A Guide to Ending "Gamers" - "Fun is a neurological trick."
182 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;45865023]These people HATE video games. They hate people that play them. They hate the people that create them. They hate EVERYONE that isn't them.
And this is just more proof of that. Remove this toxin from the games industry. It has no place here.[/QUOTE]
I think as a subculture we need to start calling out posts like this more often because this attitude is why gamers are still viewed as being a bunch of immature entitled whiners by non-gamers.
"This person HATES us! Remove this toxic person from the games industry because I disagree with what he's saying!"
If you have a counter-argument it should be able to stand on its own without having to insult the person and actually suggest that they be silenced. How much have people here complained about Reddit "suppressing debate" on the Zoe Quinn thing? You're suggesting the same thing.
For christ's sake, cut the damned melodrama. Gamasutra is quite clearly staffed by people who like video games and they posted this guest blog because they felt it worthy of being posted. There is no attack on video games here, cut the shit.
The problem is that unlike a book or a movie, players expect to have at least some control over their own character's destiny, they expect to be able to run the story themselves to a limited extent and do not like when the character they personified themselves into is put into a situation they don't like.
This is why Spec-ops the line had people that got very upset or plain bored (me) with it, when you begin to realize that the really 'heart-wrenching' scenes are usually completely forced on your character and in proxy yourself, it completely loses any meaning, if you had no choice then it simply doesn't matter, because the game rail-roaded you into a decision you had no intent on making.
This is also why games like Skyrim are so popular, despite having piss poor combat, it lets the player completely personify his/her charcter and makes decisions that he/she would see fit, the story doesn't really force people to do anything at all and if they become a good or bad person, its because of the decisions they made that led them to that point, not because the plot demanded it.
Ultimately my point is, you can't have an 'enlightening game' that would sell well because believe it or not alot of people would likely go against whatever 'enlightenment' the game is trying to push forward, and when presented with the fact that they can't, they don't buy it and tell their friends that the game is pretentious bullshit.
Jesus people, let me spell it out for you:
There's literally nothing wrong with a game that includes political statements.
There's literally nothing wrong with a game that has nothing to do with political statements.
Games are a medium, you can do whatever the fuck you want with them. No, Bomberman wouldn't benefit from a critique on objectivism, but Bioshock did. There's a time and a place, stop generalizing that all games need to be a certain way.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45864997]Literally no one worth listening to is saying this or defending this and this is the fallback argument for everyone saying "Why bother critiquing it". I don't get why that's the end though. Why can't there be criticism levied that isn't that? Why is the criticism that is intelligent and thoughtful just dismissed as misogynistic or in defense of those who are?
The thing is, that if that many sites are all posting the same thing, they are influencing peoples opinions. They are. And those are clearly meant to influence peoples opinions. I don't know how you see that as something that's not trying to persuade anyone of anything.[/QUOTE]
i didn't mean to suggest that these articles or the people writing them shouldn't be criticized.
i just think that it's hypocritical to look at these articles, go "man these generalizations are so fallacious and rude", and then turn around and make angry hamfisted generalizations about feminism specifically because of the righteous indignation they feel regarding the article's content.
there are some people who want to take the anger that people feel about these articles and then direct it against feminism in gaming as a whole, as if to dismiss people's legitimate criticisms such as "why are there so few female protagonists in videogames and why do the female characters that appear either fulfill the stereotype of 'overly-aggressive man with tits' or 'walking pair of jiggling chesticles'", or "why aren't videogames more inclusive of women, homosexuals, or other minorities"
that isn't because those people are misogynistic specifically, rather it's because lots of people are afraid of change. that by somehow being more inclusive of people that aren't the target demographic, that it's going to turn games into something that they won't enjoy.
[QUOTE=joes33431;45865129]i didn't mean to suggest that these articles or the people writing them shouldn't be criticized.
i just think that it's hypocritical to look at these articles, go "man these generalizations are so fallacious and rude", [B]and then turn around and make angry hamfisted generalizations about feminism specifically because of the righteous indignation they feel regarding the article's content.[/B][/QUOTE]
And as I said, I'm not defending that.
What people are saying, like the two you made that quip about, is that there is clearly people who are making fallacious and rude sentiments and sharing them on very public platforms, persuading people to ignore the issue and just look at people in a certain light.
Those articles are about generalizing, those sites are doing it right now, and although I can't defend the generalizing of anyone in these circumstances, I can't say that you're getting the criticism.
[editline]1st September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=joes33431;45865129]
there are some people who want to take the anger that people feel about these articles and then direct it against feminism in gaming as a whole, as if to dismiss people's legitimate criticisms such as "why are there so few female protagonists in videogames and why do the female characters that appear either fulfill the stereotype of 'overly-aggressive man with tits' or 'walking pair of jiggling chesticles'", or "why aren't videogames more inclusive of women, homosexuals, or other minorities"[/QUOTE]
Yes and vice versa.
You seem very focused on one side.
I don't think they're trying to say that fun has no place in video games or that it's a quality of little value. I think they're just trying to say that games don't have to be fun to be good. It makes sense for things like horror games and art games, which aren't trying to be fun but can still have just as much value as the next arcade shooter to the right people.
Most people aren't saying there shouldn't be more women protaganists that are worth a damn and that games shouldn't be more inclusive.
We're in agreement, but apparently questioning the journalists, even questioning sarkesian brings about such a level of generalizing just like you're complaining the other side does.
You're not being impartial.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45865183]Those articles are about generalizing, those sites are doing it right now, and although I can't defend the generalizing of anyone in these circumstances, I can't say that you're getting the criticism.[/quote]
what exactly am i not getting
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45865183]Yes and vice versa.
You seem very focused on one side.[/QUOTE]
because the other side has already been said, and everyone already knows that these articles are wrong.
is it wrong to temper people's indignation with a warning against getting too carried away
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45865206]Most people aren't saying there shouldn't be more women protaganists that are worth a damn and that games shouldn't be more inclusive.
We're in agreement, but apparently questioning the journalists, even questioning sarkesian brings about such a level of generalizing just like you're complaining the other side does.
You're not being impartial.[/QUOTE]
i'm not generalizing anyone, what do you want me to say
do i have to temper every post with a disclaimer of "yes hello i also think that it's wrong to generalize sarkeesian's critics as neckbearded redpillers because they are normal human beings with varying levels of concern, some of which have good points to make"
because that's already been established in the thread by people who are not me and i don't want to be redundant
Who gives a fuck about some looney who thinks having fun is bad because lots of bad things can be thought of as fun?
[quote][B]We change the culture of game consumption to be less about buying and rating games, and instead develop a paradigm that is more about playing and thoroughly investigating games[/B].[/quote]
Just play your damn games and shut up ffs. Stop trying to extract the meaning of life from a bunch of pixels.
[QUOTE=joes33431;45865242]what exactly am i not getting
because the other side has already been said, and everyone already knows that these articles are wrong.
is it wrong to temper people's indignation with a warning against getting too carried away
i'm not generalizing anyone, what do you want me to say
do i have to temper every post with a disclaimer of "yes hello i also think that it's wrong to generalize sarkeesian's critics as neckbearded redpillers because they are normal human beings with varying levels of concern, some of which have good points to make"
because that's already been established in the thread by people who are not me and i don't want to be redundant[/QUOTE]
I guess I just don't appreciate the hypocrisy of defending one side only when they're both shitty.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45865418]I guess I just don't appreciate the hypocrisy of defending one side only when they're both shitty.[/QUOTE]
what
i'm not defending anyone
i'm literally just-
okay
here you go human abyss:
this article is an unfair stereotype of gamer culture and people who play videogames. it is wrong to use this article to suggest that it is representative of feminism as a whole. that being said, people who call this article out on its bullshit (or otherwise use its bullshit to generalize) should not be blanketed as redpillers or men's rights activists, which might be an origin point of this article's misaimed opinions. some criticisms are very well justified.
wow that was hard for you to not generalize and assume everyones in defense of death threats and attacks.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45865648]wow that was hard for you to not generalize and assume everyones in defense of death threats and attacks.[/QUOTE]
where did i even suggest that
what are you even going on about
are you referencing older posts i've made in other threads because if so i've changed my mind since then
i'm sorry okay please don't get the whip
sorry I'm just tired of seeing generalizations of both sides.
Everyone seems all fine and dandy to forget that even with scumbags on the "pro gamer" side, there's an equal number of equally vile and terrible people. And most of them are employed in the industry.
They don't need anyone defending them. No one should be threatening them, but they don't need people defending them.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45865764]sorry I'm just tired of seeing generalizations of both sides.
Everyone seems all fine and dandy to forget that even with scumbags on the "pro gamer" side, there's an equal number of equally vile and terrible people. And most of them are employed in the industry.
They don't need anyone defending them. No one should be threatening them, but they don't need people defending them.[/QUOTE]
it's okay, we all get worked up sometimes.
Why are you all getting worked up over this? I don't think this is like they want to remove fun altogether.
I think it's just like if movies were 97% dude flicks and cheap popcorn blockbusters and when people wanted to see more drama or experimental movies (and let the medium evolve) suddendly movie junkies screamed "B-BUT MUH ARNOLD SWARZENEGGER!!" and spat on movies like The Green Mile or Shindler's List. I dunno, I don't think people watch movies like The Godfather because they're "fun", but because they're engaging.
It's not like all games have to be painful to play, make you go into a guilt-trip of suffering and agony and make you cry for hours; I think the article just means that there should be more opportunities for complex, thoughtful games to be a thing (for variety's sake) and uptight, bitter gamers are an obstacle. And when that obstacle's main excuse is that they fear fun games need to be extinct, it's just silly: It won't happen, this is planet Earth, not Hipsterland.
I'm getting so tired of all this. So so tired.
Just play games that are fun. You play your games and I'll play mine but please stop trying to convert my games.
For example, this is genuinely upsetting: [url]http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/1/6094019/saints-row-sarkeesian-tropes-vs-women-volition[/url]
Most flicks are actually intended to be intruiging through the use of composition, otherwise all filns would look like a bad high school film project. I think it's trickier with videogames since they rely on the interactivity than scene arrangement.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45866088]Fun is literally the purpose of a game. To be entertained, to be told a story, or to have a chance to make your own story. Everyone has their own definition of fun, someone who plays FPS's might not necessarily be entertained by an artsy game, and vice versa; that being said. To discount the idea that fun is the purpose is ignorant.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with you. Games are designed to leave us feeling like we were entertained. I think the author is just saying that "mindless" fun (liking a game for the gameplay) is no more valuable than "interesting" fun (liking a game for its story/lore/artistry).
I also think he expressed it pretty poorly, considering literally anything can be broken down into a "neurological trick".
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45866496]The problem is, more and more devs are starting to overstate how "fun" their game is, especially indie devs who sit and think that "im an indie dev, my game is, by default, awesome"; which is leading to backlash against the industry as a whole, because the AAA devs are trying to appeal to a huge audience, and thus losing out on their niche, and the indies are overstating their appeal to their niche.[/QUOTE]
AAA gaming is pretty deep in the shitter tbh
what's funny is that the response of some indie devs is to make shit, but in the polar opposite direction
and then you've got people who make games like flight control.
nobody should have to pay for something like flight control.
I think focus on story ruined FPS games
You can't have a non alien/james bond/cowboy/spaghetti western game where you proceed to shoot thousands of people in the face. Many critics of Bioshock Infinite felt the story and gameplay did not mix, and a game like Doom or Half Life will never make sense with a serious/realistic political or meaningful story
[QUOTE=The Baconator;45867663]I think focus on story ruined FPS games
You can't have a non alien/james bond/cowboy/spaghetti western game where you proceed to shoot thousands of people in the face. Many critics of Bioshock Infinite felt the story and gameplay did not mix, and a game like Doom or Half Life will never make sense with a serious/realistic political or meaningful story[/QUOTE]
Why?
The only thing that changes is the perspective.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;45867663]I think focus on story ruined FPS games
You can't have a non alien/james bond/cowboy/spaghetti western game where you proceed to shoot thousands of people in the face. Many critics of Bioshock Infinite felt the story and gameplay did not mix, and a game like Doom or Half Life will never make sense with a serious/realistic political or meaningful story[/QUOTE]
It can be done but you're not actually improving the shooting by adding a story unless the shooting needed context to not be confusing (see Fallout 3/NV). Thing is, even when done right it's not actually objectively better, because it's a different kind of game now. So anyone arguing that FPS [B]needs[/B] more story/complexity is more or less saying "My heavy roleplay is better than your incidental roleplay".
[QUOTE=Jorori;45866006]Why are you all getting worked up over this? I don't think this is like they want to remove fun altogether.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what the hell is up with gamers lately but everyone just seems so [i]scared[/i]. Scared that feminists are going to take their games away, scared that gay people are going to force every character to be bisexual, scared that game dev company CEOs are going to be tarred and feathered unless they hire 50/50 men/women, scared that only walking simulators are going to get good reviews from now on, just fucking [i]scared[/i] little children. These last few weeks have been a great period of aging for gaming, only the aging happened in reverse. The image of gamers in the mainstream is at an all-time low and the blame isn't on the feminists or the gays or the "social justice warriors", it's on the gamers.
Maybe gaming journalists just just get together and make their own website where they just make articles for each other about what great people they are.
Can't these people take criticism without having a pity party every time they do?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45865062]I think as a subculture we need to start calling out posts like this more often because this attitude is why gamers are still viewed as being a bunch of immature entitled whiners by non-gamers.
"This person HATES us! Remove this toxic person from the games industry because I disagree with what he's saying!"
If you have a counter-argument it should be able to stand on its own without having to insult the person and actually suggest that they be silenced. How much have people here complained about Reddit "suppressing debate" on the Zoe Quinn thing? You're suggesting the same thing.
For christ's sake, cut the damned melodrama. Gamasutra is quite clearly staffed by people who like video games and they posted this guest blog because they felt it worthy of being posted. There is no attack on video games here, cut the shit.[/QUOTE]
Gamasutra and every other "gamers are dead" game site has quite plainly generalized an entire community and wish to ignore them. There is no debate here: they don't give a shit about what we have to say.
So it [I]is[/I] toxic, and they should be dumped for it.
[QUOTE=joes33431;45864653]"everyone that i disagree with is a social justice warrior and despite the fact that radical feminism has no power regardless of where i go i will continue to insist on talking about it"[/QUOTE]
So you haven't understood the undercurrent of what spawned these articles and you don't even know any of the major players. Please, tell me more about how qualified you are to judge the posts in this thread.
[QUOTE=DeandreT;45861465][QUOTE]We make gaming more like recreation or reading than it is like religion. What we’re seeing lately is not merely a mob of odd hobbyists frustrated by change, but an army of fanatics on what they perceive to be a holy crusade. These people have dogmatic views of what games need to be (a theological approach, to be sure) and they express a devotion to the game industry that makes Mitt Romney’s tithing look stingy.[/QUOTE]I think this one paragraph in the article can sum up the entire article itself.[/QUOTE]
the irony is too much [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-irony.gif[/IMG]
even comments on gamasutra are laughing at it
[QUOTE]Arthur De Martino
28 Aug 2014 at 9:27 pm PST
profile image
"These people have dogmatic views of what games need to be"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahahaha oh wow. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45868774]I think that story is the crumbs on top of the pudding. If your gameplay is shit, then the story might as well be shit. If your story is shit, but the gameplay is good, at least you've still got some semblance of a game. I just wish we'd get off the "ermehgerd grafix" train; i could give two fucks how it looks, I want it to play well first, graphics help with immersion, but im not going to be immersed if your gameplay is shit and your story is ass.[/QUOTE]
Fallout New Vegas's gameplay is very bad, yet the story and lore and politics are so good that many can look past the flaws of the gameplay itself.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45865062]Gamasutra is quite clearly staffed by people who like video games and they posted this guest blog because they felt it worthy of being posted. There is no attack on video games here, cut the shit.[/QUOTE]
Im sorry man, but when they are throwing rhetoric around like this:
[quote]Besides, what’s more “casual”: mastering a free mobile game over many years or spending a Saturday buying and exhausting [B]the latest murder simulator that you believed you were supposed to play[/B][/quote]
[quote]Violence in games is pervasive and toxic. Despite the skepticism the games press shows at every opportunity, it *really* looks like violent games *do* make us more aggressive and less empathetic.[/quote]
[quote]People passionately and regularly obsessing over brutalizing strangers’ avatars over the internet (in hopes of eventually doing it professionally) is scary and I deeply mistrust it.[/quote]
I have a very hard time believing that they appreciate where the opposing side is coming from, and they are very quickly starting to sound exactly like Jack Thompson and friends
[editline]2nd September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Baconator;45867663]
You can't have a non alien/james bond/cowboy/spaghetti western game where you proceed to shoot thousands of people in the face. Many critics of Bioshock Infinite felt the story and gameplay did not mix, and a game like Doom or Half Life will never make sense with a [B]serious/realistic political or meaningful story[/B][/QUOTE]
Spec Ops: The Line??
[editline]2nd September 2014[/editline]
or even Hotline Miami, which manages to present a very compelling story in a unique way amid[I] absurd levels[/I] of violence
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.