- Mar 29, 2010
It's Okay To Be Dumb
Especially when being smart makes you miserable.
Read Full Article
Especially when being smart makes you miserable.
Read Full Article
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:The worst sins of the intellectual are the assumption that beings of lesser intelligence can't "get" what is being said, and the laziness to break concepts down into pieces that just about anyone can understand. If any critic wants to make a medium better their first job is to educate and inspire discussion.
This may be true with some people, but it's just dumb.Dastardly said: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:The worst sins of the intellectual are the assumption that beings of lesser intelligence can't "get" what is being said, and the laziness to break concepts down into pieces that just about anyone can understand. If any critic wants to make a medium better their first job is to educate and inspire discussion.
Oh, I agree 100%.tautologico said:This may be true with some people, but it's just dumb.
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.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.
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.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.
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: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.
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: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: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.
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.
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:I'm just glad I'm not the only one who would rather play to have fun then 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.
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: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.
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:-snip-
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: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. Their is not 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.