another thing i find funny is when people defend playing $60 for console online play like poor sony can't afford to keep the servers running, despite the current service being terrible anyway. I really don't like how people think large multimillion dollar companies need our charity, it's just playing right into their hands.
[QUOTE]Whether you feel that qualifies my opinion or not is up to you.[/QUOTE]
No reason for me to question that. That's more than most here I'm sure. And I'm sure you have a lot of good insight too.
[QUOTE]In Hatred it is [I]actually[/I] the point of the game and, if you don't engage in violence, then nothing interesting happens ever.[/QUOTE]
There are very few shooters that are made where you're allowed to not cause some form of violence. Many of them make killing innocent people seem like clipping your lawn, even if they don't actively encourage it or make them a part of the gameplay. GTA5 is all about commiting mass robberies, though I wouldn't exactly argue that's equal in tone.
[QUOTE]My definition was specifically limited.[/QUOTE]
Semantics, but I just don't get calling something and then talking about how limited it is as that thing. I suppose I see what you mean though.
[QUOTE]The game's marketing was about 'kill them all - even the innocent - because fuck society'. That may be why people play it - but that doesn't mean that's what the game marketed itself as or is really about.
Unreal Tournament is used for people to burn their stress with, sure, but it's a game [I]about[/I] speed, accuracy, map knowledge, movement prediction, and overall technique.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you're like me and don't, but some people might find mass murder games theraputic. The game is all about heavy/death metal themes. Its pretty geared towards that kind of crowd. When the game was first coming out a lot of the creators talked about it, it's totally about 'kill em all' but it's more about the devs making some kind of statement with it.
[QUOTE]Also, I take issue with this statement. Hatred is specifically not 'the most violent video game'. There are games far more violent than Hatred; hell, the newest Doom is far more violent in every single respect. The reason why you think it's 'the most violent' is because its violence is one of the least justifiable. That doesn't make it 'more violent' - it just makes it 'more sadistic'. If it were intentionally cartoony or overdramatic in execution (other than the writing which takes itself seriously and without irony somehow? it doesn't feel self-aware and it's not written well, so it lands in an uncanny valley of 'is this serious or not' which is then immediately answered by the played-straight gameplay) then it would be 'twisted' and would fall into the category of games like Postal - where the point of the game is ostensibly to make the player laugh at the absurdity of it, which you can't do when you play your game straight.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say it's the most violent game ever? Maybe I was vague and worded it badly, who even knows really. But I totally agree it could be argued that (This is off the top of my head) Postal 1 is more violent in the context on its era, Harvester too, Mortal Kombat, Doom 4, and tons of other games.
I was saying that it's "Literally Violent video game: The Video game" because it takes all the dumb violent video game stereotypes you see soccer moms bitch about as if that's what games will make their children into, and just metabolizes it into this really edgey and corny game. It's a video game you'd find in some shitty FBI show investigating a killer gamer.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;53114494]isn't it called lightning in a bottle because it is one success story out of thousands of failed unknown ones?[/QUOTE]
Minecraft as a good example of true lightning in a bottle. It's a passable, decent game at best and yet Notch gets his dick sucked by a fucking candy dispenser. God I wish that were me.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53112841]Examples of inaccuracies regarding 'mechanics and aspects'? When I used to watch them their idea of 'how game design works' were all valid ideas and approaches.
Edit: Like, I mean, if I were to start a web series about basic game design stuffs and were to cover a topic like breadcrumbing then I'd be 'gathering and inventing' evidence to demonstrate the reward system and how it can be used and is used in various games. The 'inventing' would involve me setting up simple games to show how the breadcrumbs make the player want to follow particular paths or flows without them feeling 'forced to follow them' and the 'gathering' would be me just taking various footage from games that use breadcrumbing in various respects and going 'and here's some real-life examples where it was used'.
Delving into the philosophy I could see folks calling 'stretching' because we have to make assumptions about the people playing the game to get into it even though it nonetheless reaches back into the Skinnerbox-side of things ultimately where mounting rewards tend to create a cycle the player willing puts them in to obtain more of those rewards.
To sum up: What's your specific beefs because I'm curious and nobody's done more than say more-or-less 'eh they don't care about fact-based lecturing' when what I've watched of them shows that they care enough to actually go and verify as well as get footage to back their statements.[/QUOTE]
its been years so i dont have a list for you, but one example that stands out is that they used the Eve Online economy as an example for a point they were making and completely misunderstood key points and, because of the way they did it, undermined their entire argument. Like they were insisting that things that are money faucets are actually money sinks and shit because they've never played and just presumably invented how they think it works.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
