How to Talk About Games #2

[SirCannonFodder]

I don't understand the love of video game music myself. Doesn't seem like a programmer at a keyboard coming up with a tune at the last minute playing only about 4 notes can be... ya know, something worth covering by a bunch of musicians who spend the bulk of their time focused on playing and usually writing music.

Yes, because the video game soundtracks people keep bringing up were composed by programmers, not actual trained composers and musicians. I mean Nobuo Uematsu [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobuo_Uematsu], Dave Wise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wise_%28composer%29] and Yasunori Mitsuda [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasunori_Mitsuda]? Totally programmers.

 

[SirCannonFodder]

Notice how whenever people bring up excellent examples of retro soundtracks, they're all from brilliant games?

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that if they were bad games, people wouldn't remember them 2 decades later? Or that that the games people keep bringing up were all major releases from established publishers, meaning that they're far more likely to have the budget to hire an actual composer, rather than depending on "Bob the programmer that also plays the drums in his spare time"?

 

[SonicWaffle]

AAAARGH NOW I AM ANGRY ABOUT EVERYTHING AAAARGH

I'm going to go and throw knives at the lifesize model of Grey I had made just for this occasion.

 

[Bostur]

These arguments happen because people keep asking the wrong questions. Judging a game by it's narrative, is like judging a cake by the quality of the flour. Good narrative and good flour can help, but those elements are not by themselves the purpose of the cake and game.

I still think Alpha Centauri has the best narrative, even though it doesn't have one.

Actually I think if we remember a good story or good soundtrack from a game, the game did something wrong and failed to blend the elements properly. They need to support the show, not steal the spotlight.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

On the ongoing argument of the quality of chiptunes in this thread after an offhanded comment about chiptunes by a comic creator...

From an academic standpoint, I can imagine that without certain Distort Filters being placed Chiptunes can come across as a sound without much of an Attribute. A plain Chiptune doesn't have any of the flaws in a note that a String instrument, a reed instrument or Brass instrument might have. and its these flaws that give the sound its Attributes.

If done right, this allows the Chiptune to either fit in more without sounding like "Noise", or to make it easier to hear most of the notes clearly, as well as giving it an other-worldly quality (albeit not a super natural one).

However, if done wrong, this can leave you with a track that could be Construed as "Empty" sounding. Which is often the case with "Downgraded" songs made to fit the Chiptune Infrastructure. Especially when they specify some archaic software specification like "8 bit" or "16 bit"... Keeping in mind, the tunes that do work under those specifications were specifically designed to cope with the limitations.

Of course, we're talking "Chiptune", not 8 bit or anything specific. Technically anything all the way up to full modern tech Specifications counts. Heck, it's technically plausible to make a 256 bit Chiptune or more. But the software to create such things is usually a lot more expensive. Nor does Chiptune have to be used exclusively, as it can be mixed with recorded analogue music or Digital Samples of instruments.

All that said, Chiptune is just another tool in the kit of a skilled composer. Its neither good nor bad, and if a tune is good or bad its on the Composer's hands, not the tool he or she used.

And I guess this makes the Entire Point...

...

... That specifying Chiptune in the comic was mildly unnecessary. It would have been sufficient just to say "Shitty Music" without blaming the tools, or the style.

 

[RedIvy]

Notice how whenever people bring up excellent examples of retro soundtracks, they're all from brilliant games?

I hope you don't sleep in a bed. Do you know how high a percentage of deaths happen in beds? Those things are DANGEROUS!

Maybe there's a reason good games have good music? How do we tell what's the cause and what's the effect? Could be what you're saying, could be the other way around.

 

[Silva]

I disagree with the claim that Gordon Freeman is not a character. That's exaggerating the point, and not every argument against it is related to the quality of the rest of the game or some kind of "smudge" effect with opinions of game aspects.

Gordon Freeman is a tastefully underdeveloped, projection character who serves his role correctly as a silent protagonist. Characters are merely devices in any narrative that do not always have to be heavily developed, and to this end, he is actually a success. The "idea" of Gordon Freeman as a symbolic character is pretty heavily developed in Half Life 2, with the way he is instantly recognised and met with joy by various characters. Their reverence and respect are due to the events of Half Life 1, which was more conventionally shitty in the protagonist inner-narrative department but well remembered for all the other parts of the game (and so, a more fitting example of what Critical Miss is trying to say, but obviously, Gordon Freeman didn't just appear in Half Life 1, or I wouldn't make this post).

Gordon's experience is a visceral experience, fraught with personal danger, full of moments where the player is physically thrown around by the narrative. In this sense, much of the action in Half Life 2 suits the fact that he is incredibly taciturn. Pick many situations in the game and consider: one way or another, whatever Gordon says, the rest of what happens will happen anyway. Often, Freeman's course is very much under the control of everybody else, struggling along a path of manipulation by the true powerful people, adding to the irony of the way he is viewed reverently as the "one free men" by the rebels.

Dr Freeman may not be developed in the traditional, old-media way with dialogue and scripted thought processes, but there is reason to like the narrative related to him and the way it develops him reflectively as an "Everyman". Many games try and fail to make the protagonist archetype so appealing or personal, and many of them deserve to have the protagonists labelled "non-characters" because of how out of place the silent protagonist can be. Often silent protagonists sit idle-mouthed in a game when it seems like dialogue could fix things or answer questions to an ordinary human mind. But Half Life 2 did it right, and it made a stronger, more visceral experience than if he'd been, say, another sarcastic, mouthy shooter protagonist, so Freeman has a better place in our hearts with good reason. Imagine Half Life 2 with Duke Nukem talking throughout it! How disappointing would that be, even to those of us who LOVE character dialogue in games when it fits? (I know I do and that is a positively awful hypothesis.)

So while I agree with Critical Miss' point and think that it applies to many games, I must differ on the subject of Gordon Freeman. Some characters do not need tons of traditional style dialogue development to be appealing, interesting, or, indeed, to avoid being referred to pithily as "non-characters". While the games industry may currently suffer from a problem with under-developing characters in far too many games, let's not assume that developing the crap out of every character is a good decision either.

 

[Legion]

This is amusing, because people talk about how angry NGE get when Grey mocks them, but apparently criticising 16-Bit music is something much more rage worthy. Who'd have thought?

Grey you have a knack for finding where to poke it seems.

 

[franksands]

This is great. This second episode in fact is one of the great problems in any argument: a lot people have problem with the idea of "I love this game but it has A, B and C faults".

 

[Arawn]

Something can be said about silent protagonists (HAHAHAH) They can be annoying at times, but the opposite can be said for the "witty" ones. You know the characters that make a wise crack with each attack or button press. The same jokes over and over again. Now there are games where the hero says his piece during cut scenes and movies, but remains mute the rest of the time. This works. There are other games where the character speaks at key/scripted times during a sequence. This also works. But I will say of all the silent protagonists, Half life 2 does it best. Now I'll have you note I didn't say "Gordan Freeman is the best" I said they did it best. The overall game puts you in the shoes of Mr Freeman. It didn't take long for me to assume the identity given to me. I was Gordan Freeman. I was the one guiding the watercraft as the gunship dropped mines from above. I watched for the elevator to come to me as monsters advanced from both sides. I led the resistance members through the streets. Even if he said nothing I laughed when Barney reminded me of the drink. I flinched when Lemar jumped from the vents. I got mad as I was betrayed, and smiled as I was overcame. I don't think his speaking would have done anything aside from bore me. Not a perfect game, but it very fun experience. Sometime the hero should just shut up and let you enjoy the ride.

 

[The Wooster]

These arguments happen because people keep asking the wrong questions. Judging a game by it's narrative, is like judging a cake by the quality of the flour. Good narrative and good flour can help, but those elements are not by themselves the purpose of the cake and game.

I still think Alpha Centauri has the best narrative, even though it doesn't have one.

Actually I think if we remember a good story or good soundtrack from a game, the game did something wrong and failed to blend the elements properly. They need to support the show, not steal the spotlight.

What you've just done is move the goal posts without providing an adequate argument as to why you're doing so. "Element X isn't as important as element Y" isn't a given, it's a position you have to support.

And no: "They're called games for a reason" is not an argument.

 

[Bostur]

These arguments happen because people keep asking the wrong questions. Judging a game by it's narrative, is like judging a cake by the quality of the flour. Good narrative and good flour can help, but those elements are not by themselves the purpose of the cake and game.

I still think Alpha Centauri has the best narrative, even though it doesn't have one.

Actually I think if we remember a good story or good soundtrack from a game, the game did something wrong and failed to blend the elements properly. They need to support the show, not steal the spotlight.

What you've just done is move the goal posts without providing an adequate argument as to why you're doing so. "Element X isn't as important as element Y" isn't a given, it's a position you have to support.

And no: "They're called games for a reason" is not an argument.

No I was trying to say that "XY is more important than element X and element Y by themselves. You are right though it's not a given, it's just like you know my feeling.

I think it makes sense to question the position of the goal posts, when they appear to be outside the field. I said 'appear' because these posts can't be measured objectively.

When people say that Resident Evil has a good narrative, and that Gordon Freeman is a good character, maybe they really mean that the games help them create a good narrative/good character in their imagination. That is a different argument, but not an invalid one I think. So in a sense I think you moved the goal posts, and I'm arguing to put them back where they belong.

You are right that people are often inaccurate talking about these things. But one has to use common terms discussing things. If there are no terms to accurately describe what is mentally happening when playing Half-Life using aproximate terms for the context may be necessary. The statement "Gordon Freeman is a good character" is an aproximate term for something that is hard to describe because we lack the necessary language to do so.

So I still think Alpha Centauri has a good narrative, even though it doesn't have one. And I think Gordon Freeman is a great character, even though he isn't.

Players often project quality from one aspect of a game onto another

Maybe they sometimes do that. But I think what also happens is that they don't see the game as a sum of aspects but as a whole. That is hard to describe though, especially when common criticism mostly use terms from other media.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Inventive 16bit music vrs boring backgr..er...event music you instantly forget..... I dunno........

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

These arguments happen because people keep asking the wrong questions. Judging a game by it's narrative, is like judging a cake by the quality of the flour. Good narrative and good flour can help, but those elements are not by themselves the purpose of the cake and game.

I still think Alpha Centauri has the best narrative, even though it doesn't have one.

Actually I think if we remember a good story or good soundtrack from a game, the game did something wrong and failed to blend the elements properly. They need to support the show, not steal the spotlight.

What you've just done is move the goal posts without providing an adequate argument as to why you're doing so. "Element X isn't as important as element Y" isn't a given, it's a position you have to support.

And no: "They're called games for a reason" is not an argument.

I dunno games kinda have to be about gamepaly less they fall apart and become worthless or mindless interactive videos.

 

[Jordi]

SNIP

SNIP

I don't think this is necessarily as paradoxal as you make it out to be. The stories and characters in a video game (or how they are experienced) are sort of a collaboration between the developer and the player. If the developer provides a very light story / character, there is more room for the player to come up with their own epic tale experienced by their deep and complex hero. In that case, people might praise a developer's story that may appear fairly weak in isolation, because that "weakness" resulted in an overall great story.

I think the player's part of the story / characterization has the potential to be much more significant, because it's more personal and custom-tailored to the player. So it's no wonder that some people would laud these stories / characters as "the best". However, this also requires a certain imagination / mindset / playstyle on the part of the player, so it makes sense that this would be a divisive issue.

I do agree that in order for this to happen, you need more than light developer story / character. Great, detailed environments and/or extensive characterization options should facilitate player story telling.

You hit the nail on the head at the end there. I guess the point I originally meant to make is that everyone confuse the story they completely made up or inferred in their heads with the hard data presented in the games. The stuff people love about the game is that it gives us so little information that we have an excuse to use our imagination.

I think we mostly agree. I'll say though that perhaps whether or not a story is good can be judged on several different "scales". I get the sense that the kind of "good story" you're referring to is about how good the "tale/legend/narrative" (I don't really know the correct word) is. But you could also say that a story is good if it makes the game better. In that case a more minimalistic story may be "better" than some epic tale, in this case specifically because it allows the user to come up with their own.

I agree that just having a very minimalistic story is not going to do the trick and you need compelling gameplay etc., but it can definitely be an important ingredient.

Half Life 1 has great game play and a well realized science facility (even by today's game standards) but by playing it you would NEVER understand that the story revolves around "Nihilanth, the controlling intelligence behind the vortigaunt invasion of Earth" (wikipedia) who is a single telepathic overlord enslaving an untold large population of lazershooting cyclops. And then there's the G-Man, a fan favorite whom the devs throw at the player seemingly just to confuse them. 15 years later and still no one has a clue who or what he is and what he's doing.

The devs make engaging play, really cool environments, pretty neat bad guys, and in HL2 a much healthier amount of context, but strong story is not something I'd put on the list. That's something we made up and just attributed to them.

I'd love to discuss more but I have to get back to work before my boss notices ^.^
Fan boys, while I'm gone feel free to scream at me into oblivion (or you can have an actual discussion about merits of implied story, but that's much less satisfying).

I haven't actually played Half-Life (I know: heresy! But at least I'm not a fanboy), but it sounds to me like the minimalistic story here actually did work really well. The fact that people are still excited about the G-Man is a testament to that. That might not have happened if Half-Life had had a better story according to "your" definition, although I can definitely see how a lot of people might have preferred a more fleshed out story. People are different though.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

16 bit music... bad?


The last two panels are great though.

 

[Something Amyss]

However, the reason that journey is so memorable is because of the characters, settings, and events the players experienced.

Filtered through what I can do, what I have done, and what I have experienced. I honestly feel that without Freeman's everyman template that would be diminished for enough folks to make my prior statement true. Maybe not ALL THE PEOPLE, but still.

Hypocrisy. Isn't it a wonderful thing? Especially when the person engaging in it isn't even aware they're doing it.

A lot of people on the internet demonstrate a distinct lack of self-awareness. I think it's because libertarians are the new black.

Sad to say even great sites like The Escapist aren't free of that kind of sensationalist journalism.

Sensationalism? What do you mean? They're telling it like it is!

...In my mind!

...Which is obviously how it should be!

>.>

While I take your point, my Fox News Bubble comment was more about the way we take comfort in people speaking to things as we believe them, whether right or wrong. I know I'm biased and for the most part try and expose myself to alternate points of view. It's gotten harder since the whole screaming match thing became the default way of communicating, though. While gaming is frequently subject to controversy, the controversy often comes specifically from the fact that gamers (as a whole) can't handle anything that upsets their world-view. Which is very Fox-News-Bubble-esque in its own ways.

The thing is, it's hard not to be controversial in gaming. Giving a game a 90 can get people flaming you for being "teh bias" against a game. What started the Dragon's Crown controversy? Some radical feminazi movement out to destroy games? No, one review that would have been largely ignored if people didn't have a tantrum. And I'm sorry to put it in those terms, but it really came off as a tantrum. One reviewer didn't like my game as much as everyone else. This is the worst first world problem ever!

Same with Anita Sarkeesian. A woman nobody would have even heard of if not for the offense taken that a woman would dare come in and try and...Read off tropes that impact the way games are made and reflect sexism? Like, seriously, this is something we supposedly all "already know." Yet, when someone brings it up, we (again, group we) deny it, and yell, and threaten to rape her.

Her prior videos had almost no fanfare and almost no impact. The biggest difference is that you can now no longer argue her points with her because people were just spamming the comments with hateful shit.

Basically, it seems like half the base jumps to histrionics the minute anything is said. It's like our entire sense of self is based on this fine-tuned notion that gaming as we see it is perfect, because I can't imagine anything else big enough to make that kind of a difference.

However, I would still argue that quite a few 8 and 16 bit soundtracks from 'back-in-the-day' were still very well composed pieces of music. Some even brilliant by todays standards.

And I wouldn't argue that. I actually WOULD argue that someone who can make good music despite limitations is better off than someone who needs all sorts of tools to pull it off.

The most memorable music is often the simplest. The Zelda Theme is quite excellent and quite memorable. It's not particularly showy or deep, but it gets the job done and a lot of music is the same. Especially soundtracks.

The flip side is that you're basically composing for piano or a theory class. In fact, chiptunes do make me a touch nostalgic for my days in music theory, where you spend a lot of time doing four-voice compositions that can be very similar. For, uhhh...Obvious reasons. It's not necessarily a hard thing to do, just a hard thing to do well.

Everything from Beethoven to Koji Kondo tends to be stacked based on its hummability.

However, the medium itself is pretty average at best. There's a lot of crap composed within these limitations, which is where I was coming from.

 

[Something Amyss]

I can buy that. Kinda like how the old folks at work sing the Duck tales song from time to time.

To be fair, it's a catchy song, and that's a big element. I didn't even like Ducktales (I'm one of those old people ) and just mentioning it means you've stuck it in my head for a month.

...Curse you!

Darkwing Duck's theme was still better.

You mention association as if the music wasn't part of the game anyway.

As it pertains to it being performed by musicians outside of the gaming context, it's not.

Beyond that, I get your argument for why the music can be a part of the game, but you yourself state it doesn't have to be and I would add it usually wasn't in the 8/16 bit days. There's a push towards more sumphonic/orchestral music with recurring themes/leitmotifs within the music, but people are covering Mega Man and Contra games. Fun music, but most of it is only done because of association with the games, whether there is any concrete tie to them or not.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that for the most part, the fondness for gaming music comes from something touched upon in the comic: players often project quality from one aspect of a game to another. This isn't to say there aren't awesome themes out there, just that the positive feelings we have tend to be due to misplaced association.

Its the primary reason chiptunes are a genre in the first place, I would go so far as to say.

Thats a bit presumptuous no?

I did point out that I was "betting." It's less presuming and more accepting that you're more than likely not interested in the given media. If it makes you feel better to call me presumptuous because I played the odds, then go for it. Rock your socks off.

And what do you mean by "average gamer"? Someone who just plays Call of Duty and WOW? I doubt those types of gamers would listen to chip tunes very much.

I like how you immediately jump to the CoD/WOW wagon, like most "real" gamers are big fans of piano music. It's only the dudebros who are at issue.

Hell, if we went off this site, most people wouldn't listen to anything not metal, unless it was done by a Japanese band or a video game composer.

Aaaaaaand that's kind of the point. Your standard gamer doesn't care about this music because of its style but because of where it came from. Congrats. YOU like player piano tunes. That doesn't make you a reflection of the population at large or even the chiptunes fans.

I never bashed anyone for imprinting on a silent protagonist. My words were harsh in retrospect.

So what you mean is you never meant to bash anyone. If I call someone a douchebag, even in the heat of the moment, I'm still insulting them. Even if I later call my words harsh, the most I can say is my intent wasn't to hurt them feelings, not that I didn't hurt their feelings.

But you know what? All I had to go on was your words.

And next time try not to trample me with your horse alright?

You just admitted to being harsh, act as though you weren't out to do it, then IMMEDIATELY go and do it again. Thanks. I'm getting a lot of sincerity out of this.

 

[Something Amyss]

Maybe there's a reason good games have good music? How do we tell what's the cause and what's the effect? Could be what you're saying, could be the other way around.

I imagine this could be readily tested given someone with the time and resources to do so. Play them without context and see if the music is as favourably looked upon. I imagine someone could even write up a scientific methodology that's more complicated than the half-assed one I gave, but I'd bet that the conclusion reached would be that people are misplacing their affection for he games into the soundtracks.

... That specifying Chiptune in the comic was mildly unnecessary. It would have been sufficient just to say "Shitty Music" without blaming the tools, or the style.

That wouldn't have hit the same point, however.

This is amusing, because people talk about how angry NGE get when Grey mocks them, but apparently criticising 16-Bit music is something much more rage worthy. Who'd have thought?

Grey you have a knack for finding where to poke it seems.

Gamers are a giant, exposed, raw nerve. Finding where to poke us is like being able to find the ground. Even if you fail, you should be in he right direction.

Unless you're Arthur Dent.

However, this does deliciously touch upon the subject of self-awareness. You can see some of the same posters who were going "yes, yes, this will be gooood" over that NGE comic getting all defensive now."

Basically, "I like it when other people get mocked. Not so much when I do."

This is great. This second episode in fact is one of the great problems in any argument: a lot people have problem with the idea of "I love this game but it has A, B and C faults".

I think the industry and medium would be better off if we could handle directed criticism instead of treating it as an assault on the whole. That would require gamers to become less defensive, however, and I don't see that happening.