[video=youtube;vN3YsiMDOE8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN3YsiMDOE8[/video]
[sp]A five part exploration of the Cold War's effect on video games.[/sp]
Part two follows on sunday
Awww shit, new Ahoy videos. Hopefully he goes about making new gun videos as well.
The waiting has been worth it.
Anyone know what track he used at 12:50?
I'm honestly not a fan of this.
It is extremely well made and voiced but I feel like it's written in a way you'd expect a high school paper on the subject to be written. Lacks focus, states the obvious a lot (which makes it not as interesting as it is framed to be in the production values), and I feel like the whole "cold war" angle that was introduced at the start was hamfisted in throughout the whole video to just give it unneeded historical legitimacy. The big point of the video appears to be "AI-behavior was invented in the cold war era, therefore here are some basic examples of AI in games"
I had the same problem with his other video on guns too. Really well made, but kind of seemed like it was written for an assignment to cover the bases rather than something that was trying to make real points/be informative/be engaging/etc.
Or maybe part 2 will go into his reasoning, like he's already said it will.
After all, why do a 5 part video on "red vs blue is east vs west" and expect to hold viewers interest.
It's clear this first episode is the teaser to introduce the broad topics, and he'll be going into detail going forwards.
[QUOTE=KorJax;48766115]I'm honestly not a fan of this.
It is extremely well made and voiced but I feel like it's written in a way you'd expect a high school paper on the subject to be written. Lacks focus, states the obvious a lot (which makes it not as interesting as it is framed to be in the production values), and I feel like the whole "cold war" angle that was introduced at the start was hamfisted in throughout the whole video to just give it unneeded historical legitimacy. The big point of the video appears to be "AI-behavior was invented in the cold war era, therefore here are some basic examples of AI in games"
I had the same problem with his other video on guns too. Really well made, but kind of seemed like it was written for an assignment to cover the bases rather than something that was trying to make real points/be informative/be engaging/etc.[/QUOTE]
just because [i]you[/i] know the bits of trivia doesn't mean it's "stating the obvious" for everybody.
But compare it to actual history channel documentaries this is clearly harping on. There is far less "trivia" that goes on, and most of the information elaborates an interesting more in-depth part of X conflict that most people wouldn't know about.
They also approach their subject matter in an investigative way - i.e. there is a clear progression throughout the show that builds to a moment of intrigue, a big event, or how the common knowledge in X conflict came to be.
This video on the other hand just kind of jumps between examples of AI in video games, and doesn't really say anything interesting about it or any kind of in-depth knowledge. As a matter of fact I think this would have been a much stronger video if it literally focused on case studies involving the progression of AI in video games without relying on "this game went to X-Y-Z" and without the forced cold-war angle. I was waiting for a real connection to be made between historical events and video games (even AI in video games) but there really wasn't any that were made. Which is odd considering the entire thesis of the video is supposed to involve that subject matter.
A good example of such a video (but relating to computer graphics) is this:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfh0ytz8S0k[/media]
He tackles a similar subject matter but explains it much more interestingly, and actually teaches you interesting uncommon knowledge about how this stuff evolved in games and what its impact was. He approaches the subject matter like an expert, instead of someone who just knows a lot of examples of games that did X or Y thing.
I just feel like Ahoy relies entirely on acting like the History Channel while pandering to a video game playing audience to make his content interesting, instead of actually having interesting content.
great video but theres not really anything connecting cold war R&D to video games
they sort of skirted around that, its there
[QUOTE=Sableye;48768889]great video but theres not really anything connecting cold war R&D to video games
they sort of skirted around that, its there[/QUOTE]
Probably gonna cover it more in-depth with the other 4 parts.
[QUOTE=overwatch pvt;48769016]Probably gonna cover in more in-depth with the other 4 parts.[/QUOTE]
i assumed so, they spent a lot of time on programming chess, but in all honesty, calculating target values, creating realistic launch simulations, and simulating response tactics were massive areas of development throughout the cold war, turing was important, but he wasn't the only one developing AI, claud shannon developed several programs to play chess, run mazes, and spent a lot of his career developing computer logic. the US nuclear response plan was completely designed by computer AI, where by target data was fed into the computer, and it would establish the amount of ordinance needed, the weight of the target, compute which bombers could attack which targets, and figure out if weapons were overlapping, it was one of the reason why the US response could rely on the nuclear triad because all the plans were designed for cohesion
[QUOTE=Sableye;48768889]great video but theres not really anything connecting cold war R&D to video games
they sort of skirted around that, its there[/QUOTE]
what, you're saying that (violent) video games are not the directly because of WWII and the Nazis?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;48769071]what, you're saying that (violent) video games are not the directly because of WWII and the Nazis?[/QUOTE]
videogames grew out of the primarily military funded research on computers of the 50s and onwards, some of the first programable computers had simple game programs made for them for testing purposes, and because people could, eventually this lead to home consoles, coin-ops, and home computers, which in turn eventually lead to PC games
[QUOTE=KorJax;48768129]But compare it to actual history channel documentaries this is clearly harping on. There is far less "trivia" that goes on, and most of the information elaborates an interesting more in-depth part of X conflict that most people wouldn't know about.
They also approach their subject matter in an investigative way - i.e. there is a clear progression throughout the show that builds to a moment of intrigue, a big event, or how the common knowledge in X conflict came to be.
This video on the other hand just kind of jumps between examples of AI in video games, and doesn't really say anything interesting about it or any kind of in-depth knowledge. As a matter of fact I think this would have been a much stronger video if it literally focused on case studies involving the progression of AI in video games without relying on "this game went to X-Y-Z" and without the forced cold-war angle. I was waiting for a real connection to be made between historical events and video games (even AI in video games) but there really wasn't any that were made. Which is odd considering the entire thesis of the video is supposed to involve that subject matter.
A good example of such a video (but relating to computer graphics) is this:
He tackles a similar subject matter but explains it much more interestingly, and actually teaches you interesting uncommon knowledge about how this stuff evolved in games and what its impact was. He approaches the subject matter like an expert, instead of someone who just knows a lot of examples of games that did X or Y thing.
I just feel like Ahoy relies entirely on acting like the History Channel while pandering to a video game playing audience to make his content interesting, instead of actually having interesting content.[/QUOTE]
The problem here is you're expecting too much. This isn't supposed to be like a very in depth thesis. It's supposed to be a mix between information and entertainment.
Think of this as more modern marvels than an actual documentary. Its boiled down with some elaboration and it's not supposed to be just straight up pure information being conveyed. It's intentionally paced as it is and jumps around a bit to keep a constant interest, sacrificing complete flowing information in interest of general arcing information all tied to one central aspect changing pace at times to introduce a new aspect only to have it tie back in at the end. It favors breadth and broadness over conciseness and specification.
It's like how you may say you like documentaries but then youd be in school and the tv gets rolled out and your teacher pops on a documentary about Mesopotamia and its just straight up facts with no underlying story at all just information. Those documentaries were downright awful but incredibly informative. He is not an expert nor is he trying to come across as an expert.
[editline]27th September 2015[/editline]
In my opinion Ahoy is very good at what he aims to be doing. Giving a lot of information in a small time frame while keeping it interesting and in depth yet brief. It's not meant to be an entire history but also not meant to be just bullet points all the while keeping a consistent tone and decent flow of interest and entertainment all centering around video games.
[editline]27th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=KorJax;48766115]I'm honestly not a fan of this.
It is extremely well made and voiced but I feel like it's written in a way you'd expect a high school paper on the subject to be written. Lacks focus, states the obvious a lot (which makes it not as interesting as it is framed to be in the production values), and I feel like the whole "cold war" angle that was introduced at the start was hamfisted in throughout the whole video to just give it unneeded historical legitimacy. The big point of the video appears to be "AI-behavior was invented in the cold war era, therefore here are some basic examples of AI in games"
I had the same problem with his other video on guns too. Really well made, but kind of seemed like it was written for an assignment to cover the bases rather than something that was trying to make real points/be informative/be engaging/etc.[/QUOTE]
I know im working backwards here but again, youre expecting too much and too seriously.
Its engaging but not stifling with information, also you judging the series based on one video. I assume you watched his breif history of graphics videos. Those were true to form, they were brief but very demonstrational, favoring showing you rather then telling you. He will mention the hardware but not with brutal details but with chopped down glossed aspects so its not bogged down and can flow on. But that series was exceptional with the information given and even showed you how the tactics and methods were employed.
I'm basing this criticism off his other videos too. I just really don't care for how he seems to force a certain subject matter in his videos without ever making real connections (or even interesting simple trivia) to said subject matter. It really just feels like most of the content is just examples with a lot of fluff words. It'd be like a guy making a video on the impact of the natural disaster on popular city and how the city developed after it over time, but then just spend the entire video talking about famous landmarks and examples of buildings that had broken windows.
There is a lot of interesting stuff that can be said about the cold war and video games, and even on AI (the subject of this video) which I was looking forward to seeing. But the content of the video is entirely just examples of AI in video games, presented in an extremely overly "please take me really seriously" tone (for the record, that tone is an aspect I really didn't like in History channel's Future Weapons show, it's very kitsch and forced).
But the tone isn't really the big issue for me. The big issue is that it [I]isn't[/I] interesting at all, unless you approach this video as a video game enthusiast getting off on the feeling self-aggrandizement, which is sad because the video is made so well on a subject matter that I'd love to share with my friends/family that have a much more casual relationship with games. If I showed this video (or his gun videos) to my friend who is only a casual gamer at best but would enjoy the general subject matter covered I guarantee he'd find these videos tacky and boring, because the content doesn't really go anywhere and it doesn't make those cool connections that so many other content creators do.
If this video was written out word for word as an article without the flashy production values would anyone (even those who could be considered fans on the subject matter) be engaged enough to read until the end? I doubt it.
Gotta' say, the degree to which this video relates to the subject matter is kinda' tenuous at best, and I found myself a bit disappointed as well...
Maybe they'll get more into it in the later ones, eh.
that was totally disjointed
Part 2:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za9V2ElxDLk[/media]
[QUOTE=KorJax;48773960]
But the tone isn't really the big issue for me. The big issue is that it [I]isn't[/I] interesting at all, unless you approach this video as a video game enthusiast getting off on the feeling self-aggrandizement, which is sad because the video is made so well on a subject matter that I'd love to share with my friends/family that have a much more casual relationship with games. If I showed this video (or his gun videos) to my friend who is only a casual gamer at best but would enjoy the general subject matter covered I guarantee he'd find these videos tacky and boring, because the content doesn't really go anywhere and it doesn't make those cool connections that so many other content creators do.
If this video was written out word for word as an article without the flashy production values would anyone (even those who could be considered fans on the subject matter) be engaged enough to read until the end? I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
Youre still expecting too much. This is meant to cater to gamers and its the literal demographic of the videos. Above all its more about tying it to video games than actually being comprehensive knoweledge on the gun or the artificial intelligence. You can't very well give a documentary on the history of the early FDA standardizing the meat industry in the first decade of the 20th century to a vegan or vegetarian who stands by the FDA and expect them to find it engaging just because the documentary also focuses on the birth of the fda beginning standardization for food all around within america.
Moving along i've actually done exactly what you said you won't do and have in the past linked two of his videos, the 1911 and the double barreled shotgun videos specifically to two of my friends who don't much care for video games but absolutely adore firearms and both loved them and in fact one of them was so intrigued with the double barreled video and its video game examples he picked up metro last light and serious sam because he loved how the guns looked in the games and the games themselves looked fun to him.
Now on to your final point where if you strip away the production value, youre more or less describing someone glancing over a wikipedia article. Which i think essentially what most people do when it comes to reading wikipedia articles. Personally and this is just an anecdote, fuck YEAH i'd find it engaging and i severely doubt that i'm alone in that. It also significantly helps given that these videos are about 10 minutes long give or take so even if they were transcribed the given material would honestly probably only be about a microsoft word document about maybe 2 pages long. That's light reading.
These are brief documentaries about subject matters that interest gamers built for a youtube format to cater to gamers and established fans of video games. These are kept short and breif and not meant to be comprehensive and complete, and they are not meant to be a de facto source for learning. Stop thinking they are.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
