230 réponses à ce sujet

[TheChris92]

Sterling is completely wrong. The term has description just like any other, it's just being used incorrectly.
 
By that same token, I could claim that "homophobe" is utterly meaningless. but it isn't, it's just that roughly 100.01% of the people who use that word don't know what it means.

That was generally the point.

[Fast Jimmy]

Job? I didn't realize it was the job of a developer to make a complex game.

That's fair. But if you have complex mechanics and your fans enjoyed them and set the expectation that those game elements would develop, reducing the player's ability to use them as robustly as before is, in my eyes, a failure. Developers who do this always fail to set proper expectations, because they know potential customers hate being told customization and detail is being removed, regardless of the intent to improve the overall experience.

[TheChris92]

That doesn't make the term meaningless, it just means people don't know how to use it. Those are two different statements.

In the context of video game discussion, it's a term that has generally become meaningless, because of the aforementioned issue of utilizing it as nothing more than a label for people whom they don't agree with. Take that for what you will.

[TheChris92]

I'm pretty sure the ****** bat is the most tasteless thing in a game ever. Far more tasteless than anything in DNF.

Can't say I agree with that but.. [insert your post above here].

[DEUGH Man]

I wish more people thought like me. When I was playing Bayonetta and Mirror's Edge, I was impressed by the unique gameplay, and I was appreciative to have an experience that was different from the typical games I've played. I didn't think "Faith is weak" when I had to go around the guards to complete some missions, as opposed to fighting. I thought she was smart and resourceful, and I thought the same of the devs. Bayonetta is just a plain badass. There's no way around that, yet some people consider them to be sexist characters because they portray women badly. Life is better when it's simplistic and taken at face value, if you ask me. I mean no offense if you do see the characters that way; I just happen to not understand it at all.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

 Hatred was specifically created to oppose political correctness and all that jazz. it brought the "fight" to THEM, not the other way around.

 

I definitely don't understand this point. Hatred has been around as long as history. "Political Correctness" is an American political movement from the nineteen-seventies.

 

 

 

(And almost everyone that I know who opposes it does not do so out of hatred... if that's what you were trying to say.)

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

No, he's talking about a specific game called Hatred.

 

OH!

 

Okay, in that case I have no idea what that is.

[Seraphim24]

What does this mean? A video game is defined by interaction and control. Those are things that are not in films and to my knowledge have never been

 

It pretty much means exactly what it says, in terms of explaining it a different way however...

 

I suspect the evolution is something like movies challenge you in terms of discovering a plot or following a story to it's conclusion, but it's somewhat passive compared to being asked to directly succeed and conquer certain objectives and obstacles.

 

So, it seems reasonable to assume that you could simply pushing that idea forward and ask people to succeed at increasingly complicated and uncertain objectives and obstacles, such that the thing no longer resembles a modern video game in the same way video games do not resemble at all films.

 

Films are interactive to a degree already, basically.

[Seraphim24]

If you mean interactivity from a situation that encourages human participating in terms of interpretation then I agree but interactivity from a user interface sake, which is able to influence elements of the film by interacting with it? I would have to disagree there. 

 

Well no I don't mean in terms of interactivity from a user interface sake, I just mean literally in terms of mental/physical engagement interactivity. You could even just say it's energy consumption. Watching a film is not an entirely passive experience, you are actively using your brain and concentration to filter plot points, characters, ideas, scenes.

 

In comparison, a video game is just taking that one step further, instead of using the energy to pay attention to a guy jumping over boxes in an action scene, you literally are controlling and trying to jump. It's asking more and yet it's basically just moving the energy requirements around, I don't think it's a fundamentally transformative experience, more of a transitional one, perhaps. This is how the theory has come to me, at any rate.

 

TV probably requires less energy than film because characters, ideas, and themes are generally recycled. It's probably fair to say the fact that massive open world games trigger so many people's OCD reactions is because it takes an even greater amount of energy than most typical games.

 

Anyway, I'm getting way off topic because my only point was that the idea of saying Video Games are this thing and represent this and that's why we need rules about them is a pretty pointless exercise because people will simply create something just beyond video games and therefore just beyond the reach of that ideology.

[Seraphim24]

You said "restrictions people placed on films."

No one placed a restriction on film that it couldn't be interactive, that was inherent to the medium. Same for a novel (apart from choose your own adventure books which tend to be terrible).

 

Oh, well I meant in terms of content, not necessarily in terms of form. I meant restrictions (and more on topic) in terms of what should or should not be permitted in video games, much like with films in terms of not just MPAA ratings and all that junk but in terms of Studio control over ideas and screenplays and whatever else. Is there a tremendous diversity in terms of types of movies? Not really, there are action movies, independent movies, comic movies, romance, foreign movies, animated Pixar, etc.

 

I suspect people's frustrations in terms of those limitations has fueled video games as much as anything, and so basically all I was saying is if you do the same kinds of things in video games it will likely just fuel an alternative entertainment form to take it's place. It's not just extreme examples, but just someone who would want to make say a more Japanese type of game in the western video game world might get the same answers that Studio executives gave a person wanting to make Mario once upon a time "Oh, that doesn't fit our 5 categories."

 

How many AAA games are you allowed to make these days anyway, not necessarily regarding any particular issue but just in general? Open world, MOBA, RPG, 3D Zelda action, platformer, military FPS. It's suspiciously looking a bit like the film perspective.

 

The point was then if you insist on a bunch of limitations for video games (in the same way there are those limitations for films), then all you really do is set the stage for an alternative (perhaps even more interactive) form to take it's place (in the same way video games often displace movies)

[N7 Shadow 90]

'Social Justice Warrior' is an utterly laughable term. 'You try to make things more inclusive for people! DAMN YOU!'

 

Will never understand that term.

 

And, yes, I would imagine that making a game more inclusive will indeed increase sales. The safer and more comfortable more people feel with a game's content and attitude, the more it will be recommended in different social circles, surely?

[Seraphim24]

Anyway I'm not really so pessimistic about the potential for entertainment within movies, modern video games, or any of the above, necessarily. I am however, eternally pessimistic about the salience or likelihood of success behind control mechanisms for these various kinds of things, as not just the experience in entertainment but history generally bears out.

 

 The safer and more comfortable more people feel with a game's content and attitude, the more it will be recommended in different social circles, surely?

 

I am unsure about this as well, what is safe? Exactly? The absence of controversy? Isn't safe supposed to be realistic? Reality has controversy, so perhaps safe means right in the eye of the storm.

 

I would say sales are actually pretty closely tethered to how ambitious an idea is, it's something I read somewhere... the idea that taking chances is actually better sales wise for the most part. Isn't it more risky to do what everyone else is doing? Then you are guranteeing yourself a great deal of competition, which is actually a very risky move, paradoxically.