next »

[William Broom]

Yep, that's what I was getting. If some people enjoy games according to one set of criteria, and others enjoy them according to a different set, then those two "battlefields" are equal in my eyes. And I have not seen anything from the icycalm supporters as of yet which explains why your taste in videogames is so far superior to mine - you just call our games "trash" as if it's self-explanatory. I'm interested to hear what you have to say on this topic, though.

So, since Broom is busy and probably will not respond to the age question, I guess I will answer this one for you all. There is only one "battlefield" for videogames that I care about, immersion and pleasure. I don't care about "meaning" or a "point" in the same way that you don't care that a phone can probably be used as a weight training device. But fine, lets say that you remove these games from this battle and instead have it about "making a point" or "art thoughts, and if you are against that, then you are against thinking itself." But this is ridiculous, this battlefield is already filled with warriors: Nietzsche, Heraclitus, Spinzoa, Freud. All of whom are so far advanced that it is ridiculous to even think this sort of thing would be advised. And even if I did not have these intellectual giants, my own thoughts are so far superior to these game developers that it would be laughable anyway.

As for the "authorial intent" or "unique," its just fashion or the lack of ability to experiment and create good game design. Something I don't care anything about.

First of all, I'm 18 years old, but that has fuck all to do with anything. Despite our disagreements, I think you've been a pretty reasonable debate partner so far but if you are going to resort to "hurr, I'm older" then I will lose all respect for you.

Secondly: Your paragraph above does not really address my argument at all. I have never claimed that indie games are superior because they "make a point" or "have meaning". In fact I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've erroneously attributed someone else's opinion to me. I agree wholeheartedly that "making a point" is for philosophers, not artists, which is why I have to bite my tongue when people say things to me like "Evangelion is such a philosophical anime".
Like you, I judge my games by "immersion and pleasure". But those two criteria, particularly pleasure, are so broad as to be meaningless. I could get pleasure from the *personality* of Nikujin, or from the cutscenes of Metal Gear Solid, or from rubbing myself off to Passage while thinking about how deep I am. Anyone who enjoys a game for any reason is receiving pleasure from it. You have not made any attempt to demonstrate that mechanical complexity (or whatever other criterion you use to judge games) is the only way to achieve "pleasure and immersion".

It's cool that you don't care about the "authorial intent" or *personality* of the game. But I do, a lot! And you still haven't answered the central question in my paragraph that's quoted above: I'm asking you why you believe that your criteria for rating game quality is the ultimate and objective standard by which all games must always be judged.




btw, I didn't read all the posts since I last posted (10+ pages!) but it seems like they mostly consist of miro and eva swearing at each other. Seriously guys, I usually just skim past all your shitposts, but when it gets to the point that I come back a day later and simply don't have time to trawl through all the garbage you've written, it gets to be a problem. Can't you make a new thread for mudslinging and leave us to the actual discussion?)

[ooooooo]

It's cool that you don't care about the "authorial intent" or *personality* of the game. But I do, a lot! And you still haven't answered the central question in my paragraph that's quoted above: I'm asking you why you believe that your criteria for rating game quality is the ultimate standard by which all games must always be judged.

Fixed your question a bit. Nothing can be judged objectively.

The complexity of a game's mechanics can be measured. The quality of its graphics can be measured. Authorial intent can't be measured, that's why it's useless as way of judging, of measuring, a game's quality.

[bento_smile]

The complexity of a game's mechanics can be measured. The quality of its graphics can be measured. Authorial intent can't be measured, that's why it's useless as way of judging, of measuring, a game's quality.

Pacman has poor quality graphics (unrealistic). Is it a bad game? Even the AI is poor compared to what people can do now.

(Note that I don't believe this, just that why should an indie game not get consideration for its budget, but an older game get special treatment for being old. You can only have that bias if you remember what games were when the game came out - a newbie doesn't have that bias. But then if you're going to ask for measuring quality like this, this is what you get. Why would you want to look at Pollock over 17th C landscapes?   )

[C.A. Sinner]

why should an older game get special treatment for being old?

according to icycalm: because it was cutting edge at the time it was released. when doom came out in '93, there were no better or more advanced 3D action games (let alone first person shooters) out there. old games dont get a "free pass" from him for being old, because even though the classics have been surpassed by later games they were the ones that made further innovation possible by laying the foundations.

i think we can all agree that any decent critic should take the history of what theyre criticizing into consideration. weve already discussed this a short while ago btw. please read the recent goings on in the thread if youre going to post in it.

[William Broom]

The complexity of a game's mechanics can be measured. The quality of its graphics can be measured. Authorial intent can't be measured, that's why it's useless as way of judging, of measuring, a game's quality.

So the argument is:

a) We need to measure the quality of games.
b) Complexity is measurable.
Conclusion: Complexity is quality.

?

[Triplefox]

It's a poor system to my eyes, as it rejects the potential of inter-media comparisons. Movies make bad games and the opposite likewise, but we still compare them as entertainment and art. In a complexity-based metric it becomes "apples to oranges" automatically.

[bento_smile]

why should an older game get special treatment for being old?

according to icycalm: because it was cutting edge at the time it was released. when doom came out in '93, there were no better or more advanced 3D action games (let alone first person shooters) out there. old games dont get a "free pass" from him for being old, because even though the classics have been surpassed by later games they were the ones that made further innovation possible by laying the foundations.

i think we can all agree that any decent critic should take the history of what theyre criticizing into consideration. weve already discussed this a short while ago btw. please read the recent goings on in the thread if youre going to post in it.

I read the whole thread.   I was just looking for the excuse to use their abstract art argument against them. The example of Pacman stands better because the art is heavier on stylisation, and therefore 'lower' quality by these standards.

Doesn't matter anyway, 'cos Doom isn't my taste, so the art looks 'bad' to me.   Whether it's cutting edge or not for the time, the quality does nothing to endear it to me!

[C.A. Sinner]

@triplefox:
i think its better to judge games on their own terms tho. whenever i see someone trying to shoehorn movie criticism into game criticism (happens a lot these days), i cringe. the whole idea which has arisen in recent times that games are supposed to be "interactive movies" is what makes a lot of these big-budget blockbuster AAA titles so boring imo. we really need to think about whether dragons lair with modern realtime 3d graphics (see also heavy rain) is an ideal worth striving for.

[C.A. Sinner]

I read the whole thread.   I was just looking for the excuse to use their abstract art argument against them. The example of PacMan stands better because the art is heavier on stylisation, and therefore 'lower' quality by these standards.

ah i get it, sorry if i seemed rude.

another thing worth noting in that respect: pretty much all of the shmups and fighting games icycalm likes so much feature heavily stylized visuals that are often not exactly cutting edge from a technical standpoint. would cave's shooters be better if they strived for the same graphical standard as crysis?

[bento_smile]

I read the whole thread.   I was just looking for the excuse to use their abstract art argument against them. The example of PacMan stands better because the art is heavier on stylisation, and therefore 'lower' quality by these standards.

ah i get it, sorry if i seemed rude.

another thing worth noting in that respect: pretty much all of the shmups and fighting games icycalm likes so much feature heavily stylized visuals that are often not exactly cutting edge from a technical standpoint. would cave's shooters be better if they strived for the same graphical standard as crysis?

NP I was just picking on Doom for the sake of it XD (It's too early in the morning)

Oh yeah haha, I was wondering that! :D Looking up Touhou or whatever it is last night... Can't imagine how realism would add to the appeal of a shmup! :D The only people it might convince to play are the sort that only play AAA games, so it would likely only improve the sales figures and not the game itself.

[oewarj]

First of all, I'm 18 years old, but that has fuck all to do with anything. Despite our disagreements, I think you've been a pretty reasonable debate partner so far but if you are going to resort to "hurr, I'm older" then I will lose all respect for you.

Well, first of all, I am impressed by your ability to hold back and at least try to deal with the topic at hand, your adequate writing ability helps too. Regardless, you are young and it shows.

Your paragraph above does not really address my argument at all. I have never claimed that indie games are superior because they "make a point" or "have meaning". In fact I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've erroneously attributed someone else's opinion to me.

To the first point, sure, I am sorry if that happened. As for "no one else making this point," this is false. And you didn't say "superior," just that they are two different battlefields of equal validity.

Like you, I judge my games by "immersion and pleasure". But those two criteria, particularly pleasure, are so broad as to be meaningless.

No actually, its not so broad as you imagine, as all the giants of art (not the 21st century ones) would tell you. And its not just enough to give a bit of pleasure, for not all pleasure are created equal, there is intense pleasure (like the one given by looking at Bernini's David) and dull pleasure that manages to keep boredom of for like a second (fashion, or trying to be "in" the social group by praising Picasso). There are differences between the two, and it comes down to your ability to judge which one is superior to the other.

I could get pleasure from the *personality* of Nikujin, or from the cutscenes of Metal Gear Solid, or from rubbing myself off to Passage while thinking about how deep I am. Anyone who enjoys a game for any reason is receiving pleasure from it. You have not made any attempt to demonstrate that mechanical complexity (or whatever other criterion you use to judge games) is the only way to achieve "pleasure and immersion".

Yes, right here, you are still stuck with the schoolboy's mentality as Kael would tell you. Certainly, you could get pleasure from masturbating to passage, a cat gets pleasure from a ball of strings. But all the "depth of playing Passage" still can't match up to the depth of pleasure I gained from reading Nietzsche (who is also one of the strongest attacker I have had the pleasure of reading). So sure, someone CAN gain pleasure from it, especially if they have been brainwashed enough, but that is why Insomnia writes for intelligent human beings, not some faggot who loves JRPG and thinks its equal to Chess.

Again, read this: http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/ArtScam/artscam.php

Think about it deeply, the art of creating a pleasurable game (as well as painting) is not such an easy thing, especially when you are dealing with videogame fans who has had decades of experience. In the beginning, it is easy to amuse us, but experience makes us much harsher.

http://www.paulrossen.com/paulinekael/trashartandthemovies.html

It's cool that you don't care about the "authorial intent" or *personality* of the game. But I do, a lot! And you still haven't answered the central question in my paragraph that's quoted above: I'm asking you why you believe that your criteria for rating game quality is the ultimate and objective standard by which all games must always be judged.

Because I ultimately found it to be made by talentless creators who couldn't hold my attention. They were like fashion, very easily forgettable and something, which by it's very existence, presupposes that nobody should derive from it. Maybe you will find it as trivial as me, I don't know. But just realize that the amount of experimenting and things deleted to create System Shock 2 (for its not JUST System Shock 2, the things learned from it's predecessors would be necessary to account for it's creation) would put any of these games to shame, if you are not going to read the things that Icy have listed to you.

[mirosurabu]

Something else worth noting (maybe) is that the trend toward greater complexity in game design actually has a tendency to alienate non-gamers (as in, people who are not versed in the current language of video games). Just the concept of dual-analog control in an FPS we take for granted, but people who don't actively play games find it very difficult to operate in my experience. 2D games with simple mechanics are relatively simple to parse, and there is a lot that can be done with them design-wise that would not be lost on people who might be interested in video games but not really able to get into very complex titles, because they don't know or haven't kept up with the language of game design.

FWIW complexity isn't necessarily defined by complicated interface. You can make complex decisions in a game with a very simple interface too (combinatorial games such as checkers show this).

[paste]

I'm asking you why you believe that your criteria for rating game quality is the ultimate and objective standard by which all games must always be judged.

Because I ultimately found it to be made by talentless creators who couldn't hold my attention.

It's only your opinion that they're talentless.  That's a subjective standard.

[mirosurabu]

I have to second Veracity here, Miro. I don't understand your claims about Doom at all, and some are objectively wrong (like physics and speed). In my opinion Doom is one of the best action games ever made and still holds up amazingly well today considering its age. The controls are and game "flow" (for lack of a better word) are ultra tight (play any other 3D game from the same era), the level design is incredibly clever and intricate in the later levels, all the enemies and weapons are designed with great care and the art was top notch for its time.

I should probably go back, play it and analyze it carefully so that I don't leave some of the questions unanswered.

But for now, which bits of level design did you find incredibly clever?

[oewarj]

Oh and just so you know, Denjin Makai II is so far advanced compared to Castle Crashers that that it is ridiculous to imagine Castle Crashers as something that can "contain" the older work (although it seems more like Guardian Heroes? not sure, like I said, I didn't play it a lot).