Get Out of Your Comfort Zone for 2016

[weirdee]

My only real contention is that Yahtzee has already professed his love of Earthbound, and since I've understood that Undertale to a large degree apes the mood/setup of Earthbound I am a bit uncertain if playing Undertale was that much of leaving a comfort zone.

It turns out Undertale is actually kind of a different thing from Earthbound, but that doesn't become apparent until after the fact, so your point is perfectly valid and agreeable. That being said, it might instead count as a sort of an antithesis to the utterly safe and bland new Star Wars film: something where you expect the same old thing, but instead find something entirely new and different and fresh and actually pretty good.

really, most of the elements were not earthboundy besides the menus and the fact that you're playing a dumpy shaped kid. and then all of that gets thrown out of the window within five minutes of gameplay and takes off running into the wilderness.

 

[forgotpassword]

That was surprisingly emotional for a Yahtzee thing. I really liked it changed my perspective and all that shit. But yeah thanks for writing that.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

So does this mean you're finally going to ditch your disingenuous "disconnect" narrative about RTSes and actually properly play the Command & Conquer series?

Really though, I too am against all forms of mediocrity. It damages everything as a whole.

 

[NPC009]

I think I might be doing comfort zones wrong. Artsy fartsy sprite-based games that question your role as the player? That's one of the coziest corners for me. Undertale is an interesting game, because I recognise elements from other games in it (though some are probably coincidences rather than results of inspiration). I dodged through bullet hells in Knights in the Nightmare, Off also had a weird yet thematic love for black and white, and sure, there's a tiny bit of Earthbound in it as well. At the same time the game indulges in and plays with memes, making an instant connection with anyone who spends any amount of time on the internet. Undertale offers mostly things I know and am comfortable with. For me, it's like a safe haven.

Now, games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto - those make me nervous! Mostly because I'm bad at them. Really bad. Golden Eye and Time Splitters were some of the last shooters I somewhat enjoyed. And well, yeah, the themes don't really interest me. I prefer games that are about creating rather than destroying. I'll happily spend hours improving my equipment in an Atelier game, and that process is as rewarding as beating up a tough boss (and saving the day - I like making things better). Chaos and wanton destruction aren't my thing. I've tried to like it, but when I did, it was always something that followed me figuring out how to nearly break the game with the power of maths. So, uh, yes to Disgaea, no to Just Cause, I guess.

 

[CarelessRook117]

Honestly.
I don't know how Yahtzee manages to do it, but he never fails to destroy any and all aspects of my life that make me happy and turn them into more sources of anxiety.

Me neither. Nothing of what you said makes sense. Who cares if you enjoy Halo and Tomb Raider? Well, why should you care about who cares? Does gaming require community approval in order to be enjoyed? No, it doesn't. The people who declares that AAA is stagnant and no longer innovates, care more about what they are going to lunch today than about what you like to play. Why should you let them ruin your play sessions?

Because I hope to be an artist in the future. And being an artist means you can't just lock yourself in your little box and only make what you want to make.

(Unless you're Toby Fox apparently. I don't know weather to congratulate that man for his success. And staying true to himself or tell him to go eat a big fat dick because I have to live up to his success.)

Hearing consistently that the stuff I take inspiration from is "bad" for the industry is disheartening to say the least.

Meh! I wouldn't worry too much about that. These trends come and go like waves. One day, a different stuff will be the safe stagnant trend, and your source of inspiration will be considered that sweet spot outside the comfort zone. Keep practicing, and you'll be ready for the big ride.

There is no guarantee for any of that, and the longer I wait, the more art comes out that does stuff better than what I could possibly do.

I can't even count how many times I've seen something in game or show and gone "Oh, there goes that idea." because it's executed something I planned on doing far better than I ever could and I can't do the same thing without being labeled as uninspired.

One of the reasons I'm mildly averse to Undertale is that I'm JEALOUS of it. This one guy managed to make the the art HE wanted to make AND have it be wildly popular and innovative.
On his twitter, he wrote a tweet expressing how he's concerned about what kind of impact Undertale has had on people and gotten overwhelming positive feedback, with people telling him that He's "Only responsible for the art he makes, not it's effect."

It's so funny, because in mainstream gaming, it seems to be the opposite. Big budget games are berated for "encouraging shady practices." Or "contributing to the downtrend."

I know it sounds stupid and petty, but it's true.
In all honesty I should be looking up to stuff like this.

 

[CarelessRook117]

He talks about how devs aren't taking risks anymore due to consumer complacency.

Or how they are only obligated to do what nets them a profit, and because of the consumer taking what they've been given, there's no obligation to improve.

The way I see it, He's saying we should only play "innovative" games because by enjoying "mediocre" one's we're ruining the industry by encouraging stagnation.

I can't find a flaw in that logic, so I took it as something objective.

This whole article I would be pointless unless Yahtzee is trying to get some kind of message across, and that's what I've found so far so I assume it as the message he sent.

If you saw something else, I would be genuinely glad to hear about it, because otherwise this is just confirming my fears about where gaming is going.

I can. There's quite a big flaw in this logic. First, most of the stuff I loved in games was fucked up and wasted over the years.
The industry will not stagnate, it'll fuck things over and over and over because this is what this industry does.
Second, Yahtzee said it himself, "the general audience likes novelty more than they like their ability to fucking breathe in and out".

I suppose we should praise and cherish what we have today because the games industry has this natural born inability to provide us with "more of the same, but better". They will "innovate" inevbitably and not in a good way. And they'll do it soon.
So yes, have it while it lasts. If there's anything good, chances are they'll stop producing it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying I shouldn't be depressed about the state of the Industry because it will just continue to get WORSE? How does that make any sense?

 

[CarelessRook117]

He talks about how devs aren't taking risks anymore due to consumer complacency.

Or how they are only obligated to do what nets them a profit, and because of the consumer taking what they've been given, there's no obligation to improve.

The way I see it, He's saying we should only play "innovative" games because by enjoying "mediocre" one's we're ruining the industry by encouraging stagnation.

I can't find a flaw in that logic, so I took it as something objective.

This whole article I would be pointless unless Yahtzee is trying to get some kind of message across, and that's what I've found so far so I assume it as the message he sent.

If you saw something else, I would be genuinely glad to hear about it, because otherwise this is just confirming my fears about where gaming is going.

I can. There's quite a big flaw in this logic. First, most of the stuff I loved in games was fucked up and wasted over the years.
The industry will not stagnate, it'll fuck things over and over and over because this is what this industry does.
Second, Yahtzee said it himself, "the general audience likes novelty more than they like their ability to fucking breathe in and out".

I suppose we should praise and cherish what we have today because the games industry has this natural born inability to provide us with "more of the same, but better". They will "innovate" inevbitably and not in a good way. And they'll do it soon.
So yes, have it while it lasts. If there's anything good, chances are they'll stop producing it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying I shouldn't be depressed about the state of the Industry because it will just continue to get WORSE? How does that make any sense?

 

[CaitSeith]

I can't even count how many times I've seen something in game or show and gone "Oh, there goes that idea." because it's executed something I planned on doing far better than I ever could and I can't do the same thing without being labeled as uninspired.

OK. And how many times have you seen something and gone "How can they ruin such a good idea? What were they thinking?" knowing that you can do it better? Even more importantly, how many ideas have you made into a game or show?

PS: AAA games aren't accused of "encouraging shady practices." They are accused of "doing" shady practices. The gaming community didn't put micro-transactions and season passes in those games. The creators did.

 

[CarelessRook117]

I can't even count how many times I've seen something in game or show and gone "Oh, there goes that idea." because it's executed something I planned on doing far better than I ever could and I can't do the same thing without being labeled as uninspired.

OK. And how many times have you seen something and gone "How can they ruin such a good idea? What were they thinking?" knowing that you can do it better? Even more importantly, how many ideas have you made into a game or show?

PS: AAA games aren't accused of "encouraging shady practices." They are accused of "doing" shady practices. The gaming community didn't put micro-transactions and season passes in those games. The creators did.

I know the creators did, but the community never says, "Yeah that game was bad. Let's move on to the other game and look at it for it's own merit."
They go "Man it's games like this that are ruining the industry." and "This company is what's wrong with gaming." Stupid devs doing stupid things aren't the issue.

Blanket statements like that insinuate that a game's merit is never determined by it's own achievements. It's determined by what it does "For the industry." So basically, you aren't judged for your art, your judged based on whether or not you are good for the whole. So as someone could potentially enter this sphere, that message you can't just do what you feel is cool, you have to do what's "best for the industry."

Identifying a product's flaws doesn't make you a better creator.

Based on the logic I see, you can't be successful just by not making mistakes. (I.E being mediocre.) You can only be successful buy beating out something else and doing what is regaurded as "Good" for the masses. And when those ideas are taken, they're gone and you have to do something else, or else you'll just be mediocre.

 

[Loonyyy]

He talks about how devs aren't taking risks anymore due to consumer complacency.

Or how they are only obligated to do what nets them a profit, and because of the consumer taking what they've been given, there's no obligation to improve.

The way I see it, He's saying we should only play "innovative" games because by enjoying "mediocre" one's we're ruining the industry by encouraging stagnation.

I can't find a flaw in that logic, so I took it as something objective.

This whole article I would be pointless unless Yahtzee is trying to get some kind of message across, and that's what I've found so far so I assume it as the message he sent.

If you saw something else, I would be genuinely glad to hear about it, because otherwise this is just confirming my fears about where gaming is going.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you took it wrong, and you misunderstood objectivity.

It's not objective. He would rather more innovative, varied games. That's personal preference. It's not objective. For those to come with big budget polish and shine, to be made to a large scale and flesh out ideas, they need a budget. That'll only happen if the money is put in, and AAA will only do that if they see a significant ROI. It's all just preference.

He's saying that by stepping outside of his comfort zone, he's found some more things that he liked a little better, and that's a risk. You know what Halo will be. Tomb Raider has pretty clearly established it's formula (Which is basically a genre of third person gameplay conventions). If you play something different, you might hate it, or you might love it, it's a risk. And he'd like to see that risk, because he likes those games that are different. That's why he targeted mediocrity. Something like The Order: 1886 is just atrocious, because of it's overwhelming mediocrity. Obviously, you can stick to the comfort zone if it appeals to you, why would you have to listen to Yahtzee? He's just another dude with a column.

Gaming isn't "going" anywhere. AAA devs are risk averse, gaming is more about making passable entries in existing IPs with marketing. The news to take from this is that by staying true to your spirit, by making something you like, or are passionate about, you can make something like Undertale or Minecraft, and still do something amazing.

He can't confirm anything. He's just writing an opinion piece. A pretty obvious one really. Ironically enough, this sentiment is isn't very original. Not that that's a mark against it, but it's amusing.

 

[CarelessRook117]

He talks about how devs aren't taking risks anymore due to consumer complacency.

Or how they are only obligated to do what nets them a profit, and because of the consumer taking what they've been given, there's no obligation to improve.

The way I see it, He's saying we should only play "innovative" games because by enjoying "mediocre" one's we're ruining the industry by encouraging stagnation.

I can't find a flaw in that logic, so I took it as something objective.

This whole article I would be pointless unless Yahtzee is trying to get some kind of message across, and that's what I've found so far so I assume it as the message he sent.

If you saw something else, I would be genuinely glad to hear about it, because otherwise this is just confirming my fears about where gaming is going.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you took it wrong, and you misunderstood objectivity.

It's not objective. He would rather more innovative, varied games. That's personal preference. It's not objective. For those to come with big budget polish and shine, to be made to a large scale and flesh out ideas, they need a budget. That'll only happen if the money is put in, and AAA will only do that if they see a significant ROI. It's all just preference.

He's saying that by stepping outside of his comfort zone, he's found some more things that he liked a little better, and that's a risk. You know what Halo will be. Tomb Raider has pretty clearly established it's formula (Which is basically a genre of third person gameplay conventions). If you play something different, you might hate it, or you might love it, it's a risk. And he'd like to see that risk, because he likes those games that are different. That's why he targeted mediocrity. Something like The Order: 1886 is just atrocious, because of it's overwhelming mediocrity. Obviously, you can stick to the comfort zone if it appeals to you, why would you have to listen to Yahtzee? He's just another dude with a column.

Gaming isn't "going" anywhere. AAA devs are risk averse, gaming is more about making passable entries in existing IPs with marketing. The news to take from this is that by staying true to your spirit, by making something you like, or are passionate about, you can make something like Undertale or Minecraft, and still do something amazing.

He can't confirm anything. He's just writing an opinion piece. A pretty obvious one really. Ironically enough, this sentiment is isn't very original. Not that that's a mark against it, but it's amusing.

So then what am I supposed to do? Disregaurd any and all criticism because it's "Just an opinion so it doesn't matter."? Then what is the purpose of criticism? Why bother putting your subjective thoughts out of they won't matter?

Even if you're right, I am literally physically incapable of ignoring this kind of stuff after I learn about it. I actually have a perfect example.

I have been playing Xenoblade Chronicles X since it came out and, up until today, I would have told you how much I love it. I found a rather negative review on the game and now when I sit down to play it, that's all I can think about, even if I try to write it off as "Just an opinion." It sullies the game for me and I HATE it but I can't stop myself, I'm the problem.
Then I end up doubting the games I play, and the content I partake in, as well as the content I hope to produce, creating a black whirlpool that consumes everything I enjoy and taints it.

Staying true to myself is becoming fucking hard.

 

[CarelessRook117]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying I shouldn't be depressed about the state of the Industry because it will just continue to get WORSE? How does that make any sense?

I am a little bit disturbed individual, so not understanding what I am trying to say is probably a good sign.
What I'm trying to say is that shit goes out the window all the time and the supposed stagnation of the industry is for the most part imaginary, because games always change something. It is a made up thing. Drunken shambling of the industry is probably very real, but the stagnation is not possible.

Do you like old school fast-paced shooter games? I do. I like to call them Action Shooters, to separate them from the shooting gallery games and all of the Something Else Shooters.
At the time it looked like they pop up like mushrooms after the rain and everybody is making them and they all look the same.
These are definitely my comfort zone. But if I were to dive into this part of my comfort zone, I will quickly find there aren't so many of them after all. It seemed at the time that there are many of them, but it was an illusion that a tired critic is prone to. It is actually quite difficult to stay in the comfort zone.

Games change gamers change, and everything walks the same dialectic spiral of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. Games that are prevalent today will be ditched for something else entirely soon enough, but they will probably be revisited and reinvented later down the line.

So then what's your point? Am I just at the mercy of this "Dialectic Spiral" that you describe? Or am I in control of what happens?

Because Both of those options don't bode well for me.

 

[Lazule]

Good justification. But anyway Undertale is not the game of the year, it's decent better than I expected but I stopped playing it because I started playing Witcher 3.

The thing is indie games can be good but honestly they're waaay more limited than good triple-a. Good triple-a titles will always outshine anything indies can do simply because they got more tools available and when they have an skilled dev team well everything comes naturally. Witcher III, Bloodborne and other titles are proof of that...

 

[CarelessRook117]

So then what's your point? Am I just at the mercy of this "Dialectic Spiral" that you describe? Or am I in control of what happens?

Because Both of those options don't bode well for me.

Well, you being in control won't actually cancel the laws of life so you can have both or neither at the same time.

Then I'm just back at square one then.

 

[Gul]

really, most of the elements were not earthboundy besides the menus and the fact that you're playing a dumpy shaped kid. and then all of that gets thrown out of the window within five minutes of gameplay and takes off running into the wilderness.

But by that time you've already bought the game, so might as well keep going.

 

[tiamat5]

I agree with that part fully about the safe and comfort zone. The prequels for Star Wars were not done well but at least they tried something different. If they had only done it right it would have been fine. I didn't hate it like some people because it didn't LOOK like Star Wars but because they didn't seem to have made much of an effort to make it work. But it is still better than just simply copy/pasting lines and plots and shoving in old actors to give fanboys a small thrill while people like me just wonder if they are forcing these old actors into do it as they look like they are about to collapse from the effort.

It wan't a horrible movie but it was a 'safe' movie. Just like Charlie Brown. You could almost see that it was done in fear of what modern audiences would think of it to the point that they dulled everything down to the point that the others barely made fun of or put Charlie Brown down. In mean he practically destroyed and messed up the dance but they didn't even acknowledge that fact when we all know that they would have never let him live it down. So it made me wonder why they even bothered or why CB even felt depressed or anything seeing that there were basically ignoring everything he did wrong. In short it was 'safe'. I don't want 'safe'. Safe is boring.I want them to take chances. Even if it fails or is misunderstood I still applaud your effort and just want you to apply yourself better and try harder next time. I don't want to reach a point where you are just copy /pasting and leeching off past accomplishments to fuel future games, movies or anything.

 

[KingDragonlord]

I know Yahtzee did acknowledge that the consumer need for a reliable value leads us to seek mediocrity. But I've seen these complaints for novelty a lot from critics and frankly I think they also have to acknowledge the corollary, that being a critic makes you get tired of sameness more quickly. For fans, its not that we're settling for a safe value. Its that we found something we loved and wanted me.

I've played around 70 games in the last 4 years, thats games I put a substantial amount of playtime into, not necessarily beat. Yahtzee has played around 200 games to completion at least in that time (I know sometimes he doesn't finish a game but some weeks he also reviews multiple games and there has to be stuff he plays just for him) and thats not taking into account that he's been doing this professionally for 8 and a half years. Fatigue sets in.

Now as for the call for "challenging" the audience. I see this complaint a lot from critics and normally it smacks of "We need to inject my views into popular entertainment because for some reason the ignorant masses don't appreciate me burning a trash pile shaped like Leonard Cohen while screaming the U.S. Tax Code at them over a bullhorn."

But its Yahtzee. I don't think he'd be as quick to make this complaint. Even so, I do not think that people who aren't interested in being challenged need people storming into their homes while they're trying to unwind after a long day to preach at them. If you want to be challenged, I think there's enough there for you. If you don't want to be, its nobody's prerogative to force it on you, or try to sneak it into things.