Tasteful Understated Nerdrage/MrBtongue Thread

[Grunker]

Anyone studying literature would get ticks from the mish-mash he creates by confusing setting and story. The two are discussed as very different things because the technical terms used to identify what makes each work are very, very different.

In this case, in a video game, the confusing of the terms makes it difficult for us to discuss the subject because a) if we're discussing story, then we can challenge his points because of C&C, branching and faction-mechanics but b) if we're discussing setting, suddenly it's all about consistency and how the setting is implemented via gameplay in for example having to get non-irratiated water to drink or scavenge to survive and make a life for yourself. If we're talking F3 vs. New Vegas, that is.

I guess in the end even if you accepted his false point that story and setting can be forged together like that, gameplay would still be the main tool for shandifying a game.

 

[Infinitron]

LUDO-NARRATIVE DISSONANCE:

 

[Grunker]

LUDO-NARRATIVE DISSONANCE:

It's like this video has been made before, except much less superficial...

 

[sea]

My thoughts on the most recent video and the thing that MrBtongue did not touch on at all:

Videogame violence is an aesthetic representation of mechanics. Games are sets of rules which facilitate failure and win states. Shooters are effectively pattern-matching and reflex games wherein the goal is to place a cursor over a target in an allotted time. Ammo management, health, etc. are supplementary mechanics that make the shooting system more interesting. Now tell me, how many themes map logically to this set of mechanics?

It's also important to understand the realities of game development. Making a shooter that plays to modern standards takes dozens if not hundreds of people months or even years. It costs lots of money. And in the end, what is the shooting? A set of graphics and mechanics which can be recycled again and again in order to provide entertainment. That is, the initial investment cost of shooting enemies in a satisfying way is high, but once it's done you basically have a game ready to go.

MrBtongue's comparison of dialogue to shooting is not fair because dialogue systems rely far more on unique content, including writing, scripting and voice acting, which for the most part cannot be reused. That does not mean we can't take major steps to implement non-combat elements in ways that are just as satisfying and reusable as the mechanics in shooters (mini-games are one way developers try to do this), but it does mean that you may have to make sacrifices in other parts of the gameplay to do it.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the only mechanics and systems that developers are exploring are ones that are thematically consistent with shooting. So, we have iron sights as a new mechanic because we are fixated on ways to make shooting more accessible. But I think a lot of the problem also boils down to the fact that for this gameplay style that has worked so well for the industry, violence really is one of the few ways to visually describe it.

In other words, the limiting factor, in my opinion, is not solely violence (though that is a factor in actually marketing a game and getting investors/publishers on board), but rather in the relatively narrow and limiting set of mechanics and systems which are considered appropriate for mass market use. Sadly, the mass market is always there to confirm this is the case, because like it or not, many people do want pretty mindless, fluffy entertainment. Most Western triple-A games are so expensive that you also put your return on investment at significantly increased risk. Ultimately you aren't making a game because it's your dream game: you're making it to make money for someone else, and to keep your ass employed.

 

[Grunker]

I too am re-stating Errant Signal's points in a less coherent fashion

 

[sea]

I didn't even watch the video. Most of that I just copy-pasted from what I posted on YouTube.

 

[Shadenuat]

It's like this video has been made before, except much less superficial..

They're not the same. ErrantSignal's video is about how violence comes naturally as the easiest type of implemented gameplay because it supports the nature of the games as how they've been created from the beginning - object/space simulations. The tools what we made defined what we build with them now.
TUN, as a natural storyfag, pointed out how we became addicted to those types of games and how this bad habit harms the narrative and turns gamers into shooting addicts who can't sit straight for five minutes unless explosions happen, and how we should find different approach in making violence an effective dramatic tool again.
Videos are in the similar realm and not exclusive to one another, but they both have value.

In other words, the limiting factor, in my opinion, is not solely violence (though that is a factor in actually marketing a game and getting investors/publishers on board), but rather in the relatively narrow and limiting set of mechanics and systems which are considered appropriate for mass market use.

Portal is about jumping and shooting. Does it feel very violent to you? I mean, sometimes it is violent, but it's clearly not the point of the game. Is SimCity violent? Are flight simulators violent? They are only when you add shooting to them, I think.
Mechanics is't the only thing which defines what we do in our games.
IMO, the most important reason why games have nothing to teach, or say, or create, is because people who make them often do not want to teach, do not want to create, and don't have anything to say. Because if you actually want and have, you can make a Planescape out of a ruleset which was based on a wargame. Smithing swords and spears to kill did't stop right people to smith objects of art to marvel.

Obligatory example of perfect way to resolve conflict with violence:

 

[Infinitron]

Just watched this and, basically, what Shadenuat said.

 

[sea]

Portal is about jumping and shooting. Does it feel very violent to you? I mean, sometimes it is violent, but it's clearly not the point of the game. Is SimCity violent? Are flight simulators violent? They are only when you add shooting to them, I think.

Portal isn't a shooter. It uses a first-person perspective, so the control scheme is similar/identical to shooters. Mechanically and systemically it is very, very different. What you're saying is basically "Mario Kart is the same genre as Tomb Raider because they both have third-person cameras and you move the avatar with an analogue stick".

 

[Shadenuat]

Portal isn't a shooter. It uses a first-person perspective, so the control scheme is similar/identical to shooters. Mechanically and systemically it is very, very different. What you're saying is basically "Mario Kart is the same genre as Tomb Raider because they both have third-person cameras and you move the avatar with an analogue stick".

No, Portal is not a shooter. But it uses the basics of the movement, interaction and control schemes which were established by more violent games like shooters, and it kinda looks like a shooter, yet it broke away from shooters and is a different game. The question is why some people do that in a creative way, while others repeat the same pattern, even if maybe they don't really want to, and why players eat that and can't help themselves but ask for more.

 

[Machocruz]

You're both correct. There are not a whole lot of developers who do not want to elevate or teach the player, and the market itself frowns on such attempts anyway. LA Noire had to have an action game component as that is the expectation the market has for a high profile Rockstar game and a game about cops and criminals. A purer adventure game is not something they would have risked, but would have been in accordance with the avatar's role and the setting.

Besides market accepteance, I believe developers keep making massacres because most developers need the crutch of established tropes to be able to make anything at all. Plus they lack the intellectual rigor or whatever you want to call it to make a puzzle game, sim, adventure, complex RPG, etc. You can't ask this from the frustrated filmmakers who can't program but wind up in project lead positions . Game development is a programmers medium. If you don't understand code, you can't see how the code can be manipulated and you can't see all the possibilities. You can only see the possibility of what's already been established: massacre.

 

[Gozma]

Meh, I disagree with the "bad habit" characterization springing out of LA Noire. Automatic bland violence, particularly in that case, is an economic, lowest common denominator problem of AAA, because it has lizard brain appeal that doesn't need to be tailored to a specific audience, language, class, cultural context, etc.

 

[Gerrard]

Oblivion was a good game. It was well made, it was fun to play.

Stopped watching right there.

 

[Machocruz]

Oblivion was a good game. It was well made, it was fun to play.

Stopped watching right there.

Appeal to diplomacy. Some people feel bad about causing butthurt, even if they know the truth.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Infinitron]

MrBtongue 3 hours ago
You're in luck, my next one will be about Planescape. Should be up either this Wednesday or Friday.

 

[Infinitron]

CMcC Care to address what he says starting from 7:40?

 

[Broseph]

Infinitron, if you keep posting these TUN videos maybe one day we'll have a Codex meme where we accuse you of being MrBtongue.

 

[Comrade Goby]

Why are people complaining about violence in video games?

What weak pussies men have become. IMO it should be pushed further and more realistic.

Also this guy is the definition of "edgy" without any real thought behind his vids

EDIT: That sentence referred to Razorfist

I actually don't know who the fuck this guy is. Too many internet reviews man

 

[TheCatsofSanktPetersburg]

CMcC Care to address what he says starting from 7:40?

Um... so what exactly did he say?

I love his videos and maybe I've been growing used to him bringing a new light on a subject, but this one felt, um... dunno, kinda pointless.

 

[Infinitron]

The bit about "What does one life matter".

 

[Shadenuat]

SUDDENLY JEWS

I like that he said that Torment is actually a morally good game. I think some people mistakely take it for great tragedy or a very dark game, while it's actually a very positive game... meeting your evil self, seeing how you can actually beсome better... even if the ending is you falling down to hell to fight in an unendless war between law and chaos for your sins, I never felt as good, calm and content when finishing a game than when I did with Planescape.

 

[Diablo169]

I hope Colin replies, it's a fair point about making the question too important.

 

[TheCatsofSanktPetersburg]

I never felt as good, calm and content when finishing a game than when I did with Planescape.

Hmm, now that you mention it you're right. I can't ever think of a game that made me feel happier than Torment. This is an odd quality.

 

[Shadenuat]

Hmm, now that you mention it you're right. I can't ever think of a game that made me feel happier than Torment. This is an odd quality.

It's not that odd, it's what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis usually does to you. Even fires of hell do not feel like something which damages TNO, but something which finally purifies him.
...I'm probably otherthinking this, but that's just me being me.