• A Guide to Ending "Gamers" - "Fun is a neurological trick."
    182 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Turnips5;45857540]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[/QUOTE] They could criticize art, but they have to be knowledgeable of the context behind the art. If a cleric shouted that music was useless, satanic, and damaging to the mind, fans of the medium would be up in arms about it. They don't hate criticism, they hate baseless assertions from people who don't know what they're talking about. I'm a fan of Anita's videos, but I also noticed that she repeatedly ignored the context of games she talked about. Claiming that it was brainwashing didn't help either.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45857605]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.[/QUOTE] sure. well, sites like that are always going to have a fair amount of income from people who agree with their opinions and/or enjoy the content on their site, so it's not like we're going to be able to drive them out of business simply by not going to their website. I haven't thought that much about this part of the discussion, and I admit I don't care a lot; I'm more interested in what people think of the first part of my post [editline]1st September 2014[/editline] don't you also think it's heinous to have articles with titles that withhold critical information, AKA "...you won't believe what happens next!"? I feel like sites which do that deserve to crash and burn. perhaps you do already think that, since that's simply buzzfeed
[QUOTE=V12US;45857474]You're actively perpetuating this shit by linking and spreading the article. You're paying them for doing this.[/QUOTE] Gamasutra doesn't have ads and it's a community blogger who got a featured article, I fail to see how he's going to see any money from people reading this tripe. I posted it because I find it fucking hilarious.
why are these people who clearly hate the gaming industry keep being hired by and featured on gaming websites?
I guess this is why GTA V sold 1 Million copies in 3 days, because the trailers said that it was "Fun", which then automaticly triggered that part of your brain telling you to buy the game.. I mean really, Its not rocket science to explain that such a word is an opinion or a marketing way of saying "buy our crap'
The idea that "all games don't need to be fun" isn't a new one. And it's a valid point, I suppose, but like a few others stated on page 1, gaming is a hobby for basically everyone that uses Facepunch. Games can be provocative and ask big questions and even be social statements, but not every game needs to do either, and the idea that we need every game to be "healing" or "edifying" is just plain screwed. For a game to ask a 'big question' about politics, society, or existance or something like that is great, but at the end of the day, a lot of us want to shoot some dudes or crash some cars. Doesn't make us "straight white heteronormative bigots" or anything, just makes us people who want to enjoy a hobby.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45857605]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.[/QUOTE] People should have the right to refuse to sponsor someone they find disagreeable though. If this was about someone refusing to watch videos by InternetAristocrat or Thunderf00t, whose ad revenue is also tied to how many views they get, then that should still be fine.
[QUOTE=V3nom;45858276]Doesn't make us "straight white heteronormative bigots" or anything, just makes us people who want to enjoy a hobby.[/QUOTE] to be fair i think that this part comes less from the fact that people like fun games and more from the fact that online game servers have a bad rep, and the internet subculture in general (regardless of how deserving the community is of this reputation), for sometimes being full of racist/sexist/homophobic comments and attitudes, which could partially have something to do with the fact that a large key demographic for gaming is, in fact, straight white males. trolls and people who think that racism/sexism/homophobia is "le hilarious" also have something to do with it. again, this isn't a judgment on how the internet subculture or online gaming community [I]is[/I], but instead explaining things within the context of how they are [I]perceived[/I]. there are also problems involving trying to even out the ratio of male to female protagonists, the existence of female characters in videogames that are literally just walking pairs of tits, and so forth, but that has less to do with the community itself and more with the businesses trying to stick to comfortable formulas, such as "muscular meathead space marine protagonist" and "walking sex-appeal big-titted side character".
If Schindler's List can be hailed as an excellent film then a game that isn't fun can easily be an excellent game. I don't see what's so disagreeable about the overall premise here.
Bastion is a fun game. It's also a moving, thought provoking game. Why can't you do both?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/3P4Y7Tf.jpg[/t] Reminds me of /v/...
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45858744]If Schindler's List can be hailed as an excellent film then a game that isn't fun can easily be an excellent game. I don't see what's so disagreeable about the overall premise here.[/QUOTE] Das Boot is an even better example.
Jesus christ. The article should be featured on the Onion. e: REALLY. I thought the title was an opening line for something philosophical, not another bastard brainchild from the matriarchy..
Is it just me or does this article read like an industry shill trying to shove acceptance of shitty pay2win casual social games down your throat disguised as social justice.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45856607]why not[/QUOTE] Because politics belong in politics, that's why they're called politics, that's where the politics go to do political things, ergo, the name being politics and not literally anything else.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45858750]Bastion is a fun game. It's also a moving, thought provoking game. Why can't you do both?[/QUOTE] You can do both, and many games have. I've played games that I have found moving in terms of story and gameplay at levels other forms of media couldn't quite match. I have also played a lot of games that were fun, but the stories were not so great, and these probably make up the majority of all experiences. I can think of probably a hundred movies that I've seen that were incredibly moving, while games would probably be around a dozen at best. I have been playing games since 1994, and while games have grown expansively, their stories and scope have not received the same growth. Focusing on stories first would be a change of pace at the very least. Dear Esther wasn't the most fun game in the world, but it was a great experience and I enjoyed the direction thoroughly. An unfun game with a unique story or narrative is more unique than a fun game with a bad story, and that alone makes it an effort worth pursuing.
At the end of the day, that heroic feeling social justice advocates get - when shitting on peoples fun for the sake of inclusion - is a neurological trick.
[quote] We need to stop making games "fun", "fun" is fake and bad, instead, they must be "edifying", "healing", "pro-social", "enlightening" [/quote] Good thing these people aren't active developers then! :smile: edit: Actually, reading this, this seems to be exactly how Gone Home got its 10/10s and 5/5s
[QUOTE=ghosevil;45858787]Jesus christ. The article should be featured on the Onion.[/QUOTE] Game Garlic. The vidya gaem equivalent of The Onion. Y/N?
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;45858762][t]http://i.imgur.com/3P4Y7Tf.jpg[/t] Reminds me of /v/...[/QUOTE] You know "Journalism" is bad when it is [I]exactly[/I] like a post on /v/.
The point about being less shit to other people is a pretty valid one to be fair but it's not like that's exclusive to ~Gamurs~
[QUOTE=Kardia;45860202]At the end of the day, that heroic feeling social justice advocates get - when shitting on peoples fun for the sake of inclusion - is a neurological trick.[/QUOTE] Every emotion is a neurological trick, which means that it's all fakey fake crap, like fun is. My idea is that we should make games for robots so that we get a 100% objective view on what makes something good without that nasty "human brain" getting in the way.
Sadly there is only one game I can think of that I can't describe as fun, but was still an amazing experience as a game. The game is Pathologic and it really saddens me that people can't experience it like they should be able to, it's only game I've ever played that made me feel disgusted with my actions. Sadly the game was made in Russia and had the worst English translation I've ever seen, so for English speakers the immersion gets ruined pretty quickly by having to read nonsense and guess what it means.
All these articles over the past days have been coordinated to try to shit on gamers. I blame zoe. These articles are a neurological trick.
[QUOTE=Ziron;45860386]Every emotion is a neurological trick, which means that it's all fakey fake crap, like fun is. My idea is that we should make games for robots so that we get a 100% objective view on what makes something good without that nasty "human brain" getting in the way.[/QUOTE] Emotions contribute to suffering in the world.
[QUOTE=gudman;45860458]Emotions contribute to suffering in the world.[/QUOTE] What creates them is simply a neurological trick, which means they don't actually exist because of our dumb brains making stuff up. In fact, we should have our brains removed and replaced with artificial ones so that we can be no longer burdened with fake crap that doesn't exist in nature like emotions and social constructs.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;45858762][t]http://i.imgur.com/3P4Y7Tf.jpg[/t] Reminds me of /v/...[/QUOTE] To be fair, that's more of an (admittedly poorly constructed) argument that "fun" is a quality arising from good design, not an example of good design itself, and isn't constructive as an argument as to why a game is good.
[QUOTE=Ziron;45860531]What creates them is simply a neurological trick, which means they don't actually exist because of our dumb brains making stuff up. In fact, we should have our brains removed and replaced with artificial ones so that we can be no longer burdened with fake crap that doesn't exist in nature like emotions and social constructs.[/QUOTE] Or we could all take special pills once a day at a dedicated time. And have specifically trained people to watch over us.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;45860409]All these articles over the past days have been coordinated to try to shit on gamers. I blame zoe. These articles are a neurological trick.[/QUOTE] The latest InternetAristocrat video talks about this. There have been a fuckton of articles released simultaneously on multiple gaming ""journalism"" sites that tried to shit on gamers. Probably to get back at the gamers for the whole Zoe Quinn fiasco since they are left in such a precarious position and have no way to retort. Kind of pathetic, really. They probably realized that games are supposed to be an entertainment media as opposed of a communication media. Oddly enough, /v/ was happy that being a gamer is becoming a social stigma again. That way they can enjoy quality games without people meddling with them in order to make them appeal to a broader audience that doesn't care about videogames in the first place.
[QUOTE=Scot;45858123]why are these people who clearly hate the gaming industry keep being hired by and featured on gaming websites?[/QUOTE]This is something I just can't understand. These people who write/wrote articles primarily for gamers are now taking a massive shit on those same gamers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.