How come no one but the people of the Codex

[Zarniwoop]

Some very well thought-out and arguments here, as usual. But it basically boils down to this:

yeah? is it because people have better taste in movies or that movies are more accessible as a medium, being passive structured entertainment?

People don't want to think and make decisions. Not ones that have consequences anyways. Those are teh hard. The real decline is that of society as a whole, games and movies sucking are just a symptom of that. People these days regard thinking and being different as a bad thing. I'm not going to pretend that games of yore were always epic brain-teasers, I'm talking more about interactivity. Everything these days is about feeling good, and thinking you achieved something, even though you're a piece of shit. Actually achieving something has lost its value completely, and it's all about deluding oneself and stroking the ego. Entertainment is thus geared towards those 2 things. The new "gamers" want to sit there and be entertained, with a minimal amount of involvement.

Yay, you finished the tutorial, 500 AwesomeGamerPoints for you. Woohoo, you clicked through the Graphics Options menu, another 200. Oh noes, you decided to leave Party Member X behind to fight Ultimate Boss #6. Don't worry, after Sad Funeral Scene X, no one mentions them again, and later you celebrate your heroic defeat of Ultimate Boss #6 in exactly the same way as if you'd left Party Member Y, and all is back as it was again. If you're really lucky you might get End Credits Screen X instead of Y. Lost some health before a difficult fight? Don't worry, that shit just magically regenerates. What you do shouldn't affect your progress in the game should it? You might miss some Radiant Epicness.

Bioware doesn't make games where nothing you do has any real advantage or disadvantage because they are bad designers, it's because that's what people want. They don't want to be responsible for anything that gives them what they perceive as a less than optimal ending to the game. All of life is generally being geared more and more towards not having to make decisions or be critical. The gaming industry just caters to this mindset. And the marketers are loving every bit of it, because they know and exploit people's unwillingness to think, analyse and research before buying something. The few that are left, different from society who still know the value of actually playing a game just for the sake of playing it, or watching a movie for more than some sploshuns and boobs, gravitate towards places like the Codex.

I could go on but it might get a little TL;DR and besides no-one ever reads these posts of mine anyways.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I read your posts, Zarniwoop.

 

[Captain Shrek]

I actually have an answer to this question. Codex has MORE objective means of judging a game than the rest of the e-public. We are not perfect (we haven't perfected these measures by no means no how.) But we are at least having a diffuse idea as to what a good game and a good RPG constitutes.

 

[314159]

Codex has MORE objective means of judging a game than the rest of the e-public.

Maybe (I doubt it, but w/e), but "more objective" absolutely doesn't mean "better" or "preferable".

Also
http://www.george-orwell.org/Lear,_Tols ... ool/0.html

Pretty much the same stuff you ppl are talking about :monocle:

 

[Captain Shrek]

Codex has MORE objective means of judging a game than the rest of the e-public.

Maybe (I doubt it, but w/e), but "more objective" absolutely doesn't mean "better" or "preferable".

Also
http://www.george-orwell.org/Lear,_Tols ... ool/0.html

Pretty much the same stuff you ppl are talking about :monocle:

It does. But I am in no condition to explain it.

 

[314159]

It does. But I am in no condition to explain it.

What do you think about Shakespeare, though... Objectively speaking, his works are major derp, characters talk strangely, act strangely, plots are unbelieveable, well - he ain't no Tolstoy, all right.

 

[Captain Shrek]

It does. But I am in no condition to explain it.

What do you think about Shakespeare, though... Objectively speaking, his works are major derp, characters talk strangely, act strangely, plots are unbelieveable, well - he ain't no Tolstoy, all right.

Read this: If you have any problems with me tell me:

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011 ... works.html

 

[314159]

Read this: If you have any problems with me tell me:

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011 ... works.html

I don't quite see the point. Care to explain in your own words?

 

[Captain Shrek]

Read this: If you have any problems with me tell me:

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011 ... works.html

I don't quite see the point. Care to explain in your own words?

That you can always judge the quality of something with a framework designed to do so.

 

[314159]

That you can always judge the quality of something with a framework designed to do so.

Oh, I see. But doesn't that make it (the judgement) subjective?

 

[Terpsichore]

Masses are retarded.

In other news: bears still found defecating in the woods.

 

[Captain Shrek]

That you can always judge the quality of something with a framework designed to do so.

Oh, I see. But doesn't that make it (the judgement) subjective?

No. The framework is derived in a manner that is consistent with physical reality and other objective facts. Now I am not sure how exactly to go about it (I am not an IT + Lit major, just a physicist). But I would guess it would involve quantifying what KNOWN literary techniques have been employed in the text along with innovative techniques.

 

[Black Cat]

@ OP

KKKodexia answers to a niche no one else's cares for anymore, and the rest of the gaming world answers to the will of the mass market. And as every other niche out there the members of such will tell you they are smarter than everyone else, better than everyone else, and have a more perfect or objective hold on reality than everyone else. The question should be, given none of the other niche groups who claim such shit is actually right about it, as otherwise you would have to accept, say, hardcore pink-and-black EMO subculture is spearheading human evolution and other similar claims, why are we, contrary to every other such claim, actually really what we claim to be? The answer is, naturally, that we aren't.

And I will never understand what's so about videogames. And, even more so, old school role playing games. So we spend hours calculating the chance of a barely dressed elven sorceress to burn the next random encounter to a crisp in a single blast of elemental fire if given this newly looted magical diadem thingie, and then more hours deciding which feats to pick to maximise our party's ability to slaughter fantasy monsters. Meet the cultural elite.

Just play what you enjoy and stop trying to convince yourself you aren't the maladjusted one. You are, so what? You are still wasting your life killing fantasy monsters, and doing it with more hardcore rules and less awful writing is not going to chance that single fact of life.

 

[CorpseZeb]

Eh, "stupid masses" argument again. Wrong. Someone called Shakespeare earlier. Well, in the His time, he was a writer for the "masses", he was the pop-star, he was the Lady Gaga of the medieval theatres delivering all what the "masses" always want (murders, sex, drugs, blood, etc). Anyway, before we can see really great games, status quo of games as universal cultural medium must be established, like status quo of theaters in the Shakespeare age. If there will be enough "theaters", then new "Shakespeares" will be appears from nowhere. Today, games are still an "entertainment" toy, sometimes "artistic" thingy, other time an technological achievements, but never "pure" the game-for-the-game entity.



Ps. C'ome on. Mr. Rolfe is very intelligent men. He really loves not only old games, but also old horror movies. Not deserved to be pictured in the given context.

 

[kingcomrade]

please don't call shakespare the lady gaga of his time. being popular does not mean all things are equal. have some self-respect, and not be retarded, please.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Isn't this simple? The Codex is the place for the people who like the other games. Where else would we go? Many sites have BS rules that prevent you from discussing crap games in a suitably angry fashion, and would you want to discuss them with people who think turn-based is out-dated anyway?

 

[thesoup]

understand how shitty Bioware and Bethesda games are? How come the rest of the world are all in agreement that their games are awesome?

I know this may come as a shocker, but /v/ has a lot of people just like your average Codexer. Actually, I kind of think a lot of people here go there and vice versa.
Yes, there's lots of jrpg, halo, popamole, etc. fanboys who started playing games yesterday and think Mass Effect 2 had really good writing, but underneath it you will definitely find a lot of people who will bitch and moan about dumbing games down and console-itis, lots of mancrushes on MCA (why do you call him that way, anyway? can someone explain?) and lots and lots of Bioware and Bethesda bashing.

 

[kingcomrade]

So a mod doesn't like discussion so this will go in every thread:

I came to the forum because I like Fallout. I like New Vegas, too. I like the Mass Effect series.
So, is there anything to discuss here? I can't think of anything.
I do sometimes feel like I should post more in RPG Discussion. I read the threads, but honestly what is there to discuss? PS:T was great. Arcanum was flawed but great. New Vegas was good. Fallout was good. Two out of those three games are a decade old. Mass Effect 1&2 were fun unless you don't like video games then it was BSB.

What else is there?

I should feel bad for not posting here enough, except that's wrong and really I should not because there's nothing to talk about. The only thread I found interesting was a thread about powergaming Fallout, an ancient game, rofl.

 

[Jaesun]

Keep your fucking shit in GD faggot.

 

[Captain Shrek]

understand how shitty Bioware and Bethesda games are? How come the rest of the world are all in agreement that their games are awesome?

I know this may come as a shocker, but /v/ has a lot of people just like your average Codexer. Actually, I kind of think a lot of people here go there and vice versa.
Yes, there's lots of jrpg, halo, popamole, etc. fanboys who started playing games yesterday and think Mass Effect 2 had really good writing, but underneath it you will definitely find a lot of people who will bitch and moan about dumbing games down and console-itis. can someone explain?) and lots and lots of Bioware and Bethesda bashing.

A brother from /v/. Great.

 

[visions]

It does. But I am in no condition to explain it.

What do you think about Shakespeare, though... Objectively speaking, his works are major derp, characters talk strangely, act strangely, plots are unbelieveable, well - he ain't no Tolstoy, all right.

Lyric Suit incoming in 3... 2... 1...

 

[Phelot]

People don't want to think and make decisions. Not ones that have consequences anyways. Those are teh hard. The real decline is that of society as a whole, games and movies sucking are just a symptom of that. People these days regard thinking and being different as a bad thing. I'm not going to pretend that games of yore were always epic brain-teasers, I'm talking more about interactivity. Everything these days is about feeling good, and thinking you achieved something, even though you're a piece of shit. Actually achieving something has lost its value completely, and it's all about deluding oneself and stroking the ego. Entertainment is thus geared towards those 2 things. The new "gamers" want to sit there and be entertained, with a minimal amount of involvement.

I don't think it's a matter of "us vs. them" and I don't believe that most gamers are "sheeple" or whatever. I think that devs and pubs have finally discovered that golden formula for making a financially successful game with minimal risk and minimal time. What this means is that making a game that can "wow" people with cinematics, curse words, boobs, nex-gen graphics, and big name VO's is good enough to push units as opposed to having to rely on hit or miss gameplay-done-right.

Looking at Frictional Games, the makers of Amnesia and Penumbra, they've mentioned in the past that each of their games has to sell exceptionally well or they risk going under. They also made games that didn't fit into a mainstream mold. In other words, they took risks with their games and their gameplay and luckily for them they've thus far been successful, but one misstep and they're done for. I can understand why big time devs are fearful of taking risks even though it still sucks.

Basically, most gamers are either getting introduced to games now or are able to adapt or are casual gamers. I'd imagine most guys that grew up with 80's CRPGs look at the 90's stuff as being a bit popamole. And thus, those that grew up with the 90's stuff will see games now as being popamole as well. I think the difference between the 80's and 90's is that there was still growth and innovation going on compared to that golden formula I mentioned above. Sure, some devs in the 90's would find a formula that works and run with it. Luckily for us, those formulas could be excellent: Infinity Engine games, Doom clones. But I think those formulas still depended on solid gameplay to be fun. They didn't have the tech for "wow" effects quite yet and they didn't have the millions behind them needed for a more cinematic experience.

And the cinematic experience and all that comes with it has more or less replaced the traditional challenge of a game. It seemed to be a slow evolution. I mean, in the early days, a challenge was all a game could offer. Relatively simple puzzle games or games like Missile Command. Then the challenges got more advanced and more complicated and balancing issues became an issue. It became almost a science designing and fair, but challenging video game. Then stories could be introduced, then stories might even be able to branch a little. You could solve a cRPG quest in multiple ways. All of this still with that tough to balance challenge. But soon, our beloved "C&C" has come to mean which faction or whatever you want to choose. Which "flavor" do you like more? Slowly but surely, games have morphed into a more cinematic experience. Basically, interactive movies. We saw them before in the arcades and they were a cool novelty. Not so much when all you have are them.

 

[Jaesun]

Agreed phelot. Gaming has pretty much evolved to this, and it's not ever going to change:

 

[Captain Shrek]

People don't want to think and make decisions. Not ones that have consequences anyways. Those are teh hard. The real decline is that of society as a whole, games and movies sucking are just a symptom of that. People these days regard thinking and being different as a bad thing. I'm not going to pretend that games of yore were always epic brain-teasers, I'm talking more about interactivity. Everything these days is about feeling good, and thinking you achieved something, even though you're a piece of shit. Actually achieving something has lost its value completely, and it's all about deluding oneself and stroking the ego. Entertainment is thus geared towards those 2 things. The new "gamers" want to sit there and be entertained, with a minimal amount of involvement.

I don't think it's a matter of "us vs. them" and I don't believe that most gamers are "sheeple" or whatever. I think that devs and pubs have finally discovered that golden formula for making a financially successful game with minimal risk and minimal time. What this means is that making a game that can "wow" people with cinematics, curse words, boobs, nex-gen graphics, and big name VO's is good enough to push units as opposed to having to rely on hit or miss gameplay-done-right.

Looking at Frictional Games, the makers of Amnesia and Penumbra, they've mentioned in the past that each of their games has to sell exceptionally well or they risk going under. They also made games that didn't fit into a mainstream mold. In other words, they took risks with their games and their gameplay and luckily for them they've thus far been successful, but one misstep and they're done for. I can understand why big time devs are fearful of taking risks even though it still sucks.

Basically, most gamers are either getting introduced to games now or are able to adapt or are casual gamers. I'd imagine most guys that grew up with 80's CRPGs look at the 90's stuff as being a bit popamole. And thus, those that grew up with the 90's stuff will see games now as being popamole as well. I think the difference between the 80's and 90's is that there was still growth and innovation going on compared to that golden formula I mentioned above. Sure, some devs in the 90's would find a formula that works and run with it. Luckily for us, those formulas could be excellent: Infinity Engine games, Doom clones. But I think those formulas still depended on solid gameplay to be fun. They didn't have the tech for "wow" effects quite yet and they didn't have the millions behind them needed for a more cinematic experience.

And the cinematic experience and all that comes with it has more or less replaced the traditional challenge of a game. It seemed to be a slow evolution. I mean, in the early days, a challenge was all a game could offer. Relatively simple puzzle games or games like Missile Command. Then the challenges got more advanced and more complicated and balancing issues became an issue. It became almost a science designing and fair, but challenging video game. Then stories could be introduced, then stories might even be able to branch a little. You could solve a cRPG quest in multiple ways. All of this still with that tough to balance challenge. But soon, our beloved "C&C" has come to mean which faction or whatever you want to choose. Which "flavor" do you like more? Slowly but surely, games have morphed into a more cinematic experience. Basically, interactive movies. We saw them before in the arcades and they were a cool novelty. Not so much when all you have are them.

So... people are sheeple?

 

[Terpsichore]

So... people are sheeple?