Aren't we all taking this gaming thing way too seriously?

[Skynstein]

After getting back into console gaming I've been wondering this for a while.

In April Microsoft gave away Ryse: Son of Rome in GWG. It was one of the Xbox One's launch exclusives. Reception to it was lukewarm at best, which is kinda bad for an exclusive, and average score is like 3/5 or something.

So I decided to play it and see if it's so mediocre as people thought.

What I found was a game with excellent replay value despite being short. It has a lot of the bad things modern games are plagued with (excess tutorials even in the hidden Legendary difficulty, excess linearity, excess tips), but the gameplay is incredibly fun and satisfying. I always find myself itching to come back to it and perfect my skills. Combat system is easy to learn but somewhat difficult to master, you can get through the game with button mashing but, especially on Centurion and Legendary difficulty, you can get killed very easily if you do so, even when fully upgraded. Storywise, this game is pretty much "Gladiator meets 300", which is a fantastic thing at least to me since Gladiator is one of my favorite movies of all time and I loved 300 as well, and I've found myself cheering for and enjoying controlling Marius and laying waste to hordes of Briton barbarians and traitorous Praetorian guards. Marius himself is a vastly better character than the likes of Kratos could ever hope to be, despite not being all that unique. There's some cheap and unnecessary female nudity in it but that shouldn't really be as much of a bother as people make it out to be, especially since one of the last bosses is a female warrior who is not sexualized despite having much exposed skin.

Seriously, it baffles me why this game got such mediocre reviews. Which leads me to the point I'm trying to make.

Aren't we trying to overanalyze games? I mean, we do spend hard-earned cash on them, and the contemporary gamer's average age is older than it was before, so gamers are more vocal and have better judgment than before, at least in theory. But people often misunderstand what's like to get your money's worth for a game. They associate it too much with length, and we end up with massive games that take 200 hours to get 100% in and even more to reach platinum in. There's no more room for us to replay a game time and time again, and hone our skills in it until we can play blindfolded. We were able to do this in the past with games that lasted 2 hours at best, games that were mostly derived from arcade games, which had to be short and difficult. But now, an Assassin's Creed game for example takes around 35-40 hours to complete all the quests in, sometimes even more, and there are a lot of small things that you may still miss, such as 100% sync and guild objectives. There's no more time for you to perfect your skills unless you dedicate your efforts to that series exclusively. Ironically, Ubisoft usually gives you three save slots (Watch Dogs had only one, which I consider a flaw in that game, but still).

I remember when the Switch got released people would say "you beat Zelda, now what?". I have the perfect answer. Beat it again. Enjoy it again. Beat it better. Look for details you've missed first time around. Go online and swap strategies with people. Try different things. Don't drop it after beating the story. There's so much more to a game than the campaign. There always is. Being hardcore, or at least being a fan of gaming, means you invest time into the games you love. When you always keep looking for the newest thing, you're starting to tread casual territory.

Furthermore, I feel like people are asking more and more for Hollywoodian levels of game script and production. Sorry, not gonna happen. Hollywood itself is stuck in a deep creative rut as of late, and historically games have always had inferior storytelling to other forms of entertainment. I see this a lot here at SF, people really do expect an FE to have storytelling on the level of LotR or something like that. Richer environments and lore than ASOIAF. And one day this push will break the industry. Games are not selling enough to maintain the high production values people ask for. And we shouldn't be asking for this stuff either. Videogames have always been the field of cheap fun and satire. And they were better for it.

In short, we're just caring about this stuff way too much. It does cost money of course, so we're entitled to complain, but there's a point when we must wonder whether we're pushing it too far.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Cerberus87

[kingddd]

It's basically the mindset of having higher expectations because previous games did it why not this one kind of mentality and if you can pull it off in this one, why can't you make it better in this game?

A lot of gamers these days do have overblown expectations because many demand good story, good gameplay and at the same time good graphics and sound/music directions AND VOICE ACTING!  All which require a significant amount of resources and time for the developers to make all for the same 40-60 dollar price tag like it was in 1980s.  Thus forcing publishers and developers to have to require putting in a million dollar seller because if you don't meet any of the above requirements the perception is that it will be doomed to fail and people won't buy it just because it either doesn't have A, B or C.  Thus forcing a lot of developers and publishers to have the mindset of if we don't jam enough content then it won't sell.  It's why you have so many recent games being called, "open world" and overblown number of missions and sidequests in order to satisfy this market and player to believe there is a lot to do in the games environment.

As someone who pretty much came from the 1980s, I loved games for the gameplay itself not because of character A's voice having the most amazing voice acting in the world but because of how fun the actual game itself is.  Most of those things are icing and cosmetics in the end and there are times where I do feel people are being overcritical about the most smallest things even if the developers never intended for it to generate so much discussion.

So yeah I agree a lot of people's expectations are more higher than it was in 1980 and people want more and more content for the same 40 to 60 price and it's why it's harder for developers to make games that will satisfy the market.  As someone who programs for a living it's a daunting task for most of us and video games in general have one of the shortest software lifespan than almost any program tools out there.

That's just my thought though.

[Frosty]

While I am aware of the player's overblown expectations...

I'm a bit different on the spectrum of taking gaming too seriously. I'm obsessed in making perfect runs where a slight screw-up equates to instantly crap performance for me.

On the topic though; really... it's a little too much. I recall some of my favorite games while having overall positive reception; well... some are actually getting flack just because of gameplay, story and everything else. I don't mind comparisons between older games and its sequels as long it sees how far the game has evolved, but if the comparisons are made for laying down some hate... er, I'd say "pass" on those discussions.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Frosty

[Anacybele]

I agree, people are setting their expectations too high these days. Developers can only do so much to try to make a good seller and all. Good graphics or voice acting aren't the most important things. The important thing is that you can enjoy the game for what it is and not try to compare it to others so much.

I think this is why Disney sequels get a lot of flack too. People compare them to their prequels too much and don't try to look at them as something separate. I don't think ALL Disney sequels are good, mind you (Pocahontas 2 and Cinderella 2 come to mind, though the part in the latter with Anastasia was awesome, because it gave development and redemption to a former villain), but I do think many are better than people give them credit for (The Lion King II, The Return of Jafar, 102 Dalmatians, and Lady and the Tramp II all rank high on my favorite Disney movie list. Bambi II probably would too, If I could ever find a way to see it).

The same goes for some video game sequels and such.

I actually haven't beaten Zelda: BotW's main story yet! I could have, but I've been spending my time catching horses and finding shrines and junk. I'm also playing around with my Amiibo. :P I have three horses right now and I still want to get the rare white horse!

Edited June 26, 2017 by Anacybele

[shadowofchaos]

1 hour ago, kingddd said:

It's basically the mindset of having higher expectations because previous games did it why not this one kind of mentality and if you can pull it off in this one, why can't you make it better in this game?

A lot of gamers these days do have overblown expectations because many demand good story, good gameplay and at the same time good graphics and sound/music directions AND VOICE ACTING!  All which require a significant amount of resources and time for the developers to make all for the same 40-60 dollar price tag like it was in 1980s.  Thus forcing publishers and developers to have to require putting in a million dollar seller because if you don't meet any of the above requirements the perception is that it will be doomed to fail and people won't buy it just because it either doesn't have A, B or C.  Thus forcing a lot of developers and publishers to have the mindset of if we don't jam enough content then it won't sell.  It's why you have so many recent games being called, "open world" and overblown number of missions and sidequests in order to satisfy this market and player to believe there is a lot to do in the games environment.

As someone who pretty much came from the 1980s, I loved games for the gameplay itself not because of character A's voice having the most amazing voice acting in the world but because of how fun the actual game itself is.  Most of those things are icing and cosmetics in the end and there are times where I do feel people are being overcritical about the most smallest things even if the developers never intended for it to generate so much discussion.

So yeah I agree a lot of people's expectations are more higher than it was in 1980 and people want more and more content for the same 40 to 60 price and it's why it's harder for developers to make games that will satisfy the market.  As someone who programs for a living it's a daunting task for most of us and video games in general have one of the shortest software lifespan than almost any program tools out there.

That's just my thought though.

They pretty much summarized it for me.

Echoes had full JP voice acting and I absolutely love it. It immersed you in Alm and Celica's relationship better than Gaiden ever could.

But it would have been the same for me buying the game and love of an FE title even if we reverted back to the days of FE9 and FE10's horrendous VA'ing in limited cutscenes.

Particularly Ike's memory scene.

Or even if there was no VA'ing.

Those, as kingddd said, icing on the cake.

[Zera]

@Cerberus87 Broski, I think you and I may have a similar idea about the perception of games.

Personally, I don't give a crap about anything that's not gameplay, unless it's visual feedback or something else that actually affects gameplay. Graphics, music, voice acting, cinematics, side quests, DLC, those things are "nice to have" but mean nothing if the core interactions are not solid.

From my very brief research of Ryse, it got a 60 Metascore not because it is short, but because it is ALSO shallow and repetitive. Frankly, if a game is shallow then I don't care how long it is. A boring game is a boring game, yes? If an action game boasts "over 50 hours of gameplay", I immediately remove it from my radar, as I know it will have a lot of padding. On the flip, if a game is deep and fun, I only consider length to be another plus, assuming the quality doesn't degrade.

If you enjoy Ryse, you might enjoy other combat-focused games even more. (I am currently playing Bayonetta, so I can confirm that it is "probably better than Ryse".)

[Skynstein]

39 minutes ago, Zera said:

@Cerberus87 Broski, I think you and I may have a similar idea about the perception of games.

Personally, I don't give a crap about anything that's not gameplay, unless it's visual feedback or something else that actually affects gameplay. Graphics, music, voice acting, cinematics, side quests, DLC, those things are "nice to have" but mean nothing if the core interactions are not solid.

From my very brief research of Ryse, it got a 60 Metascore not because it is short, but because it is ALSO shallow and repetitive. Frankly, if a game is shallow then I don't care how long it is. A boring game is a boring game, yes? If an action game boasts "over 50 hours of gameplay", I immediately remove it from my radar, as I know it will have a lot of padding. On the flip, if a game is deep and fun, I only consider length to be another plus, assuming the quality doesn't degrade.

If you enjoy Ryse, you might enjoy other combat-focused games even more. (I am currently playing Bayonetta, so I can confirm that it is "probably better than Ryse".)

Ryse is somewhat repetitive but I think its kind of repetition is more desirable than the kind you see in most RPG games (grinding). It's never truly the same in Ryse. Enemies are relatively smart and gang up on you quite easily, they won't attack you without regard for their own safety but they'll actually let their fellow comrades leave you open to their attacks. There's some interesting variety in the game despite the employment of the same archetypes across the campaign.

Essentially, Ryse is all about timing and placement. The lack of a proper single player survival mode had me replaying the campaign on Legendary shortly after beating it on Soldier and I enjoyed every minute of this second playthrough as the Legendary difficulty has several perks that are not found in the lower ones and completely change the game (enemies don't glow red when preparing heavy attacks, and you don't get bonuses for Recruit executions). I think the game is probably a bit too easy and maybe Legendary should've been the Centurion difficulty, but it's still plenty of fun. Of course, it did cost $60 when released, as it was a high profile Xbox One exclusive (also on Steam), so it may not have been worth the price back then, but it's still undeserving of a 60 Metacritic score IMO.

Besides, the dub is amazing in my language, so there's that as well. Many of the VAs also worked on the Gladiator dub. Marius in particular is spectacular, haha.

And Bayonetta is in my list of things to play. :D It's also a harder, more complex game.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Cerberus87

[Locke087]

6 hours ago, Cerberus87 said:

Furthermore, I feel like people are asking more and more for Hollywoodian levels of game script and production. Sorry, not gonna happen. Hollywood itself is stuck in a deep creative rut as of late, and historically games have always had inferior storytelling to other forms of entertainment. I see this a lot here at SF, people really do expect an FE to have storytelling on the level of LotR or something like that. Richer environments and lore than ASOIAF. And one day this push will break the industry. Games are not selling enough to maintain the high production values people ask for. And we shouldn't be asking for this stuff either. Videogames have always been the field of cheap fun and satire. And they were better for it.

Okay first off games have already reached Hollywood levels and above Uncharted, The Last of Us, and The Walking Dead Season 1 are as good as or better than their Hollywood contemporaries. Other games like Shadow of the Colossus, and Mother 3 are some of the best works to ever grace any form of literature or media, games have absolutely showed that they can be a extremely good art form. There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't continue to push Games to further themselves as an art-form, or that they're "just games" and we shouldn't take them seriously we absolutely should. This is still a young medium it still has a lot of room to grow and we get to see it blossom, we should encourage it, push it, and support those that seek to push it forward. Don't just dismiss it and say we should lower our expectations. Just because there is a commercial side to the medium doesn't mean that art can't or shouldn't be encourage to come from it. 

When a game tries to have a good story is absolutely in the consumers interest to make sure it is written well. The consumers is going to complain if the company tries to sell them by saying they have a good story when it in fact does not. That being said there's plenty room in this world for games that don't try and most people wouldn't bash those for their stories. Nobody cares if Mario has a good story and that's fine but games that do want to make their story one its selling points deserve to be criticized for it just like anything else that's selling itself on its story.  

The real major problem with the industry right now is the chase for pretty graphics, it's not better storytelling, it's not better music, it's not better writing, it's not better gameplay, because they don't cost that much money it just requires talent. Heck it is not even necessarily those massive worlds believe it or not something like Uncharted is just as expensive if not more then those Open World games Ubisoft loves so much, in fact I would bet you handover fist that Uncharted was exponentially more expensive to make then Breath of the Wild.

But you know what does require boatloads of cash and asinine budgets those shiny pretty graphics, that the new console love so much, those new technologies that make the faces slightly more realistic, that is what is ballooning budgets. We shouldn't lower our expectations of games as art form but want we should start doing is stop expecting Games look so gosh dang pretty.  Thank goodness for the Indy circuit may the rest of the industry one day realize that nobody cares that much about graphics.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Locke087

[Skynstein]

11 minutes ago, Locke087 said:

Okay first off games have already reached Hollywood levels and above Uncharted, The Last of Us, and The Walking Dead Season 1 are as good as or better than their Hollywood contemporaries. Other games like Shadow of the Colossus, and Mother 3 are some of the best works to ever grace any form of literature or media, games have absolutely showed that they can be a extremely good art form. There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't continue to push Games to further themselves as an art-form, or that they're "just games" and we shouldn't take them seriously we absolutely should. This is still a young medium it still has a lot of room to grow and we get to see it blossom, we should encourage it, push it, and support those that seek to push it forward. Don't just dismiss it and say we should lower our expectations. Just because there is a commercial side to the medium doesn't mean that art can't or shouldn't be encourage to come from it. 

When a game tries to have a good story is absolutely in the consumers interest to make sure it is written well. The consumers is going to complain if the company tries to sell them by saying they have a good story when it in fact does not. That being said there's plenty room in this world for games that don't try and most people wouldn't bash those for their stories. Nobody cares if Mario has a good story and that's fine but games that do want to make their story one its selling points deserve to be criticized for it just like anything else that's selling itself on its story.  

The real major problem with the industry right now is the chase for pretty graphics, it's not better storytelling, it's not better music, it's not better writing, it's not better gameplay, because they don't cost that much money it just requires talent. Heck it is not even necessarily those massive worlds believe it or not something like Uncharted is just as expensive if not more then those Open World games Ubisoft loves so much, in fact I would bet you handover fist that Uncharted was exponentially more expensive to make then Breath of the Wild.

But you know what does require boatloads of cash and asinine budgets those shiny pretty graphics, that the new console love so much, those new technologies that make the faces slightly more realistic, that is what is ballooning budgets. We shouldn't lower our expectations of games as art form but want we should start doing is stop expecting Games look so gosh dang pretty.  Thank goodness for the Indy circuit may the rest of the industry one day realize that nobody cares that much about graphics.

I must say I disagree with the view that videogames are art per se, they sure do contain art but the thing that sets games apart (gameplay) is not artistic IMO.

When it comes to games, I really don't think we have to spend so much money to push their limits. Perhaps in graphical terms, but that's pretty much the only thing, as gameplay is basically all code, and the rest is artistic elements, and the way art works is more related to trends than progress, I mean the current trends do build up from past ones, but not always. If there's no escalating progress, there's no limit to speak of.

[Locke087]

18 minutes ago, Cerberus87 said:

I must say I disagree with the view that videogames are art per se, they sure do contain art but the thing that sets games apart (gameplay) is not artistic IMO.

When it comes to games, I really don't think we have to spend so much money to push their limits. Perhaps in graphical terms, but that's pretty much the only thing, as gameplay is basically all code, and the rest is artistic elements, and the way art works is more related to trends than progress, I mean the current trends do build up from past ones, but not always. If there's no escalating progress, there's no limit to speak of.

I dare you to play Shadow of the Colossus and say that again. Because this game basically destroys your entire argument it is a story told in entirely though mechanics and could never be adapted into another medium and be done correctly. Here's an example of what I'm talking about from his newest game the Last Guardian. I implore you to watch the video and humor me a little bit there's so much more to games then meets the eye and once you learn to look for it, you'll get a lot more out of some games and I think you increase your enjoyment a lot it has increased mine.  

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Locke087

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Gaming is a big industry. There more money here than in film, music, or any other form of entertainment despite being so much younger. But we don't comparatively have as much coverage and journalism as the other industries. If anything we could stand to take games more seriously. Just eight or so years ago was the first time I heard a LOT of people throwing around the question: Are games art. Now we live in a world where there's may be more money in E-sports than physical sports.

[Nobody]

It's perfectly fine and okay to enjoy a game that got mediocre or bad reviews, and also to find it a good or even great game, but like, i don't think people expect too much. There are a lot of games out there, some are 10s, some are 7's, some are 3's, and they should be compared to each other. 

[Ertrick36]

Well, I know I had a discussion with one of my close friends about this sort of thing.  If video games are taken too seriously and if they're art.

I think entertainment in general can be taken too seriously.  People in the West have banned fictional works because they're afraid they could cause people to go out and murder people or whatever.  A lot of music being made at the turn of the millennium and even before then was censored after 9/11 (like System of a Down's "Chop Suey", which was originally gonna be called "Suicide", evidenced by the singer saying "rolling Suicide..." at the beginning of the song).  And of course we have Japan's localizations changing some things because they'd be seen as "too mature" for teenage audiences in the West.

And then we have people getting into fights and whatnot over sports.  Within gaming, we have people spewing racial slurs and cursing at the top of their lungs at the age of, like, eight.  People are generally getting more critical of their entertainment, and it seems like everything has to come with a major controversy these days.  The past few years have been "bad" years in gaming, but I've been having a blast almost all my life with video games.  Maybe I'm just easier to appease or maybe I'm a hipster and don't play all the same mindless action games most people do.  I sure as hell know that by virtue of being on this site I'm not quite standard, and I have plenty criticisms myself.  And you can be critical and still not take a game too seriously; it's when you start letting it actually affect you in a negative way that you're taking it too seriously.  In fact, you might even say it's an addiction at that point.  And I know a lot of people have gotten that way, even on these forums.

And as for the art thing, I agree with Locke087 at the very least in that video games can be an art.  In fact, I believe that FE is a bit more artsy than your average game because of its support system, which is one good way to blend gameplay and narrative.  And TLoS is sort of art too in that the theme of "survival" is conveyed well in both the story and the gameplay.  Others that have been brought up include the likes of Tale of Two Brothers, Telltale games, and yes, the Shadow of the Colossus series.

Though I also think many games aren't art.  If anything, I think the game industry is leaning more towards the sport entertainment side of things than any other medium out there.  E-sports is getting to be huge, and speedruns are already extremely popular.  Most of the big AAA games out there are meant to be played competitively online or through LANs streamed in a stadium, and there are lots of wannabe CoD's, BF's, Dota's, and Overwatches out there trying to embrace the competitive scene.  Or otherwise you have games like GTA where, while they're fun and sometimes even have good stories, the storytelling is completely segregated from the gameplay.  Just tell me how sitting behind a line of mailboxes, occasionally blasting a dozen or so cops or gangsters and taking hundreds of hits is supposed to convey GTA's story in a non-rudimentary way, or how Captain John shoot man dying in a scripted manner does the same, because I can't see it.

So in summation...  Games can be taken too seriously, and they can be art... but it doesn't always happen.  And this is the case for any medium.  Sure, games are undeniably different and just have a generally different culture than a lot of media forms back in their heydays, but that doesn't exclude them from these basic conventions.  People have been offended by games before, news journalists and the special interests have tried to blame murder on games before, and I'm sure everyone here (including myself) has done something stupid out of rage for these games.  At the same time, they've been used as a form of expression, especially by some of the better indie devs; they've been used to convey political messages, to inspire, and at the end of the day entertain.

[Locke087]

@Ertrick36  Just to clarify my stance on the issue I basically agree with you I just use different semantics because I think the whole art not art thing is stupid. I think all games are art in the way that they are created in the same art form or medium, they just have varying levels of artistic merit (which is divorced from quality there are games with no artistic merit that are high-quality, and there are crappy games with artistic merit).

So one could say something that has no artistic merit is not art, I just say no it's the same thing as a meaningless doodle it is a part of that art form because it is still in the same medium of drawing, it just has no artistic merit if you catch my drift. Art is confusing when you're getting down to brass tax of what technically should also constitute art even if it's not good art and has no actual meeting, that's why I find it easier to say things just have different artistic merit. 

But in short yeah it does mean the same thing but I do it this way because I think we shouldn't concentrate on what is or isn't art, but instead think more about the actual level of artistic achievement in individual works. This is because I think such a distinction puts a barrier between artistic analysis because one must first said that it is art, and then it's art can be discussed. It also willfully ignores when developers accidentally create mechanics that teach messages that they shouldn't and says they shouldn't pay attention to that, here's an example of what I'm talking about.

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Locke087

[Reality]

On 6/26/2017 at 5:19 PM, Locke087 said:

Okay first off games have already reached Hollywood levels and above Uncharted, The Last of Us, and The Walking Dead Season 1 are as good as or better than their Hollywood contemporaries. Other games like Shadow of the Colossus, and Mother 3 are some of the best works to ever grace any form of literature or media, games have absolutely showed that they can be a extremely good art form. There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't continue to push Games to further themselves as an art-form, or that they're "just games" and we shouldn't take them seriously we absolutely should. This is still a young medium it still has a lot of room to grow and we get to see it blossom, we should encourage it, push it, and support those that seek to push it forward. Don't just dismiss it and say we should lower our expectations. Just because there is a commercial side to the medium doesn't mean that art can't or shouldn't be encourage to come from it. 

This just makes me so mad. It's like supporting arthouse. 

I don't understand this desire to put things on pedestal and invoke "comparative" literature. By far the larger part of games, comic, and written literature that become classics ARE not those intentionally designed with the highest principles in mind.

It's important to remember that even Shakespeare kept in mind an audience that could be uneducated, drunk and most important demanded a reason why they should pay attention.  The plays are not good because of higher subject matter "the business of the play" Obviously Hamlet, and the histories are filled with things that are intended to be common knowledge, not surprises or twists. 

This pursuit of "high art" reminds me of my problems with the treatment of classical literate in schools or being subjected to a superfan/pulpit about why X movie is good for hours-days?- before seeing it for yourself. This is not natural and in many people will probably awaken a contrary instinct that will make them miserable and hate the movie/book forever even when they would have loved it if allowed to find it for themselves naturally. 

Furthermore this makes me wonder if I am supposed to "revise" any feeling of enjoyment I ever had with a game I know is shallow, such as lego star wars? Clearly you can have fun with average or even bad products, even while espousing the importance of aesthetics the rest of the time. Is there any way to fit that enjoyment into the theoretical framework? Is it  a different kind of enjoyment? Or is the framework simply faulty for not applying to the whole range of "good". 

As far as "comparative literature". First I think that this is unhealthy and doesn't respect either medium, or even the spirit of looking for art. If anything, it probably comes out of the modern trend toward the "listicle". But besides this, I am truly stumped at where to begin. I take something like Charles Schultz's "Peanuts". As far as story,  RPGs are out of their  depth. So the only hope a videogame has of being "as good" is when it is being experienced by the the things that make the medium unique. But where to find a game that goes far enough! In Charlie Brown, you have not just "everyman", not just "the father of the beat comics movement", but even a wonderful opening to do an autobiographical reading, with Lucy as Schultz' first wife, snoopy's romance with the female beagle indicative of his affair, the month where he is allowed to show outgoing positive traits instead of shy ones at the expense of erasing his identity via paper bag.

However much fun I had with a game, even the gamiest  of games, nothing I have played can compare and nothing I expect to play in the future shall either, not the adrenaline of quake, the realization that all the weapons doubled as platforming tools in , the zen of robotron, or even the intensive study of metagames in something competitive.

Although I would defend something like SMB3, Lemmings, Defender, Tetris, Turrican, Doom, etc al, as "unadorned" "pure" and so on, these are never the games used as examples of gaming as literature. It is always games that are nearly the opposite of them. To me the kind of people who most want video games to be treated as literature avoid ALL of the strengths of these "pure" games and like games as far from them as possible.- it is no wonder that their critics use such severe put-downs when referring to them; "cover based shooter, walking simulator, visiual novel, and even  non-game" 

Sure gaming can be literature- but that is no reason for "the destruction of enjoyment" or some guilt-ridden need to display "literary street-cred". Personally I find topics like this as ridiculous as looking at the few Charlie Chaplin contemporaries who thought he was "just" a funny man. When a game is REALLY literature, it is not because that game was made by developers who were trying to make capital L Literature, it was because it was made by developers who tried to make a game. Same as all other mediums.

[Locke087]

@Reality I completely get where you're coming from but you got me all wrong, I really should've been more clear. As student of game design I love and support all game types. I want to remind you that in my post I said that the stuff is divorced from quality I love and adore many games that are not exactly high art. I will absolutely tell the day I die defend their right to exist, in fact I analyze these games I love look their design and how they work. In fact the game I'm looking forward to most this year is Super Mario Odyssey. I see no harm in analyzing these games as art (or if art has to be this stupid term that must mean story at least of objects worthy of analysis) because I'm analyzing their level design, their mechanics how they work not just their stories there's more to games than just story and there's so many emotions, one of them is fun. There's a lot of fascinating things that you can discover when you tear apart a games level designs, I think this type of analysis has just as much merit the analysis of anything else. I enjoy talking about the meaning in Shadow of the Colossus as much as I do the excellent level design a 3D Mario game or the incredible worlds of a Metroid game.

But I see for too often in the gaming community at-large the dismissal of the existence of artistic games and refusal to analyze them as such. Take for example Majora's Mask every time I bring it up I get people me saying it's not actually deep we should dismiss any depth of symbolism in the game and refuse to analyze it because it's "just a game" I shouldn't look deep into it. This kind of crap bothers me on an immense level it's people basically telling me I'm crazy. This is the kind of crap I was condemning it's basically people marginalizing and trying to erase the existence video game analysis saying that we shouldn't look at them carefully that there just a "child play thing". Saying that nothing can be gained from analyzing their design, I completely reject that and this applies to both games that have high artistic depth like Shadow of the Colossus and Mario I think there's a lot that can be gained from analyzing both.

TLDR; I just think studying game design in general is a worthy ideal, I should've made it more clear that I think that one game type is not inherently superior to the other. Diversity is absolutely essential to the growth of the medium I would never support downfall or lack of respect of any type of game. A person who would dismiss something like the original Super Mario Brothers does not respect or understand the medium and I would never support someone thinking less of this type of game.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Locke087

[henrymidfields]

On ‎28‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 4:04 PM, Locke087 said:

But I see for too often in the gaming community at-large the dismissal of the existence of artistic games and refusal to analyze them as such. Take for example Majora's Mask every time I bring it up I get people me saying it's not actually deep we should dismiss any depth of symbolism in the game and refuse to analyze it because it's "just a game" I shouldn't look deep into it. This kind of crap bothers me on an immense level it's people basically telling me I'm crazy. This is the kind of crap I was condemning it's basically people marginalizing and trying to erase the existence video game analysis saying that we shouldn't look at them carefully that there just a "child play thing". Saying that nothing can be gained from analyzing their design, I completely reject that and this applies to both games that have high artistic depth like Shadow of the Colossus and Mario I think there's a lot that can be gained from analyzing both.

I'm somewhat surprised, considering the above-average amount of backstory being told with many of the non-main characters, and how much we see the interactions between them. (Though, has this been an emerging trend with Zelda games?) I've finished all four dungeons and just about to do the few remaining side-stories, but the stories that the Terminans have, and the ways they cope with the impending catastrophe is more diverse and real, I find.

The other thing, there was this game, and there was also one moment when Super Mario Galaxy won the BAFTA award. Now, while some could be attributed to gameplay, graphics, and the like, can we deny that someone decided to take the story a bit more seriously? Especially when someone decided to sneak Rosalina's backstory in? I remember someone here mentioning that they had plans to further expand the Galaxy story further in Galaxy 2. Ditto with Skyward Sword - which already started to have more than the past, thanks to Eiji Aonuma directing the series (I think from there on or was it from Twilight Princess?). I'm with the conclusion that Nintendo's perfectly capable of a better storyline for the main franchises, and for the lack of said developments, I pin the blame on one of the executives who's so anally anti-story.

I mean, I'm glad that said dinosaur-minded executive (aka Shigeru Miyamoto) didn't personally direct the aforementioned Majora's Mask. And good on those development members that for once decided that the aforementioned executive should not be treated as a sacred cow for Mario Galaxy. And for Director Aonuma for making the aformentioned change for the Zelda franchise, I highly welcome that too. (Seriously, the moment that retarded dinosaur kicks the bucket is the moment I'll be playing/posting "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead".)

Edited July 3, 2017 by henrymidfields

[eclipse]

I see games as another form of story-telling.  This time, we have some control over what the characters do.  Yes, we can rush off to save some town, or we can take the long way.  Medeus can either be defeated by Falchion, or by some green-haired nobody with a bow.  The events will happen, but how they happen is up to us.

Just like any other medium, there's bound to be amazing things, and a lot of forgettable ones.  Can anyone here name every single movie released in 2002 without looking it up?

[Magical CC]

Ryse is mediocre game with nice graphics and probably music/voice acting. Its gameplay is very typical and even kinda basic for that type of game and the story itself is not even worth to mention as you put it "Gladiator meets 300" which by itself is not even rare. If a game is so repeative to the point of making you feel bored even if it's a short game then it sucks. In the end, the game got what it deserved. You have fun with the game? Sure, feel free to enjoy it but dont even pretend it's a good game. It's not.

And dont even pretend that nowadays people are too obsessed with game length when short games in the past, like the Max Payne series, have been called out for being too short despite featuring a dozen difficult modes. And people always find themselves having time to replay game with their banana controller like in Dark Souls if they like it. People pay effort to good and fun games, like Skyrim, the Witcher series or Mount&Blade and do all kind of weird stuff in replay. Hell, I even managed to replay Skyrim once even after finishing every single sidequest. Assassin Creed games are never good enough to even complete 100%. This is from me who played Dishonored 3 times simply because it's so fun and allows you to try different approach methods to a same mission.

People's expectations are more higher than it was simply because there are more choices for them now than ever. Why bothering to play the clearly inferior Dragon Age Inquisition when you can play The Witcher 3? Why the garbage Two Worlds II when you already have Skyrim? Not everyone have enough time to spend on mediocre games.

And I dont even understand where the hell you get the "nowadays game are the same price but have more content". No, they are not. In the case you dont know, nowadays games are way more expensive and lack contents on release so that they can sell worthless DLC for ridiculous price. Have you now forget that Ubisoft once asked you to pay 5 dollars to paint your clothes in black color? And they didnt even have to make as much physical copies as they used to. Nowadays, games are sold on online stores which removes the cost of many thing compared to the old days. And that is not to mention all of the pre-order, season pass and microtransaction in the damn game you already paid to play. And the tiny content dlc that used to free updates! I seriously want to live in your "fantasy" world where game company put out open world game with a lot of contents for the price of 60 bucks but too bad, I am stuck in reality where games keep being more simple, having less content and everyone and their mama make effortless dlc to cash out their customers.

tl;dr: the problem is very simple, people enjoy good games more than bad games and invest more time and effort for them. OP overanalyzed it and is salty because his favorite game is not well. Some other posters never played enough current games to even realize the trend of games having more and more simple gameplay and less content on release. They obviously have never played single player game with built-in microtransaction either. Sad.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Magical CC

[Tamanoir]

The Truth is that whether we enjoy a game or not a game have Nothing to do with whetehr it's "objectively" good or bad.
Sure we can find lots of compelling arguments about their qualities or defaults, but it's nothing more tha  rationalization. It's just an after thought

When we play, we don't check good or bad points, we simply feel the game. And like a movie, or a book (actually probably even more), it dépends of many things that have nothing to do with the game. Do you play after a long day of work or early in  the morning ? How much time do you have to play ? Are you doing something else while playing ?
And obviously, all your previous experience as a gamer (and as a human in general), which tells you what is acceptable or not.
There's also your frustration tolerance which is important. 

If I had to define Video Games as art, that would actually be my main argument : the emotional value, and the influence it have in shaping your vision of the world. 

[Sentacotus]

This is actually a topic I quite like discussing.  I think the thing you have identified is that through the years of having exceptional titles and some with great stories and massive worlds its now bred this expectation into every game made.  Part of it is on how companies market their product and try to make it seem larger then life to get people to buy it but to be honest that part of the equation hasn't really changed.  What has changed is 24/7 exposure to said marketing, trailers, youtube videos etc etc.  So psychologically speaking if you see nothing but how great a game is day in and day out you are already going into it with high expectations and set up to be disappointed no matter how good or bad the game is. 

To me I try to avoid all the hype surrounding games, anime, media altogether to go into it with as open a mind as possible.  Hard to do sometimes now in days but generally I find myself more satisfied than not with that mindset. 

 

I mean even considering stories I'm not that demanding at all.  Fire Emblem Conquest's was enough to keep me entertained and I actually kinda enjoyed Awakening's.  But maybe that's because I'm a filthy pleb. :)