John Walker criticized: "Not Just Solid Food, But Real Food"

[Vaarna_Aarne]

It was kind of cool in MGS4 how Snake would throw up and become temporarily much more ineffective if you went on a violent killing spree and proved Liquid was right.

 

[hiver]

Yeah but walker wasnt talking about retarded gta4 was he?

BRO I DONT THINK SO I JUST REREAD IT AGAIN

THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE ONLY MENTIONED STORY AND I AGREE WITH THE BRO ABOVE THAT ADDING FAGS OR EMOTIONAL DRAMA JUST AS AN ADDED CUTSCENE ISNT REALLY DOING ANYTHING MATURE ESPECIALLY WHEN IT DOES NOT MATCH THE GAMEPLAY

Did Walker than say that fags and emotional drama added as additional cutscenes will do something special?

 

[toro]

The entire article is rubbish.

"To criticize a game for not having the daring to meditate on love and loss or to end in your avatar’s suicide is like criticizing the Ford Pinto for being the wrong color" - Nonsense analogy.

"Roger Ebert had a law he’d apply in his critiques: “A movie is not what it is about. It is how it is about it.”" - A quote so famous that all mighty google cannot find it. Is just misinformation or pure lying?

"The defining feature of a game is, and will always be, play. Happily, games are staggeringly diverse and create a diversity of forms of play. In my closet I have games played through calculation, dexterity, trading, deceit, humor, language, geometry, and teamwork – and these are only the board games!" - This betrays the author intention: a game is reduced just to gameplay mechanics disregarding the context, like playing Russia Roullete for fun is the same as playing Russian Roulette because you have too. In theory, he is right - a game can be completely defined as a set of game rules. However in reality, the overall game experience is the merged product of playing the game mechanics and the game context. The game context game be external to the actual game (personal health problems, depression after a funeral) or internal to the actual game (as game lore or character background stories in video games).

"To date, many games with heavy themes have failed to support them with gameplay. For example, Bioshock claimed to be an insightful game for a more mature, contemplative sort of player. It was, we’re told, about the perils of libertarianism and unchecked genetic manipulation. Supposedly, the game is about the importance of humanity and kindness. I wouldn’t know, because the game I played was mostly interested in how efficiently I could shoot the mentally derange" - Basically the author made the *choice* of ignoring the themes brought up by Bioshock/Levine and then it claims that those themes were not in the game!?

"In Grand Theft Auto 4, Niko is written by the developers as a war vet struggling for redemption but played by the player as a mass-murdering sociopath. Compare this with the superior The Saboteur, in which the character’s motivation is always to kill Nazis, both in and out of cutscenes." - GT4 is not the epitome of gaming and narrative dissonance can often be found in games, as is the case with movies. Saboteur is a fucked up linear shitty shooter that has nothing special and is discarded swiftly by any seasoned gamer. And again, the author ignores the fact that Niko *could* actually behave like a reasonable person, if Rockstar had implemented such a rpg mechanism. Maybe he should choose Fallout/PST/Arcanum for a proper comparison.

And at this point, I have no motivation to carry on with analyzing the article. For me, it's clear that Joe Hilgard doesn't have the capacity or skills to objectively analyze John Walker's article. He is probably a casual gamer that is throwing some game names around, takes some examples that don't prove anything and spins the article in a direction liked by him. I think that a good article would analyze the games from both game mechanics and game context aspects. And it should not be hard to find that some gamers simply want more mature themes/complex stories or simply better characters in their games, because it really helps them to get a better experience. And he is completely unaware to the fact that in case of rpg games, the narrative is actually a game mechanism [at least until we will be able to make rpgs without dialogue trees]. Yep, combat only rpgs can be fun, but Black Isle, Troika and Obsidian proved that there is more to what games could be.

Also the game narrative cannot be reduced to cutscenes and it should not be always reduced to the superficial shit developed by Bioware. That's like

Sorry for the long post, but I'm simply perplexed by the number of codexers agreeing with Joe Hillbilly. WTF.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

The author does not seem to understand what literary theme is, mistaking it for what we refer to when we say "the boy decorated his room with a sports theme". Stopped reading after that point.

 

[Infinitron]

toro, you sound butthurt

However in reality, the overall game experience is the merged product of playing the game mechanics and the game context.

Except that you can't just dump "game context" and "game mechanics" into your software and expect everything to magically click. They need to work off of each other. Bioshock doesn't do that. GTA4 doesn't do that.

You seem to be implying that only RPGs can achieve that harmony. I don't think that's true.

 

[taxalot]

From the moment the author had decided that games were like books, he lost the argument.

"Video games" is a stupid and outdated classification. Putting Fifa Soccer, Planescape Torment, Angry Birds and an Adam Cadre interactive fiction is absolute. Fucking. Bullshit. Heavy Rain is closer to movies and TV series than a true game, yet a game it is called.

A deep story with mature themes can be nice, but it has nice nothing to do in a shooting game, in a soccer game. Not all games are books. Some games are just games.

However if you do look like at Interactive Fiction, you do find out that yes, we're slowly getting there, where the author wants us to go. There are games with mature themes that do not resolve about you saving your world but fixing your marriage (Façade, anyone ?). The criticism of the author is pointless. What he wants exists already, he just wants it to be in places it doesn't belong.

 

[Infinitron]

From the moment the author had decided that

Which author?

 

[taxalot]

The article. And rereading it, yeah, he doesn't say games are books but he laments they aren't, which doesn't change my point.

 

[Infinitron]

The article. And rereading it, yeah, he doesn't say games are books but he laments they aren't, which doesn't change my point.

I'm not sure whether you were referring to John Walker or the author of what I posted, who was criticizing him.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I didn't play Persona 3 for very long, but a friend told me something neat. If you manage to max out all your S-Links, a feat pretty much impossible unless you're using a strategy guide to tell everyone exactly what they want to hear, an NPC gives you a special reward and calls you "A mask with nothing beneath" - kind of calling you out for not really playing the game & just minmaxing the relationships. I think that's a cute idea, the way the game has a meta-awareness that people couldn't 100% it without solving it with a guide.

I stopped playing it after I told my schoolfriend that he wasn't going to doink the teacher & he get pissy and the S-Link reversed. Playing "guess what the dev says is the right answer" isn't my idea of fun.

One of the characters will accuse you of being a cheater* mid-combat if you use a gameshark to access a special arcana you shouldn't be touching before the endgame. Voiced, at that.


*it's probably more subtle than that, but I can't find the video now

 

[toro]

toro, you sound butthurt

However in reality, the overall game experience is the merged product of playing the game mechanics and the game context.

Except that you can't just dump "game context" and "game mechanics" into your software and expect everything to magically click. They need to work off of each other. Bioshock doesn't do that. GTA4 doesn't do that.

You seem to be implying that only RPGs can achieve that harmony. I don't think that's true.

Far from it. My butthurt sound is different.

As for "game context" and "game mechanics", it definitely depends on the developer skills. Take Bioshock as the perfect example: the game really clicked until halfway - the great revelation "Would you kindly...". However after than point the game gave up on "context" and become a mindless shooter. The same with Risen. The same with a lot of other games.

I don't say this is a absolute rule, but games that relies just on game mechanics cannot push forward games as a art form. Nobody is playing Tetris because he is immersed in Tetris world, cause most of the time, a tetris player is not immersed and is wasting time for a utilitarian purpose. On the other hand, even Bioshock allows emergent and immersive gameplay, that in the end can evolve in a much more satisfying experience for a intellectual gamer. Basically it makes the gamer to think to themes that exist completely outside of the game world (like objectivism) and is not far fetched to say that probably Bioshock introduced Ayn Rand to a lot of people. Therefore the game experience becomes an real-life/deep experience that a lot of players are craving for. From this point of view, good game mechanics can help in some limited aspect, but game context is simply more likely to uplift the game to such a status. And is not the game problem that a gamer is unable to experience it the best way, that's the player problem. I should not be punished because Joe or some console gamer cannot into emergent gameplay, therefore he cannot enjoy Deus Ex and the following sequels are spoon feeding him a linear story, as in Saboteur.

And in Joe's case, he simply ignores all the themes brought up by Bioshock. Does it mean that the game doesn't have those themes? No. And I don't know what it means about Joe, but is definitely not good
Also is true that game context and game mechanics cannot and never will click for the entire game experience, but you will practically lie if you state that they did not click at all even in the cases of Bioshock or GT4. Also real life is mostly pointless, but the small moments were we feel special are quite worth the effort of trying to live as good as possible. And again, Joe's is making the case for games like Saboteur, where the developers forced the gamer to experience the world in a linear manner. By the way, the end of Stalker was a pain inducing experience. This guy doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. In the best case scenario he did not evolve beyond the status of a casual gamer. He is just criticizing for the sake of it, cause in the end, he has no point, no problem cause is identified and no solution is provided. A fucking philosopher.

I will never agree with someone who can criticize the call to add more context/story/meat to a game. It will not always click, but for now, this is the only way to push forward games as an art form or mature preoccupation. When you are 10 years old is ok to play Tetris and enjoy the hell out of it, but if you do the same thing at 40 years ... something is not alright. Heavy Rain is limited by technological stuff, but it really is a push in a good direction. Is not a RPG, it's an adventure game, where narrative is even more important than in rpgs. Is not a sand box game, but it is quite atmospheric and immersive. So at least I partially agree on your second statement: all games can reach such a level of harmony, but most likely not without a good/exceptional context. That's why Singularity has a stellar gameplay, but sucks balls in the end. Compared to Metro 2033 which is more deficient in game mechanic, but is a lot more satisfying than Singularity.

So, please point out the failure in my logic, instead of butthurt comments.

 

[Arcks]

...Heavy Rain is limited by technological stuff, but it really is a push in a good direction...

You should really rearrange your reply, and put this in the top, so everyone can safely ignore the rest of it.

 

[toro]

...Heavy Rain is limited by technological stuff, but it really is a push in a good direction...

You should really rearrange your reply, and put this in the top, so everyone can safely ignore the rest of it.

No shit. Did you play the game?

 

[Gentle Player]

Bioshock is hardly an intellectual game. It takes more than throwing in some philosophical and literary references to make something "intellectual" or a "work of art". You run around smacking mutants with a spanner and spitting bees at them, end of.

 

[Arcks]

No shit. Did you play the game?

I didn't. But it's hardly my fault, considering there isn't anything related to playing in heavy rain. Except the play the movie button.

 

[Lagole Gon]

No shit. Did you play the game?

I didn't. But it's hardly my fault, considering there isn't anything related to playing in heavy rain. Except the play the movie button.

You can play it on youtube

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Honestly, someone praising Bioshock and Heavy Rain in the context of this discussion only serves to reinforce the point of hipscumbag's article.

 

[toro]

No shit. Did you play the game?

I didn't. But it's hardly my fault, considering there isn't anything related to playing in heavy rain. Except the play the movie button.

Interesting. An informed opinion

Despite a huge number of useless QTEs, the game is very similar to this: http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Anatomy_of_a_Crime
Yep, HR has some fucking big problems like a ton of useless QTEs or simply narrative issues, but the game is featuring hard C&C with multiple endings. In fact the majority of players have finished the game without finding out who is the real killer.
I don't applaud the implementation, but I like the concept. And I want to see it done properly.

 

[toro]

Bioshock is hardly an intellectual game. It takes more than throwing in some philosophical and literary references to make something "intellectual" or a "work of art". You run around smacking mutants with a spanner and spitting bees at them, end of.

Like I've said "it definitely depends on the developer skills". I've also been disappointed by Bioshock, because is nowhere near the greatness of System Shock 2.
But it also depends on the player interests: he could possibly use the game as a introduction to something else or not. But nobody can say that the game had no "philosophical and literary references".
Taking in consideration the huge amount of combat from the game, I agree that is not really an "intellectual" game. But is no Doom either.

 

[toro]

No shit. Did you play the game?

I didn't. But it's hardly my fault, considering there isn't anything related to playing in heavy rain. Except the play the movie button.

You can play it on youtube

You can do this with any game. Big fucking point.

 

[toro]

Honestly, someone praising Bioshock and Heavy Rain in the context of this discussion only serves to reinforce the point of hipscumbag's article.

First of all, I did not praise the games. However I wanted to present a more subjective views, meaning that I don't like to be a codex edgy fucktard that discards an entire game because one feature is fucked up.

Second of all, my posts are not reinforcing anything. Because from what I see, nobody proved the main point: game mechanics are more important than game context/story.

And I can be about it, because nobody will ever prove this thing. Neither one is more important as the other, because both of them are part of the same chain.

John Walker article even as badly written as it is, at least is a call to do something. To add more meat to games, to develop proper stories, characters and so on. This is actually a good thing and cannot be reduced to add romancing shit from Bioware.
However I don't think is codexian to support an imbecile that wrote an article, just because in this case he is criticizing John Walker from RPS. And we all know RPS sucks because ... we are edgy and shit. Use your fucking brain.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Honestly, someone praising Bioshock and Heavy Rain in the context of this discussion only serves to reinforce the point of hipscumbag's article.

First of all, I did not praise the games. However I wanted to present a more subjective views, meaning that I don't like to be a codex edgy fucktard that discards an entire game because one feature is fucked up.

Second of all, my posts are not reinforcing anything. Because from what I see, nobody proved the main point: game mechanics are more important than game context/story.

And I can be about it, because nobody will ever prove this thing. Neither one is more important as the other, because both of them are part of the same chain.

John Walker article even as badly written as it is, at least is a call to do something. To add more meat to games, to develop proper stories, characters and so on. This is actually a good thing and cannot be reduced to add romancing shit from Bioware.
However I don't think is codexian to support an imbecile that wrote an article, just because in this case he is criticizing John Walker from RPS. And we all know RPS sucks because ... we are edgy and shit. Use your fucking brain.

My friend, nobody can "prove" anything here. Just like if you were to claim that the cover art of a book is as important as the text contained within, because both of them are part of the same chain. It's a value judgement, an opinion, neither correct nor false. It's just a question of how well you support this opinion of yours. Thus far, what you've been posting supports the opinion of hipscumbag, imo.

But whatever, that's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. See, the article you're criticizing is a call to do something too, a call to design better gameplay, and to have this gameplay reinforce the narrative, instead of contradicting it. What Walker wants, essentially, is Mass Effect with a better story. Do you agree with that? Suppose we're in an alternate universe where Mac Walters channels the spirits of Dostoevsky and Joyce, and ME3's storyline rivals the classics of literature in its scope, thematic gravitas and prose quality. Would that make ME3 the perfect game, the next step in the medium's evolution?

I think it wouldn't, because, fundamentally, it would still be a mediocre third-person cover shooter. Just like Bioshock is a mediocre first person shooter with a bunch of gimmicks. You could have a lector read Paradise Lost as the player shoots splicers, and it would still be a mediocre shooter. If Heavy Rain were a movie, it would be totally forgettable; same with Dear Esther. But if you produce them in a game engine, they suddenly become good?

Honestly though, I don't care for Heavy Rain, or Dear Esther, or Bioshock, too much. In a sense, the more variety, the better. What frustrates me, is people like you putting them on a pedestal as examples to be followed. Why not bring up a game like Pathologic, which blows all the aforementioned completely out of the water, in terms of artistic vision and intellectual depth. Why not Defcon, which depicts the horror of nuclear war better than any Hiroshima documentary ever could? That's what boggles my mind the most, you have much better options available to you, but you choose to bring up mediocre crap like Heavy Rain.

 

[Grunker]

Excellent post, Cowboy Moment. That's more or less precisely how I see it.

 

[Gentle Player]

But if you produce them in a game engine, they suddenly become good?

I reckon it's 'cause most people who praise mediocre games for their stories (you have to be a bit deranged to think that a story about saving the world by killing aliens is some kind of masterpiece) don't spend a lot of time delving into film or literature; if most of the fiction they consume comes from videogames then naturally they'll start to long for thematic gravitas, as you put it, in the medium. I love film, and I spend a fair amount of time reading too, so I get my fill when it comes to narrative depth and all that; when it comes to games I just want to enjoy them on their own terms rather than compare them to other media. Mechanics and level design - the main things that separate games from other media - are what's important to me, that's why I think Psychonauts is one of the best games I've played in ages; it has a childish cutesy story, but the level design is sublime.

I don't see games like Bioshock as going in the right direction. Anyone can throw in some literary references and name-drop some writers without actually engaging with any of the material or having anything of its own to say. In fact it's a lot worse than just making some no nonsense shooter with the same gameplay, one which doesn't try to pretend to be something it's not. I could write some shit novel and mention Dostoevsky a few times, yet it won't mean that my hypothetical novel has anything to do with him or his works. Contrast that with Nabokov's "Despair", which makes many references to Crime and Punishment but also engages directly with its material; its themes are flirted with and even parodied, and Hermann is certainly a parody of Raskolnikov. If games could do the latter then that would be fine, though it'd still all be for naught unless the gameplay and mechanics held up on their own and integrated well with the narrative. If not then all you'll end up with is a pale imitation of completely different media, awkwardly married to gameplay that's almost completely abstract and has little to do with what the writers are trying to say.

 

[Groof]

toro, are you one of those guys who think that "videogames is a medium" or something like that, and so videogames must not necessarily be games and so on?

I don't say this is a absolute rule, but games that relies just on game mechanics cannot push forward games as a art form. Nobody is playing Tetris because he is immersed in Tetris world, cause most of the time, a tetris player is not immersed and is wasting time for a utilitarian purpose. On the other hand, even Bioshock allows emergent and immersive gameplay, that in the end can evolve in a much more satisfying experience for a intellectual gamer. Basically it makes the gamer to think to themes that exist completely outside of the game world (like objectivism) and is not far fetched to say that probably Bioshock introduced Ayn Rand to a lot of people.

Isn't "think to themes that exist completely outside of the game world" kind of the opposite of being immersed in the game? I understand that "immersion" is thrown around a lot without meaning a great deal of anything, but really, linking it to thinking about out of game stuff? You'd think it would be a better fit for when you're no longer consciously aware of there being a world outside of the game. You'd think it would be a better fit for things like this.

"Roger Ebert had a law he’d apply in his critiques: “A movie is not what it is about. It is how it is about it.”" - A quote so famous that all mighty google cannot find it. Is just misinformation or pure lying?

Misquote, more like. I'm not sure which variation of it is the correct one. Maybe this one. It's reasonably well known, and the idea is very well known. Art is about form more than it is about content.