A somehow managed to do a thing this week. Enjoy.
Gamer_152's forum posts
The exact approach they have to the series currently isn't long-term sustainable, there's only so bombastic and so crazy these games are going to be able to get, but I don't see how the head of the Third Street Saints being the President of the United States who fight aliens is a bad thing, that's pretty great. In fact in general I'm not sure I get the concept of something being "too crazy". For me a big part of the draw of Saint's Row isn't just that it's nuts, but that they have a unique style and great deal of ingenuity in their crazy ideas and execute on them with real care and dedication. Seeing the series trade that in for something as played out as "You're an urban gangsta and you shoot people" would just be depressing.
Assuming that he was always taking the emotional and psychological well-being of these kids into account, I think the Dad did a really good thing. Kids are impressionable and the idea of them mostly seeing modern warfare through the lens of a typical action game is a little worrying. I mean there's nothing wrong with playing CoD and I think at that age, some kids can play those games and take their content on-board without it doing any damage to them, but it's important that they have a perspective and sense of reality on the real-world events those games are depicting. There seem to be some people who are unhappy with the father's actions here, but how can you ever construe expanding their worldview and making them aware of the hardships people face as a negative thing?
I think it would be a big loss to pass up spending time with someone you like just because you don't have a car. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should get in the way that much.
While I can see flaws in certain terms and I think sometimes we do need to move away from certain kinds of language, I don't think there's a big problem with the terms you're describing, and I don't think the solutions you propose would have a particularly meaningful effect on the way we talk about video games.
With the "ludonarrative dissonance" example, yes, it is often seen as pretentious and is a bit wordy, but no, I do not think it purely exists in that form just to be pseudo-intellectual, I think it exists in that form to fully encapsulate what the term describes. It's talking about a dissonance between the gameplay (ludo) and the narrative. In a situation like that "ludonarrative dissonance", while perhaps a bit long-winded, is about the most straightforward and intuitive descriptor you can image. Maybe we could get by a better in some ways with "narrative dissonance", but as @video_game_king said it's sort of missing the crucial "game" part that describes what ludonarrative dissonance is, and I do think this line of thinking buys into a lot of the hysteria surrounding any kind of in-depth or meaningful games criticism beyond something like "The quest system isn't very good" being pretentious. I think our arguments should be judged as arguments and not on what individual terms we happen to use, and I've seen "You used that long word" utilised to unconstructively try to shut down discussions about games way too many times. Additionally I don't think academia = science or that games criticism shouldn't strive in some situations to be academic.
The "roguelike" thing I've seen rage for a while and I think it comes from the problem that genre boundaries are somewhat subjective. There is no single entirely objective definition of "roguelike" and so the lines we must draw on what is or is not a roguelike are somewhat arbitrary. Sure, a lot of the "roguelikes" of today may not be exactly like Rogue, but terms change and evolve and there are plenty of words in the English language with original meanings that they drifted away from but are still considered totally valid. Additionally, I don't think "permadeath games" fully covers a lot of what people are talking about when they use the term "roguelike". Yes, these games may have permadeath, but other common aspects of these games that this term does not cover are procedurally generated gameplay scenarios and a focus on loot collection.
There are a lot of people in here talking about censorship. I don't think this is censorship or at the very least I think we need to draw a distinction between this and when we talk about censorship in terms of a government controlling what you can and cannot say. There is nothing stopping the creator of the game self-publishing it, but what's being suggested here is that everyone is by default owed a place for their products in the store of a private company. That we are all entitled to the time, energy, and resources it takes Google to host our products, regardless of what content our product actually contains, and that anything less than a fulfilment of that is "censorship". I don't think that's the case and I'm not exactly bummed about Google removing a game from their store in which you can bomb Hamas while actual Hamas are being bombed in the world. If this was meant to be a serious, respectful analysis of the situation perhaps it would be fine, or perhaps this would be a grey area, but this is just cartoonish and tasteless.
If you were someone that printed t-shirts and you went to a major clothes retailer with "Bomb Hamas" shirts and they said "We won't stock that" do you think that would be censorship or that they would be in some way breaching your rights by not stocking whatever you gave them? I think this idea that removing the game from the store was "censorship" has come from the fact that people are used to companies hosting whatever they have online regardless of what that thing is and that the internet provides a level of abstraction to this whole thing. I don't believe Google have done anything wrong here.
I'd also like to mention that anyone who posts in this or any other thread being attacking or generally a jerk to other users will be moderated. Thanks.