|
Posted this earlier in the Games forum, but I was told the discussion would probably be better suited for this one: I was listening to a great episode of this podcast called "Shall We Play a Game?" and they had game critic/developer/academic Ian Bogost on to talk about his new book, "How to Talk About Video Games." Over the course of the interview, Bogost discusses the current state of games criticism, specifically the focus many critics seem to put on games as a narrative medium analogous to film and literature. Bogost argues that games are "a kind of encounter that we have, that sits uncomfortably - but delightfully - between the domain of art and the domain of appliance." He draws a comparison between a game and a toaster, in that both serve a similarly absurd purpose (the toasts exists solely to brown bread, and games exist to fill similarly specific niches in our lives), and both involve familiar interactions that we return to again and again. This isn't to say that being "toaster-like" is an inherently bad thing; part of the whole draw of sports is watching a set of very familiar rules play out again and again, hoping that a particular game will bring about an exciting break from the repetition. This idea of games as part-art and part-appliance is an incredibly interesting perspective to me, since it seems a large number of games critics and players seem to hold well-executed narrative as some kind of holy grail for games as a medium of art. If games exist in this limbo between form and function, between art and product, where does that leave critical discourse? How can we embrace the "in-between"-ness of video games in our criticism of them? HighwireAct fucked around with this message at 21:47 on May 17, 2016 |
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
I haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast you linked but it definitely sounds interesting. I've found that some of the most insightful criticism on games that I've encountered usually gets at the heart of the tension between the interaction and the narrative. Here are some of those videos (and one blog post) that have stuck in my mind since I've seen them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBN3R0m31bA Errant Signal looks at the "ludonarrative dissonance": the (supposed) separation/contradiction between the narrative a game is trying to tell and the actual narrative the player experiences through play. His review of The Beginner's Guide is also worth watching for its meta-examination of video game criticism in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0 MrBtongue examines how games may allow players to experience narratives not only non-linearly but as deeply or shallowly as they want (and the consequent burden on game developers to accommodate that). This is probably my favorite Youtube channel when it comes to video game criticism/theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbRWUDe1FI Kyle Kallgren examines what happens when a film director attempts to apply the form of video game gameplay to film (that part starts about 10 minutes in but the whole video is worth watching for context). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m424XwGH1Uc Noah Caldwll-Gervais reviews the new DOOM sequel/reboot and discusses how the relative un-importance of the plot is a significant part of what makes the single-player campaign work. Andrew Plotkin (who has been making indie games since the 80s) examines how genre classification of games differs from other narrative mediums. Edit: You might also want to plug a link to this thread over in the Internet Critics thread in RGD. You'll probably find some people interested in this topic there. Mr.Radar fucked around with this message at 07:47 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
How is the toaster analogy any different from any other form of entertainment? Why do people continue to watch sitcoms and superhero movies if they inherently the same with very minor differences?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
To me the key difference between toasters, TV/movies, and video games is the interactivity portion. A toaster is at least partially interactive, but a bad movie is going to be a bad movie, even in the best of venues and with the best of friends. You just have to sit there and take it or turn it off. Yes a good film or book can spark discussions for hours and generate interesting conversation points, but that is true of practically all art forms. Video games are uniquely interactive and present the player with a degree of agency seldom provided by most art. I'm not sure if this really results in a more personal, evocative experience versus reading great literature however. I think it's safe to say that everyone has a very unique and individual experience when reading a classic novel and will react in a unique way. Books are at least linear and can be reduced to a formulaic book report or other summarizing format which makes them easier to talk about. Super Mario Bros. and most early video games are also linear and simplistic, but technology has allowed additional complexity to the point where emergent gameplay can take place. World of Warcraft, Dwarf Fortress, and Crusader Kings II represent very different experiences depending on the player, much the way that each person will differently experience a Monet painting. For me at least there is a certain ineffable substance to actually gripping the controller and playing through a game, confronting the challenges and guiding the character to one's chosen goal, through practice and force of will. There is a competitive aspect that any sports fan will recognize, but the field and rules change with each game. I don't think any of these points address how we should talk about video games, other than to place them in a unique category apart from the other visual arts. This makes it quite hard to critique or argue what makes a truly "great" game the way that we can label literature, paintings, film, and toast. When a player loads a game and begins playing, he is holding a mirror to his face and confronting his wants, desires, skills, abilities, and patience. I'm not arguing that this is a more profound experience than the self-reflection that most art can create, but it is tangible up on the screen for all to see. YOU DIED
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
The point of a game is either to be fun or to deliver an experience (depending on how pretentious the person making the game is). If the game fails at doing one of those things then it is a bad game that fails at what it was intended to do, and if a game fails at both of them then it's just a big smelly turd. If your toaster fills your kitchen with nasty smells or takes three hours to make a piece of toast, then it's garbage, whether you define it as "art" or "appliance". Though it's not surprising that Bogost takes the tack he does, given that neither he nor his company appear to make good games. I'm not terribly surprised a guy with games like "Stone City: A training game for employees of Stone Cold Creamery" under his belt says that videogames are half-appliance and therefore immune to normal criticism.
Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 16:10 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
In general, games should not be talked about. More seriously, the comparison to toasters/appliances generally is dishonest. What is pop music, if not the art of music in toaster form - convenient, easy, applied? That games are interactive doesn't undermine or distract from their artistic potential, because art is fundamentally an experience, of both mind and passion. If 'game-feel' can do that, then it can be art, fully and completely art, just as literature or painting can be art. So, to put it in your words: form is a kind of function. A specific kind of function, but a still a function.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Architecture? I'm not really sure why games aren't talked about in architectural terms as much. Possibly because 'architecture/building critic' doesn't sound as glamourous as being a film critic or a music critic or an art critic. But something that's 'explored at your own pace' (for most games), that has interactivity, that has elements of both practical construction (a building needs to stay upright) and has elements of aesthetic (people like pretty games and pretty buildings) - that's something that should probably be applied more to games.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:More seriously, the comparison to toasters/appliances generally is dishonest. I think more than anything, the analogy is half-baked.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
It only makes sense to analyze games from a narrative standpoint when the most heavily-promoted and pushed games are linear, finite experiences cribbing from movies and books. Toaster analogy works well with session-based multiplayer games or primarily replayable games - and, well, critics tend to not bother with narrative analysis of Dota or Crusader Kings. Turning sessions into separate experiences is another matter and it is a very good avenue for any critic that is not afraid to feed personal experience into writing. Personally I think treating games as appliances is very depressing and self-defeating. The endpoint of 100% utility-oriented approach to food is Soylent; I am sure some games addict dreams of a automated entertainment unit injections that will cut time spent on installing, updating and learning to play games (also finally, an objectively good video game), but it runs counter to the escapist purpose of recreational produts. bewilderment posted:Architecture? I think Destiny was mostly approached from that direction. Not because it has pretty buildings, but because it is a massively expensive, long-term project shaping landscape around itself. Rather than exchanging experiences people mostly wrote about the state of Destiny as a system. Same can be said about writing on WoW probably, and various pieces about closing or failing MMORPGs remind about the eulogies for demolished buildings.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
I don't know about that. A lot of video games are at the "man sneezing" or naughty Nickelodeon level. I think the pomo pop culture analysis that we apply to more well developed mass media like TV and Film is ill suited to video games right now unless you want to make a point about something other than the game itself. You could talk about violence and sexism in society but if you are leading with Michael Bay your medium isn't going to get a lot of respect. So treat it like film when film was new. Be a snob and ignore the Nickelodeons. And flirt with other more established forms of media. Is the ludonarrative dissonance from "And Then She Fell" and other similar works informed by video games?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
"Games" are such a wide category that it may not be valid to apply the same analytical standard to all of them. There is more variation in design and content between, say, Dwarf Fortress and Deus Ex, or Fallen London and Doom, or World of Warcraft and Tetris, than there is between any two books or films you might name.
Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:52 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
I don't think there is a discussion, or a need to somehow quantify gaming into a norm or field of discussion. It borders into this whole "are games art" debate that is an irrelevancy, sequestered toward the indie section of games development that thinks games should be special snowflakes, rather than the entertainment appliance they're supposed to be. The world talks about games it enjoys or doesn't enjoy, what more else is there? Your average joe basically comments how awesome that Call of Duty game was with their pals. They don't really concern themselves with the deeper underlying nature of the why and when behind what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Your average joe basically comments how awesome that Call of Duty game was with their pals. They don't really concern themselves with the deeper underlying nature of the why and when behind what they're doing. Couldn't the same be said of literally every other entertainment medium we occasionally refer to as 'art?' WMain00 posted:Your average joe basically comments how awesome that episode of GoT was with their pals. They don't really concern themselves with the deeper underlying nature of the why and when behind what they're doing. WMain00 posted:Your average joe basically comments how awesome that action film was with their pals. They don't really concern themselves with the deeper underlying nature of the why and when behind what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Couldn't the same be said of literally every other entertainment medium we occasionally refer to as 'art?' Yes, which is why "art" is a useless label and/or standard for determining something's worth.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
One guy at work tries to talk about this one game he plays all of the time. He's pretty nerdy, but a not-gross functioning adult nonetheless. Anyway, he goes on about how real the environments are and how they are strictly modeled on xxth century Spain or something. Maybe it was Italy. So he tries to engage the rest of us in this conversation about that place and era and what he's learned from the game (you can tell I paid a whole lot of attention to him) but no one is really into it. I don't know if it's just the topic that is boring or the fact that the information he's sharing comes from a video game somehow disengages us. He'll be talking about some famous bridge that was recreated in the game, and then interject how fun it was to jump off of it and stab someone in the neck from the bridge. I don't know why this talk is so groan-worthy but it just is. Yeah, he went and did some more independent study on whatever that location is, and he's proud that video games inspired him to learn more. That's nice and all, but can't he just talk about it without mentioning the ridiculous poo poo the video game brings, like jumping on people, stabbing them, and enjoying it? I think if you are in the industry or interested in the industry, there's much to talk about there. When I was deep into RPGs as a kid, I thought there was a lot of room for video games to grow as far as being considered art or literature. I haven't seen much change to be honest, but that may have something to do with male bias and tits/violence that still prevails. Not exactly intellectually stimulating stuff. I don't even play any games anymore, so what do I know though.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:"Games" are such a wide category that it may not be valid to apply the same analytical standard to all of them. There is more variation in design and content between, say, Dwarf Fortress and Deus Ex, or Fallen London and Doom, or World of Warcraft and Tetris, than there is between any two books or films you might name. The Bible, Finnegans Wake, the latest edition of Gray's Anatomy, and a generic swords-and-sorcery fantasy novel aimed at teenagers: would you really judge all four the same way? Video games at least share the common goal of being "fun to play" even if they appeal to drastically different senses of "fun," but it's not like they're trying to teach you anything new about human nature. Books can be written for any purpose under the sun, whether it's exploring the depths of the human experience or the limits of fantasy, whereas video games have a way more limited scope. From a criticism point-of-view it's best to just ignore the tacked-on storytelling and focus on what makes a video game a video game, namely being a set of rules with emergent properties. They're all just glorified versions of Chess or any of the other simple games humanity's been playing since the dawn of civilization.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:The Bible, Finnegans Wake, the latest edition of Gray's Anatomy, and a generic swords-and-sorcery fantasy novel aimed at teenagers: would you really judge all four the same way? Video games at least share the common goal of being "fun to play" even if they appeal to drastically different senses of "fun," but it's not like they're trying to teach you anything new about human nature. Why not? What is it that makes games completely incapable of teaching people something new about human?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
they might not be trying to do it, but any multiplayer game is gonna teach you a thing or two about human nature usually they are things you would rather not have known
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why not? What is it that makes games completely incapable of teaching people something new about human? "Completely incapable" is pretty strong, even a rock can teach you about the human condition if you're in a receptive mood. I dunno, there's probably something to be said about the nature of the medium and how it basically glorifies the self (so the player feels stronger or smarter or braver than they really are) rather than encouraging self-reflection. Some games (e.g. chess) don't glorify the player but they're also far removed from everyday human experience, and the black-and-white world of chess doesn't really lend itself to exploring any profound themes. But do we actually need to get all philosophical about it, or is it enough just to point out that even very good video games are mostly just concerned with giving a superficially enjoyable experience to the player, rather than grappling with any kind of difficult or emotional subject matter?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:"Completely incapable" is pretty strong, even a rock can teach you about the human condition if you're in a receptive mood. I dunno, there's probably something to be said about the nature of the medium and how it basically glorifies the self (so the player feels stronger or smarter or braver than they really are) rather than encouraging self-reflection. Some games (e.g. chess) don't glorify the player but they're also far removed from everyday human experience, and the black-and-white world of chess doesn't really lend itself to exploring any profound themes. Considering I don't accept that games cannot be primarily about grappling with a kind of difficult or emotional subject matter, or even that dealing with such subjects is even mutually exclusive with having an enjoyable experience then yes, we do need to philosophical about this. You're pointing out something that is wrong. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 15:43 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:From a criticism point-of-view it's best to just ignore the tacked-on storytelling and focus on what makes a video game a video game, namely being a set of rules with emergent properties. They're all just glorified versions of Chess or any of the other simple games humanity's been playing since the dawn of civilization.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Games are designed to a) test arbitrary skills and b) shape player behavior towards a goal that the game provides. The architecture analogy isn't perfect but it's better than the appliance or narrative models. If you want to know where a game stands ideologically, look at what you have to do to win. Most people pick up on the narrative component easily enough (i.e. Half-Life 2 is about violent resistance to colonizing alien overlords, etc.) but you should go past that and look at what the game physically requires, the skills it tests, too. For example many MMOs are basically just a test of patience and cooperation, which earns them the disdain of people who value extreme performances of individual skill. A 1v1 game like Street Fighter, which is all about restricting and predicting the options of an individual opponent, has a different psychology than the opportunism of a free-for-all FPS deathmatch. A team game where even a very unskilled player is merely ineffective creates a very different atmosphere and culture than one where the enemy can "farm" that player in order to gain stacking advantages for themselves. There's an overwhelming population of people who only play singleplayer games because, while these effects still occur, they don't like the loss of control that necessarily happens when you're negotiating one player's desires and goals against another's. You can apply this logic to board games, physical sports, etc, as well. It's all about creating an artificial environment where the landscape (or architecture) pushes norms in a certain direction, determining who's included or excluded, who's celebrated or ridiculed, while keeping the stakes low enough that it's all "safe" compared to performing those relationships in real life. However, it still says something about who you are and who the game expects you to be. twodot posted:If we should ignore the story telling in a game, why not ignore the story telling in a book, and declare them glorified rocks? Storytelling in video games is (often) like the score in a film. You'd be dumb to ignore it, and it contributes to the overall meaning, but it's more of an accent than it is the primary medium. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 16:07 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:The Bible, Finnegans Wake, the latest edition of Gray's Anatomy, and a generic swords-and-sorcery fantasy novel aimed at teenagers: would you really judge all four the same way? Video games at least share the common goal of being "fun to play" even if they appeal to drastically different senses of "fun," but it's not like they're trying to teach you anything new about human nature. Books can be written for any purpose under the sun, whether it's exploring the depths of the human experience or the limits of fantasy, whereas video games have a way more limited scope. Right, but games also have a much more varied structure / form. A Faulkner novel and a Clifford the Big Red Dog book have more in common, structurally, than Tetris does with World of Warcraft (for example, all novels involve characters of some kind). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:23 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:One guy at work tries to talk about this one game he plays all of the time. He's pretty nerdy, but a not-gross functioning adult nonetheless. Anyway, he goes on about how real the environments are and how they are strictly modeled on xxth century Spain or something. Maybe it was Italy. So he tries to engage the rest of us in this conversation about that place and era and what he's learned from the game (you can tell I paid a whole lot of attention to him) but no one is really into it. I don't know if it's just the topic that is boring or the fact that the information he's sharing comes from a video game somehow disengages us. He'll be talking about some famous bridge that was recreated in the game, and then interject how fun it was to jump off of it and stab someone in the neck from the bridge. To be fair I have been getting very similar groans lately when I try to talk to my friends about Hamilton Why does SA not have a musical theater subforum
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:To be fair I have been getting very similar groans lately when I try to talk to my friends about Hamilton Because the line has to be drawn somewhere?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
What specific niche are video games designed to fill? Is enjoyment and satisfaction a "niche" in life? That toaster analogy is pretty bad, I don't see why games would be appliance like any more than books or films. Different games are "in-between" a great many different things. There are games where you do nothing but explore an aesthetically pleasing simulation with no agenda, there are games where you follow hundreds of hours of written story, there are games where you repeat the same action over and over in rhythm with music. They have little in common besides their platform. There is no 50/50 easy way to categorise games as a halfway house between any particular things so long as they are as varied as they are. The medium is far more flexible than film or literature. If I had to try and splice it between two things, rather than art and appliance, it would be closer to art and intoxicant.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
They're generally for enjoyment and satisfaction, but that statement is fairly useless for taxonomic purposes. A deliberately unpleasant and grueling game might be poorly regarded but doesn't cease to be a game, and lots of non-game things are for enjoyment and satisfaction. If you want to hone in on the definition of game (and I'll admit, I'm not sure I have a comprehensive one) start looking at the margins -- is Where's Waldo a game? Is a carnival sideshow Test Your Strength machine a game? Is a footrace a game? How would you distinguish between a game and a toy? How do you distinguish between the physical objects that enable play and the game itself, and is it a sharp line or a blurry one?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right, but games also have a much more varied structure / form. A Faulkner novel and a Clifford the Big Red Dog book have more in common, structurally, than Tetris does with World of Warcraft (for example, all novels involve characters of some kind). Sounds like tabletop games, which have a similar variety of structure, are a much more appropriate comparison - can Connect 4 and Sorry! really be viewed through the same lens as Settlers of Catan or poker or the super-complex strategy games that crazy people play?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sounds like tabletop games, which have a similar variety of structure, are a much more appropriate comparison - can Connect 4 and Sorry! really be viewed through the same lens as Settlers of Catan or poker or the super-complex strategy games that crazy people play? Yes, at least under my framework.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:If we should ignore the story telling in a game, why not ignore the story telling in a book, and declare them glorified rocks? From a death-of-the-author perspective we kind of might as well?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Games don't have to be fun, and some of the best games I've played have been the opposite of fun. Pathologic is the classic example. There's absolutely no way you can present that game that even seems remotely fun, but it doesn't need to be.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Games don't have to be fun, and some of the best games I've played have been the opposite of fun. Pathologic is the classic example. There's absolutely no way you can present that game that even seems remotely fun, but it doesn't need to be. I think that the more important qualifier in thinking about art is that any piece of lasting value should be engaging at the very least. There are plenty of “art games” I've played that I didn't have fun with necessarily, but whose content or premise intrigued me enough to engage with them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Part of the problem with discussing video games in the same critical context as books or film is that, even now, video games are a young medium with all the awkwardness that entails. It took decades for directors to really get a handle on the effective presentation of film. Games are still finding that footing. It's only in the last few years that I've started to see games that experiment with the constraints of interactivity instead of going for the usual gameplay - cutscene - gameplay loop. The other part of the problem is that a lot of video game writing is just really, really bad. I honestly don't get it. It's like the entire industry saw Avatar with its pretty scenery and paper-thin story and went "yes, this is perfect". Hiring a couple of writers to fix your poo poo can't possibly cost more than modelling all those fancy particle effects and snake monsters with boobs.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
I think another problem with video game storytelling is that it primarily borrows from the traditions of film or television and occasionally literature without making the most of what the medium can offer. Some of the most satisfying and deep video game narratives I've engaged with have been emergent stories in open-ended games like Crusader Kings 2 or even multiplayer titles with no conventional story elements at all. Video games are running into the same problems a lot of mainstream blockbusters seem to be running into in terms of narrative design, in that there's nothing really new under the sun if you stick to the established conventions. If they focused more on playing to their strengths and building immersive, emergent frameworks that allow stories to emerge and cohere organically, video games could elevate themselves to the same tenuous level of "worthiness" as other more established media. It wasn't that long ago that television (save for documentaries) was seen as mindless audiovisual junk food, but in the space of the last 15-20 years we've seen the emergence of some excellent television that is on a par with some of the masterpieces of cinema and literature. e; Part of the reason TV has started its renaissance in recent years is the aforementioned playing to the strengths of the medium. TV can tell stories in a much longer and better developed form than a 3-hour film, for instance, and shows like The Wire have taken full advantage of this to produce long, complex story arcs with myriad moving parts that could only ever make a feature film of incomprehensible density. TomViolence fucked around with this message at 19:51 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Heres a good example on how to talk about video games with this video talking about bloodborne, a recently critically acclaimed video game developed by From Software https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWHh9fcfHjM
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Brass Key posted:The other part of the problem is that a lot of video game writing is just really, really bad. I honestly don't get it. It's like the entire industry saw Avatar with its pretty scenery and paper-thin story and went "yes, this is perfect". Hiring a couple of writers to fix your poo poo can't possibly cost more than modelling all those fancy particle effects and snake monsters with boobs. I suspect "snake monsters with boobs" is more about signaling who the game is for than anything else. Even more than genre fiction already is, videogames are about who gets to participate in, perform, and excel at the stories they tell. At its best, this creates meritocratic communities of people who are really good at and knowledgeable about X; at its worst, it creates "if you're not a teenage boy or willing to tacitly submit to the tastes of teenage boys, gently caress you, go away."
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Brass Key posted:Part of the problem with discussing video games in the same critical context as books or film is that, even now, video games are a young medium with all the awkwardness that entails. It took decades for directors to really get a handle on the effective presentation of film. Games are still finding that footing. It's only in the last few years that I've started to see games that experiment with the constraints of interactivity instead of going for the usual gameplay - cutscene - gameplay loop. It's really not, though. The SNES came out 26 years ago, and the PS2 16 years ago. Comparably, film was more or less a developed medium by the 40s/50s, which was maybe 15 or 20 years after it was viable technologically icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:06 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I suspect "snake monsters with boobs" is more about signaling who the game is for than anything else. Even more than genre fiction already is, videogames are about who gets to participate in, perform, and excel at the stories they tell. At its best, this creates meritocratic communities of people who are really good at and knowledgeable about X; at its worst, it creates "if you're not a teenage boy or willing to tacitly submit to the tastes of teenage boys, gently caress you, go away." I have one thing I want you to consider. Your avatar is of the Darkstalkers character "Sasquatch". Sasquatch is a Bigfoot from Canada. But Sasquatch is eating a banana. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Where would a Bigfoot, an 8-foot-tall Bigfoot, living in Canada, find a banana? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with how we talk about videogames? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with how we talk about videogames! It does not make sense! Look at me. My avatar is of a pig with a human head advertising Grove's Tasteless Chill Tonic! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in here deliberatin' and conjugatin' the ethics of video game journalism, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this dead, gay forum, it does not make sense! If Sasquatch eats a banana, you must acquit! The defense rests.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Don't talk about the videogames. Play the videogames.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
McGavin posted:I have one thing I want you to consider. Your avatar is of the Darkstalkers character "Sasquatch". Sasquatch is a Bigfoot from Canada. But Sasquatch is eating a banana. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Where would a Bigfoot, an 8-foot-tall Bigfoot, living in Canada, find a banana? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with how we talk about videogames? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with how we talk about videogames! It does not make sense! Look at me. My avatar is of a pig with a human head advertising Grove's Tasteless Chill Tonic! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in here deliberatin' and conjugatin' the ethics of video game journalism, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this dead, gay forum, it does not make sense! If Sasquatch eats a banana, you must acquit! The defense rests. Well, at least D&D has a higher quality of reflexive shitposting when this topic comes up than Games does.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:25
|
|