Support NeoGAF

[mckmas8808]

Could you please advise the SJW side to do the same then?

I wish I could bruh! *shakes head* It's frustrating for people like me who recognizes the crazies on both sides, yet they only see one side as being the problem. The Kingdom Come thing was a total embarrassment, once I got my head around what people were actually upset about. It was a joke that HUGE groups of people didn't want to review or talk about that game.

And at some point, we are going to need to have someone create a "Pro-Trump" style game. Not one where it's literally pro-Trump, but one that uses his type of narrative and it's not the bad guy that believes that narrative. It's the thoughts of the protaganist.

 

[hariseldon]

I wish I could bruh! *shakes head* It's frustrating for people like me who recognizes the crazies on both sides, yet they only see one side as being the problem. The Kingdom Come thing was a total embarrassment, once I got my head around what people were actually upset about. It was a joke that HUGE groups of people didn't want to review or talk about that game.

And at some point, we are going to need to have someone create a "Pro-Trump" style game. Not one where it's literally pro-Trump, but one that uses his type of narrative and it's not the bad guy that believes that narrative. It's the thoughts of the protaganist.

Ah maybe I misread your view on a few things then, apologies for that, sounds like you're not a million miles away from my view on stuff. In general, I like the idea that there are games out there for everyone, and by that I mean different games that appeal to different people rather than a singular game that appeals to all (likely designed by committee).

Not sure about it necessarily needing to be pro-Trump (though there is value in that - there's very little consideration in the media in general of the voices of those who turned to Trump, which is kinda how he got in and relates in its own way to Brexit but that's a discussion for another day), but I do think we need more conservative voices in gaming (and I will just say that I'm a socialist of the old-school help-the-poor-fuck-the-corporations kind) because balance is a wonderful thing. It's kinda for the same reasons I come here, different voices, diversity of thought, are a great way to get to the nitty-gritty and question your own ideas (tbh the right here have a number of representatives who are wonderfully articulate and offer sound arguments - the left needs a bit more meat on the bones when all we have is NI, solitaire and AfricanKing alongside useless twats like me).

 

[MP!]

Nah, but I've seen mad amount of men suffering mentally from body issues. Dudes aint out here taking steroids for nothing.



Yo! Do you have a heart? Like any emotions inside?

wife says I don't haha

 

[Jon Neu]

I'd be curious to hear what your wife actually has to say on the matter. My wife and I have actually discussed this before. One of the things that she thinks is difficult about being a woman, specifically a gamer woman, is that there are very few games where she gets to play as a woman. That's what we call under representation. Remember, women make up half of the population. Realistically, they should make up half of the gaming protagonists. Remember that when you cry foul of "forced diversity."

Videogames, as any other form of art, are based on real life experiences.

Videogames tend to be about adventures, because adventures are fun and exciting. Ask your wife how many women have gone into the unknown through the history of mankind. Not a lot, because going into the unknown to find food while finding potential enemies and dealing with them, has always been the men task, and the women task was to find the men that could do that the best. Men are biologically prepared to do that, both phisycally and mentally. Women aren't biologically prepared to do that, both physically and mentally.

That's why most forms of media have males as the protagonists, because having a fragile slender women doing it, just looks and feels unnatural.

So yeah, is just a forced diversity agenda.

 

[LittleBusters]

 

[mckmas8808]

Videogames, as any other form of art, are based on real life experiences.

Videogames tend to be about adventures, because adventures are fun and exciting. Ask your wife how many women have gone into the unknown through the history of mankind. Not a lot, because going into the unknown to find food while finding potential enemies and dealing with them, has always been the men task, and the women task was to find the men that could do that the best. Men are biologically prepared to do that, both phisycally and mentally. Women aren't biologically prepared to do that, both physically and mentally.

That's why most forms of media have males as the protagonists, because having a fragile slender women doing it, just looks and feels unnatural.

So yeah, is just a forced diversity agenda.

Are you just trying to be sexist now? Like as a troll attempt to rile people up?

 

[Jon Neu]

Are you just trying to be sexist now? Like as a troll attempt to rile people up?

Your ridiculous triggerings never fail to amuse me.

 

[mckmas8808]

Your ridiculous triggerings never fail to amuse me.

No trigger, just conversation. I'm not mad at you, just disappointed. Why are you artificially limiting what men and women can do in a game? Do you not realize that you're limiting a video game creator's imagination of what their character should be able to do? You must have a huge issue with Lora Croft, Samus, and Aloy. If we use your worldview, what artificial limits are you willing to put on male protagonists in videogames?

And why do you view all women as weak and fragile both mentally and physically? I believe your understanding of the past made be a little off too.

 

[Jon Neu]

No trigger, just conversation. I'm not mad at you, just disappointed. Why are you artificially limiting what men and women can do in a game? Do you not realize that you're limiting a video game creator's imagination of what their character should be able to do? You must have a huge issue with Lora Croft, Samus, and Aloy. If we use your worldview, what artificial limits are you willing to put on male protagonists in videogames?

I'm not limiting anything, I'm just explaining why there are more men than women in action type media. When you have a movie in which a female beats the shit out of a men 4 times her size, you can enjoy that a lot, but only in a whacky and not grounded version of reality, maybe even a comical or cool factor one. Most of the time, to have something even close to be believable, you need a man. Because not everyone wants to tell whacky crazy stories without any verisimilitude.

Videogames tend to be about physical confrontations in dangerous situations, and that's simply the expertise of men through history. Men are literally built for it through thousands and thousands of years of evolution. If videogames were more about nurturing, then most protagonists would be female, but videogames happen to be most about what men have always done, not women.

And of course I enjoy Lara Croft or Chun Li -you seem to operate in a very strange black or white absolutist mindset-, they are hot and cool characters. I'm just explaining why there are more males protagonists than female ones.

And why do you view all women as weak and fragile both mentally and physically? I believe your understanding of the past made be a little off too.

Because they are. Women on the average are physically weak and mentally unprepared for situations of danger. I have been myself in plenty of danger situations and everytime they react the same way: they just become paralyzed by fear, they can't defend themselves.

Not that I need my personal experience to validate an evolutional point, but there you have it.

 

[hariseldon]

Jon Neu I'll give you (on average) physically weaker. When you say mentally weaker you start coming off as someone who hasn't met many actual women.

 

[Jon Neu]

Jon Neu I'll give you (on average) physically weaker. When you say mentally weaker you start coming off as someone who hasn't met many actual women.

I mean mentally weaker in situations of inminent lethal danger.

 

[hariseldon]

I mean mentally weaker in situations of inminent lethal danger.

Yeah still not looking good there.

 

[Jon Neu]

Yeah still not looking good there.

But that's because political correctness has made you incredibly susceptible to anything that resembles a critique of women.

 

[hariseldon]

But that's because political correctness has made you incredibly susceptible to anything that resembles a critique of women.

You might want to check my post history. NI, AfricanKing and ssolitsaire think I'm a card-carrying member of the alt right. I, on the other hand, consider the alt right and the SJWs to be of equal cuntitude.

Moving on from the subtle ad hominem, do you have anything to back up your assertion that women are weak in the face of danger?

 

[Jon Neu]

Moving on from the subtle ad hominem, do you have anything to back up your assertion that women are weak in the face of danger?

It wasn't and ad hominem at all, just explaining the mindset westerners tend to have for obvious reasons.

You want me to prove you that women are weak in the face of inminent physical danger? Well, you can try to educate yourself in biological evolution.

 

[hariseldon]

It wasn't and ad hominem at all, just explaining the mindset westerners tend to have for obvious reasons.

You want me to prove you that women are weak in the face of inminent physical danger? Well, you can try to educate yourself in biological evolution.

Yeah you're making a lot of fairly poor assumptions here, both about me and about the topic at hand.

 

[RedVIper]

But race literally is a social construct. It was created by us humans. It's not a real thing.

This is a really stupid "argument", humans "created" everything (I think a better word is defined), different race/ethnicity define people with different characteristics, these differences weren't made up.

 

[Jon Neu]

Yeah you're making a lot of fairly poor assumptions here, both about me and about the topic at hand.

Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm not limiting anything, I'm just explaining why there are more men than women in action type media. When you have a movie in which a female beats the shit out of a men 4 times her size, you can enjoy that a lot, but only in a whacky and not grounded version of reality, maybe even a comical or cool factor one. Most of the time, to have something even close to be believable, you need a man. Because not everyone wants to tell whacky crazy stories without any verisimilitude.

Videogames tend to be about physical confrontations in dangerous situations, and that's simply the expertise of men through history. Men are literally built for it through thousands and thousands of years of evolution. If videogames were more about nurturing, then most protagonists would be female, but videogames happen to be most about what men have always done, not women.

And of course I enjoy Lara Croft or Chun Li -you seem to operate in a very strange black or white absolutist mindset-, they are hot and cool characters. I'm just explaining why there are more males protagonists than female ones.



Because they are. Women on the average are physically weak and mentally unprepared for situations of danger. I have been myself in plenty of danger situations and everytime they react the same way: they just become paralyzed by fear, they can't defend themselves.

Not that I need my personal experience to validate an evolutional point, but there you have it.

I think there are more dudes than you think that would react poorly to situations of danger. And if we as a society told young girls to fight back more (like we do with our young sons), then maybe more women would be prepared to fight back and protect themselves. We've created women to be less prepared to fight, by how we view them when they are young.

This is a really stupid "argument", humans "created" everything (I think a better word is defined), different race/ethnicity define people with different characteristics, these differences weren't made up.

You'd be surprised. Look into how Italians, Jewish, and the Irish were viewed in America before they assimilated into the so-called "American culture". They weren't viewed as "white" people at all.

 

[RedVIper]

You'd be surprised. Look into how Italians, Jewish, and the Irish were viewed in America before they assimilated into the so-called "American culture". They weren't viewed as "white" people at all.

The fact that you guys like to define everyone as white is kinda of hilarious. Someone from Portugal looks nothing like someone from Ireland but you're happy to call them all white, are Mexicans white? Plenty of Portuguese share more with them then the Irish, but somehow one group is "white" and the other isn't. But when the Chinese are classified as "white" is when I really find it funny.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Culture cannot ever go against basic biology IMO. Men are physically stronger than women and thats why all the hard labor is made by men. Black guys are stronger than white ones and that's why the NBA is full of black dudes, who are also more coordinated, fast and explosive. They have a different muscular build. Likewise, swimmers are mostly white because of the body fat. And asiatic people are far more intelligent or mentally skilled than us westerns. You can see it in videogames as well, who are the ones running the show in competitions or who get the better grades at school. There is no conspiracy plot behind all these facts but just nature doing its part through evolution.

So, when we discuss videogames, even as a fictional medium, we cannot leave the basics behind. Those are the limits. Yes, you can develop great characters like old Lara Croft , Aloy, Kat or Ellie, but those are great characters not because they are "strong female protagonists" but because these personalities are coherent to the story the game is telling and that makes them believable. However, make something like new Lara and that's gonna fail because they are caring for their agenda first and the game, second whereas it should be the other way around. Gamers are not as stupid as they believe.

 

[Jon Neu]

and if we as a society told young girls to fight back more (like we do with our young sons), then maybe more women would be prepared to fight back and protect themselves.

Sorry dude, reality is not a Disney movie.

We've created women to be less prepared to fight, by how we view them when they are young.

We haven't created anything, is just how different genders are. Women are physically weak, therefore they lack the abilities to face a physical danger properly, therefore they become paralyzed by fear in situations of inminent danger. Basic evolutive biology.

Stop using the wildcard of "society" to mask any aspect of the gender differences that you don't like.

 

[RedVIper]

Jon Neu I'll give you (on average) physically weaker. When you say mentally weaker you start coming off as someone who hasn't met many actual women.

He is kinda right, obviously physically men are stronger than women, but mentally they are diferent aswell (I don't want to say stricly stronger though), testoterone helps you deal with situations of high risk and stress, men in general have much higher testosterone than woman. This isn't a social thing, it's just biology.

 

[mckmas8808]

The fact that you guys like to define everyone as white is kinda of hilarious. Someone from Portugal looks nothing like someone from Ireland but you're happy to call them all white, are Mexicans white? Plenty of Portuguese share more with them then the Irish, but somehow one group is "white" and the other isn't. But when the Chinese are classified as "white" is when I really find it funny.

Hence social construct.

Sorry dude, reality is not a Disney movie.

We haven't created anything, is just how different genders are. Women are physically weak, therefore they lack the abilities to face a physical danger properly, therefore they become paralyzed by fear in situations of inminent danger. Basic evolutive biology.

Stop using the wildcard of "society" to mask any aspect of the gender differences that you don't like.

Stop limiting what women are or can be, please. The word "society" is not being used as a mask. If an 8-year-old daughter gets hit in the face and comes crying to her daddy, most fathers would deal with that situation differently than they would if they son can crying to them because another little boy smacked him in the face. We teach our kids how to react and respond to attacks differently.

I'm not saying the average girl would be able to beat up the average boy in school. I was only talking about imminent danger type situations. Fathers are more likely to teach their sons how to fight, than their young/cute daughters. A father would want to protect his little girl, whereas we want to "teach" our son how to protect themselves. Imagine what women would be like if we didn't treat them differently this way.

 

[Jon Neu]

Stop limiting what women are or can be, please.

I'm not limiting anything, I'm stating that men and women are different and why that explains the gender disparity in videogames.

The word "society" is not being used as a mask. If an 8-year-old daughter gets hit in the face and comes crying to her daddy, most fathers would deal with that situation differently than they would if they son can crying to them because another little boy smacked him in the face. We teach our kids how to react and respond to attacks differently.

I'm not saying the average girl would be able to beat up the average boy in school. I was only talking about imminent danger type situations. Fathers are more likely to teach their sons how to fight, than their young/cute daughters. A father would want to protect his little girl, whereas we want to "teach" our son how to protect themselves. Imagine what women would be like if we didn't treat them differently this way.

We treat them different because they are different.

Encouraging your daughter to fight back against a boy is the stupided thing ever. You teach her how to defend herself with the weapons she has at her best interests, which doesn't involve her risking his health in another physical confrontation against someone who is stronger than her.

 

[mckmas8808]

Encouraging your daughter to fight back against a boy is the stupided thing ever. You teach her how to defend herself with the weapons she has at her best interests, which doesn't involve her risking his health in another physical confrontation against someone who is stronger than her.

Why do you have this belief that women don't want to fight each other? It's as if you can't even imagine girls even getting in a confrontation. I've seen many women fighting each other.

 

[hariseldon]

Why do you have this belief that women don't want to fight each other? It's as if you can't even imagine girls even getting in a confrontation. I've seen many women fighting each other.

As someone who has worked with teenage girls I can confirm they're fucking vicious.

 

[Jon Neu]

Why do you have this belief that women don't want to fight each other? It's as if you can't even imagine girls even getting in a confrontation.

Are you Kathy Newman?

Also, we were talking about women confronting men, not other women. Of course is safer if they confront other women, because they are equally as weak.

 

[CrustyBritches]

We haven't created anything, is just how different genders are. Women are physically weak, therefore they lack the abilities to face a physical danger properly, therefore they become paralyzed by fear in situations of inminent danger. Basic evolutive biology.

Stop using the wildcard of "society" to mask any aspect of the gender differences that you don't like.

By chance do you come from a socialist or communist country, or California, where they do not have gun rights?

See the paradox is that socialists/communists have socially conditioned women to be afraid of guns, the very thing that gives them an equalizer against a stronger attacker. You need to understand that just because women are not as prone to violence as men, doesn't mean they won't take action when necessary. For instance, when their family is being threatened...


Listen to how this mom describes her experience shooting this huge dude...

"So then he kicks the door in. As soon as he kicks the door in and he tries to take a step in my house, that's when I shot him and he ran off. Something just came over me like I got calm, like my heart slowed down and I got calm and I just got focused."

All the women in my family have guns and will use them. I find they are a little more jumpy on the trigger, in fact. When we see another male we have a reflexive reaction and for a second perhaps even empathize..."is he drunk? Lost? Can I detain him without lethal force?" When a woman sees an intruder or attacker they think, "Nasty hairy penis!" and start pulling the trigger.

In summary: Give women more guns and training, and encourage them to play more violent games. Thank you.

 

[Jon Neu]

By chance do you come from a socialist or communist country, or California, where they do not have gun rights?

Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia.

You could say we are kind of like the California of Europe. Very progressive.

I find they are a little more jumpy on the trigger, in fact. When we see another male we have a reflexive reaction and for a second perhaps even empathize..."is he drunk? Lost? Can I detain him without lethal force?" When a woman sees an intruder or attacker they think, "Nasty hairy penis!" and start pulling the trigger.

They are more trigger happy precisely because they are more afraid and uncapable of taking proper control of the situation, even when having a gun.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia.

You could say we are kind of like the California of Europe. Very progressive.

Ok. That would explain the absence of guns from your equation. Greetings from Oregon, USA. We have right to conceal carry handguns at 21yrs old, buy rifles at 18yrs. old. Open carry in most areas without permit. I encourage your country to vote for gun rights for law abiding citizens.

They are more trigger happy precisely because they are more afraid and uncapable of taking proper control of the situation, even when having a gun.

Partially. By this time they simply hate men more than men hate other men, and they especially hate nasty hairy penis, so they blast faster. The gun makes them focused and powerful, not afraid.

 

[Jon Neu]

Ok. That would explain the absence of guns from your equation. Greetings from Oregon, USA. We have right to conceal carry handguns at 21yrs old, buy rifles at 18yrs. old.

We have that right here too, it's simply that we don't have that gun culture.

We have a little bit of hunting culture, but females don't care at all.

Partially. By this time they simply hate men more than men hate other men, and they especially hate nasty hairy penis, so they blast faster. The gun makes them focused and powerful, not afraid.

You seem to be describing a psychopath.

 

[Bkdk]

So I was reading this: https://www.vg247.com/2019/01/02/diversity-important-video-game-much-gameplay/

"There’s no limit to where video games can take us."

Grrr.

OK, so here's a thing that really grinds my gears. I utterly despise when people come out with shite like "there’s no limit to where video games can take us." or "video games can change the world" or some other similar sentiment that sounds like it's lifted from a starry eyed kids high school essay on his favorite hobbies.

Sure, we all love games here, I hope. Sure, games can help us all through hard times. I think the same could be said about movies or sports or many other hobbies, interests and pastimes. Fuckin, maybe angry ranting can change the world too. Hurrah!

I'm kind of sick of this idea that games need to be something more than just entertainment or play or fun. Like if you just like old school Mario or Metroid for what it is then somehow you are holding back games and, by extension, maybe even society itself.

The context of the article is that diversity is as important as gameplay and I think that this ties to the idea that games can "take us anywhere".

I think that what the writers of these kind of articles are getting at is that they believe that games can actually force changes in the consumer in ways that a movie or a book cannot. I think they correctly see that you can watch a movie and just tune out and ignore the "lessons" the movie is trying to impart. With a game, however, they imagine that since the player is forced to interact with the game they are therefore forced to absorb the message the game is sending out.

It's like the inverse of GTA and "games cause violence". If games can cause violence and sexism in the real world then couldn't they also "convert" people in other ways that we would actually want?

The problem with this, of course, is that you need to break down the idea that games are being played for fun or relaxation etc.

"Simply being ‘fun’ often isn’t enough."
"there are still people who push back, pining for the days when ‘gameplay’ was king"
"For me, ‘gameplay’ means all the interactive parts: the running, jumping, driving, and shooting. It means the verbs."
"These snippets of flavour are what makes games more than a toy. "

I personally feel like there is plenty of room on people's PS hard drive or Switch sd card for games of all different types but I get the impression from reading articles like this that games that exist just to be fun are seen as "lesser".

They want games that they imagine you'll play with tears streaming down your face as you sob "oh-- m-my g-gosh golly gosh this is what it feels like to be a woman in Trumps America". Fuck off.

I'm not saying it's wrong for games to be emotionally driver or story driven. Hell, I think it's even great if someone wanted to make a total Art-House video game that isn't fun and is totally impenetrable.

I just hate this fucking preachy "games can do anything if we all just have a bit more empathy" bullshite.

I understand as well that probably the most memorable games for many people are those that have some kind of emotional backbone in their narrative. That's fine.

I just don't think it supersedes fun and enjoyable gameplay.

"You can count on one hand how many games feature an Arabic protagonist or a disabled hero."

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole here but if the game was "Wheelchair Racing" and it was fast and fun and a good laugh to play then I am all on board. Hell maybe you could have a story mode that showed a real positive outlook on life for people who were dealt a fucking raw deal. That could be grand.

If I'm to be subjected to some preachy "edutainment" bullshit about the challenges of disability then I don't really give a crap if I'm "holding games back". I'm just not going to be into that.

"Now, more than ever, we need games to let us be someone we’re not. We need to spend a while in someone else’s skin. Let’s start 2019 with a little more empathy. "

No. No we don't need to spend a while in someone else's skin.
Sure, as a society we could probably do a lot more when it comes to having more empathy for others.

I just don't think that you can force this by assuming that if Basement Bob the 40 year old incel plays "The Blue Haired Adventures of Pussy Hat Penny" for long enough he'll be voting Democrat for sure in 2020.

This is why i think gameplay is STILL king when it comes to gaming. The best you can hope for with a video game is that the player enjoys the thing so much that they forget about their own shitty life for a few hours after work.

Escapism beats Forced Diversity every single time, in my eyes.

Plus what do you REALLY learn if you play as a woman for a few rounds of BattleField V?

Like if I were to ask the wife to tell me her 5 most prominent difficulties that she thinks are directly linked with her being a women then how many of those would be addressed by playing Uncharted: Lost Legacy or Dishonored: Death of the Outsider? Probably none.

"You might be the only agent of change in many games, but you are not the protagonist of reality."

Fuck. Off.


Sorry, for the rant. Thoughts on the article?
How many folks would actually rather play an preachy game that will teach you valuable political lessons?
How many would just rather do a few rounds of Smash Bros for fun?
Or is the "sweet spot" somewhere between those two?

For me the fun factor is so much more important than everything else, if everything in this world has to promote diversity and empathy, I’m gonna kill myself because I feel bad living in this world. Gaming is invented because we can customize our own fun experience and cater to different peoples desires. Diversity and empathy agendas better leave entertainment industry alone or this will really be a hopeless world to live in.

 

[mckmas8808]

For me the fun factor is so much more important than everything else, if everything in this world has to promote diversity and empathy, I’m gonna kill myself because I feel bad living in this world. Gaming is invented because we can customize our own fun experience and cater to different peoples desires. Diversity and empathy agendas better leave entertainment industry alone or this will really be a hopeless world to live in.

Hopeless world for you. Super loving and awesome for me! I'm now invited to the party. 20 years ago......not so much.

 

[Paracelsus]

Hopeless world for you. Super loving and awesome for me! I'm now invited to the party. 20 years ago......not so much.

He's not missing much because his party was actually worth being invited to. This party? Not so much, you can skip a decade at the time and you can catch up the worthy things you missed in a month.
Idealistically we could have both, but this is not the case, because the people in charge were not gamers, they're in for the shilling.

 

[mckmas8808]

He's not missing much because his party was actually worth being invited to. This party? Not so much, you can skip a decade at the time and you can catch up the worthy things you missed in a month.
Idealistically we could have both, but this is not the case, because the people in charge were not gamers, they're in for the shilling.

Which games are you talking about? I get confused on which games people like him don't like.

 

[Paracelsus]

Which games are you talking about? I get confused on which games people like him don't like.

"For me the fun factor is so much more important than everything else"

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/games-are-becoming-intrinsically-less-fun-with-time.1470624/page-3

There is a strict correlation between gaming dealing with "mature" themes and empathy and being less fun, and not just because they can't make fun games, because they don't give a sh**. They're not in because they liked games and wanted to live that dream, it's just a means to their end.

 

[mckmas8808]

"For me the fun factor is so much more important than everything else"

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/games-are-becoming-intrinsically-less-fun-with-time.1470624/page-3

There is a strict correlation between gaming dealing with "mature" themes and empathy and being less fun, and not just because they can't make fun games, because they don't give a sh**. They're not in because they liked games and wanted to live that dream, it's just a means to their end.

Yet I'd never want to play any of Sid Meirer's games (even though I know many people like those games). Since 2016 wouldn't it be fair to say that a lot of AAA games that had mature themes sold very well and were also loved by the press? God of War and Red Dead 2 being some of them.

 

[Paracelsus]

Yet I'd never want to play any of Sid Meirer's games (even though I know many people like those games). Since 2016 wouldn't it be fair to say that a lot of AAA games that had mature themes sold very well and were also loved by the press? God of War and Red Dead 2 being some of them.

MCU movies make billions, as Jurassic World. It's not even a poor argument, it's a non-argument. And yes, we've known for a while the gaming press is official shilling, nothing new.

 

[mckmas8808]

MCU movies make billions, as Jurassic World. It's not even a poor argument, it's a non-argument. And yes, we've known for a while the gaming press is official shilling, nothing new.

Are they shilling? Or maybe they legitimately like those AAA games. Most of GAF likes those same games too.

 

[Saruhashi]

But nobody said you should play the games you find unfun, just to not lament their existence as some kind of movement against you and everything you stand for so you also have to stand against them and everything they have to stand for when there are still fun games around. Of course you can criticize it on a forum and say you won't buy it or refunded it, no reason to give that any other connotations though. Do people who enjoy Heavy Rain-like games lament the mere existence of DUSK (if they don't also enjoy that btw, they might, people can have diverse tastes)? No, if they're even aware of it, jus as people who only watch artsy foreign cinema probably aren't even aware the Bayformers exist or even remember if they saw a trailer of it on TV. But then the same people that lament the existence of unfun games will also pile on Nintendo or others for Zelda and Mario and other fun focused experiences just because they're not exactly what they want either. It's not a good look and doesn't help anybody or any point made. And if fun games ever stop being made it won't be because you didn't stand your ground and hate unfun games and those who enjoy them enough, it will be because good old capitalism, the market itself, decided there's no money into making fun games, so really the best thing you can do is go out and buy the fun games, rather than pretend they already don't exist in any way, shape or form because of unfun games.

I'm not saying that games that are not fun shouldn't be played, shouldn't exist or shouldn't even be considered for development.
I am on board with games being made that are heavy and deep and even really abstract games that are almost impenetrable.

I am fine with all of that. I'd argue that efforts have been made to make such games since almost the very beginning of the medium.

Where I am seeing the issue is that you apparently have this large section of the community that thinks "games need to grow up" all the while bleating about how "gamers are afraid of change" or "gamers are insecure" or just the plain old "gamers are trash" narrative.

So when someone looks at BattleField V and says they actually wanted some kind of authentic WW2 game and not this very weird and specific take on historical events we inevitably hear about how games need to grow up or that kind of person is holding gaming back.

I feel like when Roger Ebert said "video games can never be art" back in 2010 that this comment cut certain videogame enthusiasts deeply.

After this point there was almost an accusation that certain games or certain design choices or even certain demographics of players were the reason that games aren't seen as art.

So really there was an insecurity from people who just so badly wanted videogames to be taken seriously and who saw the reasons for why games aren't taken seriously as things that need to be cut out.

I think articles like the one in my OP are the ongoing effects of that. It creates a kind of snobbery inside the gaming community.

Probably, if Roger Ebert has sat down to play Mario Kart back in the day he would agree that it's a ton of fun but would say "it's not art, it's a game".
There seems to be a lot of people who would have wanted to sit him down with a game that would bring tears to his eyes just to get him to say "OK games CAN be art".

I think some people in the community carry around this insecurity about their hobby being seen as a "toy" or as being "for kids" and so they need to dismiss that kind of game and that kind of gamer in order to have the medium "grow up".

Maybe this could have all be avoided if in the late 90s and early 00s a distinction was made between "games" and "interactive experiences".
A big issue with throwing everything into the pot of "games" is that it puts a wonderful "deep" game like Gris into the same pot as Fortnite.

So you maybe have hipster types trying to ooh and aah over the newest artsy piece from Indie Developer X but it is juxtaposed with rude children doing the floss dance and bragging about their win ratio.

I believe that this is a conscious effort being made to dismiss gamers that are interested primarily in gameplay. There could be multiple reasons for this but I reckon "videogames can never be art" is one of them.

I would also speculate that this kind of thing stems from the fact that when it comes to movies and books you can't necessarily "git gud" at reading or watching. However, you can be quite good at critical analysis etc. So an online critic can be good at dissecting artworks in a compelling way.

With games though it can be more difficult since there is a competitive element to the game that ensures that while the gender studies major may be able to dissect the hidden meaning behind a game they are not necessarily good at the game. This is compounded when it turns out that a bunch of mindless troglodytes may actually be WAY better at actually playing the actual game.

In such an environment I think one could make a reasonable prediction that you would eventually see videogame "commentary" that attacks even the very concept of getting good at videogames.

And whaddya know...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ape-the-relentless-pressure-to-improve-myself
"I enjoy video games, but I’m not good at playing them and I don’t want to be"

Cuphead was especially bad for this.

Sometimes I feel like there are mixed messages being sent out here.
On one hand FarCry 5 gets criticism because it didn't delve deeply into political topics in favor of a more accessible and "fun" experience.
On the other hand Cuphead stirred up a whole bunch of controversy as the difficulty made it inaccessible and less fun.

The problem with a game judged on gameplay is that excellent gameplay can be worth more than a well told story. So a point and click adventure about life in a refugee camp can be a great and meaningful story but it finds itself buried under a mountain of shooting games that are just a ton of fun. The only way around that is to try to "run down" the idea of gameplay being the thing that people like most about video games.

Again, it seems to me to come from this desperate place where people want games to be seen as a valid and "grown up" form of art but this desire cannot be fully realized due to the fact that many people just love fun and very often juvenile gaming experiences are the most fun of all.

 

[mckmas8808]

Again, it seems to me to come from this desperate place where people want games to be seen as a valid and "grown up" form of art but this desire cannot be fully realized due to the fact that many people just love fun and very often juvenile gaming experiences are the most fun of all.

This is a really great post from you. I see where you are coming from and agree with most of your points actually. I think we all need to realize that there's no "ONE" way games need to be made and played. The great thing about his industry is that there are many answers to the question, "What makes a video game good?"

To me video games are already validated and are clearly art that anyone that questions it, just doesn't know what they are talking about so I dismiss them due to their ignorance. How can a TV show like Ozark on Netflix be art, yet The Walking Dead video game not be art?

Those juvenile gaming experiences most of the time are less artful than say a game like Journey and that's okay! To me that all are good games just for different reasons.

 

[Saruhashi]

This is a really great post from you. I see where you are coming from and agree with most of your points actually. I think we all need to realize that there's no "ONE" way games need to be made and played. The great thing about his industry is that there are many answers to the question, "What makes a video game good?"

To me video games are already validated and are clearly art that anyone that questions it, just doesn't know what they are talking about so I dismiss them due to their ignorance. How can a TV show like Ozark on Netflix be art, yet The Walking Dead video game not be art?

Those juvenile gaming experiences most of the time are less artful than say a game like Journey and that's okay! To me that all are good games just for different reasons.

Yeah, I have been arguing with people for years that "videogames" is really only useful as a very surface level description.

It's just sad that professionals who are paid to write articles about gaming are still going along with the idea of "Video Games" as some kind of monolith.
They really are unrelenting too. I get tired of people talking about gaming as if it's just one big genre when it really really isn't.

I would argue in fact that the different genres of videogames are FAR more distinctive than different genres of movies.

I could go from playing Beat Saber in PSVR to playing Red Dead 2 on my TV downstairs to playing Gris in handheld mode on my Switch to playing Pokemon Go on my phone.

For me, you can't get that same diversity of content from movies or music or literature.

Like, Tetris and FIFA etc are "games". However, something like Bloodborne is "art". Maybe. Possibly?
There's really a sort of blurring of the lines here that you don't have so much with films or books.

It's possible to have beautifully constructed visual worlds that do nothing more than allow players to mash buttons to beat each other up.
Then you can have simple text games that impart a strong and deep message.
There's all the stuff in between.

You can go to a gallery and the stuff placed on the wall is "art", Fine.
Then you can go to the cinema and they'll project a story onto the screen and that's "art" too. OK.

Then you can go home and play Mario Tennis. That's a "game".
BUT you could play Inside instead. That's "art".

I feel like the category of "Videogame" is just way too broad to make any good distinction. It encompasses both art and non-art.
So for sure when I see "gameplay isn't everything" or "games need to grow up" I think you just can't say that and expect to retain credibility as an "expert" on gaming.

Maybe "art" isn't even a good way to describe games at all and something completely new and different is needed.

I think at the very least people writing for VG 24/7 etc should have a basic understanding of the extremely wide spectrum of games. Enough to not say daft things like "there are still people who push back, pining for the days when ‘gameplay’ was king".
There are games where gameplay IS king. There are games where it's irrelevant.

Just feels like we have a weird need to see our hobby portrayed as grown up and mature or something.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yeah, I have been arguing with people for years that "videogames" is really only useful as a very surface level description.

It's just sad that professionals who are paid to write articles about gaming are still going along with the idea of "Video Games" as some kind of monolith.
They really are unrelenting too. I get tired of people talking about gaming as if it's just one big genre when it really really isn't.

I would argue in fact that the different genres of videogames are FAR more distinctive than different genres of movies.

I could go from playing Beat Saber in PSVR to playing Red Dead 2 on my TV downstairs to playing Gris in handheld mode on my Switch to playing Pokemon Go on my phone.

For me, you can't get that same diversity of content from movies or music or literature.

Like, Tetris and FIFA etc are "games". However, something like Bloodborne is "art". Maybe. Possibly?
There's really a sort of blurring of the lines here that you don't have so much with films or books.

It's possible to have beautifully constructed visual worlds that do nothing more than allow players to mash buttons to beat each other up.
Then you can have simple text games that impart a strong and deep message.
There's all the stuff in between.

You can go to a gallery and the stuff placed on the wall is "art", Fine.
Then you can go to the cinema and they'll project a story onto the screen and that's "art" too. OK.

Then you can go home and play Mario Tennis. That's a "game".
BUT you could play Inside instead. That's "art".

I feel like the category of "Videogame" is just way too broad to make any good distinction. It encompasses both art and non-art.
So for sure when I see "gameplay isn't everything" or "games need to grow up" I think you just can't say that and expect to retain credibility as an "expert" on gaming.

Maybe "art" isn't even a good way to describe games at all and something completely new and different is needed.

I think at the very least people writing for VG 24/7 etc should have a basic understanding of the extremely wide spectrum of games. Enough to not say daft things like "there are still people who push back, pining for the days when ‘gameplay’ was king".
There are games where gameplay IS king. There are games where it's irrelevant.

Just feels like we have a weird need to see our hobby portrayed as grown up and mature or something.

Post of the year! So far at least it's early lol.

Now with the bolded. There is a blurring of the lines of what's art when it comes to films and books. Nobody views Coloring Books as art. Even if it's got a cute message for kids in it. And nobody views a movie like JackAss or Reality TV shows as art, even though both are "filmed" with the same camera and have editors. For some reason critics can do a good job dicphering the difference between a coloring book and a Steven King novel. Yet they can't do a good job telling the difference between these type of games.

And