005.
Looks like G&T are as sick of the people reflexively exclaiming "Gaming MUST evolve and grow up as an art form (because I'm pushing forty and still writing for a glorified video game blog and I wish my job was respectable)" as anyone else.
I agree. Change IS bad and scary.
Five or ten years from now the current "games press" will be a withered husk almost completely supplanted by Youtube, and le glorious revolution will have died alongside it. Because let's face it, you guys are mostly just a noisy fringe. If there were enough of you to influence the market through purchasing power, you'd just do it.
They are doing it. That's one of the reasons there is so much backlash coming from the old guard, even as the fanbase expands and enters the mainstream.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
In 5 to 10 years, YouTube may not even exist. I don't think we are in the position to judge what will be the new media of the next decade, really. Maybe posting on YouTube will die off and be seen as a fad, like MySpace pages or Geocities. *shrugs*
I'd settle for "posting terrible comments on Youtube" dying off.
In 5 to 10 years, YouTube may not even exist. I don't think we are in the position to judge what will be the new media of the next decade, really. Maybe posting on YouTube will die off and be seen as a fad, like MySpace pages or Geocities. *shrugs*
Lord knows Google's certainty trying their damndest.
Please, let's have an argument about games journalism. Alternatively, let's do anything else but that.
Yeah I came here to see people complaining about how Jerry keeps misusing the term 'literally'.
They are not literal eggshells you hack. Now step around my figurative strict word definition eggshell as you write.
Literally no longer means just that. Now it can also mean "figuratively". So once again, readers will have to rely on context to discern meaning. Even without the sanction of a publishing company, using the term "literally" for hyperbole is an acceptable thing. A person writing in a stylized way for comedic effect might reasonably choose to do this.
Please, let's have an argument about games journalism. Alternatively, let's do anything else but that.
Yeah I came here to see people complaining about how Jerry keeps misusing the term 'literally'.
They are not literal eggshells you hack. Now step around my figurative strict word definition eggshell as you write.
Literally no longer means just that. Now it can also mean "figuratively". So once again, readers will have to rely on context to discern meaning. Even without the sanction of a publishing company, using the term "literally" for hyperbole is an acceptable thing. A person writing in a stylized way for comedic effect might reasonably choose to do this.
I am prepared to be on the wrong side of history then. This is the figurative hill I will die on.
+6
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The discussion really has nothing to do with games journalism anyway. The real discussion is about some people feeling like the hobby doesn't "belong" to them anymore, and being upset about it, and about other people saying, "hell yeah, the industry is changing. Viva la revolucion!"
It's obvious I'm on the viva la revolucion side of things, but I've also been in gaming since I was 5 and of course I've witnessed the whole system get overhauled more times than I could count. If it hadn't, then we wouldn't even have a game like Witcher that the fine folk in this thread have been praising. Yeah, that change has meant that some games that people like fell by the wayside due to the trends of the industry, but those trends correct in time. An example I was thinking of recently was how I couldn't buy a new flight simulator for my dad for years, but now there are flight simulators popping up everywhere it seems.
Even the game that caused Tycho's newspost, DoAX3, is going to be released with English subtitles and not region locked, so the fans of that game can still get it if they want it. The whole story is a tempest in a teapot.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+8
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
at what point does using sjw as a pejorative start to fall under the glorious edict
Excellent question.
Though in this case it's not being aimed at a specific person, it's just your average dumb insular community code word, like libtard or Micro$oft. You reveal more about yourself than the person you're mocking when you use it.
I would also add the clear new weasel word "eggshell thrower" to this list also.
Please, let's have an argument about games journalism. Alternatively, let's do anything else but that.
Yeah I came here to see people complaining about how Jerry keeps misusing the term 'literally'.
They are not literal eggshells you hack. Now step around my figurative strict word definition eggshell as you write.
Literally no longer means just that. Now it can also mean "figuratively". So once again, readers will have to rely on context to discern meaning. Even without the sanction of a publishing company, using the term "literally" for hyperbole is an acceptable thing. A person writing in a stylized way for comedic effect might reasonably choose to do this.
I am prepared to be on the wrong side of history then. This is the figurative hill I will die on.
Maybe we need to up the ante and have literally literally for literally literal uses of literally.
Most of the guys that value gameplay over anything else also want everyone to accept video games as a way of art. Kinda hypocrite if you ask me.
Why is that hypocritical in any way whatsoever?
Gameplay can be art. Indeed, visuals are in movies and paintings. Music is in... music. Text is in books.
Now, I'm not saying that they can't be found within games and be art or beautiful, but the one thing that sets games apart from movies and songs and books is their interactivity. Their gameplay. This CAN be how they are evocative.
A good example in my mind is the game 12 September. There are no cutscenes or dialogues or anything. The game's message "Violence creates more violence" (or more precisely wide-ass air strikes on civilians create more terrorists to appear) is something the player gets through the gameplay. You can never kill all the terrorists on screen, and no matter how much you try, it's impossible to not kill civilians or blow up buildings. Then, civilians come and mourn the dead, and become terrorists. The more you shoot and try to kill terrorists, the more of them there are. If you wait and don't do anything, slowly, people go back to normal, and buildings get rebuilt. The interactivity, the gameplay, the mechanics, those are the things that tell a story in this game, far more than the visuals (although there are visuals, it's a VIDEO game, you do need to SEE the gameplay), more than the non-existant music, more than the text (of which there is none during the gameplay).
It's the ludologist argument, and whether you agree fully, partially or none at all with it, it's undeniable that the gameplay ITSELF can be artful, evocative, or tell a story.
Even the game that caused Tycho's newspost, DoAX3, is going to be released with English subtitles and not region locked, so the fans of that game can still get it if they want it. The whole story is a tempest in a teapot.
On an interesting side note, PlayAsia announced a price drop for the game a day or two ago, due to all the support they received during the nontroversey. Because this whole thing totally wasn't just a marketing gimmick to increase sales for a poorly performing franchise.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Posts
Why does anyone care what some third party thinks of their hobby? Why are they giving any weight to the opinions of the kind of people who judge others for what they're into without bothering to get to know them as a person?
I run into this with people in the furry community. They don't mention to people that they're furry because the fandom has a stigma. Some people think all we do is run around in fursuits shouting 'Yiff! Yiff!' and having weird sex all the time. Sure some of us find that to be a good time but it doesn't make it wrong nor does it represent the majority of furries. Bronies get the same crappy treatment.
I'm not about to stop being proud of being a part of the furry and brony communities because of all the joy they bring me and good they do for people just because some idiot who doesn't even know me focuses on the rare times someone in either fandom happens to have issues unrelated to either fandom.
Tl'dr: Yeah-some gamers are assholes. News flash-some people are assholes. Just because someone is a human being doesn't instantly make them an asshole. The opinions of people who prefer being judgmental bigots instead of attempting to get to know you in order to get a more informed view of what you're really like don't deserve any consideration .
I think what really served to underscore all of this is when PA called this out as SJW nonsense. They weren't pointing fingers at specific sites/people or even feminism, but the very real and very loud SJW minority that stir shit about anything and everything that "triggers" them. After that, you had the usual peanut gallery showing up to bitch about using that term, including Kotaku's own Luke Plunkett who has in the fairly recent past taken issue with censorship himself. It was a shitstorm over a word that their vitriol over only served to further prove what assholes they are.
It's no wonder that Tycho is so fed up with eggshell throwers. I'd say a solid majority of gamers probably are at this point.
Nowadays, visuals and gameplay are more important than story and depth of the message they carry, and it just doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon. And don't get me wrong, I don't think the Game Industry should be like I want it to be because I'm right and everyone else is wrong; It's just wish it could be a bit more open.
You just killed whatever hopes for art I had left -.-
People prioritize gameplay in games? O tempora! O mores!
It's always been like that. Games with good writing and storylines take time to make, because they are usually longer games. Not everyone has the talent for that kind of thing. RPG's have always been fairly rare in comparison to other genres, at least the good ones.
Also, what is wrong with the Witcher? Please don't tell me that your standard for writing or art is something like Gone Home.
Given the sheer variety and quality of art is higher than ever I can't say I'm particularly concerned.
Or maybe I take them seriously, but as a ludologist rather than a social commentator.
Seriously though, I feel like gaming needs both kinds of games and critics: the serious, "social" ones, and the pure fun pure gameplay ones. And everything in-between. Considering how the indie scene exploded, how gaming is part of everyone's life now, there is enough room for everything to co-exist. Plus, gaming being part of society means it has to be regarded as such, including in criticism.
Honestly, I don't care what an imaginary third party thinks of me. I play games. Games are fun. They're everywhere. I'm not ashamed. Hell, the only shame I have felt for being a gamer in the recent years didn't come from its critics or from the "outside" world, but from the behavior of gamers and from the reaction of gaming communities to any kind of criticism of their hobby which they treat as a Way of Life.
Excellent question.
Though in this case it's not being aimed at a specific person, it's just your average dumb insular community code word, like libtard or Micro$oft. You reveal more about yourself than the person you're mocking when you use it.
Gone Home uses similar game mechanics to something like Telltale's The Walking Dead. I'd consider it more of a game than skinner boxes like Candy Crush, actually, since Candy Crush is little more than rolling the RNG over and over until it gives the correct combinations.
I haven't played the Witcher myself because it has zero appeal for me and it was designed that way. If you take the advice in Jerry's newspost and the PA comic, it shouldn't matter a whit what I or Tigerorjo think about the Witcher and Gone Home.
The Witcher may not be your kind of game but it develops an extremely detailed world and story over the course of three games. There are few games that put as much effort into making such a complex and detailed setting. If most movies or TV shows put even half the effort into their own fictional worlds we'd have plenty of decent content on our hands. Books are pretty much built on their stories (barring those that survive on stylistic quirks) but it's rare to find Grade A fantasy writing these days.
I'm not particularly attached to you liking or disliking the game, you do what you like lol. But I'm curious why that "killed your hopes for art". What, were you expecting War and Peace, the game?
What people should realize is that "gaming" has become as much a large and varied medium as cinema, painting, whatever. Seeing construction workers playing candy crush proves about as much as the same guys going to see an adam sandler flick. It doesn't make the medium any more "serious", it just proves it's more ingrained in our culture these days.
Well, there is nothing WRONG with the WItcher, just like there is nothing wrong with novels like The Da Vinci Code; they are cool and fun, but to pretend they are some kind of literary wonder (like a LOT of fans do) is ridiculous; They are another generic fantasy-themed saga with a plain main character and not much innovation (outside of the sexual content). I mean, I LOVE Eragon, but I would never pretend it to be a superb piece of literature.
About Gone Home, I must confess I hadn't heard about that game before (I did read something about the LGBT/PAX incident but I was too lazy to investigate more) but it does sound like the kind of game I would enjoy AND the kind of game most people dislike because it tries to distance itself from what's traditional.
Most of the guys that value gameplay over anything else also want everyone to accept video games as a way of art. Kinda hypocrite if you ask me.
THAT is another of the things that drove me away from game dev; a lot of people I know and respect, and even more random people on the internet, when someone questions the quality of the writing in a game they like, they just say "well, what were you expecting? It's just a game". I mean, if even GAMERS themselves can't take their medium seriously, if they can't believe it can express ideas just as complex as literature or cinema, then how can we pretend that non-gamers see videogames as art?
As for my hopes in art dying, well, after 50 Shades of Gray and Twilight I didn't have too much left; that comment was just the final blow.
I'm going to be frank here. I have no goddamned idea what you're talking about. I've been playing video games for 25 years, and graphics and gameplay have ALWAYS been prized. That's never changed. Expectations on story, on the other hand, have grown and evolved over this timeframe. Many people absolutely adore Bioshock: Infinite, but I have yet to see a single person praise the gameplay. The Last of Us was considered GotY by the bast majority of the gaming community, based mainly on the story. The Walking Dead's story was so highly praised, that it make the gaming community retroactively consider David Cage a hack. Undertale is considered by many to be this year's GotY, and has a devoted fanbase. Personally speaking, one of my favorite games is To the Moon, and I am STOKED for Zero Time Dilemma and am a huge fan of the Ace Attorney series. All story-based games.
Hell, the three biggest megatons of E3 this year were the continued development of a game that's part of a series praised for it's atmosphere, the remake of a game that pioneered cinematic storytelling in games, and a sequel to a game that pioneered QTEs. Story isn't being undervalued, it's valued now more than ever. It's just that gameplay and visual fidelity are also being valued, as well. Which is not a bad thing.
Steam: pazython
Ergon was awful.
You can dislike the story all you want, but it was an incredible exercise in world building and narrative inside the structure of a game.
I write for a living, it's not like I don't realize the difference between Hemmingway and Witcher. But imo making games tell a truly deep abd immersive story is like writing a best selling "make your own adventure novel". it's just a tough format to work with. I'm thrilled people are making games that can carry the narrative structure of literature, even if it's only a start. Considering the factors of playability and the visuals, it's quite the accomplishment.
Id call some games art alone just for pure visual style, add more deep and comprehensive writing and you're closing in on something very special.
Also, I'm curious what "Complex ideas" are expressed by modern cinema that haven't been touched on in some recent game masterpieces. Last of Us for example had massive depth and hit the fatherhood angle like I haven't seen in cinema for over a decade.
A bunch of the time this is basically because there's no real reason to publically show enjoyment of the thing and showing it gets you tons of micro aggression garbage thrown at you.
Little Known Fact: Words that come out of your mouth reveal stuff. Shock!
Five or ten years from now the current "games press" will be a withered husk almost completely supplanted by Youtube, and le glorious revolution will have died alongside it. Because let's face it, you guys are mostly just a noisy fringe. If there were enough of you to influence the market through purchasing power, you'd just do it.
There are no "you guys" here. There are people who like different things than you. And it's perfectly fine.
The way many perceive it, though, is that there is a segment of the gaming press who have appointed themselves to sit in judgment and tell other people whether or not the things they like are "perfectly fine" though.
That just means that games are now subject to all of the same levels of criticism as every other form of art. Welcome to the club, video games!
Honestly, it's about time the gaming press did that. For years we wanted video games to be taken seriously as an art form so people stop saying they're just little toys for kids we'll grow out of. Finally, they're being treated like an actual media.
Video games probably will be different, too. It's not going to be the same forever and ever. And thank god.
EDIT: For perspective, 10 years ago, YouTube was founded in Feb 2005.
They are doing it. That's one of the reasons there is so much backlash coming from the old guard, even as the fanbase expands and enters the mainstream.
- John Stuart Mill
-B. Banzai
Yeah I came here to see people complaining about how Jerry keeps misusing the term 'literally'.
They are not literal eggshells you hack. Now step around my figurative strict word definition eggshell as you write.
But we have the rest of the internet for that.
Lord knows Google's certainty trying their damndest.
Steam: pazython
Literally no longer means just that. Now it can also mean "figuratively". So once again, readers will have to rely on context to discern meaning. Even without the sanction of a publishing company, using the term "literally" for hyperbole is an acceptable thing. A person writing in a stylized way for comedic effect might reasonably choose to do this.
You don't know that. You don't know his struggles. You don't know the crazy circles he runs in.
and by that of course i mean circles covered in eggshells that he has to run on
I am prepared to be on the wrong side of history then. This is the figurative hill I will die on.
It's obvious I'm on the viva la revolucion side of things, but I've also been in gaming since I was 5 and of course I've witnessed the whole system get overhauled more times than I could count. If it hadn't, then we wouldn't even have a game like Witcher that the fine folk in this thread have been praising. Yeah, that change has meant that some games that people like fell by the wayside due to the trends of the industry, but those trends correct in time. An example I was thinking of recently was how I couldn't buy a new flight simulator for my dad for years, but now there are flight simulators popping up everywhere it seems.
Even the game that caused Tycho's newspost, DoAX3, is going to be released with English subtitles and not region locked, so the fans of that game can still get it if they want it. The whole story is a tempest in a teapot.
I would also add the clear new weasel word "eggshell thrower" to this list also.
Maybe we need to up the ante and have literally literally for literally literal uses of literally.
Why is that hypocritical in any way whatsoever?
Gameplay can be art. Indeed, visuals are in movies and paintings. Music is in... music. Text is in books.
Now, I'm not saying that they can't be found within games and be art or beautiful, but the one thing that sets games apart from movies and songs and books is their interactivity. Their gameplay. This CAN be how they are evocative.
A good example in my mind is the game 12 September. There are no cutscenes or dialogues or anything. The game's message "Violence creates more violence" (or more precisely wide-ass air strikes on civilians create more terrorists to appear) is something the player gets through the gameplay. You can never kill all the terrorists on screen, and no matter how much you try, it's impossible to not kill civilians or blow up buildings. Then, civilians come and mourn the dead, and become terrorists. The more you shoot and try to kill terrorists, the more of them there are. If you wait and don't do anything, slowly, people go back to normal, and buildings get rebuilt. The interactivity, the gameplay, the mechanics, those are the things that tell a story in this game, far more than the visuals (although there are visuals, it's a VIDEO game, you do need to SEE the gameplay), more than the non-existant music, more than the text (of which there is none during the gameplay).
It's the ludologist argument, and whether you agree fully, partially or none at all with it, it's undeniable that the gameplay ITSELF can be artful, evocative, or tell a story.
On an interesting side note, PlayAsia announced a price drop for the game a day or two ago, due to all the support they received during the nontroversey. Because this whole thing totally wasn't just a marketing gimmick to increase sales for a poorly performing franchise.
- John Stuart Mill