Your opinion: The most overused phrase in gaming.

[NuclearKangaroo]

"Pretentious". It's a word people use to put down games that dare to try to be more than dumb entertainment.

games are a mean of entertainment, any "game" that does not try to be entertaining and instead wants to push some dumb "2deep4u" message or something like that IS pretentious

To some, games have the potential to be art. Just because you think that they are a means of entertainment and nothing more doesn't mean that they can't be anything more.

I agree that a forced/preachy message can be pretentious, but any attempt to go beyond just entertainment is not pretentious in and of itself.

For example, Deus Ex: Human Revolution was fun and challenging as a game, but it also handled the subject matter of its story in such a way that invited the player to think about the real-world implications of human augmentation and the role of corporations in sociopolitical life. The player was free to ignore the invitation, but it was there, allowing the player to go beyond the realm of entertainment and into the realm of art. Is that pretentious?

its not what i think they are, its what they are, it was called the Nintendo Entertainment System for a reason, instead of the Nintendo Exquisite-art System

just because they are entertainment doesnt mean a game cant be art, but it should always be first and foremost entertaining, many game devs, specially indie ones nowadays think they can just cram in a message in a stupid walking simulator and call it art, and that somehow excuses them for making a terrible game

 

[GrumbleGrump]

"Pretentious". It's a word people use to put down games that dare to try to be more than dumb entertainment.

Not really. Something pretentious is usually trying to convey a message in some deep or meaningful way, but it utterly fails, either because of poor execution and/or because the message is bullshit. That's why it's "pretentious", the work has only an aspiration, a dream, to be something bigger, nothing more.

The only time a game is pretentious is when it tries to act smart, but is actually incredibly shallow and stupid. Case on point, David Cage.

David Cage's shit is the prime example of this. Especially his last game, Ellen Pageapalooza.

 

[ArcadianDrew]

Linearity.

Specifically when it's used as a way to criticise a game, as though games with big open worlds are inherently better and games should strive to be as 'non-linear' as possible. As a fan of JRPGs I often saw this word used in a negative way, as if letting us choose the order with which we visit towns in the story was really gonna improve the game, or letting us go anywhere right from the start makes for a better experience. Some games need a certain level of linearity, it helps keep them somewhat focused.

 

[TheElderLol's]

probably for me it is "omg this game is going to be the best game ever"

 

[TheElderLol's]

probably for me it is "omg this game is going to be the best game ever"

 

[remnant_phoenix]

"Pretentious". It's a word people use to put down games that dare to try to be more than dumb entertainment.

games are a mean of entertainment, any "game" that does not try to be entertaining and instead wants to push some dumb "2deep4u" message or something like that IS pretentious

To some, games have the potential to be art. Just because you think that they are a means of entertainment and nothing more doesn't mean that they can't be anything more.

I agree that a forced/preachy message can be pretentious, but any attempt to go beyond just entertainment is not pretentious in and of itself.

For example, Deus Ex: Human Revolution was fun and challenging as a game, but it also handled the subject matter of its story in such a way that invited the player to think about the real-world implications of human augmentation and the role of corporations in sociopolitical life. The player was free to ignore the invitation, but it was there, allowing the player to go beyond the realm of entertainment and into the realm of art. Is that pretentious?

its not what i think they are, its what they are, it was called the Nintendo Entertainment System for a reason, instead of the Nintendo Exquisite-art System

just because they are entertainment doesnt mean a game cant be art, but it should always be first and foremost entertaining, many game devs, specially indie ones nowadays think they can just cram in a message in a stupid walking simulator and call it art, and that somehow excuses them for making a terrible game

The Nintendo Entertainment System was released in 1987. All that proves is that the popular consensus in 1987 (1991 if you count the Super Nintendo Entertainment System) was "video games are entertainment." That popular consensus doesn't conclusively prove that, in 1991, they were entertainment and nothing more. It also doesn't prove that the understanding of what game is hasn't changed since 1991. And even if that understanding hasn't changed since 1991, there's nothing saying that it can't change going forward.

Also, "entertainment" is subjective. For some people "a walking simulator with a message-laden story" IS entertaining.

Look, I'm not against your stance that games should be entertaining and a game being "deep" or "artistic" doesn't excuse a game that doesn't engage in an entertaining way. In fact, I agree with you there.

What I am against is your insistent implication that "games are entertainment" is some sort of absolute truism. It's not. It's an opinion. A perspective. Some, like myself, see interactive experiences as a broad medium for entertainment, art, or (ideally) both at the same time. I see the stance that "games are entertainment, pure and simple" as limiting what the medium can do.

You're free to agree/disagree. That's the beauty of opinions.

 

[FPLOON]

People who ***** about a console exclusive even though, Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo is flipping the bill. The exact phrase would be "They would make so much more money if they released it on this." I will admit I was kind of pissed about the SF5 exclusivity but I'm not sure if Capcom is doing so hot. Would've liked a 3DS version but maybe will get a VITA version for on the go.

I feel like those kind of bitching can get pretty ironic when what they really want is a monopoly under the guise of the "All for One and One for All" motto...

OT: The phrase "Get on my level" seems to do it for me... Why? Well, unless they're seriously joking, I really don't want to have the same level of smugness as the one usually saying that phrase with a straight face...

Other than that, any phrase with the word "freedom" in it, in reference to "open world"-based gameplay, since it always needs a giant asterisk included, usually in the form of "but only in the parameters of the game itself, especially if its story-related"...

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

"Pretentious". It's a word people use to put down games that dare to try to be more than dumb entertainment.

games are a mean of entertainment, any "game" that does not try to be entertaining and instead wants to push some dumb "2deep4u" message or something like that IS pretentious

To some, games have the potential to be art. Just because you think that they are a means of entertainment and nothing more doesn't mean that they can't be anything more.

I agree that a forced/preachy message can be pretentious, but any attempt to go beyond just entertainment is not pretentious in and of itself.

For example, Deus Ex: Human Revolution was fun and challenging as a game, but it also handled the subject matter of its story in such a way that invited the player to think about the real-world implications of human augmentation and the role of corporations in sociopolitical life. The player was free to ignore the invitation, but it was there, allowing the player to go beyond the realm of entertainment and into the realm of art. Is that pretentious?

its not what i think they are, its what they are, it was called the Nintendo Entertainment System for a reason, instead of the Nintendo Exquisite-art System

just because they are entertainment doesnt mean a game cant be art, but it should always be first and foremost entertaining, many game devs, specially indie ones nowadays think they can just cram in a message in a stupid walking simulator and call it art, and that somehow excuses them for making a terrible game

The Nintendo Entertainment System was released in 1987. All that proves is that the popular consensus in 1987 (1991 if you count the Super Nintendo Entertainment System) was "video games are entertainment." That popular consensus doesn't conclusively prove that, in 1991, they were entertainment and nothing more. It also doesn't prove that the understanding of what game is hasn't changed since 1991. And even if that understanding hasn't changed since 1991, there's nothing saying that it can't change going forward.

Also, "entertainment" is subjective. For some people "a walking simulator with a message-laden story" IS entertaining.

Look, I'm not against your stance that games should be entertaining and a game being "deep" or "artistic" doesn't excuse a game that doesn't engage in an entertaining way. In fact, I agree with you there.

What I am against is your insistent implication that "games are entertainment" is some sort of absolute truism. It's not. It's an opinion. A perspective. Some, like myself, see interactive experiences as a broad medium for entertainment, art, or (ideally) both at the same time. I see the stance that "games are entertainment, pure and simple" as limiting what the medium can do.

You're free to agree/disagree. That's the beauty of opinions.

ok if you are talking about subjectivity, theres probably people who cansider taking a dump art, therefore making thephrase "video games are art" equivalent to "video games are a thing", that is, utterly meaningless

making an unentertaining game is like making a film that is nothing but a 2 hour shot of the mona lisa, the end result may portray a message, but it defeats the purpose of the medium and the end result can hardly be considered art

 

[Trinket to Ride]

Linearity.

Specifically when it's used as a way to criticise a game, as though games with big open worlds are inherently better and games should strive to be as 'non-linear' as possible. As a fan of JRPGs I often saw this word used in a negative way, as if letting us choose the order with which we visit towns in the story was really gonna improve the game, or letting us go anywhere right from the start makes for a better experience. Some games need a certain level of linearity, it helps keep them somewhat focused.

One of my friends is really bad about this.
"Dude, you gotta play _____, it's fantastic."
"Is it really linear?"
"Well, I mean, it's level/mission based and follows a plot..."
"Meh. I'm not interested then."

Unrelated, this same friend refuses to even try Arkham City because he thinks there'll be less puzzles than in the first one. He says "The core gameplay needs to be engaging enough without the use of filler." I think he just likes flaunting buzzwords.

ANYWAY, OT:

"REKT"

If you completely steamroll the enemy team, it's appropriate. Annoying, but appropriate. Most people seem to spam it after every kill.

 

[ffronw]

I was going to say "next-gen," but since that one's already been posted, how about "Visceral?" Really tired of hearing how deep and visceral these new games are going to be.

 

[Vern5]

Immersion. Immersive gameplay. Immersive characters. Immersive art. Immersive water physics. Immersive immersiveness that immerses you in more immersion than you could possibly immerse-

I HATE everyone who had a hand in making this word such a go-to for developers and producers alike. It is used so often without proper context that it has lost all meaning. Suddenly, every game has to be immersive for its own sake. That's bullshit. You can't make a game immersive so don't even try to advertise that idea. A game will immerse the player if he or she finds it enjoyable and hasn't noticed all of the flaws yet.

The absolute worst part about that word is that I only hear it when people are making allusions to Skyrim or Minecraft or some other open-world do-whatever-you-want-for-no-good-reason game. There are other games in the world. When can I start hearing about games that are like Saga Frontier 2, or Zeno Clash, or Eternal Darkness, or Vampire: The Masquerade-Bloodlines?

 

[WeepingAngels]

I got sick of "Game of the Year" when Skyrim was being called that months before it was even released. It's obvious how much bullshit it is when a game can win Game of the Year in the minds of many just from being announced!

I am also sick of hearing about resolution and framerate. These days you can have the best game the world has ever seen but if it isn't 1080p and 60 FPS then it going to get shit on. Oh how I miss the days when no one talked about the resolution of Mario 64 and Spyro the Dragon. Graphics arguments are nothing new but no one went around saying "N64 runs at 240p" because no one gave a shit.

 

[FrozenLaughs]

Epic.

Everything is Epic these days.

Storylines that take 8 hrs to finish.
AI that runs in circle.
Dialogue wheels.
Open worlds.
Cinematics.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

"Pretentious". It's a word people use to put down games that dare to try to be more than dumb entertainment.

games are a mean of entertainment, any "game" that does not try to be entertaining and instead wants to push some dumb "2deep4u" message or something like that IS pretentious

To some, games have the potential to be art. Just because you think that they are a means of entertainment and nothing more doesn't mean that they can't be anything more.

I agree that a forced/preachy message can be pretentious, but any attempt to go beyond just entertainment is not pretentious in and of itself.

For example, Deus Ex: Human Revolution was fun and challenging as a game, but it also handled the subject matter of its story in such a way that invited the player to think about the real-world implications of human augmentation and the role of corporations in sociopolitical life. The player was free to ignore the invitation, but it was there, allowing the player to go beyond the realm of entertainment and into the realm of art. Is that pretentious?

its not what i think they are, its what they are, it was called the Nintendo Entertainment System for a reason, instead of the Nintendo Exquisite-art System

just because they are entertainment doesnt mean a game cant be art, but it should always be first and foremost entertaining, many game devs, specially indie ones nowadays think they can just cram in a message in a stupid walking simulator and call it art, and that somehow excuses them for making a terrible game

The Nintendo Entertainment System was released in 1987. All that proves is that the popular consensus in 1987 (1991 if you count the Super Nintendo Entertainment System) was "video games are entertainment." That popular consensus doesn't conclusively prove that, in 1991, they were entertainment and nothing more. It also doesn't prove that the understanding of what game is hasn't changed since 1991. And even if that understanding hasn't changed since 1991, there's nothing saying that it can't change going forward.

Also, "entertainment" is subjective. For some people "a walking simulator with a message-laden story" IS entertaining.

Look, I'm not against your stance that games should be entertaining and a game being "deep" or "artistic" doesn't excuse a game that doesn't engage in an entertaining way. In fact, I agree with you there.

What I am against is your insistent implication that "games are entertainment" is some sort of absolute truism. It's not. It's an opinion. A perspective. Some, like myself, see interactive experiences as a broad medium for entertainment, art, or (ideally) both at the same time. I see the stance that "games are entertainment, pure and simple" as limiting what the medium can do.

You're free to agree/disagree. That's the beauty of opinions.

ok if you are talking about subjectivity, theres probably people who cansider taking a dump art, therefore making thephrase "video games are art" equivalent to "video games are a thing", that is, utterly meaningless

making an unentertaining game is like making a film that is nothing but a 2 hour shot of the mona lisa, the end result may portray a message, but it defeats the purpose of the medium and the end result can hardly be considered art

We're dancing in semantic circles here.

The point that I, as well as Rogue Wolf were trying to make is that, in our opinion, "pretentious" is an overused word in gaming. See the OT; that's what this thread is about. We believe that there are games that are unfairly called pretentious. We see a trend of games that try to reach for any level of depth in the narrative themes or ideas get called pretentious when, in our view, that word is being misused.

You seem to be expressing frustration at "art games" that sacrifice entertainment for an attempt at depth. For the second time, I AGREE WITH YOU that that is a problem.

Though we're in the same general topic of depth/art in gaming, in the end, we're really talking past each other. I feel like we're both repeating ourselves and this conversation isn't really working, so I'm done. Don't bother replying again. Even if you do, I won't respond.

 

[TERRORADE]

"Content"

When I first got a 360 all of a sudden I started noticing "saving content" instead of "saving game" since then media especially has taken up "content" like it's new flashy buzzword and it's allowed game companies to treat games like services and platforms for "delivering even more content!"

Yes, Downloadable Content especially. It's the worst word in the business in my opinion. Games aren't games any more, they're "content".

It's a political term. Legal/technical jargon that companies - especially those that aggressively employ DRM and DMCA - use to load their statements in an effort to shelter themselves under law and to blunt the inevitable backlash their action(s) incur; typically by dividing their base into segments so that those who are most attuned to notice and respond to the shadiness of the action(s) in question can be easily spun as a selfish, obnoxious, and overly-sensitive minority group.

On a lighter note:

"X" item is too OP!"

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

I am also sick of hearing about resolution and framerate. These days you can have the best game the world has ever seen but if it isn't 1080p and 60 FPS then it going to get shit on. Oh how I miss the days when no one talked about the resolution of Mario 64 and Spyro the Dragon. Graphics arguments are nothing new but no one went around saying "N64 runs at 240p" because no one gave a shit.

Did you know that if you usually play games at 60fps, games in 30fps can make your eyes hurt because it's so stuttery? Of course you'll get used to it after a while, but if you start playing games in 60fps again the transition can be quite painful and headache inducing. And that's why I care if a game is locked at 30fps. It is also the reason why I go to great lengths in games to make sure I have a smooth as possible framerate, preferably over 40 as anything under gives me headaches.

And people generally start giving a shit when someone comes with a superior experience and they find out everyone else is stuck with their old technology and doesn't want to move forward.
Kinda like how every AAA protagonist is male. We want progression, and innovation. etc etc.
So yeah, if people want to be stuck in the past with 240p or games that can't even keep a stable 30fps, fine have fun with that. But don't go complain when people want progression.

Now with that small rant over, I can get on with the topic.

''Every action has consequences''
Nope, they rarely have.

 

[ThePreyApproaches]

Silky smooth <30 fps
Innovative cinematic experience, 9/11 for effort
This game is problematic
Gamers are entitled
Badge unlocked
Representation of *insert sensitive group here" in games

 

[Adultratedhydra]

I'm suprised noone has said "Toxic" yet.

The word is thrown around to apparently mean anything you dont agree with.

"This playstyle is toxic, This storyline is toxic, this writing is toxic." The word has lost all meaning these days.

 

[ThePreyApproaches]

I'm suprised noone has said "Toxic" yet.

The word is thrown around to apparently mean anything you dont agree with.

"This playstyle is toxic, This storyline is toxic, this writing is toxic." The word has lost all meaning these days.

Some group of people must've contracted chronic food poisoning from eating too much American fast food, and they're just spreading their misery around. Everyone who overuses the word "toxic" in a psychological sense looks like this in my mind.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I am also sick of hearing about resolution and framerate. These days you can have the best game the world has ever seen but if it isn't 1080p and 60 FPS then it going to get shit on. Oh how I miss the days when no one talked about the resolution of Mario 64 and Spyro the Dragon. Graphics arguments are nothing new but no one went around saying "N64 runs at 240p" because no one gave a shit.

Did you know that if you usually play games at 60fps, games in 30fps can make your eyes hurt because it's so stuttery? Of course you'll get used to it after a while, but if you start playing games in 60fps again the transition can be quite painful and headache inducing. And that's why I care if a game is locked at 30fps. It is also the reason why I go to great lengths in games to make sure I have a smooth as possible framerate, preferably over 40 as anything under gives me headaches.

And people generally start giving a shit when someone comes with a superior experience and they find out everyone else is stuck with their old technology and doesn't want to move forward.
Kinda like how every AAA protagonist is male. We want progression, and innovation. etc etc.
So yeah, if people want to be stuck in the past with 240p or games that can't even keep a stable 30fps, fine have fun with that. But don't go complain when people want progression.

Now with that small rant over, I can get on with the topic.

''Every action has consequences''
Nope, they rarely have.

Did you know that I have never had my eyes hurt from Mario 64 or Spyro the Dragon or any other games that wasn't 60FPS and did you know that I can go from NES games to modern PC games without a problem?