Why are people so obsessed with Realism and Believability?

[Benice]

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

No, I’m just saying it’s not valid to criticize something for what is literally the point. Again would you criticize dark souls for being too hard? No of course you wouldn’t. It’s dark souls. It’s supposed to be hard. My point is not all criticism is valid criticism.

I could, however, criticize Dark Souls for not having an "easy" or "casual" mode to allow newcomers to ease into it or for people who wanna just play for the story or for not facilitating a better way to "git gud" and instead. Wanting to have an easier DS experience does not make your opinion invalid.

[Ottservia]

5 minutes ago, Benice said:

I could, however, criticize Dark Souls for not having an "easy" or "casual" mode to allow newcomers to ease into it or for people who wanna just play for the story or for not facilitating a better way to "git gud" and instead. Wanting to have an easier DS experience does not make your opinion invalid.

It doesn’t make your opinion invalid but it makes your criticism invalid though and yes there is a difference. because the entire point of dark souls is that it’s bleak, unforgiving, and unrelenting. The director of these games has said several times that he wants his games to be bleak and unforgiving. The difficulty is a core fundamental aspect of that. To say dark souls should be made easier would, in my opinion, be disrespectful to the director’s creative vision. If you made dark souls easier then it would not be dark souls anymore. It would be an almost completely different experience. You remove the difficulty and you rob the game of its core identity.

[eclipse]

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It doesn’t make your opinion invalid but it makes your criticism invalid though and yes there is a difference. because the entire point of dark souls is that it’s bleak, unforgiving, and unrelenting. The director of these games has said several times that he wants his games to be bleak and unforgiving. The difficulty is a core fundamental aspect of that. To say dark souls should be made easier would, in my opinion, be disrespectful to the director’s creative vision. If you made dark souls easier then it would not be dark souls anymore. It would be an almost completely different experience. You remove the difficulty and you rob the game of its core identity.

Difficulty is subjective.

[Ottservia]

5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Difficulty is subjective.

I mean you’re not necessarily wrong. But I would love to meet anyone who thought dark souls was easy their first time through

[Benice]

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

It doesn’t make your opinion invalid but it makes your criticism invalid though and yes there is a difference. 

But if I were a game critic, I could justifiably give Dark Souls a 5/5, knowing that the vast majority of people wouldn't enjoy it. I have never played one myself, but to me, a game should try to make itself enjoyable for many people, and making it an option seems like a good idea. Similar to adding casual mode to FE when it was initially a hardcore strategy game; the option to play Classic mode is still there, and giving people the option generally can only expand and enrich a game's community.

 

Another example is Yakuza 7; all seven* previous entries in the series were fighting games, while 7 decided to become a JRPG. If I were a hardcore fan of Y0-6's style of gameplay and didn't like Like a Dragon's JRPG aspect, it would not make my criticism of "The series was better off in its classic state" wrong or invalid. I would not say^ "Yakuza: Like a dragon is a 5/5 game. The combat felt sluggish and lacked the high-octane thrills compared to the previous games'. I would not recommend this to anyone but hardcore JRPG fans or if the game is at least 75% off. The best part of the game is Ichi's haircut." Similarly to Three Houses; I would personally rate the game 1.5/5, even objectively speaking. The fact that so many people would, if asked, say that TH is a 5/5 or 4.5/5 game objectively speaking is sort of a teller that objective criticism in art isn't really that conducive to whether it's from a critic's perspective or an everyday consumer's perspective.

 

*There have been a few spinoffs that use mainline Yakuza's combat as well, (Namely, Kenzan!, Ishin! and Judgement/Judge eyes) in addition to a non-canon shooter game, Dead Souls.

^I wouldn't say this regardless because LAD is based as heck.

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, Benice said:

But if I were a game critic, I could justifiably give Dark Souls a 5/5, knowing that the vast majority of people wouldn't enjoy it. I have never played one myself, but to me, a game should try to make itself enjoyable for many people, and making it an option seems like a good idea. Similar to adding casual mode to FE when it was initially a hardcore strategy game; the option to play Classic mode is still there, and giving people the option generally can only expand and enrich a game's community.

 

I would disagree on the principle that not all art is for everyone. Personally, I get scared easily so I generally don’t like horror movies. Should horror movies try to be less scary to appeal to me? No of course not cause that goes against the entire point of a horror movie. On the subject of casual mode. If a developer wants to add those things into their game I won’t complain because that was their creative decision. My point is that you shouldn’t demand creatives to pander to your tastes. No author, director, or whatever is obligated to pander to you. And it bothers me when you think they should.

[eclipse]

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I mean you’re not necessarily wrong. But I would love to meet anyone who thought dark souls was easy their first time through

Instead of looking at difficulty as a floor, try looking at it as a ceiling.  Or, if you'd like, I'll share my idea of "a fun little video game", which is pretty punishing to damn near everyone that isn't familiar with it.

[Benice]

9 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

would disagree on the principle that not all art is for everyone.

From my perspective, art (or more specifically, art costs money to buy) should be aimed at being as enjoyable as an experience for everyone as possible. I don't care at all if a game is objectively good or not. The ending of one of my favorite games is, in many ways, objectively awful. I still think that it's amazing and one of the best endings I've seen and totally made the game for me.

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

On the subject of casual mode. If a developer wants to add those things into their game I won’t complain because that was their creative decision.

(SoV spoilers)

Spoiler

 

The SoV devs (and/or Gaiden devs, but Gaiden sort of lacks a story due to NES) chose to focus on his softer side most of the time, but you have argued that Alm was portrayed as less ruthless as the game wants when there are events that suggest otherwise.

 

What is more is that I don't think something being a creative decision makes it enjoyable or good and I don't think something being executed as intended automatically makes a game better.

17 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

My point is that you shouldn’t demand creatives to pander to your tastes. No author, director, or whatever is obligated to pander to you. And it bothers me when you think they should.

That is a matter of perspective. Mine is that devs should be open to doing more things with their games, yours is that they should do whatever they want. That is fine.

[Ottservia]

53 minutes ago, Benice said:

The SoV devs (and/or Gaiden devs, but Gaiden sort of lacks a story due to NES) chose to focus on his softer side most of the time, but you have argued that Alm was portrayed as less ruthless as the game wants when there are events that suggest otherwise.

 

Well I mean there’s a difference between what an author wanted to show vs what they actually showed. You completely misunderstand what I mean when I criticize Alm for not being ruthless enough. It’s not so much that he’s not ruthless but rather that he’s not flawed when the game’s story tries to portray him as a flawed character. It’s the reason his character doesn’t work because they try punish him for flaws in his character that don’t exist. 

 

56 minutes ago, Benice said:

That is a matter of perspective. Mine is that devs should be open to doing more things with their games, yours is that they should do whatever they want. That is fine.

The issue I have with this perspective is that it can lead to shallow implementation of ideas simply to try and please everyone(this is how you end up with gay characters that literally only have a single line of dialogue that is just them perpetuating stereotypes). You shouldn’t sacrifice your creative vision for the sake of pandering. Personally I’m of the belief that a creator should create for themselves first before anyone else. Art is a form of expression and you should use it to express your ideas not someone else’s. That’s just my belief though 

[Benice]

48 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

The issue I have with this perspective is that it can lead to shallow implementation of ideas simply to try and please everyone(this is how you end up with gay characters that literally only have a single line of dialogue that is just them perpetuating stereotypes). You shouldn’t sacrifice your creative vision for the sake of pandering.

To me, I feel like there is a difference between "accepting" and "pandering".

In my point of view, accepting is making a game more accessible for people as an option. Pandering is selling out entirely.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

Viewers/Players/Readers want things to happen for a good reason - or at least, a comprehensible one. Take two endings of Three Houses, for instance. In the Verdant Wind and Silver Snow routes, basically the same things happen, up until confronting Thales at Shambala. But in Verdant Wind, after defeating him, Nemesis is awakened, and Rhea dies. Meanwhile, in Silver Snow, Nemesis makes no appearance, while Rhea goes berserk and has to be defeated. The game never makes it clear why either of these things happens - and moreover, why each thing happens in the route that it does, and doesn't in the route that it doesn't. When something happens, for no clear reason - not as the result of a hero's foolishness, or a villain's caprice, or even a simple misfortune of nature - it frustrates the plausibility, and thereby the appreciability, of the story at hand. And it takes me out of the story, by failing to appeal to the rules (established or apparent) of the world in which it is set. I'm not going to be entertained by something that doesn't respect my intelligence enough to at least try to make sense of all that's going on.

[Lightcosmo]

14 hours ago, Benice said:

I could, however, criticize Dark Souls for not having an "easy" or "casual" mode to allow newcomers to ease into it or for people who wanna just play for the story or for not facilitating a better way to "git gud" and instead. Wanting to have an easier DS experience does not make your opinion invalid.

I agree with this 100%. Perfect way to put it. Some people actually want to experience things for fun, not cause it was "meant" to be played one way by the devs. That's silly.

And besides, a mode is a choice, not forced. If you choose the game to be difficult, well that's your choice. same for the opposite. 

[Ottservia]

11 hours ago, Benice said:

To me, I feel like there is a difference between "accepting" and "pandering".

In my point of view, accepting is making a game more accessible for people as an option. Pandering is selling out entirely.

Again I bring up my horror example. Should horror movies be made less scary to appeal more people like myself? No, of course not. If I can’t stand horror movies then I don’t watch them. Video games are no different in this regard. If a creator wants to implement these things to appeal to more people then great but we shouldn’t force them to if they do not want to. It’s their art. They should be able to do what they want with it.

[vanguard333]

20 hours ago, Ottservia said:

You see the funny part about this is is that this actually is a thing in Boruto where one villain actually does utilize a machine gun instead of ninjutsu.

Sorry I'm late to this conversation Except that example isn't an example of what she was talking about because her example was, "if the entire cast fought with machine guns and there was no mention of ninjutsu". That example you bring up is an example of one character bringing in a machine gun when, as you point out, the whole point of it is the rise of new technology and whether or not ninjas and ninjutsu are becoming obsolete; ninjutsu is still brought up a lot in that in that story arc with Boruto and the other characters involved using ninjutsu and with Boruto trying to convince that character that he (the other character) still is fundamentally a shinobi. That's completely different from if, for instance, Boruto's setting was nothing but machine guns and there was no mention of ninjutsu anywhere. 

 

19 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Or when people criticize the Naruto vs pain animation. Some like it the way it is. Others would prefer a more grounded and less goofy style to it. Both perspectives are perfectly valid but to say the animation of that fight is bad is straight up wrong and ignorant to how animation works. 

One could easily argue that that shift in animation was ill-fitting for the given situation, and that would be an objective and valid criticism. This is arguably supposed to be a scary and intense moment: Naruto has sunk into a despair-fueled rage against Pain and has unleashed the nine-tails to a far greater degree than ever seen previously; going six-tailed and later eight-tailed, and the remaining Pain can only flee and defend itself. This is a scary and intense series of events: the last Pain body vs Naruto's rage and despair completely unleashed... and the goofy style is more befitting a fight meant for a bit of levity. This is not the moment for comedy, and everything else in this moment reflects the seriousness of the situation, so the goofy animation style sticks out like a sore thumb. 

[Ottservia]

11 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Sorry I'm late to this conversation Except that example isn't an example of what she was talking about because her example was, "if the entire cast fought with machine guns and there was no mention of ninjutsu". That example you bring up is an example of one character bringing in a machine gun when, as you point out, the whole point of it is the rise of new technology and whether or not ninjas and ninjutsu are becoming obsolete; ninjutsu is still brought up a lot in that in that story arc with Boruto and the other characters involved using ninjutsu and with Boruto trying to convince that character that he (the other character) still is fundamentally a shinobi. That's completely different from if, for instance, Boruto's setting was nothing but machine guns and there was no mention of ninjutsu anywhere. 

 

One could easily argue that that shift in animation was ill-fitting for the given situation, and that would be an objective and valid criticism. This is arguably supposed to be a scary and intense moment: Naruto has sunk into a despair-fueled rage against Pain and has unleashed the nine-tails to a far greater degree than ever seen previously; going six-tailed and later eight-tailed, and the remaining Pain can only flee and defend itself. This is a scary and intense series of events: the last Pain body vs Naruto's rage and despair completely unleashed... and the goofy style is more befitting a fight meant for a bit of levity. This is not the moment for comedy, and everything else in this moment reflects the seriousness of the situation, so the goofy animation style sticks out like a sore thumb. 

Yean and that’s not what I’m saying. Hell I criticize the animation for its more exaggerated style. My point is to suggest that the animation of that fight is nothing short of a technical marvel is quite frankly disingenuous and disrespectful to the amount of work and dedication these key animators put into their craft(Norio Matsumoto is king and don’t you forget it). It’s fine to criticize the style because the argument can be made that they exaggerated too much and it doesn’t fit with the tone of the fight(Wack-A-Pain anyone?) but it’s not okay to call it bad on a technical level. Cause this is far from bad animation and I’ve seen bad animation.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Ottservia

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Yean and that’s not what I’m saying. Hell I criticize the animation for its more exaggerated style. My point is to suggest that the animation of that fight is nothing short of a technical marvel is quite frankly disingenuous and disrespectful to the amount of work and dedication these key animators put into their craft(Norio Matsumoto is king and don’t you forget it). It’s fine to criticize the style because the argument can be made that they exaggerated too much and it doesn’t fit with the tone of the fight(Wack-A-Pain anyone?) but it’s not okay to call it bad on a technical level. Cause this is far from bad animation and I’ve seen bad animation.

Hard work and dedication doesn't necessarily mean that the final product will be amazing.  And yes, it IS okay to call it bad on a technical level if the claim can be proven.

You are not the gatekeeper of valid criticism.  Get that through your head.

[Ottservia]

12 minutes ago, eclipse said:

You are not the gatekeeper of valid criticism.  Get that through your head.

 

[eclipse]

If you can't even be arsed to respond to this with your own words, no more topic for you.