Hmm. You aren't the first person to tell me this. I might be giving part 1 or 3 another chance next summer. DS 1 seemed very similar to DS 2 but I keep being told DS2 is the inferior game, at least narratively, so I'll be giving the other DS games a chance.Skatalite said:Right, Dark Souls 2. You've been playing the wrong one.
It's got a bit more polished gameplay, but it's really lacking in everything from story to writing and atmosphere (exact same thing happened with the Bioshock games now that I think about it).
The Apparent Anti-Intellectualism of Gamer Culture
- Thread starter The Jovian
- Start date
Anti-intellectualism is not strictly a Gamer thing, it is a current trend across the board because of pop culture. Gamers have generally tended to lean more in favour of intellectualism, arguing for smarter games and better stories over mindless violence and repetition.
The article you linked to is less a review of the game and more a treatise on why the reviewer feels it is corrupting the youth and not being politically correct. He is allowed his opinion but when he demands that we should all make sure that Ubisoft Massive is held accountable for this corruption he goes from review to rant. He lost all validity in my opinion as a reviewer.
The problem I see with his article is that he does not take in account that The Division is a Tom Clancy game meaning that it fits into the same fictional universe as his novels and other games (R6, Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, EndWar, etc.) This universe is basically the worst case scenario and full of corrupt governments seeking power and territory over the common person. There's been at least two nuclear attacks, one full scale war between NATO and the Soviets, and the Japanese crashing a plane into Congress. Considering all that I'd say The Division fits nicely into Tom Clancy's world.
Frankly if you're going to comment on The Divisions themes than you would think you would take into account the universe it is set in which is a well-developed and wide-ranging universe.
The article you linked to is less a review of the game and more a treatise on why the reviewer feels it is corrupting the youth and not being politically correct. He is allowed his opinion but when he demands that we should all make sure that Ubisoft Massive is held accountable for this corruption he goes from review to rant. He lost all validity in my opinion as a reviewer.
The problem I see with his article is that he does not take in account that The Division is a Tom Clancy game meaning that it fits into the same fictional universe as his novels and other games (R6, Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, EndWar, etc.) This universe is basically the worst case scenario and full of corrupt governments seeking power and territory over the common person. There's been at least two nuclear attacks, one full scale war between NATO and the Soviets, and the Japanese crashing a plane into Congress. Considering all that I'd say The Division fits nicely into Tom Clancy's world.
Frankly if you're going to comment on The Divisions themes than you would think you would take into account the universe it is set in which is a well-developed and wide-ranging universe.
Gaming is slightly anti-intellectual yes. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Remember the word being used here: GAME. Games are principally about fun. Fun isn't a particularly intellectual thing. The games that satisfy people on an intellectual level, aren't really what you'd call FUN and for that reason aren't typically the mainstream in gaming, and probably will never be.
At the same time, that Killscreen review is incredibly silly. Just analyzing something based on an ideological lens doesn't make you intellectual. The question is what it adds to the subject. In the case of that review, it seems to add nothing but confusion.
You can analyze almost anything through an ideological lens. It doesn't mean you should. And it's not intellectual to do so.
Case in point, the now infamous "feminist analysis of glaciers" : http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.abstract
At the same time, that Killscreen review is incredibly silly. Just analyzing something based on an ideological lens doesn't make you intellectual. The question is what it adds to the subject. In the case of that review, it seems to add nothing but confusion.
You can analyze almost anything through an ideological lens. It doesn't mean you should. And it's not intellectual to do so.
Case in point, the now infamous "feminist analysis of glaciers" : http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.abstract
I could cone up with some BS explaining about how I feel one way or the other on the subject but I'm not. I'm going to be honest and admit that I honestly don't care what someone says in a review or how they write it. Know why? Because I don't use game reviews as a basis for buying a game. With the multitude of Let's Plays out there that show off gameplay and story instead of talking about it just shows there are much better ways to determine how a game looks, plays, and how good the story is. Gaming reviews are becoming a dead medium. Heck, there are hours long twitch streams that show off gameplay and story much better than a review could ever do. Instead of caring about how a reviewer injects their political or ideological BS into a review, find a better medium to get the information you want.
I disagree with that sentiment.Tilly said:
In fact I'd say that analysing a game for its writing only would be "anti-intellectual", because it ignores a pretty important part of the art (which I posit, is just as important as the writing in terms of artistic expression).
A "reviewer" only reviewing a theme in a game through an ideological lens, fundamentally doesn't understand what it is, that makes a videogame, art.
I think it's sad that we've gone from "games are art" to "games are a product, fuck off with your fancy thinkin' talk". You'd think at least the Escapist community would accept that. The recent layoffs have made it increasingly clear that this site exists solely for the purpose of propping up Yahtzee, and he has always insisted that games should be reviewed as art works, with all the discussion of story and themes that entails rather than as toy.
There's room for both of course, but backlash against reviews that attempt to discuss story and themes suggest the gaming community (or at least a substantial portion of it) is still immature despite it's attempts to claim otherwise.
There's room for both of course, but backlash against reviews that attempt to discuss story and themes suggest the gaming community (or at least a substantial portion of it) is still immature despite it's attempts to claim otherwise.
Because games are a mass media product, and while that means some are art, and many contain art, most of us (rationally) don't view them as primarily artwork. Most of the experience of the non-artist gamer, is the function of the game buoyed by an aesthetic, not an aesthetic with bare-bones functionality. It's not that games can't be art, they can, and some are. It's just that, "STOP SAYING HURTFUL STUFF 'BOUT MY ART!" while shilling Doritos in your "art" makes me a little sick.Kingjackl said:
Unless you can find a reviewer(s) who you discover shares your tastes in a genre, or more broadly. That's a lot more valuable most times, than a reviewer who is "Accurate". If Reviewer A loves the games I love, for the reasons that I love them, then I can just take his recommendation.Bat Vader said:
Gaming isn't anti-intellectual, it's anti-political.
When games like Planescape: Torment, Legacy of Kain, any BioWare game, Bioshock and various other story-driven philosophical games run deep narratives that leave you thinking, gamers never say "this is too thinky for me".
When progressive publications critique the moral and political correctness of a game based on their own ideologies, gamers shoot back.
It's not hard to realize this if you stop looking at it with preconceived notions.
(At this point in time after 9 pages I don't even know whether people care about the OP but I had to share my 2 cents regardless)
When games like Planescape: Torment, Legacy of Kain, any BioWare game, Bioshock and various other story-driven philosophical games run deep narratives that leave you thinking, gamers never say "this is too thinky for me".
When progressive publications critique the moral and political correctness of a game based on their own ideologies, gamers shoot back.
It's not hard to realize this if you stop looking at it with preconceived notions.
(At this point in time after 9 pages I don't even know whether people care about the OP but I had to share my 2 cents regardless)
Yeah, because they're about as "thinky" as an R.L. Stein book. I remember people babbling about Bioshock: Infinite's "amazing" story... and then it was just the most ratfucked version of quantum mechanics Depak Chopra might shit in his sleep.Dalsyne said:
Yeah, that's why GG is composed of virtually all gamers. :3Dalsyne said:
You got me. The intellectualism in Bioshock has nothing on the universe-shattering depth of The Division.Einspanner said:
You got me again. Truly GG must, as a whole, hate those games, and it's just gamers who are *not* GG who really like them.
EDIT: wait a second we weren't even talking about GG.
Ooh, I can play that game!...uh, and uh, The Division has nothing on the uber-depth of Candy Crush! hurr hurrDalsyne said:
Not what I said, I just pointed out that when you say "Gamers" you just mean "GG". The rest of us billion or so gamers don't like to be pigeonholed with you, understandably enough.Dalsyne said:
NINE pages ago, yes. The conversation has expanded a bit since page one. Have you read the rest of those pages?Dalsyne said:
Did I just get called "Anti-GG"?Dalsyne said:
I'm not sure what it is that you expected my reaction to be, although I guess "offended" was your first guess? It's probably worth reminding you that we weren't actually discussing whether or not you thought I was "Anti-GG".Dalsyne said:
This is where we left it before you decided to start snipping heavily, and derail with insults:
Einspanner said:
Because "Gamers" didn't react that way to the "progressive articles" in question. Remember this was the conversation:Bombiz said:
That's just describing GG's hagiography, not what happened with "Gamers".Einspanner said: