Serious Game Fatigue

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I'm still convinced that Shadow Warrior would be on your top 5 list if you'd taken a chance to play it. Serious game fatigue, you say? Shadow Warrior is the perfect cure. How the fuck did this game fly under everybody's radar? It's glorious.

Funny he did not mention anything about Shadow Warrior 2013.

A shame, really. A lot of people listen to Yahtzee. It would drive sales through the roof if he were to say a few kind words about it.

 

[Treaos Serrare]

I chalked Yahtzee's dislike of TLOU to him not being affected by something designed to crush your heart and resenting it's attempt at the same time. Personally I'm in the camp of liking it immensely for its story and gameplay mechanics.
different people have different options-views-perspectives and are more than welcome to have and express them, that being said I don't really care about what other people say/think about games, if I like it that's all there is if someone else share my opinion then cool, if not then oh well. if someone wants to spew hateful vitriol about a game at other people that's annoying more because its some douche being a jerk to others than because they are bashing a game.

 

[Gary Thompson]

Where are all these fans of TLOU?

Honestly, I've mostly just seen people ribbing on it for some people calling it the best game ever.

 

[LenticularHomicide]

Personally, I think the reason that Yahtzee dislikes The Last of Us is that it presents him with a main character that does bad things, and yet makes no attempt to make the player feel bad about it.

Spec Ops worked for him because he was expecting it to be some generic ooh-rah jingoist fantasy, which he dislikes, and the game not only subverted his expectations, but basically agreed with his sentiments about ooh-rah jingoist etc. 100% ("Too right, fuck those guys!").

The Last of Us, however, puts you into the shoes of a man who has internalized the "kill or be killed" mantra of the world that he lives in, and yet the game tries to make you sympathize with him and his struggles.

And that alienates Yahtzee; he wants to either be told that he is playing an irredeemable monster and should just roll with it because it's wacky fun mayhem (e.g. Saints Row), or that he is playing an irredeemable monster and should feel bad about it (e.g. Spec Ops).

At least with Papers, Please, another game where you play an everyman in a dystopian environment, the player gets some measure of free agency to try and set things right in their own way (by letting the occasional illegal through). But The Last of Us, being a shooter, basically gives you no way to set things right, the only options being either to kill your problems (which is arguably how the game ends), or to try and tiptoe past the problem and refrain from engaging it.

"What about Bioshock Infinite, then?"

Well, Bioshock Infinite again puts you into the shoes of a man with no compunction about killing waves of people to get his way, but in that case the enemies were mostly cartoonishly evil caricatures - Nazis, basically. As Yahtzee once said, no one feels bad killing Nazis, because whatever evils you yourself perpetrate, it's against the Nazis! In the end, the game still allows you to feel good about yourself (erm, the entire thing about Anna DeWitt excepted, but at least you eventually atone for it, set it right so to speak). It's first and foremost a "fun game", not a "serious game".

 

[IrisNetwork]

I'm still convinced that Shadow Warrior would be on your top 5 list if you'd taken a chance to play it. Serious game fatigue, you say? Shadow Warrior is the perfect cure. How the fuck did this game fly under everybody's radar? It's glorious.

Funny he did not mention anything about Shadow Warrior 2013.

A shame, really. A lot of people listen to Yahtzee. It would drive sales through the roof if he were to say a few kind words about it.

HA yes. A game that starts off with Stan Bush's The Touch and lets you slash demon's to bits is definitely an antidote to fancy-pants, complex modern games. Only now there are key-hunting elements but besides that, the objective is still kill everyone.

Also, I just remembered about FC3: Blood Dragon. The man who came in dressed as a cock. No seriousness there. MGS: Revengeace taking up the 5th place instead of Blood Dragon was quite a surprise. Maybe it didn't count as a game as it was just DLC?

 

[Doopliss64]

Personally, I think the reason that Yahtzee dislikes The Last of Us is that it presents him with a main character that does bad things, and yet makes no attempt to make the player feel bad about it.

Spec Ops worked for him because he was expecting it to be some generic ooh-rah jingoist fantasy, which he dislikes, and the game not only subverted his expectations, but basically agreed with his sentiments about ooh-rah jingoist etc. 100% ("Too right, fuck those guys!").

The Last of Us, however, puts you into the shoes of a man who has internalized the "kill or be killed" mantra of the world that he lives in, and yet the game tries to make you sympathize with him and his struggles.

And that alienates Yahtzee; he wants to either be told that he is playing an irredeemable monster and should just roll with it because it's wacky fun mayhem (e.g. Saints Row), or that he is playing an irredeemable monster and should feel bad about it (e.g. Spec Ops).

At least with Papers, Please, another game where you play an everyman in a dystopian environment, the player gets some measure of free agency to try and set things right in their own way (by letting the occasional illegal through). But The Last of Us, being a shooter, basically gives you no way to set things right, the only options being either to kill your problems (which is arguably how the game ends), or to try and tiptoe past the problem and refrain from engaging it.

"What about Bioshock Infinite, then?"

Well, Bioshock Infinite again puts you into the shoes of a man with no compunction about killing waves of people to get his way, but in that case the enemies were mostly cartoonishly evil caricatures - Nazis, basically. As Yahtzee once said, no one feels bad killing Nazis, because whatever evils you yourself perpetrate, it's against the Nazis! In the end, the game still allows you to feel good about yourself (erm, the entire thing about Anna DeWitt excepted, but at least you eventually atone for it, set it right so to speak). It's first and foremost a "fun game", not a "serious game".

That's why I felt The Last of Us was so brilliant. It never tells you how to feel about Joel. I've talked to different people about the game, who give interpretations ranging from "a horror story where you play as an irredeemable monster with serious daughter issues" to "a heartwarming story of redemption showing the fundamental goodness of humanity." It simply presents events to the player and allows them to decipher their own personal significance from it. The fact that the ending can either be viewed as a cathartic rampage or a horrific removal of player agency (or both) is exactly what made it so powerful. Some players will come to hate the main character, while others feel a deep personal connection with him; and since that seems to be exactly what the developers were going for (to present a scenario in which the moral ambiguities of the apocalypse are displayed without clear answers), is that not an extremely successful execution of an artistic vision?

 

[LenticularHomicide]

snip

[...] Some players will come to hate the main character, while others feel a deep personal connection with him; and since that seems to be exactly what the developers were going for (to present a scenario in which the moral ambiguities of the apocalypse are displayed without clear answers), is that not an extremely successful execution of an artistic vision?

Oh, absolutely. Even Yahtzee admits that "It's like a dirty-faced Rorschach test". It's still entirely his right to reject the game because of what he saw reflected in it (that he was playing a psychopath whom he felt had no redeeming qualities, and was supposed to be rooting for Joel).

Bottom line is, he doesn't like 'serious' games that show him that ordinary men can be shaped into monsters by their circumstances, and prosper and thrive as a result. I guess he'll say that it's not Gratifying (or Cathartic, in his new jargon).

So with that in mind, all the fanboys calling for his blood in the comments for ragging on their favoured game can just agree to disagree with him, right? (Yeah, right, and I'll get a pony for my birthday ;-) )

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

snip

[...] Some players will come to hate the main character, while others feel a deep personal connection with him; and since that seems to be exactly what the developers were going for (to present a scenario in which the moral ambiguities of the apocalypse are displayed without clear answers), is that not an extremely successful execution of an artistic vision?

Oh, absolutely. Even Yahtzee admits that "It's like a dirty-faced Rorschach test". It's still entirely his right to reject the game because of what he saw reflected in it (that he was playing a psychopath whom he felt had no redeeming qualities, and was supposed to be rooting for Joel).

Bottom line is, he doesn't like 'serious' games that show him that ordinary men can be shaped into monsters by their circumstances, and prosper and thrive as a result. I guess he'll say that it's not Gratifying (or Cathartic, in his new jargon).

So with that in mind, all the fanboys calling for his blood in the comments for ragging on their favoured game can just agree to disagree with him, right? (Yeah, right, and I'll get a pony for my birthday ;-) )

I've become of the frame of mind that "agree to disagree" and any discussion on the internet are absolute mutually exclusive things. So much so that if people were to start doing so, a tear in the very fabric of reality would appear and hell-monsters would start dropping through. Interesting to see when there are so many gamers who appear to be trying to look "tolerant" in social issues won't accept that opinions aren't fact, subjectivity is personal and tolerance isn't solely relegated to racial/gender/sexuality issues.

 

[Jhales]

I'm surprised that Shadow Warrior hasn't gotten a review or very much of a mention yet.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Which brings me to The Last Of Us, a game I would have been happy to stop thinking about but everyone else seems to be convinced that it was the best game ever or something.

I don't think anybody thinks that, let alone "everyone else" - I think that for some reason TLOU has polarized opinion so much, that anybody not outright hating the game or defending it from the haters in anyway is seen as an irredeemable fan boy. Same deal with Bioshock: Infinite.

I don't think anybody HATES either game that much. I've been pretty negative about both of them but I certainly don't. I just think their gameplay is lacking and they would work better as movies than stories. They're both still pretty good games, but for their standout moments they don't work for me as interactive experiences. My characters keep making choices that I don't agree with and have no say in - so how am I supposed to "sympathise" with them or the story at all?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I don't think anybody HATES either game that much. I've been pretty negative about both of them but I certainly don't. I just think their gameplay is lacking and they would work better as movies than stories.

Well, there are actually people posting on The Escapist who claim that these games are objectively and provably bad - in other words, they don't think it's just their opinion, but it's some how logically or scientifically possible for these games to be good. That their existence is an insult to all gamers.

There has been more than one person to do that on this site. Yet I have never seen a single person claim that either is "the best game ever." So yeah, I think the extremism around these games is pretty solidly on the side of the haters (which I wouldn't put you in the category of, given the description of your position above).

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I don't think anybody HATES either game that much. I've been pretty negative about both of them but I certainly don't. I just think their gameplay is lacking and they would work better as movies than stories.

Well, there are actually people posting on The Escapist who claim that these games are objectively and provably bad - in other words, they don't think it's just their opinion, but it's some how logically or scientifically possible for these games to be good. That their existence is an insult to all gamers.

There has been more than one person to do that on this site. Yet I have never seen a single person claim that either is "the best game ever." So yeah, I think the extremism around these games is pretty solidly on the side of the haters (which I wouldn't put you in the category of, given the description of your position above).

Well the problem with that is there ARE objective problems with these games. This is the problem I have with the whole "subjectivity" argument - or rather, people who claim that any criticism of a piece of media is "subjective". Your EXPERIENCE with that media will be subjective. There are films that I wholeheartedly enjoy while recognising their objective flaws - but I don't try and deny the very existence of those flaws, or that objectivity.

It seems that I've done nothing but discuss "Bioshock Infinite" on these forums recently, but let me get this straight: I don't begrudge anybody who enjoyed it more than me (as many people often did). My problem is that I don't think the game got anything like a fair critical response to it. I think the critics rated it as a MOVIE, not as an interactive experience. I think that there are legitimate objective flaws that can be highlighted in "B: I", and that those people who enjoyed the game did so because those flaws didn't have as much of a negative effect on their subjective experience as they did on mine. Which is fine - I'm happy that they got their money's worth out of the game - but just because some people weren't bothered by the game's flaws, doesn't mean that the flaws don't exist or aren't worth mentioning. Especially if your job is to give fair and unbiased criticism of the game.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Well the problem with that is there ARE objective problems with these games. This is the problem I have with the whole "subjectivity" argument - or rather, people who claim that any criticism of a piece of media is "subjective". Your EXPERIENCE with that media will be subjective. There are films that I wholeheartedly enjoy while recognising their objective flaws - but I don't try and deny the very existence of those flaws, or that objectivity.

Except that most of the "objective" complaints were about completely subjective things like character motivations, plot development and only having two weapons at the same time.

I never saw a single "objective" argument put up by these commenters that had any kind of measurable or provable quality about it - their supposedly objective reasons for disliking the game were all subjective.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Well the problem with that is there ARE objective problems with these games. This is the problem I have with the whole "subjectivity" argument - or rather, people who claim that any criticism of a piece of media is "subjective". Your EXPERIENCE with that media will be subjective. There are films that I wholeheartedly enjoy while recognising their objective flaws - but I don't try and deny the very existence of those flaws, or that objectivity.

Except that most of the "objective" complaints were about completely subjective things like character motivations, plot development and only having two weapons at the same time.

I never saw a single "objective" argument put up by these commenters that had any kind of measurable or provable quality about it - their supposedly objective reasons for disliking the game were all subjective.

I think you need to re-assess what you mean by "objective" here. Let me deal with your points one by one.

First point:

If a character's motivation doesn't make sense to a rational person, that's an objective complaint. It may not bother you personally but that doesn't make it "unobjective". There's a point in "Bioshock Infinite" at which you're suddenly attacked by people you've been fighting alongside for the last twenty minutes. Even if you accept the situation as making any kind of sense in the game world, there's about six different ways your character could've avoided this situation. He doesn't, because the game's story "requires" that this happens.

In fact, every plot-specific event that happens in the game, without exception, is completely out of the player's control. That IS a subjective problem, but for me it's a huge one. I feel like I'm watching some kind of movie where I have to participate in boring shooting galleries whenever the game feels it needs to give me something to do. At no time do I have control of anything of consequence. This isn't fun for me. This has never been fun for me. Again, speaking on a subjective level, I feel as though this kind of game is causing the medium to regress when it should be moving forward. If a medium invites me to take action then that action should have CONSEQUENCES beyond "Carbon copy enemy 10262 is dead and now I have five more bullets looted from his corpse", dammit. Don't give me a world that rich and well-crafted, and then not allow me to make any kind of a difference in it.

Second point:

If the plot of a game has flaws or problems that can be explained rationally (as opposed to "I didn't like it that this characted died, etc" which is entirely subjective) so that it that might cause a lack of immersion within the game, that's an objective complaint. Again, it may not bother you personally, but your subjective experience is not grounds to dismiss the complaint.

(By the way, I don't actually AGREE with this particular complaint - or at least I think it's ill-thought-out. If someone brings up the oft-mentioned point of "why is Comstock a racist?" then I'd immediately say "He's not, he's just taking advantage of the racism of others to try and stop the Vox from causing a disaster." I think this could be better-explained in-game, maybe, but I'm not going to damn the game for not "holding your hand" here. I give it enough credit to say that the writers probably wanted the player to work this one out for themselves.)

Third point:

As for the two-weapon system, well I'll deal with this one right now. There's an entire weapon upgrade system in the game. It's completely pointless because you never know what weapon you'll have to deal with. (There's a long, long section of the game that has nothing but pistols in it. I didn't put any points into pistols or "offensive" vigors at all, so this was extremely frustrating for me.) It means that you can't make strategic decisions before you go into battles because, again, you'll never know which weapons you'll have access to. It also limits replay value - I've played through "System Shock 2" over fifteen times now using different combinations of weapons, skills, on different difficulty settings, etc. Can't imagine myself ever playing through "Bioshock: Infinite" now that I've finished it once, there's no point to me.

That said...

...Even though I think you've picked bad examples here, I do kind of agree with your main point. It should be obvious that my personal main problem with this game is a philosophical one that's entirely subjective. "Bioshock Infinite" was primarily created by Ken Levine, whose games I've been playing for almost nineteen years now. In the first game of his I played, "System Shock", if you really really screwed it up then you could BLOW UP THE EARTH WITH A GIANT FREAKING LASER. (Yeah, this was a nonstandard "game over".) You could do this because the game gave you the FREEDOM to do it. There were many points in that game where you'd make choices that would affect the ecosystem of "Citadel Station" in a small but visible way. The focus was on you making your OWN story, not playing through someone else's as some kind of distracted observer. That to me is what the media of gaming SHOULD be aiming at.

A lot of people disagree with that viewpoint, and to them I'd say: if all you're interested in is the story, go watch a movie. Or play a game like "Bastion", which you'll notice also has a very specific storyline that you have to follow, yet does it so much better than "Bioshock: Infinite" does - just look at the amount of freedom you have in "Bastion" compare to "B:I". Hell, "System Shock 2" had a very specific story, yet it never made me feel as though my actions didn't have consequences. It was ME driving the plot of the game. Again, that to me should be the aim of all interactive media.

But, as you say, it's a very subjective point. All I can really say in its defence is this: if your actions don't have consequence, why take action at all?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

If a character's motivation doesn't make sense to a rational person, that's an objective complaint.

No, it isn't. Characters do not have to act in rational ways. If a character's actions do not make sense to you, then that is not necessarily a problem with the character. Have you never been in a relationship with a person whose actions didn't coincide with what you thought they should do?

Similarly, I consider myself a rational person, but I'm not a trained physicist, so I don't understand quantum mechanics. That doesn't make quantum mechanics objectively wrong. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it objectively wrong.

If a medium invites me to take action then that action should have CONSEQUENCES beyond "Carbon copy enemy 10262 is dead and now I have five more bullets looted from his corpse", dammit.

But why so? We all take many actions every day, and they usually don't have any significant effect on the world around us. Should the action of choosing a hamburger at Mc Donald's have more serious consequences other than a small contribution to heart disease and obesity?

If the plot of a game has flaws or problems that can be explained rationally (as opposed to "I didn't like it that this characted died, etc" which is entirely subjective) so that it that might cause a lack of immersion within the game, that's an objective complaint. Again, it may not bother you personally, but your subjective experience is not grounds to dismiss the complaint.

So, what's the objective complaint here?

As for the two-weapon system, well I'll deal with this one right now. There's an entire weapon upgrade system in the game. It's completely pointless because you never know what weapon you'll have to deal with. (There's a long, long section of the game that has nothing but pistols in it. I didn't put any points into pistols or "offensive" vigors at all, so this was extremely frustrating for me.)

So, completely subjective, once again. What is the "objective" number of weapons to have in a game? Two? Two thousand? Two million?

It means that you can't make strategic decisions before you go into battles because, again, you'll never know which weapons you'll have access to.

Because in most of history's battles, each side knew exactly what they were going to face from the other side. Fighting wars is completely predictable. How is it objectively better that the game tells you what enemies you are going to face before the battle?

But, as you say, it's a very subjective point. All I can really say in its defence is this: if your actions don't have consequence, why take action at all?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that your actions in this game don't have consequences. If you don't take any action, it is impossible to progress through the game. Also, this isn't some kind of existential question - it's a simple video game.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

1) Characters do not have to act in rational ways. If a character's actions do not make sense to you, then that is not necessarily a problem with the character. Have you never been in a relationship with a person whose actions didn't coincide with what you thought they should do?

2) Similarly, I consider myself a rational person, but I'm not a trained physicist, so I don't understand quantum mechanics. That doesn't make quantum mechanics objectively wrong. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it objectively wrong.

3) But why so? We all take many actions every day, and they usually don't have any significant effect on the world around us. Should the action of choosing a hamburger at Mc Donald's have more serious consequences other than a small contribution to heart disease and obesity?

4) So, what's the objective complaint here?

5) So, completely subjective, once again. What is the "objective" number of weapons to have in a game? Two? Two thousand? Two million?

6) Because in most of history's battles, each side knew exactly what they were going to face from the other side. Fighting wars is completely predictable. How is it objectively better that the game tells you what enemies you are going to face before the battle?

7) I'm not sure where you got the idea that your actions in this game don't have consequences. If you don't take any action, it is impossible to progress through the game. Also, this isn't some kind of existential question - it's a simple video game.

1) I'm not saying a character should act rationally all of the time, but it should make sense within the game world. If the character I'm playing is making decisions that I wouldn't make, and I'm clueless to stop this from happening, then again, what's the point of me even PLAYING this character? I have no control over any decisions that he makes!

2) I'm not talking about things I don't UNDERSTAND. (Which is why I don't agree with some of the criticism levelled at the story within the game. I feel that some people who've criticised the story just don't understand parts of it. Again, I'd give the example of "why is Comstock racist?" Some people don't think that that was explained. I think that although it's not specifically stated, there's enough information in the game that you can work this one out for yourself, and I appreciate that the game doesn't feel the need to assume that it has to spell out this information.)

If a character who's demonstrated a genuine love and care for all things natural suddenly takes up a gun and becomes a big-game hunter, I'd expect at least some explanation of this change of heart. If no explanation is given or suggested then it's bad characterisation. Ergo, objective flaw.

3) That's EXACTLY my point. The actions that I'm taking are all meaningless to the game world. I'm mowing down hundreds of enemies (who - going back to subjective again here - are far, far inferior to, say, the splicers from "Bioshock" voiced by Juliet Landau (Drusilla from "Buffy" / "Angel"), or those horrific suicidal zombies from "System Shock 2". I'm making comparisons to these specific games here because they were designed by the same guy.) But that's ALL I'm doing. I'm following a straight path the whole way. Whenever the plot is advanced, it's because of an action that I have no control over.

4) Well personally I don't feel that there IS an objective complaint in terms of "Bioshock: Infinite"'s story. I don't agree with the complaints I've read about it. My complaint is that it's completely non-interactive. But that again is a subjective point, not an objective one.

5) Don't strawman me! I don't care HOW many weapons there are, as long as they work within the context of the game world and game mechanics. The two-weapon system here doesn't. It restricts the player's choices and limits replayability. Nothing subjective about that, it's a plain and simple fact.

6) Don't strawman me, again! I didn't say anything about choosing what ENEMIES you were going to face. I'm talking about the tactics you use to face them. The way the game basically seems to work is that there's ammunition offered occasionally but you can only carry small amounts of it at a time. Buying ammunition is wasteful - you use the same currency for ammo as you do for upgrades - so the game basically forces you into a position where you have to use whatever weapons your enemies have dropped.

So if you happen to put all of your upgrades into sniper rifles and rocket launchers, but your enemies are only dropping machine guns and grenades, you're pretty much f--ked. It renders the whole weapon upgrade system pointless. It also means that you can't choose your tactics. Let's say I WANT to play this game as a sniper, using primarily long-range weapons? Well tough cheddar! I can't do that. The game won't let me. Again, this absolutely limits my experience within the game, and therefore limits its replayability - that's not a subjective point, it's simple objective fact.

7) My actions in the game are limited to "go here, shoot stuff". That's basically it. The vigors at least give the game SOME variety, although they feel like they've been added into the game as an afterthought (I think there's one, possibly two enemies that actually use them, despite the fact that they're on display at the fairground at the start. Remember how it made sense in "Bioshock" that everybody was "spliced up" to the point of insanity?) I don't get to control anything that actually affects the game world. Nor do I get to make any kind of choices that affect the story. Frequently Booker makes decisions that I wouldn't have made, and I have no control over them. Every major character's death happens in a cutscene - Daisy Fitzroy's, Comstock's, Booker's.

If EVERYTHING of significance is scripted, then why am I here? Why should I "control" this character at all when I actually have no control over anything of consequence? I might as well be watching a movie - which is exactly what the experience of "playing" the game was for me. A twenty-hour long movie with some dull shooting sections.