It's Okay To Be Dumb
- Thread starter Dennis Scimeca
- Start date
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men."
Roald Dahl
basically how I feel about it.
Roald Dahl
basically how I feel about it.
Unfortunately not. That's their second job. Their first job is to ensure they still have the second job. You don't do that by de-mystifying your profession. The same thing is true of developers, writers, athletes, artists...Dennis Scimeca said:
I see it with musicians, since that's my field. Plenty of performers love to let people talk about "talent" and being "gifted," because it lends this air of inaccessible mystery to what they do. You'll hear very few talk about how they got good by putting in hours and hours of hard work specifically targeted at getting better at it from a very early age. And you'll rarely ever hear one mention the dreaded "luck."
The job isn't to show you how to do what they do, or to understand what they understand. The job is to get you to pay (or just love) them for what they do... and they get that by making you feel that you can't do it (but that you're better than other people if you go along with them).
Really, it's an ego thing. The fewer people there are that "get it," the more important I must be. I want you to take me seriously, so I'm going to do the following:
1. Make my job sound as hard as possible, maybe even harder than it actually is.
2. Minimize or trash-talk the efforts of others in the same field.
3. Build an air of artificial mystery by being deliberately obtuse, so that I can them point to all the simpletons that just don't get it.
4. Use the imagined corpses of those simpletons as stepping stones to my ivory tower.
The "elite" gamers and the "serious" developers are currently teaming up on this under the guise of attacking "dumb" games and gamers -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend, you know.
I shoot good
tank go boom
:/
on another note, i would love to debate on jonathan blow and this clark fellow on the various sides of determinism.
tank go boom
:/
on another note, i would love to debate on jonathan blow and this clark fellow on the various sides of determinism.
Hrrr hrrrrmmm... Fascinating.
Well, I read the original Atlantic article and it pissed me off. Because I honestly thought the man who wrote it didn't play games at all. (Blow ticked me off too, but a lot less than Clark and I thought Blow had good points. Clark had none.)
Then I read what Clark had wrote in Kotaku and was suitably impressed. It seemed I had misjudged him to some extent (which only pointed out the failings of the Atlantic article even more)...
Then I read what your piece good sir Dennis, and am more suitably impressed with you.
While I agree with you on many points, I feel that Clark will perhaps be doing the industry some good. While we should never shy away from our enjoyment of silly things, (because being silly is AWESOME) we really must acknowledge that a lot of the games we know and love are silly. Now, many people I know have absolutely zero problem with saying that CoD and GoW are silly things, there are those out there who wish to pretend they are deadly serious mature pieces of work and what not. We should delight and revel in the glorious silliness of it all, not run and hide from it.
I would also like to see more of the... *sighs* well for lack of a better term more of the "intelligent" kind of game out there. As Mr. Clark says, if we want silly, we have plenty of it. Intelligent is still in short supply however.
Well, I read the original Atlantic article and it pissed me off. Because I honestly thought the man who wrote it didn't play games at all. (Blow ticked me off too, but a lot less than Clark and I thought Blow had good points. Clark had none.)
Then I read what Clark had wrote in Kotaku and was suitably impressed. It seemed I had misjudged him to some extent (which only pointed out the failings of the Atlantic article even more)...
Then I read what your piece good sir Dennis, and am more suitably impressed with you.
While I agree with you on many points, I feel that Clark will perhaps be doing the industry some good. While we should never shy away from our enjoyment of silly things, (because being silly is AWESOME) we really must acknowledge that a lot of the games we know and love are silly. Now, many people I know have absolutely zero problem with saying that CoD and GoW are silly things, there are those out there who wish to pretend they are deadly serious mature pieces of work and what not. We should delight and revel in the glorious silliness of it all, not run and hide from it.
I would also like to see more of the... *sighs* well for lack of a better term more of the "intelligent" kind of game out there. As Mr. Clark says, if we want silly, we have plenty of it. Intelligent is still in short supply however.
Can we find a better word to describe these games than, "Dumb"? First, dumb means can't speak. Link is dumb. Gordan Freeman is dumb. Samus was until recently dumb. But a video game doesn't speak because it's not a person. There can be speaking people in a video game, but the game itself does not speak.
All video games are dumb because they can't speak.
Are most video games stupid? This is, possibly, a better word, a word more suited to what Clark means, but that's still not getting to what he's talking about. On the scale of intelligence, stupid is a negative. Stupid is plot that contradicts itself and inconsistent mechanics. Stupid is broken.
Most video games are mindless. Or, more precisely, most video games do not require us to be mindful. And yet, the strategies people develop for a "mindless" game like Modern Warfare, the ever-evolving coordination of team against team, is certainly not an activity you can turn your mind off for.
At the end of the day, I think what Clark means is "simple". Modern Warfare is a simple game (not to be confused with "easy"). More specifically, Clark complains about the narrative and emotional simpleness that pervades modern games.
And to that I say, "Eh." Sometimes a game is about mechanics. Sometimes a game is about plot and characters. Sometimes a game invokes certain feelings (frustration? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/miracle-of-sound/5396-You-Died-Dark-Souls]) Buy what you like. Ignore the rest. Don't be a dick about what other people like.
All video games are dumb because they can't speak.
Are most video games stupid? This is, possibly, a better word, a word more suited to what Clark means, but that's still not getting to what he's talking about. On the scale of intelligence, stupid is a negative. Stupid is plot that contradicts itself and inconsistent mechanics. Stupid is broken.
Most video games are mindless. Or, more precisely, most video games do not require us to be mindful. And yet, the strategies people develop for a "mindless" game like Modern Warfare, the ever-evolving coordination of team against team, is certainly not an activity you can turn your mind off for.
At the end of the day, I think what Clark means is "simple". Modern Warfare is a simple game (not to be confused with "easy"). More specifically, Clark complains about the narrative and emotional simpleness that pervades modern games.
And to that I say, "Eh." Sometimes a game is about mechanics. Sometimes a game is about plot and characters. Sometimes a game invokes certain feelings (frustration? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/miracle-of-sound/5396-You-Died-Dark-Souls]) Buy what you like. Ignore the rest. Don't be a dick about what other people like.
This may be true with some people, but it's just dumb.Dastardly said:
In the musician's case, even if he/she did tell how they got good, few people would actually be willing to invest that many hours into getting good at something.
As someone who does research and teaching on highly technical fields involving mathematics and other stuff, I truly believe almost anyone can learn advanced mathematics, but very few actually want to learn it, unfortunately. I also don't think that explaining how to do it ("well, you just study it") reduced the mystique surrounding people who are extremely good at what they do, so you can explain it all you want.
While it's a bit differant than what the person being criticized was apparently saying, I *DO* things games are getting pretty dumb and that it's a bad thing. Largely because of the sheer number of casuals in the medium and gaming companies dumbing down games to appeal to them as they are the lagest overall group, and there is the most money to be made. Viewed objectively games have become increasngly banal, where rather than the occasional "dumb" game good for the mainstream or a bit of intellectual slumming, it's becoming harder and harder to find anything that isn't on that level.
The gaming medium has gotten to the point of say breaking everything down into the smallest and simplest words, as one might do for a small child or mentally disabled person, and forgetting to speak normally the rest of the time or ever come up beyond that level. The potential we saw for gaming in decades past as a form of smart, adult entertainment is effectively being squandered.
This kind of elitist rant is not popular, but I see it as a problem, and it feeds the kind of criticism here.
I feel gaming should strive to improve it's own audience instead of simply remaining stooped to the lowest common denominator.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherantly wrong with enjoying "dumb" games, I do myself, but when that's increasingly all there is, there is a problem.
To put it into perspective, your typical game right now is one that an 8 or 9 year old can pick up and understand and play with a degree of skill. That us the mental age level of say "Battlefield" and all it takes for the game. Indeed, despite the rating we do see kids that young playing games of that sort. This means that when you are playing a game of that sort your basically stopping down to that mental age level, as opposed to finding something that challenges you on an older, or more developed level. There is no problem with this inherantly, it's sort of like someone who can appreciate masters-level literature and genuinely deep films, also enjoying say the WWE. But when all you have is the WWE being produced... well that is a problem.
Also do not misunderstand what I'm saying here as being something where all games should be made for the intelligencia, I think there IS a middle ground. I think you can have games that are not "dumb" that also aren't calling for some kind of genius. You know games actually intended for someone with the intellectual capacity of a 20-30 year old, a game that might not be hard for them exactly, but is definatly going to be more than your typical 8 or 9 year old is going to be able to pick up and play, getting the full experience out of it.
If people remain content with the level games are produced at, it will not increase, and as such I think people do need to focus on this issue.
The gaming medium has gotten to the point of say breaking everything down into the smallest and simplest words, as one might do for a small child or mentally disabled person, and forgetting to speak normally the rest of the time or ever come up beyond that level. The potential we saw for gaming in decades past as a form of smart, adult entertainment is effectively being squandered.
This kind of elitist rant is not popular, but I see it as a problem, and it feeds the kind of criticism here.
I feel gaming should strive to improve it's own audience instead of simply remaining stooped to the lowest common denominator.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherantly wrong with enjoying "dumb" games, I do myself, but when that's increasingly all there is, there is a problem.
To put it into perspective, your typical game right now is one that an 8 or 9 year old can pick up and understand and play with a degree of skill. That us the mental age level of say "Battlefield" and all it takes for the game. Indeed, despite the rating we do see kids that young playing games of that sort. This means that when you are playing a game of that sort your basically stopping down to that mental age level, as opposed to finding something that challenges you on an older, or more developed level. There is no problem with this inherantly, it's sort of like someone who can appreciate masters-level literature and genuinely deep films, also enjoying say the WWE. But when all you have is the WWE being produced... well that is a problem.
Also do not misunderstand what I'm saying here as being something where all games should be made for the intelligencia, I think there IS a middle ground. I think you can have games that are not "dumb" that also aren't calling for some kind of genius. You know games actually intended for someone with the intellectual capacity of a 20-30 year old, a game that might not be hard for them exactly, but is definatly going to be more than your typical 8 or 9 year old is going to be able to pick up and play, getting the full experience out of it.
If people remain content with the level games are produced at, it will not increase, and as such I think people do need to focus on this issue.
Oh, I agree 100%.tautologico said:
Also agreed. Most of us could learn to play the trombone with enough time and effort. Some people, for a variety of reasons, just pick it up faster -- which some people mistake for "easier." Most people have around the same potential for "how good" they could be at something, and "talent" just sort of changes how quickly people climb to that potential.
But it pays off to sell it another way. If I learn something faster than you, and I can convince you that it's because I have "the talent for it" and you don't, and that this fact means you really can't be as good as me... well, I win. You, and others who believe, will be more likely to pay more for what I do, and I'll have less competition.
It's exactly the same thing that publishers are doing to try to get folks to continue using the age-old distribution model they love.
At the same time, our culture does enough to perpetuate the "mystique" of math and science. "It's not rocket science," we say. But I'm with you -- most people could, given the right time and experiences, grasp the concepts behind it. In fact, my whole job depends on that belief: I'm a teacher.
But our culture is designed to convince people that what they have now is all they'll ever have, and right many of them believe it. "I'm just not good at math" is somehow an acceptable reason to stay bad at math. Could we imagine infants saying, "I'm just not good at walking?" Of course you're not. You just started.
I guess we're kind of straying a bit from the topic now... I still feel it's related, but stop me if we're way out in left field! The idea is that "hardcore" gamers and developers (at least those who spout the "games are getting dumb" line) want to maintain the mystery of what they do -- they're trying to protect their exclusivity.
And we, the grown-up gamers, have simply forgotten that we were maybe 8 or 9 when we got started. Because the industry has grown up with us, we have forgotten than other generations of new gamers are following along behind us... and now, there's more of us than there are them.Therumancer said:
We're the "old people" now, man. Old folks that sit around and complain about how it's a "young man's world" out there, without realizing that, as we've "aged" and moved forward, the world has filled in behind us. There are more people under 80 in the world than there are people over 80, so an 80-year-old should probably understand that most of the world will be geared toward "younger" folks.
Games aren't getting "dumber." We're getting older (or just more game-experienced). And gaming just had a bit of a "baby boom" with the rise of mobile/casual/etc. games. The newbies outnumber us, so most of the games are at their level. It doesn't mean we won't still have our "old folks" games. It just means we aren't the majority anymore.
Well, yes and no. When gaming first started it was something only a very few kids could get into due to the difficulty of working systems like the C-64. If you were actually gaming back in that time frame you represent an exception, and thus have little to do with this discussion to begin with.Dastardly said:
You didn't see kids really getting into gaming until the time of the NES, and despite everything there weren't actually all that many kids gaming as it was a very expensive toy. 99% of the people who claim to have been gaming on the NES are liars as you can tell just by comparing the claims to the number of actual consoles moved and carts sold. If even a tenth of the people claiming to have started gaming back with the NES actually did, instead of trying to gain gamer cred by claiming it was the case, Nintendo would currently be a global super power dictating terms to major goverments due to the sheer amount of money it would have made in that time frame.
The thing about that time was that the NES was an expensive toy and it existed in an entirely differant cosm from serious games being played on real computers.
People interested in serious games right now might be a minority, but understand that's kind of the problem. In catering to the majority the industry itself brought in, gaming is being killed as that kind of intellectual slumming, and very little but, is destroying the medium due to it no longer improving, or advancing. It's pretty much regressed to games being little more than NES era kiddie toys, gussied up with new technology, and has not been moving. In general game developers realize there is a decent market for making serious games, because while a minority real gamers are a pretty big one, it's just that everyone in the industry wants to go after the biggest profits possible and care nothing for the medium, or what could potentially be if it tried to uplift it's own market, rather than what can be done to line their pockets right now. As a result games are dumb, intended for dumb people, and it's only very rarely that you see a game trying to be more than that... and certainly not as often as those with the interest in serious gaming would like or in keeping with their actual numbers.
In short, I understand the reasons WHY things are this way, but that doesn't mean that the problem shouldn't be mentioned and railed against. Half the problem is people being too complacent.
I'll also be honest in saying that the gaming industry seems to be involved in a suicide pact of sorts, and are loading the guns as we speak. Games being dumbed down to the current level, so that any mouth breahter with brain wave activity can sit down and play an "M" rated game means that it's becoming increasingly difficult to defend the content and say that they aren't targeting children. When you consider than an 8 or 9 year old is capable of playing Call Of Duty due to the simplification of the controls and such, with them being aimed at a very young mental age level, it's hard to defend that content only being there for adults. One of the reasons why there was less of an issue with the computer games of years past was not because today's technology is capable of being so much more graphic, but because your typical kid, or technophobic moron couldn't just get a game to run and head right out and find this content at their fingertips. One of yesterday's "Shockers" like say "Harvester" wasn't a big deal because it wasn't something some kid could walk into a store, drop a couple of weeks allowance for, plug into a deck, and start playing with nothing else needed. Likewise it wasn't something your typical bible thumper could do the same thing with when they are looking for this week's crusade.
I also think gaming needs to grow up for it's own protection, and that games carrying mature themes and material should come with an adult level of sophistication to make them less approachable to young children and such... though this is something of a side issue I've diverged into.
In short I think gaming needs to grow up for it's own good, something that needs to happen for a number of reasons. It's current state is neither good for itself as a medium, or it's place in society.
I agree with the article but I'm not of a fan of how defensive the article (and a lot of gamers) get when the word "Smart" or "Intellectual" arises. Intellectual ideas don't have to be something artificially forced on a game after its development, nor do they have to be something separate to what makes the game fun. You can read a lot of the 'intellectual' novels without having to analytically deconstruct them to find some joy or value in them. The same holds true for games. I also don't like the way Braid is held up as an example of an intellectual/art game. I beat it and I would argue that if we were to deconstruct it the way we would a novel, film or performance it'd have less artistic/academic/whatever-the-buzz-word-is merit to it than a more accessible game like Okami or Eternal Sonata.
A big problem in this debate is the tone people take with it. People are either dismissing games as dumb because they look don't look 'intellectual' enough or defending because intellectual ideas are apparently the antithesis of fun. Even if their conclusion (like this article's) is balanced, the unbalanced tone of the body of the argument still tends to lean dangerously close toward one of these two extremes.
Tl;dr - Smart =/= Not fun, Smart + Fun = Better Games.
A big problem in this debate is the tone people take with it. People are either dismissing games as dumb because they look don't look 'intellectual' enough or defending because intellectual ideas are apparently the antithesis of fun. Even if their conclusion (like this article's) is balanced, the unbalanced tone of the body of the argument still tends to lean dangerously close toward one of these two extremes.
Tl;dr - Smart =/= Not fun, Smart + Fun = Better Games.
For me, it's not so much about fun, but more about the memories the game generates. A generic game, will soon be forgotten, and that's why I'll hate it, I wasted time on something, that ultimately gave me nothing.
There are games, that I'll be able to discuss, that I've learned something from them, or I've appreciated how well they've immersed me. I'm not looking for intelligent games per se (it helps), I'm looking for good games. Games, that even after a few years from now on, I'll be able to look back in joy. But for a game to accomplish that, it has to transcend mediocrity, it has to transcend the fact that 'fun' is not enough. I enjoy a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I appreciate them, or look back on them fondly.
The problem with so-called 'dumb' games, it's not that they're dumb, it's that they're mediocre. They don't stand out, they're safe in every possible way and I resent most of AAA gaming for that. They don't create memorable experiences, they create instant gratification experiences, experiences that disappear as soon as I press 'exit'... and here's where the whole feeling of superiority/inferiority stems from me. Games should be more than a distraction, they should be experiences that allows us to transcend the boundaries that are set by reality, to immerse ourselves in something greater that the mediocrity we live each and every day, but if games replace one mediocrity, with another, what's the use?
There are games, that I'll be able to discuss, that I've learned something from them, or I've appreciated how well they've immersed me. I'm not looking for intelligent games per se (it helps), I'm looking for good games. Games, that even after a few years from now on, I'll be able to look back in joy. But for a game to accomplish that, it has to transcend mediocrity, it has to transcend the fact that 'fun' is not enough. I enjoy a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I appreciate them, or look back on them fondly.
The problem with so-called 'dumb' games, it's not that they're dumb, it's that they're mediocre. They don't stand out, they're safe in every possible way and I resent most of AAA gaming for that. They don't create memorable experiences, they create instant gratification experiences, experiences that disappear as soon as I press 'exit'... and here's where the whole feeling of superiority/inferiority stems from me. Games should be more than a distraction, they should be experiences that allows us to transcend the boundaries that are set by reality, to immerse ourselves in something greater that the mediocrity we live each and every day, but if games replace one mediocrity, with another, what's the use?
Those high nosed people that refuse to play the simpler games... they likely aren't intellectuals at all. A true intellectual would at least see the simple fact that you don't have to be dumb to enjoy dumb things.
Hey! I got a theory! Maybe some of those people only play 'smart' games because they're too self conscious about their minuscule minds? You know, sort of like how people with small dicks drive big trucks. Or at least tend to.
BF3 is an amazing game, and it annoys me when people try to demean it, but, it disheartens me when people try to explain how deep it can be (it can be deep, anything can be deep) in a counterargument.
I'm enjoying the hell out of Tera right now. It's a game about tits and fighting shit. It's fun. It's as hard as you want to make it, and I do tryhard, and I do hold myself to a pride in that aspect too, so I'm not perfect, but at least I'm not one of those retards in chat that spam "dude that quest is soloable you noob" when someone puts a LFG/LFM request. Really, you smart, arrogant fuck? You're just so intelligent that you didn't consider the possibility that the person might be looking for a party because, maybe his class can't solo it, maybe he's undergeared, maybe he doesn't want to fight a single monster for 5 minutes, or maybe, just maybe, he actually needs help.
This problem is everywhere, and I can think of a million other examples that annoy me, but I'll leave the angry rant part of this post at that.
I'm just glad I'm not the only one who would rather play to have fun than for intellect-cred. Besides, I'm a firm believer that an experience is as intellectual as you want to make it. You could play through any of the Myst games, and be a complete moron/have no mental stimulation from it, and on the same note, could play through, I don't know, Bulletstorm, and have the opposite: complete mental stimulation as you strategize the best way to rack up points in it. Of course, with every rule, there's exceptions, and I can think of a few... but I'm not an arrogant highnosed prick, I swear-- it's just that their core design drastically limits player input and their options for expanding how much thought they can put in the game. No, I wasn't thinking of Farmville-- at least in that, if you really wanted to, you could set up a full blown business plan for your farm. Can, but likely won't.
Hey! I got a theory! Maybe some of those people only play 'smart' games because they're too self conscious about their minuscule minds? You know, sort of like how people with small dicks drive big trucks. Or at least tend to.
BF3 is an amazing game, and it annoys me when people try to demean it, but, it disheartens me when people try to explain how deep it can be (it can be deep, anything can be deep) in a counterargument.
I'm enjoying the hell out of Tera right now. It's a game about tits and fighting shit. It's fun. It's as hard as you want to make it, and I do tryhard, and I do hold myself to a pride in that aspect too, so I'm not perfect, but at least I'm not one of those retards in chat that spam "dude that quest is soloable you noob" when someone puts a LFG/LFM request. Really, you smart, arrogant fuck? You're just so intelligent that you didn't consider the possibility that the person might be looking for a party because, maybe his class can't solo it, maybe he's undergeared, maybe he doesn't want to fight a single monster for 5 minutes, or maybe, just maybe, he actually needs help.
This problem is everywhere, and I can think of a million other examples that annoy me, but I'll leave the angry rant part of this post at that.
I'm just glad I'm not the only one who would rather play to have fun than for intellect-cred. Besides, I'm a firm believer that an experience is as intellectual as you want to make it. You could play through any of the Myst games, and be a complete moron/have no mental stimulation from it, and on the same note, could play through, I don't know, Bulletstorm, and have the opposite: complete mental stimulation as you strategize the best way to rack up points in it. Of course, with every rule, there's exceptions, and I can think of a few... but I'm not an arrogant highnosed prick, I swear-- it's just that their core design drastically limits player input and their options for expanding how much thought they can put in the game. No, I wasn't thinking of Farmville-- at least in that, if you really wanted to, you could set up a full blown business plan for your farm. Can, but likely won't.
Some great comments here all around, not a whole lot to add.
Planetside offered a better experience than Battlefield 3 ever did concerning a tank over a hill. I am not even going to bother to qualify this, believe what you want.
Getting good at something requires rigor... knowing things requires empirical investigation including quantifiable and reproducible results. It's an epistemological approach, and sadly... the heady days of lazy rationalism and a priori garbage... it's has become a tough sell, with a tiny audience, and shit pay.
The medium has changed, like many entertainment mediums have changed. The audience likes spectacle and immersion... so that is what'cha get. Battlefield 3 is absolutely amazing when it comes to this, but as a "game" it is not as good as it's predecessors. It is "technically" a superior product... but it's a sort'a "meh".
That's Ok. Think the same way about CoD. They are not "dumber" games, they are simply not as heavy on the "simulator/technical fidelity-as model" as games once where. They are much more arcade like. It's pinball not chess.
The days of plotting where one was going to build there railroad and how they could capitalize there own personal wealth to achieve a platinum award in Railroad Tycoon II are all but gone, gone and forgotten.
Different audience different expectations. It's not that he has gotten tired of games or that they are "dumber", it is that games, get tired of us. Time to move on.
Planetside offered a better experience than Battlefield 3 ever did concerning a tank over a hill. I am not even going to bother to qualify this, believe what you want.
Getting good at something requires rigor... knowing things requires empirical investigation including quantifiable and reproducible results. It's an epistemological approach, and sadly... the heady days of lazy rationalism and a priori garbage... it's has become a tough sell, with a tiny audience, and shit pay.
The medium has changed, like many entertainment mediums have changed. The audience likes spectacle and immersion... so that is what'cha get. Battlefield 3 is absolutely amazing when it comes to this, but as a "game" it is not as good as it's predecessors. It is "technically" a superior product... but it's a sort'a "meh".
That's Ok. Think the same way about CoD. They are not "dumber" games, they are simply not as heavy on the "simulator/technical fidelity-as model" as games once where. They are much more arcade like. It's pinball not chess.
The days of plotting where one was going to build there railroad and how they could capitalize there own personal wealth to achieve a platinum award in Railroad Tycoon II are all but gone, gone and forgotten.
Different audience different expectations. It's not that he has gotten tired of games or that they are "dumber", it is that games, get tired of us. Time to move on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhwddNQSWQ&feature=player_detailpage
A hint of stupidity admist intelligence isn't a bad thing.
A hint of stupidity admist intelligence isn't a bad thing.
I'm glad someone made this argument and in a way that doesn't come off as trying to demonize either side. Sure, games like Braid and Limbo probably are all that and a bag of chips; it just so happens that they don't seem that way to me. The same goes for the oft-touted SotC, Ico, and Psychonauts (and I really tried to get into that last one) - they simply don't appeal to me.
Agreed. This is part of the reason why I prefer action and fighting games over, say, something like DA:O. The game itself is demanding I think on my toes lest I wanna get shot in the dick myself. With something turn-based or that features a "pause-and-play" mechanic I feel there's no challenge in the fact that if something goes wrong, you can simply wait for a lull or outright stop what's happening and "regroup", so to speak. That's not to say the games that feature such are out and out bad games, I just don't find them fun and they come off as more mentally exhausting than stimulating.Twinmill5000 said:
The problem is that we are discussing two kinds of the dumb without first establishing it. For example the dumb in things such as Gear of War is not a bad thing and never will be because it is smartly designed (not to say it's perfect) and as such deserved to be considered in the exact same light as braid which is The Smart designed just as well. There is no difference in the kind of enjoyment from either games it's just that The Smart games tend to be better designed which leads to more enjoyable expeirences. Dues Ex is an example of this when you consider the recent Syndicate as it's dumb counterpart.
But to get more to the point there is a terrible problem with being dumb but it's dumb in design not in concept. The DOA game's tit physics for example is a fucking travesty but fighting games themselves and even sexualised characters are not wrong in any way.
But to get more to the point there is a terrible problem with being dumb but it's dumb in design not in concept. The DOA game's tit physics for example is a fucking travesty but fighting games themselves and even sexualised characters are not wrong in any way.
Actually... the medium hasn't changed much at all. Nor is CoD "not as heavy on the simulator/technical fidelity-as model as games once were" - There have always been and always will be simulator/technical fidelity games, and there have also always been less simulationist-like games.mfeff said:
I tried reading your posts... I really did... but the amount of ignorant elitism in there makes it really hard to understand. (Rule of thumb: anyone whining about how "casuals" are ruining the industry generally have their heads shoved too far up their asses to say anything credible) Have you actually even played the games you criticize so freely? You're chasing after problems that aren't even there: I've played a few "Serious" games, and there are even more serious games now than there used to be. Yes, a lot of franchises are looking to attract new players, but there are a lot of new franchises that get ignored by those they're trying to target.Therumancer said:
Also... why the heck should "Adult-oriented" games be more "complex" than "child-friendly" ones. Games are about having fun. Kids can get into complex games just as easily (If not easier) than adults can - and not all adults have the time or inclination to waste time on a self-important game that's complex-for-complexities sake when they just want to relax and engage in mindless activities once they're back from adult responsibilities...
I think you really, really missed the point of this article: also, go watch Star Trek: The Original Series episode "Shore Leave"
How is gratuitous animation in a gratuitous fighting game a travesty? It's not like you don't know what you're getting into when you buy it. Unless there's an actual problem in the tit-physics.Bealzibob said: