Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Originally posted by Peach
Sorry, but yeah. Ignoring that aspect of games is absolutely ridiculous. That's 90% of what makes them worth playing.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'd say gameplay and writing in all its forms are both the most important quality of a game, IMO.

^

This

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'd say gameplay and writing in all its forms are both the most important quality of a game, IMO.

I can usually tolerate less-than-stellar gameplay better than I can a boring or non-existent story.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why is that? If I wanted to experience a deep and immersive story I would read a novel, or watch a well directed movie. What is it about video games that makes it a necessity to have an excellent plot and good writing? Sometimes I have a shitty day dealing with people and I just want to go home and blow a mother****er's brains out. I don't need a decent plot for that, and that's something that I can't get from anywhere else, aside from actually doing it in real life. So where does this nesceseitty come from?

Why shouldn't games have a good plot and well-done writing? They are just as capable of conveying such things as books or movies; in some ways, they can do so even better because of the interactive quality that is inherent in the medium.

Originally posted by Peach
Why shouldn't games have a good plot and well-done writing? They are just as capable of conveying such things as books or movies; in some ways, they can do so even better because of the interactive quality that is inherent in the medium.

What does that have to do with me at all? I never said they shouldn't, I said that it's not important to me when choosing a game, to which you said that that was ridiculous.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't... gauge games on the depth of their storyline or the character development. I gauge books that way, and movies. Not video games though.

Alternatively, you could go with Bardock and Nemebro's fail answer and decide that I just have bad taste. You jerks.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why is that? If I wanted to experience a deep and immersive story I would read a novel, or watch a well directed movie. What is it about video games that makes it a necessity to have an excellent plot and good writing? Sometimes I have a shitty day dealing with people and I just want to go home and blow a mother****er's brains out. I don't need a decent plot for that, and that's something that I can't get from anywhere else, aside from actually doing it in real life. So where does this idea that a good plot is paramount to a game being good come from?

Different games aim for different goals, just as different movies and different books do. You do not watch Citizen Kane for the same reason you watch Fight Club, but you acknowledge both as worthy movies in their respective goals. The same for books; you might want a comic of a superhero beating up bad guys, or you might want Lord of the Rings. Both have their place and are accepted for it.

Solely in the medium of games does this fail. Regardless of a game's goal, too many people allow a stigma to persist that games are about mindless action first, and a story dead last. Games like, say, Mortal Kombat, certainly succeed in their aim of gory fighting, but you should not play all games for the same reason you play MK. Games are just as worthy of tackling complex subjects as any other medium.

Ezio, for example, was an outstanding character because the game's format allows his story to be told not over mere days or weeks, but over the span of decades. You meet him as a naive, idealistic youth, and experience his growth into adulthood and maturity as he slowly becomes able to take on the burden of leading the Assassins of his time against the Templars. The Ezio at the end of the game is different from the Ezio at the beginning in almost every aspect, but in the intervening story that change is told naturally, in a realistic and very human way. That is what makes AC2 such an exceptional game; above and beyond the great if slightly flawed gameplay and the deep conspiracy story is, at the core, a character portrait brilliantly illuminated over forty years of development.

...end passionate elitist designer rant.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What does that have to do with me at all? I never said they shouldn't, I said that it's not important to me when choosing a game, to which you said that that was ridiculous.

Because the attitude of "plot is not important in games" is what causes the idea that games are not something to be taken seriously, are not art, are nothing but a juvenile hobby, are nothing but a waste of time and money, and so on.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
[B]It's this type of view that keeps video games from being accepted as just as worthy a medium as books and movies.

What is "my view"? Could you summarize it if I asked you too?

Because the attitude of "plot is not important in games" is what causes the idea that games are not something to be taken seriously, are not art, are nothing but a juvenile hobby, are nothing but a waste of time and money, and so on.

In which case the people who think that are idiots, and it is irrelevent. It's not my fault that someone would take my view, which is that I play games to be entertainted and to have specific feelings validated, and turn that into "games are a waste of time".

Only a wannabe intellectual would think that. Video games, just like all other forms of media, have a variety of uses and reasons for existing, such as art, or a simple stress reliever after a long day, or it can even be a mixture of the two.

Anyone who thinks that there is some objective definition of what constitutes as a "good" game, or movie or novel for that matter, is pretentious.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What is "my view"? Could you summarize it if I asked you too?

In which case the people who think that are idiots, and it is irrelevent. It's not my fault that someone would take my view, which is that I play games to be entertainted and to have specific feelings validated, and turn that into "games are a waste of time".

Only a wannabe intellectual would think that. Video games, just like all other forms of media, have a variety of uses and reasons for existing, such as art, or a simple stress reliever after a long day, or it can even be a mixture of the two.

Anyone who thinks that there is some objective definition of what constitutes as a "good" game, or movie or novel for that matter, is pretentious.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What is "my view"? Could you summarize it if I asked you too?

In which case the people who think that are idiots, and it is irrelevent. It's not my fault that someone would take my view, which is that I play games to be entertainted and to have specific feelings validated, and turn that into "games are a waste of time".

Only a wannabe intellectual would think that. Video games, just like all other forms of media, have a variety of uses and reasons for existing, such as art, or a simple stress reliever after a long day, or it can even be a mixture of the two.

Anyone who thinks that there is some objective definition of what constitutes as a "good" game, or movie or novel for that matter, is pretentious.

Yeah, I'm aware people who believe that games are worthless and not art and so on are stupid.

However, your view that plot is unimportant is not exactly an uncommon one. You may find it not important to you, but unfortunately developers like to latch onto the "I just wanna kill something" thing and make shitty-ass three hour games because of it.

Not to mention all of the people - generally non-gamers - who point at games as a waste of time and money because of the fact that violence is prevalent in them and claim that they lack any real value. Video games were a recent topic before the US Supreme Court, in case you've forgotten. You can say it's simply your opinion, but the fact that this opinion is currently so widespread (among gamers, leading to crappy games from developers trying to make a quick buck, and non-gamers, who try and use it against gamers and developers) is harmful to the industry as a whole.

Sometimes I feel the need to just turn on a game and kill things. Most people do. And yes, it's a safe way to let out aggression and vent a bad mood. However, 95% of the time, that's not important and it gets boring extremely fast, and I'd rather do something in games that actually has a purpose other than "kill everyone around me", and instead would prefer to get immersed in a plot and the characters.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
This is exactly my point, only you seem to be on the opposite end from your strawman example. Games entertain, but not all game entertainment is action. Why should someone not garner entertainment by a well-told story from a game that is obviously intended to do just that? You appear to pigeonhole games into entertainment purely of the mindless action variety, which is like watching Fight Club purely for fight scenes, or The Matrix Reloaded purely for philosophy.

That is not the point that I'm trying to make. I'll try to rephrase it to make as simple and easy to understand as possible, from everybodies' perspective, because I think we're having a bit of a communication meltdown here. 😛

Video games have the potential to be a number of things, they can be a form of art, they can be something to do while waiting in line at the bank, they can be a form of competition, something to gauge tactical or reflexive competence between people. They can be a whole bunch of thing and serve a whole bunch of uses; it depends on the person. But there is no shoulds or shouldnt's. The idea that all games should have a strong storyline and decent writing, in order to be "good", is ridiculous from an objective or universal standpoint. The inverse is also true.

That was my initial point from the get go. The idea that games should or should not have certain elements stemmed completely from you guys.

However, your view that plot is unimportant is not exactly an uncommon one. You may find it not important to you, but unfortunately developers like to latch onto the "I just wanna kill something" thing and make shitty-ass three hour games because of it.

Not to mention all of the people - generally non-gamers - who point at games as a waste of time and money because of the fact that violence is prevalent in them and claim that they lack any real value. Video games were a recent topic before the US Supreme Court, in case you've forgotten. You can say it's simply your opinion, but the fact that this opinion is currently so widespread (among gamers, leading to crappy games, and non-gamers, who try and use it against gamers and developers) is harmful to the industry as a whole.

And that's a shame. But it's not my problem. It's not my fault that many people play games for the same reason I do, and it's not my fault that the reason why I play games is a complete polarization from the reason you, and apparently a minority of people, do. You have my sympathy, lol, but I shouldn't have to feel bad or "ridiculous" because I play video games for the reasons that I do. If there's anyone you should be venting your frustration at, it should be at the game makers who are greedy and make games solely for profit, not the players themselves.

However, 95% of the time, that's not important and it gets boring extremely fast, and I'd rather do something in games that actually has a purpose other than "kill everyone around me", and instead would prefer to get immersed in a plot and the characters.

Well, you're certainty entitled to think that, lol, and if the current gaming situation was reversed, and the majority of games were designed with excellent plots and writing as the priority, instead of the gameplay and violence, I could then point my finger and say that people like you are the reasons for why it's so hard for me to find a decent linear online FPS! But... I wouldn't do that, because it doesn't seem logical to me to criticize someone for their tastes in something as relative as a video game or movie or book.

Personally I feel that a good gameplay system with depth is a kind of art all its own.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You are making the mistake of thinking that I am trying to state my personal feelings on the matter as if they are a universal standard that all should adhere to, that because [b]I play video games for the sake of relieving stress at the end of the day, and nothing else, everyone should.

That is not the point that I'm trying to make. I'll try to rephrase it to make as simple and easy to understand as possible, from everybodies' perspective, because I think we're having a bit of a communication meltdown here. 😛

Video games have the potential to be a number of things, they can be a form of art, they can be something to do while waiting in line at the bank, they can be a form of competition, something to gauge tactical or reflexive competence between people. They can be a whole bunch of thing and serve a whole bunch of uses; it depends on the person. But there is no shoulds or shouldnt's. The idea that all games should have a strong storyline and decent writing, in order to be "good", is ridiculous from an objective or universal standpoint. The inverse is also true.

That was my initial point from the get go. The idea that games should or should not have certain elements stemmed completely from you guys. [/B]

I also tend to notice that a poor/non-existent/overly short plot in a game tends to be more of a death knell than poor gameplay, unless the gameplay is so bad as to render the game unplayable, when it comes to reviews.

Recent examples: TFU2. The gameplay is not bad, I will give it that. It's enjoyable, if not a bit repetitive. The main reason it's gotten shitty reviews? Because of the incredibly short and terrible story.

Medal of Honor has decent gameplay and multiplayer, and being an FPS, this is generally the most important thing. However, it's gotten mediocre reviews. Why? Because the singleplayer is three hours long and has basically no story.

CoD's popularity is because of the campaign of the first Modern Warfare, which was great; the multiplayer was also good but it wasn't the catch for that game and wasn't what made it a superseller. MW2 had an okay plot but great multiplayer (if not broken because it was not beta tested). Black Ops is getting phenomenal reviews, but it's not because of the multiplayer, which is basically no different from MW2. It's because of the singleplayer campaign, which has a very deep and personal character-based plotline; this time around it's the campaign that's setting it apart from the rest.

Even GTA games have fairly decent plots, for all that you can go about the entire game caring about nothing more than shooting as many people as you can. For those who want a story and character development, it does exist.

So yeah. Gameplay is important, but plot is generally seen as being just as important, if not more.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
[B]You are utterly missing my point.

I am not saying what games should or should not be, there is a place and purpose for nearly any type of game. I am saying how people should or should not view them,

You're splitting hairs here. Everything in life is about perceptions. Something "is", because people view it to be so. So, the idea that there is a difference between what is and what is perceived to be is kind of an odd view, unless you're the type of person who believes in absolute truths. I'm not, personally.

and you are currently typifying exactly the problem with the common view of video games, which is that games are purely for entertaining stress relief.

You say that you hold that view only for yourself, but so do most others with the same opinion, and when that opinion is the vast majority, it gives games a stigma against intelligent storytelling as a whole.

And again, this is only a problem for people who think as you do. For people who think like me, this is not an issue. I am not trying to make it sound as if I don't care, to reiterate my statement to Lana, you have my sympathies because I can understand the frustration involved in being in the minority of a group, but as I'm not in the minority in this case, I don't see how this "problem" is one of paramount importance aside from a grievance to people with your mindset. If tomorrow we woke up and all video games were online FPS's, and only online FPS's, and the storymodes were only 3 hours long each, then life would suck for you, but it wouldn't bother me any, and the world wouldn't explode either. No one is going to die if video games are one day restricted to only having shitty storylines.

Why should I bother putting time, effort, and thought into developing deep, intelligent characters and plots when most people are only going to buy a game because it lets them decapitate people after a hard day at work? That opinion, innocent as you may think it is, stifles any reason for thoughtful creativity beyond self-indulgence.

There was once a time when people did things because they enjoyed doing it. I can assure you that there are many people who writes stories because they like writing, not because they're trying to get it published, there are people who paint luxurious paintings because they wanted to express themselves through their art, not because they were trying to sell it to pay off their mortgage, there are peopel who get together and write entire scripts, act out entire multi-hour scenes, and work their asses off, because they enjoy it doing it, etc. I don't agree with you if your point is that someone should only put effort into doing something if they're going to get paid for it.

Originally posted by Peach
I also tend to notice that a poor/non-existent/overly short plot in a game tends to be more of a death knell than poor gameplay, unless the gameplay is so bad as to render the game unplayable, when it comes to reviews.

Recent examples: TFU2. The gameplay is not bad, I will give it that. It's enjoyable, if not a bit repetitive. The main reason it's gotten shitty reviews? Because of the incredibly short and terrible story.

Medal of Honor has decent gameplay and multiplayer, and being an FPS, this is generally the most important thing. However, it's gotten mediocre reviews. Why? Because the singleplayer is three hours long and has basically no story.

CoD's popularity is because of the campaign of the first Modern Warfare, which was great; the multiplayer was also good but it wasn't the catch for that game and wasn't what made it a superseller. MW2 had an okay plot but great multiplayer (if not broken because it was not beta tested). Black Ops is getting phenomenal reviews, but it's not because of the multiplayer, which is basically no different from MW2. It's because of the singleplayer campaign, which has a very deep and personal character-based plotline; this time around it's the campaign that's setting it apart from the rest.

Even GTA games have fairly decent plots, for all that you can go about the entire game caring about nothing more than shooting as many people as you can. For those who want a story and character development, it does exist.

So yeah. Gameplay is important, but plot is generally seen as being just as important, if not more.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
There was once a time when people did things because they enjoyed doing it. I can assure you that there are many people who writes stories because they like writing, not because they're trying to get it published, there are people who paint luxurious paintings because they wanted to express themselves through their art, not because they were trying to sell it to pay off their mortgage, there are peopel who get together and write entire scripts, act out entire multi-hour scenes, and work their asses off, because they enjoy it doing it, etc. I don't agree with you if your point is that someone should only put effort into doing something if they're going to get paid for it.

Did you...seriously...

You are arguing with a pair of artists, here, have you forgotten? Designers, even, which is commercial art. Yes, people do things for enjoyment. I do all the time. I know GK does as well. And yes, people put a lot of time and effort into creative works for their own enjoyment.

However, when it comes to paid work, you do what the higherups tell you to. You go through revision and revision and revision until they are happy. If you don't, you do not have a job. Period. You lose the contract and it gets handed off to someone else that will do what the guys in charge of the project want.

And trust me. Creating art to please other people is a hell of a lot more difficult than creating art just to please yourself.

Originally posted by Peach
And trust me. Creating art to please other people is a hell of a lot more difficult than creating art just to please yourself.

I must disagree based on the fact that I can't be happy with anything I write or draw.

Originally posted by Peach
Did you...seriously...

You are arguing with a pair of artists, here, have you forgotten? Designers, even, which is commercial art. Yes, people do things for enjoyment. I do all the time. I know GK does as well. And yes, people put a lot of time and effort into creative works for their own enjoyment.

[b]However, when it comes to paid work, you do what the higherups tell you to. You go through revision and revision and revision until they are happy. If you don't, you do not have a job. Period. You lose the contract and it gets handed off to someone else that will do what the guys in charge of the project want.

And trust me. Creating art to please other people is a hell of a lot more difficult than creating art just to please yourself. [/B]

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I must disagree based on the fact that I can't be happy with anything I write or draw.

Everyone is their own worst critic. There is truth to that phrase.

However, when you are working for someone else, you do not have the luxury of setting it aside and going back to it later when you have fresh ideas or time to edit. You don't have the luxury of simply scrapping it entirely.

Instead, you are working on a tight deadline, oftentimes with people with little artistic knowledge or skill, who are trying to convey what they want an image to look like with words, and then you have to match that. If you like it and they don't, well, that sucks for you, because you have to redo it until they like it. If you're stumped...better get sketching anyway, because if you can't come up with roughs, then what good are you? You don't have the creative freedom to simply do whatever you want, because you have very specific constraints you have to work within.

Creating something I'm happy with is not always easy, but creating something to please someone else while working within the constraints and deadline they set can be a lot harder. Commercial art and design is a far more difficult field to work in than most people give it credit for.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's how it works yes. I never denied that, but: if your job depends upon you making a certain thing in a certain way, as directed by your boss, and you don't make it, and then you get fired, then that's your problem to deal with. No one elses. If you want to have the freedom to "express" yourself and make only things that you want to make, and **** everybody else who disagrees, then fine. But... I wouldn't try to feel that way about your art, and try to use it to make a living at the same time... No offense, but if you get fired from your job because your boss tells you that he wants more violence in your game and less plot, and you tell him to **** off, and he fires you... then that's your own problem. In a perfect world you could do only what you want to do and also get paid for it. This isn't a perfect world though... so, I'm sorry, but tough, lol. That's the way it is, and again, that doesn't affect me, it affects you. Why should I feel bad because of that? Personally? I work 40 hours a week doing a shit security job, and at home I write fiction, just for myself and for the viewing pleasures of other people around me. I'm not going to quit my security job and try to make a living selling my fiction, then get mad because nobody wants to buy my shit because non-fiction is where it's at, and I hate writing non-fiction.

Are you even reading anything that's being said? Good lord, I have to think that you are deliberately trolling because you're generally not this obtuse.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I got your point just fine, in fact I even addressed it, if the rest of your post below is any indication.

You're splitting hairs here. Everything in life is about perceptions. Something "is", because people view it to be so. So, the idea that there is a difference between what is and what is perceived to be is kind of an odd view, unless you're the type of person who believes in absolute truths. I'm not, personally.

Doesn't seem like a problem to me. I play games because I use them to relieve stress; so that fits the bill perfectly. I guess to someone like you, who does view video games as an art form, that would be a problem, but it isn't to me. You act as if there is some kind of inherent universal injustice with people thinking that video games are pointless stress relievers. It's an inconvenience to you, nothing more really.

And again, this is only a problem for people who think as you do. For people who think like me, this is not an issue. I am not trying to make it sound as if I don't care, to reiterate my statement to Lana, you have my sympathies because I can understand the frustration involved in being in the minority of a group, but as I'm not in the minority in this case, I don't see how this "problem" is one of paramount importance aside from a grievance to people with your mindset. If tomorrow we woke up and all video games were online FPS's, and only online FPS's, and the storymodes were only 3 hours long each, then life would suck for you, but it wouldn't bother me any, and the world wouldn't explode either. No one is going to die if video games are one day restricted to only having shitty storylines.

There was once a time when people did things because they enjoyed doing it. I can assure you that there are many people who writes stories because they like writing, not because they're trying to get it published, there are people who paint luxurious paintings because they wanted to express themselves through their art, not because they were trying to sell it to pay off their mortgage, etc. I don't agree with you if your point is that someone should only put effort into doing something if they're going to get paid for it.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's how it works yes. I never denied that, but: if your job depends upon you making a certain thing in a certain way, as directed by your boss, and you don't make it, and then you get fired, then that's your problem to deal with. No one elses. If you want to have the freedom to "express" yourself and make only things that you want to make, and **** everybody else who disagrees, then fine. But... I wouldn't try to feel that way about your art, and try to use it to make a living at the same time... No offense, but if you get fired from your job because your boss tells you that he wants more violence in your game and less plot, and you tell him to **** off, and he fires you... then that's your own problem. In a perfect world you could do only what you want to do and also get paid for it. This isn't a perfect world though... so, I'm sorry, but tough, lol. That's the way it is, and again, that doesn't affect me, it affects you. Why should I feel bad because of that? Personally? I work 40 hours a week doing a shit security job, and at home I write fiction, just for myself and for the viewing pleasures of other people around me. I'm not going to quit my security job and try to make a living selling my fiction, then get mad because nobody wants to buy my shit because non-fiction is where it's at, and I hate writing non-fiction.