Your video game hot take(s) thread

[hanselthecaretaker]

Fans of GTA should probably condition themselves to the strong possibility that GTA6 will be a hollow shell of what the series is known for, if it even sees a release. We could at best be looking at not only a smaller scale, possibly episodic single player aspect, but also loaded with MTX’s right off the bat. The creative process and sheer attention to detail the series is known for could be anyone’s guess as well after the quiet exits of both Dan Houser and Lazlow Jones last year.

It really leaves undoubted creative black holes for any future expectations. The fact that they were quiet exits leads one to believe that, other than the controversies and increasing pressures surrounding the crunch atmosphere (especially after RDR2), Take 2 wants to go in a very different direction than the vast single player narratives they defined their games with. We only need to look at the insane milking of GTAV Online for a grim indication. Shark cards, anyone?

The sliver of hope would be that Rockstar is as of yet still a huge company with thousands of people, and Sam Houser is still there, but he has always had more of a business role. Hopefully he still has enough pull to keep the single player aspects of their games in line with what fans have always expected, but I’m not getting my hopes up too high. If we start hearing about a ton of layoffs in the near future, that would pretty much spell end-game for them and a huge nail in the coffin for single player projects.

How Dan Houser & Lazlow's Departure Will Change GTA 6

GTA VI will see changes in its narrative style.

screenrant.com

 

[Gyrobot]

I kind of saw the writing on the wall, it will be little more than a checkmark list of market appeals and none of enthusiastic satire of Americana. gTA is no longer the edgy teenager stirring up controversy. It's the creepy little weeb games who can't stop talking how awesome it is to have an erection or the toothless QAnon alt right types who don't make any genuine attempt to intimidate the politically incorrect society.

 

[Crystal Violet]

Invisible war was a good deus ex game

I liked it too. Up yours, haters.

It may however be because I never played the original.

The Last of Us was never that good. Miserable and predictable with unlikable characters. Yes I was hating on The Last of Us series before it was cool.

I have friends who will not talk about video games with me because I said it was shit. I think everyone else was playing a different Last of Us to me.

 

[Inazuma1]

but in V the devs have nothing but contempt for young millenials, famous celebrities, "hipsters," and every other group that lands in the firing line.

To be fair, having contempt for such people isn't a bad thing. They certainly deserve it most of the time due to either smugness, arrogance, or entitlement. I'm sure anyone who played GTA V wanted to give Jimmy a full course serving from the buckshot buffet. At least Lamarr was a walking meme machine with his voice lines. Jimmy is an absolute waste of time and only survives thanks to plot armor.

 

[Gyrobot]

To be fair, having contempt for such people isn't a bad thing. They certainly deserve it most of the time due to either smugness, arrogance, or entitlement. I'm sure anyone who played GTA V wanted to give Jimmy a full course serving from the buckshot buffet. At least Lamarr was a walking meme machine with his voice lines. Jimmy is an absolute waste of time and only survives thanks to plot armor.

What the person meant by the satire was just how contemptuous it was of the things it made fun of. Compare Ammunation's older ads (spoofing american jingoism by empowering people to buy guns to the apocalypse prep kit that creates an me vs them mentality). For Jimmy, you could have had him as a satire of both the gamer slacker and someone who talks big about wanting to stick it to the rich people in the financial sector, knowing full well how his dad got it made using heist money but can't because you know...FIB is probably reading this conversation and Dave is reminding Jimmy not to ruin everything his dad had done.

That kind of satire that is absent in GTAV

 

[Catfood220]

I have friends who will not talk about video games with me because I said it was shit. I think everyone else was playing a different Last of Us to me.

Oh yeah, I have had really heated arguments with my friend who believes it to be the best game ever. I think this is what made me dislike the game even more, the way that people react if you said anything about The Last of Us that wasn't the most gushing of praise.

Mind you, I bought some of it on myself. When I was feeling in a troll-ish mood. I'd go onto Youtube, go onto a Last of Us video and write something like "The Last of Us isn't that good" and watch the replies roll in Since the second game tanked the series reputation, it doesn't work as well

 

[Crystal Violet]

To be fair, having contempt for such people isn't a bad thing. They certainly deserve it most of the time due to either smugness, arrogance, or entitlement.

This might be true to some instances if we speak of celebrities but anti-millennial feelings are just horse shit. The smugness is of the generation X and boomer gens who got their properties and permanent jobs before the succession of financial crisis damaged the hope of most people at my age.

Oh yeah, I have had really heated arguments with my friend who believes it to be the best game ever. I think this is what made me dislike the game even more, the way that people react if you said anything about The Last of Us that wasn't the most gushing of praise.

I think this hurts gaming all together because it lowers the standard we expect. When people say The Last of Us was a storytelling master piece I ask if they have ever read a book? Have they watched a movie that was not Infinity Ward? Gamers can be so defensive about that very mediocre story. How can story telling in games improve if we praise mediocrity?

Since the second game tanked the series reputation, it doesn't work as well

Did it tank? I have heard only praise for it. There were the usual stupid criticisms from the misogynist and anti-trans idiots but I did not perceive that this affected sales or critical reception too much.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I think this hurts gaming all together because it lowers the standard we expect. When people say The Last of Us was a storytelling master piece I ask if they have ever read a book? Have they watched a movie that was not Infinity Ward? Gamers can be so defensive about that very mediocre story. How can story telling in games improve if we praise mediocrity?

Because who gets to decide that? We like what we like, and treating entertainment as some sort of measurement of intelligence says more about that person than the one who apparently needs to read a book.

Thinking of someone who really, really likes The Last of Us, even its shit sequel, as lowering the standard is incredibly smug to put it kindly.

 

[Crystal Violet]

Because who gets to decide that? We like what we like,

Of course it is subjective. I do not think it is bad at all to like The Last of Us and I have never judged for liking it. I have been judged for not liking it. I cannot argue something so subjective well but I argue that when we say it is a masterpiece we say this is the gold standard for story telling. Maybe you do think it is a masterpiece, I would disagree but that's ok, but I think that in comparison to the standards of story telling both within games and in other media that it is mediocre.

and treating entertainment as some sort of measurement of intelligence says more about that person than the one who apparently needs to read a book.

Please do not misrepresent my argument as I never brought intelligence into it. I simply say that story telling in games has a lot to catch up with books and films and I cannot understand how people who have been exposed to better stories could declare the Last of Us a masterpiece.

If the type of media we like is a measure of intelligence then there is no hope for me.

Thinking of someone who really, really likes The Last of Us, even its shit sequel, as lowering the standard is incredibly smug to put it kindly.

That is not what I said. The context was a response to catfood220 about people who are angry when you say you don't like it. And it is not liking a game that lowers standards of expectation, I never said that. It is declaring a game a masterpiece that sets the standard and since catfood and I both believe the story is mediocre I argue that it sets the standard low for what we should aim.

Please read my posts correctly before you try to comment on them.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I think this hurts gaming all together because it lowers the standard we expect. When people say The Last of Us was a storytelling master piece I ask if they have ever read a book? Have they watched a movie that was not Infinity Ward? Gamers can be so defensive about that very mediocre story. How can story telling in games improve if we praise mediocrity?

So much this. I played the 1st Nier because it was supposed to be the best video game story EVER (and TLOU was said to have ripped it off, no joke) and it's an average anime type story with decently entertaining characters. TLOU is just overall solid story/characters (maybe 8/10 at best), it's nothing too amazing. Bioshock gets all this praise for it's story, but it's probably the worst assassination plot I've ever seen, it all falls apart if you think half a second about anything, Infinite is a mess but that has a better overall story.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Of course it is subjective. I do not think it is bad at all to like The Last of Us and I have never judged for liking it. I have been judged for not liking it. I cannot argue something so subjective well but I argue that when we say it is a masterpiece we say this is the gold standard for story telling. Maybe you do think it is a masterpiece, I would disagree but that's ok, but I think that in comparison to the standards of story telling both within games and in other media that it is mediocre.

Anyone can only ever speak for themselves and their own experiences in storytelling. And if by your standards TLoU is mediocre, then equally by someone else's stadards it's actually a masterpiece. Neither opinions raise or lower the standards of storytelling in games.

Please do not misrepresent my argument as I never brought intelligence into it. I simply say that story telling in games has a lot to catch up with books and films and I cannot understand how people who have been exposed to better stories could declare the Last of Us a masterpiece.

If the type of media we like is a measure of intelligence then there is no hope for me.

Storytelling in games has about as much to catch up to with movies and books as movies have to catch up to with books, or that animation has to catch up to with live-action. In that it doesn't. No, purely on it's own videogame writing is not as good as movies (though personally I'd argue against that and say this has more to do with the mo-cap technology), but neither are movies in comparison to books. Acting in animation is never going as good as live-action acting, but that doesn't mean performances in animation can't be just as powerful as in live-action. There's more to a game than just writing, even in story heavy games like TLoU.

When you say people who consider TLoU a masterpiece should read a book and watch a movie that isn't Infinity War you're assuming they haven't already. You're making a judgement on their comprehension to recognize good storytelling, which comes across rather patronizing.

That is not what I said. The context was a response to catfood220 about people who are angry when you say you don't like it. And it is not liking a game that lowers standards of expectation, I never said that. It is declaring a game a masterpiece that sets the standard and since catfood and I both believe the story is mediocre I argue that it sets the standard low for what we should aim.

Please read my posts correctly before you try to comment on them.

Yeah, but there isn't one bull's eye for storytelling in games. Different writers aim for different targets. And sometimes a simple story can hit a lot of people hard due to a combination of elements. If you don't like TLoU and it getting praised means you might get less of the stories that you prefer you can lament that, but that's not the same as some universal lowering of storytelling standards, since that doesn't exist.

 

[Crystal Violet]

Anyone can only ever speak for themselves and their own experiences in storytelling. And if by your standards TLoU is mediocre, then equally by someone else's stadards it's actually a masterpiece. Neither opinions raise or lower the standards of storytelling in games.

Ok but then if we can write off all criticism as subjective and therefore meaningless then there is little point in critique. But most of us can generally agree that Pulp Fiction has a better story than Twilight even if there are individual nuances. If storytelling is a craft I think critique gives us more to strive for and I think the storytelling in The Last of Us is lower than that aim. I hope my point is understood because my English is not the best.

Storytelling in games has about as much to catch up to with movies and books as movies have to catch up to with books, or that animation has to catch up to with live-action. In that it doesn't. No, purely on it's own videogame writing is not as good as movies (though personally I'd argue against that and say this has more to do with the mo-cap technology), but neither are movies in comparison to books. Acting in animation is never going as good as live-action acting, but that doesn't mean performances in animation can't be just as powerful as in live-action. There's more to a game than just writing, even in story heavy games like TLoU.

You are comparing the mechanism of the story and not the quality of the story. Books can tell a story in a different way to movies and movies can tell stories in a different way to games. There are many books and movies that brilliantly tell great stories within their own medium and there are even some games that do that too. But when we say The Last of Us is a "masterpiece" we argue that this is the standard we should strive for. And even if you think The Last of Us is brilliant, which I do not, I hope we can agree that we should aim for higher standards of storytelling appropriate for the medium.

When you say people who consider TLoU a masterpiece should read a book and watch a movie that isn't Infinity War you're assuming they haven't already.

No I said I ask them whether they have but that was obviously dramatic rhetoric. I would not actually say this to someone. I do not argue that people who thought The Last of Us was a masterpiece have not read a book but that they are holding games to a lower standard than they would hold a book. I would assume they have read a book and call for them to hold the quality of story telling to the same standard for both mediums.

Yeah, but there isn't one bull's eye for storytelling in games. Different writers aim for different targets. And sometimes a simple story can hit a lot of people hard due to a combination of elements. If you don't like TLoU and it getting praised means you might get less of the stories that you prefer you can lament that, but that's not the same as some universal lowering of storytelling standards, since that doesn't exist.

I agree. Different targets and different aims. But The Last of Us has no new ideas, it breaks no new ground, it does not elevate the medium and it does nothing with any ambition and that is fine. I am completely fine with that. But then I can't see how anyone would say that sort of story is a masterpiece. And I agree there is no universal standard to lower but if we call The Last of Us a masterpiece we are telling very well funded and well resourced AAA studios that all they need to do is tick boxes and not do anything innovative to be seen as a masterpiece.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Ok but then if we can write off all criticism as subjective and therefore meaningless then there is little point in critique. But most of us can generally agree that Pulp Fiction has a better story than Twilight even if there are individual nuances. If storytelling is a craft I think critique gives us more to strive for and I think the storytelling in The Last of Us is lower than that aim. I hope my point is understood because my English is not the best.

It IS subjective, but not meaningless, because different viewpoints add to the understanding and progression of any artistic medium. Artistic criticism isn't or at least shouldn't be about who has the right opinion and who has the wrong opinion.

You are comparing the mechanism of the story and not the quality of the story. Books can tell a story in a different way to movies and movies can tell stories in a different way to games. There are many books and movies that brilliantly tell great stories within their own medium and there are even some games that do that too. But when we say The Last of Us is a "masterpiece" we argue that this is the standard we should strive for. And even if you think The Last of Us is brilliant, which I do not, I hope we can agree that we should aim for higher standards of storytelling appropriate for the medium.

Again though, this is all very subjective. It's not a fact that TLoU isn't a masterpiece anymore than it is a masterpiece. Technically it is neither. It's a game that a huge amount of people really love or loved. Period. That's all there really is to it.

I agree. Different targets and different aims. But The Last of Us has no new ideas, it breaks no new ground, it does not elevate the medium and it does nothing with any ambition and that is fine. I am completely fine with that. But then I can't see how anyone would say that sort of story is a masterpiece. And I agree there is no universal standard to lower but if we call The Last of Us a masterpiece we are telling very well funded and well resourced AAA studios that all they need to do is tick boxes and not do anything innovative to be seen as a masterpiece.

Well, to a lot of people it DOES break new ground, it DOES elevate the medium, and it DOES have ambition. And those people aren't wrong or right, that's just how they feel about it. I'm not trying to be wishy-washy and 'all is as it should be' about this, but in the end it's your word against theirs regarding the artistic validity of a piece of entertainment.

And I don't think you have to be afraid TLoU will end up "dumbing down" the medium, because there's tons of games that don't bother following its formula. Many of those games finding huge success and critical acclaim. Undertale and Hades off the top of my head. Not that I'm claiming either games are better or worse than TLoU, but they're games that are not like TLoU at all and still broke through into popularity. Heck, Undertale blows TLoU out of the water in terms of popularity. And if TLoU2 showed us anything it's that this formula is very much of its time (the Bioshock: Infinte, Hotline Miami, and Spec Ops: The Line "deep violence" kind of game), and the sequel feels outdated as a result.

TLoU being deemed a masterpiece, even by critics, didn't make every game that tried to be TLoU automatically loved, or any game that did things differently automatically dismissed.

 

[happyninja42]

It IS subjective, but not meaningless, because different viewpoints add to the understanding and progression of any artistic medium. Artistic criticism isn't or at least shouldn't be about who has the right opinion and who has the wrong opinion.

I think part of the problem is that people constantly confuse subjective, with objective elements, when criticizing something. They will say "I didn't like this element of X, so it is therefore bad." or the opposite. And that's a subjective point. However, SOME things can be objectively critiqued, in particular with video games, as it does have mechanical components that are meant to do a specific function.

For example, the devs made a physics engine that's supposed to allow the player the ability to grab onto any surface at any time, and do other actions from any angle, allowing the freedom to tackled objectives in their own manner, instead of just on the ground. However, the mechanics don't actually work that way, due to a myriad of technical problems. So you can OBJECTIVELY say the game has bad gameplay. "The game advertises full range of motion, and excellent combat responsiveness. However in actuality it's nearly impossible to accomplish half of the actions they say you can do, without the game freaking out, and you clip planing through the map into the void. Projectiles ignore object physics, keeping you from being able to reliably count on cover to keep you safe." etc. stuff like that.

The issue, is that, often in various online discussions, one person will say the game is a bad game from a technical standpoint, and a person will refute their statement on an emotional basis. Or vice versa. So you have people arguing completely different things.

I try very hard when I'm giving criticisms about something, (or even when I'm praising something I like, that objectively on some levels, isn't good, but I like the other bit enough to not care) to qualify it with an "in my opinion" kind of line, if my issue is a personal thing. If it's something more mechanical in nature, I do think that can be just objectively proven wrong/right, based on what is being claimed and how it's implemented.

 

[Gergar12]

Fans of GTA should probably condition themselves to the strong possibility that GTA6 will be a hollow shell of what the series is known for, if it even sees a release. We could at best be looking at not only a smaller scale, possibly episodic single player aspect, but also loaded with MTX’s right off the bat. The creative process and sheer attention to detail the series is known for could be anyone’s guess as well after the quiet exits of both Dan Houser and Lazlow Jones last year.

It really leaves undoubted creative black holes for any future expectations. The fact that they were quiet exits leads one to believe that, other than the controversies and increasing pressures surrounding the crunch atmosphere (especially after RDR2), Take 2 wants to go in a very different direction than the vast single player narratives they defined their games with. We only need to look at the insane milking of GTAV Online for a grim indication. Shark cards, anyone?

The sliver of hope would be that Rockstar is as of yet still a huge company with thousands of people, and Sam Houser is still there, but he has always had more of a business role. Hopefully he still has enough pull to keep the single player aspects of their games in line with what fans have always expected, but I’m not getting my hopes up too high. If we start hearing about a ton of layoffs in the near future, that would pretty much spell end-game for them and a huge nail in the coffin for single player projects.

How Dan Houser & Lazlow's Departure Will Change GTA 6

GTA VI will see changes in its narrative style.

screenrant.com

Those stupid kids, and their stupid stupid shark card obsessions.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

What the person meant by the satire was just how contemptuous it was of the things it made fun of. Compare Ammunation's older ads (spoofing american jingoism by empowering people to buy guns to the apocalypse prep kit that creates an me vs them mentality). For Jimmy, you could have had him as a satire of both the gamer slacker and someone who talks big about wanting to stick it to the rich people in the financial sector, knowing full well how his dad got it made using heist money but can't because you know...FIB is probably reading this conversation and Dave is reminding Jimmy not to ruin everything his dad had done.

That kind of satire that is absent in GTAV

Hot take. Vice City was the peak of GTA satire. Every game since has taken itself just a little too seriously.

 

[Casual Shinji]

For example, the devs made a physics engine that's supposed to allow the player the ability to grab onto any surface at any time, and do other actions from any angle, allowing the freedom to tackled objectives in their own manner, instead of just on the ground. However, the mechanics don't actually work that way, due to a myriad of technical problems. So you can OBJECTIVELY say the game has bad gameplay. "The game advertises full range of motion, and excellent combat responsiveness. However in actuality it's nearly impossible to accomplish half of the actions they say you can do, without the game freaking out, and you clip planing through the map into the void. Projectiles ignore object physics, keeping you from being able to reliably count on cover to keep you safe." etc. stuff like that.

I can't say I remember that being advertized, just that it would have a lot better enemy A.I. then it ended up having. I didn't really run into any of those issues you mentioned, but no, the gameplay isn't too solid or deep. For me though it just hit the right spot for a stealth action game.

 

[happyninja42]

I can't say I remember that being advertized, just that it would have a lot better enemy A.I. then it ended up having. I didn't really run into any of those issues you mentioned, but no, the gameplay isn't too solid or deep. For me though it just hit the right spot for a stealth action game.

Sorry, let me clarify. My example was not specifically related to TLoU, just a random example of how someone could have an objective criticism about the quality of a game, versus a subjective one. The subjective being things like "this storyline annoyed me", or "I hated this character because X".

The part you said that I quoted specifically was about the kinds of criticisms or artistic works. And I mostly agree that there is no right/wrong, if it's a subjective criticism. But, due to the interactive nature of games, there are SOME aspects of criticism, that can be objectively said to be right/wrong, good/bad.

"You're game devs promoted that I would have the ability to swing across New York and really feel like spiderman....yet your web mechanics are shit and do not actually deliver on what you say they can do." would be an objective criticism for example.

The problem is that people will often say things like "The relationship between Peter and MJ in the PS 4 Spiderman is objectively terrible writing, and paints a horrible relationship that nobody can find enjoyable." which is just pure, personal opinion. And then a heated argument will spiral off of that.

Disclaimer, my use of the PS 4 Spiderman is just purely an example, it's the first game that came to mind when I was trying to just provide examples of the difference.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Those stupid kids, and their stupid stupid shark card obsessions.

 

[Catfood220]

Did it tank? I have heard only praise for it. There were the usual stupid criticisms from the misogynist and anti-trans idiots but I did not perceive that this affected sales or critical reception too much.

Ok, maybe tanked was the wrong term. It did do quite well critically and there were people who liked it. But, I get the feeling that there are people out there who really don't like it and not just for the stupid reasons you mention. I think it was @happyninja42 who hated it because it was a joyless slog to play through. Either way, there don't seem to be as many defenders out there any more.