Why Do We Shut Out The Different? An Article/Rant

The Arc of Eden

New member
Jun 7, 2010
311
0
0
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
The Arc of Eden said:
I typically see casual gamers looking for fun, while the hardcore look for quality.
I'm a bit confused about what you mean by quality here. Graphics quality? Game quality? Story quality? Isn't a games quality generally considered how fun it is?
Quality of how the Gameplay, graphics, music, story, progression and Development all work together to create a coherent and immersive experience.
 

Cody211282

New member
Apr 25, 2009
2,892
0
0
Maybe it's just because I find most art a waste of time, but I just found flower boring. Were was the story, why did I care? If A game can't get me interested in the story in the first 15-30 min then I'm not going to play it very long.
 

delet

New member
Nov 2, 2008
5,090
0
0
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Aby_Z said:
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Aby_Z said:
While I can understand that, I play games to enjoy them. I would love to have a good story to 'em but ultimately I play them for the fun of it. A good story with horrible gameplay may bring me to watch it through on Youtube or something, but otherwise I wouldn't likely be able to get into as much as something with good gameplay.
I honestly can't think of a game, other than Pathologic, that had shit gameplay but a good story. Examples plox? :3
I wouldn't know; if the gameplay was bad enough I wouldn't have gotten to know the story :3
Well, how would you know, then? You haven't really given it a chance to suck you in.

I can play through bad games, mostly because I have since my childhood, because, y'know. Your mom/dad paid sixty bucks for this or you saved up allowance to pay sixty bucks for it, damn it, you're going to play the shit out of it! And... well, I've kindof kept that philosophy.
Because as I've grown older, I've made it a point only to buy good games. I don't buy bad games.

The one thing I know though is that I've played games I consider to be good that have bad stories, and I've played games I consider to be good that have had great stories. I've also played games with good gameplay and shit stories (Dark Sector, though it had flaws all around, the main selling point of the 'Glaive' never got old.) but I have yet to play a bad game with a good story. I attribute that to me researching my games thoroughly enough to tell if I'll enjoy them first and foremost.
 
Mar 18, 2010
310
0
0
The Arc of Eden said:
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
The Arc of Eden said:
I typically see casual gamers looking for fun, while the hardcore look for quality.
I'm a bit confused about what you mean by quality here. Graphics quality? Game quality? Story quality? Isn't a games quality generally considered how fun it is?
Quality of how the Gameplay, graphics, music, story, progression and Development all work together to create a coherent and immersive experience.
Heh. Funny. Most self-proclaimed hardcore gamers I see really only look for any "GUH" of War, or Halo, or somtehing like that. Or CoD. And play them NON-FUCKING-STOP.
 
Mar 18, 2010
310
0
0
Cody211282 said:
Maybe it's just because I find most art a waste of time, but I just found flower boring. Were was the story, why did I care? If A game can't get me interested in the story in the first 15-30 min then I'm not going to play it very long.
A victim to gaming ADD showcased, ladies and gentlemen. Not to insult you... just thought that was a good example. :p

Aby_Z said:
Because as I've grown older, I've made it a point only to buy good games. I don't buy bad games.

The one thing I know though is that I've played games I consider to be good that have bad stories, and I've played games I consider to be good that have had great stories. I've also played games with good gameplay and shit stories (Dark Sector, though it had flaws all around, the main selling point of the 'Glaive' never got old.) but I have yet to play a bad game with a good story. I attribute that to me researching my games thoroughly enough to tell if I'll enjoy them first and foremost.
Hm. I can think of another game with good story but bad gameplay - Privateer 2. It was kindof standard cliched sci-fi fair, back when FMV games were still in fashion, with absolutely terrible gameplay, but the story was... fun. A little goofy, buy good.
 

Cody211282

New member
Apr 25, 2009
2,892
0
0
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
Maybe it's just because I find most art a waste of time, but I just found flower boring. Were was the story, why did I care? If A game can't get me interested in the story in the first 15-30 min then I'm not going to play it very long.
A victim to gaming ADD showcased, ladies and gentlemen. Not to insult you... just thought that was a good example. :p
Or someone who doesn't like wasting hard earned money on something that's boring, I play games for an interactive story, if the games doesn't have a story then whats the point in playing, hell even mario has a story.
 
Mar 18, 2010
310
0
0
Cody211282 said:
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
Maybe it's just because I find most art a waste of time, but I just found flower boring. Were was the story, why did I care? If A game can't get me interested in the story in the first 15-30 min then I'm not going to play it very long.
A victim to gaming ADD showcased, ladies and gentlemen. Not to insult you... just thought that was a good example. :p
Or someone who doesn't like wasting hard earned money on something that's boring, I play games for an interactive story, if the games doesn't have a story then whats the point in playing, hell even mario has a story.
Y'know, I'd just like to bring up that a lot of art games do have an interactive story, and gameplay that's rather fun - you seem to only have experienced one or two and wrote it off entirely as a genre.

And Flower was fun, if you gave it a chance rather than saying "Not killing things, not fun."
 

Cody211282

New member
Apr 25, 2009
2,892
0
0
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
Maybe it's just because I find most art a waste of time, but I just found flower boring. Were was the story, why did I care? If A game can't get me interested in the story in the first 15-30 min then I'm not going to play it very long.
A victim to gaming ADD showcased, ladies and gentlemen. Not to insult you... just thought that was a good example. :p
Or someone who doesn't like wasting hard earned money on something that's boring, I play games for an interactive story, if the games doesn't have a story then whats the point in playing, hell even mario has a story.
Y'know, I'd just like to bring up that a lot of art games do have an interactive story, and gameplay that's rather fun - you seem to only have experienced one or two and wrote it off entirely as a genre.

And Flower was fun, if you gave it a chance rather than saying "Not killing things, not fun."
I never said that not killing things is not fun, I said games with no story is not fun.
 
Mar 18, 2010
310
0
0
Cody211282 said:
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
Maybe it's just because I find most art a waste of time, but I just found flower boring. Were was the story, why did I care? If A game can't get me interested in the story in the first 15-30 min then I'm not going to play it very long.
A victim to gaming ADD showcased, ladies and gentlemen. Not to insult you... just thought that was a good example. :p
Or someone who doesn't like wasting hard earned money on something that's boring, I play games for an interactive story, if the games doesn't have a story then whats the point in playing, hell even mario has a story.
Y'know, I'd just like to bring up that a lot of art games do have an interactive story, and gameplay that's rather fun - you seem to only have experienced one or two and wrote it off entirely as a genre.

And Flower was fun, if you gave it a chance rather than saying "Not killing things, not fun."
I never said that not killing things is not fun, I said games with no story is not fun.
I'd like to note, again, that Flower does have story, it is just not explicitly stated outright in very tall, red letters before the game starts. If you played it for more than 15-30 minutes (again, gamer ADD,) you might get that.
 

Cody211282

New member
Apr 25, 2009
2,892
0
0
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
Maybe it's just because I find most art a waste of time, but I just found flower boring. Were was the story, why did I care? If A game can't get me interested in the story in the first 15-30 min then I'm not going to play it very long.
A victim to gaming ADD showcased, ladies and gentlemen. Not to insult you... just thought that was a good example. :p
Or someone who doesn't like wasting hard earned money on something that's boring, I play games for an interactive story, if the games doesn't have a story then whats the point in playing, hell even mario has a story.
Y'know, I'd just like to bring up that a lot of art games do have an interactive story, and gameplay that's rather fun - you seem to only have experienced one or two and wrote it off entirely as a genre.

And Flower was fun, if you gave it a chance rather than saying "Not killing things, not fun."
I never said that not killing things is not fun, I said games with no story is not fun.
I'd like to note, again, that Flower does have story, it is just not explicitly stated outright in very tall, red letters before the game starts. If you played it for more than 15-30 minutes (again, gamer ADD,) you might get that.
A big part of games is the ability to have the player be sucked into the game, if you have no idea whats going on in the first 15-20 min then you can't be sucked in, you keep going, what the hell is going on and why am I playing this. Also gamer ADD would be only playing twitch gameplay and skipping cut scenes.
 

WaywardHaymaker

New member
Aug 21, 2009
991
0
0
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
Cody211282 said:
Maybe it's just because I find most art a waste of time, but I just found flower boring. Were was the story, why did I care? If A game can't get me interested in the story in the first 15-30 min then I'm not going to play it very long.
A victim to gaming ADD showcased, ladies and gentlemen. Not to insult you... just thought that was a good example. :p
Or someone who doesn't like wasting hard earned money on something that's boring, I play games for an interactive story, if the games doesn't have a story then whats the point in playing, hell even mario has a story.
Y'know, I'd just like to bring up that a lot of art games do have an interactive story, and gameplay that's rather fun - you seem to only have experienced one or two and wrote it off entirely as a genre.

And Flower was fun, if you gave it a chance rather than saying "Not killing things, not fun."
I don't believe he said it wasn't fun because he wasn't killing things. He said Flower lacked an engaging story, which is why he didn't enjoy it. And I don't believe he wrote off the genre entirely, either, just Flower. And 'fun' is VERY objective. Very much so, indeed.

Anyway, I also don't believe that the 'hardcore' gamers wrote Flower off, though my definition of it may differ from yours. My definition is a gamer who lets him or herself get immersed in the game's experience, just for the hell of it. Not for points, not for a K/D, not even for getting the best ending. Just because you're there.

Your hardcore seems to be the adrenaline junkie multiplayer fiends that I've written off as a form of casual gamer.
 

scnj

New member
Nov 10, 2008
3,088
0
0
Aby_Z said:
scnj said:
Aby_Z said:
With things like Saw or Hostel where torture is all there is to it, it's completely torture porn. I think it may also have to do with it being much more realistic than games.
I'd just like to point out that torture is not 'all there is' to Saw. The Saw films, while marketed on their violence, do have a thoughtful developing plotline and are based on a character's moral decisions, twisted as those morals may be. That's why I enjoy the films, because they employ the torture and violence effectively, to further the needs of the plot as opposed to just having it there for the sake of it.
Then you're going to have to excuse me for judging a book by its' cover. I've never seen a Saw movie because I don't much care for torture. I have heard things about the movies though, and have heard that the first few movies were great because they dealt a lot with the psychological aspect which I would consider terrific, truly. I've also heard the latter movies loose what made the earlier ones great and devolved more into straight gorn.

Something I'd like to ask you if you've seen it, there was a movie that came out a while ago by those who made Saw about a burglar who, after entering a house, ends up working to save a family who is being held captive by someone worse. I forget the name, but I thought the premise for that was terrific. The only thing that kept me from checking it out is that it was made by those who made Saw and I'd rather not watch something that is majority filled with Gorn. Do you know much about that movie and the contents within; would I like it?
The movie in question is called The Collector and I saw it just the other day. It was enjoyable enough without ever really being as great as it could have been based on the premise. With regards to the content, it's surprisingly lighter on the violence than I'd imagined, with most of it being based on cleverly placed traps as opposed to actual torture, which is kept to a minimum.

It's worth watching, but I wouldn't stretch t calling it a great film.
 

delet

New member
Nov 2, 2008
5,090
0
0
scnj said:
Aby_Z said:
scnj said:
Aby_Z said:
With things like Saw or Hostel where torture is all there is to it, it's completely torture porn. I think it may also have to do with it being much more realistic than games.
I'd just like to point out that torture is not 'all there is' to Saw. The Saw films, while marketed on their violence, do have a thoughtful developing plotline and are based on a character's moral decisions, twisted as those morals may be. That's why I enjoy the films, because they employ the torture and violence effectively, to further the needs of the plot as opposed to just having it there for the sake of it.
Then you're going to have to excuse me for judging a book by its' cover. I've never seen a Saw movie because I don't much care for torture. I have heard things about the movies though, and have heard that the first few movies were great because they dealt a lot with the psychological aspect which I would consider terrific, truly. I've also heard the latter movies loose what made the earlier ones great and devolved more into straight gorn.

Something I'd like to ask you if you've seen it, there was a movie that came out a while ago by those who made Saw about a burglar who, after entering a house, ends up working to save a family who is being held captive by someone worse. I forget the name, but I thought the premise for that was terrific. The only thing that kept me from checking it out is that it was made by those who made Saw and I'd rather not watch something that is majority filled with Gorn. Do you know much about that movie and the contents within; would I like it?
The movie in question is called The Collector and I saw it just the other day. It was enjoyable enough without ever really being as great as it could have been based on the premise. With regards to the content, it's surprisingly lighter on the violence than I'd imagined, with most of it being based on cleverly placed traps as opposed to actual torture, which is kept to a minimum.

It's worth watching, but I wouldn't stretch t calling it a great film.
Aah, thank you. I think I can deal with gore to an extent, depending on what it is. It really did sound like a terrific premise, but at least it could still be called a good movie. I'll be adding it to my list.
 

PolarBearClub

New member
Aug 7, 2008
190
0
0
I think when it comes to (certain) games, they act as wish fulfillment, a harmless medium to express fantasies or desires that most people wouldn't or can't act out in real life. We all have violent tendencies, in thoughts or actions, and a game may be a way of releasing this pent up aggression. I'd see it working them same for a racing game too: the majority of people won't be professional drivers or get the chance to drive many of the cars recreated in the game.

Now when you talk about the game Flower, perhaps many people fail to immerse themselves in the game the way you did, without an obvious connection to it. For one it's not a human character or something most people could empathise with. I've played and enjoyed it for its visuals, but I saw it mainly as a way for Sony to flex its HD muscles, cynical as that may be. And I refer to Flowers as I've never heard of the other games you have mentioned.

Also, there are games where killing is a necessity to progress, yet not everyone is going to find that the most enjoyable. I was playing Crackdown a couple of hours ago, and found much more enjoyment in jumping from building to building than exterminating cel-shaded bad guys. If anything they ruined my experience.
 

Housebroken Lunatic

New member
Sep 12, 2009
2,544
0
0
Yahtzee pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter in his review of painkiller:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/57-Painkiller (around 3:10 in the review comes the most defining quote)

Don't underestimate the artistic merit in making the limbs and head of creatures flying off in different directions, because there's plenty of artistic moments to get from such an experience in gaming. :)
 

Chamale

New member
Sep 9, 2009
1,345
0
0
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
WHY THE FUCK AREN'T YOU PLAYING PASSAGE RIGHT NOW?
I have played Passage. It's a very artistic game, but not very entertaining. I'd rather play Left 4 Dead 2.

I'd be more entertained looking at pictures on Failblog than viewing art in the Louvre, though the art is more critically valuable.

Similarly, there are many movies that are artistic and well-done. I recently watched One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It was very well-done and impressive, but terribly depressing. I would rather watch Monty Python, even though it's not considered "arty".

As long as videogames are primarily an entertainment medium, deeply artistic games will not achieve mainstream success. The artistry present in modern video games is not the main focus of gameplay (though Ebert is still wrong, games are art).
 

RowdyRodimus

New member
Apr 24, 2010
1,154
0
0
And right here we have an example of an art snob. If someone doesn't care for your pretentious little game that seemingly simulates a scene from another pretentious form of media (in this case American Beauty with the trash and leaves) then automatically the person has ADD and is only interested in killing.

Maybe it's because most arty games are all style and no substance. Maybe it's just that they aren't really games and interactive paintings. Maybe it's because people want video games to be, you know, games and not lessons on the creators views on life.
 

Void(null)

New member
Dec 10, 2008
1,069
0
0
SnowDensOfYesteryear said:
I don't really know how to define gay as anything but politically incorrect, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand so I'll leave that.
Man, that's so fucking straight it can donate blood and visit you in hospital.