Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Impact1986;47215589]You still didn't give me an example of those video games with their very deep and very complex story and political, cultural and moral ramifications.[/QUOTE]
I find it hard to believe you haven't experienced a game with a complex and moving story, that explores philosophy, politics and/or ethics.
Deus Ex is a good example of a game that's fun to play but has a deeper meaning than just "shoot the turrists".
Pathologic is a game that could've been one of the best games in history, and has one of the deepest and most complex stories in gaming history imo, if IcePick lodge would've fucking bothered to get rid of the bugs, not even all the bugs just the game breaking ones, as well as hire a translator for the English version it would've been a 10/10.
I have no mouth but I must scream is also pretty moving.
Shit those are old games though let's do something recent. The Walking Dead is a game all about fatherhood, the gameplay is almost non-existent in the traditional sense, it's all story all the time! The part where the hobo says "ask not for whom the bell tolls" was deeper than I understood at the moment. At the time I thought he was saying it because he thought we were all going to die, but if you read the whole poem he referenced you'll understand more.
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
So he was also foreshadowing the choice I had a little bit in the future, and I chose wrong, felt pretty shitty once I had thought about it :(
I get that you prefer battlefield, CoD and other games that are just fun to play, but games that try to engage in other [B][I][U]experiences[/U][/I][/B] (got pulled over by the grammar police, fix'd) besides fun aren't a new thing and are personally my favourite type. I can't help but feel you're being purposefully obtuse by implying these types of games just don't exist at all.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;47216798]
I get that you prefer battlefield, CoD and other games that are just fun to play, but games that try to engage in other emotions besides fun aren't a new thing and are personally my favourite type. I can't help but feel you're being purposefully obtuse by implying these types of games just don't exist at all.[/QUOTE]
Fun isn't an emotion, smart ass. A game is either entertaining or it isn't. Maybe these pseudo intellectual bloggers should think about that some before they try to convince you that products in the entertainment industry should not be entertaining.
[QUOTE=V12US;47216929]Fun isn't an emotion, smart ass. A game is either entertaining or it isn't. Maybe these pseudo intellectual bloggers should think about that some before they try to convince you that products in the entertainment industry should not be entertaining.[/QUOTE]
I think game devs should create the games they want to create. Ice-Pick Lodge, a Russian developer, wanted to make a game that plays like a Russian drama, which is depressing, pessimistic and not in the least bit fun. Besides the bugs that got left in the game, it was a great experience, even if it wasn't a fun experience.
Do all movies have to be fun too? All music? All fictional books? All poems? They're entertainment as well, should we go sign a petition to ban all media that doesn't meet a certain fun level so all the pseudo-intellectual bloggers like Edgar Allen Poe can stop trying to infect us with his pessimism?
Uh. Actually yes. Otherwise we wouldn't be watching, playing or reading them. We do it because its fun, one way or the other.
Fun is subjective and different to everyone.
If something wasn't fun or entertaining we would not like it! Its the definition of the words!
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47217106]Uh. Actually yes. Otherwise we wouldn't be watching, playing or reading them. We do it because its fun, one way or the other.
Fun is subjective and different to everyone.
If something wasn't fun or entertaining we would not like it! Its the definition of the words![/QUOTE]
Something can be engaging without being fun, I think I've explained it pretty well already. I mean you can certainly have fun while reading Poe's work, or watching a Russian drama, but it definitely isn't the norm to have fun while reading about an innocent man getting buried alive or while orphans starve in the street in a play. The creators intend for you to feel sad, depressed, or disgusted.
The definition of fun is the enjoyment of pleasure, it may seem like splitting hairs but you don't technically have fun while crying your eyes out while watching something like Titanic.
Sad =/= fun
This has nothing to do with subjectivity either, every time I bring up these things the word subjective gets used like a shield. Yes everyone has different tastes, no that does not mean that every piece of media is fun if you happen to enjoy the experience.
Most people don't think Titanic is a fun movie, they think it's a sad movie, it makes them sad and cry. They still think it's a good movie though, even though it wasn't designed to be fun and they didn't have fun while watching it.
I think the word you guys are looking for is "compelling". There are a lot of games that aren't fun for the people playing them but they still do.
Go play Cart Life.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;47216798][...]
I get that you prefer battlefield, CoD and other games that are just fun to play, but games that try to engage in other [B][I][U]experiences[/U][/I][/B] (got pulled over by the grammar police, fix'd) besides fun aren't a new thing and are personally my favourite type. I can't help but feel you're being purposefully obtuse by implying these types of games just don't exist at all.[/QUOTE]
I think what you're missing is that all that is still squarely in the realm of "fun or not fun", just through different means than usual.
(I'm alleging you don't understand what "fun" means. If you enjoy something that is the very definition of "fun". The meanings of "fun" and "funny" are pretty far apart.)
If you want to look whether a game has political, cultural and moral [I]ramifications[/I] you have to create an analysis, and unlike the original research done for a review, such an analysis would fill pages upon pages of text because, unlike the "fun/not fun" or "emotional/not emotional" or even "having a certain message/not having a certain message", the truth that could be found in that regard exists far outside the medium itself.
I think absolutely no-one has here has a problem with a review examining how something in regards to how what you call "experiences" is done in a game and grading it on that.
What people have a problem with is if someone says "[This game [I]contains[/I] x, and since that [I]topic[/I] is bad [due to ramifications in the real world] I will grade it down.]" as opposed to "[This game does x, and since that's [I]done badly[/I] I will grade it down.]".
My conclusion here is that we need to discuss semantics a bit, since you seem to have missed to point of what most people are actually complaining about.
[editline]26th February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=uber.;47217234]I think the word you guys are looking for is "compelling". There are a lot of games that aren't fun for the people playing them but they still do.
Go play Cart Life.[/QUOTE]
Cart life is still fun though. It's just not made to be uplifting, and probably more fun in hindsight than when actively playing it (which still works for making it compelling since people thankfully don't completely rely on instant gratification).
[editline]edit[/editline]
If you want to find a game that's truly not fun (but still compelling), you need to look at those that are "played" for external rewards.
A good example would be the bonus point collection game Die Bahn made recently:
[img]https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQAa5rGvU6ccDZNQ&w=470&h=246&url=fbstaging%3A%2F%2Fgraph.facebook.com%2Fstaging_resources%2FMDE3NDExNDYzNjI1ODc5NzQ6MTE0MjU4ODMwMg%3D%3D&cfs=1&upscale=1[/img]
To collect bonus points, you use a virtual magnifying glass to hunt down the superfluous diaereses in a text (as the one shown above), which are in reality these two personified bonus points in hiding. It's [I]incredibly[/I] tedious, you have a time limit and at the end it gives you a score.
Is it fun?
In my opinion: Absolutely not. The game is utter garbage to the point where even the gamification with the score at the end doesn't make it a nice experience. It's definitely unpleasant.
Is it compelling? That depends, but it probably is enough for playing it a few times (probably more so for people who get bored less quickly than me).
Why? The reason for that is that by collecting enough of these points you can earn a voucher for a free train ride, [I]which is really expensive[/I].
As such, the game qualifies as compelling despite not being fun, and [I]that[/I] is not a good thing and a reason to mark something down.
To The Moon was one of the least fun games I've ever played and I would recommend it to pretty much everyone as a fantastic game.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;47217405]
A good example would be the bonus point collection game Die Bahn made recently:
-snip-
To collect bonus points, you use a virtual magnifying glass to hunt down the superfluous diaereses in a text (as the one shown above), which are in reality these two personified bonus points in hiding. It's [I]incredibly[/I] tedious, you have a time limit and at the end it gives you a score.
Is it fun?
In my opinion: Absolutely not. The game is utter garbage to the point where even the gamification with the score at the end doesn't make it a nice experience. It's definitely unpleasant.
Is it compelling? That depends, but it probably is enough for playing it a few times (probably more so for people who get bored less quickly than me).
Why? The reason for that is that by collecting enough of these points you can earn a voucher for a free train ride, [I]which is really expensive[/I].
As such, the game qualifies as compelling despite not being fun, and [I]that[/I] is not a good thing and a reason to mark something down.[/QUOTE]
This is where I would disagree with you, just because you are compelled to do something doesn't mean the thing itself is compelling. Nothing about that game has compelled you, an external source is what compels you. If you add an external incentive to anything you can say that it is compelling in that contex, and I don't think many people would think of going to a job as compelling. The money incentives are compelling, the way to get them are not.
[QUOTE=EditOutJ;47217517]To The Moon was one of the least fun games I've ever played and I would recommend it to pretty much everyone as a fantastic game.[/QUOTE]
But if you liked it, then you had fun playing it?
Like several things can make you like a game, the gameplay, story, and many other things. Fun just means you enjoy playing the game.
[QUOTE=doom1337;47217581]This is where I would disagree with you, just because you are compelled to do something doesn't mean the thing itself is compelling. Nothing about that game has compelled you, an external source is what compels you. If you add an external incentive to anything you can say that it is compelling in that contex, and I don't think many people would think of going to a job as compelling. The money incentives are compelling, the way to get them are not.[/QUOTE]
[I]Technically speaking[/I] the money incentives are explained in the game so I'd still consider them to be part of it, but I get your point.
Hm... to sidestep the whole definition issue it may be better to ask game reviews to judge whether a game is "enjoyable to the target audience" instead of "fun" then, and to explain why.
(On that note I actually haven't seen many people calling for reviews judging "fun" either. I saw more "reviews" pushing games that aren't enjoyable with the argument that "not everything has to be fun" in fact.)
It's probably not that related to GG in the first place, since the scandals were about distorted coverage due to external factors or considerations about a game's merit regarding its alleged impact on the real-world behaviour of people (which we know to be likely vanishingly small, due to what little research was done in that regard).
[url]http://shoe0nhead.blogspot.nl/2015/02/middle-aged-moms-white-washing-internet.html?m=1[/url]
I assume most of you know who shoe0nhead is but if you don't go watch her videos cause they're fucking hilarious
[url]https://www.youtube.com/user/Shoe0nHead[/url]
What even is this discussion? If you enjoyed playing a game, then you were most likely entertained, and if you were entertained you had [I]fun[/I] playing it. Doesn't matter if the game story is literally only about suicide and depression.
Basically arguing about semantics is dumb and pointless
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;47217749]What even is this discussion? If you enjoyed playing a game, then you were most likely entertained, and if you were entertained you had [I]fun[/I] playing it. Doesn't matter if the game story is literally only about suicide and depression.[/QUOTE]
I think people are really stretching the definition of "fun"
The game mentioned earlier, Pathologic, IMO, can NEVER be described as "fun", even if it's engaging. Most of the emotions it makes you feel are not "fun" emotions.
guys i thought this was supposed to be an echo chamber hug box
please start agreeing with eachother more in order to fit my narrative
[QUOTE=TheJoey;47217882]guys i thought this was supposed to be an echo chamber hug box
please start agreeing with eachother more in order to fit my narrative[/QUOTE]
At least it's not the Programming WAYWO or the anime thread :v:
yeah I don't have fun watching the Turin Horse but I love that film
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47217854]I think people are really stretching the definition of "fun"
The game mentioned earlier, Pathologic, IMO, can NEVER be described as "fun", even if it's engaging. Most of the emotions it makes you feel are not "fun" emotions.[/QUOTE]
If it makes you feel certain emotions, and you enjoy that the product can do that, you had fun. The only un-fun emotions I've felt in games is frustration over bad mechanics or boredom.
fun
noun
1.
something that provides mirth or amusement
2.
enjoyment or playfulness
according to the definition of fun, video games that make you feel sad are fun because it gave you amusement
if you didnt enjoy playing it but it amused you those are just two conflicting emotions you are having
but you do not necessarily need to call a video game or form of entertainment "fun"
"it amused me, i enjoyed it" is saying exactly the same thing but because english is weird it's still different
so i dunno this is dumb
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47217854]I think people are really stretching the definition of "fun"
The game mentioned earlier, Pathologic, IMO, can NEVER be described as "fun", even if it's engaging. Most of the emotions it makes you feel are not "fun" emotions.[/QUOTE]
The only one trying to stretch it here is you. "fun" isn't an emotion. you don't feel "fun".
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;47217971]The only one trying to stretch it here is you. "fun" isn't an emotion. you don't feel "fun".[/QUOTE]
Fun is something you own. I have a few funs.
Read this all the way through: [url]https://twitter.com/JamieWalton/status/566747058141663232[/url]
[QUOTE=Thlis;47218008]Read this all the way through: [url]https://twitter.com/JamieWalton/status/566747058141663232[/url][/QUOTE]
The person accuses an actual victim of having "damaged empathy", the fuck is that
How deranged do you have to be to believe Wu deserves empathy over actual rape victims.
[QUOTE=Thlis;47218008]Read this all the way through: [url]https://twitter.com/JamieWalton/status/566747058141663232[/url][/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/cxwXThM.png[/img]
The irony.
[editline]26th February 2015[/editline]
PS
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-jKOyM7XnY[/media]
[QUOTE=Thlis;47218008]Read this all the way through: [URL]https://twitter.com/JamieWalton/status/566747058141663232[/URL][/QUOTE]
By the way this is Jamie Walton's charity.
[quote]501(c)(3) NPO advocating for victims of sex trafficking. Drop in Center located in SW FL. Founded by @JamieWalton & @ThatKevinSmith. #SModCo's official [/quote]
[URL]https://twitter.com/TheWayneFDN/status/571005174652772352[/URL]
[B]Currently there is a crowdrise going on for it:[/B]
[url]https://www.crowdrise.com/gamers4twf/fundraiser/waynefdn[/url]
[video=youtube;UuiLZkDSXwE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuiLZkDSXwE[/video]
So does this mean SmodCo (and by extension Kevin Smith) is Pro-GG and/or is sick of Wu's bullshit?
[QUOTE=Fangz;47219538]So does this mean SmodCo (and by extension Kevin Smith) is Pro-GG and/or is sick of Wu's bullshit?[/QUOTE]
They're not afraid of mocking those who's been cruising for a bruising, and frankly that's what really matters.
[QUOTE=Thlis;47218008]Read this all the way through: [url]https://twitter.com/JamieWalton/status/566747058141663232[/url][/QUOTE]
This genuinely pisses me off, given Walton's history. Who the fuck is this Wu bitch to tell someone who had been raped by [I]twelve men[/I] and sexually trafficked at the [I]age of fourteen[/I] that she doesn't know what it's like to be a victim?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.