Betrayaaaal, Be-trayal! Betrayed Me!

[toxicitizen]

I also agree with some of the things Strangelove has said.  Some people really do complain that having health bars in Assassin's Creed breaks their immersion, and that's just silly (equally as silly as the original creator who came up with the modern frame specifically because he felt like the HUD elements needed an in-game explanation in order to not ruin the experience).  I do agree that immersion is important, in the sense of suspension of disbelief, but saying really basic things like HUDs or regenerating health break your immersion is just as silly as saying film grain or cigarette burns break your immersion in film, or the fact that Elmer Fudd doesn't die when he gets shot in the face breaks your immersion when watching Looney Toons.

Yeah, like I said, oversimplification. I wouldn't take seriously someone complaining about HUD elements any more than I would someone saying any of those examples.

 

Likewise, for me ludonarrative dissonance only becomes an issue if the game presents itself as though you have choices, but then the narrative doesn't react accordingly (which is not to say your choices have to have the "right" consequences, just that the game needs to acknowledge them).  Take for instance Catherine, which I love to rant about:  in gameplay you get to do all kinds of things to indicate whether you want to be with Catherine or Katherine, but no matter what you do as soon as a cutscene starts Vincent flips out about how he wants nothing to do with Catherine and only wants to be with Katherine.  It's jarring.  If a game doesn't want to give me choices that's fine, whatever, but don't design it so that I feel like I have choices but then as soon as my character's in a cutscene he acts in a way that's completely counter to the way I've played him to that point.  But stuff like Drake being a mass murderer?  Who the fuck cares?  It's silly to take a work any more seriously than it takes itself (the one exception to this being if it's doing something harmful to society overall, such as reinforcing negative stereotypes or something).

Choices not having an impact isn't really what ludonarrative dissonance is. Well, maybe it is in some way, I'm not an expert on the concept. But my understanding of it is it's when the story is saying one thing and the mechanics are saying the opposite. Uncharted is more of a funny/weird contrast because Drake still cracks jokes as if he hadn't just murdered three dozen guys in the last 20mins. But it doesn't really contradict the story, it's Indiana Jones. Yeah, he's gonna fight people. It's just that it's a shooter, so yeah, the amount of people he fights and kills is going to be ridiculously disproportionate. Indiana Jones doesn't get all bummed out over killing a few nazis but he didn't kill literally hundreds of them over the span of a trilogy.

 

A better example would be the new Tomb Raider. The story is all about Lara being weak and innocent and gradually becoming the Lara we're already familiar with. But in-game it's pretty much a switch that gets flipped, she gets a gun and right away starts mowing down dudes by the dozen. Then you get a cutscene and she feels bad about killing a deer or is all scared because bad guys all over the place. Then gameplay starts again and she literally screams "I'M COMING TO GET YOU ALL!!!". That's a more stark contradiction.

 

edit: I probably shouldn't play my Vita sitting at my desk. I'm trying to start Ys: Memories of Celceta but I just keep refreshing this thread instead. I've literally been in the tutorial for like an hour and a half...

Edited July 11, 2014 by FLD

[TheMightyEthan]

I think it fits with the choices thing, because it's still a disconnect between the story and the mechanics.  In this case the mechanics being "you get to choose your character's actions" and the story being "haha, just kidding!"

[Strangelove]

I don't think there's a way to say this without sounding condescending, but I think a lot of us try to dissect and analyze videogames that were just not intelligent enough for. Or maybe we are smart enough, but were not eloquent enough to put it in a way for others to understand. Something just doesnt transfer over.

 

Does anyone watch "Hey Ash, Whatcha Playin?" I think those are really funny but good videos about games. I think both Anthony and Ashly are smart and know their shit, but I think Anthony is on a whole different level from most people ive heard discuss the intricacies of videogames. I consider the guy Yoda. Hes knowledgeable and he can say things in a way most people can understand.

I get the feeling people think they come across like him, when they come across more like....well, a random geek on a videogame forum. Not that some of them dont know their shit because some do, but Anthony is just something else. And I suppose thats what bothers me. I think most people are bothered by people discussing something theyre not as knowledgable about as they think. I suppose the term is "acting smart".

And I guess it might be a cop out, but its the reason I dont value my opinion higher than others. The truth is that Im not intelligent or eloquent enough to truly get down to the soul of videogames in a meaningful and thought provoking way. I just stick to the basics.

 

And if you dont watch "Hey Ash", you suck.

[Strangelove]

 

I also agree with some of the things Strangelove has said.  Some people really do complain that having health bars in Assassin's Creed breaks their immersion, and that's just silly (equally as silly as the original creator who came up with the modern frame specifically because he felt like the HUD elements needed an in-game explanation in order to not ruin the experience).  I do agree that immersion is important, in the sense of suspension of disbelief, but saying really basic things like HUDs or regenerating health break your immersion is just as silly as saying film grain or cigarette burns break your immersion in film, or the fact that Elmer Fudd doesn't die when he gets shot in the face breaks your immersion when watching Looney Toons.

Yeah, like I said, oversimplification. I wouldn't take seriously someone complaining about HUD elements any more than I would someone saying any of those examples.

 

Likewise, for me ludonarrative dissonance only becomes an issue if the game presents itself as though you have choices, but then the narrative doesn't react accordingly (which is not to say your choices have to have the "right" consequences, just that the game needs to acknowledge them).  Take for instance Catherine, which I love to rant about:  in gameplay you get to do all kinds of things to indicate whether you want to be with Catherine or Katherine, but no matter what you do as soon as a cutscene starts Vincent flips out about how he wants nothing to do with Catherine and only wants to be with Katherine.  It's jarring.  If a game doesn't want to give me choices that's fine, whatever, but don't design it so that I feel like I have choices but then as soon as my character's in a cutscene he acts in a way that's completely counter to the way I've played him to that point.  But stuff like Drake being a mass murderer?  Who the fuck cares?  It's silly to take a work any more seriously than it takes itself (the one exception to this being if it's doing something harmful to society overall, such as reinforcing negative stereotypes or something).

Choices not having an impact isn't really what ludonarrative dissonance is. Well, maybe it is in some way, I'm not an expert on the concept. But my understanding of it is it's when the story is saying one thing and the mechanics are saying the opposite. Uncharted is more of a funny/weird contrast because Drake still cracks jokes as if he hadn't just murdered three dozen guys in the last 20mins. But it doesn't really contradict the story, it's Indiana Jones. Yeah, he's gonna fight people. It's just that it's a shooter, so yeah, the amount of people he fights and kills is going to be ridiculously disproportionate. Indiana Jones doesn't get all bummed out over killing a few nazis but he didn't kill literally hundreds of them over the span of a trilogy.

 

A better example would be the new Tomb Raider. The story is all about Lara being weak and innocent and gradually becoming the Lara we're already familiar with. But in-game it's pretty much a switch that gets flipped, she gets a gun and right away starts mowing down dudes by the dozen. Then you get a cutscene and she feels bad about killing a deer or is all scared because bad guys all over the place. Then gameplay starts again and she literally screams "I'M COMING TO GET YOU ALL!!!". That's a more stark contradiction.

 

edit: I probably shouldn't play my Vita sitting at my desk. I'm trying to start Ys: Memories of Celceta but I just keep refreshing this thread instead. I've literally been in the tutorial for like an hour and a half...

 

 

The TR thing I feel is completely justified. the game deliberately wants you to feel a certain way to such a degree that most of their marketing focused on it, but the game doesn't gel. It deserves to get shitted on for that. Its like a racing game that claims to be the fastest and isnt.

[toxicitizen]

I think it fits with the choices thing, because it's still a disconnect between the story and the mechanics.  In this case the mechanics being "you get to choose your character's actions" and the story being "haha, just kidding!"

Well, it still affects the ending you get. You just don't get to make the final decision yourself. But yeah, I get what you're saying.

  

I don't think there's a way to say this without sounding condescending, but I think a lot of us try to dissect and analyze videogames that were just not intelligent enough for. Or maybe we are smart enough, but were not eloquent enough to put it in a way for others to understand. Something just doesnt transfer over.

I'm with you there. I'm not trying to suggest I'm anywhere near smart enough to make the kind of criticism I've been describing. I just enjoy reading/watching it. I've mentioned it before but check out Errant Signal on youtube if you haven't. That guy knows his stuff and he's way smarter than me. That's the stuff I'm talking about, not SuperGoku69 going on a rant on Neogaf because he thought Resident Evil 6 was so very bad.

 

Does anyone watch "Hey Ash, Whatcha Playin?" I think those are really funny but good videos about games. I think both Anthony and Ashly are smart and know their shit, but I think Anthony is on a whole different level from most people ive heard discuss the intricacies of videogames. I consider the guy Yoda. Hes knowledgeable and he can say things in a way most people can understand.

I get the feeling people think they come across like him, when they come across more like....well, a random geek on a videogame forum. Not that some of them dont know their shit because some do, but Anthony is just something else. And I suppose thats what bothers me. I think most people are bothered by people discussing something theyre not as knowledgable about as they think. I suppose the term is "acting smart".

And I guess it might be a cop out, but its the reason I dont value my opinion higher than others. The truth is that Im not intelligent or eloquent enough to truly get down to the soul of videogames in a meaningful and thought provoking way. I just stick to the basics.

 

And if you dont watch "Hey Ash", you suck.

I've only seen a few eps but they were pretty good. Not quite the same thing I thought we were discussing but whatever, maybe I just haven't seen the right ones. But Anthony Burch is a smart guy, yeah. I've seen a vid of a lecture he did at some uni a while back, dude knows his stuff.

Edited July 11, 2014 by FLD

[TheMightyEthan]

I consider myself the smartest person I know.

[Strangelove]

I consider myself the smartest person I know.

 

I bet you think strippers like you too.

[Eleven]

I wrote a kinda lengthy post on why I like DA2 more, but I decided not to post it. It made me realize something though.

 

"Better" is the word causing problems here. Better is objective. Which is kind of the reason I don't get into this kinds of discussions. I don't really care if a game is "better" in almost every way to another. At the end of the day, what I "prefer" would win out. I prefer how DA2 does things, for reasons I'll keep to myself because nobody wants to hear it anyway!

 

If people ask me, which game do I think is better, I would say DA2. Because I like it more, and I want more games to be like DA2 (except for the reused/recycled stuff, that shit has got to go). You say DA:O is better, because you feel more games should be like DA:O. But If I say DA is better, then that would be bad for me, because I don't want games to be more like DA which IMO (IMO!) has this huge obstacle that sucks the fun out of playing it.

 

There was this Facebook post in my wall, a friend of mine was excited about DA:Inquisition. She said she'd like to catch up on the Dragon Age games. So another friend commented and said something like "Play DA:O. Don't bother with DA2, just read up on it. DA:O is pure tactical bliss!". But that advice isn't for anyone. It's only for those who like "pure tactical bliss". It's useless to recommend a game with pure tactical bliss to someone who won't bother appreciating it. If I knew the poster better, I would say, "Hey, you'll probably not like DA:O that much due to the mechanics, so maybe just read up on that. But play DA2, Hawke is kickass and an awesome character to play with.". That's just as good advice as the first one.

[TheMightyEthan]

 

I consider myself the smartest person I know.

 

I bet you think strippers like you too.

 

Of course, they laugh at everything I say!

[toxicitizen]

I wrote a kinda lengthy post on why I like DA2 more, but I decided not to post it. It made me realize something though.

 

"Better" is the word causing problems here. Better is objective. Which is kind of the reason I don't get into this kinds of discussions. I don't really care if a game is "better" in almost every way to another. At the end of the day, what I "prefer" would win out. I prefer how DA2 does things, for reasons I'll keep to myself because nobody wants to hear it anyway!

That's your own preference, though. The concept of "better" can still be objective. Just depends how you look at it. I'd never seriously suggest you're wrong for liking DA2 more than DA:O. I would argue with you all day if you claimed DA2 is better than DA:O, though. It can be subjectively more fun for some but it's unarguably a rushed and lazily made game.

 

If people ask me, which game do I think is better, I would say DA2. Because I like it more, and I want more games to be like DA2 (except for the reused/recycled stuff, that shit has got to go). You say DA:O is better, because you feel more games should be like DA:O. But If I say DA is better, then that would be bad for me, because I don't want games to be more like DA which IMO (IMO!) has this huge obstacle that sucks the fun out of playing it.

 

There was this Facebook post in my wall, a friend of mine was excited about DA:Inquisition. She said she'd like to catch up on the Dragon Age games. So another friend commented and said something like "Play DA:O. Don't bother with DA2, just read up on it. DA:O is pure tactical bliss!". But that advice isn't for anyone. It's only for those who like "pure tactical bliss". It's useless to recommend a game with pure tactical bliss to someone who won't bother appreciating it. If I knew the poster better, I would say, "Hey, you'll probably not like DA:O that much due to the mechanics, so maybe just read up on that. But play DA2, Hawke is kickass and an awesome character to play with.". That's just as good advice as the first one.

And that's a big part of the problem with DA2 right there. If Dragon Age: Origins is "pure tactical bliss", then don't you see how there's a massive problem with the way Dragon Age II turned out? Dragon Age II cannot be judged on its own merit because it's a sequel to a game that was "pure tactical bliss". It's the very definition of dumbed down, to the point where it might as well have been a different IP altogether.

 

I mean, it's fine to adjust and refine in an effort to appeal to more people. See Mass Effect. The sequels disappointed me but they're still alright games and are admittedly better made. They retain enough of the spirit of the original and I understand why they turned out the way they did. But DA2 stripped away pretty much everything that made people love Origins so much.

Edited July 11, 2014 by FLD

[Eleven]

And that's a big part of the problem with DA2 right there. If Dragon Age: Origins is "pure tactical bliss", then don't you see how there's a massive problem with the way Dragon Age II turned out? Dragon Age II cannot be judged on its own merit because it's a sequel to a game that was "pure tactical bliss". It's the very definition of dumbed down, to the point where it might as well have been a different IP altogether.

 

That's how you see it. And I understand why you think that way. But the way I see it, these are two games. And one is more fun than the other. I can't put it any more simpler than that.

 

I can try and judge DA2 on how it is as a sequal to DA:O. But I didn't really enjoy or couldn't get into DA:O in the first place. There is just no point for me doing this, other than to agree with your arguments. And yes, that would be the conclusion I would arrive too, because DA2 as a sequel should have stayed true to the series. I can appreciate that.

 

But DA2 came out. And it didn't. And it turned out to be more enjoyable (IMO) than DA:O. So that's that. You see it as an abomination. I see it as an enjoyable medieval fantasy game.

 

EDIT: Just to clarify: In the last paragraph, I don't know if you can see it as an enjoyable game, too. I assume no, based on your posts. But I want to point out that I said that because I don't see the game as an abomination, because I never appreciated the "standard" in the first place.

Edited July 11, 2014 by eleven

[TheMightyEthan]

Well at least we can all agree that, strictly as a sequel to DA:O, DA2 was bad.

[Strangelove]

Well at least we can all agree that, strictly as a sequel to DA:O, DA2 was bad.

 This.

[TornadoCreator]

Ok, the humility in this thread is shocking. Am I the only one here who genuinely does consider himself smart enough to intellectually analyse games? I do it as a hobby and consider most popular critics woefully underqualified. Perhaps that makes me somewhat arrogant, but I've never yet played a game that I didn't fully understand and comprehend, both in a literal interpretation and the symbology, metaphor, and philosophy it employed.

[toxicitizen]

EDIT: Just to clarify: In the last paragraph, I don't know if you can see it as an enjoyable game, too. I assume no, based on your posts. But I want to point out that I said that because I don't see the game as an abomination, because I never appreciated the "standard" in the first place.

Yeah, no. I tried and couldn't take more than 10 or so hours. I do think that it says a lot about the game that the only people I ever see defending it seem to not have liked Origins at all. There's trying to appeal to a wider audience and then there's completely alienating your initial audience.

[Eleven]

I really wanted to like Origins. I started it several times, maybe 4 or 5 times. And I got it both for the PC and PS3 (twice even for PS3). I got furthest on my last try but I just couldn't get into it anymore (I was in the dwarven mines I think).

 

Honestly, if you see the RPGs I posted on that gaming history thread, this would have been right up my alley. And I thought it was until I tried it out. I think I've just had enough of those type of games.

[TheMightyEthan]

Ok, the humility in this thread is shocking. Am I the only one here who genuinely does consider himself smart enough to intellectually analyse games? I do it as a hobby and consider most popular critics woefully underqualified. Perhaps that makes me somewhat arrogant, but I've never yet played a game that I didn't fully understand and comprehend, both in a literal interpretation and the symbology, metaphor, and philosophy it employed.

I think I would be qualified to seriously critique games of I knew more about art criticism in general (literature, film, etc, symbolism and whatnot). As is it's not that I think I'm not smart enough, I just don't have the background knowledge to discuss it in much depth.

[toxicitizen]

 

Ok, the humility in this thread is shocking. Am I the only one here who genuinely does consider himself smart enough to intellectually analyse games? I do it as a hobby and consider most popular critics woefully underqualified. Perhaps that makes me somewhat arrogant, but I've never yet played a game that I didn't fully understand and comprehend, both in a literal interpretation and the symbology, metaphor, and philosophy it employed.

I think I would be qualified to seriously critique games of I knew more about art criticism in general (literature, film, etc, symbolism and whatnot). As is it's not that I think I'm not smart enough, I just don't have the background knowledge to discuss it in much depth.

 

Pretty much this. When I say "not smart enough" I really mean not knowledgeable enough rather than inability to understand.

[TCP]

Ok, the humility in this thread is shocking. Am I the only one here who genuinely does consider himself smart enough to intellectually analyse games? I do it as a hobby and consider most popular critics woefully underqualified. Perhaps that makes me somewhat arrogant, but I've never yet played a game that I didn't fully understand and comprehend, both in a literal interpretation and the symbology, metaphor, and philosophy it employed.

 

 

Being humble is a good thing, people. 

[TornadoCreator]

Being humble is nothing but society reinforcing the Puritan Christian belief that pride is sinful. Humility can be endearing to an extent but being "humble" unduly is just communal lying. I am a very intelligent person, I've studied at three universities, I've an IQ above genius level; 147, my spacial awareness is exceptional, and I am extremely well read. To deny these things is to deny my achievements and good qualities. In my life I've learned to embrace what makes me great, as I have enough flaws to focus on already. Perhaps that's arrogant but I see it as self actualisation, which is a good thing. Don't shy away from your qualities, wear them proudly; it's far healthier than self-loathing.

 

When it comes to gaming. I enjoy game analysis in much the same way that I enjoy film analysis. In a few years I may be quite limited to what games I can actually play so I decided a while ago to be sure to appreciate the deeper aspects of my games as they're not as reliant on twitch-skill. There's every chance I'll be using easy modes as a default very soon.

[staySICK]

 

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Hot Heart]

I think the problem is that if you're not very knowledgable or articulate, you risk sounding like someone who writes for Kotaku.

 

Seriously, though, it's worth bearing in mind that we have all sorts of different folks here. Some aren't college/university educated and thus might not be accustomed to more analytical tasks and others are just so busy with everyday jobs that they can't (be bothered to) spare the time to take a deeper look at their hobby. In the same way that few really examine the music they listen to, even if they consider themselves huge music lovers.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Hot Heart

[TornadoCreator]

Which is entirely valid Hot Heart. Such casual gamers have every right to enjoy the medium without needing to be enthusiasts. Of cause people get upset when you suggest they're 'casual' gamers, because they think of people on Candy Crush or FarmVille. I don't count them as gamers at all. If you play games maybe twice a week, enjoy the mainstream titles. Bioshock Infinate, GTA V, The Last Of Us, Titanfall, Mario Kart 8 etc. but rarely delve into the deeper elements or obscure games; you're a casual gamer. Just as someone who buys 5 DVDs a year and occasionally goes to the cinema isn't a film buff, they're a casual film fan. Gaming needs that divide...

 

Now I will presume most people here are hardcore gamers simply because it's a gaming forum, but most of my friends are not hardcore gamers... and I'm happy to accept that some people don't want to analyse the games. The thing is, if that's the case I take their opinions on my hobby a lot less seriously; just as I would the insights of a casual film fan on the direction of modern film. It's nothing personal, nor it it meant as an insult or to undermine someones opinion... I just feel it makes more sense.

[Baconrath]

Ah, Piranha Games (PGI) and Mechwarrior Online

 

Not sure what possessed them to focus on emulating only the multiplayer aspect of Mechwarrior, which wasn't really that good, instead of creating an actual Mechwarrior successor with like a campaign and stuff. But hey, whatever gets you that World of Tanks (with legs) money. Might have been due to some of the legal fisticuffs between Harmony Gold (owners of Robotech/Macross) and the Battletech guys over some *cough* similar designs from back in the day. Who knows.

 

Questionable design decisions aside, I believe most of the hate they've garnered is from community mismanagement. A lot of promises were made at the beginning and a lot of players spent money for the Founders program, which gave players some premium stuff but at a risk (kind of like Kickstarter). Some of that money was actually donated to charities. Other premium packs would come later. A noteable source of community piss and vinegar was the sudden addition of a 3rd person camera. The 3rd person camera had been an issue in previous Mechwarrior multiplayer games wherein players would use it to watch for other players while remaining hidden, then jump up and snipe at them. This was known to the community as "poptarting." Piranha promised at the beginning that there would only be a 1st person view. Then they added 3rd person without really announcing it, instead explaining their decision in a rambling "apology" forum post. The players who had already spent money on just had to deal with it. This type of community interaction appeared to be standard for other "design" decisions. It was like PGI began to ignore their community while asking players to BUY BUY BUY (see: $500 golden MadCat).

 

tl;dr: PGI made a lot of money (5 million from Founders!) and silly choices and the giant internet robit community got mad

[TornadoCreator]

I think at this point this thread is losing site of the original point... sure we can debate how we discuss and analyse games but when it comes to betrayal we need look no further than EA!

 

Every game franchise worth something is destroyed by EA. They killed Ultima for fuck sake, they turned Dead Space into a microtransaction shill, they gutted Bullfrog, they ruined Command & Conquer, they destroyed Simcity... and then there's BioWare, you poor thing; they basically raped every franchise BioWare built up and left nothing of value behind. 

 

EA are evil!

Edited July 12, 2014 by TornadoCreator