Going Gold: Gaming Doublespeak

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

kingcom:

More Fun To Compute:
Both Okami and Beyond Good & Evil are pretty conventional post Ocarina of Time style Legend of Zelda games and are loved by "hardcore" games forum posters. At least the ones old enough to remember them. I suppose that the article is trying to make a point about how we should care more about art style than gameplay but the examples are not well chosen IMO.

What? I hope your joking, someone seriously wants people to like an artstyle of gameplay...in a GAME. For me the ranking goes Gameplay, story, characters, enviroment, artstyle, visuals.

And it's people like you who are holding the industry back. You're argument is like saying that films should be entirely visual because they're pictures on a screen. Okami would not be as good without it's art style. Planescape:Torment would have nothing without it's characters. Heck, Modern Warefare 2 would be an poorer game without Soap and Price driving the action forward.

It's a similar argument to the "It's a game, it has to be fun" bollocks. Is Schindler's List fun? The Green Mile fun? Hell no. Are they two bloody fantastic films? Hell yes. Accept games as a medium that can do many things, then maybe we can get some respectability for the art form rather than limiting ourselves to "fun" and "gameplay".

Casual gamers do not venture into online forums and argue the virtues and downfalls of a piece of software.

I would argue that some mainstream gamers venture into online forums to discuss the pros and cons of the use of weapon X to conclude after 10 pages of opinion gathering (and not of debate) that it's juste as good as weapon Y. I've read that kind of nonsence on some forums.

tea-bagging are the realm of the hardcore.

Tea-bagging was apparently invented by Halo players... during the hundreds of hours I've spent playing FPS online on the PC during the last six years, I can't recall seing teabagging. I can't swear that I've never seen it, I can't remember, but it's definitly not a common sight on the platform where FPS were invented.

But, rather than defining, like you, hardcore players by what they do when they're not gaming. I'd be tempted to stick with the definition I used previously, because of a conversation I had with a permanent tester from Ubisoft Montreal.

We were talking about games, and I pointed out that while Rainbow Six : Vegas may be good, I would like to play some real Rainbow Six, more along the lines of what Rainbow Six : Rogue Spear was. That's why the fact that Ubisoft used the Rainbow Six franchise that way was a little disappointing to me. He said "You know, they problem is that it's designed for the consoles, the audience is less hardcore than on the PC, we couldn't really make the old Rainbow Six on the consoles". In his mouth, hardcore clearly sounded like the level of complexity the gamer was willing to cope with.

His comment about the console audience being less hardcore than on the PC probably only applies to shooting games, I guess, given the complexity of some of the RPG that you can find on the consoles, but I think that it's a better way to describe the level of commitment, the interest of a player in gaming, his direct relationship with games.

After all, talking about games on a forum is more a social activity than directly related to the relationship you have with games.

StevieWonderMk2:
And it's people like you who are holding the industry back.

image

Although I doubt many will get the reference.

I do! :D

"When the revolution comes the first ones up against the wall will be.... hang on."
(Checks pocketbook)

StevieWonderMk2:

kingcom:

More Fun To Compute:
Both Okami and Beyond Good & Evil are pretty conventional post Ocarina of Time style Legend of Zelda games and are loved by "hardcore" games forum posters. At least the ones old enough to remember them. I suppose that the article is trying to make a point about how we should care more about art style than gameplay but the examples are not well chosen IMO.

What? I hope your joking, someone seriously wants people to like an artstyle of gameplay...in a GAME. For me the ranking goes Gameplay, story, characters, enviroment, artstyle, visuals.

And it's people like you who are holding the industry back. You're argument is like saying that films should be entirely visual because they're pictures on a screen. Okami would not be as good without it's art style. Planescape:Torment would have nothing without it's characters. Heck, Modern Warefare 2 would be an poorer game without Soap and Price driving the action forward.

It's a similar argument to the "It's a game, it has to be fun" bollocks. Is Schindler's List fun? The Green Mile fun? Hell no. Are they two bloody fantastic films? Hell yes. Accept games as a medium that can do many things, then maybe we can get some respectability for the art form rather than limiting ourselves to "fun" and "gameplay".

Im holding the industry back? Ive been an advocate for good storytelling in games but your telling me art direction should be more important than gameplay? Your honestly going to sit there and say a game should look good before you can start caring about the story. I will not play a bad game with a bad story. If it has a bad story i probably will not continue to play. Making wild accusations like that doesnt help you. Im someone who is disgusted by poor storytelling and will not play a game which contains it.

If an RPG has a bad story it has no right to exist but thats not what i said did i? I said art direction should not be a be all and end all of a game. Visuals should not become a priority and those who keep pushing to expand visuals over actual gameplay and story are crippling games.

EDIT: im only going to assume that people have misinterpreted me. When someone says "artstyle" i directly relate that to the visuals of a game. Ironiclly this appears to be anoth doublespeak as "artstyle" apparently refers to whatever people want it to refer to. I place story as a fundamental part of a game. At no stage have i said games are purely for "FUN" as the flamers seem to indicate. A game has to be enjoyable and that can be taken on many different levels. I commented that i hope visuals do not become a priority like they currently are becoming.

Artheval_Pe:

SikOseph:
You're confusing lovers of something with elitist pricks who spend their time trying to be obscure and different, giving themselves a false impression of self-worth in the process. A cinema lover will be open to an amazing Hollywood film just as much as one from a more obscure source

Qualifying people who don't have the tastes you like as "elitist pricks" ! Way to go !
And, yes, most cinema lovers (i.e. people who have seen other things than just hollywood movies) have a tendancy to shun hollywood films because most of the time those movies are pretty stupid or otherwise just go by the numbers and don't try anything different. And, yes, the Dark Knight is an exemple of an intelligent, well-directed and well-written entertainment product, but it didn't move forward the art of cinema as a whole in any way.
(And I don't even want to talk about Avatar whose only worth is the art direction and the work of the CGI team, as everything else is derivative and uninspired)

1. That's not what I said. I said that film lovers don't not watch Hollywood films, and those that watch obscure cinema for the sake of being obscure are trying to be elitist. It isn't about sharing my tastes, it is about choosing films that are good, rather than excluding something because lots of people like it. It's an important difference.
2. The Dark Knight wasn't an intelligent, well-directed, or well written entertainment product. The only thing that was well-written was The Joker's script. The rest of it is a mess of confused storylines, no real flow, random character jumps in the place of development, and high octane action. Was it fun? Yes, but well-written? Please.

I've only worked on one game professionally. During that time I got to see, in action, how the ESRB influences the creative decisions being made during production. The game was a first person shooter that, strangely for it's genre, had no blood. When the ESRB reported that the game would be rated M because or sexual content--women in skimpy clothing-- it was immediately decided that if it was going to be rated M they might as well put the blood back in. Apparently they had the code pretty much ready to go and had been keeping it out of builds in the hopes of getting a teen rating.

I loved the hardcore/McDonald's analogy. So true. I'm going to have to steal it for the next time I have a geek argument with one of my friends =)

More Fun To Compute:

StevieWonderMk2:
And it's people like you who are holding the industry back.

image

Although I doubt many will get the reference.

What's this from? If it's a movie I'd really like to see it.

Nimbus:
I would have to say I thought mature meant, "Containing content inappropriate for young children" (By the standards of the kind of person who wants to work in a censor office)

Also I only ever use the term casual to mean "Does not consider gaming to be one of their primary hobbies or leisure activities".

Aside from that, I think the digital distribution trend is going to work out great!... For people on the PC, that is. Plenty of room for competition in an open platform. Still, you console gamers are screwwwwwwed.

I would have to disagree with that console gamer statement. Both X-Box Live and PSN offer digital downloads for some of their games.

yes, it is a newer system but as it gets more buyers I can see it gain popularity. Not enough to rival Steam but still enough to keep consoles around.

The one thing I hate about Steam is that is does not let people purchase monetary value/point cards to let people use them on Steam.

Not everyone uses a credit card or paypal. Not everyone wants too either.

The Dark Knight wasn't an intelligent, well-directed, or well written entertainment product. The only thing that was well-written was The Joker's script. The rest of it is a mess of confused storylines, no real flow, random character jumps in the place of development, and high octane action. Was it fun? Yes, but well-written? Please.

Not to be rude or anything but to me it seems you are being of the elitist people you claimed to dislike. You throw out the other persons opinion in favor of your own and it seems like when you say please you are almost insulting the person because they have a different point of view than yours.

I myself liked the writing it in it. The story lines may have been confusing but it may have been planned like that to keep people guessing what would happen.

Of course though this is just my opinion as you have your opinion. Neither of them is right nor wrong.

boholikeu:
What's this from? If it's a movie I'd really like to see it.

Citizen Smith, BBC comedy show.

Capo Taco:
I wish we would call it ludorature. Properly snobbish.

I think I just fell in love with you.

Another entry for the list of Words That Annoy: "Gameplay".
Sure, movies have their "mise-en-scene" and "cinematography" for example, but "gameplay"? Really?
I'd say we've come to rely on such a vague term much too often.

gof22:

SikOseph:
The Dark Knight wasn't an intelligent, well-directed, or well written entertainment product. The only thing that was well-written was The Joker's script. The rest of it is a mess of confused storylines, no real flow, random character jumps in the place of development, and high octane action. Was it fun? Yes, but well-written? Please.

Not to be rude or anything but to me it seems you are being of the elitist people you claimed to dislike. You throw out the other persons opinion in favor of your own and it seems like when you say please you are almost insulting the person because they have a different point of view than yours.

I myself liked the writing it in it. The story lines may have been confusing but it may have been planned like that to keep people guessing what would happen.

Of course though this is just my opinion as you have your opinion. Neither of them is right nor wrong.

It isn't elitist to disagree with someone's opinion entirely. Saying 'please' was something of an insult because I was trying to suggest that he hadn't thought his opinion through. But seriously, where is the development of Harvey Dent? One minute he's the perfect good guy, then something bad happens, and instantly he's given up everything he believed for his whole life?! The events in the film seem to jerk from one random event to the next and the complete lack of subtlety is annoying. Basically they tried to cram too much in, and ended up with paper thin characters that made that comment 'well-written and directed' jarring. You're welcome to your opinion, as indeed was the first person who expressed it, but I think you're wrong (which is no different to me stating 'you're wrong' - that's still my opinion).

What an awful article. I really take issue with the re-definition of "hardcore" and "casual".

The "hardcore" gamers in the article are actually something kind of new, "bro gamers" which happened when videogames got hip (or ironic) enough for the eXtreme sports crowd to start playing in their downtime. I blame the original XBox marketing push for that. Now the powers-that-be in advertising have decided we're all retarded from constant adrenaline rush just because it's *something* to stereotype gamers with in a way that might actually move some product.

Hardcore players (let's say it's anyone with videogaming as their main hobby) are annoying in their own way, but the allegation that we buy nothing but mainstream releases is noobsauce. To address your complaints about "art" games selling poorly, hardcore players are looking for games that reward wits and skill... that means either a brutally steep bar for single-player challenge, endless game modes, or multiplayer. A single-player 3D jumping puzzle game where you follow a trail of shiny collectible things from one story event to another is Mario 64 no matter how you dress it up. An interactive movie is just an interactive movie. I've played through Okami once and kept the disc because it was a pretty game to show people and my daughter likes making the wolf bark at the wildlife and carry them around in her mouth. I'm probably not going to play Heavy Rain at all because it's got nothing on the surface that appeals to me as a gamer.

"Casual" in the article is nowhere close to the industry's use of the term either. I'm not one so my description's not as good, but I know some. Basically it's people who would play games as a pastime except they've got some kind of stigma against the mainstream offerings. They'll avidly play anything that they don't categorize as a "videogame"... usually it's titles where you're not controlling a character directly like card games, puzzles, sim-city type games, tower defense (but not RTS)

Our solution to this is to rush into a world where swaps, trade-ins and rentals will be impossible. Where there will be one store per platform and competition will be a thing of the past. iTunes has no DRM because the market forced to them to - who is going to compete with Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony on their own platform?

Nobody, that's the whole point of having platforms, and that's why the market supports MULTIPLE PLATFORMS. Is Microsoft doing something you don't like? Then give your money to Sony. If we're fed up with *all* the current players the market's ripe for new entry.

NamesAreHardToPick:
I'm probably not going to play Heavy Rain at all because it's got nothing on the surface that appeals to me as a competitive gamer.

Fixed. Hardcore players often forget that challenge and competition aren't the only reasons people play video games. =)

NamesAreHardToPick:
"Casual" in the article is nowhere close to the industry's use of the term either. I'm not one so my description's not as good, but I know some. Basically it's people who would play games as a pastime except they've got some kind of stigma against the mainstream offerings. They'll avidly play anything that they don't categorize as a "videogame"... usually it's titles where you're not controlling a character directly like card games, puzzles, sim-city type games, tower defense (but not RTS)

Hardly any of the "casual" gamers I know have a stigma against mainstream games. Or would they not be casual by your definition? Most just seem to not be interested in the subject matter, rather than being prejudiced against it for being too "video gamey".

boholikeu:

NamesAreHardToPick:
I'm probably not going to play Heavy Rain at all because it's got nothing on the surface that appeals to me as a competitive gamer.

Fixed. Hardcore players often forget that challenge and competition aren't the only reasons people play video games. =)

As cool as Heavy Rain looks, I don't see anything I'd identify as a "game" in there. If it's like some really interactive story that's really cool and all ... for maybe a film geek or mystery fan... I know a whole bunch of people who would probably think it's the awesomest thing ever. Not to sound one-dimensional, but personally I'd rather spend the time playing Gunroar.

boholikeu:
Hardly any of the "casual" gamers I know have a stigma against mainstream games. Or would they not be casual by your definition? Most just seem to not be interested in the subject matter, rather than being prejudiced against it for being too "video gamey".

I don't know your "casual gamer" friends. They could just be part-time mainstream gamers, or non-gamers? What do they play. The casuals I know wouldn't want to be identified as "video gamers" but ravenously play facebook games, or tower defense, or mahjongg. That makes them different from folks who are genuinely not interested in video games.

You pretty much listed everything that gets at me. Especially how people throw around 'mature', 'hardcore' and 'casual'.

I consider myself hardcore; that is, the REAL definition. Okami, though I got it on the Wii since I missed the PS2 version, was fantastic, and I loved it. Heavy Rain makes me wish I had a PS3 to no end, and now that you bring up Beyond Good and Evil, I should really try and hunt down a copy of that too. Deus Ex is fantastic, as well. Of course, I'm not above playing the more... 'tried-and-true' mechanics, shall we say, but I despise people who claim to be Hardcore, and yet don't even CONSIDER trying out things that stand out.

Oh, and how so many developers seem to confuse 'mature' with 'over-the-top sex, violence and language' really get at me too. Is it so hard to ask for some FEELING to the story? Some characters we can actually care about? Not have people use the word 'motherfucker' like most of us would use commas? (Yeah, I took that last one from Zero Punctuation).
Again, I don't really have anything against these games, and I play them, but they aren't 'mature' titles, and I wish the confusion and misunderstanding of this would end.

Also, the PC MW2 boycott was an embarrassment. I'm one of the something like 18 people who are ACTUALLY sticking to their principles ("Principles mean nothing if you do not stand by them when it is inconvenient to do so"). As it stands I may still get it, but I'm not going to buy it for a considerable length of time. L4D2 was less of an embarrassment. The founders themselves had a good reason, and when their concerns were addressed they disbanded the boycott, but many of the people who joined in were... well, let's just say one of us could probably interact with them both before and after they have their higher brain functions removed, and yet wouldn't notice much of a difference.

There is one additional thing I can't stand, though.
Those loud, foul-mouthed people who populate so many online games, calling everything 'gay', or 'fag', or some mutation thereof. People who say things like that are not being clever or funny; to me they come across as brain-dead people who are unable to form a more coherent and sensible, or even polite response to something that even so much as slightly annoys them. Most of the time, these are also the very people who will be doing things that are even worse.

Christian Ward:

Hardcore

You might think it means... "The gaming literati, the core users and trend-definers of gaming."

It actually means... "The people with most time on their hands to play and comment on mainstream games, i.e. teenage boys."

Wow. Exactly. I'm with you on Heavy Rain, and would urge you to apply the same perspective in reverse to DJ Hero and, most infamously, LAIR. These games deserve more than they got from both the market and critics in my opinion, and it was mainly because they break current built-in reflexes that some confuse with "hardcore" status. I maintain that you're not hardcore until you have to play games knowing your raw reflexes are gone, that you have to bridge the gap with wits, passion, and sometimes medication.

NamesAreHardToPick:

As cool as Heavy Rain looks, I don't see anything I'd identify as a "game" in there. If it's like some really interactive story that's really cool and all ... for maybe a film geek or mystery fan... I know a whole bunch of people who would probably think it's the awesomest thing ever. Not to sound one-dimensional, but personally I'd rather spend the time playing Gunroar.

I hear the same argument being used against against art games, too. If these titles aren't games, what are they?

NamesAreHardToPick:

boholikeu:
Hardly any of the "casual" gamers I know have a stigma against mainstream games. Or would they not be casual by your definition? Most just seem to not be interested in the subject matter, rather than being prejudiced against it for being too "video gamey".

I don't know your "casual gamer" friends. They could just be part-time mainstream gamers, or non-gamers? What do they play. The casuals I know wouldn't want to be identified as "video gamers" but ravenously play facebook games, or tower defense, or mahjongg. That makes them different from folks who are genuinely not interested in video games.

Lemme put it this way: does someone have to be prejudiced against mainstream games to be called casual by your definition? If so, what do you call someone that plays facebook/flash games, but just has no desire to play mainstream games (perhaps because they aren't a 15-29 year old male, the target audience of 90% of mainstream games)? Non gamers?

Isn't the ESRB's M more like "for Mature audiences"? e.g. no kids who are going to think cutting people up for real is cool because they did it in a game. The ratings make no comment about the tone or theme of the game. That came off as a really stupid nitpick, although it fits with the whole rant about "bro gamers".

I think hardcore and casual should just be forgotten all together

I will use myself as an example,

When I was young, especially fifteen, I would play any game I could get my hands on, no matter what it was, if it looked fun to me, I'd try it, and usually I'd beat the game too, usually 100% because I had the TIME to play them!

So when I was 15, was I hardcore or casual?

Now that I'm 25, I don't have as much time, or disposable income to play everything, so I pick and choose.

Am I hardcore or casual?

The answer is: I'm a gamer, always have been, always will be, even if I never play another game in my life, I'll always wish I was Link lol

NamesAreHardToPick:
Isn't the ESRB's M more like "for Mature audiences"? e.g. no kids who are going to think cutting people up for real is cool because they did it in a game. The ratings make no comment about the tone or theme of the game. That came off as a really stupid nitpick, although it fits with the whole rant about "bro gamers".

Problem is that it's also used as a PR buzzword. Developers say they are making "a dark mature titles for adults", but then just turns out to have another raspy-voiced hero that's surrounded by scantily-clad bimbos.

To be fair though, Hollywood is guilty of this too.

boholikeu:
I hear the same argument being used against against art games, too. If these titles aren't games, what are they?

Interactive something-or-others?

Tarot cards, ouija boards, and fortune-telling dice aren't sold as "games" even though they're the same medium as poker, risk, and yahtzee respectively. You don't describe all leisure activities as "playing" even though you're doing something you enjoy with your free time. You're mistaking categorization for a value judgement.

NamesAreHardToPick:
Lemme put it this way: does someone have to be prejudiced against mainstream games to be called casual by your definition? If so, what do you call someone that plays facebook/flash games, but just has no desire to play mainstream games (perhaps because they aren't a 15-29 year old male, the target audience of 90% of mainstream games)? Non gamers?

1. yes they have to be prejudiced since there's really no question of "accessibility"... playing casual games already assumes hardware and an internet connection. If they play mainstream games, they are mainstream gamers. Beyond that it's just a question of degree.

2. maybe it's the recent rush of women-in-videogames articles talking, but I see what you did there: your suggestion is that these people are disenfranchised by the mainstream games that actually exist but would be happy to go mainstream if it had something for them to play. The answer's the same as above... do they exclusively play "casual" games, or also the the 10% of mainstream games that slip through the cracks in whatever fun-having barriers they live in?

To put things in perspective a bit, I'm right on par with your your "oppressed" casual-gamer friends who are offended by 90% of the game releases. Of the stuff that does make the grade IMO I still can't afford to buy it all. 10% of the game industry's output is still a lot.

NamesAreHardToPick:

Interactive something-or-others?

Tarot cards, ouija boards, and fortune-telling dice aren't sold as "games" even though they're the same medium as poker, risk, and yahtzee respectively. You don't describe all leisure activities as "playing" even though you're doing something you enjoy with your free time. You're mistaking categorization for a value judgement.

*puts on linguistics student hat*

Problem with that idea is you can't really "force" a name like that on something. Especially when the majority of the public is going to see that you can only play it on a Playstation.

Oh, you can try to correct people. Tell them "well technically it's not a game because blah blah blah". However, they are going to look at you with the same amount of interest as they would with the guy who complains that tomatoes shouldn't be in the vegetable aisle.

NamesAreHardToPick:

1. yes they have to be prejudiced since there's really no question of "accessibility" since playing casual games already assumes hardware and an internet connection. If they play mainstream games, they are mainstream gamers. Beyond that it's just a question of degree.

2. maybe it's the recent rush of women-in-videogames articles talking, but I see what you did there: your suggestion is that these people are disenfranchised by the mainstream games that actually exist but would be happy to go mainstream if it had something for them to play. The answer's the same as above... do they exclusively play "casual" games, or also the the 10% of mainstream games that slip through the cracks in whatever fun-having barriers they live in?

To put things in perspective a bit, I'm right on par with your your "oppressed" casual-gamer friends who are offended by 90% of the game releases. Of the stuff that does make the grade IMO I still can't afford to buy it all. 10% of the game industry's output is still a lot.

Well truth is they don't always hear of the other 10%, and even if they do they don't necessarily want to pay $200 for a new console to play one on. Not to mention, what if they only play IPod games? What if they exclusively play casual games alone, but play SSBM when they are at their friend's house?

Also, do hardcore players need to be prejudiced against casual games as well? What about someone that plays a casual game very competitively, and can beat most "mainstream hardcore" players at that game without breaking a sweat?

boholikeu:
*puts on linguistics student hat*

Problem with that idea is you can't really "force" a name like that on something. Especially when the majority of the public is going to see that you can only play it on a Playstation.

Oh, you can try to correct people. Tell them "well technically it's not a game because blah blah blah". However, they are going to look at you with the same amount of interest as they would with the guy who complains that tomatoes shouldn't be in the vegetable aisle.

It's not like I re-organize the store in a fit of OCD whenever they've put ouija boards beside monopoly. It's just as ill-fitting anywhere else and the shelves are the right size for a box like that. Within that context I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about, you're never like "should we play Sorry or hold a seance?"

tl;dr it's fine to call Heavy Rain a "game" because you stick it in a PS3 and manipulate it with a controller, it's not fine to call anyone a "bro gamer" who's not interested in the heart-wrenching story of a dad and some kids and I don't know what else. It's a dick criticism... like saying anyone who didn't go to see Bridges of Madison County has tastes no higher than Paul Blart: Mall Cop and Transformers 2.

boholikeu:
Well truth is they don't always hear of the other 10%, and even if they do they don't necessarily want to pay $200 for a new console to play one on. Not to mention, what if they only play IPod games? What if they exclusively play casual games alone, but play SSBM when they are at their friend's house?

Also, do hardcore players need to be prejudiced against casual games as well? What about someone that plays a casual game very competitively, and can beat most "mainstream hardcore" players at that game without breaking a sweat?

Prejudice and ignorance aren't good excuses.

If someone wants to play mainstream games, they should at least research their options a bit. It's not at all hard to see from a rack of games at a store that they're not all brain-dead wargames. I wouldn't know much about iPod games, I've a PSP for playing music. iPod seems to have a bunch of racing games, shooters, etc. It's the game itself that's casual or hardcore. Remember that the same PC you're using to play Peggle could just as easily run WoW.

As for hardcore gamers being prejudiced against casual titles... Tetris, anyone? Slamming games that can't be marketed to the EXTREME MANLINESS COMPETITION IN EVERYTHING stereotype is "bro gamer" territory again. For hardcore gamers, playing and buying games is the main focus of their free time and money and as a result it's a showdown between a huge number and variety of titles. That's where we end up looking like a bunch of elitist pricks, there's just no time to indulge in second-best games. I'm sure if I spent most of my time fishing or whatever I'd just go into game stores and grab whatever off the rack because any title will just as easily eat up some small amount of time I give it.

Not to pry but is there something personal behind all these incredible detailed questions?

"30,000 people signed up to the Left 4 Dead 2 boycott group on Steam alone"

I was one of them dont even remember why i joined it i bought L4D2 anyway. Furthers the point that game producers dont need to take much notice of boycott groups. Even though valve give the impression that they care for their customers I still only play games based on how good i think they will be even if EA make them.

The point is make good games and people will buy them.

NamesAreHardToPick:

boholikeu:
*puts on linguistics student hat*

Problem with that idea is you can't really "force" a name like that on something. Especially when the majority of the public is going to see that you can only play it on a Playstation.

Oh, you can try to correct people. Tell them "well technically it's not a game because blah blah blah". However, they are going to look at you with the same amount of interest as they would with the guy who complains that tomatoes shouldn't be in the vegetable aisle.

It's not like I re-organize the store in a fit of OCD whenever they've put ouija boards beside monopoly. It's just as ill-fitting anywhere else and the shelves are the right size for a box like that. Within that context I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about, you're never like "should we play Sorry or hold a seance?"

tl;dr it's fine to call Heavy Rain a "game" because you stick it in a PS3 and manipulate it with a controller, it's not fine to call anyone a "bro gamer" who's not interested in the heart-wrenching story of a dad and some kids and I don't know what else. It's a dick criticism... like saying anyone who didn't go to see Bridges of Madison County has tastes no higher than Paul Blart: Mall Cop and Transformers 2.

boholikeu:
Well truth is they don't always hear of the other 10%, and even if they do they don't necessarily want to pay $200 for a new console to play one on. Not to mention, what if they only play IPod games? What if they exclusively play casual games alone, but play SSBM when they are at their friend's house?

Also, do hardcore players need to be prejudiced against casual games as well? What about someone that plays a casual game very competitively, and can beat most "mainstream hardcore" players at that game without breaking a sweat?

Prejudice and ignorance aren't good excuses.

If someone wants to play mainstream games, they should at least research their options a bit. It's not at all hard to see from a rack of games at a store that they're not all brain-dead wargames. I wouldn't know much about iPod games, I've a PSP for playing music. iPod seems to have a bunch of racing games, shooters, etc. It's the game itself that's casual or hardcore. Remember that the same PC you're using to play Peggle could just as easily run WoW.

As for hardcore gamers being prejudiced against casual titles... Tetris, anyone? Slamming games that can't be marketed to the EXTREME MANLINESS COMPETITION IN EVERYTHING stereotype is "bro gamer" territory again. For hardcore gamers, playing and buying games is the main focus of their free time and money and as a result it's a showdown between a huge number and variety of titles. That's where we end up looking like a bunch of elitist pricks, there's just no time to indulge in second-best games. I'm sure if I spent most of my time fishing or whatever I'd just go into game stores and grab whatever off the rack because any title will just as easily eat up some small amount of time I give it.

Not to pry but is there something personal behind all these incredible detailed questions?

It just seemed a little hypocritical to me that you were so offended by being lumped in with the "elitist bro gamers" yet you apparently have at least somewhat of a bias against casual games (IE why do you need to play "mainstream games" to be considered a gamer? That's just as elitist as the Bridges of Madison County/Transformers analogy you made earlier).

gof22:

Nimbus:
I would have to say I thought mature meant, "Containing content inappropriate for young children" (By the standards of the kind of person who wants to work in a censor office)

Also I only ever use the term casual to mean "Does not consider gaming to be one of their primary hobbies or leisure activities".

Aside from that, I think the digital distribution trend is going to work out great!... For people on the PC, that is. Plenty of room for competition in an open platform. Still, you console gamers are screwwwwwwed.

I would have to disagree with that console gamer statement. Both X-Box Live and PSN offer digital downloads for some of their games.

yes, it is a newer system but as it gets more buyers I can see it gain popularity. Not enough to rival Steam but still enough to keep consoles around.

The one thing I hate about Steam is that is does not let people purchase monetary value/point cards to let people use them on Steam.

Not everyone uses a credit card or paypal. Not everyone wants too either.

The Dark Knight wasn't an intelligent, well-directed, or well written entertainment product. The only thing that was well-written was The Joker's script. The rest of it is a mess of confused storylines, no real flow, random character jumps in the place of development, and high octane action. Was it fun? Yes, but well-written? Please.

Not to be rude or anything but to me it seems you are being of the elitist people you claimed to dislike. You throw out the other persons opinion in favor of your own and it seems like when you say please you are almost insulting the person because they have a different point of view than yours.

I myself liked the writing it in it. The story lines may have been confusing but it may have been planned like that to keep people guessing what would happen.

Of course though this is just my opinion as you have your opinion. Neither of them is right nor wrong.

Harvey Dent was starting to slip during the funeral scene for the commissioner before Gordon. When that one Arkham inmate had Rachel's name badge he was going on the verge of almost wanting to kill him for information.

Plus, You could tell that Dent admired Batman. I believe he wanted to be a vigilante like Batman but did not want to risk anything. Hearing his girlfriend die coupled with the fact half his face was now burned beyond recognition he pry just assumed that he had nothing left to lose and so he became a vigilante.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here