The Errant Signal Thread

[tuluse]

Just rewatched his BioShock Infinite review. Goddammit Franklin is spot-fucking-on when he is spot-fucking-on.

He's best at criticizing story heavy games with ludonarrative dissonance. He seems not to know what to do with games that don't really care about narrative, or games with ludonarrative resonance but poor gameplay.

 

[Grunker]

Just rewatched his BioShock Infinite review. Goddammit Franklin is spot-fucking-on when he is spot-fucking-on.

He's best at criticizing story heavy games with ludonarrative dissonance. He seems not to know what to do with games that don't really care about narrative, or games with ludonarrative resonance but poor gameplay.

I dunno, I think the best part of his BioShock Infinte review is the lengthy part where he dissects the gameplay and compares it to other Shock games. Same thing goes for Half Life's content muncher criticism. And on the flipside I think his Gone Home review is way too coloured by his personal preferences, and his Spec Ops: The Line review is too lenient (and that's coming from someone who likes Spec Ops quite a bit). So I'm not sure there's a broad generalization.

I think if we're to make one, it's that he is bad a criticizing the bad spots of games with great narratives and environmental mechanics/storytelling, because he is so tired of other games lacking those things.

But in reality I guess his problem is mostly that he tends to be apologetic concerning the flaws of indie titles that speak to his preferences.

 

[tuluse]

I dunno, I think the best part of his BioShock Infinte review is the lengthy part where he dissects the gameplay and compares it to other Shock games.

Doesn't that match the pattern of story heavy game with ludo-narrative dissonance?

Same thing goes for Half Life's content muncher criticism.

This might break the pattern, but I had a lot of criticism of his criticism.

And on the flipside I think his Gone Home review is way too coloured by his personal preferences

A ludo-narrative resonant game with poor gameplay, matches my pattern.

and his Spec Ops: The Line review is too lenient (and that's coming from someone who likes Spec Ops quite a bit). So I'm not sure there's a broad generalization.

I can't say for sure since I haven't played it, but I believe this is a case of intentional ludo-narrative dissonance (hey it's like that thing I was saying earlier [maybe in another thread? {feels like months ago}]).

 

[AN4RCHID]

I liked his video on Hotline Miami, which was a game that doesn't care too much about story. Though in that case he just used it as an excuse to talk about game stories again.

 

[tuluse]

I liked his video on Hotline Miami, which was a game that doesn't care too much about story. Though in that case he just used it as an excuse to talk about game stories again.

Maybe not "story" as in a sequence of what happens, but I would Hotline Miami is very interested in getting a specific mood across and has lots of narrative elements and tricks to do so.

 

[Grunker]

I dunno, I think the best part of his BioShock Infinte review is the lengthy part where he dissects the gameplay and compares it to other Shock games.

Doesn't that match the pattern of story heavy game with ludo-narrative dissonance?

Yes, but the best part of his video is specifically about mechanics. He actually says, literally, "but that dissonance is minor compared to the fact that the game plays like shit because XYZ."

This might break the pattern, but I had a lot of criticism of his criticism.

I thought he was spot on honestly. I think many people missed the fact that he was talking about a few black spots on an overall great game. Much like me and the 'tron when we discussed Fallout

A ludo-narrative resonant game with poor gameplay, matches my pattern.

No, it doesn't, tuluse. My point is that that review was bad.

I can't say for sure since I haven't played it, but I believe this is a case of intentional ludo-narrative dissonance

Eh, yes? He says as much in the video?

 

[Infinitron]

tuluse Campster can do mechanics games, watch his videos on Sonic and Tony Hawk

 

[tuluse]

Yes, but the best part of his video is specifically about mechanics. He actually says, literally, "but that dissonance is minor compared to the fact that the game plays like shit because XYZ."

I think I have explained myself poorly. When a game has ludo-narrative dissonance he is good at criticizing the game. Not necessarily just that dissonance.

No, it doesn't, tuluse. My point is that that review was bad.

That's my pattern. If the game has ludo-narrative resonance (which Dear Esther has), he is bad at criticizing it.

Infinitron

Perhaps you're right. It's just a pattern I noticed, not a set in stone rule either.

 

[Jarpie]

Hotline Miami 2

Let me guess...Errant Hipster gets...

Spoiler

 

[AN4RCHID]

The story in HM2 is a big trolling middle finger to narrativefags, just like the secret ending of HM1. People desperate for meaningful context can unravel the web of non-chronological storytelling, but for all their efforts they're rewarded with a completely coherent but completely meaningless narrative with everyone dying at the end. Franklin understood this in his review of the first game, but it seems that he's gotten worse and Dennaton have gotten better at trolling.

 

[Grunker]

The story in HM2 is a big trolling middle finger to narrativefags, just like the secret ending of HM1. People desperate for meaningful context can unravel the web of non-chronological storytelling, but for all their efforts they're rewarded with a completely coherent but completely meaningless narrative with everyone dying at the end. Franklin understood this in his review of the first game, but it seems that he's gotten worse and Dennaton have gotten better at trolling.

Eh, I disagree. The first one is coherent about this point during the entire game, though Franklin is right in his criticism that the game sort of contradicts itself a bit. In #2, narrative plays a central role, meaning the "troll" is just a trick at the end. HM1 asks you via the characters to keep asking yourself why you are continuing - and the answer is implicitly always "because playing the game is fun." That's its clever conceit.

HM2 has no such aspirations, it's a much more self-indulging narrative with a "LOL" at the end that doesn't re-contextualise what came before it. So while the "point" may remain the same, the clever way it is delivered does not.

 

[buzz]

"Hold RMB to skip cutscene" I just finished Act 2 and have no single idea about the story in HM2.

 

[AN4RCHID]

In #2, narrative plays a central role, meaning the "troll" is just a trick at the end.

The trolling also involves making everything unnecessarily convoluted by telling the story out of order, having some scenes be part of a movie, or a dream, and having way more pointless details to remember than the first game. Look at the developer stand-in characters dialogue in HM2: they directly tell you they don't expect you to figure the story out. Because it isn't important to enjoying the game, besides giving you some immediate context for the next level. And if you don't fixate on finding meaning in an intentionally dumb and obtuse story, the game is an improvement on the first in nearly every way.

 

[Grunker]

In #2, narrative plays a central role, meaning the "troll" is just a trick at the end.

The trolling also involves making everything unnecessarily convoluted by telling the story out of order, having some scenes be part of a movie, or a dream. Look at the developer stand-in characters dialogue in HM2: they directly tell you they don't expect you to figure the story out. Because it isn't important to enjoying the game, besides giving you some immediate context for the next level. And if you don't fixate on finding meaning in an intentionally dumb and obtuse story, the game is an improvement on the first in nearly every way.

You're giving it way too much credit. The unorthodox arcs may be about "trolling" the player to poke fun at narativism, but in that way they're more "lol u dumb" than the first game's brilliant way of making the player himself deliver the answer.

I also disagree that it's "an improvement on the first in every way." I agree with part of Franklin's criticism of the expansion of level design (you did notice he spends a vast portion of the review just discussing gameplay, right?). That doesn't mean I dislike it at all. It's still HM's rocking motherfucking gameplay. Weidman's review focuses more on the game as an isolated concept:



Franklin isn't wrong simply because he doesn't deliver a by-the-numbers analysis like Weidman, instead choosing to focus on a comparative discussion of the sequal vis-a-vis the original. Since Weidman does a more "so wots this then" approach, he rightly praises the game for the mechanics that work and criticizes it for what doesn't. But, notice how Weidman criticizes it for its regression in mask-variety, then comments that this is OK "because it is necessitated by the narrative structure." Ironic that a game trolling the player for involving himself in its story makes gameplay concessions to satisfy its plot, no? HM2 likes its characters, it spends time on its narrative. It enjoys indulging in the cool symbolism and weird world it has created.

In the end, Weidman still has the same gameplay-focused criticism that Franklin does though, which in itself is telling.

 

[AN4RCHID]

If you're saying that it does not exist primarily as a 'clever' self-referential statement about games, I agree, thank god, it is not that. In fact, it seems to be specifically mocking people who read the first game in that way. "lol u dumb" would be a fair way to describe it, but critics don't even notice that Dennaton is pointing and laughing. And yeah, if that's what the game was about it would be masturbatory garbage. But that only exists to point out that people are focusing on unimportant things, instead of the core gameplay.

And Franklin's complaints about the gameplay are a severe case of l2p. Being shot by offscreen enemies isn't really a flaw because the game doesn't expect you to finish a level without dying. You're supposed to memorize enemy positions and take them into account even when they aren't in direct line of sight. Sneaking around and scoping out the area is what you do on your first few runs to get an idea of the level; if ES is beating the game with those tactics, then he needs to git gud. Playing like that is never going to earn you a good rank, so it's fair to say it is not how the game wants you to play.

Franklin is right that door mechanics and AI are wonky, but certainly no worse than in the first game.

 

[Grunker]

In fact, it seems to be specifically mocking people who read the first game in that way.

I agree 100% with Franklin's initial analysis of HM1, so if we disagree there I don't imagine we'll make much headway in a discussion about the structure of the second. However I struggle to imagine why anyone would disagree that the first game subverts the player's own attempt to find narrative cohesion by simply suggestion to him "well, aren't you just playing simply because you think the game's pretty fun, bro?" That seems pretty obvious and it's not like Franklin had to work his usually overly pretentious self that hard to identify that point.

"lol u dumb" would be a fair way to describe it

So we agree. A much less clever, much less focused, much more confused version of the first's tightly delivered commentary.

 

[AN4RCHID]

I agreed with Franklin's HM1 video too, but that wasn't the main point of the game. It's pointing to the main point, which is to appreciate the gameplay for its own sake and not make the mistake of thinking the gameplay needs to be legitimized by the narrative. So it's weird that since Errant Signal 'got it' in the first game that he's going back on that and trying to legitimize/delegitimize the gameplay in the sequel with the narrative.

 

[Grunker]

But the game itself does that. That's the whole point. #2 spends way more time on narrative with no real reason to do so. And it's pretty clear that a lot of it really just is to tell a story about some characters, and not much else.

 

[AN4RCHID]

There still isn't that much more story, though. The exposition sequences are a little longer than the first game, but so are the levels, so it's about the same proportions. And those proportions are still like 20:1 gameplay to story.

 

[CyberWhale]

Only if you die a lot.

EDIT: Just watched the HL review. Jesus fucking God this has to be one of the worst and most pretentious reviews I ever wasted my time on.

 

[thesoup]

Only if you die a lot.

EDIT: Just watched the HL review. Jesus fucking God this has to be one of the worst and most pretentious reviews I ever wasted my time on.

Is this the first video you saw of him?

 

[buzz]

I like how Grunker is on a first-name basis with Campster, like he doesn't even want to hide how much he wants to suck that dick

 

[Grunker]

If there's a reviewer dick I'd like to suck, it's Weidman's. Not even close. Franklin's videos are too sporadic and bis quality too erratic for me to be a fanboy. I must admit, though, that I have a soft spot for him due to his searing criticism of the mechanics of AAA games like BioShock: Infinite, GTA IV and The Last of Us.

 

[AN4RCHID]

You ever watch Matthewmatosis videos on those games? If you can get past his accent, he's consistently very good imo:

 

[CyberWhale]

Both Mathew and Weidman deserve a subscription, but neither of those should be given a fellatio (except if you're Grunker, of course).
They usually miss the mark as often as they get it. I guess that's still a lot of better than most popular critics are able to manage, but nonetheless disappointing.