Thank you for expanding my vocabulary by one more word! "TASTGUSTING". I love it. Every fast-food meal I have from now on will be be described as such.
Context, Challenge and Gratification
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I almost certainly have the name wrong. Sorry. Basically its a triangular diagram with a major element at each apex, for example, one will show FeO, CaO, and MgO at each apex. The triangle is divided up with lines so that if a mineral is right on an apex then it contains only that element. For example calcite is right on the CaO apex because it is composed entirely of calcium in ideal circumstances. The opposit side would suggest that the mineral contains a percentage of FeO and MgO, but 0% CaO. Do you understand what I'm saying?believer258 said:
http://rimg.geoscienceworld.org/content/56/1/171/F4.small.gif
Ah, got one. I had the name right after all. Of course, the one we were shown was very basic, because our Met Petrology lectures were horribly organised and attempted to cram an entire module into two weeks.
First of all, the most actually popping bubblewrap is far more gratifying than games about popping bubblewrap.
Secondly, why is fantastic racism so wrong to everyone? "Why can't the humans and covenant get along, why are they both so intolerant?" because that would be a boring game. In a lot of games, I'm a fucking racist (to fictional races, mind you). High elves, I hate 'em. The Covenant, hate them too. Vampires, werewolves, supermutants, volus, Locust, Navi, etc. I'm just a pro-human asshole.
Secondly, why is fantastic racism so wrong to everyone? "Why can't the humans and covenant get along, why are they both so intolerant?" because that would be a boring game. In a lot of games, I'm a fucking racist (to fictional races, mind you). High elves, I hate 'em. The Covenant, hate them too. Vampires, werewolves, supermutants, volus, Locust, Navi, etc. I'm just a pro-human asshole.
Interesting, I was about to say in before people not letting a compliment towards a popular game slide without having one last chance to be prematurely judgmental about anyone who liked it just because they didn't (assuming they weren't too judgmental to not even give the game a chance either), like it's the only way they can feel important or something.trollpwner said:
What other people like and don't like in their games is of no concern to me (one wonders why it should be to anyone), but if I recall back in Yahtzee's review of Reach he didn't exactly 'bash' it. Granted, he found and laboured on its faults (he is Yahtzee after all), but the overall consensus seemed to be 'Not great, but a lot better than I was expecting'.
Mind you, I am speaking to someone with an avatar depicting Gordon Freeman decapitating Master Chief, so maybe I'm just as much of a fool for even trying to initiate a reasoned debate...
OT: I very much like the idea of three categories, and scoring each of them independently. That way, you'll be able to tell not just what the reviewer's opinion of the game was with more clarity, but also how that opinion might tally with yours based on what you tend to care about most in games.
The concept of a triangular chart is a little funny. Wasn't that one of the customisation changes he hated in SR3?
I don't think he is right on this one. Seems to me that things like intrigue, immersion and gratification would flow naturally from a game which is well endowed in the 'challenge' and 'context' departments. I my humble opinion, too many games are all about instant gratification (hell games like Bulletstorm and SR3 are built around that concept) and too games are directly attempting to be thought provoking (unless its some PC indie nobody gives a toss about).
In short, no thanks Yahtzee we don't need a added focus on gratification in videogaming, we have plenty.
In short, no thanks Yahtzee we don't need a added focus on gratification in videogaming, we have plenty.
Of course what I would definitely not do then is combine the three scores into some kind of "overall" value, because that's totally fucking meaningless.
That's OK. Taking your hard work and turning it into something meaningless is what Metacritic is there for.
That's OK. Taking your hard work and turning it into something meaningless is what Metacritic is there for.
I think you're taking it out of context here. He was disappointed with Saints Row 3 cause it couldn't be better than Saints Row 2, and if it were instead presented as Saints Row: Wacky Gameshow Spinoff, it would probably be more representative of what they would be trying to do with the series. He's not applying this standard to ALL GAMES.Lordofthesuplex said:
Of course, a different criticism would be that these numbers in themselves don't really mean anything other than if not having particularly high marks in any of the fields would make the game pretty much pointless.
I tried to read the article, but I kept trying to imagine Extra Punctuation presented as an XKCD comic and my brain short circuited from an overload of awesome.
This. Otherwise, we would be forced to call entire genres, like Visual Novels, or arcade games, inherently bad, because they don't fit this rule.Loonerinoes said:
I previously also tried my own "elements of gaming" breakdown. I came up with the four main definitions of "play": playing football, playing the violin, playing with a toy, and playing a record: In essence, Compete in something, Create something, Amuse oneself, and Experience something.
I would expect that with time, all of these will separate from the monolithic phenomena of "gaming". If current trends continue, only a smaller center of gaming-as-we-know-it will remain, but cybersports, interactive fiction, arcade fun-having games, and creative games (Sims, Minecraft), will completely split off as mediums. After all, all of them have their separate fandoms, and it only leads to conflicts when someone feels obliged to review one from the other corner, "because they are also games, and I'm a gamer".
Nowadays when everything is digital, still insisting that all software entertainment must follow one set of values, makes as little sense as discussing newspapers, novels, comic books, manga, and pop-up books in the "printed media", as if they would be the same basic type of art, in any meaningful way.
The thing I'm having some issue with here is that context can be highly subjective. People more will to forgive the game will apply more context, or at least justify what context there is (which I will totally do in a few lines), whereas others will point to the small amount of context and say that it's lacking.mjc0961 said:Agreed completely on where Saints Row 2 and Saints Row The Third would lie on this triangle graph. Saints Row 2 was the perfect balance of everything. Then Saints Row The Third comes along, and they focused on just one of the things people liked about the game (wacky crazy fun) and just pumped that up while sacrificing other things. I missed the kind of character interaction and development Saints Row 2 had. I felt SRTT was really disappointing in that department.
One confrontation with Phillipe, and then you kill him pretty early on without any further face-to-face confrontation with him despite the fact that this fucker killed Johnny Gat, the best character in the franchise. You drop a giant decoration on him, which is pretty awesome in the "wacky crazy" department, but compared to the stuff that happens in SR2, it just seems to come up short.
And then what happens after that? The Saints recruit a bunch of new people into their gang, and then between the four (later on, five) new members and the two you brought along from Stilwater (Pierce and Shaundi), none of them really get any kind of meaningful screen time or development. No memorable scenes. I think there was that time Kinzie was hiding under a booth in a diner, oh and Oleg and Pierce sure played a lot of chess. That Angel guy and his mask or something? That's about it I guess.
And for the other gang, WTF. Killbane kills one of the twins for you, and the other one defects so you don't get to kill her either despite both of them also playing a part in the previously mentioned killing of the best character in the franchise. You let Matt Miller fucking live because he offers you a few discounts at some shops. WTF is that?! At least you get some good confrontations with Killbane, but of course you have to let Shaundi get blown up to finish him off.
So yeah. SR3 is really fun when it comes to "holy shit look at Professor Genki" or just running around the street beating people with a giant floppy dildo, but it sadly lacks in other areas where SR2 had previously shined.
I also agree on everything at the end about the review scores. Review scores are generally nonsensical garbage.
Here's hoping Randall (xkcd author) sees this article and makes that triangle chart thing for us.
One can get quite a lot of context from the little scenes. There's a scene where you're driving around with Pierce, and the two characters are talking about Johnny, and you get some insight into all three as a result. While they definitely could have been more flushed out, the new characters you pick up at the beginning of Act 2 get little snippets of character at a time, which is enough to know who they are, but, sadly, not enough for them to feel fully realized. Angel requires a bit of understanding of Luchadores, Zimos is...well, as deep as the trope of a pimp, and Kinzie is a paranoid hacker who's got her kinks. These are silhouettes, recognizable, but still blurry. But from these you can project your own knowledge of people similar onto them.
While I'm still not sure I approve of the binary choices, the game does kind of play with the idea of creating a character throughout, at least. Are you hell-bent on revenge, no matter what, accepting the deaths of your friends as just more of the Syndicate's casualties? Or are you about your homies first, and getting revenge as long as you're all safe? Do you blow up a building to make a statement about how the Saints will topple the syndicate, or do you keep it for a swank new symbol of the Saints and their power?
Though, it would have been better had they given the option of killing Matt or getting his discounts. It would have stood up to the other in-game choices. Still, though, while gratification was higher, context was significantly less here. Nothing will match up to the scenes with Carlos's mercy kill and Aisha's funeral from the second. Those are some of the heaviest moments in gaming.
While I'm still not sure I approve of the binary choices, the game does kind of play with the idea of creating a character throughout, at least. Are you hell-bent on revenge, no matter what, accepting the deaths of your friends as just more of the Syndicate's casualties? Or are you about your homies first, and getting revenge as long as you're all safe? Do you blow up a building to make a statement about how the Saints will topple the syndicate, or do you keep it for a swank new symbol of the Saints and their power?
Though, it would have been better had they given the option of killing Matt or getting his discounts. It would have stood up to the other in-game choices. Still, though, while gratification was higher, context was significantly less here. Nothing will match up to the scenes with Carlos's mercy kill and Aisha's funeral from the second. Those are some of the heaviest moments in gaming.
I understand where you're coming from, and both challenge and context would appropriately fit in that xkcd comic, but gratification is just way, way too broad. Your description of 'gratification' basically comes down to everything that's fun or in any other way fulfilling. So, since gratification is the consequence of both context and personal characteristics (and some other things of course, but this is a post on a gaming website, not a master thesis), it can vary immensely.
Also, gratification can come from smacking people with dildos, which doesn't fall in either the 'gameplay' or 'challenge' category, but many other forms of gratification do. So you are basically describing gratification as some kind of Pavlov-ish x-factor, needed in case challenge and context are not enough. And even though this factor is essential, both the suggestions that (1) it is autonomous of context and challenge and that (2) it is on the same level as these two (instead of being a ?deeper? characteristic that can be attained from multiple perspectives are just..well, wrong.
..Ah, the delicious gratification of telling someone on the internet about his wrongness! xkcd has it all wrong as well in that respect. It's not a duty, it?s a privilege!
Also, gratification can come from smacking people with dildos, which doesn't fall in either the 'gameplay' or 'challenge' category, but many other forms of gratification do. So you are basically describing gratification as some kind of Pavlov-ish x-factor, needed in case challenge and context are not enough. And even though this factor is essential, both the suggestions that (1) it is autonomous of context and challenge and that (2) it is on the same level as these two (instead of being a ?deeper? characteristic that can be attained from multiple perspectives are just..well, wrong.
..Ah, the delicious gratification of telling someone on the internet about his wrongness! xkcd has it all wrong as well in that respect. It's not a duty, it?s a privilege!
This sounds like an interesting way to review. As a proponent, of making things into graphs, I say go for it. Also, props for the shout-out to XKCD.
I would say that what you've come up with is a really solid and concise version of a classic trichotomy (that I forget the name of) that has long been used to define why people play games, being simulation/mechanics(challenge), presentation/games-as-art(context), and gratification/awesomeness(gratification). If I had one critique, it would be that Challenge would be better described as Flow, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)] because challenge is only appreciated in the context of being able to meet that challenge.
Of course, each of these elements themselves have a delicate balance unto themselves. Context=[familiarity±novelty]; Flow(Challenge)=[Difficulty±Ability]; Gratification=[feedback±effort]. Of course, bear in mind that all of these are purely qualitative in nature.
Of course, each of these elements themselves have a delicate balance unto themselves. Context=[familiarity±novelty]; Flow(Challenge)=[Difficulty±Ability]; Gratification=[feedback±effort]. Of course, bear in mind that all of these are purely qualitative in nature.
This hypothetical style of scoring intrigues me. It eliminates the ambiguity of a single score by rating multiple aspects of the title separately instead of just averaging them. It makes score inflation across the board of games harder to accomplish because the reviewers would have to actually think about how effective the games are in multiple, unrelated ways. And the fanboys would have less (legitimate) cause to ***** and moan because even if a game gets a low value in one catagory they can be content with a higher one in another.
I of course qualify that last statement with "legitimate" because no matter what, fanboys will find something to complain about. Even if it's just them swearing and making impotent and immature accusations about the critic's sexual habits and those of their progenitors. All while poorly spelled.
I of course qualify that last statement with "legitimate" because no matter what, fanboys will find something to complain about. Even if it's just them swearing and making impotent and immature accusations about the critic's sexual habits and those of their progenitors. All while poorly spelled.
Dear Mr. Yahtzee, what you would thus be rewarding is not quality but balance. That is to say, a very shitty game would sit dead centre as would a stellar one. Furthermore, if you for example, opted to make the dot translucent based on quality each individual element would still be evaluated together, resulting in your hated overall score. I'm not sure this one has legs, but a sterling effort at something new, if a tad mathematical for my taste. Toodles.