What Makes A Game Truly Pretentious
- Thread starter Werewolfkid
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You can't really blame games and creators when in fact it's gaming journalism that's pretentious and the games themselves are mostly either victims or byproduct of the gatekeepers' power.
Gaming websites have been trying to manipulate the direction games are headed from a while already, specially independent games, and small developer's will always look for media-candy designs, be it game-less environments, click-flicks, oscar-bait life lessons, retro pixelart style, tackled-in female protagonists, or whatever else the pretentious journalism is on about, because that increases their chances of being covered and thus, discovered.
Gaming websites have been trying to manipulate the direction games are headed from a while already, specially independent games, and small developer's will always look for media-candy designs, be it game-less environments, click-flicks, oscar-bait life lessons, retro pixelart style, tackled-in female protagonists, or whatever else the pretentious journalism is on about, because that increases their chances of being covered and thus, discovered.
Did you steal that format from Jeff Foxworthy?McMarbles said:
Anyways, there are a lot of games I could and would call pretentious (most anything from David Cage, for example), but the thing is, there will be people that will disagree with me. Thats because pretentious is a subjective term, and is no different from opinions. Actually, pretentious is really just a opinion.
*Edit*
This is why I can never figure out art...Lilani said:
Having 'Metal Gear' in the title is a pretty good clue. All those cutscenes that drag on for WAY too long, some even going into a half hour in length. All the philosophical waxing and how much of the 'game' consists of the story which you have to sit and watch play out for a very long time.
1. Turning a single comment into an lengthy exposition and/or making every conversation a meandering, "thoughtful" tour through the writer's mind is generally a sign of pretentiousness. (See: Braid)
2. If you ever hear something along the lines of, "This isn't that type of story. It really doesn't have a single message but is supposed to be your own interpretation of the story," then it will probably be oozing with pretentiousness (See: Jonathan Blow and Braid). This also goes for games that couldn't be trying harder to deliver this idea, even if the developer doesn't actually say it (See: BioShock Infinite).
3. If there is a jarring disparity between the "artsy" sections and the "action" sections, then the game was trying too hard to be artsy and, therefore, can be labelled as pretentious (See: BioShock Infinite).
4. If the game feels the need to take a great story, such as The Sands of Time Trilogy from Prince of Persia, and "improve" on this by challenging your notions or making it more "intellectually stimulating", then the game is probably pretentious (See: Braid, BioShock Infinite).
5. If the end of the game is a meandering monologue with self-aware "insight" that is meant to explain the writer's vision, then the game is pretentious (See: Braid, BioShock Infinite).
6. If the game tries to tell you that its choices have weight, then be on the look out for pretentiousness. Sometimes the choices genuinely do, such as with The Walking Dead. However, there are games that go out of their way to make sure choices are not "based on right and wrong" but end up inevitably delving into taking the consequentialist side of the consequentialist/non-consequentialist debate (i.e. trying to be philosophically enlightened and non-dogmatic, but taking a strong stance on the side anyway). My time with The Witcher tended to show this side of the issue. On the other hand, you have games like BioShock Infinite, where the idea is to make choices mean absolutely nothing (the bird/cage or draw gun/yell at guy choices) or pull the most generic "tough" choice they can (is killing ever right?).
7. If you hear the phrase "I want to ask questions, not answer them," then be on the look out for pretentiousness. Some developers know how to do this. Other games, such as BioShock Infinite, betray that the writer had no idea what that comment meant, just that they liked it and thought it was a good way to look "enlightened" and "thought provoking".
8. If the developer makes a point to avoid "ludonarrative dissonance", then it is possible the game will reek of pretentiousness (See: Many indie titles).
There are probably more I can think of, but those eight tend to cover everything. Note, however, that I don't think pretentiousness is automatically bad. It gave Braid a little more character to be overly pretentious, and it fit the game whose main idea was thinking through puzzles. However, it can be a downfall of a game, because it creates a character that is completely at odds with itself, is rather pseudo-intellectual, and/or is just a bore to follow. BioShock Infinite falls in the latter category.
2. If you ever hear something along the lines of, "This isn't that type of story. It really doesn't have a single message but is supposed to be your own interpretation of the story," then it will probably be oozing with pretentiousness (See: Jonathan Blow and Braid). This also goes for games that couldn't be trying harder to deliver this idea, even if the developer doesn't actually say it (See: BioShock Infinite).
3. If there is a jarring disparity between the "artsy" sections and the "action" sections, then the game was trying too hard to be artsy and, therefore, can be labelled as pretentious (See: BioShock Infinite).
4. If the game feels the need to take a great story, such as The Sands of Time Trilogy from Prince of Persia, and "improve" on this by challenging your notions or making it more "intellectually stimulating", then the game is probably pretentious (See: Braid, BioShock Infinite).
5. If the end of the game is a meandering monologue with self-aware "insight" that is meant to explain the writer's vision, then the game is pretentious (See: Braid, BioShock Infinite).
6. If the game tries to tell you that its choices have weight, then be on the look out for pretentiousness. Sometimes the choices genuinely do, such as with The Walking Dead. However, there are games that go out of their way to make sure choices are not "based on right and wrong" but end up inevitably delving into taking the consequentialist side of the consequentialist/non-consequentialist debate (i.e. trying to be philosophically enlightened and non-dogmatic, but taking a strong stance on the side anyway). My time with The Witcher tended to show this side of the issue. On the other hand, you have games like BioShock Infinite, where the idea is to make choices mean absolutely nothing (the bird/cage or draw gun/yell at guy choices) or pull the most generic "tough" choice they can (is killing ever right?).
7. If you hear the phrase "I want to ask questions, not answer them," then be on the look out for pretentiousness. Some developers know how to do this. Other games, such as BioShock Infinite, betray that the writer had no idea what that comment meant, just that they liked it and thought it was a good way to look "enlightened" and "thought provoking".
8. If the developer makes a point to avoid "ludonarrative dissonance", then it is possible the game will reek of pretentiousness (See: Many indie titles).
There are probably more I can think of, but those eight tend to cover everything. Note, however, that I don't think pretentiousness is automatically bad. It gave Braid a little more character to be overly pretentious, and it fit the game whose main idea was thinking through puzzles. However, it can be a downfall of a game, because it creates a character that is completely at odds with itself, is rather pseudo-intellectual, and/or is just a bore to follow. BioShock Infinite falls in the latter category.
Seems like the new trend to call a game "pretentious" or "sexist" or any other combination of adjectives instead of just simply saying "I don't like the game's story/design/plot". And forget about explaining why one would think such things either, that's just crazy talk.
I tend to feel that a game risks becoming pretentious when the creators stop thinking about the audience who will play the game, instead thinking only about what they want to convey or what ideas they want to explore or how their game will be different from the other games they've played (especially without considering how it reflects the games the audience has played.)
Without desiring to court flames or controversy (believe it or not), I think one could make a case that Bioshock: Infinite is rather pretentious. Now, don't get me wrong; it's still a good game, it has an amazing sense of place, some great set pieces, does some interesting things with story and character, etc. But arguably it's a story that comes to its presumption of "inevitability" through a lot of applied phlebotinum (that is, technology that does whatever the story requires it to at any moment without much attempt at consistency) and magician's force (one review commented that a particular unavoidable decision was the equivalent of using an atom bomb to swat a fly.) All in service of making almost exactly the same point about the illusion of player agency that the original Bioshock did.
Without desiring to court flames or controversy (believe it or not), I think one could make a case that Bioshock: Infinite is rather pretentious. Now, don't get me wrong; it's still a good game, it has an amazing sense of place, some great set pieces, does some interesting things with story and character, etc. But arguably it's a story that comes to its presumption of "inevitability" through a lot of applied phlebotinum (that is, technology that does whatever the story requires it to at any moment without much attempt at consistency) and magician's force (one review commented that a particular unavoidable decision was the equivalent of using an atom bomb to swat a fly.) All in service of making almost exactly the same point about the illusion of player agency that the original Bioshock did.
It wasnt my intention to call games like that bad by default. I just believe that games are about input. About using the fact that someone is PLAYING your Story, interacting with your presented world. And games that just put you up, literally going "Press A to keep this movie, which i call a game, running! Thanks!". It might very well be an absolutely fantastic presentation, a good Story, or even just grand landscapes. But it just comes over wrong to me. Why did you have to use Gaming as a medium? Couldnt you have presented this just as well without forcing me to wiggle the Joystick? Couldnt you try to think of SOME interactivity i could partake in? Im aware that this isnt a very popular opinion, and in their very own way i respect stuff like this as well, jsut for the sake of not farting around a triple A. But i call it pretentious anyway, since the whole "Game" thing is just slapped on for the sake of...well being there. Its a personal opinion, not stated fact. After your post im pretty sure you would easily bash me anyway IF i would say otherwise.Lilani said:
Pretentious is easy for art or movie. Matrix 2 and 3 were. An any basic art with an overly bullshit label is. I cant off hand think of any games i think are pretentious though, i guess many would be more in the indie game market. But i dont play many of those.I guess you could make a game where you have to escape from a forest, but the forest itself is an infinite maze that you can never win. There are no enemies, just you running around a forest. The developer says this game is a reflection on life and how no matter you try to succeed, you cant and remain in place. So a crappy game where the label of "why" is more important than the game itself.
If the gameplay is minimal and big fancy words get thrown around, then your game can be called prententious.
Reason: such games are sold on their 'deep' stories (since gameplay was only minimal), but the stories in videogames are mediocre or worse, so what's left is pretense.
Reason: such games are sold on their 'deep' stories (since gameplay was only minimal), but the stories in videogames are mediocre or worse, so what's left is pretense.
I'm sorry, but I've heard this criticism before of dramatic films, or books, or games, or songs...this "it was manipulating me into feeling sad". It's ludicrous.The Wykydtron said:
Of COURSE they're trying to make you feel an emotion. That's the POINT. You're not being "tricked" into feeling any more than a comedy "tricks" you into laughing by being funny, or a horror movie "tricks" you into being afraid by being scary. Media evoking emotion shouldn't be viewed as some kind of sham or hustle.
"Beethoven's 5th makes me weep, it's so beautiful!"
"Ha! You've been played for a fool! He wanted you feel that!"
The entire notion of it makes my brain hurt. It gives me THOUGHT CANCER. That's how ridiculous it is.
You're not meant to "figure out" art. It's not a riddle.WanderingFool said:
Well, by definition pretentious is thinking your work has more value than it actually merits. When Bungie said they wanted their new game to put next to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, that was pretentious. Heavy Rain was pretentious, because it clearly had a very high opinion of itself, even though it was overflowing with plot holes and inconsistencies. The creator of Fez is pretentious, even though I think the game itself is quite good, because of his attitude.Werewolfkid said:
I've noticed the best story tellers are rather humble, because they were more concerned with telling the best story, and not with earning personal glory. I would argue, then, that a work is pretentious if it has an aura of smug self superiority. These stories are typically rather lazy, ironically, because they're either already convinced their great so they don't have to work as hard, or the creators lack self confidence. The truly great works don't concern themselves with trying to convince everyone their great, they just ARE. They have a certain self confidence about them, they just tell the story they want to tell, and they don't concern themselves with other peoples opinions. If people like them, great, if not, then atleast they did what they set out to do. Tolkien, George Lucas, and JK Rowling didn't set out to change pop culture, which is specifically why they did.
Ok, I'm just gonna have to ask this. How did it do anything different?Werewolfkid said:
ChineseRoom has done the same thing it always has, make game driven stories that remove the "game" part of the game. They are a one trick pony, and they their trick isn't even that good.
I wish I could empathize with your stance and comparison, but the reason why I can't is because a piece of art in the physical sense of a painting is very, very different from a video game. We're talking here about a commercial product put into mass production and distribution for the purpose of making a profit. Maybe it's just me and my old school train of thought, but when I sit down to play a game I want to be entertained, challenged and have fun. Maybe there's a market for these quasi-abstract interpretations, but to lump them into the same category of traditional games then is a disservice to both them and the games they would be compared to that have a little more substance and validity. I guess what I'm saying is that this "new thinking" being brought forth in gaming is not gaming at all. If it's a game it's a game, if it's artistic expression it's artistic expression. I can't even call a game "art", because it's not art...it's design. So every game that tries to purport itself as something deep and expressive is pretentious in my eyes. It's trying to be something it's not (art) while failing to be what it's supposed to be (a game). That's just my opinion.Lilani said:
Some which is pretentious has the pretense of depth without the actual depth.
Deep works often use symbolism, so pretentious works often include symbolism that doesn't actually symbolize anything.
Deep works are often hard to understand, so pretentious works are often deliberately obtuse or confusing without actually having anything to understand at the center of it.
Deep works often break formula and subvert tropes to make us thing about them, so pretentious works often do random things just because and leave it to the audience to sort out the mess.
Whenever you see a work mimicking the surface attributes of genuinely complex pieces but without the intellectual meat behind them, you have something which is pretentious.
Gone Home definitely isn't pretentious. It's flawed in a lot of ways, but it's fairly direct about what it's about.
Deep works often use symbolism, so pretentious works often include symbolism that doesn't actually symbolize anything.
Deep works are often hard to understand, so pretentious works are often deliberately obtuse or confusing without actually having anything to understand at the center of it.
Deep works often break formula and subvert tropes to make us thing about them, so pretentious works often do random things just because and leave it to the audience to sort out the mess.
Whenever you see a work mimicking the surface attributes of genuinely complex pieces but without the intellectual meat behind them, you have something which is pretentious.
Gone Home definitely isn't pretentious. It's flawed in a lot of ways, but it's fairly direct about what it's about.
Go home. Seriously, go home and don't come back until you can be relevant.vasiD said:
OP: I feel like Sexbad's review of Sword and Sworcery touched on this well:
Weightier than all of my criticisms so far is S&S?s attitude. I mentioned pretension previously, and not without good reason. It?s not just pretentious like most other games, using hype trailers and being all flashy in IGN articles. It?s not even just on the level of titles like Dear Esther, which isn?t itself pretentious but is advertised as something it is arguably not. It is pretentious on the most intimate level, often shoving its smug self-importance your way as you play.
I?ve already dropped a few examples here and there, like how it describes the puzzle mechanic or how it presents the moon phases element, but the worst thing has to be the Archetype. Between chapters, this person who sits in a chair shows up and acts as though he has been monitoring your progress and then just begins to spew shit that?s mostly irrelevant to what will happen in the next chapter. The Archetype also goes along with the developers? illusions of grandeur and suggests you take breaks from playing or tells you to ?keep calm & move along,? as though the subject matter is just too heavy for most. He calls the game an experiment, which is funny because it?s just about the most basic point-and-click adventure I?ve seen, diametrically opposed to actually testing any new ideas; you know, that?s what experiments are for.
I?ve already dropped a few examples here and there, like how it describes the puzzle mechanic or how it presents the moon phases element, but the worst thing has to be the Archetype. Between chapters, this person who sits in a chair shows up and acts as though he has been monitoring your progress and then just begins to spew shit that?s mostly irrelevant to what will happen in the next chapter. The Archetype also goes along with the developers? illusions of grandeur and suggests you take breaks from playing or tells you to ?keep calm & move along,? as though the subject matter is just too heavy for most. He calls the game an experiment, which is funny because it?s just about the most basic point-and-click adventure I?ve seen, diametrically opposed to actually testing any new ideas; you know, that?s what experiments are for.
Personally in my mind what makes a game pretentious is when a new sequel is crapped out every November with out any major innovation or change.
*Ahem*BloatedGuppy said:
An important part of storytelling is keeping the audience from noticing the strings being pulled. If you feel like you're being manipulated, usually because the author is being too heavy handed, transparent, or can't maintain immersion, then the work has failed and isn't having its desired effect.
What's ridiculous is expecting someone to cry over a fictional entity who does not exist "dying" in the first place.