Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

guys can we please stop debating the subtle semantics of the wondermark comic

I'm just not understanding why someone would write a public opinion without wanting anyone to discuss it. Why even post it?

You post a "public" opinion because you want to discuss it with people you know and possibly well-behaved people who wander in because they recognize you or followed a mutual follower over to your feed, but not with a giant flood of people who search for random keywords in order to pick fights about them.

Some friends in the game industry use Twitter pretty extensively both professionally and to communicate with friends, and who historically have met a lot of interesting people via unsolicited conversations on Twitter. These people now basically have to ignore their mentions completely, basically because they talked about gamergate a couple times and now every tweet gets like fifty angry responses. Or you can see the more aggressive version of this with Jenn Frank, who only a disingenous asshole could claim did anything at all to get roped into this situation, and who was actually tweeting just an hour ago about how even after actively trying to completely disengage from the issue random people are still tweeting at her to try to "make their point."

 

[Aeana]

I realize now that the comic can be interpreted in several ways, but what I took from it was that the woman was saying she doesn't like sea lions, and then a sea lion comes in and illustrates why she has trouble with them.

I'm sure she has trouble with lots of people if she constantly spouts bigoted crap in public.

 

[Moon_frogger]

I think I understand where you are coming from, but you are tripping up over the idea of "messages", which in turn allows "art games" the wiggle room to obtain that elevation. Better than to say everything is art, since art is a nonsensical, exploitable term, say everything has a message or, really, as many messages as the viewer can create from all of the stimuli (as it is with everything, man-made or not). It sounds like you have issues over the exclusive pretensions surrounding "having a message" and how that may interfere with how stimulating (i.e., entertaining) the product ultimately is.

If a story is trying to get across it's theme I like it to unfold naturally. I felt Gone Home got a little too caught up in 'having a message' and kind of smacked me in the face with it a few times. kind of broke the spell for me. I know I'm not alone. Thanks for not immediately attacking me because I had something negative to say about the current indie darling! I'm glad games like gone home exist and I'm glad I bought it, but If the thing you love about it is that it's 'art' or 'has a message' then I think that's kind of insulting to the entire history of videogames that I also consider to be art.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

If a story is trying to get across it's theme I like it to unfold naturally. I felt Gone Home got a little too caught up in 'having a message' and kind of smacked me in the face with it a few times. kind of broke the spell for me. I know I'm not alone. Thanks for not immediately attacking me because I had something negative to say about the current indie darling! I'm glad games like gone home exist and I'm glad I bought it, but If the thing you love about it is that it's 'art' or 'has a message' then I think that's kind of insulting to the entire history of videogames that I also consider to be art.

There is no definition of art, nor is there a rigid definition of a videogame.

The idea that gamergate has made themselves out to be not only the gatekeeper of what a gamer is, but now also the gatekeeper of what a game is is rather insulting to videogames as a whole.

 

[Eidan]

Stuff

& Stuff

Gotcha.

This all really feels like an effort to protect unpopular, possibly offensive opinions. All well and good. I agree that a person's desire to not engage in debate should be respected, otherwise it begins to veer into the realm of harassment. Still, I have trouble begrudging someone who reacts to a public comment that offended them, with a public request to discuss it, or a public opposition to that comment, at least initially.

I feel my inability to sympathize wholly with the woman in the comic (ignoring the fact that she insulted sea lions as a whole, which was pretty offensive), is because I rarely say anything in a public space that I'm not willing to discuss, especially online. If I don't want to discuss it, I don't talk about it.

 

[Ropaire]

I'm not following you here. Can you explain further?

When one side of an issue is objectively, systematically marginalized and abused (in the case of GamerGate, this would be women, but it extends to general policies of racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on in our culture), they are too often told that they're not presenting "their side of the argument" after the fact in a palatable way - whether that's sufficiently civil, humble, buttoned down - or to take it upon themselves to educate others of the problem instead of asking the majority to show basic empathy. What this does is sidetrack the actual root problem of hatred and oppression by positioning a failure to be uniformly polite - particularly when those asking for politeness are frequently doing so disingenuously - as an equivalent offense as the aforementioned oppression.

Case in point: TotalBiscuit's article calling for moderation on both sides, as though GamerGate's unbridled harassment and persecution was morally comparable to Leigh Alexander writing a mean thing.

If we assume that the sea lions are GamerGate proponents, I'm sure we've all seen Twitter screencaps of one of them by now haranguing the gaming personalities they've indicted in overtly courteous ways (remember, they even had internal edicts not to use abusive language) - demanding that they spell out their case, debate them, be civil, etc. And if those personalities don't respond, or respond harshly because they don't believe these people can be reasoned with, that is not cause to say "Well, looks like both sides are equally close-minded."

 

[Eidan]

You post a "public" opinion because you want to discuss it with people you know and possibly well-behaved people who wander in because they recognize you or followed a mutual follower over to your feed, but not with a giant flood of people who search for random keywords in order to pick fights about them.

Some friends in the game industry use Twitter pretty extensively both professionally and to communicate with friends, and who historically have met a lot of interesting people via unsolicited conversations on Twitter. These people now basically have to ignore their mentions completely, basically because they talked about gamergate a couple times and now every tweet gets like fifty angry responses. Or you can see the more aggressive version of this with Jenn Frank, who only a disingenous asshole could claim did anything at all to get roped into this situation, and who was actually tweeting just an hour ago about how even after actively trying to completely disengage from the issue random people are still tweeting at her to try to "make their point."

Fair. I should mention that I'm not actually on Twitter, so a lot of its functionality I'm not wholly aware of. They really don't allow you just to share tweets with certain people? Like a subset of your followers or those you're following?

 

[Riposte]

bringing this back around to the topic of the thread, people who don't want their games to have a message are almost exclusively referring to stories with themes they are uncomfortable with.

In the case of Gone Home and, to a much lesser extent, Papers, Please, there is enough room to say that the issue with those games could be the interactivity (or the way it is less prioritized), not the actual themes in question. Hence the talk of "non-game" and "walking simulator" (less applicable to Papers, Please in this case). "Don't want to game to have a message", although poorly put (downright impossible given my earlier explanation), could be taken as a criticism of games that fail to deliver a degree of meaningful interactivity that has become a minimal expectation for decades in hopes of hinging everything on the feedback. That's not to say this is exclusive from what you said.

Personally, I think both games are pretty poor because of their interactivity, for different reasons actually. Although maybe conceptually interesting, they are worth criticizing for fundamental elements and arguing against as anything better, especially when the argument in the opposite direction also exists.

 

[charlequin]

Still, I have trouble begrudging someone who reacts to a public comment that offended them, with a public request to discuss it, or a public opposition to that comment, at least initially.

You need to look at the bigger context. Like: certainly people who post unusual or controversial positions in GAF threads often get a PM or two from people who want to continue the discussion outside of the thread. That's fine and certainly reasonable.

Now imagine that sending PMs took so little effort that every time someone posted something other than the most popular opinion, they got fifty or sixty PMs, and kept getting them for days as other people saw the same thread and followed up on it. Now that person's PMs are basically useless since it's a pain to find anything they actually care about amongst all the noise, and there's no way to actually respond to or engage all the people messaging them. Then the next time they talk about it, imagine everyone whose PMs were ignored last time coming in and saying "don't bother with that person, they're a coward who refuses to engage about their opinion" -- because someone got slammed with a wall of private messages that nobody could actually respond to. That's basically the dynamic that's playing out on Twitter in these situations.

Fair. I should mention that I'm not actually on Twitter, so a lot of its functionality I'm not wholly aware of. They really don't allow you just to share tweets with certain people? Like a subset of your followers or those you're following?

Nope. Twitter has actually been receiving a rising tide of criticism since people have spelled out in quite extensive detail how they could make their platform more conducive to real discussion while shutting down harassment but Twitter has refused to take even basic steps. (In the last year or two the single "best" thing Twitter has done about harassment is reverse their original intent to make the block function less useful than it was before.)

 

[meijiko]

I'm sure she has trouble with lots of people if she constantly spouts bigoted crap in public.

Sure, if you want to liken sea lions to a specific group of people. Which is a valid way to see it. But I saw sea lions as a representation of people who do a specific thing, not as a race. But that really gets into artist's intent, which we've determined is probably going to remain unclear.

What gets me, though, is the sea lion going into the woman's house after she tells him to go away. That sort of thing is unwarranted no matter what vile thing is said in a "public" space.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Gotcha.

This all really feels like an effort to protect unpopular, possibly offensive opinions. All well and good. I agree that a person's desire to not engage in debate should be respected, otherwise it begins to veer into the realm of harassment. Still, I have trouble begrudging someone who reacts to a public comment that offended them, with a public request to discuss it, or a public opposition to that comment, at least initially.

I feel my inability to sympathize wholly with the woman in the comic (ignoring the fact that she insulted sea lions as a whole, which was pretty offensive), is because I rarely say anything in a public space that I'm not willing to discuss, especially online. If I don't want to discuss it, I don't talk about it.

The issue is that the definition of "possibly offensive" is extremely skewed in favor of the majority. A thing I've often seen is that groups redefine positions to be offensive when they disagree with them. (Look at how many different claims people make about Anita versus what she's actually said.) and then proceed to use this reasoning to engage.

The most important part of that comic that a lot of people read over is that although the sea lion "requests" a discussion, he gets clearly denied in the 4th panel yet continues to do so. At this point it is clear his "politeness" is simply a shield and not genuine, if you politely ask for debate but completely dismiss it being declined ... you never politely asked for debate.

I don't think anyone is supposed to sympathize with the women, it's an exploration of the sea lion's behavior regardless of how righteous/bad her comment was. (I assume that is the reason something as ridiculous as a talking sealion was chosen.)

I'll keep it at this tho, cause I see a mod isn't too fond of sea lions..

Fair. I should mention that I'm not actually on Twitter, so a lot of its functionality I'm not wholly aware of. They really don't allow you just to share tweets with certain people? Like a subset of your followers or those you're following?

You either lock twitter down from people who don't follow you entirely, which essentially reduces twitter to being a really bad chat list or you subtweet.

People can't normally read your subtweets unless they follow everyone talking in them. (however as someone pointed out, people actively looking for terms used will be able to find you.)

 

[Corto]

Fucking sea lions! The only good sea lion is the extinct one.

 

[charlequin]

If a story is trying to get across it's theme I like it to unfold naturally. I felt Gone Home got a little too caught up in 'having a message'

What is the message, exactly? This claim always confuses me because the best I can come up with is "gay people aren't evil" which, like... real daring artistic statement to make in 2013 there! What's good about Gone Home (and what most fans of the game will defend) is its elegant, naturalistic attempt at depicting a family's dynamics, warts and all. The gay plotline works well as a way to create conflict between the daughter and parents because of the game's 1990s setting, but the fact that it takes place 20 years ago means it's also just not that relevant politically given the wildly different landscape today.

 

[zeldablue]

In the case of Gone Home and, to a much lesser extent, Papers, Please, there is enough room to say that the issue with those games could be the interactivity (or the way it is less prioritized), not the actual themes in question. Hence the talk of "non-game" and "walking simulator" (less applicable to Papers, Please in this case). "Don't want to game to have a message", although poorly put (downright impossible given my earlier explanation), could be taken as a criticism of games that fail to deliver a degree of meaningful interactivity that has become a minimal expectation for decades in hopes of hinging everything on the feedback. That's not to say this is exclusive from what you said.

Personally, I think both games are pretty poor because of their interactivity, for different reasons actually. Although maybe conceptually interesting, they are worth criticizing for fundamental elements and arguing against as anything better, especially when the argument in the opposite direction also exists.

Passion projects are awesome though!
And in the case of Papers, Please that was an excellent concept for a game. I've studied game design, and there are about 3 to 4 chapters dedicated to what makes a game a game. It has nothing to do with "fun." It's literally all about being engaging, with interactions/inputs and with a list of limitations/rules/defined expectations. That's pretty much all you need to be a game.

If you're at a concert and the performer tells you to clap your hands to his song or echo his voice, that's a game. It's engaging, interactive and has a rule-set. Engagement is subjective though...and engagement can come purely through gameplay, or story, or both.

Don't pigeonhole the medium. Certain genres are lame, but they're still games. (I don't really like MMOs or Sims, or games that don't end/have fail states for instance.)

 

[tranciful]

http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/2h1m4w/social_justice_warrior_attacking_oculus_rift_dev/

As someone who really enjoys PC Gaming, the comments in /r/pcgaming are scary. She asks a normal question and they think she's "angry" and "attacking" them. They're seriously insane.

 

[FoneBone]

In the case of Gone Home and, to a much lesser extent, Papers, Please, there is enough room to say that the issue with those games could be the interactivity (or the way it is less prioritized), not the actual themes in question. Hence the talk of "non-game" and "walking simulator" (less applicable to Papers, Please in this case). "Don't want to game to have a message", although poorly put (downright impossible given my earlier explanation), could be taken as a criticism of games that fail to deliver a degree of meaningful interactivity that has become a minimal expectation for decades in hopes of hinging everything on the feedback. That's not to say this is exclusive from what you said.

Personally, I think both games are pretty poor because of their interactivity, for different reasons actually. Although maybe conceptually interesting, they are worth criticizing for fundamental elements and arguing against as anything better, especially when the argument in the opposite direction also exists.

I've heard this argument, but it doesn't explain why Gone Home has attracted so much more animosity than "non-games" in a similar vein (Dear Esther, The Stanley Parable).

 

[tranciful]

I've heard this argument, but it doesn't explain why Gone Home has attracted so much more animosity than "non-games" in a similar vein (Dear Esther, The Stanley Parable).

These people don't understand why someone would want to have a female/queer lead. They literally think these games just do it for attention or some other reason besides artistic choice. They think they're calling out "fake" game devs.

 

[spekkeh]

Passion projects are awesome though!
And in the case of Papers, Please that was an excellent concept for a game. I've studied game design, and there are about 3 to 4 chapters dedicated to what makes a game a game. It has nothing to do with "fun." It's literally all about being engaging, interaction/inputs and with a list of limitations/rules/defined expectations. That's pretty much all you need to be a game.

As an assistant professor in game design, I would like to know of this canonical book where the chapters tell you what a game is .

I spent the greater part of the first year of my PhD to try to come up with a definition, read Wittgenstein and gave up.

This site satirizes it well.
http://gamedefinitions.com/

 

[Derekloffin]

Passion projects are awesome though!
And in the case of Papers, Please that was an excellent concept for a game. I've studied game design, and there are about 3 to 4 chapters dedicated to what makes a game a game. It has nothing to do with "fun." It's literally all about being engaging, interactive and with a list of limitations/rules/defined expectations. That's pretty much all you need to be a game.

If you're at a concert and the performer tells you to clap your hands to his song or echo his voice, that's a game. It's engaging, interactive and has a rule-set. Engagement is subjective though...and engagement can come purely through gameplay, or story, or both.

Don't pigeonhole the medium. Certain genres are lame, but they're still games. (I don't really like MMOs or Sims, or games that don't end/have fail states for instance.)

I don't think calling proper labeling of a game 'pigeon holing' is correct. There is actually a point where you dilute a term so badly it becomes a useless term. Now, we may already be at that point with 'game', but the general notion that trying to restrict definitions is bad is itself bad. Broading the definition of 'game' doesn't change these experiences, just gets them included in what's become a useless label.

 

[Nanashrew]

That reminds me of those Nintendo commercials where the girls would turn to the camera while playing Mario and say "I am not a gamer."

That really ticked me off. You play Mario, you're a gamer. Stop enforcing the thing that says girls who play games aren't gamers. >:C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQLhl0Y7W-g

Nintendo goin' fo dat non-gamer group. lol.

To be honest I really never got that from those commercials. What I got from them was "I'm not just a gamer, I'm a coin collecting champion/professional artist/whatever."

That's what I got from those commercials.

 

[zeldablue]

As an assistant professor in game design, I would like to know of this canonical book where the chapters tell you what a game is .

I spent the greater part of the first year of my PhD to try to come up with a definition, read Wittgenstein and gave up.

This site satirizes it well.
http://gamedefinitions.com/

The Art of Game Design | Jesse Schell | The Lenses

It's an okay book. I learned quite a bit but I feel like it only scratches the surface.

 

[chaosaeon]

I usually end up saying something like "I play some games in my spare time among other things," making sure I get that "among other things" part in there. Otherwise people automatically assume I just play games 24/7.

I feel the same way. I sometimes feel like people associate the word itself with a mild leaning toward it being on the extreme end of things. Like telling someone you like outdoor activities and they equate that you going basejumping every day. It's sort of turned into a blanket statement since someone who does play MMOs 12 hours a day and someone who plays mario can both be called a "gamer" with no spoken difference between the two. As a broad classification it fails because of this. It's easy to feel you have to elaborate on what you mean by it on a person to person basis, which renders it too ambiguous to be able to use it well to encompass a large group of people.

 

[Wensih]

To be honest I really never got that from those commercials. What I got from them was "I'm not just a gamer, I'm a coin collecting champion/professional artist/whatever."

That's what I got from those commercials.

That's what I took from those commercials too. They're not a gamer; they're something more; they're so absorbed in the game that they actively take on the role of Mario, a coin collecting champion.

It would be similar marketing campaign to say, "you're not watching this movie, you're part of this movie."

 

[spekkeh]

The Art of Game Design | Jesse Schell | The Lenses

It's an okay book. I learned quite a bit but I feel like it only scratches the surface.

Ah yes I have that one. I agree with your opinion.

 

[Riposte]

I've heard this argument, but it doesn't explain why Gone Home has attracted so much more animosity than "non-games" in a similar vein (Dear Esther, The Stanley Parable).

It wasn't meant to be a full explanation on why such animosity exists. I can only imagine for Gone Home it was an easier target for more arguments than the others (as for myself, I'm highly critical of all of them). For example, if someone links less meaningful interactivity ("walking simulator") with this highly specific concept of "messages" (which may be limited to what is thought as political/social activism), more so concerning what are the motivations of critics who praise it to whatever extent (and this is before considering any possible issues with the actual message itself), then Gone Home probably fits better than Dear Esther and that is what is going to be brought up in Twitter arguments. I don't think you'll find any consistency here, as you are dealing with a lot of people who may or may not share a common enemy.

Possibly unrelated: I'm not sure if all of these games were greenlighted, but that seems to be a cause of a lot of aggression on this issue, because games are (were?) directly competing to get on Steam.

 

[mattp]

http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/2h1m4w/social_justice_warrior_attacking_oculus_rift_dev/

As someone who really enjoys PC Gaming, the comments in /r/pcgaming are scary. She asks a normal question and they think she's "angry" and "attacking" them. They're seriously insane.

sigh

FPSplayer 1 point an hour ago
They should hire Ray Rice to deal with this situation.

 

[zeldablue]

I don't think calling proper labeling of a game 'pigeon holing' is correct. There is actually a point where you dilute a term so badly it becomes a useless term. Now, we may already be at that point with 'game', but the general notion that trying to restrict definitions is bad is itself bad. Broading the definition of 'game' doesn't change these experiences, just gets them included in what's become a useless label.

I guess so. But before we had video games we were still always playing and making up games. board games, puzzle games and games of tag etc etc. We've always come up with defined rules and laws for our games to keep them fair, balanced and interesting. Games are ancient, I don't see why we have to suddenly get all stern and mean about what constitutes a real game and which games are "fake games."

As a kid, didn't you ever walk around a forest and pretend to go on an adventure? It would be a rather pointless adventure...but it was still a game, wasn't it? Wouldn't that experience basically be a "walking simulator?"

Maybe soft games and hard games could be the coining term? Hard games have stricter rules and definitions, soft games being loose, squishy and experimental. Kind of like how women were restricted to soft arts in the pre-feminist era? (They weren't allowed to do minimalism or abstract expressionism. They could only do ceramics and stitching/textile works)

That's what I took from those commercials too. They're not a gamer; they're something more; they're so absorbed in the game that they actively take on the role of Mario, a coin collecting champion.

It would be similar marketing campaign to say, "you're not watching this movie, you're part of this movie."

Yeah, I just kind of noticed I butchered the take-away of that commercial. :|

 

[tranciful]

Possibly unrelated: I'm not sure if all of these games were greenlighted, but that seems to be a cause of a lot of aggression on this issue, because games are (were?) directly competing to get on Steam.

But that also means these are games that Steam users want on Steam.

These are people trying to limit what games can be. Video games are growing beyond of the literal definition of the term game. These people somehow see that as an attack. I'll never understand why they can't accept that some games might not appeal to them. Do they seriously think Gone Homes will replace all the Halos? Because that's never going to happen.

 

[The Technomancer]

As an assistant professor in game design, I would like to know of this canonical book where the chapters tell you what a game is .

I spent the greater part of the first year of my PhD to try to come up with a definition, read Wittgenstein and gave up.

This site satirizes it well.
http://gamedefinitions.com/

Have you checked out Rules of Play? We used it as a discussion point in my class on game design, and while its focused more on board games and social games its still good material

They spend a good section going over like a dozen scholarly definitions of games and arriving at one of their own
"a game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome".

This is a definition that I quite like, as it does encapsulate experiences like Gone Home when viewed with sufficient abstraction. There are things that we think of as "games" that might not fit this definition, most probably because of the "conflict" stipulation, but I would like to argue that we should be more open to classifying some things as digital toys.

 

[QuickSilverD]

http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/2h1m4w/social_justice_warrior_attacking_oculus_rift_dev/

As someone who really enjoys PC Gaming, the comments in /r/pcgaming are scary. She asks a normal question and they think she's "angry" and "attacking" them. They're seriously insane.

Maybe my ideologic blinds me, but I don't see the particular problem with this subreddit thread, that question had really no bearing on anything Oculus related, so they are mocking it. as for the Gender Gap subject it seems they are actually discussing it (granted I've not read all replies, just glanced at them)

 

[RurouniZel]

I feel the same way. I sometimes feel like people associate the word itself with a mild leaning toward it being on the extreme end of things. Like telling someone you like outdoor activities and they equate that you going basejumping every day. It's sort of turned into a blanket statement since someone who does play MMOs 12 hours a day and someone who plays mario can both be called a "gamer" with no spoken difference between the two. As a broad classification it fails because of this. It's easy to feel you have to elaborate on what you mean by it on a person to person basis, which renders it too ambiguous to be able to use it well to encompass a large group of people.

Yep. I hate always having to clarify it, or always make it a point to introduce "gaming" as the last hobby I reveal after artwork, hanging out with friends, etc.

 

[Corpekata]

Greenlight is not a barrier of entry like many people like to make it out to be. I am amazed it keeps getting brought up still.

 

[.:Wesker:.]

I think it's hilarious that GAF allows discussion of gamergate, while it's been effectively outlawed on 4chan.

4chan sure has changed.

 

[Derekloffin]

I guess so. But before we had video games we were still always playing and making up games. board games, puzzle games and games of tag etc etc. We've always come up with defined rules and laws for our games to keep them fair, balanced and interesting. Games are ancient, I don't see why we have to suddenly get all stern and mean about what constitutes a real game and which games are "fake games."

As a kid, didn't you ever walk around a forest and pretend to go on an adventure? It would be a rather pointless adventure...but it was still a game, wasn't it? Wouldn't that experience basically be a "walking simulator?"

Personally I wouldn't have termed such a thing as a game, as said thing wouldn't have had any rules, it would simply be whatever I thought would be interesting or fun to do at that moment. Wouldn't have made it any different an experience though. The label I put on it means nothing to it.

Now, there are those who like to use the label as a stick to beat people with (which is also a problem with this whole GG thing as both sides using very broad labels willy-nilly for the other that are intended to discount them). I don't agree with that kind of thing. Being not a game doesn't make these things less valuable, or interesting, or fun, just as being a game doesn't automatically make them more valuable, more interesting or fun.

Maybe soft games and hard games could be the coining term? Hard games have stricter rules and definitions, soft games being loose, squishy and experimental. Kind of like how women were restricted to soft arts in the pre-feminist era? (They weren't allowed to do minimalism or abstract expressionism. They could only do ceramics and stitching/textile works)

Some new terminology may be required if 'game' has become so dilute.

 

[Frog-fu]

http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/2h1m4w/social_justice_warrior_attacking_oculus_rift_dev/

As someone who really enjoys PC Gaming, the comments in /r/pcgaming are scary. She asks a normal question and they think she's "angry" and "attacking" them. They're seriously insane.

There's nothing scary about the majority of the comments that are discussing the wider issues related to that video. The problem isn't that the woman asked a question, the problem is that she asked a loaded question that has little to do with the actual product itself and that comes with all kinds of implications.

 

[charlequin]

I can only imagine for Gone Home it was an easier target for more arguments than the others

It really isn't, though. Gone Home hews much closer to the "traditional" style of gaming narrative, given how heavily it leans on the same methods of storytelling that Bioshock uses. It proceeds on a familiar game structure, it reveals information in a common way, and it even has a few minor "puzzles" in spots. Proteus, Dear Esther, Journey, etc. are noticeably less traditional.

 

[tranciful]

Maybe my ideologic blinds me, but I don't see the particular problem with this subreddit thread, that question had really no bearing on anything Oculus related, so they are mocking it. as for the Gender Gap subject it seems they are actually discussing it (granted I've not read all replies, just glanced at them)

It's a conference about the future of interactive art -- talking about the demographics of that future is completely normal. They edited a video to take out Palmer Luckey's response (that gave it additional context -- it's been a topic of discussion for this conference), framed it as "attacking Carmack," and continued to mischaracterize it on multiple levels. How was that angry? She didn't even mention hiring practices but most people in that subreddit are accusing her of demanding Oculus hire underqualified women over men and using it as an opportunity to rant and bash an imaginary angry misandrist that yelled at carmack unprovoked. How is that normal?

Take a sane person who doesn't care for the topic -- they'd ignore it and move on. She didn't hog the mic or interrupt anything. These people are obsessed.

 

[The Technomancer]

Maybe soft games and hard games could be the coining term? Hard games have stricter rules and definitions, soft games being loose, squishy and experimental. Kind of like how women were restricted to soft arts in the pre-feminist era? (They weren't allowed to do minimalism or abstract expressionism. They could only do ceramics and stitching/textile works)
|

I think even "soft games" can and should be considered games, but I think we should be open to classifying more digital interactive experiences as toys.

 

[tranciful]

I think it's hilarious that GAF allows discussion of gamergate, while it's been effectively outlawed on 4chan.

4chan sure has changed.

GAF moderators keep the crazy people away. 4chan is nothing but crazy people.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I think it's hilarious that GAF allows discussion of gamergate, while it's been effectively outlawed on 4chan.

4chan sure has changed.

I think Neogaf's general regulations regarding discourse, new members & banning are so tight that it's much easier to discuss the subject without issue here.

4chan's audience is fairly toxic and hard to control by nature, so any subject that repeatedly turns into abusive dox dropping & raid threads cannot simply be sanitized through moderation as easily as on gaf.

 

[Hackworth]

I think it's hilarious that GAF allows discussion of gamergate, while it's been effectively outlawed on 4chan.

4chan sure has changed.

According to the sticky on /v/, it's because their discussions were mostly doxxing and m00t got scared so he sent them to their aunts and uncles in Bel-air.

Seriously it's because Gaf has moderators and a culture of something approaching actual discussion, so we can actually cover the issues rather than just incite mob justice and call people names.

 

[zeldablue]

I think even "soft games" can and should be considered games, but I think we should be open to classifying more digital interactive experiences as toys.

Ehh...

But a lot of these games are more like "experiences." Lacking a lot of defining gameplay, but usually reeking of atmosphere and exploration. Sometimes physical exploration, other times, spiritual or philosophical exploration. I noticed a lot of what I liked in Majora's Mask had little to do with gameplay. In fact when you're in Clocktown there is no reason to ever draw your sword. You simply walk around and people watch. That was a very non-gamey part of a series that shifts around in gamey-ness vs. atmosphere. (And after Skyward Sword, I never want another "gamey" console Zelda again...)

 

[Riposte]

But that also means these are games that Steam users want on Steam.

These are people trying to limit what games can be. Video games are growing beyond of the literal definition of the term game. These people somehow see that as an attack. I'll never understand why they can't accept that some games might not appeal to them. Do they seriously think Gone Homes will replace all the Halos? Because that's never going to happen.

Rather than Halo being "replaced", I think the concern lies more in how games are viewed by those thought of as experts, "the critics" / "curators" (which also brings up the question of whether you feel those people should be considered as such). This I can see as a reasonable concern depending on the circumstance. If Halo or similar is equated to "big dumb hollywood blockbuster", and it is often enough, and Gone Home is instead the "indie darling" or "oscar-bait", then that changes the dynamic of criticism considerably - mainly in favor of Gone Home at the expense of Halo. That alone creates contention, but the heart of the issue is how interactivity (or what are thought of as virtues of videogames) factors into this, or rather, how it doesn't. This can be viewed as "poor criticism" (criticism worth criticizing), although some will even say "activism at the expense of criticism" depending on the material. And this is looking at games like Halo, not to speak of games that are like Street Fighter or, much more to the point, Guilty Gear.

Criticism is very much a process of ranking, if not immediately so, then ultimately. Even if one disregards that which doesn't appeal to them, they will be drawn to this fight over ideals. Games may be going "beyond the definition of videogames" or w/e, but they are still involved in the very same process.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ehh...

But a lot of these games are more like "experiences." Lacking a lot of defining gameplay, but usually reeking of atmosphere and exploration. Sometimes physical exploration, other times, spiritual or philosophical exploration. I noticed a lot of what I liked in Majora's Mask had little to do with gameplay. In fact when you're in Clocktown there is no reason to ever draw your sword. You simply walk around and people watch. That was a very non-gamey part of a series that shifts around in gamey-ness vs. atmosphere. (And after Skyward Sword, I never want another "gamey" console Zelda again...)

Sure, and something that's purely an interactive tour probably could be called something besides a game. Dear Esther might qualify. But Gone Home establishes an information disparity right up front and its only through player action that the conflict of that disparity can be resolved.

 

[zeldablue]

Rather than Halo being "replaced", I think the concern lies more in how games are viewed by those thought of as experts, "the critics" / "curators" (which also brings up the question of whether you feel those people should be considered as such). This I can see as a reasonable concern depending on the circumstance. If Halo or similar is equated to "big dumb hollywood blockbuster", and it is often enough, and Gone Home is instead the "indie darling" or "oscar-bait", then that changes the dynamic of criticism considerably - mainly in favor of Gone Home at the expense of Halo. That alone creates contention, but the heart of the issue is how interactivity (or what are thought of as virtues of videogames) factors into this, or rather, how it doesn't. This can be viewed as "poor criticism" (criticism worth criticizing), although some will even say "activism at the expense of criticism" depending on the material. And this is looking at games like Halo, not to speak of games that are like Street Fighter or, much more to the point, Guilty Gear.

Criticism is very much a process of ranking, if not immediately so, then ultimately. Even if one disregards that which doesn't appeal to them, they will be drawn to this fight. Games may be going "beyond the definition of videogames" or w/e, but they are still involved in the very same process.

I think when it comes to games, big leaps are going to be rewarded handsomely. So in the case of Gone Home, the novelty was so high that people rewarded it. We have so many games that all go after the same ideal, that something that goes in a different direction is immediately eye-catching. The game was so simple and mundane that it was a fresh of breath air. I feel like any game that introduces an awesome new game mechanic or story or "level of artistic control" is going to be at the top of the praise list.

At the end of the day the same 'ole CoD is going to sell way more, so what's the harm? I thought the Walking Dead and Journey were also nice breaths of fresh air, personally.

Sure, and something that's purely an interactive tour probably could be called something besides a game. Dear Esther might qualify. But Gone Home establishes an information disparity right up front and its only through player action that the conflict of that disparity can be resolved.

Yeah. I don't really like that. But if it engaged and moved a lot of people, then I don't think I can call it a non-game. Games pick up on our intrinsic nature and that's what makes them fun and engaging.

I think there's been some discussion about this -- how with films, big box office hits often get poor reviews. It makes sense -- movie critics have seen more movies than the typical person, have higher standards, seek out experiences that are less conventional because they've "seen it all." That's a natural part of the industry growing up, no? And there's naturally going to be some inherent activism where critics try to promote under appreciated games because these same critics want more of those sorts of deeper experiences.

But if the film industry is anything to go by, Halos will still see huge sales regardless of what the critics say. I don't see the harm.

Exaaaactly.

 

[tranciful]

Rather than Halo being "replaced", I think the concern lies more in how games are viewed by those thought of as experts, "the critics" / "curators" (which also brings up the question of whether you feel those people should be considered as such). This I can see as a reasonable concern depending on the circumstance. If Halo or similar is equated to "big dumb hollywood blockbuster", and it is often enough, and Gone Home is instead the "indie darling" or "oscar-bait", then that changes the dynamic of criticism considerably - mainly in favor of Gone Home at the expense of Halo.

That alone creates contention, but the heart of the issue is how interactivity (or what are thought of as virtues of videogames) factors into this, or rather, how it doesn't. This can be viewed as "poor criticism" (criticism worth criticizing), although some will even say "activism at the expense of criticism" depending on the material. And this is looking at games like Halo, not to speak of games that are like Street Fighter or, much more to the point, Guilty Gear.

Criticism is very much a process of ranking, if not immediately so, then ultimately. Even if one disregards that which doesn't appeal to them, they will be drawn to this fight. Games may be going "beyond the definition of videogames" or w/e, but they are still involved in the very same process.

I think there's been some discussion about this -- how with films, big box office hits often get poor reviews. It makes sense -- movie critics have seen more movies than the typical person, have higher standards, seek out experiences that are less conventional because they've "seen it all." That's a natural part of the industry growing up, no? And there's naturally going to be some inherent activism where critics try to promote under appreciated games because these same critics want more of those sorts of deeper experiences.

But if the film industry is anything to go by, Halos will still see huge sales regardless of what the critics say. I don't see the harm.

 

[Riposte]

I think there's been some discussion about this -- how with films, big box office hits often get poor reviews. It makes sense -- movie critics have seen more movies than the typical person, have higher standards, seek out experiences that are less conventional because they've "seen it all." That's a natural part of the industry growing up, no? And there's naturally going to be some inherent activism where critics try to promote under appreciated games because these same critics want more of those sorts of deeper experiences.

But if the film industry is anything to go by, Halos will still see huge sales regardless of what the critics say. I don't see the harm.

You missed the key point I was trying to make, in that, where does the game's interactivity (for lack of a better word: "game-ness") come into play. Taken at face value, one can go as far to say that by adopting this dynamic, good games are punished for being bad movies (and vice versa).

I think when it comes to games, big leaps are going to be rewarded handsomely. So in the case of Gone Home, the novelty was so high that people rewarded it. We have so many games that all go after the same ideal, that something that goes in a different direction is immediately eye-catching. The game was so simple and mundane that it was a fresh of breath air. I feel like any game that introduces an awesome new game mechanic or story or "level of artistic control" is going to be at the top of the praise list.

At the end of the day the same 'ole CoD is going to sell way more, so what's the harm? I thought the Walking Dead and Journey were also nice breaths of fresh air, personally.

True enough, but it just so happens "novelty" is one of my personal dragons, something I'm always criticizing. I think being driven by novelty leads to backwards conclusions and it's something people should fight against as a major motivator. Something I said to myself, which is somewhat in agreement with what you said, is "If there were a hundred Walking Deads, would anyone care about this one?" We care about the best First Person Shooter even though there are so many (don't tell DocSeuss I said this).

 

[tranciful]

You missed the key point I was trying to make, in that, where does the game's interactivity come to play. Taken at face value, one can go as far to say that by adopting this dynamic, good games are punished for being bad movies (and vice versa).

I guess I'm confused or don't see interactivity the same way you do. You're worried critics will kill gamey games?

I don't think that's the takeaway from this and even if it was, I don't think critics have that power.

edit: related to zeldablu's post -- critics seek creative novelty. If against all odds, Gone Homes became mainstream and commonplace, the critics would get bored and look for the next fresh thing.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

True enough, but it just so happens "novelty" is one of my personal dragons, something I'm always criticizing. I think being driven by novelty leads to backwards conclusions and it's something people should fight against as a major motivator. Something I said to myself, which is somewhat in agreement with what you said, is "If there were a hundred Walking Deads, would anyone care about this one?" We care about the best First Person Shooter even though there are so many (don't tell DocSeuss I said this).

Please elaborate on what you mean by backwards conclusions? I'm not following you there.

 

[Riposte]

I guess I'm confused or don't see interactivity the same way you do. You're worried critics will kill gamey games?

I'm more confused on how you've arrived at that conclusion. As I said, the fight is mainly inside the realm of criticism on how games should be analyzed and judged at the highest level.