Support NeoGAF

[jcm]

A: "I wish someone was doing something different."
B: "Well, here's Tom Chick. He's like gaming's Armond White if Armond could, you know, write."
A: "Pretentious wankery."

Well, this explains why I don't like Tom Chick. Armond White is awful troll.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Jagged Alliance board game would be better.

Indeed. There're a few good rulesets out there for miniature games that'd serve for a good basis for a JA game. Vietnam War-era infantry fighting or some modern urban combat rules, perhaps. Even something like Necromunda.

 

[Margalis]

Bissel is very good at what he does, which is deliver thoughtful and well-written prose from the perspective of someone without a lot of history and knowledge of video games.

If there is a knock against him it's that he's a little too bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and impressed by things that are new to him rather than actually new.

A: "I want real games-related journalism!"
B: "Well, here's Gamasutra."
A: "No, not that."

A: "I wish these so-called 'journalists' could write."
B: "Well, here's Tom Bissel, a New Yorker-published writer and MacArthur genius."
A: "Pretentious (and/or doesn't write about the anime-games I like.)"

A: "I wish someone was doing something different."
B: "Well, here's Tom Chick. He's like gaming's Armond White if Armond could, you know, write."
A: "Pretentious wankery."

Have you read Gamasutra lately? It's pretty bad these days. Mostly it's F2P guys writing about how awesome F2P is mixed with a lot of opinion pieces from people like Leigh Alexander.

Tom Bissel is good but I wouldn't be interested in reading a straight review from him.

Something different? Different form can be interesting if used sparingly but changing the form is more of a gimmick. When I ask for something different I'm asking for perceptive interviews, news stories that don't play gotcha by pulling a single quote from an interview out of context, intelligently written reviews and critiques, etc. I don't need dramatic stylistic changes.

The "something different" game writing needs is better execution and more professionalism.

 

[whalleywhat]

I often disagree with Tom and think sometimes that he revels in having views that are off the beaten path, but I do think that he is an interesting and unique voice in Games Journalism, or "Games Journalism" if you prefer. I certainly get why not everyone finds his style endearing, but I'll never understand some of the vitriol that he evokes.

He said mean things about a game they like, and they think the primary quality any reviewer should have is to agree with them/validate them.

 

[Riposte]

Tom Chick makes a lot more sense than Armond White does. That is not a fair comparison. I'd sooner pair the writers of Killscreen with White.

 

[jcm]

He said mean things about a game they like, and they think the primary quality any reviewer should have is to agree with them/validate them.

This is such bullshit. In fact, it's the exact sentiment you're accusing "them" of having.

They said mean things about a writer you like, and you think the primary quality any gaffer should have is to agree with you/validate you.

 

[Bloom]

I still don't get his "reasons".

I don't like that this is a guy who spent most of his career playing highly complex and deep strategy games and flight sims like Falcon 4.0, and yet is singing the praises of this X-Com remake today. In fact it seems that most if not all older game writers do exactly that. It's as if they were burned out by games, but wanted to feel and look like they could still be cool in front of everyone, and so evangelize today's modern, more dumbed down stuff. I do get this vibe when I read people's opinions on QT3. And when they're asked why they're suddenly changing, their reasons don't hold water.

The fact is that the first X-Com was a wildly ambitious strategy game full of possibilities and brilliant elements with a fantastic scope and all worked extremely well together, and this is only a product with the same name, only an extremely simplified version of it. For me this isn't the same thing. No matter how you put it, I don't want a watered down experience, and this isn't a positive. My money is going to Xenonauts instead.

I have hopes that with stuff like Kickstarter niche projects and Dark Souls, some people realize that the biggest gaming fans like to be given a rough and yet fair time, because it is so much richer and so much more rewarding.

 

[Zia]

Tom Chick makes a lot more sense than Armond White does. That is not a fair comparison. I'd sooner pair the writers of Killscreen with White.

Well, even that's not a fair comparison. Kill Screen at its most bizarre isn't as far-out as Armond. I just meant in the sense that they're both the Resident Contrarian, and are both entertaining (for completely different reasons).

 

[Alex Connolly]

I still don't get his "reasons".

I don't like that this is a guy who spent most of his career playing highly complex and deep strategy games and flight sims like Falcon 4.0, and yet is singing the praises of this X-Com remake today. In fact it seems that most if not all older game writers do exactly that. It's as if they were burned out by games, but wanted to feel and look like they could still be cool in front of everyone, and so evangelize today's modern, more dumbed down stuff. I do get this vibe when I read people's opinions on QT3. And when they're asked why they're suddenly changing, their reasons don't hold water.

The fact is that the first X-Com was a wildly ambitious strategy game full of possibilities and brilliant elements with a fantastic scope and all worked extremely well together, and this is only a product with the same name, only an extremely simplified version of it. For me this isn't the same thing. No matter how you put it, I don't want a watered down experience, and this isn't a positive. My money is going to Xenonauts instead.

I have hopes that with stuff like Kickstarter niche projects and Dark Souls, some people realize that the biggest gaming fans like to be given a rough and yet fair time, because it is so much richer and so much more rewarding.

While I agree on some levels, Rob Zacny recently wrote a piece on the 'simplification' or dumbing down of strategy games for today's audience. Well worth reading if you've not already.

XCOM:EU may be simpler, but the problems I'm using its tools to solve are as thorny as those I've encountered in more hardcore wargames. You can move and take an action, or you can move far and take no action. This is pretty much the same choice I face 95% of the time in a wargame. The difference is that XCOM:EU expresses it simply as a "run, or take a smaller move and shoot." A more "serious" game expresses the same dilemma as "use 13 points for movement and crouch for 1, or use 6 points for movement and take a shot for 8." XCOM:EU never wants you to spend your time worrying about those numbers and counting spaces; it just wants you to move from tradeoff to tradeoff. That might give you less freedom and fine control over your troops, but it also means that XCOM:EU moves along as a great pace, as opposed to the occasional tedium that could mire Jagged Alliance and old X-COM.

Etc. Etc.

 

[Akainu]

Did I skim over the actual review?

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Dude you are living in the past. Pitchfork hasn't done that in years.

Something Tom Chick does now can't remind me of something Pitchfork did in the past?

 

[CecilRousso]

The fact is that the first X-Com was a wildly ambitious strategy game full of possibilities and brilliant elements with a fantastic scope and all worked extremely well together, and this is only a product with the same name, only an extremely simplified version of it. For me this isn't the same thing. No matter how you put it, I don't want a watered down experience, and this isn't a positive. My money is going to Xenonauts instead.

Just a quick question to be sure about one thing, you do have played the full version of the new XCOM game? That "my money is going to Xenonauts instead" comment is the one making me unsure about it.

 

[DocSeuss]

MSFS isn't "EVERYTHING" but even if it was its got an entire add-on industry that's very much alive and kicking..

Hyperbole for the sake of making a point. MSFS was, to many people, the entirety of Flight Simulation. As you said--it spawned its own industry. That's huge. Can you name another franchise that's done that?

 

[xenist]

While I agree on some levels, Rob Zacny recently wrote a piece on the 'simplification' or dumbing down of strategy games for today's audience. Well worth reading if you've not already.



Etc. Etc.

What do these guys know about strategy? I want my time units. Where are my time units?

Zacny is right. More granularity will produce awesome results in 5% of the combat scenarios. The other 95% is pure busywork.

 

[tetrisgrammaton]

Something Tom Chick does now can't remind me of something Pitchfork did in the past?

True that. I have to admit gimmicky writing hardly ever goes over well. I mean, half the time even Shouts & Murmurs is unbearable.

 

[Alex Connolly]

What do these guys know about strategy? I want my time units. Where are my time units?

Zacny is right. More granularity will produce awesome results in 5% of the combat scenarios. The other 95% is pure busywork.

By the way he talks, you'd think he'd host a strategy gaming podcast or something.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Man the bolded is perhaps the worst summary of Bissell's Skyrim review that I could possible see anyone making. I'm not even a raving Bissell fan or anything, but you are really off the mark there.[...]
I mean, really? You don't have to agree with him, or like his writing style, but I can't imagine anyone missing the points that Tom was trying to make any more than that. Even if they tried.

I'm several days late but I had to reply to this. Indeed, that was some of the worst examples of misquoting and misrepresenting I've seen in my life. Even a politician would be ashamed of summing up those two reviews like that. It's not just that the point being served as the condensed form isn't the most relevant; it's that the point isn't even there to begin with. I'm completely aghast.

But looking on the flip side, I had never heard of this Bissell guy and those two (really accurate) pieces of review have made me respect him more than 99% of game journalists out there, and will probably seek out his work from now on. Probably not what DocSeuss had in mind, heh!

I simplified his arguments too much, then, but I certainly didn't miss the point. He reads far, far too much into the Souls games that simply isn't there, but he assumes it is because he likes the game. When it comes to Bethesda's games, they've always suffered from bad voice direction--I don't even remember the term "Ragged Flagon," but it's pretty obvious that it's a bar or a tavern or a pub or what have you.

Likewise, when someone says "the Jarl of Windhelm," it's pretty obvious that it's a title. He's criticizing the writing because of the delivery, and drawing very large assumptions to make his case.

In the case of Dark Souls, he's reading what many others, including me, read in the game. The fact that it isn't spoon-fed to you like in most games doesn't mean that it isn't there, but I can understand how people accustomed to such straightforward narrative may completely miss on that.

However, you don't even understand what he's saying in Bethesda's case. He's not saying that the actors don't know what a Jarl is, he's saying that the actors have no clue what kind of character the Jarl of Windhelm is. It's hard to assign emotional weight to any line of dialogue when every single thing you allude to is a concept, a dotted line in the shape of a person or place.