|
So these two guys said respectively that games need to be mature and deep and how story-telling is at the essence... which is wise and true, and the other avantgarde person of videogaming reminded us how choice is important in videogames, and how it's meant to evolve, which is so true as well. They both seem to be bent on relieving videogames of their now too small childhood chamber... the fact for example that they're traditionally called games, and because of that, because we are naïvely affected by this word, we believe they're supposed to be mild entertainment, not culture and literature as they're bound to become... maybe art, but the type of brainless art we see sometimes, that abstract nihilistic("everything's art/nothing is") crap. But they both made a mistake: David Cage made Fahrenheit and his Heavy Rain is well on its way... how can he ask for more mature games all deep with storytelling, when he's making a game for a CONSOLE? Those things were meant for casual easy entertainment, pastimes, a mindless activity before and after your daily enslavement at the office or buying the new car or cheating on your wife or being cheated by her... that's console gaming, its players don't want mature games, console gaming is not compatible with thinking, even less with "maturity" if you consider that the basis of every console title is gratuitous combo killing. Peter Molyneux's mistake will cause less flame. Choice is a fantastic game mechanic, as he says, but his new Fable titles can be defined as sandbox choices, you make a character, and take decisions that are meaningless, your character can become good or evil or so-so (and then back with a click) but there's no reason to pick either, there's no challenge, it's the Mario Bros version of choice, it's silly, it's a great mechanic made accessible for the kids, how can he claim this element is evolving thanks to his works? For a choice to make sense you have to think before taking one. And not as in "let's see how baaaad i can get" but "at this point of the drama, considering past and possible future events, making this choice is the wisest course of action". It's the difference between implementing choices inside an arcade game like Gauntlet... resulting in an equally immature game with immature shallow choices, and a theorical "hamlet: the game"... where the acts of the original play are interactive, and there's choices everywhere... the difference is how much you think before making a choice. Will you think about your gear, or the story-character's psychology-gameworld-drama?
|
I had high hopes when I saw the title of your article. When you spoke of David Cage, Peter Molyneux and mistakes, I thought your blog would be ten pages long.
I think the console world is a valid target for game designers, I take it you are implying the PC market is somehow more valid or mature? That is a very odd opinion. Every genre of video game has more roots in the console and the arcade then the PC. So, you like PC's, both as a gamer and as a designer. You should just say that.
"you consider that the basis of every console title is killing."
Was an ill conceived statement that really is the death knell of the first part of your post. These kind of statements sneak into my writing all the time. I hope in future you will find the strength and insight to mercilessly root out these statements. They are not helping you or your writing.
The second part of your post is really well done. Clearly you have given choice a great deal of thought and are correct in pointing out PM should do the same.
I really enjoyed your post. I hope my small criticisms were constructive and did not piss you off too much.
-Lupine
How would you know about that?
It's a bad point, to say that the meaning of the game is limited to the platform it's on. Perhaps the large number of people who play consoles, who share a similar nature, might[does] encourage developers to build a certain type of game. But to say that the mere fact it's a console alone, is the root cause of meaningless games, is naive in it's simplicity. As Jordan also pointed out, your statement to the fact that no console gamers want mature games, is far too broad, and to a console gamer like myself, quite offensive (esp. because the titles mentioned *are* deeper and more meaningful than many PC titles).
Also not all choice is about a "wisest course of action", nor is any choice "meaningless", for if it is then it is no choice at all. I'm not truly arguing that Fable's choices are shallow, but I question whether it is the nature of the choice, or the context in which it is taken that causes it to be so. For instance, the choice between murdering a spouse for financial gain and not doing so for moral solidarity, is a potent choice, one which is available in Fable, and one which is represented in other great dramatic works. The only difference in the choice is the context. In Fable there is little consequence, there is little to no nagging guilt, as the player can disassociate themselves with the action and the game doesn't indicate that anything bad has happened except give you several "evil points". So in this instance the choice is deep, and the potential for deep emotional impact exists, it's just quite simply, not taken advantage of.
While I feel you're getting at something quite important, I feel the way you attacked the issue is a little, over-eager. There are some good points buried[wasted] in some common anti-console litany.
Even as a gamer with a preference for PC games I'd argue thats shaky ground, for starters at the very least it'd need to be backed up by factual statistics on the age ranges that are playing on consoles... I wouldn't be surprised if the perception of console gamers is being influenced by a vocal and childish minority that doesn't actually represent a not-insignificant number of folks who are mature and just happen to also own a console.
I'd wager one of the difficulties really is trying to help gamers realise that they should want more than just play experiences, then follow that up with solutions to the challenge of how to make the game experiences more than just play.
"The fact that she has no notable game development accomplishments to speak of only makes the situation more amusing".
hahah i can see that i upset you tragically, for saying this enormously insane thing, letting speak only those who made dozens of games...
I hope for your sake you don't believe it, as it would mean you think journalists(who certainly aren't developers) are all jerks who shouldn't be allowed to write.
If you believe it im sure you also killed jews in your better days :)
congratulations for your life.
i believe it's better to draw attention as long as you're saying something ORIGINAL even anarchical than never have spoken your heart out for fear of being isolated.
No they're not sarcasm, im sorry. I think consoles, being engineered the way they are(among other things) were created in the first place for thoughtless entertainment, relaxation.
It's their nature, their shape, their utilization, that can only invite childish gaming.
And there's nothing to discuss here! i don't care you disagree :)
Yes and that's where my post comes at play. What i meant was exactly that what YOU and HE said IS a contradiction in terms. David Cage can't claim console games should be more mature, and help kids realise they should ask durdurdur because console gaming is MEANT to be immature, and there's nothing wrong with that... it's just intended for that, would you say WII is bad because it's family social gaming? Nintendo simply understood what a console is and what should give. Xbox and Ps3 sort of follow the same line, tho with more blood and sex in their games.
It's like being in the porn business and claim there should be more intellectual discussions: you're doing it rong.
"console as never beeing capable of beeing art and adult"
First of all as i said i hate art that's not purely dramatic but only visual and nihilism.
Second of all whether people like it or not, PC is Europa Universalis, console is God of war.
There's nothing else to add, really.
"How would you know about that?"
Because im a teacher, i meet thousands of kids.
Please site an example of a "mature" interactive software experience that is possible only on a PC.
"if you consider that the basis of every console title is killing". This statement patently false. That is why I stated it could only be valid if the intent was sarcasm.
"PC is Europa Universalis, console is God of war" That is a clever way of saying something that is not true. Cute!
As for what consoles are meant for...well they are meant to make money. A hardware platform that runs software to generate revenue for the manufacturer.
"If you believe it im sure you also killed jews in your better days" Way to Godwin the thread! This statement also means you automatically lose the argument too.
I said my blogs invite rethinking, not discussion.
you "rethink" in your own mind and use it to live better, but far from me. :)
Now what would normally happen is me repeating for boring long days what i already said since you misunderstood part of it and you're also using the comments after as baits to find weak spots that in turn weaken and water down the topic. i'd spend months just restating what i said at the beginning and in the end again the initial point looses strength. So I'm not about to make you happy and succesful in your counter-troll, ive been doing it for years in boards.
So unless you find proof that what i said is false i'll just answer to your counter-trolling with the initial point. Infact you saying "Cute! not true!" is reversed trolling.
consoles exist to provide arcade mindless pastime so Cage can't ask for mature games, it's a contradiction.
If your blog doesn't invite discussion, it might be a good idea to stop writing one.
a game with that title can't be but idiotic
"something is not immature because it contains killing or violence"
Yes it is, obviously im referring to gratuitous killing as it happens in most console games.
-This is not discussion, quite infact. Saying:
Cute! clever way to say you suck.
you troll
you're rong and you suck
you don't know shi
is not real discussion so i naturally refuse that. Actual discussion would be prooving me wrong and it never happens, people refuse to answer to the problem directly, they always prefer accusing me for the politically incorrect fashion i say things in, because it hurts their feelings, i make the boys feel stupid. So in the want of a discussion, and in 10 years of boarding has always been like this, im contented in stating things and hoping they can shake the puddle we live in.
And again we're wasting time cause you're not proving me wrong, you're just having me repeat over and over the same initial point waiting for new bits to be added so that you can further sway the main topic.
That's why this is not discussion and what im against in useless geeky boards.
If you want to "discuss" further PLEASE contact me here: th3ava7ar@hotmail.com
You have really disappointed me.
I believe you have some insights worth sharing but
until you gain more of what Jean Claude VanDamme
refers to as "awareness" you will not fully realize your
own thoughts.
And, if you neglect your own thoughts how do you
expect anyone to understand you?
Pretty sure you aren't really thinking about these kinds of things before writing.
Because at the moment all i can think is that you're telling me im wrong just because i say things in a blunt offensive way... but i believe that truth said in an angry evil tone isn't less true.
As for titles establishing something as idiotic... well, I suppose I'm dealing with a mind tilting at windmills.
Or again that one thing called "demon's souls" has the same freedom of interaction as Arcanum.
Yes i have no idea what that game is... do i really need to know to say that SURELY it doesn't have for example ethical choices, which i believe them to be one of the few ways a videogame can be really called mature?
Im sorry i said it's surely an idiotic game... but that's the way i defend myself from attacks, and i was being attacked by 10 persons simultaneously, i assure you it's not a pleasant feeling.
More than this though, if you feel that your arguments are unquestionable, what need do you have to state them? If they are static, then there's no sense in putting them forth for the sake of argument.
Though perhaps reductive reasoning may not be the best choice for understanding or putting forth an argument.
Lastly, Napoleon Campaigns on the Danube 1805-1809 sounds like a textbook more than what anyone might define as mature.
Maturity as nothing to do with the game or the platform, but it has to do with the conscious user. A game is nothing but an experience and it's our role to define how dedicated we want to be regarding that game. A game cna be both casual or hardcore as well as mature or not mature. You could look at a painting and realize that a 4 year old kid could have done it as well as realizing that the interaction you can have with it can be so deep... no words can describe it. It's the fundamental principle of polarity.
That's only up to the observer.
the observer does shit.
The goal of videogames as intelectual and cultural value doesn't need what you say, queer ambiguous phrases and beliefs that are meaningless and come out of conformism, conservatorism and cowardice of choosing a steady side and a crystalline JUDGEMENT... you try goofily to keep things open and uncertain probably because you lack real convictions. Your moderation sounds so enlightened and adult, but in the end you're just nihilist.
You saying that that there's no truth, only subjectivity, means that we live in chaos, that there's no intellectual and cultural difference between "mata hari" by hal barwood and Banjo Kazooie. Needless to say it's dumb and more than that, it's not a healthy thought even if it were true, because it doesn't help the cultural value of videogames, it's both false and harmful.
Sometimes you should remember that universal truths exist, and that they clean and rule the savage world of shitty subjectivity.
The reason why I said it was up to the observer is simply because everything is up to our mental, our perceptions. You are sad, because you decided it to be, because you don't want to control your emotions. If you had the will to control your emotions you would be happy, angry or neutral exactly when you want it to be. If something appears to be good, neutral or bad, it's because you perceive it that way. A thing is just a thing; it's not good, bad, cold or warm. That does apply the same way you may see your world as being solid, but in fact it is fluid and moving.
That's what I was talking about, but if you refuse to see it, I just can't help you further to see my point.
However, I was just offering one perspective among many others...
And im saying it's simply false... it's nonsense.
A drama has meanings, teachings, drama/conflict, worth and so on for its own form and constitution, its words and structure. It's all in there, there's no other essential value a person may EVER give to it. It's those elements that tell you all about the work, its words contain rhetorical messages that remaind to the "desired age span" the reader should have... thus showing the degree of maturity and the kind of complexity the reader's mind is required to be. (Obviously when you read "desired age span" in words you shouldn't think about profanity and sex! It's obvious, but better to be clear)
You're talking about the feelings that that work can excite inside one person, and those are completely subjective, but those emotions aren't needed for the CRITICAL judgement about its maturity and the quality of its contents... why would you need to care about how a guy feels about, i don't know, Robinson Crusoe, to know for example the it's an adventure novel, it's addressed to a young audience, it deals a bit spirituality, and so on.
And for the record, im graduated in letters & philosophy and i teach all of this.
If a reader is reading a book with teachings, maybe he will never get these, maybe he will, but maybe he will also go way further, develop the subject and understand it even more with his own mind. That's where maturity pops in. The most ridiculous game, if took seriously by a gamer, can help him to understand of lot about life.
You said console games were immature, that's nonsense. Games are just games, tools among many others for self-development. Temperature is just temperature; it's not cold, warm, good or bad unless you feel it is - but whatever your feeling is: temperature is just temperature and games are just games.
A film is not going to be a comedy if nobody finds it funny. Your drama is not going to be a drama for the guy who thinks it's absurd, ridiculous and pathetic. Our works are nothing, but potentials. An adventure novel could be a boring drama. A fighting game could be perceived as a strategy game. A competitive FPS game can be perceived as a real-time strategy game and so on.
You may think our world is solid, but in fact it is way more fluid. However, both answers are half-true and half-false. Fluid or solid are simply two different degree of a same element just like cold and warm are for temperature. Fluid or solid isn't our world. That's why games aren't immature or mature - that's always and only up to us.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By The McAndrews
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No they're not sarcasm, im sorry. I think consoles, being engineered the way they are(among other things) were created in the first place for thoughtless entertainment, relaxation.
It's their nature, their shape, their utilization, that can only invite childish gaming.
And there's nothing to discuss here! i don't care you disagree :)
My feedback:
Relaxation really? What about the gamer picking up his red bull waiting for his hype on Halo 3 like an adrenaline junkie? Their nature is to entertain, that's it. It plays differently, even if it is similar to PC gaming.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By The McAndrews
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quote by Stephen Keating:
"something is not immature because it contains killing or violence"
Answer - > Yes it is, obviously im referring to gratuitous killing as it happens in most console games.
My feedback:
I understand how you can perceive it is not mature, but it also includes that you just didn't take into consideration all the gameplays involved and it makes your judgement pointless; gratuitous killing is just the shell.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By The McAndrews
Quote by Jordan Amaro:
"How would you know about that?"
Answer: Because im a teacher, i meet thousands of kids.
And for the record, im graduated in letters & philosophy and i teach all of this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My feedback:
I would like to understand how in any way it would give you more credibility to be graduated in letters & philosophy and teach "all of this" to thousand of kids, except to satisfy a possible Ego? If someone tells me that my map sucks, I won't tell him "Shut up, I'm Level Designer and you... an artist".
Plus, I had many teachers in my life and most of them thaught me wrong things, so please... don't use your title as a cover.
I disagree. If the user doesn't UNDERSTAND the thing he's reading/playing/watching, it's not that thing being open or having potential, it's the user misunderstanding it, he's an idiot, to use a technical world.
If an immature game is taken seriously, it won't teach you anything, if a mature game is taken lightly it means the user is playing half of it, not how it's meant to be played.
Fluidity is the word to cover useless nihilistic subjectivty, that does nobody good. As i said even if your theory were true, and it's not, you shouldn't pursue it anyway because it's not ethical, and it does no good to universal supreme truths, like videogaming cultural depth, which is the final goal of critical judgement and should guide all your actions. The problem with you youth is that you don't have goals, your lives aren't guided by ethical ideals that are meant to make the world a better place, you live in chaos like apes, the only goal being eating and humping. Infact that's why consoles were invented, to give immediate carnal pleasure, to make you taste blood in your mouth as you used to while you lived in caves, hahah.
So please stop the nonsense... just do as i SAY, you don't know it yet but one day you'll see it was good for everyone. :)
"I understand how you can perceive it is not mature, but it also includes that you just didn't take into consideration all the gameplays involved and it makes your judgement pointless; gratuitous killing is just the shell."
No. If killing is gratuitous and has no consequences of any kind, it's immature and it's surely for console.
"Plus, I had many teachers in my life and most of them thaught me wrong things, so please... don't use your title as a cover".
Well since you judge good things as wrong(like what i say in my blogs) im sure those teachings were good too.
You worship subjectivity, you don't consider teachings as good, you state that there's only points of view... You have a twisted and perverted perception, my friend. :)
A thing is what it is, no matter how you perceive it - that's the ultimate truth.
A thing doesn't affect a person the same way it would affect another, because we don't have the same experience - that's also an ultimate truth.
----------------------
By McAndrews
I disagree. If the user doesn't UNDERSTAND the thing he's reading/playing/watching, it's not that thing being open or having potential, it's the user misunderstanding it, he's an idiot, to use a technical world.
----------------------
Here again... It's not about the reader not understanding what he reads (the thing; the book; the text), it's about him not understanding the subtle teachings behind what he is reading. The teachings must resonate with him or they will not pass - that's sociology, psychology and engagement.
You shouldn't expect the West to react the same way as the East when it comes down to experiencing a thing. It differs from one person to another - different cultures, different past and different general markets.
----------------------
By McAndrews
Fluidity is the word to cover useless nihilistic subjectivty, that does nobody good. As i said even if your theory were true, and it's not, you shouldn't pursue it anyway because it's not ethical, and it does no good to universal supreme truths, like videogaming cultural depth, which is the final goal of critical judgement and should guide all your actions. The problem with you youth is that you don't have goals, your lives aren't guided by ethical ideals that are meant to make the world a better place, you live in chaos like apes, the only goal being eating and humping. Infact that's why consoles were invented, to give immediate carnal pleasure, to make you taste blood in your mouth as you used to while you lived in caves, hahah.
----------------------------
You seem to know me pretty well. What are my ideals exactly and why am I here?
Seriously, cool down.
That's an OBVIOUS truth, i'd say.
And what i was trying to tell is that those elements of a read or of watching a movie that constantly change not only from person to person, but also inside the same person from the first time to the second readout, do NOT concern the parts that reveal the main attributes of a product, its maturity, its degree of complexity, its depth, its drama.
The parts that are ever-mutating are related to emotional psychological random contingencies... they're not important, they don't change the basic elements of work. While you clearly said that the more important elements of a game depend on how the user views it. Right here:
"A game cna be both casual or hardcore as well as mature or not mature" "That's only up to the observer".
You're not talking about simple degrees of emotional experience that in fact change everytime one reads, you're referring to the INMOST parts of a work, comparing it to a stupid abstract painting, which is a similitude completely out of place, really botched, really dumb. You also said that the user can give it the degree of maturity he wants. What about a really hard, mature and messy adventure game like the ever-so great man Jordan Mechner's The Last Express? Sure a kid might still decide to play it, and interprete it in a childish way, run around, trying to shoot things even tho it doesn't happen, imagine he's jumping platforms, maybe even imagine naked chicks, but in that case we have to consider if the actual game is played at its full, or used for 5.0% of its true nature?
There IS subjectivity of interpretation, but there's also misusage. I heard of a person playing Fallout 1 as if it was an arcade game, shooting everyone, skipping dialogues. Is it fallout that can be interpreted freely as an arcade game, thus making it an arcade game? No! It's the user using that game in 25%, choosing to ignore the other aspects. It's as if you read a physics book, alright? And you choose to read only the two, three phrases that are humorous. Do you think you can say that the physics book is in fact a book of jokes?
but this last only by the by. The central concept is that a human work may be interpreted emotionally and psychologically in dozens of ways, but NONE OF THESE affect its maturity and complexity, it would degrade it and the author.
It would be as if you told shakespeare that hamlet is not at all deep, it's just a FLAT and superficial story of revenge and remorse, just as every other drama of its kind... because YOU can infact SEE it that way. I repeat, there is interpretation, but there's also mis-interpretation.
I used to play games like Civilizations, Myst or Blade Runner when i was "immature" wich i'm sure were games meant for adults, not because of their visual content, but because of their mature sense of gameplay. Now I know those are all PC games, but...
You should keep in consideration that consoles aren't like Nintendo 64's or Atari's anymore. Games like that can be manufactured for them nowadays and without the compatibility issues they become all the more attractive.
I wouldn't play a strategy game on one, but if they create a better way for me to play them on a console, I will...
What I'm trying to say is that for me its personal prefferance wich makes me decide what type of game i play on what type of platform.
I liked your writing though and I agree that most games dont give you any real choices that impact the game like Fable/Fallout/Elders Scroll...they sort of do, but far from what could be possible. But I'm really looking forward to experience how thats been implemented in Heavy Rain.
On a different note..
"If the user doesn't UNDERSTAND the thing he's reading/playing/watching, it's not that thing being open or having potential, it's the user misunderstanding it, he's an idiot to, use a technical world."
I sure hope that you, as a teacher, don't seriously think that if someone does not understand something it means that persons an idiot (or not smart). Not everyone understands everything equally and the job of a teacher is to find a way for that person to understand just that with wich he has trouble understanding, not to judge wether that person is capable of understanding or not.