@daneian said:
@believer258 said:
@joshwent said:
@clonedzero said:
Whats with all these articles being "I didnt like GTA because it was a GTA game, now look at me as i attempt to look smart by expecting the game to be something its not"?
Yeah, that "Verbs" essay is really disappointing. There's a growing trend of critics who dismiss games and call them failures because they can't play them exactly how they want.
In some games, the story is created by you, the player, as the main character/s. In other games, you're experiencing the story through the main character/s. Just because I can't make Franklin put the guns down, go to college, and get a steady job, doesn't mean the game is flawed. It means your ability to experience story is.
This. So much this. Not every game has to have a story where player choice fits into it - making the player take part in a concrete story can have just as much effect as giving the player several different "choices", and I put choices in quotes because it's almost always just variations on the same event.
Yeah, I wasn't aware of this criticism in the previous generations. I wonder if its recent appearance came with the rise of western game development on consoles and the non-linear story and gameplay philosophies that they had evolved on PC's.
I think you're onto something. I get why people like games that give them more agency, but I generally don't, and I resent the idea that games need to give the player some form of narrative authorship. I like having a story told to me, and barring a few outlying cases, games that take a firmer hand in storytelling are able to tell more interesting stories.
The author says you can't "make any meaningful choices that affect the world or the story", and it doesn't seem to occur to him that it could have been a deliberate choice rather than design flaw. It's a fair criticism in the sense that the author is entitled to his own preferences, but I don't like the way some of this stuff is framed in language that implies more player choice and agency is inherently better.
@daneian said:
I'm so tired of the argument that the hatred thrown at Sarkeesian and Petit is somehow proof that videogames are sexist and need feminism. It generalizes the group based on the actions of a percentage of the members in it and then lays blame for those actions directly at the feet of the medium. This sure didn't fly when videogames were accused of causing violence.
You're not alone, and frankly, I think it's a manner of time until a similar critical angle is applied to violence in video games. Once we've opened the door on calling for artistic self-censorship based on value judgements and the premise that people derive their values from art (and not the other way around), it's going tough to stop the precedent from being fairly co-opted for other issues.
To apply that more directly to the issue at hand, if a prominent U.S. lawyer opened a moral crusade on video game violence and a bunch of YouTube commenters called him names and sent him death threats, would that mean video games had a violence problem?
It's weird watching critics and journalists who raised such a fuss about the moral hysteria over video game violence setting up the groundwork for its resuscitation.
I really hope I'm just overreacting, but I'm less and less sure of that.
Log in to comment