Your video game hot take(s) thread

[BrawlMan]

I haven't played Flower or Journey. SotC maybe. As they say on Wikipedia I could improve the list by expanding it.

I mean, "hot takes" and all that, a piece of art is unique in presenting the vision of its creator. Video games are first and foremost digital toys. Some are technically impressive, some have a quality story, terrific graphics, acting, and the gameplay can be fun and engaging, but I see elaborate toys. I'd actually say I'm a bit lenient on Spec Ops: The Line because frankly the simulation elements are all G.I. Joe stuff to sell the game. Then there are so-called "art games" that are oftentimes barely games at all. So that leaves us only a narrow definition: a digital toy that is clearly a toy but also brings about the artist's vision to the audience like in other mediums. Also playing through the game yourself is imperative to the experience (this is why Undertale and Portal are such prime examples while a game like Limbo is not).

Naturally it's just my opinion about a subjective thing and I'm not gonna dismiss someone's different feelings. Art is supposed to make you feel after all.

Your entitled to your opinion, but it sounds like nothing more than "high" art gate keeping bullshit to me. As far as the toys argument, you are not exactly wrong, but things have changed since the rise of the 8bit era. These games can be more than toys, and much more. They have meaning even if you can't see it for yourself. Not all of them, but many of them do or still do so now. I remember when Movie Bob had the video games are toys argument back in 2008, and got backlash for that. Though his argument was hypocritical and on the worst end of the spectrum.

 

[McElroy]

I don't see what makes playing through Portal imperative to the experience.

Watching somebody play a puzzle game sure is an experience. You get no feel of it, observations aren't really yours, detachment from gameplay. Watching a demo through anything with trial and error is pretty pointless.

 

[Bedinsis]

Watching somebody play a puzzle game sure is an experience. You get no feel of it, observations aren't really yours, detachment from gameplay. Watching a demo through anything with trial and error is pretty pointless.

Okay, then why did Limbo not fit that criteria?

 

[Trunkage]

I just found myself chuckling at "has art in it, isn't art"

I think of Bond was very not High Arts. But you'd still probably have to call it art because movie.

Why am I talking about Bond? Because Alpha Protocol needs to be on that art list... at least for it's story.

Also Thomas was Alone
Disco Elysium

 

[McElroy]

Okay, then why did Limbo not fit that criteria?

It's not a prime example because of its simplicity; you go from left to right and sometimes follow scripted events. However, I must admit I've played Limbo about 50% through (in 2012, I think).

 

[happyninja42]

I think of Bond was very not High Arts. But you'd still probably have to call it art because movie.

Why am I talking about Bond? Because Alpha Protocol needs to be on that art list... at least for it's story.

Also Thomas was Alone
Disco Elysium

For me, any creative product of any medium, made with the hope of evoking an emotional reaction in the audience, is art. You might not LIKE it, for example I find most sculptures and paintings to be highly overrated in our culture, but I don't say they aren't art. It's just art I don't care for. You can say it's not GOOD art sure, though honestly even that's a stretch, because art is so subjective, and basically just boils down to opinion vs opinion, which I try and avoid doing, as it's ultimately futile. I will cry at music, I will cry at films/tv (usually do the soundtrack synching with a scene well), but you show me the mona lisa, or some interpretive scuplture and I'm like "yeah....and?" They just don't do it for me.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

For me, any creative product of any medium, made with the hope of evoking an emotional reaction in the audience, is art. You might not LIKE it, for example I find most sculptures and paintings to be highly overrated in our culture, but I don't say they aren't art. It's just art I don't care for. You can say it's not GOOD art sure, though honestly even that's a stretch, because art is so subjective, and basically just boils down to opinion vs opinion, which I try and avoid doing, as it's ultimately futile. I will cry at music, I will cry at films/tv (usually do the soundtrack synching with a scene well), but you show me the mona lisa, or some interpretive scuplture and I'm like "yeah....and?" They just don't do it for me.

I’d also say that good art also sparks either critical or imaginative thought processes.

 

[happyninja42]

I’d also say that good art also sparks either critical or imaginative thought processes.

Yeah but, I mean it's still subjective to the person. For me personally, those avant garde type pieces, where it's like, a single blue dot in the middle of a blank canvas or whatever, do nothing. For someone they are worthy of hours of debate, but, not my jam. You will never get me to agree it's GOOD art, but I won't fault you for liking it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think just because something has artistic input doesn't mean the result is art.
Movies, like videogames, are composites of different classical artistic mediums (writing, acting, scoring, etc.).
Whether they eventually add up to a work of art boils down to whether they're driven by artistic vision or not.
Vision being worthy of an individual guiding idea or imagination that feeds every decision in the work itself.
Everything in a work of art should emanate from that founding vision, or viceversa: the artist discovers vision by work, and not the other way around.
Either way art entails a unique personal experience for the artist and hopefully anyone who experiences it. Doesn't matter if you like it or if you agree with it. It could only come from this one person, and you experience it as your own person.
And yes, anything that comes from a group or team of people is invariably led by a director. The director makes sure everyone shares a vision, and works towards fulfilling it.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Yeah but, I mean it's still subjective to the person. For me personally, those avant garde type pieces, where it's like, a single blue dot in the middle of a blank canvas or whatever, do nothing. For someone they are worthy of hours of debate, but, not my jam. You will never get me to agree it's GOOD art, but I won't fault you for liking it.

I reserve some partiality for the kind of art that messes with your head; especially optical illusion the stuff. There’s also a puzzle game loosely based on similar ideas called The Bridge. Never got around to finishing it though. *sigh* Someday.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Merry Christmas. Here's God of War 2018's timeline hot off the press if anyone's interested -

Spoiler

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Spoiler: continued

 

[Dalisclock]

Another fresh hot take because Crimmis.

The Zelda timeline is messy, convoluted and unneeded, especially considering it's unlikely the game devs ever really cared much about which games connect to which other games and how to begin with. Zelda games don't have much plot or characterization and trying to force them into a timeline when almost everything is mostly static or repeating from game to game is a waste of effort. That's not to say the games aren't a lot of fun but continuity for story or even gameplay elements is by far one of it's weakest points.

I also find it amusing that nobody gives a shit about trying to wedge the Mario games into a timeline but Zelda apparently makes it a hobby for some people.

Fight me.

 

[Hawki]

I also find it amusing that nobody gives a shit about trying to wedge the Mario games into a timeline

Oh you poor naieve fool...


But Mario aside:

The Zelda timeline is messy, convoluted and unneeded, especially considering it's unlikely the game devs ever really cared much about which games connect to which other games and how to begin with. Zelda games don't have much plot or characterization and trying to force them into a timeline when almost everything is mostly static or repeating from game to game is a waste of effort. That's not to say the games aren't a lot of fun but continuity for story or even gameplay elements is by far one of it's weakest points.

So, you're right that the Zelda timeline is convoluted. However, the idea of fitting them into a timeline was something that the series kind of brought on itself given that some games clearly connected to each other. If there was a clear divide between the Zelda games like, say, Final Fantasy or Fire Emblem (where the settings are explicitly separated), this wouldn't have happened, but still, it became clear that the installments were, ahem, 'linked.'

Also, I disagree that the games lack plot and characterization. Some definitely do, but others definitely don't. And like a lot of IPs, the games incorporated more of both into their installments as time went on.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

The problem is none of these developers ever planned for any of these IPs to still be around, and furthermore having to pull some kind of story outta their butts for each successive game. I suppose they get credit for trying, but when even Christmas itself has fallen victim to the almighty dollar it’s futile to think entertainment itself can keep up with a modicum of practicality.

 

[Hades]

Another fresh hot take because Crimmis.

The Zelda timeline is messy, convoluted and unneeded, especially considering it's unlikely the game devs ever really cared much about which games connect to which other games and how to begin with. Zelda games don't have much plot or characterization and trying to force them into a timeline when almost everything is mostly static or repeating from game to game is a waste of effort. That's not to say the games aren't a lot of fun but continuity for story or even gameplay elements is by far one of it's weakest points.

I also find it amusing that nobody gives a shit about trying to wedge the Mario games into a timeline but Zelda apparently makes it a hobby for some people.

Fight me.

I guess its because there's not much to say about any Mario timeline. Its pretty apparent Bowser kidnaps Peach about once a week so any game can take place at any point in Mario's life. With Zelda centuries pass and some games have a connection to other games in the series while other games do not.

That said I do agree. I hold very little regard for any Zelda timeline and I doubt Nintendo does either. For me its enough that Wind Waker directly follows Ocarina of time because that's an important plot point. Anything else is just window dressing.

 

[meiam]

Merry Christmas. Here's God of War 2018's timeline hot off the press if anyone's interested -

Spoiler

View attachment 2270View attachment 2271View attachment 2272

I wasn't really planning on getting a PS5, but I'm gonna have to juts to play the next GoW. I'm still impressed at how well they soft rebooted the franchise without discarding the previous game.

 

[Dalisclock]

Oh you poor naieve fool...


But Mario aside:



So, you're right that the Zelda timeline is convoluted. However, the idea of fitting them into a timeline was something that the series kind of brought on itself given that some games clearly connected to each other. If there was a clear divide between the Zelda games like, say, Final Fantasy or Fire Emblem (where the settings are explicitly separated), this wouldn't have happened, but still, it became clear that the installments were, ahem, 'linked.'

Also, I disagree that the games lack plot and characterization. Some definitely do, but others definitely don't. And like a lot of IPs, the games incorporated more of both into their installments as time went on.

I'm not gonna say I'm an expert on Zelda(one of my goals this year is to catch up on the major titles) but none of them strike me as being particular plot or character heavy even from watching videos talking about them and only like 3 or 4 of them seem to reference other games in any capacity(Wind Waker is apparently the most notable example).

Everything else is more or less stand-alone and the series has this awkward issue of introducing new elements or modifying old ones and it's always been like that from then on. Zoras go from always chaotic evil mooks to a race and culture of their own, apparently at some point evolving into bird people, The Master Sword appeared in Link to the Past and has thus always existed despite not being the previous games before then, the Gorons appeared out of the whole cloth along with the Gerudo in Ocarina of Time, etc etc. Not to mention the map changes from game to game for the same alleged nation/land and just roll with it okay(Zelda 2 to Link to the past being a jarring example)

It just comes across that Nintendo carries across common elements from game to game and only much later attempts to shoehorn them into some kind of order much, much later down the line because fans weren't satisfied with making up thier own headcanon for the games anymore.

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm not gonna say I'm an expert on Zelda(one of my goals this year is to catch up on the major titles) but none of them strike me as being particular plot or character heavy even from watching videos talking about them and only like 3 or 4 of them seem to reference other games in any capacity(Wind Waker is apparently the most notable example).

Everything else is more or less stand-alone and the series has this awkward issue of introducing new elements or modifying old ones and it's always been like that from then on. Zoras go from always chaotic evil mooks to a race and culture of thier own, apparently at some point evovling into bird people, The Master Sword appeared in Link to the Past and has thus always existed despite not being the previous games before then, the Gorons appeared out of the whole cloth along with the Gerudo in Ocorina of Time, etc etc the list goes on). Not to mention the map changes from game to game for the same alledged nation/land and just roll with it okay(Zelda 2 to Link to the past being a jarring example)

It just comes across that Nintendo carries across common elements from game to game and only much later attempts to shoehorn them into some kind of order much, much later down the line because fans weren't satisfied with making up thier own headcanon for the games anymore.

If you think that's bad, wait until you see the Devil May Cry & Ninja Gaiden timeline. Though not as bad, NG/DOA suffers more from this than DMC. Capcom more or less fixed the issues they caused.

​

 

[Hawki]

I'm not gonna say I'm an expert on Zelda(one of my goals this year is to catch up on the major titles) but none of them strike me as being particular plot or character heavy even from watching videos talking about them and only like 3 or 4 of them seem to reference other games in any capacity(Wind Waker is apparently the most notable example).

Much to learn you have, Grasshopper.

Okay, let's start with referencing other games. Leaving out any mention of the official timeline, how do the games reference each other? Well, going through chronological release order:

-Adventure of Link is a direct sequel to the first game

-Link's Awakening takes place after "a" game, in that he's already defeated Ganon. Most at the time guessed (correctly) that it took place after A Link to the Past.

-Ocarina of Time, even at the, um, time, was seen as taking place before all the other games. It's also at this point that the LoZ series really starts putting attention on narrative.

-Majora's Mask takes place directly after OoT.

-Oracle of Seasons/Ages were oddities at the time. I don't recall there being much consensus back then as to when they took place. After Link's defeated Ganon, yes, but that's really the only reference we had.

-Skipping around a bit, but then there's Four Swords, Four Swords Adventures, and Minish Cap. These games didn't relate to much outside their arc, but did relate within it. Minish Cap came first (which sets the stage for FS as part of its plot), then Four Swords, then Four Swords Adventures.

-Wind Waker takes place after Ocarina of Time, since OoT sets the stage for WW's backstory. Again, skipping ahead a bit, Phantom Hourglass takes place a few months after Wind Waker, and Spirit Tracks explicitly takes place a few generations after Phantom.

-Twilight Princess is a bit weird, in that it does take place after OoT if you squint, but only if you squint. We now know that Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are kind of 'parallel stories,' in that they both deal with Ganondorf after OoT, and in different ways, but Wind Waker leans on OoT far more heavily than TP does.

-Skyward Sword takes place at the beginning of everything. Even without an official timeline, it's explicitly an origin story for the entire series.

-A Link Between Worlds takes place explicitly after A Link to the Past (at the start of the game, you can see a summation of LttP), and Tri-Force Heroes happens a few months after ALBW

-Breath of the Wild takes place insanely far in the future, with elements of all three timelines. And Age of Calamity is an explicit prequel to the game (I think).

So, yeah. All of that is apparent without there being an official timeline. Prior to that, people debated how the overall game series linked together. Some imagined a single timeline, some a split timeline, no-one ever guessed about a third timeline (which, in fairness, is Nintendo pulling stuff out of its arse). However, the above are why the idea of "each game is its own Link/story" doesn't work, because there was always connectivity between games. Even with different Links, that still doesn't work, because for instance, OoT and WW Links are separate, but Wind Waker explicitly occurs after OoT.