In response to “All that’s Shiny is Gold” from the Escapist Forum: I feel sorry for today’s gamer. To the current generation, the only important thing is getting virtual shit – from items, skins, achievements, etc. For my generation, it’s about the game experience. I enjoy getting neat collectibles in games, sure, and I even go for 100% completion where I can, but it’s always been about how good the game and plot is.
The fact that kids today get their knickers in such a twist over eThings in games is kinda sad.
Video games can and do promote violence in young people.
Last I checked, using a chainsaw to cut a creature in half or shooting up a base full of militants is violent.
Game content can be quite violent indeed. The question is, does that content carry over into real life? People can always find something to blame for someone’s real life violence, from the film “Natural Born Killers” to “Law and Order” and “CSI”-style shows, but proving that the thing they blame actually caused the violence is a lot harder. But don’t forget that other things, like the parents spanking a child (Or conversely *not* spanking said child) is blamed as the cause of the violence.
To put it shortly, many things are blamed for violence in youths and teens (and even adults). Proving what the direct and proximal causes of the violence are is much harder. Maybe the kid was born with poor impulse control. Looking for an easy out, and an easy cause to blame means that the people doing the blaming are not looking for the real causes of violence. They want something easy to blame so they can go back to not really thinking about it- because not thinking about it is easier and then they don’t have to address the real causes of violence (whatever they are- I’m not claiming to have all the answers, or even any answers. I suspect that it’s different in every case.).
And the media loves it because it gives them something to stir up their readers with- and the media will tell you that everything in this world is scarier and more responsible for everything that’s wrong in your or other people’s lives than you think. And they’ll tell you what to be afraid of… just keep watching!
I’m certain I’m in the minority when I say this, but I highly disagree with the “games are art” argument, even more so when the author compares it to the laws of gravity of all things.
Let me explain, and I’ll try to make this as coherent as possible. A movie is not art. Neither are books, music albums, or the topic here, video games. They are instead amalgams of several artist mediums. For movies, the most prevalent is acting and writing. Books, just writing. Albums, music (goes without saying or so I choose to believe). For video games, graphics (an extension of the concept usually used as reference or simply drawings), writing, even the soundtrack. All these come together to make a single glorious package, but you can’t really say that said package has the same artistic merits as the individual parts that compose it (one reason why I’m slowly starting to dislike Extra Credits).
All of this is highly subjective of course, and I could be wrong on some or everything. To that end, I’m gonna go back to gaming.
So you create an article that talks about how great multiplayer gaming can be with strangers when you leave out all the immature, sexual and generally unpleasant business out of the communication channels… except the way you describe the scenario is loaded with that crap. And I am not talking about the intro, I am talking about the way he described fellow gamers who did not follow Pip and himself.
Agreed. It feels like the lesson is that, so long as you are on the right side (defined for this scenario as those who follow Pip), you can refer to others as “idiots with buckets on their heads, playing a game of grab-ass as they died again and again.” I know it seems different because the author is talking about someone in the past rather than talking to them in the present, but I don’t think we can dismiss it that easily. He’s still locked into immature and sexually-based descriptions of others and their behavior.
How much more mature would it be if your opponent in Black Ops was totally silent to you during the match, but later wrote on his Facebook page how you handle a sniper rifle as sloppy as he handled your mom last night? Does pulling the discourse outside the game somehow redeem that kind of talk? I think we’re excusing it a little too readily just because we like the idea of Pip, and I don’t know that the idea of Pip would approve.
This kid sounds awesome. However, I think that if I would’ve encountered someone like Pip, I would not follow. I just don’t want to win that much, I don’t care about winning. Playing a game and enjoying it is what matters to me, and that’s often unrelated to whether I’m winning or not.
Also, listening to “Holding out for a Hero” by Bonnie Tyler while reading this was hilarious.
In response to “Hey, Listen, I like Navi” from the Escapist Forum: I adored Navi. I found her adorable, extremely helpful (I have distinct memories of her teaching me how to beat the water temple boss) and her little voices chimed in just frequently enough to be comfortingly reliable without being terribly annoying. Watch out!
Tatl was less annoying because of her bell replacing the voice, but significantly more annoying just because she was, well, a bit of a stupid bitch. (To the extent that fairies can be.) While Navi felt like she was encouraging you to go in the right direction, Tatl felt like she was punishing you for going in the wrong one. I felt they hit the perfect balance with Midna in Twilight Princess, though, and it was also nice in that game to find out that this little imp thing was actually relevant to the greater plot.
“Water Temple” gets my vote for the modern equivalent of FUBAR (not an impassible obstacle, merely one that will make you want to bang your head against a wall, if only to potentially divert the proscribed path from the horrors that await).
If I recall correctly, that was the only temple in which Navi and Link were equally confused as to how to proceed. (It’s been a few years since my last playthrough of OoT, but didn’t the Water Temple require more forethought on the player’s part than any other area of the game?) It seems to me that the Water Temple functioned as the sole trial in which Navi and Link could be considered of equivalent rank, neither individual truly leading nor following, but both stumbling, almost blindly, through a completely foreign environment. I mean, what would a forest child and a skyfaring shapeshifter know of underwater exploration, except what they discover in tandem?
Loved the article, BTW (and apologies if this bit of rambling belongs in a different thread. I’ve sporadically lurked before, and am attempting to figure out protocol/etiquette as I go). Hooray for the under-appreciated sidekicks!