Honestly, even within the niche areas of gaming that these guys inhabit they are marginalized, so it's not really worth getting too upset about it.
We're not getting upset about it. Ashford originally posted this thread so we could all have a good lol over how silly ToT's theories are, but I guess that fell through and now we're just kind of discussing how plausible said theories are.
It's funny, though... ToT, Auntie Pixelante, icycalm... each of them represents a polar point of view about what makes games worthwhile, and they ridicule and put down one another (directly and indirectly) all the time. They're so different and yet similar in that regard.
They all take the same approach to the way they feel about things. The difference is that ToT is completely lost and spews contradictions at every turn, Anna Anthropy is quite lost and praises petty game design tricks in tiny, unimportant games, and Icycalm, due to his background and intelligence, is actually able to take a logical, methodical approach to form his theory which provides a solid groundwork for understanding games of all kinds. But for some reason people like ToT are almost universally praised even outside the indie community, Anna is a prominent blogger with multiple connections across the indie scene, and Icycalm is hated even on hardcore gaming forums like 4chan /v/ (implying /v/ is hardcore) and shmups.com.
I have a lot of respect for the passion and energy they put into thinking about games.
This I agree with. They're all interesting people because of the fervor with which they pursue their goals.
i still feel as if this is a far-fetched overstatement of their position,
They really did say most of that stuff pretty much word for word, though.
almost a caricature of them;
Their opinion practically is a caricature.
they've repeatedly pointed out games they've liked
Yes, their games.
it just strikes me as too defensive to get upset about what they actually have said (rather than what people are claiming they have said).
No one is getting upset. For the most part, their detractors are laughing at them.
here's an analogy: let's say someone says 'comics are for kids, they're mostly about superheroes'. that's a largely true statement, even though there are comics that aren't for kids and aren't about superheroes. but someone who was really into comics would go ballistic if he sees statements like that, due to defensiveness.
As has been said before, this is not "largely true".
gamers are the same way when you say something that, to non-gamers, is an obvious truth: that games are mostly for kids and mostly about adolescent male power fantasies. they get terribly defensive about things like that, even though it's true about most games.
This is not true either. Non-gamers only think it's true because they, well, never play video games. Why would they know?
i think you're right that it's a good idea to qualify such statements as saying that they apply to most games rather than all games, and ToT often doesn't do that: they say 'games are x' rather than 'most games are x', but if you mentally replace 'games' with 'most games', what they are saying isn't anything worth getting offended by. they aren't talking about the exceptions, or saying there are no exceptions.
Really, though, sticking "most" in is still just as wrong. That's like saying "most movies are dumb summer action blockbusters". Yeah, a lot of them that you see advertised on TV are. Yeah, a lot of money goes into them and they make a lot of money. But they are quickly forgotten if not openly derided years after their release, and for the most part only movies that do something interesting and unique are the ones anyone gives a shit about. This is what commercial video games are like.
All I know is I have a young (under 10) cousin who I play wii games with all the time. She loves Mario Kart, New Super Mario, that sort of "traditional" game.
Also I had her play "This is How Bees Work" by bentosmile on my computer and... get this... she loved that too!
But for how long? This is How Bees Work is entertaining for about thirty seconds.
Why the fuck do you have to argue over this? Why can't both types of games coexist? This is like claiming that since Independent films exist then THERE SHOULD NEVER BE ANY BIG BUDGET ACTION MOVIES.
Not all commercially produced games are big-budget action movies. This is the stereotype at the heart of the problem. People are ignoring some magnificent games because they think some lazy indies and their anti-games are the only creative spark in the industry.
Sure both sides will be smug and superior to the other but in the end they both play their part and neither really brings the other down.
As Ashford said, MNC was largely ignored while Limbo, an extremely basic puzzle platformer, sold like three times as much. Artfaggotry does hurt creativity.
So let's just let some people make traditional games and some people make experimental games and shut up about it alright?
No one is trying to stop anyone from making anything. This entire thread was about something Tale of Tales said, something that is entirely unrelated to the quality of their game.
It's people like you who are making up more than half this thread, slandering the conversation and everyone involved in it. Maybe this isn't very compelling to you, to talk about what makes games good or what's a good approach to design. That's cool. Leave.
The disagreement is here. You want more games like Monday Night Combat to exist other people flip right past the game and say oh great another game with big guns about blowing stuff up. (That's what I did).
You know nothing about Monday Night Combat if you think it's "just another game with big guns about blowing stuff up". The game is a class-based third-person shooter that gains a surprising amount of depth by emulating Western SRPGs like DOTA. There's a level of resource management between upgrading your character and building turrets and more AI-controlled robot troops that give the game a level of complexity that's a bit different from what you find in other games of the genre.
It's not that I think people must stop making games like that but just that I want a more broad range of games.
Idiotic. If that's what you wanted you'd be able to respect something like MNC. What I said above are things that set the game apart and provide a unique experience, but you're blind to them. It'd be so much better if it was some shitty platformer with intentionally ugly graphics about marital problems.
I hate to make analogies to other mediums but this has been said before. Books have lots of different stories and subject matter, games however do not. Many times the only difference between subject matter is only a facade laid on top of the very same game weve seen a million times before.
This is because what's important in games is different from what is important in books or movies. Games are about what the player can do, not some story told through graphics and cutscenes. This is because if the emphasis is exclusively on graphics and cutscenes, the interactive part of the game becomes unnecessary.
Exactly. I can think of nothing more elitist and destructive than that. And, to be honest, nothing more offensive to those of us who have been fighting for years - since long before there was a Tale of Tales - for the recognition of the interactive medium, for the idea that games are art.
Yeah I would disagree with that statement.
Of course you would. You are completely ignorant.
I don't believe all games are art but I think there are definitely a good amount that are.
And I'm certain not one of the games you are thinking of actually is art.
I dont think it's necessarily insulting, its just their view. I mean I dont think that chess is art, its a game.
Which is why you're so utterly lost.
Equally amazing as masterpieces of art but its just different.
Different because it's not a painting, movie, book, or music.
I think some videogames are Art though because they are more than just a mechanic and more than just a "Game".
This sentence is completely incomprehensible.
Player
