|
Coolwhoami posted:Only the most recent iteration (as far as I know, I have not played them all), and only after a substantial time in which this was not the case. Not sure why that warrants hostility, nor how one example of this not being the case somehow nullifies the remainder of the example. You can lose every single iteration of SimCity. quote:I would absolutely agree that it isn't easy to define, because words are words and they are used in many different contexts. However, we can certainly discuss the ways the term is used and examine the extent to which a given usage is sensible or not. Otherwise, we might very well begin to do as you previously mentioned, describing a mad libs book as a video game. Actually, we can't, because that requires both parties to be knowledgeable. You're also missing the picture. As Wittgenstein pointed out to illustrate his concept of family resemblances, games are not a set, a category where all members share something in common. This was understood before electronic computers, let alone the first videogame. To this extent, toys rather than strict games like SimCity or Dwarf Fortress are still within the broader family of games, alongside Gone Home, Virtue's Last Reward, etc. but expelling any of these leads us to needing to establish sets which end up being descriptively useless. Attempts to exclude walking simulators are fundamentally political ones, built around the "wrong people" liking them.
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not sure why you think brush strokes or word choices are the appropriate analogue to game mechanics (or why you painting is a medium you can draw an analogue to game mechanics in at all for that matter) when they are wholly different things and direct analogues exists. Word choice is a matter of aesthetics is the way you can advance the exact same information in various ways, but the choice of how you do that is aesthetic in nature. Essentially the examples you gave are not functional or mechanical at all except in the construction of the aesthetic. Game mechanics aren't an analogue to word choice, if you'e trying to draw a line to a passive media they're an analogue to the information conveyed by the narrative. Again, form and function and impact and influence each other, but that doesn't mean that function is form. Nor does the idea that function can be beautiful mean that it "is" form, suggesting so makes the delineation meaningless. You can't advance "the exact same information in various ways" through word choice -- you're advancing slightly different information. Even using the exact same words doesn't guarantee that you'll be advancing the same information, because it depends on context. If you make "totally devoid of function" a prerequisite for something to have aesthetic properties that leads to absurd results; nothing meets that standard. Mechanics are not an analogue to the information conveyed by the narrative, because they aren't subjective. Your interpretation does not change whether a particular combo works in Street Fighter or not. (Although, much like words, whether or not you know what a "combo" is might change how you experience the mechanic.) They're a property of the game, of the artifact that you're observing or interacting with -- just like word choice or a physical deposit of paint.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You can lose every single iteration of SimCity. I'll take your word for it then, as it isn't very relevant in the end, but I cannot ever recall seeing it, nor does a cursory search provide any examples of it (hence my confidence with respect to it). Brainiac Five posted:Actually, we can't, because that requires both parties to be knowledgeable. Ah, well that explains the hostility, you think that in making this argument that I also share a number of ideas and qualities with others (those who shall not be named on this here forums). I have no problem with people liking them, nor them being consider good things. I agree that they share the family resemblance; What I take issue with is when they are then used to be representative, both when they are used to demonstrate how video games can be art and when they are held up as exemplars of what games are/should be. Similarly, to learn the use of the term in the first place, they do not make a suitable starting point, for they rely heavily on the existing family to make sense. A great deal of modern art does the same; it establishes itself on the basis of existing work. Walking simulators do something similar, but to the term video game, in that they share some resemblance, but often could be described in other terms without loss of meaning (interactive visual novel, for example). That there exists a political bent to this (in that some want them excluded because they also frequently embody narrative elements to which they take issue, or represent a shift in focus audience) does not mean we cannot discuss the matter for other reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
walking simulators are the closest to other forms of art, in that they're all narrative/environment with minimal input from the player. the logical error is in thinking these games are the most artsy of games, when really they're just the most similar to other popular not-game art forms. and all of the hate directed at walking simulators is really just shutins who incorporate video games as a major component of their identity asserting exclusive political opinions
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:I'll take your word for it then, as it isn't very relevant in the end, but I cannot ever recall seeing it, nor does a cursory search provide any examples of it (hence my confidence with respect to it). But they are representative. As much as any other game is representative. And they are a good example of how games can be art, because they deal with the kinds of topics understood as artistic ones in a way that isn't extremely facile in the way that, say Spec Ops: The Line or Braid are. And because they are relatively accessible compared to something like Mother 3 or King of Dragon Pass, they are also good examples for people to potentially pick up and play.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i think the problem is alot of the critics think only in terms of deep/high art. therefore people like john machintosh and moviebob and all of killscreen, poo poo on anything that isnt like that, dragon cancer or life is strange. they think that GTA/doom is showing a negative image of games to people outside the industry and therefore doom and GTA are problematic and pernicious and gross and violent. while i agree that their defienatly more different types of games. I dont think it should be some wannabe art critics guiding the type that are made. I agree, but you see this a decent amount with movies too-- there was a decent amount of criticism of how lightly That's My Boy take rape, and more than a few people commented how odd the statutory explanation scene in Transformers 3(?) was. Mentioning how rather odd the level of violence in GTA or Doom is seems about on the same level to me. The main problem is there's a subset of gamers (roughly equivalent to the Japanese otaku) who are currently being catered to almost to the exclusion of everyone else in the AAA market. There's a fear among these guys that any amount of inspection by decent people might get the more nuts elements of their games reigned in. I don't think they're wrong in that regard (probably more true with the worst of anime games than military shooters) but I also don't see any reason those things have to survive. In fact, I'm utterly fine with them failing if only to spite the people making a violent stink over light being brought to the situation.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
There will never be a Citizen Kane of games. Citizen Kane became "Citizen Kane, greatest movie ever made" because what is (by today's standards) a small group of homogenous critics said that it was, and voted it top of a bunch of polls, over a very long period of time, when the barriers to entry for being a widely-read critic were extremely high. Since games came along, there have been far too many different critical perspectives for any one group of critics to have enough weight to declare a title "greatest game ever made". This is a Good Thing.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I agree, but you see this a decent amount with movies too-- there was a decent amount of criticism of how lightly That's My Boy take rape, and more than a few people commented how odd the statutory explanation scene in Transformers 3(?) was. Mentioning how rather odd the level of violence in GTA or Doom is seems about on the same level to me. The main problem is there's a subset of gamers (roughly equivalent to the Japanese otaku) who are currently being catered to almost to the exclusion of everyone else in the AAA market. There's a fear among these guys that any amount of inspection by decent people might get the more nuts elements of their games reigned in. I don't think they're wrong in that regard (probably more true with the worst of anime games than military shooters) but I also don't see any reason those things have to survive. In fact, I'm utterly fine with them failing if only to spite the people making a violent stink over light being brought to the situation. agreed somewhat. I don't play weeb games outside of yakuza series so i dont really care about anime tits and rear end. and i am not against pointing that kind of stuff out to an extent. i was more talking about how these critics believes that now that games are art, they must all be treated as great works, and things like DOOM are bad because they reflect "poorly" on the gaming community. http://thegg.net/general-news/jonathan-mcintosh-and-anita-sarkeesian-criticize-doom-for-being-too-violent/ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/15/doom-gameplay-trailer-violence_n_7585538.html these people get mad at fallout because it has problematic right wing message and themes, like the myth that society would go to poo poo after nuclear war. the problem they have its they equate showing something=endorsing something, if these people had actualy cared about gaming other then using it as a platform for their various views, they would have known doom was always like that. I think their is room enough in the industry for all types of art. i dont think these people thing that.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I agree, but you see this a decent amount with movies too-- there was a decent amount of criticism of how lightly That's My Boy take rape, and more than a few people commented how odd the statutory explanation scene in Transformers 3(?) was. Mentioning how rather odd the level of violence in GTA or Doom is seems about on the same level to me. The main problem is there's a subset of gamers (roughly equivalent to the Japanese otaku) who are currently being catered to almost to the exclusion of everyone else in the AAA market. There's a fear among these guys that any amount of inspection by decent people might get the more nuts elements of their games reigned in. I don't think they're wrong in that regard (probably more true with the worst of anime games than military shooters) but I also don't see any reason those things have to survive. In fact, I'm utterly fine with them failing if only to spite the people making a violent stink over light being brought to the situation. AAA games target the same demographic centered on ~30 year old adult men that all other major media like movies, TV, etc, do, especially as you get more and more expensive. Bioshock and the Fallouts are more of a fedora-tipping redditor demographic but they're also cheaper to make than your GTAs, Destinies and Last of Us's icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:18 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:AAA games target the same demographic centered on ~30 year old adult men that all other major media like movies, TV, etc, do, especially as you get more and more expensive. Bioshock and the Fallouts are more of a fedora-tipping redditor demographic but they're also cheaper to make than your GTAs, Destinies and Last of Us's id say fallout and the bioshock games were pretty expensive to make. maybe not GTA/Destiny price, but definatly last of us.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Oh boy, now are we going to retread the IF community's "choice games aren't games" arguments from the 90s? Depending on the availability and impact of player choice, along with the inclusion of non-narrative mechanics, Visual Novels warble between "game in all ways that matter" and "choose which ending you're going to get". Kinetic Novels, on the other hand, are just books where you read one or two lines of text while looking at pretty pictures. But if by "choice game" you mean "game consisting entirely of a dialog box where you occasionally chose an action to take and progress down the game's flowchart", then I'll argue that such a game is only a game by the most stringent and technical of definitions: a process that has a beginning and and end, within which a "player" makes decisions and observes the consequences of those decisions. Story and narrative really don't matter to games. They're great as a framing tool, or as a helpful guide to nudge players in the direction they need to go to complete the game. Something like Megaman or Street Fighter would be completely the same if it were stripped of its narrative (and we might be better off without them spawning their 90's cartoons). Even artgames like Braid or Torien survive as games when you divest them of all story or narrative elements, although Braid certainly comes out of this acid bath a lot better than Torien. What's left if you rip the story and narrative from a Visual Novel? Just a bunch of idle art assets, floating in virtual space. That's not to say that story and narrative are useless to games, or that their artifice cannot help gameplay. If you ripped the story from The Last of Us, all you'd be left with is the empty shell of its gameplay because the story and narrative are essential to the experience of the game (I shudder to think of what would be left if you tried to remove all narrative elements from something like The Stanley Parable). Braid is more interesting with its story, and even the throw-away plot of Super Mario Bros. provides necessary context to the player's actions in the game. But what about games like Planescape: Torment, where you can go through the entire game doing nothing but talking to people? It's still a game, because to go through the game by only talking with people, you still need to interact with it as a game to finish it. And I'm only talking about video games here. Even TTRPGs like Nobilis or Chuubo's Magical Wish-Granting Engine or Microscope, all of which are very nearly "pure" storygames, have greater mechanical complexity and player interactivity than Visual Novels and most CYOA games.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But they are representative. As much as any other game is representative. And they are a good example of how games can be art, because they deal with the kinds of topics understood as artistic ones in a way that isn't extremely facile in the way that, say Spec Ops: The Line or Braid are. And because they are relatively accessible compared to something like Mother 3 or King of Dragon Pass, they are also good examples for people to potentially pick up and play. That we can talk of family resemblance does not mean that we can no longer speak of the degree to which one thing resembles others, or that there cannot exist clear boundaries between those that fall in and those that do not. This is not to insist on the existence of an ideal form, but only to say that some things have properties that are shared the others do not. We clearly understand each other by using the term video game the way we are, but the structure that provides for that sensibility existed prior to even video games existing, to which video games themselves build upon. I think there is a certain utility is discriminating between some video games in a more concrete sense, somewhat similar to how you described simcity as a toy. "Exploration games" is one such term, but that doesn't quite do the job here, as that is more genre referential than anything. I like clarification in these matters because of the weird problems that tend to crop up when things are not made clear (as the art status issue frequently has). Thus, Exploration games might make for good examples of how games can be art, but further confuses the issue of the families artistic status by leaning on well understood presentations of artwork, rather than differentiating themselves This is my largest hangup; I dislike the idea of being overly reliant on other mediums to obtain legitimacy, which is why critics constantly trying to compare them is obnoxious to me. They are accessible, absolutely (even more so than say, Super Mario Bros.). However in being so accessible, they also lose some of their resemblance to the rest of the family. We of course have games that are easy, or can be made easy, and this does not make them less a game. Here, however, it is not a matter of degree of ease, but rather category. It doesn't really make sense to say that Gone Home is easier than Bioshock. I would more apt to say that Gone Home does not have a difficulty. It would be incredibly arbitrary and strange to add such elements to it. The narrative (and to some extent visual) elements are of focus, with the interactivity being part of the pacing of the story. That is perfectly alright, but it does, at least to me, not fall into the resemblance quite as well as most other things video games do.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:Depending on the availability and impact of player choice, along with the inclusion of non-narrative mechanics, Visual Novels warble between "game in all ways that matter" and "choose which ending you're going to get". Kinetic Novels, on the other hand, are just books where you read one or two lines of text while looking at pretty pictures. This only works if we define "narrative" in an extremely narrow way, one which is fairly antithetical to how it's used in general. Because in Street Fighter, you have a narrative from the process of the individual matches and of the context of the different opponents in singleplayer, which remains even without any art assets beyond the bare minimum to distinguish T. Hawk from Sagat. This is an inevitable consequence of the game providing a sequence of events and a framework in which to contextualize them, and it is itself distinct from plot and story.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:SimCity, specifically speaking, is a toy. There's no condition for victory, no goal you are attempting to achieve. To contrast, all walking simulators have a goal you are attempting to achieve, and a victory condition. Your definition basically says that the defining difference between a videogame and a book is that the book is not "interactive", and if we pick the right book, say, Mad Libs, it's now a videogame. A preset victory condition that results in some kind of game-ending screen seems like a poor necessary component of a game. Sandbox sims like SimCity or Paradox games have predefined rules for interacting with the world, limits on what can and cannot be done, and clear (if often obtuse) feedback mechanisms that tell the player what effect their interactions have made on the world. The victory condition is decided on by the player within the context of those rules, and almost all of those games lead a player toward choosing certain types of goals over others (ie, make this particularly enticing number bigger). The victory condition is an emergent property of the game and how the player approaches it, rather than a clear ending point, but it's still there.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:if these people had actualy cared about gaming other then using it as a platform for their various views, they would have known doom was always like that. I think their is room enough in the industry for all types of art. i dont think these people thing that. On the third hand, you're falling into the "a game that is not overtly trying to be political cannot have a political viewpoint" trap, which is the only point those tweets seem to be making: if you disagree with the political viewpoint being portrayed by Doom, then you might be upset to see people cheering uncritically for that viewpoint. I imagine it's still overthinking things, since the obvious "solution" is for someone to say "I recognize that this viewpoint is problematic and I still want to play the game anyway despite that", but it's maybe worth forcing that to be an explicit thought process. Brainiac Five posted:This only works if we define "narrative" in an extremely narrow way, one which is fairly antithetical to how it's used in general. Because in Street Fighter, you have a narrative from the process of the individual matches and of the context of the different opponents in singleplayer, which remains even without any art assets beyond the bare minimum to distinguish T. Hawk from Sagat. This is an inevitable consequence of the game providing a sequence of events and a framework in which to contextualize them, and it is itself distinct from plot and story. Incoherence fucked around with this message at 22:47 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Incoherence posted:On one hand, "it's always been this way" is not a sufficient justification for "it should continue to be this way": we as a society occasionally decide that something that used to be acceptable is no longer acceptable. On the other hand, the burden is to prove that these things are actually harmful (that is, a world where they exist is worse than a world where they do not exist). On the third hand, you're falling into the "a game that is not overtly trying to be political cannot have a political viewpoint" trap, which is the only point those tweets seem to be making. I mean, you just said it. "Plot".
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Diegetic and non-diegetic story?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Incoherence posted:On one hand, "it's always been this way" is not a sufficient justification for "it should continue to be this way": we as a society occasionally decide that something that used to be acceptable is no longer acceptable. On the other hand, the burden is to prove that these things are actually harmful (that is, a world where they exist is worse than a world where they do not exist). i mean sure. But i dont like being looked at like some sort of culturally retarded because enjoy something that isn't their idea of "high art" and i think thats why these people get so much hate. i believe most games have politics imbued in them at some level. but acting like every game that has a gun or shooting in it is some pernicious plot of right wing mythology is retarded. https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/737755801444442113 https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/499258678688481280 https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/423564356060598273 https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/526839753493073920 while i personally dont find GOW deep or emotional(i personally just dont care for the series) its kind dickish to look down on those who get emotional reaction from it. just because this dude and others. even when i agree with this dude and others, they always have this condescending attitude about anything that isnt their "high art games" I always tear up a little at the end mgs3. also the velveteen rabbit. different stuff hits different people. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 23:36 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:while i personally dont find GOW deep or emotional(i personally just dont care for the series) its kind dickish to look down on those who get emotional reaction from it. just because this dude and others. even when i agree with this dude and others, they always have this condescending attitude about anything that isnt their "high art games" I always tear up a little at the end mgs3. also the velveteen rabbit. different stuff hits different people. Cargo cult art criticism. Part of what is seen as "being a critic of high art" is looking down on other works as lesser or unrefined.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Cargo cult art criticism. Part of what is seen as "being a critic of high art" is looking down on other works as lesser or unrefined. Oh man, sure hope those cargo cultists don't have the dunning-kruger effect or else I'd feel schadenfreude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:while i personally dont find GOW deep or emotional(i personally just dont care for the series) its kind dickish to look down on those who get emotional reaction from it. just because this dude and others. even when i agree with this dude and others, they always have this condescending attitude about anything that isnt their "high art games" I always tear up a little at the end mgs3. also the velveteen rabbit. different stuff hits different people. yeah these people are pathetically snobbish, but it doesn't make them wrong. there's no objective criticism of any artform
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Cargo cult art criticism. Part of what is seen as "being a critic of high art" is looking down on other works as lesser or unrefined. true.  Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah these people are pathetically snobbish, but it doesn't make them wrong. there's no objective criticism of any artform agreed. I mean i agree with their core idea, but i dont think some hipsters snobs should be the ones making the dictations and distinctions. nothing is fully objective ever but getty pissy and giving poo poo reviews of every game that doesnt exactly fit your political ideal is kinda lovely. I dont like the idea of these kind of people trying play video game morality gatekeeper. I guess i dont completely buy the whole "critize because we love it" thing. because i have never seen any of these people talk about stuff they liked in something like GTA or DOOM or whatever. its almost always a puzzle game or a walking sim. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:while i personally dont find GOW deep or emotional(i personally just dont care for the series) its kind dickish to look down on those who get emotional reaction from it. just because this dude and others. even when i agree with this dude and others, they always have this condescending attitude about anything that isnt their "high art games" I always tear up a little at the end mgs3. also the velveteen rabbit. different stuff hits different people. Dapper_Swindler posted:I guess i dont completely buy the whole "critize because we love it" thing. because i have never seen any of these people talk about stuff they liked in something like GTA or DOOM or whatever. its almost always a puzzle game or a walking sim. Incoherence fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I guess i dont completely buy the whole "critize because we love it" thing. because i have never seen any of these people talk about stuff they liked in something like GTA or DOOM or whatever. its almost always a puzzle game or a walking sim. i'm guessing that in part your definition of "these people" is to some extent characterized by differing taste in games
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Incoherence posted:I think people dramatically overestimate Jonathan McIntosh's influence (and for that matter Anita Sarkeesian's). Besides, Hot Takes can come from any ideology or political leaning, and that right there is definitely a Hot Take. but all he does is hot takes. but most of femfreq reviews(they do those now) are all kinda crap, they arnt all negative. but the star wars movie one is loving retarded. they only game they praised fully was that dragon cancer. most of he stuff is fine apart from some cherry picking and some bias they have(dont like violent games in general and they tend to lean sex-negative) but to each their own. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i'm guessing that in part your definition of "these people" is to some extent characterized by differing taste in games i mean the snobs. i like those kind of games too. I just dont like getting talked down to like i am some sort unclean sinner because i like something violent in media. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah these people are pathetically snobbish, but it doesn't make them wrong. there's no objective criticism of any artform A. everything is relative B. criticism is a worthwhile endeavour Pick one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Internaut! posted:A. everything is relative Well, pal, your problem here is that you assume "relative" and "subjective" are synonyms. Also, I don't see what Einsteinian physics has to do with art theory???
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Internaut! posted:A. everything is relative critics will approach their criticism from an individual perspective, or one based on some school of thought. consumers of criticism will shop around for critics they like. where many gamergaters get confused is when they substitute "this criticism is bad criticism" for "i disagree with this criticism" because it's difficult for people to remember they are not correct about all things when it comes to criticism of a thing that informs their very identity as an example, there's a ton of faith-based christian film criticism out there http://www.crosswalk.com/culture/movies/ nothing about this criticism is wrong, i just don't care at all about faith perspectives on entertainment boner confessor fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:critics will approach their criticism from an individual perspective, or one based on some school of thought. consumers of criticism will shop around for critics they like. where many gamergaters get confused is when they substitute "this criticism is bad criticism" for "i disagree with this criticism" because it's difficult for people to remember they are not correct about all things when it comes to criticism of a thing that informs their very identity yeah, pretty much. GGers think all criticism is bad because they are foolish, it isn't. its just some of the loud critics kinda suck and are overly pretentious/high art. there are plenty of good ones. about as "gg" critic wise as i go is liana kerzener, i find he stuff interesting even though i dont always agree with her. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
i wouldn't even call any game critic loud, except when they get amplified 1000x by a whining horde of neckbeards. it's the streisand effect all over. there are no syndicated game critics, it's all individuals who write for some hobbyist site or publication and a handful of revolving door junior writers for news organizations and other pop culture reporting sites
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:critics will approach their criticism from an individual perspective, or one based on some school of thought. consumers of criticism will shop around for critics they like. where many gamergaters get confused is when they substitute "this criticism is bad criticism" for "i disagree with this criticism" because it's difficult for people to remember they are not correct about all things when it comes to criticism of a thing that informs their very identity The other part of it is that criticism is not censorship (most of the time): at most, it creates a market demand for things that critic likes (so, in this example, wholesome Christian movies). And, even if those movies start to squeeze out "big explosions" movies, which is unlikely, that is still not censorship. It's not censorship until you start lobbying governments to ban "big explosions" movies. Popular Thug Drink posted:i wouldn't even call any game critic loud, except when they get amplified 1000x by a whining horde of neckbeards. it's the streisand effect all over. there are no syndicated game critics, it's all individuals who write for some hobbyist site or publication and a handful of revolving door junior writers for news organizations and other pop culture reporting sites
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
yeah that was the best criticism of the femfreq kickstarter, "people gave her way more money than she asked for and she's wasting it" like uh yeah they're heaping her with money because it is pissing you off nerd boy, and it's working such as to not be wasted. she could light it on fire and GG would make a million tearful posts and it would still be well spent
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean sure. But i dont like being looked at like some sort of culturally retarded because enjoy something that isn't their idea of "high art" and i think thats why these people get so much hate. i believe most games have politics imbued in them at some level. but acting like every game that has a gun or shooting in it is some pernicious plot of right wing mythology is retarded. The film equivalent to what you are discussing is somebody tearing up at Captain America or Superman v. Batman. Start saying stuff like that and normal people act like you're a little off, and for good reason. The AAA market is generally full of schlock, just like the blockbuster films. It's not a completely true point, in that there are plenty of crap indy flims/games and even some major games/movies that have some thought behind them-- best recent examples being Last of Us or Spec Ops/Fury Road. But this in general is the rule, and when you start to act like these AAA games are some huge emotional thing, people tend to look at you like you have critically poor taste. The solution to this is to develop better taste, not sure what else to say. I love some pulp media, (comics especially) but I'm adult enough to both understand this stuff is pulp, and to accept and understand the problematic parts of the stuff (esp the weird gender stuff that's Why are you so defensive about people doing game criticism on the same level film criticism has been on for decades? The AAA stuff is still going to be here, just you might actually see some moves away from the formulaic poo poo that the industry has been pumping out the last few years. It might also be less violent and riddle with lovely sex pandering, but that's also probably a step away from manchild pandering, which is an overall improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
When people speak of "objective" criticism, they don't really mean objective. I'm not sure if there's a good word for what they're looking for, but I think the root of it is that the job of a product reviewer is to help people make a buying decision. It's not the same as writing an opinion piece. The question being asked of them isn't whether they liked it, and especially not what they think about its sociopolitical implications, but whether people thinking about buying it will like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:When people speak of "objective" criticism, they don't really mean objective. I'm not sure if there's a good word for what they're looking for, but I think the root of it is that the job of a product reviewer is to help people make a buying decision. It's not the same as writing an opinion piece. The question being asked of them isn't whether they liked it, and especially not what they think about its sociopolitical implications, but whether people thinking about buying it will like it. but rather than expecting reviewers to anticipate the tastes and desires of a wide audience, it's much more efficient for a reviewer to express a certain perspective and let their audience find them. this is probably confusing to a lot of people who expect objective reviews given that games aren't really a consumer good that can be objectively judged (with the exception of a game being broken or buggy) as well as the fact that historically games were reviewed 'objectively' by publications with game publisher ties that used a multi-part or wide ranging scale that felt scientific for example, pc gamer gave half-life a 97 back in the day, and gave alpha centauri a 98. how certain can we be that alpha centauri is really 1 better than half-life?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:When people speak of "objective" criticism, they don't really mean objective. I'm not sure if there's a good word for what they're looking for, but I think the root of it is that the job of a product reviewer is to help people make a buying decision. It's not the same as writing an opinion piece. The question being asked of them isn't whether they liked it, and especially not what they think about its sociopolitical implications, but whether people thinking about buying it will like it. Pretty much this and its kinda what i want. Opinion pieces are fine. but when i look for game review. i want to know what the basic premise is, how it plays. what it does well and what it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Pretty much this and its kinda what i want. Opinion pieces are fine. but when i look for game review. i want to know what the basic premise is, how it plays. what it does well and what it doesn't. So we're down to reviewer opinion: does the game overcome those flaws enough to merit buying, or not? And I think the only reasonable way to resolve this is to let critics actually give an opinion and have the audience read a variety of such opinions, rather than having critics hide their opinion behind a thin facade of "objectivity".
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Incoherence posted:I love Killer 7 but it plays like a railshooter and the story is written by a Japanese weirdo with a tenuous grasp of American geography and doesn't make a ton of sense. I don't understand, what's the bad part?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Pretty much this and its kinda what i want. Opinion pieces are fine. but when i look for game review. i want to know what the basic premise is, how it plays. what it does well and what it doesn't. When you're talking about what a game does well/doesn't do well, that's a very subjective matter. Doing well doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's only if people experience the game and enjoy it that you can say whether the game is successful in its goals. If one reviewer didn't enjoy the experience of playing a game because they are grossed out by the depiction of women, is that a less objective opinion than if they didn't enjoy a game because the platforming feels too floaty to them? I think the issue here is that "Objective" seems to mean "By someone who shares my values." And it's cool to seek those out, that's sort of the idea. You can read a review and think "Hmm yes I agree about platforming mechanics, but I can discount the bit about representation because that doesn't bother me" just as someone else can read the same review think the opposite. But, that doesn't make the bit that you agree with more objective. They just share your values concerning what makes a platformer feel good. If what you really want is a review that expresses no values, it would be very dry, and basically be the same as reading the ad copy on the back of the box, as it would lack any sort of qualitative judgement about the game, and simply be an accounting of its content. If that's what you want, then you're out of luck because http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/ no longer makes new content.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 04:50
|
|
