This. Madness. Needs. To. Stop.

[SenseOfTumour]

Take anything in it's infancy, and pour hate on it repeatedly.



But look as even Dara has to explain that half the people are going

"Ah jeesus, you're 38. Why don't you grow up?"

And if you admit flaws, just wait for the tabloids to take that quote out of context and nail you for ratings.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the modern media want a rational debate on games, they've got to give us a platform where we'll be treated like adults.



But no, half the audience still sigh, cross their arms and say "When are you going to grow up?"

Not really surprising we have the occasional tantrum, is it?

Really just wanted to agree and also offer kudos to Dara O'Briain for taking his time a show that is massive exposure and daring to do a routine about videogames, because I think he knows that nowadays well over half of people have some knowledge of it, despite it STILL being seen as some niche, nerdy hobby only partaken by spotty male teens.

As much as I hate 'celebrity endorsements', it should wouldn't hurt for more of them to 'come out' and let people know they're just normal people and they enjoy shooting virtual people in the face for giggles just as much as the next guy.

Let's face it, if you're someone like Dizzie Rascal, you're not going to get less cool by saying you're a gamer, but it may surprise a few people who think cool, successful people don't do that stuff.

(yes, I know Dizzie Rascal is probably a horribly outdated reference, I'm 38, what do I know of cool?)

 

[LilithSlave]

Ah, I've actually seen this video before. Several months back. It was one of the things that truly made me feel that watching video commentary of gaming was worthwhile, along with Extra Credits. Because otherwise I could care less what gamers thoughts, because most opinions I had come across were inane, insipid, and should be avoided at all costs.

But this is an amazing video that reflects a lot of my feelings very well. Very, very intelligent. And very, very worthwhile. I sometimes wish all of the best minds about video gaming would come together and make a site with constant content. A beacon of light on the internet pushing through all of the sewage of humanity and the "PS3 SUCKKKKKS NOE GAMES $599" and "PC GAEMAN MASTER RACE, CONSOLES IS FOR CASUALJAPLOVINWEEABOOS CONTROLLER IS FOR BAD PEOPLE." and "NINTENDO IS FOR CHILDREN, ENJOY YOUR 480P CASUAL KIDDY CRAP" and all the other terrible thoughts and ideas the internet is littered with quite putridly.

Because that's really, really nice stuff and gives me a lot more hope for gaming and gamers.

fun = explosions and blood.

Indeed it's not. That's true. Fun is whatever a person enjoys. That being said, he still makes a fantastic point.

I for one, enjoy cutesy androgyny yaoi fanservice stuff with bishounens left and right. That's a pretty base desire. But there's nothing wrong with it because I find it personally fun.

However, video games should be about a variety of things that don't cater to me.

Also, a problem of the gaming industry today is that a lot of that "fun" catered to, is essentially a childish, macho power fantasy not any better than my desire to see prettyboys be sensitive and funny.

Neither of our desires deserves to dominate the gaming industry. Instead, gaming should strive to do as much as possible.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I still think we need to try to be taken seriously, itll happen eventually as the new generation replaces the old generation, trying to force ourselves down everyones throat saying how mature and grown up we are wont help at all

 

[GigaHz]

Snip

I don't know if I agree with you there. Especially this part.

Gaming is a media that is different then all those before it. It can do ong thing which other medias cannot, allows us to explored ideals, beliefs, and morality in a way that no other media can, because it is interactive, and what do we seem content with? Just being there for fun... nothing more nothing less.

I would argue that the only way for games to even remotely do most of what you say they do is to channel what Film and Novels have been doing for several years. Remove control from the player and let an event play out in a scripted or semi-scripted manner. Even when something allows player choice, it's barely interactivity and still along the same lines as a cinematic. So in a way, games are just meaningless fun with these Film-Like elements wrapped around it.

When these elements are removed from each other, you just have a fun game with no plot and a film. Both of which can stand on their own, but are not one in the same.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

That's true. Fun is whatever a person enjoys. That being said, he still makes a fantastic point.

I for one, enjoy cutesy androgyny yaoi fanservice stuff with bishounens left and right. That's a pretty base desire. But there's nothing wrong with it because I find it personally fun.

However, video games should be about a variety of things that don't cater to me.

I gotta say I don't really like pottery. It doesn't appeal to my interest. You might think this is just a problem with my taste but it's proof that the whole pottery industry is a failure. If pottery wants to appeal to me and people like me it will have to do more than just sit there and hold my plants.

 

[LilithSlave]

There's nothing wrong with your taste if you don't like pottery. Also, pottery is somewhat limited in what it can accomplish.

However, video games is something that can accomplish a whole slew of things that most developers are making no effort to make, that would be a very good idea and bring up the opinion of gaming if it did. If pottery were suffering the same thing, I would say the same thing of pottery.

On the other hand, many comic book and video game companies are suffering something that music and movies are not. There's nothing wrong with video games having a greater variety or ever trying to be art.

Furthermore, the term "video game" is kind of bad in a way. It relegates video games to being mere games that can only be judged, really, on being a game, having a challenge, instead of being engagingly interactive. That's what video games really are, just like comic books are really graphic novels.

Video games should merely aspire to do a variety of things and great things. As they are a media, I believe, with more potential than any other.

 

[krazykidd]

*snip*

I agree with what you said totally, but you're failing to see both sides of this. Videogame controversy is only the half of it.

I am 16 years old, and I like to read the newspaper from time to time - specifically the Guardian. Now, there's a small little booklet that comes with this newspaper once every Saturday named 'The Guide'. It contains TV listings, films info, clubs, exhibitions, etc.

And a section on gaming.

Now, as I'm sure everyone on this site will know, there are just so many games coming out right now, last week, next week and throughout this entire month that you'd be hard-pressed to fill an entire broadsheet with in-depth information on it. And yet, while this paper devotes 4 pages to films and DVDs being released, gaming gets...

A single page. Half of which is just generic waffling about 'the game industry is a source of money', and the other half being a tiny interview with Nolan North.

This is happening across the board. Gaming magazines and websites wouldn't be nearly as popular if we could get even 10% of this information from normal media outlets. Games are the least covered item throughout all media outlets, and this needs to change.

Dude TL;DR. Give some form of summary towards the end.
Also you seem to be purposefully aggravating flamers and hoping they'll come.



Put a topic to discuss and then we'll talk.

That's all I can say. Too tired to read that essay.

Then don't. Ruttin'. Comment.


Edit: This is the entire article, just to prove my point. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/05/nathan-drake-unmasked]

Most awsome 16 year old ever! I'm 22 and i can't make a posy half as coherent as yours.

OT: Mr awsome 16 y/o summed it up quite nicely , and wins this thread as far as i'm concerned.

 

[LilithSlave]

As far as calling them video games: That's what they are. It's what they always will be. Cases are different sometimes. Heavy Rain was not a video game. It was an interactive extremely long movie. MGS4 was a Third Person Piggy Back Adventure, as described by the case, and was 12 hours of movie.
When rules are involved, and story is told through the elements of play, it is still a game, even if there is a story deep into it. There is still a continuous action, an end goal, and points at which it is obvious the goal has/ has not be met. Until the control is taken away entirely from the player, it will be a game, regardless of how much of it is cutscene. How much game it is, depends on how much is actually played.

Not being limited to being a game does not mean a movie. It's just that a game is a very limited thing. It's a limited term that makes something seem like a throwaway challenge that you can win or lose and be done with it.

In the end, they're more of an interactive medium than a game. Sure, many of them are more like games than others. That doesn't mean interactive movie. Just an interactive activity that isn't necessarily much of a "game". If you judge them just as "games", then a lot of classic board games are a lot better in terms of being games than some of the most beloved video games.

Because that's what games are about. Winning or losing, or maybe challenge if you really stretch it. Video games are more than about winning or losing. And a lot of good video games, you can't win. You can progress, but you don't really win. So it's not really much of a game. You can finish a goal, whether set out by the developers, or yourself. But you can't really win or lose.

The goal of video games is complex, intelligent, and engaging interaction. And I don't mean some kind of deeper message necessarily. I'm talking about programming and the like. Making the gaming unvaryingly and engagingly interactive. Not be a good "game" that can give the player a difficult challenge to win, but a fun interactive experience that uses the full benefits of interaction.

Being less of a game doesn't mean more like a movie, or less interactive at all. And an interactive movie isn't very interactive. It's just a movie+. If anything, an interactive medium is limited by being a game. Because there's only so much interaction you can put towards beating a game. Being a game sets limits on being interactive.

For instance, sandboxes, sandboxes that you can't specifically particularly beat. They're not really much of a game, because you can't really beat them. However, they perhaps have more potential for interaction than linear "games". If your goal is to make a good sandbox, then your goal isn't to make a good game, but good interaction. Because sandboxes aren't much of a game.

The "player" being in control does not make something a "game". The driver if a car is not playing a game, despite the fact that they have goals and make decisions. So neither does the "player" being in control of a video "game", make it a game. Again, sandboxes don't much make for games, as they just make for a certain type of interactive experience.