|
Archer666 posted:It's been mentioned before, but I think the group of gamers that want games to be seen as art are not the group of gamers who are angry about the "critical eye" that some put on it. Nah, there's usually significant overlap. The key factor is that they think if "games are art" then that means they won't be called a weirdo for playing them. They don't think about actual art criticism.
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:the question "are video games art?" forgets that there exists distinctions within film between art house and commercial schlock flims yet no one doubts film is artful medium There's actually not a distinction, at least for actual film critics.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I think it might be responsible for the type of thing we're seeing with no man's sky. To many, a video game isn't the result of a creative endeavour, but a thing that exists by itself. When a developer comes along and says "sorry, game won't be out next month," the developer is now coming between the consumer and the video game. The developer only exists to realize the game (which exists as a notion separate from being made). The developer serves the game, rather than being the creator of it. This reminds me of a phenomenon that appears in a lot of internet popular culture, and especially video games, which has been shorthanded to the term "nerdism". Basically, the thesis in nerdism is that for many activities, the product or work of art or whatever is not actually enjoyable. People don't have fun watching the movie or playing the game or whatever. Instead, they have fun by anticipating the release of the game/movie/whatever. The marketing campaign itself turns into an activity for enjoyment, and when the actual product comes out, all people can think about is "where's the next one"? Let's use the most infamous video game in recent memory as an example - Star Citizen. People don't actually enjoy Star Citizen. Even before they announced all the alternate modes, what it was originally was basically "EVE Online, but with different ships". If people liked that, they would play EVE Online. No, what people enjoy is the hype to releasing Star Citizen. All the different ships they can imagine. All the things they can see or do or pretend to accomplish. You had people spending thousands of dollars on ships that didn't even have a model, never mind a playable state. When the game finally comes out, people will be disappointed. They'll hate the game. They will not have fun with it. Yet at the end of the day, what will they be hoping for next? "The Next Star Citizen" of course! Either a literal sequel/patch that promises to address the issues, or a thematic sequel that scratches that itch of anticipation. And so the cycle begins again.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There are lots of games I have hundreds of hours in that I never fully completed, though. I have 209 hours in Divinity: Original Sin and I never actually finished it, for example. 426 hours in Pillars of Eternity and I did finish the main game but never finished the expansions. 136 hours in X-Com 2 and I didn't finish it either. I still had fun with all three of those games and don't regret the purchase (I'll get around to finishing them at some point). I bought Portal 2 on steam sale years ago and I only started actually playing it this week -- it's a blast but I'm only rarely in the mood for a puzzle game. It's pretty common to see those <do trivial thing> achievements at like 75% though. So a quarter of people who bought the game never even played it.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's been a problem since forever with all kinds of reviewing, though; everyone brings their own personal lens filter. I mean, Ben Johnson and Milton criticized Shakespeare for having too much magic and fantasy and wildness in his plays ( I'm not sure that's necessarily what's needed though, since what an audience reacts to can depend greatly on the makeup of the audience. It's the old trouble with media in general - people don't want to read a bunch of reviews and get a general consensus, so they just complain that this particular news source is "biased" (which usually means "disagrees with me").
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:
It's funny you think Snyder was saying "hell yeah titties" instead of "everyone who says 'Hell yeah titties' is gross".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'm more along the lines of "ironic sexism is still sexism". So is Starship Troopers similarly problematic?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:I file Sucker Punch alongside Farcry 3 - satire and irony need to be more than just replicating the exact despicable traits of whatever you're mocking. Again though (and I'm addressing FC3 since you mentioned it), that goes back to the Starship Troopers problem - do you really need someone facing the audience and saying "the thing you just saw? That's bad"? That seems extremely cynical, and more importantly it makes stories dull.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:I actually watched ST for the first time, and it's delightfully heavy handed - the cheesy propaganda, the scenery chewing talk show host, Dr Horrible dressed as a literal Nazi officer. It's got this constant absurdity to everything. Lots of reviewers thought it was a dumb action movie and they even directly quoted reviews from ST saying "oh yeah this seems to say fascism is bad but that must've been unintentional".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 11:21
|
|