|
ITT: if you don't like the game you are a misogynist.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
If there's not going to be developer news or some kind of "gone home 2: the streets" or something and the rest of the thread is going to be fighting over who's the good guys or who's the bad guys in all this I might as well unbookmark now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Rita Repulsa posted:If there's not going to be developer news or some kind of "gone home 2: the streets" or something and the rest of the thread is going to be fighting over who's the good guys or who's the bad guys in all this I might as well unbookmark now. Good guys: Everyone except the bad guys. Bad guys: Someone who self-identifies as a gamer and says Gone Home isn't a game. Even our latest thread idiot agrees with this one so I take it that it's pretty uncontroversial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
you either unbookmark the thread a hero or live long enough to become the villain
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Well we can just solve that right now. Look at this guy, and he made this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Fair to Midland posted:My criticism was the playerbase, not the game. Which has so far just reinforced my opinion. Haha, people called you out for your low level of reading comprehension and confirmation bias and you blame them for your failure to make a mature and coherent argument. "You're going to tell me my argument was dumb? Oh yeah? Well I'm going to insinuate that I think you're a butthole. What do you have to say about that, smarty pants?  ""A couple of internet posters are having a complex discussion that I don't approve of. This reinforces my opinion that everyone who likes this game is a sensitive butterfly." boner confessor fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Haha, people called you out for your low level of reading comprehension and confirmation bias and you blame them for your failure to make a mature and coherent argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:We're just too emotional about this game to understand that we're too emotional about this game. If we could get over our overly emotional emotions, we'd be able to rationally understand the argument about how overly emotional we are. Then, having understood this argument, we'd uh... well... okay I'm missing step 2. But I definitely get that step 1 is all about me being too emotional about emotional video games like this and The Walking Dead, which was also an emotional video game about emotions. My emotions just can't handle it when people criticize Gone Home or The Walking Dead or in fact any other emotional game, because as a person with emotions, I find I have a kinship with games the inspire emotions. I'm also a very stupid person who can't understand that Fair to Midland is a smart, intelligent person who never claimed to dislike this game and only claimed that I was too emotional. Perhaps if my emotions had not gotten in the way I would not have accused Fair to Midland of disliking this game, something I (emotionally) did a number of times in this discussion, although if you ask me to quote the specific times I did this I will be oddly unable to find anything in my previous posts. Either I'm getting trolled or you're a loving lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Fair to Midland posted:Either I'm getting trolled or you're a loving lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:It's the former, although I prefer the label "sarcasm" to "troll" because trolling is all about pissing people off, whereas sarcasm is about ironic mocking that is largely indifferent to how the person being mocked takes it. This isn't the first time people in this thread have mocked you although I guess it's the first time it was so subtle as to set off your "maybe this isn't mocking me" alarm (which is itself hilarious because my post is anything but subtle). My first post here: Fair to Midland posted:You guys sure get defensive over criticism about a 90 minute graphic novel game. Maybe people would accept games like Gone Home more if people like you weren't so crazy. It's one of the reasons the Xbone threads are so funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
Fair to Midland posted:Maybe people would accept games like Gone Home more if people like you weren't so crazy. It's one of the reasons the Xbone threads are so funny. "It's YOUR fault nobody likes your dumb game!" That is what you said when someone disapproved of your dumb opinion. Are you fifteen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:ITT: if you don't like the game you are a misogynist. Fair to Midland posted:My first post here: ITT: people who can't read and jump to idiotic conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:ITT: people who can't read and jump to idiotic conclusions. ' People who call Gone Home "not a game" aren't doing games criticism, they're unthinkingly trying to exclude marginal voices from a hobby they desperately want to keep preserved in nerd amber, in pristine mid-90's misogynistic gross white dude PC gaming peripheral ad glory. ' :iamafag: I think it's a boring game with an insufferable, overly-defensive fanbase. The last few pages haven't really deviated from that, so
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Gone Home is an interesting little thing but it's hardly worth a zillion words of spazzoid poo poo to "defend" it from people who just accept it as a nice experimental story that doesn't break down any huge barriers. Also it attracts psychopaths who seem really desperate to champion it as a huge art happening when labeling "games as art" isn't even relevant. Calling it "arts" won't change the quality of the game whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:I think it's a boring game with an insufferable, overly-defensive fanbase. The last few pages haven't really deviated from that, so It's an interesting and innovative game that seems to piss people off largely because other people like it. I don't get how people who rag on the fanbase don't realize that they're just as insufferable as the people they profess to dislike but this circular pissing match about who cares the most/least has become one of my favorite aspects of the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's an interesting and innovative game that seems to piss people off largely because other people like it. I don't get how people who rag on the fanbase don't realize that they're just as insufferable as the people they profess to dislike but this circular pissing match about who cares the most/least has become one of my favorite aspects of the game. You've been one of the main driving forces behind that pissing match, dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:There is a lot of hate for "non-games" from people like you who couldn't tell Wittgenstein from Bernard Suits if you force-fed them essentialist arguments until the cows come home. People like you think stuff like Proteus and Gone Home shouldn't be sold on Steam because Steam is for games and these are non-games. People like you think they've been tricked into buying "art" when what they wanted was "fun." People who make "non-games" get harassed by "gamers" who see themselves as defending gaming from the encroaching tide of "art games" that aren't "actual" games. holy poo poo you're a loving nutcase
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:' People who call Gone Home "not a game" aren't doing games criticism, they're unthinkingly trying to exclude marginal voices from a hobby they desperately want to keep preserved in nerd amber, in pristine mid-90's misogynistic gross white dude PC gaming peripheral ad glory. ' That statement you quoted was pretty spot on so I'm not sure what the problem is. Why are people who (publicly) say that they're not that enthused by the game so quick to jump in and defend the manbabies who can't handle other people calling Gone Home a game, and having the audacity to like it? Like, you could criticize the game but instead you come into this thread to be an insufferable douche by defending even more insufferable douches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:35
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:That statement you quoted was pretty spot on so I'm not sure what the problem is. Why are people who (publicly) say that they're not that enthused by the game so quick to jump in and defend the manbabies who can't handle other people calling Gone Home a game, and having the audacity to like it? Like, you could criticize the game but instead you come into this thread to be an insufferable douche by defending even more insufferable douches. Pointing out the absurdity of someone's statement isn't the same as defending their detractors. vvv - Making it a gimmick doesn't mean you're any less of a tool about things, matey boy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
MinibarMatchman posted:Gone Home is an interesting little thing but it's hardly worth a zillion words of spazzoid poo poo to "defend" it from people who just accept it as a nice experimental story that doesn't break down any huge barriers. Also it attracts psychopaths who seem really desperate to champion it as a huge art happening when labeling "games as art" isn't even relevant. Calling it "arts" won't change the quality of the game whatsoever. It's the relatively light weight of the game that lets people project their opinions onto folks on the other side of it. You can categorize the most common bad arguments against the game - it's not a game, it's misleading, it's only popular because it's progressive/liberal - and all of these arguments serve as shorthand against the direction of indie gaming in general. So arguments that begin against Gone Home often spiral into arguments about SJW, or what is/isn't art, or whatever. poptart_fairy posted:You've been one of the main driving forces behind that pissing match, dude. I haven't? I'm just calling out dumb posts, because that's kind of fun. Your posts just suck though. Enjoy! DrNutt posted:That statement you quoted was pretty spot on so I'm not sure what the problem is. Why are people who (publicly) say that they're not that enthused by the game so quick to jump in and defend the manbabies who can't handle other people calling Gone Home a game, and having the audacity to like it? Like, you could criticize the game but instead you come into this thread to be an insufferable douche by defending even more insufferable douches. Other people are not allowed to have incorrect opinions. That's why I stick to pointing out when someone says something blatantly dumb like "it's the whiny fanbase that makes this game unpopular" or "I'm easily confused by simple media so I thought this was supposed to be a slenderman game". boner confessor fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Pointing out the absurdity of someone's statement isn't the same as defending their detractors. The statement you quoted wasn't absurd though, it was actually a pretty accurate summation of much of the criticism that Gone Home has received. It might have been a bit hyperbolic, but I'm not sure how that really stands out on these here SomethingAwful dot com forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:The statement you quoted wasn't absurd though, it was actually a pretty accurate summation of much of the criticism that Gone Home has received. It might have been a bit hyperbolic, but I'm not sure how that really stands out on these here SomethingAwful dot com forums. Because it's a sincere riposte to anyone who doesn't fall over Gone Home in praise. Not liking it is apparently less about not attaining 100 percent satisfaction with the game and more about being some sort of neckbearded homophobe, apparently. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Because it's a sincere riposte to anyone who doesn't fall over Gone Home in praise. No it isn't? It's specifically directed at certain obnoxious detractors, not at criticism of the game in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:No it isn't? Yes it is. The crazies aren't the only ones who dislike the game. Why is that so hard to accept?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:No it isn't? It's specifically directed at certain obnoxious detractors, not at criticism of the game in general. You're trying to convince a guy who used the phrase "a sincere riposte" that his opinion might be poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Yes it is. The crazies aren't the only ones who dislike the game. Why is that so hard to accept?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 09:16
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Yes it is. The crazies aren't the only ones who dislike the game. Why is that so hard to accept? I never said that and neither did the other person talking about 90s PC gamer misogyny or whatever. Your reading comprehension could use some help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
Tycho isn't the only one accusing the game's detractors of being misogynistic, which is my point. The thread is kinda self-fulfilling by this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Tycho isn't the only one accusing the game's detractors of being misogynistic, which is my point. The thread is kinda self-fulfilling by this point. edit: I realize now using the word "misogyny" was a big mistake. Had I said "Cheetos-fingered" instead of "misogynistic" people wouldn't have gotten so emotional and maybe they would've paid attention to what I actually wrote rather than what their fevered anti-social-justice brains thought I wrote. Unfortunately by mentioning sexism I've brought out of the woodwork all the people who find it necessary to speak up and fight back against any attempt (however small and incidental) to brand any part of gaming at all sexist. TychoCelchuuu fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:I did not accuse all of the game's detractors of being misogynistic, and in fact one of the game's biggest critics, Ian Bogost, is someone I agree almost 100% with, as I've pointed out like seven times, apparently to no avail. I did not even accuse any of the game's detractors of misogyny. I accused the fraction of the game's detractors who call it not a game of trying to preserve gaming "in pristine mid-90's misogynistic gross white dude PC gaming peripheral ad glory." This is not to say that they themselves are misogynistic. If you think it follows from their attempts to preserve gaming in the form that it existed throughout most of its history that they are misogynists, then that's fine, but I wouldn't necessarily agree. How does wanting gameplay, defined here by me for the purposes of this question as something you do that affects something in the game, anything at all, have anything to do with 90s misogyny, white dudes, PC peripherals, or any of that other stuff like the culture war or whatever it was? You called me stupid enough times in the past few pages so I figure you could do me a solid and explain it so I can get better at thinking with my brain. I mean who identifies themselves as a gamer? What the gently caress is a culture war? Why are you so angry all the time? How in the gently caress does any of this have anything to do with sexism?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
I didn't bother to read the last five pages but I just want to chime in to say:MyronGognitti posted:Anybody that's a fan of Gone Home is an enemy of video games to be honest. Although that doesn't just mean Carolyn. There's a whole sloth of reviewers that gave that turd a glowing review that should be culled from their jobs. is one of the funniest thing I've read on this forum this year. Thanks Fullbright Company for making this game to bring the entertainment I sought for on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's an interesting and innovative game It's not really anything innovative though. I don't care about any of the stupid "It's not a game" spiel, I just get a little annoyed that either it's the worst game because "WOMEN, FEMINISM, TUMBLR, SJW  / " or the most groundbreaking game because "INNOVATION, GAMERS, WHITE PEOPLE /" and everyone just has to be in one of those groups or the other.I thought it might have a neat story and all but it was just kind of boring in my opinion, when I'm someone who usually enjoys exploration games that are just all atmosphere and point & clicks when I can find them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 13:49
|
|
Yardbomb posted:I thought it might have a neat story and all but it was just kind of boring in my opinion, when I'm someone who usually enjoys exploration games that are just all atmosphere and point & clicks when I can find them. Do you mean that the story was boring, or the way it was presented? And like, did you really dig deep to find all the plot threads or just find most of the journal pages and leave it at that? I'm not trying to be a douche by asking that, I'm just trying to clarify what you mean by it being boring.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
The story really didn't do anything for me. I get how it'd work for others and the setting was fine, I just couldn't stay into it long enough to really dig through and analyze everything the way people do I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
I feel like Mr. Freeze, as played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, has copious amounts of advice applicable to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
ja2ke posted:I feel like Mr. Freeze, as played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, has copious amounts of advice applicable to this thread. Oh that's nice, it's ice to meet you too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Al! posted:Oh that's nice, it's ice to meet you too. And the one thing you quote is McBain. Really, though, the easiest solution to all of this is for people to just be quiet. There are a lot of games which some people adore and some people have no response to whatsoever (basically all games minus the rounding error of a couple like Gone Home), so it's not hard. Because of Gone Home's mechanical content and its narrative content, people get understandably defensive, but really we're all adults here (or at least pretend we are). It feels like everyone has said their piece about five times over the last five pages. Whatever your argument is at this point, everybody either gets it, will never get it, or gets it but wishes to continue on with their lives unaffected by the presentation. ja2ke fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Nurge posted:How does wanting gameplay, defined here by me for the purposes of this question as something you do that affects something in the game, anything at all, have anything to do with 90s misogyny, white dudes, PC peripherals, or any of that other stuff like the culture war or whatever it was? You called me stupid enough times in the past few pages so I figure you could do me a solid and explain it so I can get better at thinking with my brain. I mean who identifies themselves as a gamer? What the gently caress is a culture war? Why are you so angry all the time? How in the gently caress does any of this have anything to do with sexism? Alright well I'm going to explain what is meant by culture war, why people would be up in arms about this, and what it has to do with sexism. I don't know whether you live in America or not but culture war refers to a broad range of divisive cultural, social, and political topics in America that has been ongoing for a number of decades. This encompasses everything from women's rights, racism, abortion, LGBT rights, etc. This isn't just big ticket prominent items everyone knows about; its more underlying issues too (and to draw it back to the topic at hand) like the treatment of women protagonists in video games, women in game development, the acceptance of incorporating LGBT issues into a video game, and the willingness of studios to fund any and all of this. Video games are still a business and it has the perception (and to a large extent a reality) of being a boys club both in development and playing. Investors are less willing to fund games that break away from safe money making formulas. The development of indie games is important because its a breeding ground for testing new ideas and themes that wont get funding in the AAA industry because the ideas are perceived as 'too risky.' So whenever a game like Gone Home comes along the reaction on both a commercial level and a social level matter. Gone Home might not be a perfect game, but its also probably one of the most commercially successful games to approach topics like a non-sexualized female lead protagonist, LGBT issues, and its particular style of gameplay. (Note: I'm not saying that this is the only game to have done any or all of these things, but it is no less a milestone for how much attention its gotten specifically over these issues.) Now the reaction of the gaming community in how it handles games like Gone Home matters. Push backs to exclude video games like Gone Home from the perceived circle of Real Games or not might or might not matter on a commercial level (I cannot with any authority make the claim that clamoring gamers as opposed to sale numbers have an effect on the willingness for investors to fund an idea); however it does matter in a way that people interact with games. Excluding certain games as Non-Games is an attempt to socially ostracize and exclude either the people who enjoy these games or the people who identify with these games in some way. This can matter in how a community grows because it either invites or does not invite people to play games and that will effect what games investors are willing to fund. For example, if Gone Home (and other games like it) make people who normally wouldn't be willing to try video games then the potential consumer base grows and changes. It provides the opportunity for more games along a similar vein to be funded since there are now more potential customers. However, if these people try Gone Home and enjoy it, but end up not getting involved with gaming because they do not feel welcome playing games then that change will never happen. Its not just consumers who play games either that might change; in the long term it matters because it changes the potential people who might get involved with making games. Development of games is very much a male dominated field. If gaming remains insular from both women customers and women developers it serves to reinforce the continual cycle of 'safe' development tactics targeted at the 18-29 male demographic with no concern for anyone else. It stifles potential innovation in game design and also reinforces the idea that games can't be art. (This is not to say that Gone Home is art because I don't have the time to type up that wall of text too, but a continual cycle that produces nothing but shooters aimed at the 18-29 demographic will likely never be able to create a game that is accepted as 'art.') And just to spell it out in case it needs to be said. The reason any of this has to do with sexism is because gaming as it is right now, on both a community and development level, is pretty sexist with regards to women. In a game market targeted exclusively at 18-29 men women are frequently treated as nothing more than eye candy or as a plot device to motivate male power fantasies. Women are all too frequently treated as objects in games rather than real people. Furthermore the treatment of women by gaming communities in general is incredibly hosed up. The most common reactions to women is outright misogyny ('ironic' or not its still ugly as hell) or loving creepy when they're just treated as sexual objects. Being harassed into leaving a game or out of a community because you're a woman is not exactly uncommon. Edit: gently caress Im never typing this poo poo out on a phone again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
I'm just going to...right, so: I think this is a bad game, but a step in the right direction. It is, by strict definition, a game: it has complex mechanics with which the player interacts (physical, mainly) and a series of easily enumerable, completable goals (opening doors, reading notes, etc.). It is, however, excessively dependent upon sympathy. I am, as far as I can tell, in the intended demographic (working, vaguely modern pc). That said, after 2 mildly-different play-throughs, I felt as if the game relied too much on the audience sympathizing with their (in-game) sister and her plight. I did not, and found the game therefore somewhat boring. I am a queer man in the Southern US who was vaguely a teenager in the '90s. I do not dispute the good the game does by making the main character - Sam - female, nor the usefulness of having her being homosexual, at least for this story. Instead, I question its adoption of video games as the correct medium. It is, here, novel, but reserves far too many relics of the designers' past experience creating standard FPS' (my preferred grouping, of course). I am compelled to do everything I can, as per the game's explicit constraints, in my first play-through, because surely they would make a coherent argument no matter what you did outside of the basic necessities? Thus, I collected everything but the extra journal entry on my first play-through. I did my best to find out everything about everyone, unlock everything the game presented as locked, and know everything there was to know by the time I hit the end. That said, I didn't much care for any characters presented, because I was never presented with a reason in game to care. Yes, were these people living near me, I might care, but they aren't, and everything interesting has already happened. Thus, I simply awaited confirmation of things I'd predicted: I'll admit, I was hoping the parents had split. I only collected all of Sam's entries because I could, and the game expected it not because it mattered to me. I am, however, interested in further games like this one, preferably with better in-game reasons to do what I'm doing. Because when I get home, and my younger siblings have written me a run-away note and nobody else is home, I just got to sleep. That's not convincing. edit:woo, that was long. I really like my keyboard, y'all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
Lilli posted:Alright well I'm going to explain what is meant by culture war, why people would be up in arms about this, and what it has to do with sexism. Polyseme posted:I'm just going to...right, so: I think this is a bad game, but a step in the right direction. It is, by strict definition, a game: it has complex mechanics with which the player interacts (physical, mainly) and a series of easily enumerable, completable goals (opening doors, reading notes, etc.). It is, however, excessively dependent upon sympathy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 18:02
|
|