If they had it, would they want it?

Jaqen · Jun 20, 2010

Odd topic this and I don't know if i'll be able to get my point across correctly.

Do you think the people who play and accept the highly-rated trash of modern gaming (or the majority of it) would actually prefer it over the likes of cult-classics (think Arcanum, PS:T) if they had easy access to it.

Or do you think the type of person who would appreciate a *good* game is the type who would find it anyway?

I guess what I am saying is; Is modern gaming a true reflection of what people enjoy or that they are just accepting it as they do not know of anything (gaming-wise) better.

Konjad · Jun 20, 2010

Well, this and that. Some people would appreciate 'good' games if they knew about them, some are dumb and unable to play something more complicated than Oblivion. Therefore both kind of games are needed, unfortunately no one bother to make ambitious game often, and if they do they don't hype them as much as Bioware/Bethesda games. Bioware/Beth kind of hype makes reviews automatically 9-10/10, while not hyped games can get maximum 7-8/10 if they're really good. And more often reviewers are dumb so they give high ratings to dumb games and low to other.

LynkS · Jun 20, 2010

Here is your answer:

Admiral jimbob · Jun 20, 2010

It's a bit of both. Most people just don't care; their lives don't revolve around gaming, so they're happy to play a few shooters on their Xbox on a slow weekend. They're not looking for some intellectually stimulating, finely-polished gaming nirvana, they just want a bit of cheap, fun entertainment; and to be honest, if you have a few friends to play with and a few beers to numb your higher functions, even the most average console shooter can make for some great and memorable experiences. It doesn't make them good games, but it makes for a fun time, and most people aren't going to have any major mental crisis over the difference. Despite what insecure Codexers with vast inferiority complexes believe, it doesn't make them stupid.

Introducing good old games to them can have... mixed results. Anyone remember that thread where some college professor was making his students play Fallout 1? Initially they were bored and uninterested, but after a few sessions, almost all of them really enjoyed the depth the game offered. I've managed to convert a few initially uninterested people to X-Com by playing it in slow lectures (though that may be because the alternative is listening to someone explaining the nuances of property law). There's an initial culture shock of them seeing someone actually playing a game that isn't a bloom-infested shooter, but once that's out of the way, I don't think there's some huge gap between smart elite gaming individuals and casual popamole fags; people play different games for different reasons.

Awor Szurkrarz · Jun 20, 2010

That's... just... sad...

jonnypolen · Jun 20, 2010

Seems like people play and watch anything the media telles them to, regardless of quality. If the gaming media tells the hordes about the amazing gameplay of Red Dead Redemption, then those hordes are going to play RDD and shout about the awesome gameplay even if RDD is more of an interactive movie than a game. Back in the day, gaming media was more elitist, catering to an audience of mostly nerds. I remember Ultima 7 getting 93 % (or thereabouts) rating in PC Format magazine, and this would never have happened today. Today, gaming "journalists" are paid off, giving blowjobs to any generic 3. person shooter that can show off a useless gimmick as long as the developer is powerful enough. This, in its turn, allows the developers to ignore quality and instead focus on getting a T rating while still being "extreme". It is totally ruining the gaming industry, making every major developer aim for mediocrity to cater to the largest possible number of idiots. Any decrease in sales is blamed on pirates.

Fuck, now I made myself angry. Ending rant.

Mrowak · Jun 20, 2010

I think that whether you like the game or not has a lot to do with age. When such pearls as Fallout 1 and PS:Torment were released I was in my early teens and, honestly, I couldn't get into them. They seemed bland, deprived of action, combat system sucked, and words, so many words... However, a few years later when I had tackled all the other infinity engine I games felt compelled to give PS:T another spin. Boy, I got hooked - till now the best cRPG evar!!! Just before inifinity games I had completed my first cRPG: Betrayal at Krondor. Later came Fallout 2 and 1, Arcanum, Temple of Elemental Evil, Might & Magics and so on.

Still, I have to say that exposure to the good games IS important. if I hadn't been lucky and hadn't been recommended certain titles by "the great old ones" I think I would have grown into another consoletard. And nowadays, unlike in my childhood, the good stuff is seemingly swamped by shithe getting 10/10 in every mainstream magazine.

The end is nigh.

Squiggle · Jun 20, 2010

Mrowak said:
The end is here.

Fixed

Insane Psychic · Jun 20, 2010

POOPOO MCBUMFACE said:
It's a bit of both... I've managed to convert a few initially uninterested people to X-Com by playing it in slow lectures (though that may be because the alternative is listening to someone explaining the nuances of property law). There's an initial culture shock of them seeing someone actually playing a game that isn't a bloom-infested shooter, but once that's out of the way, I don't think there's some huge gap between smart elite gaming individuals and casual popamole fags; people play different games for different reasons.

I'm in complete agreement with this, I've also thrown a few quality games at people and insisted they gave it a few hours, and lo and behold, they think older games with shitty graphics can be just as great as the newer more casual games.

jonnypolen · Jun 20, 2010

Insane Psychic said:
POOPOO MCBUMFACE said:

It's a bit of both... I've managed to convert a few initially uninterested people to X-Com by playing it in slow lectures (though that may be because the alternative is listening to someone explaining the nuances of property law). There's an initial culture shock of them seeing someone actually playing a game that isn't a bloom-infested shooter, but once that's out of the way, I don't think there's some huge gap between smart elite gaming individuals and casual popamole fags; people play different games for different reasons.

Click to expand...

I'm in complete agreement with this, I've also thrown a few quality games at people and insisted they gave it a few hours, and lo and behold, they think older games with shitty graphics can be just as great as the newer more casual games.

I'm sure that this is true, and as mr. McBumface said not everybody who likes to chill with some casual games is an idiot. The problem is that there are a whole lot of add kids and idiots out there, and the mainstream gaming industry obviously feels that it has to aim for the lowest common denominator to reach the highest number of potential buyers. And since the gaming journalists are handing out 8-10/10 to every major production, these are the games that are being bought.

Hopefully, the gaming industry will grow to the point that we can be treated to some niche games with ok budgets. Until then, I suppose we are stuck with mainly good oldies, weird indie games and popamole shit.

Luzur · Jun 20, 2010

LynkS said:
Here is your answer:

FUCKING KIDS

Serious_Business · Jun 20, 2010

POOPOO MCBUMFACE said:
It's a bit of both. Most people just don't care; their lives don't revolve around gaming, so they're happy to play a few shooters on their Xbox on a slow weekend. They're not looking for some intellectually stimulating, finely-polished gaming nirvana, they just want a bit of cheap, fun entertainment; and to be honest, if you have a few friends to play with and a few beers to numb your higher functions, even the most average console shooter can make for some great and memorable experiences. It doesn't make them good games, but it makes for a fun time, and most people aren't going to have any major mental crisis over the difference. Despite what insecure Codexers with vast inferiority complexes believe, it doesn't make them stupid.

Introducing good old games to them can have... mixed results. Anyone remember that thread where some college professor was making his students play Fallout 1? Initially they were bored and uninterested, but after a few sessions, almost all of them really enjoyed the depth the game offered. I've managed to convert a few initially uninterested people to X-Com by playing it in slow lectures (though that may be because the alternative is listening to someone explaining the nuances of property law). There's an initial culture shock of them seeing someone actually playing a game that isn't a bloom-infested shooter, but once that's out of the way, I don't think there's some huge gap between smart elite gaming individuals and casual popamole fags; people play different games for different reasons.

Yeah. You said it better than any of my incoherent hate-filled rants could have in the last 3 years

Basically, gaming, even "tasteful" gaming, is not high-class, elite entertainment. It doesn't make that much sense to make high-brow distinctions about how some people are retards for playing mindless games, etc. Not only because for once it is highly anti-intellectual to think in such grand and empty labels to forcefully reduce other human beings to what is a simple, contingent act (and so it defeats the purpose of supposedly being intellectual for cause of good taste), but also, even if there is a case of good/bad taste, it would still concern how one waste their time (video games). We can raise culture and say that "those people" don't know what they are missing, but ultimately its still a damn waste of time, wether you're playing Victoria and thinking you're smart or just playing Halo with the bros. Its just the "art" elements in video games that allow computer nerds to pretend to culture, but its still a mediocre medium and so the pretentions are always ridiculous. I like to think that all those nerds are eventually going to move on to real culture and art, but that's not happening very often

someone else · Jun 20, 2010

Serious_Business is Serious_Business!

jonnypolen · Jun 20, 2010

Serious_Business said:
Basically, gaming, even "tasteful" gaming, is not high-class, elite entertainment. It doesn't make that much sense to make high-brow distinctions about how some people are retards for playing mindless games, etc. Not only because for once it is highly anti-intellectual to think in such grand and empty labels to forcefully reduce other human beings to what is a simple, contingent act (and so it defeats the purpose of supposedly being intellectual for cause of good taste), but also, even if there is a case of good/bad taste, it would still concern how one waste their time (video games). We can raise culture and say that "those people" don't know what they are missing, but ultimately its still a damn waste of time, wether you're playing Victoria and thinking you're smart or just playing Halo with the bros. Its just the "art" elements in video games that allow computer nerds to pretend to culture, but its still a mediocre medium and so the pretentions are always ridiculous. I like to think that all those nerds are eventually going to move on to real culture and art, but that's not happening very often

But now you are reducing people who are making the distinction between good and bad games to elitist nerds who are pretending games are high culture. Or am I reading you wrong?

I agree that games aren't elite entertainment, but in the same way that hamburgers could never be called haute cuisine, you can make the distinction between a good and a bad hamburger. A person who has only eaten burgers at a McDonalds is missing out in the same way that a person who only plays Halo is, and they should both be vilified for it. The fact is that games can be good, stimulating entertainment. They can also be absolute trash. I think that one should be able to make that distinction without people pulling art, culture and whatnot into the discussion.

314159 · Jun 20, 2010

Jaqen said:
Or do you think the type of person who would appreciate a *good* game is the type who would find it anyway?

(think Arcanum, PS:T)

:shock:
They were not good GAMES.
Good interactive fiction? Maybe. Depends on your taste. Good games? No fucking way.
Good games have good gameplay mechanics. A story and all that shit is irrelevant. If a game has a good story, nice. If it doesn't, it's OK. Proof: chess, football, poker, Doom, Super Metroid, Civilization.
NOW, lets do an experiment. Disregard the story of PST. Disregard the personalities of the characters. Disregard the setting. And what's left?
Yes.
Crap.
*good* game LOL :roll:

Achilles · Jun 20, 2010

Insane Psychic said:
I'm in complete agreement with this, I've also thrown a few quality games at people and insisted they gave it a few hours, and lo and behold, they think older games with shitty graphics can be just as great as the newer more casual games.

You're not doing a good enough job. "Just as great"? Unacceptable. Keep educating them until such a point where each time you give them a next-gen game they cry out "WTF is this shit, enough with this popamole consoletard crap". IT IS YOUR DUTY!

Serious_Business said:
excuses for his own decline

That was an interesting read but I don't agree. The thing is, people who waste their time playing a good game or reading a book are indeed (or get) smarter than the people who play a dumb game or bang their head against a wall. The human brain can only take so much retardation before it shuts down in disgust.

Destroid · Jun 20, 2010

We have every right to be angry nerds about the state of the gaming industry and lash out against the people that allow and encourage it to exist in this state.

How do you think movie buffs would feel if the only movies that were made were Iron Man and Twilight? Novel enthusiasts if the only novels written were Harry Potter, Wheel of Time and The Da Vinci Code?

Insane Psychic · Jun 20, 2010

Alexandros said:
You're not doing a good enough job. "Just as great"? Unacceptable. Keep educating them until such a point where each time you give them a next-gen game they cry out "WTF is this shit, enough with this popamole consoletard crap". IT IS YOUR DUTY!

It is a long hard hard struggle, but one day, I shall prevail!

On another note, I think it is perfectly reasonable for game companies to attempt to appeal to as many as possible, as the huge budgets of most mainstream games demand sales of what, 2 million copies?
It's much like Hollywood blockbusters, and while I think there might be a market for niche games, just as there is a market for niche films, it just hasn't been attempted to any serious degree.

jonnypolen · Jun 20, 2010

Insane Psychic said:
On another note, I think it is perfectly reasonable for game companies to attempt to appeal to as many as possible, as the huge budgets of most mainstream games demand sales of what, 2 million copies?
It's much like Hollywood blockbusters, and while I think there might be a market for niche games, just as there is a market for niche films, it just hasn't been attempted to any serious degree.

I suppose it's reasonable, but the result is that all we get are the game equalients of Transformers 2 and Indy 4, i.e expencive and ridiculous games like F3 or Dragon Age. Let's just hope that for example AoD will show itself to be a good niche/indie game.

Forest Dweller · Jun 21, 2010

314159 said:
Jaqen said:

Or do you think the type of person who would appreciate a *good* game is the type who would find it anyway?

Click to expand...

(think Arcanum, PS:T)

Click to expand...

:shock:
They were not good GAMES.
Good interactive fiction? Maybe. Depends on your taste. Good games? No fucking way.
Good games have good gameplay mechanics. A story and all that shit is irrelevant. If a game has a good story, nice. If it doesn't, it's OK. Proof: chess, football, poker, Doom, Super Metroid, Civilization.
NOW, lets do an experiment. Disregard the story of PST. Disregard the personalities of the characters. Disregard the setting. And what's left?
Yes.
Crap.
*good* game LOL

Fucking newfag.

I know it may appear that the Codex could be more and more in agreement with you these days, but that doesn't make you and anyone else who agrees with you less full of shit. You're completely disregarding C&C and different ways to play a game and resolve quests, which is the highest form of gameplay that there is (yes it's fucking gameplay). All other forms pale in comparison.

It's also a travesty that after five hours I'm the first person to respond to you in this way.

Destroid · Jun 21, 2010

Terror Teats · Jun 21, 2010

Admiral jimbob · Jun 21, 2010

Dicksmoker said:
I think anime visual novels and choose your own adventure books represent the highest form of gameplay there is.

Fucking hell, the ill-defined overblown c&c buzzword fad has gotten entirely out of hand.

Forest Dweller · Jun 21, 2010

Fad? Get the fuck out of here. The fad is people taking a shit on it like you and in general not understanding it. Some real decline right here.

314159 · Jun 21, 2010

Dicksmoker said:
Fucking newfag.
I know it may appear that the Codex could be more and more in agreement with you these days, but that doesn't make you and anyone else who agrees with you less full of shit. You're completely disregarding C&C and different ways to play a game and resolve quests, which is the highest form of gameplay that there is (yes it's fucking gameplay). All other forms pale in comparison.

Oh, let's talk about it. So, the highest form of gameplay could be found, I take it, in PST. OK. What were the rules of said gameplay?

And I can tell you about the combat rules in this game, if you wish. Or the rules of chess. Or football. Or Civilization.

(DEFINITION: Gameplay is what you do in a game. It is determined by the rules of said game)

314159 · Jun 21, 2010

POOPOO MCBUMFACE said:
Dicksmoker said:

I think anime visual novels and choose your own adventure books represent the highest form of gameplay there is.

Click to expand...

Well, who knows. It's an interesting hypothesis, I'd like to discuss it.

If *they* had it, would they want it?

Novice

⛏

Novice

gay as all hell

Arcane

Liturgist

Arcane

Novice

Cipher

Liturgist

Good Sir

Best Poster on the Codex

Arcane

Liturgist

Educated

Arcane

Arcane

Cipher

Liturgist

Smoking Dicks

Arcane

Educated

gay as all hell

Smoking Dicks

Educated

Educated

If they had it, would they want it?