Support NeoGAF

[Funyarinpa]

Nah, Bobby Roberts is hitting the nail on the head: You want the right to have an "unspoiled" entertainment experience while at the same time particpate in the middle of a conversation about it. Or to put in layman's terms, have your cake and eat it, too. Until you're able to address that point, there's really no conversation to be had here.

It's not really fair to allege that it's the new player's responsibility to know which posts to read and which to not, since you're so adamant about posting unmarked spoilers. Seeing spoilers about a game posted without any warning doesn't just happen in spoiler threads or threads for that game- it can happen in unrelated threads as well.

Wanting to be able to read the forums and perhaps an official thread without fearing risks of spoilers isn't really entitlement. The "discussion" people want to be able to have without getting spoiled isn't really plot analysis or anything of the sort, it's simple things like spoiler free impressions a little bit into the game, quick questions, or sharing any related news about the game (like sales milestones).

People who hate spoilers aren't on a tirade against spoilery discussion, we just want to be able to fully enjoy games we play.

And for all this talk of how clicking a simple spoiler tag is hard and exacting labor, we're the ones willing to take that step before anyone else so that we don't ruin the experiences of other people, so you're really preaching to the wrong choir about how it's too hard to do and so you feel entitled to not do it.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Nah, Bobby Roberts is hitting the nail on the head: You want the right to have an "unspoiled" entertainment experience while at the same time particpate in the middle of a conversation about it. Or to put in layman's terms, have your cake and eat it, too. Until you're able to address that point, there's really no conversation to be had here.

Do you feel the same way about people posting spoilers outside of those conversations in thread titles, or out of the blue in an unrelated thread? The only way "there's no conversation to be had here" is if people talking about surprises in a game occurred in threads about that game. In this very thread, we forbid someone posting an SotC spoiler just to get at another user who said they were looking forward to playing it for the first time with the remake that was just announced.

Until there's a spoiler thread for something, I just tag something I consider to be a spoiler. If there's a spoiler thread or a thread where everything's being discussed, I go there to talk about it without those tags. Doesn't change how I'm discussing the game.

The notion that discussion is hindered doesn't hold water when there's always a way for me to post anything I want about a game without needed to post it without tags, be it in a general thread not solely about said game, an non-spoiler OT or a spoiler thread. I don't need every single person present to see what I'm writing, just the ones who know as much about the game as I do.

Unless I'm running some kind of poll about public reaction to a given story development, then reaching my as many people as possible with a given post isn't a concern. Sounds impractical to approach discussion as if you're drumming up hits for your blog.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

You're going on this crazy tangent, which is one of the problems I'm talking about.

Nobody here is asking people to police their shit in OTs or whatever.

I don't think it's really all that crazy a tangent, and is speaking to the larger conversation that grew out of the OP. The tangent isn't irrelevant, I don't believe.

And I also feel like people are, in fact, asking for policing in OTs as well. The prevalence of black bars in an OT is part of what people are getting upset about (both from the perspective of people who feel trying to read the redactions is tiring, and the people who believe the black bars are a necessity to keep the discussion open to everyone), and my posts are addressing how the very concept of OTs that protect for the spoiler-free is kind of a backwards notion in the first place.

It really does seem what we're getting to here on the last two pages is the notion that people deserve to have a spoiler-free first experience of a thing, and also the right to engage in spoiler-free conversation about their experience of that thing as they're experiencing it among people who have finished the game/movie, and that the onus to protect for those experiences isn't on the person who keeps walking into a room they're ill-suited for, but on the people who beat them there.

How much weight does that conceit really have?

(that's the much more interesting thread in this thread, primarily because most people recognize that in any general discussion thread, just randomly spoiling details of a somewhat recent game/movie is rude/inconsiderate, so there's not much conversation to be had on the notion that just randomly blurting out the ending to a movie that just hit blu-ray while you're in a thread about Coke Zero is an inconsiderate brainfart at best, malicious bullshit at worst)

 

[ScientificPizza]

But what if your disqualification hinges more on your lack of actually being prepped to have the discussions that are happening? You're not really addressing that point, you're just repeating over and over again that you deserve as a matter of fact to be in the room because... you deserve to be in the room.

It doesn't occur to you that your presence, and the lack of experience/knowledge that comes with it, is a hindrance to the free-flowing discussion you're saying should be happening.

Because everyone does deserve to be in the room. I'm not addressing that because it's a given. What are you even saying? That because you want to have a specific conversation everyone else be damned? Spoiler tags don't stop a conversation from being free flowing, and being considerate of other people's experiences shouldn't be a hinderance to anyone. That is crazy

It really does seem what we're getting to here on the last two pages is the notion that people deserve to have a spoiler-free first experience of a thing, and also the right to engage in spoiler-free conversation about their experience of that thing as they're experiencing it among people who have finished the game/movie, and that the onus to protect for those experiences isn't on the person who keeps walking into a room they're ill-suited for, but on the people who beat them there.

How much weight does that conceit really have?

No one is ill suited to a "room". That is some of the most impossibly elitist shit I have read on this forum.

 

[Haly]

Spoiler tags don't stop a conversation from being free flowing

They do, at least for me. That's one of the discussions in this thread, which one side refuses to acknowledge. What is trivial for you is not trivial for me (using tags, having a discussion around tags). What is trivial for me is not trivial for you (dealing with spoilers).

 

[ScientificPizza]

They do, at least for me. That's one of the discussions in this thread, which one side refuses to acknowledge. What is trivial for you is not trivial for me (using tags, having a discussion around tags). What is trivial for me is not trivial for you (dealing with spoilers).

Spoiler

I'm sorry that spoiler tags are so difficult for you to use

You're right though. One mouse click is equivilant to having an entire game ruined for you. 1:1

 

[Starlightmuse]

They do, at least for me. That's one of the discussions in this thread, which one side refuses to acknowledge. What is trivial for you is not trivial for me (using tags, having a discussion around tags). What is trivial for me is not trivial for you (dealing with spoilers).

Yeah, is hard for people to understand how of a hard task is to do a couple of clicks with your mouse.

Also of course is trivial for you to not give a fuck about anyone who doesn't want to be spoiled.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Because everyone does deserve to be in the room. I'm not addressing that because it's a given. What are you even saying? That because you want to have a specific conversation everyone else be damned? Spoiler tags don't stop a conversation from being free flowing, and being considerate of other people's experiences shouldn't be a hinderance to anyone. That is crazy


No one is ill suited to a "room". That is some of the most impossibly elitist shit I have read on this forum.

How is it elitist though? Like, really? How is it "elitist" to suggest that if a whole bunch of us are in a thread dedicated to discussing the game/movie we just finished playing, and you come in and you haven't even started playing the thing, that maybe you're not in the best possible shape to keep up with that convo?

What's elitist about that?

What is it about your generally uninformed opinion about a thing you haven't seen/watched/played yet that makes it worthy of being introduced into the conversation, and further forcing other people to change their conversations to protect for the experience you still haven't even had yet?

The idea that people can't ever be ill-suited to a conversation, regardless the level of experience they may or may not have regarding the topic of that conversation, seems weird to me. Of course they can. That's not a weird, out-of-bounds concept. It's not elitist, either.

If you don't know what you're talking about, why would you start talking with people who do, and then make demands on how they talk about it to accommodate your lack of experience?

What are you even going to get out of that conversation?

Doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to wait until you've actually had the experience you're trying to protect for, before wading into a conversation about that experience with everyone else?

 

[Haly]

Yeah, is hard for people to understand how of a hard task is to do a couple of clicks with your mouse.

I know it is, which is why I'm trying to lay out my reasons with evidence and examples but like, none of it gets through.

Also of course is trivial for you to fuck about anyone who doesn't want to be spoiled.

As I said before, I follow spoiler rules. What I'm actually saying there is I don't lose my shit when I get "spoiled". I don't even believe spoilers really exist and it's just some weird byproduct of modern society.

 

[fester]

I mean, usually you're not participating in the conversation if you're not watching or playing the thing or haven't watched said episode/movie yet. Like I haven't been in the Yakuza or Horizon OTs for weeks/months.

Not really seeing the "have your cake and eat it too" thing as the rationale here. Or we just talking movie or show OTs? Because games still get spoiler threads

I think it goes back to being at different stages of the game or TV series. Jumping into a thread where the conversation could be at any number of points and then expecting everyone to align with your spoiler expectations is the problem. One recent example that has stuck with me was in a BotW thread where someone's post included the name of a village and they received a lot of backlash over it. It's absurd and hurts the discussion. It's having your cake (the unspoiled experience) and being able to eat it (engage in conversations about the experience that meet your requirements). If you really want to keep that cake personal and unspoiled, don't show up to a party where everyone is eating and talking about it openly.

 

[Starlightmuse]

I know it is, which is why I'm trying to lay out my reasons with evidence and examples but like, none of it gets through.

What evidence and examples? you just keep repeating how hard and difficult it is to you to do clicks, which is just an stupid excuse to anyone who reads it.

I don't even believe spoilers really exist and it's just some weird byproduct of modern society.

what the fuck i cant even

 

[Funyarinpa]

To address the "newcomers want to participate in endgame discussions" point: That's simply wrong. That'd mean we'd be taking issue with spoiler threads, which is really stupid. We just want
1. To not get spoiled in unrelated threads
2. To have a place where we can ask questions or post impressions without getting further spoilers

Also, people can't have questions or comments without finishing a game now? Wut. WUT.

 

[Famassu]

While, sure, people shouldn't necessarily just spoil stuff willy nilly anywhere & everywhere, I feel these hyper-sensitive (to spoilers) people should also kind of try to better themselves and not be quite so bothered with spoilers. Like, not finishing a game you're thoroughly enjoying because of a spoiler? Come on, grow up. If a story/narrative/whatever is good, a spoiler shouldn't ruin it. I'd argue often knowing stuff in advance can even enhance a story or how you experience it, in a good way. It just recontextualizes stuff and it can actually inform you to look out for details & experiencing scenes in new ways that a person who doesn't know the spoiler won't and they'll miss out on some neat stuff (in their first playthrough/watch/read) because they don't know. Like, as a hypothetical example (from someone who hasn't played the game yet), if you know the origin of the robot dinosaurs in Horizon is XYZ, then maybe you can understand some details better while you're going through the whole game instead of only maybe learning about it half way through the game or near the end (or whenever it's revealed).

Or take Star Wars. Knowing the whole "Luke, I'm your father" thing beforehand won't ruin the movie. It's a nice twist, but if you knew it before it's revealed, wouldn't it add a bit of new kind of tension to scenes with Darth Vader & Luke? You know something (most of) the characters in the story don't and that would give you a POV to approach scenes from that a person who doesn't know it can't. Someone who doesn't know only sees Darth Vader as a threatening villain who is out to kill them, which is entertaining, but ultimately kind of a shallow thing vs. battling your father unknowingly. Yeah, you miss out on the reveal moment, but that's all it is, a moment, and you can gain in understanding scenes better or in a different context/way. And even if you know that Darth Vader is Luke's father, you don't necessarily know in what situation that is revealed and it'll still be entertaining seeing Luke react to the news that the main baddie (so far in the story) is actually his father.

Or imagine knowing that someone is gonna betray the main group in some story. It then becomes less about the shock of learning about the betrayal and maybe more about just looking for signs of that person's betrayal (that a good story should have, imo). Maybe the betrayer gives hints that you wouldn't even think about if you didn't know there is a betrayal subplot. In a well told story it's not necessarily all that important to be shocked by a betrayal reveal, but seeing characters you've possibly grown attached to go through the betrayal. It should be more entertaining to see how they react to learning someone they trust betrays them, no matter if you know about the twist or not, and not to experience the betrayal.

Ultimately, even if you're spoiled by plot points, you still haven't actually experienced the story. Even with knowledge of twists, the experience could still be an entertaining one.

 

[Haly]

What evidence and examples? you just keep repeating how hard and difficult it is to you to do clicks, which is just an stupid excuse to anyone who reads it.

I give examples of how spoilerphobia has changed the wait discussion is had on GAF and on the internet when it comes to media, and my reasons for why I think this change is for the worse. Roberts has also said a lot to this effect.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Because everyone does deserve to be in the room. I'm not addressing that because it's a given. What are you even saying? That because you want to have a specific conversation everyone else be damned? Spoiler tags don't stop a conversation from being free flowing, and being considerate of other people's experiences shouldn't be a hinderance to anyone. That is crazy

Yeah.

No matter how (typically older) people perceive online spaces to be, they're public places. I don't get to post raunchy stuff on my timeline when it's set to public—or at least I can't get indignant when someone calls me out on it.

The people here will forever butt heads over this matter, and you can contemplate what constitutes a spoiler endlessly, and/or you can stick to spoiler threads when possible, or really consider what details you need to throw out when discussing something. Granted, I talk more about games and how they play than I do traditional stories in books/movies, and generally gameplay isn't something people consider to be able to be spoiled, so that probably contributes to my view. I still don't think it's ever been a hassle to just generally avoid spoiling stuff, and it's never struck me as unreasonable to use the spoiler tags, especially outside of OTs.

It's just too easy, and getting defensive over the principle of the matter—over my right to post what I want where I want—has never seemed worthwhile.

 

[Haly]

what the fuck i cant even

spoiler (n.) Look up spoiler at Dictionary.com
1530s, "one who robs or plunders," agent noun from spoil (v.). Meaning "one who mars another's chance at victory" is attested from 1950 in U.S. politics, perhaps from boxing. Aeronautics sense is from 1928, because the flap thwarts the "lift" on the plane; transferred to structures serving a similar purpose on speedboats (1957) and motor vehicles (1963). Meaning "information about the plot of a movie, etc., which might 'spoil' it for one who has not seen it" is attested by 1982.

It's a modern thing. I've never seen any historical cases of the argument we're having now.

 

[Rickenslacker]

To address the "newcomers want to participate in endgame discussions" point: That's simply wrong. That'd mean we'd be taking issue with spoiler threads, which is really stupid. We just want
1. To not get spoiled in unrelated threads
2. To have a place where we can ask questions or post impressions without getting further spoilers

Also, people can't have questions or comments without finishing a game now? Wut. WUT.

FWIW I go into OTs fully expecting there to be spoilers in there that I might catch. As a result, if I have a question, or a comment, and I'm still in a position where I'm wary of knowing what's ahead, I will enter the thread and post my question or comment, then look to see if it's been quoted sometime later for a response.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

We just want
1. To not get spoiled in unrelated threads
2. To have a place where we can ask questions or post impressions without getting further spoilers

This is completely rational, understandable, uncontroversial, etc.

Part of my "crazy tangent" is basically suggesting that the best place to ask questions/post impressions without spoilers being out in the open is probably the review thread, not the "official" thread, since a review thread is already set up with the expectation there aren't going to be untagged spoilers anywhere, and everyone involved (including the critics being cited - or rather, ignored save for a paragraph and a rating number) is inclined to stay spoiler-free as possible.

Making that "spoiler free" space the Official Thread is counterintuitive and often counterproductive.

But yeah, unrelated thread/general threads, people should at least be looking out for others/exercising caution when talking about recent games/media.

 

[Starlightmuse]

I give examples of how spoilerphobia has changed the wait discussion is had on GAF and on the internet when it comes to media, and my reasons for why I think this change is for the worse. Roberts has also said a lot to this effect.

What you said about game of thrones doesn't even make sense to anyone who has read the books, A storm of swords came out before the series begun and that book is full of twists in every chapter. That's a lot of nonsense implying that media is changing to adapt itself to the "spoiler culture" when twist have always been in stories.

It's a modern thing. I've never seen any historical cases of the argument we're having now.

You know that's just the word, right? the concept is something that basic that it's impossible that it didn't exist before.
There are hundreds of words that you use everyday and people didn't use 200 years ago, while they used other words or constructions with similar meanings.

 

[Haly]

What you said about game of thrones doesn't even make sense to anyone who has read the books, A storm of swords came out before the series begun and that book is full of twists in every chapter. That's a lot of nonsense implying that media is changing to adapt itself to the "spoiler culture" when twist have always been in stories.

They have always been in stories but with more or less emphasis or more or less relevance depending on time, era and tastes. I'm not saying spoiler culture literally created twists, but that they've made twists more important than they need to be, and when they become more important, people get more anxious about being spoiled on a critical twist.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Yeah, I addressed it upthread, but the notion of "spoilers" the way we currently understand (and react) to them is relatively new. Like, the last 20 years, at most.

Your parents didn't act like this. Your grandparents didn't either. Trailers used to be 5 minute versions of movies.

Yeah, there were references to people who skip to the end of mystery books being weird, and Hitchcock's marketing campaign for Psycho was built around people shutting the fuck up after they left the theater, but for the most part, pop-culture's elevation of "WHAT" over "HOW" and "WHY" in a story is very recent. Before the 1990s, it seemed like the importance of those elements went in a different order, generally.

 

[ScientificPizza]

How is it elitist though? Like, really? How is it "elitist" to suggest that if a whole bunch of us are in a thread dedicated to discussing the game/movie we just finished playing, and you come in and you haven't even started playing the thing, that maybe you're not in the best possible shape to keep up with that convo?

What's elitist about that?

What is it about your generally uninformed opinion about a thing you haven't seen/watched/played yet that makes it worthy of being introduced into the conversation, and further forcing other people to change their conversations to protect for the experience you still haven't even had yet?

The idea that people can't ever be ill-suited to a conversation, regardless the level of experience they may or may not have regarding the topic of that conversation, seems weird to me. Of course they can. That's not a weird, out-of-bounds concept. It's not elitist, either.

If you don't know what you're talking about, why would you start talking with people who do, and then make demands on how they talk about it to accommodate your lack of experience?

What are you even going to get out of that conversation?

Doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to wait until you've actually had the experience you're trying to protect for, before wading into a conversation about that experience with everyone else?

It's elitist to assume everyone plays a game one the same timeframe as you, and if they haven't finished by the time you have then they are not allowed to participate in the discussion. Your conversation isn't the only conversation that can occur in an OT. If you want to discuss spoilers of a game, use spoiler tags. If using spoiler tags is too taxing for you, create a spoiler thread. There is no reason to be blatantly spoiling a game in an OT, regardless of your arbitrary restrictions on when people are and are not allowed into a room

 

[MHWilliams]

Plum already posted his guide. The answer to the question of "where is the line on spoilers?" is use your goddamn brain. Period.

Showing up in this thread just to say "such and such kills such and such" is the exact type of spoiler you should never type. *Spoilers for book 9 of X*

Spoiler

<spoiler>

is basically all you'd ever need to do, to the extent that you want to freely discuss spoilers outside of a spoiler thread.

I will admit that there is a debate around the question of "what is a spoiler?" but I submit that the aforementioned question is not, in any way, being asked by the people who agree with me. And I don't think the people that are asking it are being honest, either, because they're the same ones saying "SO AND SO WAS SUCH AND SUCH ALL ALONG, HA-HA!" as if they're being fucking slick.

Enough with the strawman arguments. Enough with the slippery slope. If you post unmarked spoilers, you're a douchebag. "Well, what's a spoiler?" is not a helpful discussion at this point. You know exactly what a spoiler is. The fact that you have to bring up "well, some people think the name of a weapon is a spoiler!" only serves to further prove my point, and distract from the core issue at hand here: Don't be a dick.

Use your goddamn brain, people. Quit asking what a spoiler is and simply think about what you say before you say it.
It's. Not. Hard.

None of this addresses anything I asked. It's invective aimed at the argument you disagree with.

It's elitist to assume everyone plays a game one the same timeframe as you, and if they haven't finished by the time you have then they are not allowed to participate in the discussion. Your conversation isn't the only conversation that can occur in an OT. If you want to discuss spoilers of a game, use spoiler tags. If using spoiler tags is too taxing for you, create a spoiler thread. There is no reason to be blatantly spoiling a game in an OT, regardless of your arbitrary restrictions on when people are and are not allowed into a room

Technically neither of you has the right to decide what is and what is not allowed in an OT, hence why many of the OTs differ. In fact, most of the community OTs lack any spoiler policy for the reason one of you is saying.

To address the "newcomers want to participate in endgame discussions" point: That's simply wrong. That'd mean we'd be taking issue with spoiler threads, which is really stupid. We just want
1. To not get spoiled in unrelated threads
2. To have a place where we can ask questions or post impressions without getting further spoilers

This is reasonable. Others desires and arguments have far outstripped this.

 

[Starlightmuse]

Yeah, I addressed it upthread, but the notion of "spoilers" the way we currently understand (and react) to them is relatively new. Like, the last 20 years, at most.

Your parents didn't act like this. Your grandparents didn't either.

That's simply not true.
The Usual Suspects, movie released in 1995, 22 years ago. Do you know what was the main grab about the movie? to know who was Kaiser Soze. If you told who he was to anyone who was planning to go to see that movie I can tell you they wouldn't be very happy.
And I can tell that if I had told my grandpa the ending of a book he was reading he would have beat the shit out of my ass.

 

[Haly]

You know that's just the word, right? the concept is something that basic that it's impossible that it didn't exist before.
There are hundreds of words that you use everyday and people didn't use 200 years ago, while they used other words or constructions with similar meanings.

If there is another word for "spoiler" in the sense we use it today I don't know it.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It's elitist to assume everyone plays a game one the same timeframe as you, and if they haven't finished by the time you have then they are not allowed to participate in the discussion.

How is that elitist though? This doesn't make sense. I'm not assuming everyone's playing the game at the same time I did. I'm specifically providing an example upthread where I know for a fact I'm coming to a conversation late - and further, that I don't believe the conversations worth was diminished by the fact I can't participate in it as its happening, either. The conversation is still a great one whether I'm there to participate in it live, or whether I'm catching it late once I've played the game and going through the reactions months later. The relatability is still there.

It's not elitist to assume that the people who want to engage in the conversation about the larger shared experience have actually had the experience, though. I dont' see how that's elitist. That's basic. That's a basic expectation anyone would have, isn't it? I don't even know how it isn't.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to enter the discussion. But I'm also pretty sure that it doesn't make sense to attempt jumping into a conversation about a game you haven't finished, or a movie you haven't watched, knowing that the majority of people in there HAVE done those things, and ARE talking about it amongst themselves. It just seems like a recipe for frustration, either for yourself as you have things ruined for you that you'd rather have not known about, or for them as they have to slow everything down and move to another corner of the room to make sure you don't get your sensibilities smudged up.

That's simply not true.
The Usual Suspects, movie released in 1995, 22 years ago.

That lands exactly in the timeframe I'm discussing though. The 90s is when this whole phenomena really started to pick up speed.

It's possible you never lived in a time where this sort of heightened worrying about plot spoilers, the fragile nature of the whole thing, wasn't present in some form. But I can tell you from personal experience it wasn't really that huge a deal societally until the 90s, and it didn't really take off until the 2000s.

I'm sure the growth/prevalence of the internet has a lot to do with it, of course.

 

[hughesta]

if you don't want to play a video game because you know the story, it's not a good video game

 

[Starlightmuse]

If there is another word for "spoiler" in the sense we use it today I don't know it.

In my mother language there isn't even any word which directly relates to "spoiler", and nobody which wasn't in touch with the english culture knew what was a "spoiler" like 4 years ago, and that doesn't change that if I had told anyone 4 years ago the ending of a book of a series they would have told me to fuck off.

It's just a word, it's just called spoiler because you spoil plot twists or endings of stories to people. But we all know what we're talking about.

That lands exactly in the timeframe I'm discussing though. The 90s is when this whole phenomena really started to pick up speed.

It's possible you never lived in a time where this sort of heightened worrying about plot spoilers, the fragile nature of the whole thing, wasn't present in some form. But I can tell you from personal experience it wasn't really that huge a deal societally until the 90s, and it didn't really take off until the 2000s.

I'm sure the growth/prevalence of the internet has a lot to do with it, of course.

If you keep getting back you get to a point where most of the games and movies didn't even have much of a plot and a lot of the people didn't have access to them, so of course they didn't care about it. But go tell the ending of a book to someone who liked to read.

 

[ScientificPizza]

How is that elitist though? This doesn't make sense. I'm not assuming everyone's playing the game at the same time I did. I'm specifically providing an example upthread where I know for a fact I'm coming to a conversation late - and further, that I don't believe the conversations worth was diminished by the fact I can't participate in it as its happening, either.

It's not elitist to assume that the people who want to engage in the conversation about the larger shared experience have actually had the experience, though. I dont' see how that's elitist. That's basic. That's a basic expectation anyone would have, isn't it? I don't even know how it isn't.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to enter the discussion. But I'm also pretty sure that it doesn't make sense to attempt jumping into a conversation about a game you haven't finished, or a movie you haven't watched, knowing that the majority of people in there HAVE done those things, and ARE talking about it amongst themselves. It just seems like a recipe for frustration, either for yourself as you have things ruined for you that you'd rather have not known about, or for them as they have to slow everything down and move to another corner of the room to make sure you don't get your sensibilities smudged up.

Because that's not how all of those discussions need to work. I only first posted in the Dark Souls II OT a few weeks ago as I only just started the game and still engaged in meaningful discussions while people still managed to spoiler tag things (myself included). My entire argument is that everyone can and should be satisfied with every level of discussion in an OT at any time if people use basic decency and spoiler tag obvious spoilers. It's not a difficult concept to understand or engage with and solves every problem other than the super childish "but i don't want to have to click", and if you don't want to click on spoiler tags create a spoiler thread. It solves that issue too.

 

[Starlightmuse]

Because that's not how all of those discussions need to work. I only first posted in the Dark Souls II OT a few weeks ago as I only just started the game and still engaged in meaningful discussions while people still managed to spoiler tag things (myself included). My entire argument is that everyone can and should be satisfied with every level of discussion in an OT at any time if people use basic decency and spoiler tag obvious spoilers. It's not a difficult concept to understand or engage with and solves every problem other than the super childish "but i don't want to have to click", and if you don't want to click on spoiler tags create a spoiler thread. It solves that issue too.

You are asking people who don't want to do a click to create a whole thread?

 

[ScientificPizza]

You are asking people who don't want to do a click to create a whole thread?

If they want to use unmarked spoilers, yeah

e: oh wait i get it

 

[Bobby Roberts]

My entire argument is that everyone can and should be satisfied with every level of discussion in an OT at any time

I dont' think this is particularly feasible. Or even the right way to go about it. It's an ungainly, forced sort of egalitarian approach to conversation that obviously chafes at a fair amount of people, and the positives provided by that approach don't seem to be universal, either.

Granted, there's always going to be some sort of compromise because people are goofy creatures and conversations are wild, weird things, and so one-size-fits-all applications are bound not to fit well in a lot of cases. Maybe even most cases. But it's better than a free-for-all with no organization.

But it's also probably not helpful to suggest the reticence to give time and energy to protecting the purity of an entertainment experience for people who don't really seem inclined to put in the work to protect it for themselves, is borne out of a childish selfishness first and foremost.

I'm not saying that aspect can't be (or isn't) present sometimes. But that if you're going to allow for that element to be one that causes friction, it seems only fair to also allow for there to be a sense of easy entitlement on the part of people who feel they're owed a right to freely demand the muting of the conversation once they hit the room.

It's a push-pull that I think Spring was kinda getting at upthread. It's a balance that doesn't ever really get fixed externally. You kinda have to figure how to keep that balance yourself. some dickhead is going to upset it at some point, it happens to all of us, and it sucks, but there are ways to protect for it, and ways to move on past it when it happens, that don't disrupt further.

 

[Tom Nook]

Ugh

I think I saw a

Spoiler

screenshot of an alternate ending of

Splatoon 2 on a youtube thumbnail.

 

[More_Badass]

Yeah, I addressed it upthread, but the notion of "spoilers" the way we currently understand (and react) to them is relatively new. Like, the last 20 years, at most.

Your parents didn't act like this. Your grandparents didn't either. Trailers used to be 5 minute versions of movies.

Yeah, there were references to people who skip to the end of mystery books being weird, and Hitchcock's marketing campaign for Psycho was built around people shutting the fuck up after they left the theater, but for the most part, pop-culture's elevation of "WHAT" over "HOW" and "WHY" in a story is very recent. Before the 1990s, it seemed like the importance of those elements went in a different order, generally.

I think this is a bit reductive. The What isn't separate or distinct from the How and Why. They're all intertwined and connected through context, expectations, narrative flow and pacing, and so on. That's why I always say that people aren't annoyed about spoilers because they learned a twist or the ending or whatnot, not because they learned the What. They're annoyed because how that knowledge will infuence their expectations and the context of what came before, their knowledge and grasp of the How and Why altered due to foresight. Most people want that on their second, third, fourth, etc viewing, not their first.

 

[ScientificPizza]

I think this is a bit reductive. The What isn't separate or distinct from the How and Why. They're all intertwined and connected through context, expectations, narrative flow and pacing, and so on. That's why I always say that people aren't annoyed about spoilers because they learned a twist or the ending or whatnot, not because they learned the What. They're annoyed because how that knowledge will include their expectations and the context of what came before, their knowledge and grasp of the How and Why altered due to foresight. Most people want that on their second, third, fourth, etc viewing, not their first.

Exactly, which is why the "video game stories are bad anyway" argument misses the point. It's about expectations and how it affects the overall experience

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I think this is a bit reductive. The What isn't separate or distinct from the How and Why. They're all intertwined and connected through context, expectations, narrative flow and pacing, and so on. That's why I always say that people aren't annoyed about spoilers because they learned a twist or the ending or whatnot, not because they learned the What. They're annoyed because how that knowledge will include their expectations and the context of what came before, their knowledge and grasp of the How and Why altered due to foresight. Most people want that on their second, third, fourth, etc viewing, not their first.

Nah, it was reductive to an extent, partially because you know I run off at the mouth and I'd have had to basically account for the paragraph you just broke down, and then break it down further to wind up where I was. But I also feel like while the three are intertwined, there's definitely a heirarchy within that, and I dont' think a lot of people consume entertainment with those three things on completely equal levels. I think a lot of entertainment is made ACCORDING to different emphasis on that heirarchy, too, so approaching a work with a sort of "all these elements are of equal importance at all times" focus doesn't play that well case-by-case, either.

But to be reductive: I see that people who are more sensitive to spoilers than others tend to be people for whom the element of surprise is the foremost positive in storytelling/gameplay, and all the others are secondary/tertiary. And the people who tend not to mind spoilers so much are those who don't prioritize surprise as highly.

 

[Crooked16th]

Can I talk about the long sword being in Dark Souls 4 or is that a spoiler?

 

[Snarky(HEART)]

if you don't want to play a video game because you know the story, it's not a good video game

Eeeeh idk. I watched an LP of LA Noire, and I think that's an ok game.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Because that's not how all of those discussions need to work. I only first posted in the Dark Souls II OT a few weeks ago as I only just started the game and still engaged in meaningful discussions while people still managed to spoiler tag things (myself included). My entire argument is that everyone can and should be satisfied with every level of discussion in an OT at any time if people use basic decency and spoiler tag obvious spoilers. It's not a difficult concept to understand or engage with and solves every problem other than the super childish "but i don't want to have to click", and if you don't want to click on spoiler tags create a spoiler thread. It solves that issue too.

Simply tag your spoilers, and everyone who reads the tag can decide for themselves if your post would hurt their experience of the game. Suddenly, people who played 5 out of the 10 levels can participate in 5 levels' worth of discussion, rather than having to simply stay the fuck out of any and all discussions because it's impossible to know where anyone is in the story.

Even Netflix TV show subreddits are smart enough to create individual threads for each episode, so people can jump in at whatever point they're at. How good it ends up working out depends largely on the size and ability of the moderation team, as people are still shitty about spoiling things without warning anyway. But there's a thread for each episode followed by an overall season spoiler thread. Outside of those, spoilers are generally banned in post titles, and bodies containing spoilers have to be marked accordingly, so users can opt out of having them even show up on their feed.

Can I talk about the long sword being in Dark Souls 4 or is that a spoiler?

https://youtu.be/Dy1Xq9a1qOI

None of this addresses anything I asked. It's invective aimed at the argument you disagree with.

Here's the thing about the responsibility of people who don't want to be spoiled; they're probably already doing everything they can, without assholes inserting spoilers where they shouldn't have. In OP's case, he was recommending the game on /r/PS4 to someone who was considering buying it. For him to end up getting the story that he hadn't finished playing yet spoiled in his inbox as a result of wanting to assure that OP that the game is a solid buy is fucking shitty.

To address your door analogy, if the door would close after the person behind you reaches it, you're an asshole if you don't hold it open for them, based on the way the door swings and such.

The limits of spoilers is to "use your goddamn brain," like I said.

 

[Funyarinpa]

This is completely rational, understandable, uncontroversial, etc.

Part of my "crazy tangent" is basically suggesting that the best place to ask questions/post impressions without spoilers being out in the open is probably the review thread, not the "official" thread, since a review thread is already set up with the expectation there aren't going to be untagged spoilers anywhere, and everyone involved (including the critics being cited - or rather, ignored save for a paragraph and a rating number) is inclined to stay spoiler-free as possible.

Making that "spoiler free" space the Official Thread is counterintuitive and often counterproductive.

But yeah, unrelated thread/general threads, people should at least be looking out for others/exercising caution when talking about recent games/media.

Then our disagreement is simply one of semantics- I just prefer OTs and spoiler threads while you prefer review threads and OTs, respectively. I don't prefer review threads because, like in the name, they're threads to compile reviews and not for discussion of the particulars of a game.

FWIW I go into OTs fully expecting there to be spoilers in there that I might catch. As a result, if I have a question, or a comment, and I'm still in a position where I'm wary of knowing what's ahead, I will enter the thread and post my question or comment, then look to see if it's been quoted sometime later for a response.

That expectation is not universal, nor should it be.

 

[Rickenslacker]

That expectation is not universal, nor should it be.

That's the nutshell of the back and forth going on these last few pages, but if I don't want spoilers I put it more on myself to avoid the obvious avenues for where they'd be.

 

[NoctisVsStar]

Moral of study stop looking online while playing a game.

 

[Randam]

While knowing the ending can hurt a bit, isn't it the journey that actually matters, especially with a game?

Yeah. Even if I know stuff, I still like to see how things fold out.

 

[Vitten]

I guess I'm weird then but I never care about the story in a game and often read every spoiler out there before even starting. All about the gameplay for me.

 

[Funyarinpa]

That's the nutshell of the back and forth going on these last few pages, but if I don't want spoilers I put it more on myself to avoid the obvious avenues for where they'd be.

Our point is also that OTs should not be "obvious avenues" for such things.

Some might say the Gaming side OTs should allow unmarked spoiler discussion as well, but there's a small detail: Nowhere else (including review threads, which die very quickly) allows for no-unmarked-spoilers-allowed discussion. There's a reason we have spoiler threads. What you're saying boils down to "don't visit any thread about the game until you're finished", which is really quite silly in terms of how much it limits discussion.

 

[MHWilliams]

Here's the thing about the responsibility of people who don't want to be spoiled; they're probably already doing everything they can, without assholes inserting spoilers where they shouldn't have. In OP's case, he was recommending the game on /r/PS4 to someone who was considering buying it. For him to end up getting the story that he hadn't finished playing yet spoiled in his inbox as a result of wanting to assure that OP that the game is a solid buy is fucking shitty.

I've already addressed the OP's specific situation.

The limits of spoilers is to "use your goddamn brain," like I said.

Well, to go with "use your goddamn brain": Information based on a work within a thread dedicated to that work is completely fair and reasonable, considering that thread or discussion is about the work in question, thus assuming you have consumed the work in question. Which is to say, you're offering an informed discussion.

That folks are willing go above that is an additional consideration extended to the other party who has yet to partake of the work.

That expectation is not universal, nor should it be.

And the fundamental issue is the other posters believe that your desire is the same.

Some might say the Gaming side OTs should allow unmarked spoiler discussion as well, but there's a small detail: Nowhere else (including review threads, which die very quickly) allows for no-unmarked-spoilers-allowed discussion. There's a reason we have spoiler threads. What you're saying boils down to "don't visit any thread about the game until you're finished", which is really quite silly in terms of how much it limits discussion.

Again, most of our long-running OTs are open spoilers. Most of Off-Topic operates on a post-air/release policy. Once it's out, spoilers are fair game. The issue, frequently, is the desire to move beyond that, because people tend to have different ideas of a reasonable time limit, if any at all.

 

[Lunafreya Nox Fleuret]

Moral of study stop looking online while playing a game.

Yeah, but some people enjoy posting opinions about spoiler parts before advancing especially if they are at work or something.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

How the hell can you spoil gameplay?



Are people in this thread really going to pretend that HZD doesn't have one of the best science fiction stories in games?

Horizon successfully passes the low bar of "Above-average sci-fi video game story."

 

[Rickenslacker]

Our point is also that OTs should not be "obvious avenues" for such things.

Some might say the Gaming side OTs should allow unmarked spoiler discussion as well, but there's a small detail: Nowhere else (including review threads) allows for no-unmarked-spoilers-allowed discussion. There's a reason we have spoiler threads. What you're saying boils down to "don't visit any thread about the game until you're finished", which is really quite silly in terms of how much it limits discussion.

Why wouldn't they be? They're the official threads, they're everything and anything about the game, which would include major plot points. Someone might post something that they don't consider a spoiler but ends up being so, another might botch their spoiler tag and reveal it anyway. If I'm wary, I simply keep out, as discussion of things prior to completion often end up in a "welllll see what happens " anyway.

 

[Funyarinpa]

I've already addressed the OP's specific situation.



Well, to go with "use your goddamn brain": Information based on a work within a thread dedicated to that work is completely fair and reasonable, considering that thread or discussion is about the work in question, thus assuming you have consumed the work in question. Which is to say, you're offering an informed discussion.

That folks are willing go above that is an additional consideration extended to the other party who has yet to partake of the work.



And the fundamental issue is the other posters believe that your desire is the same.

By your definition any OT should include unmarked spoilers, which would render spoiler threads useless and unnecessarily cut down on discussion already taking place by newcomers to games in OTs. By your logic, ANY thread dedicated to a game is fair ground for spoilers, which sounds extremely shitty.

Also, nobody is saying that the desire to not get spoiled is universal. But that it matters greatly to those who DO desire to not get spoiled. OTs are already functioning as places where newcomers can ask questions and post impressions, and to me it's frankly nonsensical that people want to tear that avenue of discussion down. The courtesy to tag spoilers isn't mandated but simply wanted as a consequence of simple decency and consideration for others. You'll do many of us a huge favor by just clicking a couple buttons, but somehow using spoiler tags got falsely glorified into this extremely taxing effort of will. It's not a big deal to use tags...

Edit: I also already mentioned how I think Gaming Side OTs work far differently than Offtopic OTs (which seem closer in spirit to Community Threads to me). And newcomers DO sporadically use OTs to post impressions and questions, that's an obvious fact.

Why wouldn't they be? They're the official threads, they're everything and anything about the game, which would include major plot points. Someone might post something that they don't consider a spoiler but ends up being so, another might botch their spoiler tag and reveal it anyway. If I'm wary, I simply keep out, as discussion of things prior to completion often end up in a "welllll see what happens " anyway.

That there might be accidents is a completely different and reductionist outlook on the issue. By that logic, a spoiler tag might get botched anytime and then there's no point for spoiler tags at all. I'd say that that is obviously wrong.

I also really don't get why the OK-with-spoilers camp is not satisfied with having spoiler threads, which is EXACTLY what they want. Are you not satisfied with posting unmarked spoilers under a "spoiler thread" instead of an "OT", or what? There's already avenues of discussion for people who are only on the same level of knowledge as you.