Don Daglow Dissects the American Online Gamer

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Oh wow, I just don't know what to say about this.
I mean the offensiveness of this guy rivals internet trolls.

Because surly ALL American gamers are drooling idiots who only care about guns and instant gratification, who don't accept failure and don't know who Stalin is despite the fact that quite a few shooters are set during WW2.

The bad part is, most of the points for making the games are actually good (with exception for the last point)...History rarely sells and is often unknown.

I think he was being tongue in cheek (which is supposed to make it okay).

By the way, the last point is true too. Historical games only work if they are restricted to familiar historical settings, which just so happen to be the ones he described (the few ones the stereotyped average American knows: Gladiator, Braveheart, The Patriot and Saving Private Ryan). I don't expect a game about the Rus or the Benin empire to sell, and neither does any game company.

So many possibilities for good historical games, so much struggle for them to sell to those naïve of history. An early Islam conquering game would be great, as would a Mongol/Rus conflict game or sim city mixed with tower defence of the Indians against the Muslims. The push for whitey is strong, but there is a whole other world out there. Imagine a 3rd person Aztec char against the conquistadores?

 

[DeliciousTruffle]

Who the hell is Steve-O?

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

Daglow argues that this inclines American users towards seeing in-game failure as a problem with the game, not a product of their own mistakes.

This isn't what American gamers are like. This is what developers THINK American gamers are like.

This is a big reason why so many games today are so boring. They're too afraid to give adequate punishment to a player. You can't have up without down.

 

[BeerTent]

[Content too big for me]

The entirety of what this man has said pretty much works with every mean and nasty thing I've said about the people who play games and annoy the shit out of me, and the direction games have been going in the past while.

While this information is not new to me, it still disgusts me, and I can't call out on any of it because I know, the Public School system is at least half as bad everywhere else. Far below acceptable levels.

Take note, I don't mean to say ALL of the US's public schooling is twice as bad as everywhere else, but sweet jesus, sometimes I wonder.

 

[Reyold]

This may actually be true of me, at least to some degree. I quit a good few games, because they were too hard (some justified, some... not). One recent example was the first three Professor Layton games. I was so excited to start playing them. This was the stuff of legends, y'know? This was THE Professor Layton.

I didn't get past the first game.

It's not like I didn't like it. but it bothered me that I was stumped 95% of the time (I know they're supposed to be hard, but still...). But now I've got an urge to give the good Professor another shot, so we'll see.

On the flip side, I've really enjoyed some games that were hard, like A Boy and His Blob (Wii version) and Elite Beat Agents (on Normal difficulty, made harder by the fact that I had never heard of most of the songs), so the whole thing may just be situational.

 

[Risingblade]

I feel slightly offended, there is some truth of that though. Meh whatever

 

[Smooth Operator]

I predict some random shootings in his home town happening in the very near future

Obviously people will flip out over this but there is truth in his assessment, there is a good chunk of gamers that can be described with those traits.
But I completely disagree with the advised approach, ignorance should not be rewarded by catering to them because it will get worse, we are naturally lazy and if we don't get lured toward something greater then we will get progressively more comfortable with doing nothing.

Progress does not come with stepping backwards, it comes by pushing forwards.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

EDIT: If this is meant to be a joke, he's treading dangerous ground, there's a fine line between what can be taken as a joke and what's taken as offensive.

Really? I wonder what could have possibly made you think that.

Oh wait.

?offered a humorously scathing breakdown of North American online gamers for the benefit of European developers.

In a tongue-in-cheek talk at GDC...

He then went on to offer a brief tongue-in-cheek summary of the American understanding of world history:

[ul][li] Romans Vs. Barbarians.[/li]
[li]Dark Ages, nothing happened.[/li]
[li]Renaissance, then we got cars and planes.[/li]
[li]Stuff was going on in China and Japan, too.[/li]
[li]US got Independence, had Civil War over slavery.[/li]
[li]Lots of big wars in the last century.[/li][/ul]

So much for reading comprehension and a sense of humour.

EDIT:

What a fucking dickhead, If that was a joke it was in very bad taste.

u mad bro?

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Oh wow, I just don't know what to say about this.
I mean the offensiveness of this guy rivals internet trolls.

Because surly ALL American gamers are drooling idiots who only care about guns and instant gratification, who don't accept failure and don't know who Stalin is despite the fact that quite a few shooters are set during WW2.

The bad part is, most of the points for making the games are actually good (with exception for the last point)...History rarely sells and is often unknown.

I think he was being tongue in cheek (which is supposed to make it okay).

By the way, the last point is true too. Historical games only work if they are restricted to familiar historical settings, which just so happen to be the ones he described (the few ones the stereotyped average American knows: Gladiator, Braveheart, The Patriot and Saving Private Ryan). I don't expect a game about the Rus or the Benin empire to sell, and neither does any game company.

The last point was "History rarely sells and is often unknown" to me, this implies ALL history familiar or otherwise. which isn't true. As you yourself pointed out, familiar history does sell, but the point implies gamers have no interest in history at all.

Also if you read my edit, I understand it's meant to be tongue and cheek but that doesn't make it any less offensive. If a stand up comedian makes racist jokes in a tongue and cheek manner, does that somehow make them less racist?

I'll leave my post at this because I really don't wish to debate or argue, so even if you happen to disagree with me, lets at least agree to disagree. Fair enough?

 

[SonicWaffle]

I enjoyed having to actually use my brain to choose between two stats because I had to balance the effects they would provide.

But on the other end of that scale, we have the cesspit that is Borderlands' inventory management system.

"Here's a gun! We're not even going to make it totally clear at first glance what class of gun it is, but it has some strengths and some weaknesses which don't clearly stack up against anything else you've got! Also, some of the words in the descriptive text are highlighted because how fucking cool is random meaningless colouration?! Oh, and just for fun, we're going to throw a hundred of these at you in an hour and give you a very limited amount of inventory space, so have fun pausing the game every five minutes to decide what's worth keeping to use, what's worth keeping to sell, and what's total junk!"

Half an hour with that game feels like a six-hour slog.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I'll use the example of Dark Souls. That can be a truly punishing game, rewarding yes, but it sure hits you hard and your idea of constantly advancing, always triumphing. No the game forces you to think and plan and get your reactions right down. Not just button mashing either, or you will go off a cliff or over-commit and get slaughtered when you run out of stamina.

A friend of mine wrote this the other day, I think you might enjoy it and probably agree with his points;

http://ontologicalgeek.com/go-hard-or-go-home/

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

I'll use the example of Dark Souls. That can be a truly punishing game, rewarding yes, but it sure hits you hard and your idea of constantly advancing, always triumphing. No the game forces you to think and plan and get your reactions right down. Not just button mashing either, or you will go off a cliff or over-commit and get slaughtered when you run out of stamina.

A friend of mine wrote this the other day, I think you might enjoy it and probably agree with his points;

http://ontologicalgeek.com/go-hard-or-go-home/

Great, I most certainly agree.
I've got some stories for my dark souls playing friend, when we next catch up.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I'll use the example of Dark Souls. That can be a truly punishing game, rewarding yes, but it sure hits you hard and your idea of constantly advancing, always triumphing. No the game forces you to think and plan and get your reactions right down. Not just button mashing either, or you will go off a cliff or over-commit and get slaughtered when you run out of stamina.

A friend of mine wrote this the other day, I think you might enjoy it and probably agree with his points;

http://ontologicalgeek.com/go-hard-or-go-home/

Great, I most certainly agree.
I've got some stories for my dark souls playing friend, when we next catch up.

I've never touched it, partly because I draw a line between "challenge" and "masochism" and partly because I can hear my flatmate screaming obscenities at it and sobbing from the other room. I'm not willing to put myself through that

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Oh wow, I just don't know what to say about this.
I mean the offensiveness of this guy rivals internet trolls.

Because surly ALL American gamers are drooling idiots who only care about guns and instant gratification, who don't accept failure and don't know who Stalin is despite the fact that quite a few shooters are set during WW2.

The bad part is, most of the points for making the games are actually good (with exception for the last point)...History rarely sells and is often unknown.

I think he was being tongue in cheek (which is supposed to make it okay).

By the way, the last point is true too. Historical games only work if they are restricted to familiar historical settings, which just so happen to be the ones he described (the few ones the stereotyped average American knows: Gladiator, Braveheart, The Patriot and Saving Private Ryan). I don't expect a game about the Rus or the Benin empire to sell, and neither does any game company.

The last point was "History rarely sells and is often unknown" to me, this implies ALL history familiar or otherwise. which isn't true. As you yourself pointed out, familiar history does sell, but the point implies gamers have no interest in history at all.

Also if you read my edit, I understand it's meant to be tongue and cheek but that doesn't make it any less offensive. If a stand up comedian makes racist jokes in a tongue and cheek manner, does that somehow make them less racist?

I'll leave my post at this because I really don't wish to debate or argue, so even if you happen to disagree with me, lets at least agree to disagree. Fair enough?

There can be great over-saturation though, even with histories and settings one is familiar with. A member of my family way back, killed Nazis in Africa, I've been killing Nazis in games for almost two decades now. It unfortunately gets old.

http://lolimage.com/img/ups/7622880161341434372.jpeg

I think more interesting and innovative games can be made with new settings, but it sure is a risk.

On the comedian "If a stand up comedian makes racist jokes in a tongue and cheek manner, does that somehow make them less racist?" Race and racial conflict is a great source of humour and jokes. You can run through a skit and be completely non-racist, or, seem racist, make the audience laugh, and then use this as a stepping stone to further jokes.

Racist jokes can also hold truth within them, as a way of a storyteller to tell people what is going on, and what they have encountered, again, done through a humorous telling. Jewish and victimhood humour are all over this.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

I'll use the example of Dark Souls. That can be a truly punishing game, rewarding yes, but it sure hits you hard and your idea of constantly advancing, always triumphing. No the game forces you to think and plan and get your reactions right down. Not just button mashing either, or you will go off a cliff or over-commit and get slaughtered when you run out of stamina.

A friend of mine wrote this the other day, I think you might enjoy it and probably agree with his points;

http://ontologicalgeek.com/go-hard-or-go-home/

Great, I most certainly agree.
I've got some stories for my dark souls playing friend, when we next catch up.

I've never touched it, partly because I draw a line between "challenge" and "masochism" and partly because I can hear my flatmate screaming obscenities at it and sobbing from the other room. I'm not willing to put myself through that

Ah the sobbing. You work through it. Incidentally the captcha for this is: that hurts.

Why yes it does. My psych studying friend who also plays dark souls once got on a rant about how dark souls is like an abusive partner. And encourages you to accept victimhood and condone it. I don't really buy it, dark souls is simply a tragic heroic adventure, where you will suffer, but suffer so that you can learn.

Apparently this is what abusive parents say. Meh, I have 2.9 million souls and I have mastery over feelings of loss in game. I might just deliberately lose all those souls to go the next level of dark souls gaming. Not caring about loss, not caring about great success, just in a state of perfection for killing and dying in game.

; )

 

[TheLazyGeek]

[ul][li]Craft the opening minutes to hold attention.[/li]
[li]Use a simple, clear interface.[/li]
[li]Minimize text: show, don't tell in tutorials.[/li]
[li]The player is a celebrity, give them unique customization.[/li]
[li]Recognize that we're in the queue and the user is the master.[/li]
[li]History rarely sells and is often unknown.[/li][/ul]

I could almost swear he's talking about web design...

 

[SonicWaffle]

Why yes it does. My psych studying friend who also plays dark souls once got on a rant about how dark souls is like an abusive partner. And encourages you to accept victimhood and condone it. I don't really buy it, dark souls is simply a tragic heroic adventure, where you will suffer, but suffer so that you can learn.

Well, I'd say in part both you and your friend are right, but the game only forces the player to accept their victim status as a way for them to eventually stop being the victim. It punishes and brutalises but also teaches - or so my flatmate claims - so that the player eventually surpasses the abuse and comes out stronger. Tough love, if you will.

Me, I just think it's for masochists who enjoy constant suffering ;-)

 

[Ympulse]

Because surly ALL American gamers are drooling idiots who only care about guns and instant gratification, who don't accept failure and don't know who Stalin is despite the fact that quite a few shooters are set during WW2.

You just described the average 'merican. Take a good look outside, it will depress you.

He doesn't seem to understand that gamers are composed of more than just ten year olds screaming obscenities at each other over Xbox live.

Money talks, bullshit walks. Those xbox live kiddies have their parent's money. You (assumedly) dont. Who has more money to plonk down on silly shit like avatar customization that eventually adds up to $2-300? My money's on the whiny xbox live kid.

EDIT: I understand this is meant to be a joke, but he's treading dangerous ground, there's a fine line between what can be taken as a joke and what's taken as offensive.

The truth is often a joke, since it makes the blow easier to take.