Jennifer Hepler leaves Bioware due to threats by fans

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
Err no I can't understand why, not all reasoning has to be evidence based (particularly in the case of discussing art or entertainment.) In my opinion I derived my argument logically from sound premises, if you think I didn't then tell me where my reasoning has went wrong, but don't ask for object evidence for a subject where there is none.
It's up to you, really. Cloud Atlas made a suggestion to you about how your particular style of argumentation comes across, you refuted it, I am echoing his concern. We all have things we enjoy and don't enjoy, but I find I bristle when I hear people bloviating on forums about what video games are and aren't, and issuing grim jeremiads about how is ruining the medium. It's a lot of No True Scotsman rubbish, and it makes me cross. Sometimes I dislike a game, for reasons that are personal to me. Doesn't make the game shit on toast.

JazzJack2 said:
But what more is there to say, they can't be used as evidence because whether or not these games where a success is a purely subjective opinion, like I said before expanding upon why I think they are shit is mostly irrelevant to this thread because it will serve to prove nothing (I guess you could argue discussing them could bring up important ideas anyway even it doesn't prove them but most of those games quoted I thought where shit for reasons irrelevant to the subject of discussion anyway).
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10529-How-to-Talk-About-Games-3

It just helps to substantiate your perspective. If you're going to trash on "Dude Where's My Car", people are probably going to give you a lot of leeway. If you're going to trash on "The Godfather", you should probably have a salient argument prepared. As discussed, you can always hand wave everything with "It's just my opinion..." but we're here to have discussions, not shout our opinions into empty space.

JazzJack2 said:
I know you said you didn't want a constant exchange of videos and I understand that but I would seriously recommend watching that video I linked you, it hits on everything wrong with Bioshock Infinite.
I'm familiar with the criticisms of the game. I don't even disagree with most of them, yet I feel the game largely succeeds in what it sets out to do. While I find your criticisms of some of the "gamier" elements on the nose and thus fairly amusing, I'm also a little confused. Are you critical of these "gamey" intrusions in other titles? I don't know that I've ever played a game where there was total adherence to realism, and if I did I imagine it would be dreadful. Perhaps it's just that I've been gaming a long time, but I tend to make allowances for stuff like this, or I never would've made it out of the 80's, where 95% of the world building took place inside your head.

JazzJack2 said:
Hand on heart it's not hyperbolic, Bioshock Infinite is one of the worst video games I have ever had played and has one of the worst storylines I ever had to endure.
You're a fortunate man. In my day we had games like Pool of Radiance re-formatting your hard drive when you tried to uninstall it, or Ultima IX decimating over 20 years of lore and fandom with arguably the single most insulting and broken product in the history of fiction. I wish "muddy quantum physics" was the worst crime a game had committed against me. =)
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
Its not a valid intermediate solution because not only does it breed apathy to attempting to integrate gameplay and story (why bother when people can skip them right?) it would actually force further seperation, if a game is made with skipable gameplay in mind then the gameplay will have to be skipable without effecting story and thus the elements will become even more distinct and disparate.
These are only assumptions, not facts, and I'd argue that none of them are very likely. Why should a game be tailored from the outset so as to make combat skippable? I can't imagine that more than a small fraction buys games with the intention of skipping combat right away. And people who do skip combat are aware that they miss half the game, and I doubt they'll be apathetic to this circumstance.


Well because at least you are experiencing it, unlike skipping it which would just completely ignore the work of entire teams of designers. (I am not defending rushing through on easy though, I think everyone should at least try and rise to the challenge of a game)
It seems to me that, at the end of the day, you just want to impose your idea of playing games correctly on everyone.
No not really, I am not attacking this because I don't like that people would choose it, I am attacking it because will cause huge damage to the quality of games.
Yes, really, that is exactly what you do - right here, right now. You are saying that everyone should play games on the difficulty level that he finds challenging. So if someone doesn't play a game your way, he's pretty much playing it wrong. If this isn't trying to impose your way on others then I don't know what is.

Needless to say, I don't feel the least obliged to adhere to your notion on how I am supposed to play games. [/quote]



This is your personal opinion, but I think it is fair to say that it is not shared by everyone. To me (and apparently all of the press) the story of Bioshock: Infinite was among the best stories I ever experienced in games, perhaps even the best, and made more than up for the not so awesome, and somewhat unfitting, gameplay.
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but to me Bioshock Inifite has to be one of the worst examples of storytelling I've ever seen. The game is plagued by a constant inconsistency in tone, the logic of the plot and in the behavior of characters, the game brings up themes which it treats very amateurishly and doesn't really develop upon them at all (racism for example is brought up but to seemingly no consequnce). All of this is finished off by one of the most insulting uses of quantum physics and the Multiverse theory ever used, I mean they may have well said it was magic that caused the tears.
[/quote]

No, I don't have to agree to disagree. But I'll settle for not taking your opinion seriously.
If you call a game like Bioshock: Infinite, a game with a metascore of 94, "complete and utter shit" and one of the "worst examples of storytelling" - not that you just didn't like it, that it is objectively this bad - then I just have to assume one of two things: either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're one of those many many gamers who didn't like something for whatever reason and then confuse their personal opinion with anything that would be even remotely deserving of the label "objective".

I agree with you, gameplay is often strangely at odds with the narrative. But the story itself is still crafted so masterfully as I've rarely, if ever, seen in a game.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
It's up to you, really. Cloud Atlas made a suggestion to you about how your particular style of argumentation comes across, you refuted it, I am echoing his concern. We all have things we enjoy and don't enjoy, but I find I bristle when I hear people bloviating on forums about what video games are and aren't, and issuing grim jeremiads about how is ruining the medium. It's a lot of No True Scotsman rubbish.
I really fail how to see how anything I've said is a No True Scotsman.




It just helps to substantiate your perspective. If you're going to trash on "Dude Where's My Car", people are probably going to give you a lot of leeway. If you're going to trash on "The Godfather", you should probably have a salient argument prepared. As discussed, you can always hand wave everything with "It's just my opinion..." but we're here to have discussions, not shout our opinions into empty space.
Well I completely disagree, the argument that somehow disliking the Godfather is less valid than disliking "Dude Where's My Car" and thus requires more substantiating seems to me to be nothing more than an Argumentum ad populum. Yes admittedly I'd find a hard time taking seriously someone who prefers "Dude Where's My Car" to the Godfather (and likewise anyone who would compare games like Bioshock Infinite to the Godfather) but that is nothing more than a personal bias and has certainly nothing to with objective qualities found within either film.




Are you critical of these "gamey" intrusions in other titles?
Yes, any game that has a constant contrast between gameplay and story I will find difficult to enjoy.



I don't know that I've ever played a game where there was total adherence to realism, and if I did I imagine it would be dreadful.
I am not looking for consistency with reality but consistency within the games own world, the fact that certain elements do not adhere to reality in Bioshock Inifinte is not much of a problem, but when they don't adhere the to the games own logic there is a problem.



You're a fortunate man. In my day we had games like Pool of Radiance re-formatting your hard drive when you tried to uninstall it, or Ultima IX decimating over 20 years of lore and fandom with arguably the single most insulting and broken product in the history of fiction. I wish "muddy quantum physics" was the worst crime a game had committed against me. =)
And I wish "muddy quantum physics" was the worst crime Bioshock Infinite committed against me but that's really surface level compared to the many other problems I have with it.

CloudAtlas said:
Why should a game be tailored from the outset so as to make combat skippable?
I did make this point before but I'll reiterate in a simple list of my premises and the conclusion I derive from them, if you disagree with any then tell me and this discussion might actually start moving forward again instead of in circles.

-For a game designer to want to have skipable combat in their game it would be to appeal to a certain demographic
-This demographic is most likely people who find gameplay uninteresting or too difficult and only care about the story or atmosphere
-The designer has a choice now either they can:
-Design the combat in way that allows it to be skipable with little or no detriment to the story and atmosphere.
or
-Continue to allow certain elements of story and world building to be told through the gameplay.

-If he goes with the first the demographic he was targeting will most likely be happy as they can enjoy skipping the combat with little detriment to the story but this will be largely at the expense of depth and world building that could have been found in the gameplay.

-If he goes with the second then it surely it defeats the original purpose of adding skipable combat. The demographic he was appealing to would not be happy, they want to play a game for an interesting story and world but will miss out on elements due to not playing through the gameplay and thus will either avoid playing the game altogether or will feel to compelled to play the gameplay now anyway in order to properly experience the world.

Yes, really, that is exactly what you do - right here, right now. You are saying that everyone should play games on the difficulty level that he finds challenging.
No I didn't, I said its my personal opinion that people should try and challenge themselves when playing games but I am not in anyway judging people who choose not to.

So if someone doesn't play a game your way, he's pretty much playing it wrong. If this isn't trying to impose your way on others then I don't know what is.
Err because there's a key difference? Disagreeing with the way someone plays a game is a large way from dictating and imposing your view on them like some sort of mad Video-game Hitler.


No, I don't have to agree to disagree. But I'll settle for not taking your opinion seriously.
What was is it you where just saying about imposing views on others?

If you call a game like Bioshock: Infinite, a game with a metascore of 94,
I don't see why you would bring up it's metascore, seems like nothing more than an appeal to authority to me(and a bad authority at that considering how unreliable and unprofessional gaming journalism is)

not that you just didn't like it, that it is objectively this bad
I never made any claims to objectivity at all, quite the opposite in fact.

or you're one of those many many gamers who didn't like something for whatever reason and then confuse their personal opinion with anything that would be even remotely deserving of the label "objective".
Actually its seems to me you're the one confusing personal opinion with objective fact, you seem to unable to comprehend that I could think Bioshock Infinite is not the masterpiece you purport it to. You refuse to accept that my opinion (that Bioshock Infinite is one of the worst games ever made) is as equally valid as yours in favour of the game and so you attempt to dismiss my opinion (in you're own words "But I'll settle for not taking your opinion seriously." or "you have no idea what you're talking). Frankly I am not sure why I should even bother debating with you if you are unwilling to properly respect and discuss alternate viewpoints, you're free to disagree with my opinions but if you disagree so strongly with my analysis of the game tell me why but don't disregard my opinion as if its not even worth talking about.


I agree with you, gameplay is often strangely at odds with the narrative. But the story itself is still crafted so masterfully as I've rarely, if ever, seen in a game.
Well if Bioshock Infinite's story is that good to you I would recommend you never read any actual literature then because your head might explode in sheer amazement.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
I really fail how to see how anything I've said is a No True Scotsman.
You've repeatedly expressed a belief that if a game is designed to appeal to a certain demographic, or if they deviate from how you believe they should be designed, then they suffer "huge damage", and cease to be any kind of proper game at all. I'm sure you can see where that overlaps with No True Scotsman. In this case it's just No True Video Game.

JazzJack2 said:
Well I completely disagree, the argument that somehow disliking the Godfather is less valid than disliking "Dude Where's My Car" and thus requires more substantiating seems to me to be nothing more than an Argumentum ad populum. Yes admittedly I'd find a hard time taking seriously someone who prefers "Dude Where's My Car" to the Godfather (and likewise anyone who would compare games like Bioshock Infinite to the Godfather) but that is nothing more than a personal bias and has certainly nothing to with objective qualities found within either film.
Well, this is where you and I are going to butt heads, because I think it's as plain as the nose on your face that there are some objective qualities in art. They are the reason, for example, that you will recognize Mozart as a pianist, but if I jam my hands on the keys for 20 minutes, I am not immediately granted the same designation. Gaming even moreso...GRAPHICS, for example, are a purely objective medium. You may hate a game's art direction, and style, but there's no denying when one title is technically superior to another. Or plays smoother. Or is relatively free of crippling bugs. Or demonstrates basic story coherency. Etc, etc, etc. Honestly, throwing a subjective blanket over all of art is rather a cowardly way to justify extremist perspectives that cannot rationally be substantiated. There's a big difference, right, between "I hate the Godfather" and "The Godfather is the worst film ever made". The latter should really be followed up with "...and here is why". People have been making "...and here is why" arguments about why they think it's the BEST film ever made for a long time. That doesn't mean it's objectively the best, it means the people who praise it have bothered to substantiate WHY. I don't care if you hate a popular or critically beloved film, or band, or game. I'm just going to have a hard time taking it seriously until it's substantiated with something more than hyperbolic conclusions (worst game evarrrr!) in place of detailed arguments.

By the way I don't think "The Godfather" is the best film ever made, it's just a convenient example. I was actually a little bored at points. Similarly, I've always hated the films of Stanley Kubrick, despite their acclaim. I've just always figured the problem was with me and my tastes, and not that the rest of the world was full of idiots for enjoying clearly inferior movies.

JazzJack2 said:
Yes, any game that has a constant contrast between gameplay and story I will find difficult to enjoy.
So is it your contention that attempting to introduce richer story elements into games is in error, then? They will inevitably find themselves at odds with game play. Are you happier with a game like, say, Bad Dudes, which never attempts to establish any kind of story at all, and simply satisfies itself with being about Bad Dudes? I have a hard time imagining you've been playing a rash of titles that DO integrate story and game play without any issues, because I can think of a host of similar problems to "Booker is eating candy out of the trash again" in almost every game I've ever played. And I've played a lot of games.

JazzJack2 said:
I am not looking for consistency with reality but consistency within the games own world, the fact that certain elements do not adhere to reality in Bioshock Inifinte is not much of a problem, but when they don't adhere the to the games own logic there is a problem.
I'm not sure where you see the game deviating from a sense of internal logic other than pointing out people behaving in ways not consistent with how real people would behave in similar circumstances. Killing without remorse, scavenging for supplies, NPCs have no regard for their own life...these are game play allowances. We might as well complain that a chocolate bar does not actually heal a gunshot wound, and that Booker would've gotten tetanus from that rusty hook. I actually think there ARE ways in which Bioshock Infinite stumbles while trying to integrate game play from story, and I'm familiar with the fact that the more expressive and nuanced storytelling becomes in games the more it's at odds with the game itself. Tomb Raider is another title that had people screaming about lack of remorse. Why? Because they bothered demonstrating remorse at all. If they'd made her another steely eyed heroine no one would've cared, we've been butchering NPCs by the thousand since the birth of the medium. I do think it's a tad churlish to claim some of the first games taking baby steps towards growing up narratives are amongst the worst games ever made because they're encountering game play/story dissonance.

JazzJack2 said:
Well if Bioshock Infinite's story is that good to you I would recommend you never read any actual literature then because your head might explode in sheer amazement.
Apples and oranges. It's like scoffing at someone's affection for a dog because it doesn't run as fast as your car.
 

PeterMerkin69

New member
Dec 2, 2012
200
0
0
CloudAtlas said:
Do you believe that verbal abuse, including specific threats to your kids or graphic descriptions of you being beaten up, raped, or murdered have no effect on people? Yes or no?
And you believe the current situation is just fine, that we shouldn't attempt to do something about it, that everyone should just deal with it?
Whether or not there is an effect depends on the person. Having said that, I don't think these alleged people are capable of just dealing with nonevents; if they were, this wouldn't be a faux controversy to begin with. If anything, they need to seek professional help in building effective coping skills instead of whining about the ravings of powerless pre-teens and teens and then having their legions of sheltered fans and the gaming media white-knight for them for fun and profit.

Comparing this verbal abuse is an insult to actual verbal abuse victims.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
CloudAtlas said:
Why should a game be tailored from the outset so as to make combat skippable?
I did make this point before but I'll reiterate in a simple list of my premises and the conclusion I derive from them, if you disagree with any then tell me and this discussion might actually start moving forward again instead of in circles.

-For a game designer to want to have skipable combat in their game it would be to appeal to a certain demographic
-This demographic is most likely people who find gameplay uninteresting or too difficult and only care about the story or atmosphere
-The designer has a choice now either they can:
-Design the combat in way that allows it to be skipable with little or no detriment to the story and atmosphere.
or
-Continue to allow certain elements of story and world building to be told through the gameplay.

-If he goes with the first the demographic he was targeting will most likely be happy as they can enjoy skipping the combat with little detriment to the story but this will be largely at the expense of depth and world building that could have been found in the gameplay.

-If he goes with the second then it surely it defeats the original purpose of adding skipable combat. The demographic he was appealing to would not be happy, they want to play a game for an interesting story and world but will miss out on elements due to not playing through the gameplay and thus will either avoid playing the game altogether or will feel to compelled to play the gameplay now anyway in order to properly experience the world.
The question was a rhetorical one. I just can't imagine that appealing to the likely small group of people who buy a game but don't want to play its combat part is incentive enough to alter your game design in a significant way. Surely, if you want, and are able to, integrate combat and story well, you wouldn't want to forego that as it would mean creating an objectively worse game, a game that will be less liked by reviewers and the majority of consumers alike.


Yes, really, that is exactly what you do - right here, right now. You are saying that everyone should play games on the difficulty level that he finds challenging.
No I didn't, I said its my personal opinion that people should try and challenge themselves when playing games but I am not in anyway judging people who choose not to.
You think your way of playing a game is the right one, and that games should be created to suit your preferences, and only yours. You don't even want the option included to play games in a different way even if it is only that, an option.

No, I don't have to agree to disagree. But I'll settle for not taking your opinion seriously.
What was is it you where just saying about imposing views on others?

If you call a game like Bioshock: Infinite, a game with a metascore of 94,
I don't see why you would bring up it's metascore, seems like nothing more than an appeal to authority to me(and a bad authority at that considering how unreliable and unprofessional gaming journalism is)

not that you just didn't like it, that it is objectively this bad
I never made any claims to objectivity at all, quite the opposite in fact.

or you're one of those many many gamers who didn't like something for whatever reason and then confuse their personal opinion with anything that would be even remotely deserving of the label "objective".
Actually its seems to me you're the one confusing personal opinion with objective fact, you seem to unable to comprehend that I could think Bioshock Infinite is not the masterpiece you purport it to. You refuse to accept that my opinion (that Bioshock Infinite is one of the worst games ever made) is as equally valid as yours in favour of the game and so you attempt to dismiss my opinion (in you're own words "But I'll settle for not taking your opinion seriously." or "you have no idea what you're talking). Frankly I am not sure why I should even bother debating with you if you are unwilling to properly respect and discuss alternate viewpoints, you're free to disagree with my opinions but if you disagree so strongly with my analysis of the game tell me why but don't disregard my opinion as if its not even worth talking about.
I don't take your opinion seriously and I am unwilling to debate with you in detail because what you said just sounds like the typical "I didn't like it, so it must be bad" logic you see in all too many gamers. And not just "bad", no, it has to be "utter shit" and the "worst game ever". And, just like those gamers, you didn't really care to elaborate much on that initially, despite stating an opinion that is contrary to the general opinion. Now you're starting to tell me that's just a subjective opinion, but it didn't read that way, and I doubt you mean it. Nothing in your posts suggest that you acknowledge that Bioshock Infinite (or the other games) does have positive qualities, and that you not liking it might be in part on you.

Well if Bioshock Infinite's story is that good to you I would recommend you never read any actual literature then because your head might explode in sheer amazement.
A very literate person such as yourself would surely realize that my user name is the title of a critically acclaimed novel and thus not assume that I've never read a single piece of actual literature, would he?
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
PeterMerkin69 said:
CloudAtlas said:
Do you believe that verbal abuse, including specific threats to your kids or graphic descriptions of you being beaten up, raped, or murdered have no effect on people? Yes or no?
And you believe the current situation is just fine, that we shouldn't attempt to do something about it, that everyone should just deal with it?
Whether or not there is an effect depends on the person. Having said that, I don't think these alleged people are capable of just dealing with nonevents; if they were, this wouldn't be a faux controversy to begin with. If anything, they need to seek professional help in building effective coping skills instead of whining about the ravings of powerless pre-teens and teens and then having their legions of sheltered fans and the gaming media white-knight for them for fun and profit.
You call being insulted, threatened (no matter how seriously) or otherwise verbally abused "nonevents". You insinuate that no one is really affected by it ("these alleged people"). You say that if someone is affected by it, it's his/her own fault, his/her skin just isn't thick enough - you say it's the victims fault.
In short, you seem to believe that there's no problem here at all. Congratulations, that makes you just as much a part of the very same problem as the dickheads who perpetrate all this abuse in the first place. I'm done talking to you.
 

Naeo

New member
Dec 31, 2008
968
0
0
Clearly, the logical response to someone saying or doing something that in no way affects you but with which you disagree is to threaten the lives of their family.

This is why no one takes us seriously, right here. This is legitimate ammunition for the "video game community is stupid" talking heads.
 

PeterMerkin69

New member
Dec 2, 2012
200
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
You know the old saying "Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?"Well that isn't true most of the time.Death threats and getting hate mail all the time affects people even driving certain ones to suicide,most can cope but others become depressed and burnt out emotionally.
If they're dangerously sensitive then perhaps they shouldn't open themselves to public scrutiny by walking into the spotlight. When you release something you are accepting the risk that some people will not like it and respond poorly. Obviously this does not excuse death threats, but hate mail and criticism are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly fair. Just as I am opening myself up to your criticism right now, so do they when they put their abilities on stage for all the world to see.

It should be obvious, but this is not a problem that can be fixed in any meaningful way. Trolls are cluster bombs, they're the hydra; you cannot put every angsty 13 year old with an email account in jail, you can not ban them, you can not silence them. There are too many and what they do is too easy becuz causality. The best thing to do, then, is to treat the far smaller number of people whose weaknesses they exploit so that their behavior doesn't interact in any meaningful way.

Alternatively, armchair Internet superheroes can make a token effort to waggle their collective finger at it until the next big faux controversy catches their fancy.

Naeo said:
This is why no one takes us seriously, right here. This is legitimate ammunition for the "video game community is stupid" talking heads.
Do you also think it would validate racism if one black man stole your television? Please.

You realize this isn't something exclusive to video gaming, right? Movie stars frequently receive death threats. Politicians. Eight year olds on YouTube receive death threats. The teary-eyed game devs should be thankful that no one's thought to send them any white powder or anthrax in the mail yet.

By people I assume you mean grownups and scholars of other media, and by take you seriously, I mean approve of the new medium on which you "waste" all your time. You know what? That's not something that's happening because there are malcontents. There are always malcontents. It's happening because video gaming's the new kid on the block, and everyone in the entire history of humanity has always thought that the next big thing, or the next generation, was going to end the world as they knew it. No one took film seriously because literature was srzbznz. No one took television seriously because it wasn't the picture-shows. No one took video games seriously because it wasn't mature like television. Do you see a pattern emerging here?

Besides, video gaming is a 67 billion, with a b, dollar industry. If that isn't "serious" enough for you then I don't what is.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
JazzJack2 said:
I really fail how to see how anything I've said is a No True Scotsman.
You've repeatedly expressed a belief that if a game is designed to appeal to a certain demographic, or if they deviate from how you believe they should be designed, then they suffer "huge damage", and cease to be any kind of proper game at all. I'm sure you can see where that overlaps with No True Scotsman. In this case it's just No True Video Game.
No again I really fail to see any tie in with the No true Scotsman at all (you'll have to spell it out for me), all I said was that in order for me to enjoy a game and consider it good I require at least a reasonable amount of integration between the gameplay and story.

Well, this is where you and I are going to butt heads, because I think it's as plain as the nose on your face that there are some objective qualities in art. They are the reason, for example, that you will recognize Mozart as a pianist, but if I jam my hands on the keys for 20 minutes, I am not immediately granted the same designation.
But that is still based on a social preference for one thing other another, it's still subjective. Imagine if for example aliens came down to earth with no understanding of music and you played them Mozart and then your brilliant piano-key smashing composition and asked them which is better that would be unable to judge because what constitutes 'good music' is based on thousands of years of human thought. If you want a less hypothetical example listen to contemporary Classical and Jazz composers like Stockhausen, Cage, Antheil, Cecil Taylor or Feldman or some East-Asian classical music or anything that is based on values different or opposed to traditional western ideas about music and you'll see what we take for granted as good is really just opinion.



Gaming even moreso...GRAPHICS, for example, are a purely objective medium.
Well you could argue that good graphics are objective (even then there is still some debate (e.g are flatter textures better than ones with more bump mapping applied, there are arguments for either side.) But the actual value certain graphical elements have when constituting 'good graphics' is still purely subjective. For example a recent trend in gaming seems to be that better higher resolution textures and more detailed character models are very important for good graphics where as I personally don't find them all too important and find things like animations and shaders to much more important for achieving good graphics.


Honestly, throwing a subjective blanket over all of art is rather a cowardly way to justify extremist perspectives that cannot rationally be substantiated. There's a big difference, right, between "I hate the Godfather" and "The Godfather is the worst film ever made". The latter should really be followed up with "...and here is why". People have been making "...and here is why" arguments about why they think it's the BEST film ever made for a long time. That doesn't mean it's objectively the best, it means the people who praise it have bothered to substantiate WHY. I don't care if you hate a popular or critically beloved film, or band, or game. I'm just going to have a hard time taking it seriously until it's substantiated with something more than hyperbolic conclusions (worst game evarrrr!) in place of detailed arguments.
No I don't disagree that people should substantiate their points but your argument seems to be that people who make or hold controversial points or ideas are more required to substantiated their viewpoints, you wrote and I quote "If you're going to trash on "Dude Where's My Car", people are probably going to give you a lot of leeway. If you're going to trash on "The Godfather", you should probably have a salient argument prepared." Why should people be more inclined to justify a dislike of one thing over the other simply because their critical reception is different?


So is it your contention that attempting to introduce richer story elements into games is in error, then? They will inevitably find themselves at odds with game play.
No because I feel they won't, as you put it, inevitably find themselves at odds with gameplay, plenty of games have already largely integrated story and gameplay and I would even go as for and say that some, like the Walking Dead or Dark Souls for example, have completely integrated story and gameplay (maybe with an occasional lapse here and there.)



Are you happier with a game like, say, Bad Dudes, which never attempts to establish any kind of story at all, and simply satisfies itself with being about Bad Dudes?
I've never played BadDudes but if it has solid gameplay then I wouldn't care about the lack of story.




I have a hard time imagining you've been playing a rash of titles that DO integrate story and game play without any issues, because I can think of a host of similar problems to "Booker is eating candy out of the trash again" in almost every game I've ever played. And I've played a lot of games.
Well obviously no game is perfect and there will always be clashes and problems, but I can say with some confidence that if I was to make a list of my favourite games most of them would have at least a good degree of integration between story and gameplay (that is if they have a story at all).

I'm not sure where you see the game deviating from a sense of internal logic other than pointing out people behaving in ways not consistent with how real people would behave in similar circumstances. Killing without remorse, scavenging for supplies, NPCs have no regard for their own life...these are game play allowances.
But I don't agree they should be allowed or excused, I am willing to accept to any contradiction with reality no matter how large as long as the game/book/film/whatever explicitly explains this and states it as a premise, for example I can accept there are magical space wizards and giant moon sized WMDs in Star Wars or that in Bioshock there are magical tonics that there give you special powers because these are established premises of the story's world and so I enact willing suspension of disbelief. But Booker eating out of bins is not reconcilable because not only is this behaviour not established within the logic of the game's world but actually the opposite, Booker comes across as a perfectly sane individual in the story sections of the game and him eating out of bins contradicts this entirely.

I do think it's a tad churlish to claim some of the first games taking baby steps towards growing up narratives are amongst the worst games ever made because they're encountering game play/story dissonance.
I am sorry but I really disagree, Bioshock Infinite and the other games mentioned are not in my opinion a first baby step to good narratives in games they are massive leap backwards, when I look back to the past and see games like STALKER, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Dark Souls (which I know is very recent but whatever) Fallout 1 & 2 and Portal all of which not only vastly exceeded games like Bioshock Infinite in terms of world building, story, characterization and atmosphere they all also managed, at least to a reasonable extent, to integrate gameplay and story (at least in my opinion anyway)


CloudAtlas said:
I don't take your opinion seriously and I am unwilling to debate with you in detail because what you said just sounds like the typical "I didn't like it, so it must be bad" logic you see in all too many gamers. And not just "bad", no, it has to be "utter shit" and the "worst game ever". And, just like those gamers, you didn't really care to elaborate much on that initially, despite stating an opinion that is contrary to the general opinion. Now you're starting to tell me that's just a subjective opinion, but it didn't read that way, and I doubt you mean it. Nothing in your posts suggest that you acknowledge that Bioshock Infinite (or the other games) does have positive qualities, and that you not liking it might be in part on you.
So you make tenuous assumptions about my position and opinions and then disregard them based on said assumptions? Yeah I was right, there definitely isn't a point in discussing things any further with you.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
No again I really fail to see any tie in with the No true Scotsman at all (you'll have to spell it out for me), all I said was that in order for me to enjoy a game and consider it good I require at least a reasonable amount of integration between the gameplay and story.
From Wiki...

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Then you are not a true Scotsman."

Substitute:

Person A: "No Good Game fails to properly integrate story and game play"
Person B: "Here are good games that fail to properly integrate story and game play"
Person A: "Those are not good games".

You will of course then argue that was your opinion, etc, etc, and I will point back to where I stated you need to substantiate your opinion in order for it to not be "an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion".

JazzJack2 said:
But that is still based on a social preference for one thing other another, it's still subjective. Imagine if for example aliens came down to earth with no understanding of music and you played them Mozart and then your brilliant piano-key smashing composition and asked them which is better that would be unable to judge because what constitutes 'good music' is based on thousands of years of human thought. If you want a less hypothetical example listen to contemporary Classical and Jazz composers like Stockhausen, Cage, Antheil, Cecil Taylor or Feldman or some East-Asian classical music or anything that is based on values different or opposed to traditional western ideas about music and you'll see what we take for granted as good is really just opinion.
Actually, allowing for objective value in art...or the admiration of evident skill and craft...still allows for cultural value differences. Perhaps not with your "aliens" example, but amongst humans? Most definitely. For the sake of this discussion, let us operate under the assumption that we are both human, and there is a recognizable difference between an artist who has spent 10,000 hours honing a craft, and one who has spent none.

That doesn't mean you have to LIKE the end product, but as discussed there's a wide gulf between "This didn't work for me" and "This is shit".

JazzJack2 said:
Well you could argue that good graphics are objective (even then there is still some debate (e.g are flatter textures better than ones with more bump mapping applied, there are arguments for either side.) But the actual value certain graphical elements have when constituting 'good graphics' is still purely subjective. For example a recent trend in gaming seems to be that better higher resolution textures and more detailed character models are very important for good graphics where as I personally don't find them all too important and find things like animations and shaders to much more important for achieving good graphics.
Animations and shaders are two more areas where you can clearly view objective tiers of quality, good call.

JazzJack2 said:
No I don't disagree that people should substantiate their points but your argument seems to be that people who make or hold controversial points or ideas are more required to substantiated their viewpoints, you wrote and I quote "If you're going to trash on "Dude Where's My Car", people are probably going to give you a lot of leeway. If you're going to trash on "The Godfather", you should probably have a salient argument prepared." Why should people be more inclined to justify a dislike of one thing over the other simply because their critical reception is different?
Required? Certainly not. But we discuss things to either inform one another, share ideas, or reach consensus, yes? So it benefits everyone to have their views understood, and to be speaking a relatively common language. If I set out to convince a group of strangers that the Tao te Ching has a lot of good ideas, I'm probably going to have a relatively easy time of it. If I set out to convince a group of strangers that Mein Kampf has a lot of good ideas, it's going to be an uphill battle, and it would probably benefit me to make sure I'm arguing competently and clearly. This is assuming your end goal is to have your message received genially, and to share ideas in a friendly way. If your goal is to just shout your opinion into space and dare people to come at you, by all means, blaze your own trail.

Also WOOT Godwin's Law!

JazzJack2 said:
No because I feel they won't, as you put it, inevitably find themselves at odds with gameplay, plenty of games have already largely integrated story and gameplay and I would even go as for and say that some, like the Walking Dead or Dark Souls for example, have completely integrated story and gameplay (maybe with an occasional lapse here and there.)
Goodness, really? Those are your examples? Both excellent games, both stuffed to the bloody gills with game play contrivances that quietly press on your suspension of disbelief. And as much as I admire Dark Souls attempts at indirect story telling, it still accomplishes much if not all of it through text, which is clumsily accessed. Games like the two Bioshocks, Half-Life 2, or Bastion did it much better.

JazzJack2 said:
I've never played BadDudes but if it has solid gameplay then I wouldn't care about the lack of story.
Well...it had some Dudes. Word on the street is they were Bad. It was a Double Dragon style brawler. Whether or not that game play qualifies as "solid" depends on the gamer, I suppose.

JazzJack2 said:
But Booker eating out of bins is not reconcilable because not only is this behaviour not established within the logic of the game's world but actually the opposite, Booker comes across as a perfectly sane individual in the story sections of the game and him eating out of bins contradicts this entirely.
Booker HEALING AT ALL is a contradiction in the game world, as it would be in 95% of games. I've played precious few games that make allowances for sickness, or weather, or disease, or mental health. After that fifth resurrection I'd probably be pretty PTSD, wouldn't I? Other NPCs in the world clearly suffer mental trauma, why not my PC? And on and on. The point I am making is you are VERY SELECTIVELY criticizing realism disconnects in ONE GAME which you dislike.

JazzJack2 said:
I am sorry but I really disagree, Bioshock Infinite and the other games mentioned are not in my opinion a first baby step to good narratives in games they are massive leap backwards, when I look back to the past and see games like STALKER, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Dark Souls (which I know is very recent but whatever) Fallout 1 & 2 and Portal all of which not only vastly exceeded games like Bioshock Infinite in terms of world building, story, characterization and atmosphere they all also managed, at least to a reasonable extent, to integrate gameplay and story (at least in my opinion anyway)
It's good that you mention Planescape Torment, because thematically it shares a great many elements with Bioshock Infinite, and their endings are similar to the point where I suspect deliberate homage. One, PS:T, is arguably STILL the single most celebrated story in gaming. BI, I am to understand by your argument, is the absolute worst.

STALKER? Which STALKER? I adored Pripyat for its many, many merits, but the story and the presentation of said story were bad enough to give a mirthless man fits of laughter. When it succeeds, it is through accidental/emergent storytelling. The core narrative is...well it's really bad. I remember cringing, and placing my face directly in my palm.

Both Portals are clever and well presented games, I agree. Not terribly ambitious, but very funny, and they don't outstay their welcome.

Deus Ex is a hilarious mish mash of pulp culture conspiracy theories and urban legends, served up with some of the corniest writing of all time. A classic, but a deeply flawed classic. Tom Chick's skewering of it was notorious, and Chick can be absurdly contrarian, but few of his criticisms were meritless.

Fallout and Fallout 2 were both fine games (if buggy as fuck), but both always coasted by more on their mise en scene than the actual story. Fallout 1's story was pretty bare bones, and 2 was a mess.

In terms of integration, all of those games suffer the same minor realism disconnects as Infinite. They almost universally handle combat better, but also almost universally handle the story worse. Save Planescape, which has legendarily bad combat and a fantastic story, albeit delivered entirely through text (which is plonky as fuck and in it's own way a terrible form of "integration" given the medium).

Notably, other than STALKER, you've also hand picked a short list of some of the MOST ACCLAIMED GAMES IN HISTORY, which is fine...I love em all and will happily discuss them all day...but doesn't lend a lot of weight to the argument that BI is one of the worst games of all time. It's like saying a band is terrible, and then listing The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Jimmy Hendrix of examples of superior musicians.

At the end of the day man, it's just fairly evident you're a finicky gamer with HIGHLY selective ideas about what makes a game good. It's also fairly evident you have an axe to grind about Bioshock Infinite, most probably because you found something in it that annoyed or underwhelmed you and found yourself subsequently aggrieved by the almost universal praise it received. For my own part I agree with people who state the bog-standard FPS game play does nothing to elevate the game, and like them I think it would've been better as an RPG, but the same was true of Bioshock, and arguably even the System Shocks that preceded it (although they were meatier hybrids). I think your assertion that the story is bad, let alone "the worst ever", is ludicrous, and I honestly don't think there's any way to really defend that, but your enjoyment of the story is not really something I can argue. I do recommend continuing to stick to all time classics like your short list of games above (again, with the possible exceptions of the excellent but deeply flawed Dark Souls and STALKER), however, as exposure to actual terrible games could potentially break your spirit.
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
There's a certain etiquette trolls, good ones, should employ, and in simplest terms it is thus: When you target your opponents children, you've crossed a line, because now you're dragging innocents bystanders into the shit fight.

While I can't say I'm gonna miss Hepler, this trolling went too far.
 

Burnouts3s3

New member
Jan 20, 2012
746
0
0
As a Biodrone, I'd like to say while I've never been a fan of Mr. Hepler's writing, I feel it's a shame someone has to leave their jobs because of threats. That's not cool on any level.
 

Auron

New member
Mar 28, 2009
531
0
0
The woman had no place in the industry to be fair, the interview about "hating combat in games" was much more pretentious than the article makes it out to be far as I remember and she wanted to (albeit optionally I admit) turn gaming into interactive novels, go write novels instead and be happier? If she was a guy it would probably still happen.

But this is not something to condone obviously, though to be fair I wouldn't take the internet harassment seriously.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
LostGryphon said:
People make death threats over millisecond changes to in game sniper rifle's aim time. If that isn't an indication of the sheer ridiculousness of the subject, then I don't know what is.
People do a lot of things, and it's literally impossible to at face value tell whether someone's going to shoot up a school or is just talking bullshit on a message board.

And people routinely have the attitude that nothing bad can happen to them. It's the same for everything from internet threats to not wearing a seat belt to terrorism.

I'm glad you can rationalise doing nothing and showing no concern. But that's not different from Homer Simpson or any other demonstration of the average joe in popular culture.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Carpenter said:
Now your just twisting my words to support your argument.
No, my just using your words as you said them and applying them to the real world. IF you don't like it, perhaps try coming up with a better argument and some real logic.

This isn't a "no true scottsman" fallacy, I simply said that threatening to kill a person's children anonymously online seems like a sure sign of mental or emotional instability.
Which is dumb in itself, but the way you gamed the description previously is a "no true scotsman" fallacy. You don't have to be emotionally disturbed to do it, but your only evidence is that someone made a threat on the internet. It's circular as well.

If that comment offends you so deeply that you need to create a strawman to attack (rather than my actual comments) then be my guest, you really don't need my help for that though.
See, a strawman would require I actually distort what you say. You need no embellishment, my friend.

If you disagree with me, fine. It's not like I'm demanding my opinions be taught in your kid's school, just calm down a little and stop acting like you need to fight me on every little thing.
Funny you telling me to calm down and stop fighting on every little thing when I'm the one who put up a large persuasive argument which you completely ignored to "fight" me on the nitpicks.

You seem to be the one who doesn't want to engage on any actual discussion level. And if you can't form a cogent, germane argument, maybe you should avoid offering up your views at all.

The fact remains that this is normalised behaviour. Looking at the responses in here alone we can see that. Since it's normalised behaviour, it doesn't require any sort of special trauma r disability to engage in. Saying it does is the equivalent of saying you need to be emotionally damaged to make a "your mum" joke. It's done in a way that borders on action without thought.

And you're free to have your opinion. However, your opinion is wrong and I will call you on it.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
evilthecat said:
But yeah, people are going to ignore 90% of that and ***** about Anders (and only Anders). The substantive content will be that Anders in DA2 is completely different from the way he was in Awakening, that he was too aggressively gay, that he was too much of an Edward Cullen character or that his actions in the third act were absolutely reprehensible. To which the following points are applicable.

1) Anders in Awakening had no defining character attributes beyond having ADHD.
2) Everyone who says they romanced Anders accidentally is either lying or doesn't bother to read dialogue. Frankly, this is mostly about the fact that a male character hits on a male character in game and people aren't given a special option to say "no homo!" and automatically escape all consequences. You know, like real life.
3) You know why Anders is a better character than Edward Cullen? Because his borderline abusive behaviour is not presented as normal behaviour.
4) The basic plot of Anders actions in the third act was decided above the level of the writing team. Contrary to popular belief, writers don't get free reign to write whatever they want. Neither David Gaider or Jennifer Hepler initially intended for Anders to flip out to that degree. Regardless, they did what they could and gave it both motivation and weight. It doesn't make him a nice character, but so what?

I get the feeling sometimes that all people want from supporting characters in games is smirking sub-Whedon gimboids who will crack jokes to alleviate any tension or drama which might create awkward emotional investment. DA2 didn't take that line with any of its characters, and I respect that.
The thing I've noticed about Hepler's writing is that she has a superficial, heavy-handed style. Anders' developments during DA2 were almost certainly decided in outlining and storyboarding, which are above the writing team's pay level. What I suspect is the project leads came up with these ideas, and delegated them to the writer least-suited for the job.