|
PT6A posted:What makes online gaming so attractive? Is it the legions of utter morons you can encounter? The thrill of being called a "friend of the family human being jew" by someone whose voice hasn't dropped yet? I deal with enough morons in my day-to-day life, I want my recreational activities to be as free from them as possible. Well it's a video game, and it's online, but other than that yes. If you're a (male, well off) teenager with unlimited free time there's definitely an appeal to loving around on the anonymous internet. I guess it's similar to lazing around and being a worthless poo poo IRL, except less well adjusted and involving less human interaction. It's entertaining to gently caress with people online when you're 15 years old, see the griefing thread in Games, Ventrilo Harassment, etc. It's the same mentality that drives 4chan. Naming your character "I love cock" so people yell it when they get mad, that kind of thing. Most of the people involved are not that bright and not that mature icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Nov 24, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Spec Ops only had a very bad multiplayer component that no one played because the publisher demanded one to improve sales. Multiplayer is the single source of longevity and revenue in these games and it is sort of amazing that Cod et al even bother with a single player game at this point. Single player gets them another couple hundred million dollars. They sell so many copies on the 360 alone, and not everyone buying it on there can even play online. PT6A posted:What makes online gaming so attractive? You might as well ask what makes posting on a forum attractive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You might as well ask what makes posting on a forum attractive. For most forums, it's deeply unattractive in the same way that playing most games online would be. This one gets a pass because the community is at least somewhat decent, and there are actual rules. I suppose if you just play with your friends, that's similar, but then I'd question why you don't just hang out with them in person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What makes online gaming so attractive? Is it the legions of utter morons you can encounter? The thrill of being called a "friend of the family human being jew" by someone whose voice hasn't dropped yet? I deal with enough morons in my day-to-day life, I want my recreational activities to be as free from them as possible. Because AI is still unmitigated garbage, even compared to whiny 13 year old shitlords, and you can mute chat if you aren't playing with people you know. Also, you can't troll AI and make it ragequit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
At least in some online games, the mechanics are complicated/well put together enough that abusing them in clever ways can make people really, really really mad. I remember I saw a guy with a youtube series of him playing Leauge of Legends and purposefully not following the popularly recognized strategy even though he knew what he was doing and won the games in clever ways, and he got his own teammates breaking down and screaming at him over the microphone, threatening to kill his family, etc, because they thought he was throwing the games and didn't know what he was doing here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bylPTYle4W4 icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What makes online gaming so attractive? Is it the legions of utter morons you can encounter? The thrill of being called a "friend of the family human being jew" by someone whose voice hasn't dropped yet? I deal with enough morons in my day-to-day life, I want my recreational activities to be as free from them as possible. Being replayable, mostly. If you're paying $60 for a game* you may as well get your money's worth out of it. *Which, incidentally, is lower than what you would pay for a game in real dollars compared with 15-20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
PT6A posted:For most forums, it's deeply unattractive in the same way that playing most games online would be. This one gets a pass because the community is at least somewhat decent, and there are actual rules. I suppose if you just play with your friends, that's similar, but then I'd question why you don't just hang out with them in person. Ok, so do you not see how the same goes for games? Most people don't play online for most games, they tend to play online for just a few, often only one for a fairly long time period. You clearly aren't posting here just with your real life friends, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:For most forums, it's deeply unattractive in the same way that playing most games online would be. This one gets a pass because the community is at least somewhat decent, and there are actual rules. I suppose if you just play with your friends, that's similar, but then I'd question why you don't just hang out with them in person. Most of my friends scattered across the country after college in pursuit of different things. I don't play online games anymore, but several of my friends keep in touch that way. And back when I did play online games it was pretty much just so I could play with my friends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:*Which, incidentally, is lower than what you would pay for a game in real dollars compared with 15-20 years ago. The hot game for Christmas that I got for my Colecovision was the port of Zaxxon. And because it had super duper simulated 3D graphics, the price was... $50. That's in the early 80s. As much as it stings me to pay $60 for a game, there is no doubt that games, relative to inflation and the cost of development, are dirt cheap. Christ, I remember paying $30 for Super Breakout for the 2600.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:For most forums, it's deeply unattractive in the same way that playing most games online would be. This one gets a pass because the community is at least somewhat decent, and there are actual rules. I suppose if you just play with your friends, that's similar, but then I'd question why you don't just hang out with them in person. So, in addition to all the reasons listed, Call of Duty and COD-alikes in particular have a leveling system where you unlock mechanically superior options the more you play. This makes it even easier to dominate newer players than it would already be, which leads to a "rewarding" experience for those people who put the time in because you can combine experience and unlocks to routinely dominate games. Mechanics similar to this are in almost every online shooter now, though often it only grants you harmless aesthetic options. Mr. Funny Pants posted:The hot game for Christmas that I got for my Colecovision was the port of Zaxxon. And because it had super duper simulated 3D graphics, the price was... $50. That's in the early 80s. As much as it stings me to pay $60 for a game, there is no doubt that games, relative to inflation and the cost of development, are dirt cheap. Christ, I remember paying $30 for Super Breakout for the 2600. With the advent of digital gaming, people who pay $60 for a game look like chumps, especially if it turns out the game is bad. Most games can be had for $5 within 3-4 months of release, unless they are console only.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:With the advent of digital gaming, people who pay $60 for a game look like chumps, especially if it turns out the game is bad. Most games can be had for $5 within 3-4 months of release, unless they are console only. I understand that. I'm one of those who waits until they get down to dirt cheap levels. I was just pointing out that today's games are, even at full price, a remarkable bargain when put alongside games from over thirty years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:With the advent of digital gaming, people who pay $60 for a game look like chumps, especially if it turns out the game is bad. Most games can be had for $5 within 3-4 months of release, unless they are console only. That has always been the case though. I generally wait for a game I want to play to hit that sweet ~$10 mark but you know when Morrowind came out I was buying that poo poo the first week it was out. I was willing to pay a premium for that early experience. Go back another 10 years and you've got people not seeing movies in the theater when they could rent it at Blockbuster. The same argument goes round and round. Nothing wrong with being an early adopter. Just recognize that the motives of early adopters are going to be different than the motives of other folk. Nothing wrong with either and neither makes you a "chump".
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Nothing wrong with either and neither makes you a "chump".
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
You joke, but being an "early adopter" means you are willing to accept some lemons. They've got the kind of money where they buy $300+ watch prototypes of kickstarter. They can afford a $60 game here-and-there like it ain't no thing. If it sucks, it is pennies to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Low art isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like most things, due to the post-modern world we inhabit, the distinction between high and low art has gotten blurred [blah blah blah Banksy blah blah blah Art Spiegelman] such that "low" art isn't an insult. But who is trying to elevate the medium? What is the Battleship Potemkin of video games? Who is the Fritz Lang? What is the equivalent of Italian neorealism? What can video games teach me about the human condition? In terms of imersion, a well crafted video game goes much further to engage my imagination than any movie, book, painting, or song. In fact a high-quality game is often a combination of all these things, how someone can't be impressed by this I don't really understand outside of being a joyless old person who just hates new things... As for what can they teach about the human condition, quite a few awful things, if online gaming is any evidence...
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
I know it was a few pages ago, but I just got caught back up on the thread, and did people really agree that pro-GamerGaters never threatened mass murder when one of the biggest news stories in the whole fiasco was pro-GamerGaters threatened to shoot up a presentation Sarkeesian was giving at a university or did I overlook a post or something like that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
Can anyone explain to me what the alleged lack of ethics in games journalism was; or is that now and was it always just a meaningless slogan? Because I've not yet come across an explanation of it that wasn't complete gibberish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Can anyone explain to me what the alleged lack of ethics in games journalism was; or is that now and was it always just a meaningless slogan? Because I've not yet come across an explanation of it that wasn't complete gibberish. On the surface it's just the accusation of game journalists trading good reviews for sexual favors The subtext though, is that the angry bigoted nerds want reviews to be a sort of consumer reports style quality stamp assuring them that they're getting all the tits and violence out of a game that they've come to expect, rather than a review of the game as a work of art. There's a prevailing anti-intellectual/artistic sentiment that 'art games' aren't real games, and reviewers giving art games good scores are therefore bad reviewers / 'unethical'. The sex-for-scores stuff is nominally the reason for the argument, but I'd argue that subtext is very important in terms of why they care so much about it icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:On the surface it's just the accusation of game journalists trading good reviews for sexual favors It should also be mentioned that the initial claim turned out to be not true. It also was posted by a bitter ex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:It should also be mentioned that the initial claim turned out to be not true. Yeah I know, that's why I said 'the accusation of'
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Can anyone explain to me what the alleged lack of ethics in games journalism was; or is that now and was it always just a meaningless slogan? Because I've not yet come across an explanation of it that wasn't complete gibberish. An aspect not yet mentioned is claims of collusion between various publications to try to control an industry-wide narrative. There's some discussion of that claim at Ars Technica, which links to a related Breitbart article. I'm not going to link that one directly, because Breitbart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:In terms of imersion, a well crafted video game goes much further to engage my imagination than any movie, book, painting, or song. In fact a high-quality game is often a combination of all these things, how someone can't be impressed by this I don't really understand outside of being a joyless old person who just hates new things... A high-quality game is a mixture of all of those things, but those different categories will rarely reach their peak in the context of a game. Plenty of games have good soundtracks, but none of them are exactly Beethoven's 9th. Many games look pretty, but the aesthetic appeal doesn't move me emotionally in the same way that, say, Guernica or Charon Crossing the River Styx did when I saw those. Game plots can be well thought out and enjoyable, but I can't think of a game that challenges the player intellectually in the same way that reading a Faulkner novel does. One notable and interesting exception to this is Paradox Interactive's games, which do a very good job of forcing the player to consider the motives and whatnot behind certain historical occurrences, in a way that would probably not be accomplished by something like narrative history. Does that make them art? I'm not sure, but I think they at least have greater utility beyond simply being a diversion from daily life. Do I think it's impossible for games to be art, on the level of some of the other works I've mentioned? No, but I don't think it's really happened yet (although there have been some very decent attempts), and it sure as poo poo won't happen as long as the gamer community demands ever-shallower plots with more explosions and tits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:A high-quality game is a mixture of all of those things, but those different categories will rarely reach their peak in the context of a game. Plenty of games have good soundtracks, but none of them are exactly Beethoven's 9th. Many games look pretty, but the aesthetic appeal doesn't move me emotionally in the same way that, say, Guernica or Charon Crossing the River Styx did when I saw those. Game plots can be well thought out and enjoyable, but I can't think of a game that challenges the player intellectually in the same way that reading a Faulkner novel does. Ice Pick Lodge, The Void. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:I know it was a few pages ago, but I just got caught back up on the thread, and did people really agree that pro-GamerGaters never threatened mass murder when one of the biggest news stories in the whole fiasco was pro-GamerGaters threatened to shoot up a presentation Sarkeesian was giving at a university or did I overlook a post or something like that? Yes, but anti-gaters made vague threats of harm also so it all evens out, the truth is in the middle. VideoTapir posted:Can anyone explain to me what the alleged lack of ethics in games journalism was; or is that now and was it always just a meaningless slogan? Because I've not yet come across an explanation of it that wasn't complete gibberish. Games journalism has always been complete poo poo. Most of the big gaming magazines pre-internet were published directly by the companies who made the games/systems, they were little more than advertising. In the internet era you cannot give bad reviews to a AAA game without losing your access to pre-release copies of the games, meaning you can't get your review out when the rest of the industry does. Gaming journalism has been payola-ridden marketing since day 1. Suddenly, in 2014, people who describe themselves as hardcore gamers get really interested in dismantling the rotten structure of gaming journalism, beginning with obscure sites that tend to talk about indie games made by female developers. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Of course games are art. Literally and by definition. Whether they're worthwhile or not is a wholly different question, but this is a question which one might ask of any popular medium and instances thereof.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Ice Pick Lodge, The Void. I haven't played that personally, but I'm encouraged by the fact it exists and it sounds very cool. It would be very nice if those sorts of games weren't trapped in such obscurity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Ice Pick Lodge, The Void. Artsy as gently caress, yet also manages to contain sexualised female characters who are stripped naked to reward player progression  That may be a bit unfair to the game though. There's a good video LP of the game on the LP archive if you want to judge for yourself!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Ultimately I don't think video games will ever become high art in the strictest sense, but I do think they're normalizing with other popular media like film in terms of artistic merit
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Yes, but anti-gaters made vague threats of harm also so it all evens out, the truth is in the middle. The line between these two things would look like a Family Circus cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Artsy as gently caress, yet also manages to contain sexualised female characters who are stripped naked to reward player progression I didn't say anything about the potentially questionable part, just about whether it was art. There's a good bit of art that comes from various terrible psychological and social places. I'm not sure Ice Pick Lodge work comes from the same terrible places as other games with sexualized female characters, mind you. They're some pretty strange folks. (It's totally a great LP, people should go experience it)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
IIRC, a lot of Ice Pick's employees came straight from the Moscow art and theater scenes before they started working on games. They're kind of a rarity in that they're artists who are trying to make art into games rather than techies trying to make games into art.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
i'm hype for the pathologic remake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:On the surface it's just the accusation of game journalists trading good reviews for sexual favors There is a problem in "games journalism" of almost all gaming journalists being paid shills for established developers who can even be fired for writing negative reviews, but Gamergate has absolutely nothing to do with that problem, it's entirely about the next generation of goony fucks hating women because they don't know how to form normal human relationships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
There's a great photo montage out there of reviews of some terrible computer game from Britain for the Amiga I think. The game as released crashed reliably before it could get more than like halfway through - none of the reviews mentioned this, all of them from across like 5 magazines had scores of 90 out of 100 or more or 4.5 out of 5 stars etc. Gamergaters don't consider that and its modern descendants a problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There's a great photo montage out there of reviews of some terrible computer game from Britain for the Amiga I think. The game as released crashed reliably before it could get more than like halfway through - none of the reviews mentioned this, all of them from across like 5 magazines had scores of 90 out of 100 or more or 4.5 out of 5 stars etc. How is this addressed in other industries? Do movie critics stop receiving pre-release copies of movies or access to special screenings if they say mean things?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
PT6A posted:How is this addressed in other industries? Do movie critics stop receiving pre-release copies of movies or access to special screenings if they say mean things? I believe car reviewers have similar constraints but those are also heavily regulated in the areas that most people care about (safety).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
PT6A posted:How is this addressed in other industries? Do movie critics stop receiving pre-release copies of movies or access to special screenings if they say mean things? In movies, many critics/outlets build a reputation powerful enough that if a studio refuses to give pre-release copies to the critic themselves or the outlet, tons of people will assume that the movie in question must be really bad. And there's also been something of a society-wide expectation that no serious movie reviewer should always put out positive reviews if they're covering all the movies. Of course, there's still plenty of critics to go around to plaster your movie advertising with positive soundbites, but it's not nearly on the level of video game "reviewing".
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
So why is it such an issue in games journalism? How did we find ourselves in this situation where a) this goes on and b) the "reviewers" are still respected enough that people pay attention to what they say? I mean, how many people buy a game in the first week anyway? Surely it would be better to have a reviewer who's untainted by payola and actually plays the game and reviews it honestly, even if it means the review comes out a bit later. The only games I buy on release are games for which I wouldn't bother to consult the reviews anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Yes, but anti-gaters made vague threats of harm also so it all evens out, the truth is in the middle. Kieron Gillen called for games writers to embrace the inherent subjectivity of reviewing a piece of culture ten years ago. It's sad that a) it took until 2004 for someone of prominence in the industry to make that kind of manifesto and b) it's still largely ignored by today's writers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUvwkg7Mudg
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
PT6A posted:So why is it such an issue in games journalism? How did we find ourselves in this situation where a) this goes on and b) the "reviewers" are still respected enough that people pay attention to what they say? I mean, how many people buy a game in the first week anyway? Surely it would be better to have a reviewer who's untainted by payola and actually plays the game and reviews it honestly, even if it means the review comes out a bit later. Mostly because people don't need to really rely on them. Everyone generally knows they're poo poo and tends to rely on having other people buy the games first and actually play the games before they buy them themselves. Tons of people wait for the games to go on sale, which can take months and during which there's plenty of time to figure out what the game's actually "worth" as far as quality. So game "journalism" tends to just be used, by most people, as a way to see advertising about a game in a less annoying form (remember, most of the gaming magazines have died out!). There's not much movement towards making "better" reporting because no one trusts it to happen. Imagine if a current game review site claimed they were going to leave the payola behind and only do real reviews that would come out after the game - how much would you really trust them to do real reviews, given their past? Maybe you'd trust them after a few years, but who's going to let that go on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:49
|
|