" @TwoOneFive said:and...? thats it. you answered a question with a question. you have no fucking clue what you are trying to say do you?" this is bullshit.... what makes a game like Modern Warfare 2 not as good or better than anything that came out in the 90s?! theres a good fucking reason that game sold so well. "Because it's the exact same thing as last year? "
What do you think of this term I coined?
for now on stop worrying about pointless things like this. just play games and have fun. who cares right?
He's 18. He was born in 1992 so wasnt even old enough to be playing those games when they came out. Ignore this hipster douche bag, who isnt even hipster enough to stick to his guns:
@pretender15 said:
" You know, everyone, on second thought, I wasn't the nicest person in this thread. And so I apologize if anyone was offended by anything I said. Let's all just try to get along and discuss this in a calm and polite manner. "
Video games are indeed better than they were in the 90s. It's true that there were a lot of innovative ideas in the 90s but they were wrapped up in some seriously shitty mechanics. It's like this: Tron was incredibly innovative for its time, and I still love that movie, but damn has it aged badly. Special-effects laden movies are much better now.
" @TwoOneFive said:The reason there is very little innovation coming into these games is because these are the games the majority of their audience wants. Changing anything in this series would do more damage than good. That being said, for people who enjoy these games, the changes they make are quite a bit bigger than they seem. Anyone who's played a decent amount of the CoD series would most likely argue that the general feel of Black Ops is drastically different from Modern Warfare 2, and that's enough for us. Before you call me a 'streamer' please realize that I play a wide array of games, but unlike you, I don't choose to section off the mainstream and belittle it simply because I don't like it." this is bullshit.... what makes a game like Modern Warfare 2 not as good or better than anything that came out in the 90s?! theres a good fucking reason that game sold so well. "Because it's the exact same thing as last year? "
OP is the most obvious Troll I have ever seen on the Interwebz. You should all be ashamed of yourselves :-)
" Almost everyone who's replied to this thread is clearly a 'streamer'. I'd say you were pretty spot on with that term, dude - you've hit more than a few nerves! "Maybe most of us just don't like the smell of bullshit? I know I hate it.
I also hate pretentious elitist dickwad asshats. So I'd be posting the same thing whether I agreed with any of his opinions or not.
I find myself more and more like this, playing only the big game that is relatively short but I know will deliver what it is supposed, between work, hockey, dating, friends and keeping my home clean and happy, video games are no longer life...not everyone treats games as THEIR one hobby anymore...get over it, great innovative games still come out, and just because they don't sell like Black Ops, get over it!
" @PrivateIronTFU said:This my friends is what we call in Psychology research, FALSE CONSENSUS! If you are on a board of 0s games fans....THEY WILL ALL AGREEActually games in the 90s were better. We have this discussion multiple times a week over at the Steam forums, SW:TOR forums, and many other forums. "" Guess what? Games ARE better than they were in the 90s. Nostalgia fucks with your head. Everything seems better when you remember it. Probably because people like you were thinner and had more friends in the 90s. So obviously things are going to seem better than they are now. But they're not. "
We get you are cool for hating mainstream games. Now go play your obscure turn based strategy RPG from Nipon Ichi or Atlus.
" @Ragdrazi:1. I'm sorry, but let's say we're in a room that is too hot. Everyone within that room falls into two categories. Those happy with the situation and those not. Ok, perhaps there's a third. People with no opinion.
1) I'm not accepting that demarcation as valid, as are at least a few other people here who've echoed that same sentiment, yes it exists, but I'd like to begin to break it down. This term only reifies that which has no real valid basis. Thus while my complaint should rightly be pointed at the creators of the demarcation that extends to this term.
2) I'm not sure where it's proven that nobody in the mainstream cares for innovation, they may want it less than other people, but you're responding to my request for evidence by saying "it's proven elsewhere", maybe I'm dumb, or poorly read, but I fail to see that proven anywhere. Sure that's an argument I should take up with whoever proved it, but maybe pretender could cite a source there or something.
3) I'm not saying it implies something about pretender here, I'm saying that we have no good way to call someone the lowest common denominator. Saying he might be it, isn't a personal attack it's an example of what I'm trying to say. While I appreciate that his term isn't = the existence of a lowest common denominator, if we have no good way of determining what a lowest common denominator is then the term itself is kind of incoherent insofar as applicability is concerned.
With regards to the innovation argument, it seems to me like you're missing my whole point about his contradiction (if the mainstream people don't want innovation then they wouldn't be a market for the kind of innovation he wants, so they aren't really hurting the cause) Also innovation in sequels to some of his favorite game has provoked ire in a lot of fans, look at diablo 3. What is considered innovation, or at least positive innovation, seems to exist only within an individual, which is fine, but it also means that trying to use a term as a slur based off of what's purely internal seems silly to me at best. Sure people do it, but I think it's kind of dumb.
@SeriouslyNow: Honestly, and maybe this is just me, I never really liked the single player experience in any of the Call of Duty games. Sure there are flaws with the way that game handles stuff, but it seems to me that with the advent of the net and distribution platforms like steam, games that do fulfill the desires of other people still exists. "
2. It is unproven that no one in the mainstream cares about innovation. That is not a part of the statement being referenced by the term. The statement is "Game designers are increasingly turning to the lowest common denominator to make money." That statement is often spoken, and taken as fact. The statement has no properties which make it universal to all designers and all products.
3. Neither the term nor the statements say that anyone IS the lowest common denominator. They say that the SITUATION has turned towards the lowest common denominator. The term then further states that there are people happy about the situation. The term itself does not need to prove what is meant by "lowest common denominator" in the statement, taken as fact, "Game designers are increasingly turning to the lowest common denominator to make money." Is it this a statement commonly made and taken as fact? Yes. Is it self evidently true that in any situation, any at all, there were be those who assent and those who oppose? Yes.
In all of the above, you have been attacking a strawman. So far you've had no grounds to attack.
Now, you're turning the statement around. "There are people happy that game designers are increasingly turning to the lowest common denominator," you are turning to "Game designers increasingly turning to the lowest common denominator must be supported by those happy." Ok. Yes, that is a logical statement that can be made off of Pretenders statement. And so what. It's hardly a contradiction.
How are Dungeon Crawlers considered good games..."I'll sit and click things endlessly and grind forever"...ya'friggin'hoo...They run on the same basis of reward system as Farmville, brilliant...." @TehFlan said:
" @pretender15: I can't speak for a lot of those games, but there have been plenty of games in the past decade that were at least as good. For example, GoldenEye. I loved it ten years ago, but I played it again over the summer and it feels super clunky. I don't play a lot of FPS's, but even I can see that the genre has evolved. That's true for most genres and franchises. Plenty of other games on your list have been improved upon in the last decade. Starcraft 2 is an awesome game, far better than the original in terms of campaign. Civ V is amazing. MGS3 was my favorite in the series. And while I don't think any action-adventure game in the past decade has been as huge a leap as Ocarina as Time, even Wind Waker and Twilight Princess were just as good as games, not to mention other games in the genre, at least when looked at objectively. Of course, there's no accounting for taste and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but saying gaming as a whole was better in the 90's is way too much of a generalization. And more on-topic: Why Streamers? I'll never understand people's need to label others, but I find it fascinating to see why words are used how they are, and I'm curious as to what inspired you to chose this word in particular. People have already pointed out its flaws, but I'm sure you had your own rationalizations, so what were they? "Everything nowadays is made for the lowest common denominator. Games like dungeon crawlers, survival horror, stealth, tactical shooters, and other such games no longer exist. Everything is created for the lowest common denominator. "
And I guess you didn't play Amnesia (Survival Horror). These games will come back once they are popular again...Survival Horror, Stealth, etc...they had A LOT of games for them ad were popular then began to get saturated, they need a break for a while. FPS will be the same, people will eventually get bored of them and move on
And stop saying lowest common denominator over and over like it is an intelligent statement....what the hell does that even mean?
How are Dungeon Crawlers considered good games..."I'll sit and click things endlessly and grind forever"...ya'friggin'hoo...They run on the same basis of reward system as Farmville, brilliant...." @TehFlan said:
Everything nowadays is made for the lowest common denominator. Games like dungeon crawlers, survival horror, stealth, tactical shooters, and other such games no longer exist. Everything is created for the lowest common denominator. "" @pretender15: I can't speak for a lot of those games, but there have been plenty of games in the past decade that were at least as good. For example, GoldenEye. I loved it ten years ago, but I played it again over the summer and it feels super clunky. I don't play a lot of FPS's, but even I can see that the genre has evolved. That's true for most genres and franchises. Plenty of other games on your list have been improved upon in the last decade. Starcraft 2 is an awesome game, far better than the original in terms of campaign. Civ V is amazing. MGS3 was my favorite in the series. And while I don't think any action-adventure game in the past decade has been as huge a leap as Ocarina as Time, even Wind Waker and Twilight Princess were just as good as games, not to mention other games in the genre, at least when looked at objectively. Of course, there's no accounting for taste and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but saying gaming as a whole was better in the 90's is way too much of a generalization. And more on-topic: Why Streamers? I'll never understand people's need to label others, but I find it fascinating to see why words are used how they are, and I'm curious as to what inspired you to chose this word in particular. People have already pointed out its flaws, but I'm sure you had your own rationalizations, so what were they? "
And I guess you didn't play Amnesia (Survival Horror). These games will come back once they are popular again...Survival Horror, Stealth, etc...they had A LOT of games for them ad were popular then began to get saturated, they need a break for a while. FPS will be the same, people will eventually get bored of them and move on
And stop saying lowest common denominator over and over like it is an intelligent statement....what the hell does that even mean?
Seeing as how this thread isn't dying quickly enough, I feel it's necessary to expedite the process. Let's begin by coming up with nonsensical derogatory terms for people with various hobbies, starting with the most heinous of them all, stamp collectors.
"I can't stand those god damned lickers."
Who's next?
"Seeing as how this thread isn't dying quickly enough, I feel it's necessary to expedite the process. Let's begin by coming up with nonsensical derogatory terms for people with various hobbies, starting with the most heinous of them all, stamp collectors.
"I can't stand those god damned lickers." Who's next? "
Coin collectors. GO!
Also, the idea is that you can't actually define what the lowest common denominator is. This is especially true in the current entertainment industry, where there are so many niches and specific genres, and very few, if any, appeal to the vast majority anymore. Because of the diversity in within this industry, anyone can realistically expect to find something they enjoy, and not have to worry about fitting in with whatever is most popular, since their custom-tailored needs would be met. Look at some of the top titles this year. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is vastly different in gameplay and style than Call of Duty: Black Ops. Yet because both are extremely popular, mainstream titles, one must assume that, from your stance, both are made for the lowest common denominator. The same must be assumed for Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2, StarCraft II, and World of Warcraft. Yet none of these games are really similar besides the medium, and all of them appeal to different groups of players. Serious WoW players don't play Black Ops, and nearly all Black Ops players most likely don't play WoW. How can all of these games be made for the lowest common denominator and share little, if any, similarities?
And since each game has a different appeal, each game must support separate populations. So which population is the Lowest Common Denominator? Blops? WoW? SCII? There are many people who play all of these games, but does that mean that they are the lowest common denominator?
Gameplay may be tailored to sell the most units possible; that doesn't automatically mean that it's made for everybody. For all you know, the game that sells the most copies simply has the largest number of individuals in a certain marketing demographic.
Let's talk about music as an analogy for a moment. Pop artists sell the most. Does this mean that pop is made for the lowest common denominator, or are pop listeners just the largest demographic as far as music purchases are concerned? I can't prove that my hypothesis is correct, but you can't prove yours, either.
"More fucking shiners showing up every day. When I was growing up, this country had values. Now look at it."
Keep 'em coming.
Alternatively, we could go with Kleenex Addict, but I don't want Kimberly-Clark Worldwide on my ass.
1) You're absolutely right in the case of temperature, but my complaint dealt specifically with him trying to categorize gamers into subcultures or niches, I hardly find that to be a fair basis for a phrase with negative implications at the least. I'm not disagreeing that people do it, I just don't think it's good, and as such a term that promotes it, and uses that viewpoint to shit on people is crap. To use your example, if someone say's this room is hot, and someone else says this room is cold they are making a statement purely about their own experience of the room. Sticking other people into niches is different, more importantly even if we grant validity to the analogy, I have no problem with them saying that the room is hot or cold. However if they then made a term for everyone else (warmers for example) and said that as a result of warmers room temperature was modified for the lowest common denominator, then I might have a problem.
2) This is absolutely being referenced within the term, allow me to quote "And other people who are strictly into mainstream stuff, and don't care about innovation"
3) I'll admit I'm making a bit of an inference on this point, this mainly comes from the part where he writes "Everything nowadays is made for the lowest common denominator" given that this term applies to the mainstream who, logically, are the ones buying most of these games it seems fair to assume that some of them fit this description. I'll give you that it doesn't apply to everyone, but it does extend to some within the category. My third attack is weak.
To respond to my last point, I'm not really trying to say what you think I'm saying. My whole point there is that if we accept all of pretenders statements to be true, then we still lack a basis for the creation of a derogatory phrase, because "streamers" wouldn't really be a market for these innovative games in the first place, and therefore they don't really harm innovation in a substantive way. I think this is borne out to an extent by the fact that indie devs are managing to put out some really interesting stuff now, and steam is making experimentation a much more reasonable process. Basically this argument can be summarized into, they aren't hurtin nobody so why do we have to be hatin' on 'em?
And also, the phrase "lowest common denominator" isn't even clearly defined, yet he uses it like everyone knows and agrees on what it is. Which is kind of the point beej made (that not only is it not clearly defined, the phrase has no agreed-upon meaning in this instance).
Except Ragdrazi is being tricky by (grammatically incorrectly) using the passive voice in each statement, so that he can later say that he was talking about others' feelings. But really, being opinions, his statements belong in the active voice. Whatevs, though.
@AltonBrown: How about we do one for people whose hobby it is to go around and make ironic statements and shit on what's popular as a way to make themselves look like they're "above" the mainstream?
" @beej said:It means that you are only seeing the good parts and weren't there to see the vast amounts of crap that came out in those days as well....what do you say to guy who says anything beyond 2D kills gaming?? It's a blanketing statement that only applies to one set of opinions" @buzz_clik: Probably not, he was 8 when the 90's ended, so he's only gone back and played the good games. So no duh the generation looks great that way. "I play both newer and older games, and have done so for several years. I fail to see what that has to do with anything though. "
" @beej: Seriously dude, you're making me feel bad. I legitimately don't like it when people are smarter than me.@example1013: @AltonBrown: how about one for jackasses like me who kept posting on a stupid thread and giving these elitists the fight they ask for....almost feel silly for saying anything :P
@AltonBrown: How about we do one for people whose hobby it is to go around and make ironic statements and shit on what's popular as a way to make themselves look like they're "above" the mainstream? "
" @beej said:Just because I've fired a gun on numerous occasions doesn't mean I know what it was like to be in World War II. And if that's the case, how many shonky 90s games have you played? Have you only gone back and tried the titles that people tell you are worth playing?" @buzz_clik: Probably not, he was 8 when the 90's ended, so he's only gone back and played the good games. So no duh the generation looks great that way. "I play both newer and older games, and have done so for several years. I fail to see what that has to do with anything though. "
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment