A Guide to Ending "Gamers" - "Fun is a neurological trick."
182 replies, posted
[QUOTE=doommarine23;45856871]Why does it need certain elements like a story or deep commentary to be art?[/QUOTE]
Nobody has said that though? That's not even what the editorial in the OP is saying.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45856897]Nobody has said that though? That's not even what the editorial in the OP is saying.[/QUOTE]
Because what defines Deus Ex as this highest point of gaming as an art form or media piece?
The only thing I could really think of, is the cool universe and story/commentary, so I naturally have to ask; what makes that art, and makes it the highest point it will ever be.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45856653]I've watched films which I would not describe as being "fun" films but which I have still enjoyed immensely. If you want to exclusively play fun video games that is fine but isn't there room under the sun for other sorts of games as well?[/QUOTE]
i think so long as you're getting something out of it then it's fine. like how lars von trier films might make you feel terrible but you're still watching an interesting film, and that's enough to make it enjoyable. so as long as the design and overall narrative play well with the medium, then you can still enjoy it on some level, even if you wouldn't call it "fun."
Variety is good but if people aren't making the type of media you want, the solution is not to get people to change what they're doing to appeal to you. Nobody is obligated to create your video game. The solution is to create the type of media that you want to see.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;45856905]Because what defines Deus Ex as this highest point of gaming as an art form or media piece?
The only thing I could really think of, is the cool universe and story/commentary, so I naturally have to ask; what makes that art, and makes it the highest point it will ever be.[/QUOTE]
Well it also naturally involved its storytelling into its gameplay in a way no other game I've ever played has. It's decision-making is mechanical, done through playing the game itself (as opposed to the Bioware "make a decision by choosing the good dialog option or the evil dialog option" school of game design). I think this is a conversation for another thread, though.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45856947]Well it also naturally involved its storytelling into its gameplay in a way no other game I've ever played has. It's decision-making is mechanical, done through playing the game itself (as opposed to the Bioware "make a decision by choosing the good dialog option or the evil dialog option" school of game design). I think this is a conversation for another thread, though.[/QUOTE]
I see, that is a fair point, yes I do apologize; I do feel that is fit for another thread. Honestly this article is long as hell and it would take forever to commentate on all of it.
[QUOTE=Cone;45856930]i think so long as you're getting something out of it then it's fine. like how lars von trier films might make you feel terrible but you're still watching an interesting film, and that's enough to make it enjoyable. so as long as the design and overall narrative play well with the medium, then you can still enjoy it on some level, even if you wouldn't call it "fun."[/QUOTE]
But here's the thing; Lars Von Trier movies and Marvel movies coexist just fine. There is no "not a movie" meme in cinema. Lars Von Trier doesn't get harassed by people for making so-called "non-movies" and people don't point at deep textual analyses of Lars Von Trier movies as examples of imagined Film Journalism conspiracies.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45856975]But here's the thing; Lars Von Trier movies and Marvel movies coexist just fine. There is no "not a movie" meme in cinema. Lars Von Trier doesn't get harassed by people for making so-called "non-games" and people don't point at deep textual analyses of Lars Von Trier movies as examples of weird Film Journalism conspiracies.[/QUOTE]
i know i'm agreeing with you. people who calls themselves gamers are 99% manbaby
I think honestly one of the biggest issues with this blog though is beyond having no sources or examples and literally just being a venting piece, is that he/she ignores that most of this is beyond gaming. Some of these are also just beyond silly
[I]We make and play fewer linear games about one person saving the world. Take a look at the people terrorizing games culture lately: they're almost all tyrannical brats with messianic delusions. Where do you think they’re learning this behavior from?[/I]
The issue is egotistical people that are assholes, but beyond that' because many people use games/movies/shows/etc as fun and as escapes from the real world. This goes beyond "linear games about one person saving the world" and in a way; aren't their fault at all. Assholes will be assholes and people using escapist materials will always do so. Games do not breed anything into you in this regard.
This entire article is pretentious and awful.
[editline]31st August 2014[/editline]
The idea of ending 'Gamers' is stupid and needless.
I am no longer a gamer
I am now a xeemer
Remember when Roger Ebert said "video games are not art" and everyone lost their shit? [I]This is what artistic movements look like.[/I] Lots of people are going to express opinions that you disagree with; this is a good and wholesome thing so long as none of the opinions expressed are verbally abusive or socially irresponsible. Being petty and dismissive:
[QUOTE=Banned?;45856513]Should probably use this link so you don't contribute to their traffic for clicking this shit.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mr. N;45856729]Why are you THE literal devil's advocate for everything awful and terrible ever on this forum.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pelican;45856741]every shitty news site and their psuedo blogger writers are trying to cash on "video games" now
rip.[/QUOTE]
is literally the only other wrong way to participate in the discussion. If people disagree with this article they can write out their own calm, thought-out replies instead of throwing their hands up and complaining about how everything is apparently all fucked to hell.
[QUOTE=Solomon;45857005]
The idea of ending 'Gamers' is stupid and needless.[/QUOTE]
It reminds me of those some of those edgy tumblr bloggers who ramble about heterosexuality not being real because of (some philosophical loophole or question here).
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;45857105]It reminds me of those some of those edgy tumblr bloggers who ramble about heterosexuality not being real because of (some philosophical loophole or question here).[/QUOTE]
Source pls, this sounds immensely amusing
The word "oppression" seems to have lost all meaning at this point. I really don't think most of these slacktivists really understand or comprehend what actual oppression is, they just echo their mantras of radical critical theory until they can't hear dissent anymore.
[QUOTE]Many of the alternatives will have similarly fuzzy definitions, but let’s aspire to qualities like "edifying”, “healing”, “pro-social”, or even “enlightening”.[/QUOTE]
"Man, when I shot that guy in the head, that was so enlightening."
Mmmyeah I don't see it catching on :v:
[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;45857241]"Man, when I shot that guy in the head, that was so enlightening."
Mmmyeah I don't see it catching on :v:[/QUOTE]
Perhaps a game trying to be "edifying”, “healing”, “pro-social”, or “enlightening” wouldn't be centered around murder-with-a-gun.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;45857131]Source pls, this sounds immensely amusing[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://lullabydust.tumblr.com/post/82702186562/why-not-ask-whether-heterosexuality-exists-are"]Here you go.[/URL]
If we're going by this article, you're not allowed (or supposed) to call a game fun. Fun games are not allowed to be fun. I understand that not all games are all about "fun" in the conventional sense, but it's bizarre to arbitrarily drop an entire word because "guys not all games are about fun."
If a game wants to be any of those things, then it can be those. We shouldn't try and dispose of a value that games have been built on (and have worked fine upon) for a long time.
[B]edit[/B]
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if a game wants to be less about fun, and more about story/atmosphere etc., or wants to shake up the norm, then just do it. You don't need to try and reform/dismantle an entire industry to do it. If your game is good, people will buy it. It may or may not be profitable, but if it's the message that counts, then the money is just a bonus, right?
[B]double edit[/B]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45857347]That's not what the article is saying at all though?[/QUOTE]
It's certainly what it's coming off as.
Well, I suppose, the intent is that "a game does not have to be fun to be a game and we need to stop thinking that". I discussed that before you posted, and, while true to an extent, most people play games for fun, it only stands to reason that most games then would try to be 'fun'.
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;45857311][URL="http://lullabydust.tumblr.com/post/82702186562/why-not-ask-whether-heterosexuality-exists-are"]Here you go.[/URL][/QUOTE]
All I see is a post questioning whether or not sexual orientation is a social construct. Is there some reason that that isn't a valid question to ask?
Then again, I asked why someone thought video games should necessarily be apolitical:
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45856607]why not[/QUOTE]
and apparently that is the dumbest post in the entire thread so the takeaway is that asking honest questions is a bad thing.
[editline]31st August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;45857332]If we're going by this article, you're not allowed (or supposed) to call a game fun.[/QUOTE]
That's not what the article is saying at all though?
[QUOTE=tirpider;45857265]Perhaps a game trying to be "edifying”, “healing”, “pro-social”, or “enlightening” wouldn't be centered around murder-with-a-gun.[/QUOTE]
There's several other genres of games that fulfill that criteria. They just aren't marketed in the AAA console industry. However, they're insanely popular in handhelds/mobile games.
I wonder why they want vulgarity to disappear entirely in the medium? Because it's harmful and brainwashing? It reminds me too much of religious zealots who rejected new music genres under the consensus that it was satanic.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;45856501]This week on I Can't Believe It's Not [URL="http://www.p4rgaming.com/"]P4RGaming,[/URL] some self-congratulatory hogwash
[url]http://gamasutra.com/blogs/DevinWilson/20140828/224450/A_Guide_to_Ending_quotGamersquot.php[/url]
While not actually being written by a [I]Professional Games Journalist[/I], this is a post that someone who works for Gamasutra thought was worthy of featuring.[/QUOTE]
You're actively perpetuating this shit by linking and spreading the article. You're paying them for doing this.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45856550]Dont bring your politics into my video games.[/QUOTE]
You probably dislike the "preachy" type of politics. It's safe to say that everyone finds it obnoxiously banal regardless of political affiliation. I would be lying if I claimed to love hearing people like Ted Nugent antagonizing liberals repeatedly.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45856550]Dont bring your politics into my video games.[/QUOTE]
Political themes/Themes that challenge political views [i]within[/i] video games wouldn't be an issue with me tbh, but im so sick of seeing the "gamer" demographic being used by various journalists, tabloids and bloggers to stir shit up in the hopes of furthering their own weird agendas or careers.
If its not: "Every gamer ever is a sexist prick!" its: "look at these weirdos lining up outside Game-station at night for this new game lmao" and if its not that, its my personal favorite: "Guns don't kill people, VIDEO GAMES KILL PEOPLE!"
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;45857105]It reminds me of those some of those edgy tumblr bloggers who ramble about heterosexuality not being real because of (some philosophical loophole or question here).[/QUOTE]
These "anti-gamer" articles just happened to pop up everywhere over the last few days, someone on reddit theorized that it was part of Zoe Quinn's antics.
[QUOTE=V12US;45857474]You're actively perpetuating this shit by linking and spreading the article. You're paying them for doing this.[/QUOTE]
Waiiiit so how is this whole "voting with our clicks thing" supposed to work, exactly? How do you know it's shit that isn't worth clicking on without clicking on and reading the article?
Cause it seems like what you want him to do is to [I]hide the existence of this article[/I] because you disagree with it but you should only really know that you disagree with it after you've read it yourself. So should the OP know that you, V12US, [I]would be displeased by this article if you ever read it[/I] and preemptively [I]not link the article to you[/I] so that you won't read it and find out that you disagree with it and, in the process, give gamasutra a single pageview? I kind of have a headache now and I would appreciate it if you could up my confusion for me. This is just like watching Primer.
people keep saying "video games can't be art until they're critiqued like art, therefore gamers are uniquely terrible babbies" but I don't see many critics featured on rottentomatoes - a review aggregator for movies - making political statements in their reviews. for example, I looked up "Lucy" and in all the reviews I bothered to check, I only found one example of something that could be construed as a feminist critique (someone miffed that Luc Besson loves shoving the camera right up scarlet johansson's ass, which is fair enough). for reference, this is the film that social justice circles were getting riled up about for racism because it's basically white woman shoots every korean person: the motion picture
I'm not saying that politics should stay out of reviews, but there does seem to be some disparity with how that political criticism is applied? like everyone accepts that film is a valid artform, but I don't see much mainstream discussion of the stuff that these people seem to have decided is compulsory for video games
[editline]1st September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45857531]Waiiiit so how is this whole "voting with our clicks thing" supposed to work, exactly? How do you know it's shit that isn't worth clicking on without clicking on and reading the article?[/QUOTE]
one person takes a screenshot and then others read it? it's not hard to minimise a site's ad revenue in this way
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45857347]All I see is a post questioning whether or not sexual orientation is a social construct. Is there some reason that that isn't a valid question to ask?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I think heterosexuality should be assumed to be a cultural invention until proven otherwise.[/QUOTE]
They don't say that the person's sexuality is being [I]influenced[/I] by their culture, they're suggesting that heterosexuality actually doesn't exist at all and is just a repression of a naturally bisexual state, which is absurd and would directly contradict the mountains of evidence that show otherwise. This person is clearly making an unfounded assumption to validate their own blatant insecurities, and ironically mirrors the very arguments bigots have been using against sexual minorities for centuries.
Instead of trying to "end" the "gamers" they should try to create a new community based on their views of what gaming should be. I don't understand why they feel they need to impose themselves on other people in order to show the world what they are trying to say... just make the games you think should be made and if people accept it then there you go, taking this extremely hostile stance towards such a huge part of the market makes no sense to me. Besides that, it seems like most of these articles are written by people who lack human experience. It's like they just view people as large groups and not as individuals in any case.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;45857540]
one person takes a screenshot and then others read it? it's not hard to minimise a site's ad revenue in this way[/QUOTE]
So I should never read any article I disagree with at it's original source? Who's going to host all of these reproductions of potentially disagreeable articles and is that host, itself, going to rely on ad revenue? Should the entire internet be mirrored on a separate server? Am I supposed to want to force everyone I disagree with out of existence by withholding their source of income? I don't want to do that at all. I understand what clickbait is and agree that shit like Buzzfeed has got to go but this isn't a discussion about clickbait this is a discussion about erasing opinions that you find disagreeable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.