Random non sequitur posts catch-all thread

It is sad.

Assuming that someone's gaming time is healthy, it is sad to think that someone would service a relationship like that. Both service like that, and relationship like that.

A recent experience with my sister in-law brought to light that people of my generation still haven't accepted gaming and a mainstream media.
The words that were spoken to me were, "you a thirty something year old man, and you still play video games".

I answered by saying, "and I don't intend to stop. The games industry makes more money than Hollywood. It's a perfectly valid form of entertainment, and I refuse to see it as a childlike pursuit".

I delude that, in your mentioned situation above, the victim's significant other has asked that he "give up gaming" because she doesn't want to be with a nerd. She has some social hangup about who she's seen with. Of course, none of this may be true, and any number of situations are possible. I just choose to fume over this one, for some reason.

Why would someone have to give up gaming? Cut back on an unhealthy amount of time maybe? Same for TV, Fantasy Football, Model Railroads, Hockey team...

The fact that the request was made at all is indicative of a problem, and it's not necessarily the gamer in question's problem.

Mex wrote:

It makes me sad when I read guys have to "give up" gaming because their SO doesn't like it.

I guess it applies to any hobby, not just gaming, but it just doesn't sound right.

Of course I don't plan to ever get married, so I'm not exactly normal to understand that...

It should make you sad. It isn't right. I wouldn't have gotten married if my wife had expected me to give up gaming.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Mex wrote:

It makes me sad when I read guys have to "give up" gaming because their SO doesn't like it.

I guess it applies to any hobby, not just gaming, but it just doesn't sound right.

Of course I don't plan to ever get married, so I'm not exactly normal to understand that...

It should make you sad. It isn't right. I wouldn't have gotten married if my wife had expected me to give up gaming.

Yup. Nor would my wife have married me, if I expected her to give it up.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Mex wrote:

It makes me sad when I read guys have to "give up" gaming because their SO doesn't like it.

I guess it applies to any hobby, not just gaming, but it just doesn't sound right.

Of course I don't plan to ever get married, so I'm not exactly normal to understand that...

It should make you sad. It isn't right. I wouldn't have gotten married if my wife had expected me to give up gaming.

So, I've been meaning to talk to you about this gaming addiction you have...

IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/cheerful.gif)

Tanglebones wrote:

Yup. Nor would my wife have married me, if I expected her to give it up.

Truer words...

I think your SO asking you to give up something you love that isn't hurting anyone is a huge red flag.

I mean, asking you to cut back if you're spending seven nights a week raiding in WoW, sure, but there's never any reason to give up gaming entirely forever.

Lydia told me I should stop spending so much time with my wife. "Who's sworn to carry your burdens?" she demanded to know.

Tanglebones wrote:

Yup. Nor would my wife have married me, if I expected her to give it up.

I don't know about you guys, but I do expect my wife to give it up. Frequently.

Yellek wrote:

So, I've been meaning to talk to you about this gaming addiction you have...

IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/cheerful.gif)

You can talk, I don't promise to listen. IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/mischievous.gif)

Why start now?

Ghostship wrote:

A recent experience with my sister in-law brought to light that people of my generation still haven't accepted gaming and a mainstream media.
The words that were spoken to me were, "you a thirty something year old man, and you still play video games".

Said the thirty-something year old woman who still watches made-up laughably simply stories with trite morals on the television, no doubt.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Yellek wrote:

So, I've been meaning to talk to you about this gaming addiction you have...

IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/cheerful.gif)

You can talk, I don't promise to listen. IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/mischievous.gif)

Too busy gaming?

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Yellek wrote:

So, I've been meaning to talk to you about this gaming addiction you have...

IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/cheerful.gif)

You can talk, I don't promise to listen. IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/mischievous.gif)

Too busy gaming?

Sure sweetie, as soon as I clear this level.

Jonathan Blow is being a pretentious twat on twitter... He's bitching about some "critically acclaimed" games being "obviously terrible", but is refusing to name them.

The tweets, in chronological order:

This week I've played several recent games that are critically acclaimed, but are obviously terrible, even at the acclaim-garnering things.
If I let it, it makes me sad about being involved in games / dedicating my life to this pursuit.
It's like honing your craft as a chef while cans of dog food, rebranded as people food, are getting Food of the Year acclaim.. and
people who think they are experts on games are all nodding along, yep, that makes sense, this dog food is Oscar-quality delicious and etc.
If this were just about having fun, or whatever, I would not care so much. But it heavily informs the way people think and see the world.
Fortunately I have played some games lately that were interesting. Unfortunately they are all small games that don't get much attention.
Game people give Transformers the Best Picture award every year (so to speak), and don't even understand why that is questionable.

He's refusing to name the games as then it becomes "J Blow thinks games X is sh*t!", so instead he's happy to slander games and game reviewers instead.

Douche.

That's not slander, that'd be libel. But it's probably not false, so it's not libel either.

But even without knowing the specifics (Assassin's Creed III? Far Cry 3? Mass Effect 3? Triple-AAA Shoot'n'Stab Game 3?), I largely agree with him, especially the last two tweets.

Yeah, Blow might not be naming names, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Gravey wrote:

That's not slander, that'd be libel. But it's probably not false, so it's not libel either.

But even without knowing the specifics (Assassin's Creed III? Far Cry 3? Mass Effect 3? Triple-AAA Shoot'n'Stab Game 3?), I largely agree with him, especially the last two tweets.

Especially the last tweet.

I wonder if anyone's ever said that we three sort of think the same sometimes.

Nah...

It's like I've always said: you three sort of think the same sometimes.

Gravey wrote:

But even without knowing the specifics (Assassin's Creed III? Far Cry 3? Mass Effect 3? Triple-AAA Shoot'n'Stab Game 3?), I largely agree with him, especially the last two tweets.

Sure, but I don't think any of those games are dog food bad, or even Transformers bad. Walking Dead is getting a lot of attention and awards and that's an ambitious game made by a relatively small company, so it's not all gloom and doom as he says.

Games like Call of Duty might be over-saturated and over-hyped, but they're still good games for the most part. And I don't think anyone is going to give it an award for narrative or innovation, or even game of the year, so his analogy kind of falls apart.

Which isn't to say his opinion isn't welcome, I just don't agree with it in this case.

Redwing wrote:
Gravey wrote:

But even without knowing the specifics (Assassin's Creed III? Far Cry 3? Mass Effect 3? Triple-AAA Shoot'n'Stab Game 3?), I largely agree with him, especially the last two tweets.

Sure, but I don't think any of those games are dog food bad, or even Transformers bad. Walking Dead is getting a lot of attention and awards and that's an ambitious game made by a relatively small company, so it's not all gloom and doom as he says.

Games like Call of Duty might be over-saturated and over-hyped, but they're still good games for the most part. And I don't think anyone is going to give it an award for narrative or innovation, or even game of the year, so his analogy kind of falls apart.

Which isn't to say his opinion isn't welcome, I just don't agree with it in this case.

Lots and lots of people think Transformers is good too, that's why it does so well at the box office It's actually a very strong analogy.

LiquidMantis wrote:

It's like I've always said: you three sort of think the same sometimes.

I laughed out loud.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Lots and lots of people think Transformers is good too, that's why it does so well at the box office It's actually a very strong analogy.

Perhaps, but sales aren't a good indication of worth, Transformers doesn't win any big awards, and neither does Call of Duty. He's specifically talking about critical accolades, but it's hard to know exactly what games he's talking about if he's not going to name names.

It's also a lot harder to judge games because there are more facets to deal with. Call of Duty shouldn't win any awards for narrative (and it won't), but the multiplayer gameplay is still rock solid and deserves recognition for that... so do you judge those parts seperately? As a whole? Genuine question, because I surely don't know.

The same goes for Mass Effect 3, should the ending controversy exempt it from accolade, when the game is otherwise very solid? And once again, the multiplayer is considered one of the best co-op experiences of recent times, but it's almost a completely different experience from the singleplayer.

I think monolithic "Game of the Year" awards as a whole don't make a lot of sense since every person desires different things from their gaming time. Jonathan Blow probably appreciates a good narrative or innovative mechanics like you see in Braid, but is the person who enjoys the solid and tested mechanics of a Call of Duty multiplayer match wrong to call that experience his game of the year?

Redwing wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Lots and lots of people think Transformers is good too, that's why it does so well at the box office It's actually a very strong analogy.

Perhaps, but sales aren't a good indication of worth, Transformers doesn't win any big awards, and neither does Call of Duty. He's specifically talking about critical accolades, but it's hard to know exactly what games he's talking about if he's not going to name names.

It's also a lot harder to judge games because there are more facets to deal with. Call of Duty shouldn't win any awards for narrative (and it won't), but the multiplayer gameplay is still rock solid and deserves recognition for that... so do you judge those parts seperately? As a whole? Genuine question, because I surely don't know.

The same goes for Mass Effect 3, should the ending controversy exempt it from accolade, when the game is otherwise very solid? And once again, the multiplayer is considered one of the best co-op experiences of recent times, but it's almost a completely different experience from the singleplayer.

I think monolithic "Game of the Year" awards as a whole don't make a lot of sense since every person desires different things from their gaming time. Jonathan Blow probably appreciates a good narrative or innovative mechanics like you see in Braid, but is the person who enjoys the solid and tested mechanics of a Call of Duty multiplayer match wrong to call that experience his game of the year?

You're the one that equated Transformers with specifically Call of Duty, not him. Also Transformers not winning awards is exactly the point he's making. Games do it, movies don't.

You can also make all of those arguments about film. Film is complex and has lots of various categories to judge (visuals, narrative, etc) but that doesn't stop them from declaring something Best Picture. How do you compare a comedy vs a drama vs a documentary?

"I think choking someone out is the highest expression of art."

It's pathetic that he refuses to name the games because he doesn't want it to become a story.

Instead he's quite happy to throw mud at other developers, game critics and journalists without the conviction or courage in his statements to name the games.

I'm quite disgusted with him and he's lost a lot of face in my eyes.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Yeah, Blow might not be naming names, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Or right, for that matter. The non-specificity at work here means we're not even in a position to evaluate his criticism of Games X, Y, and Z. If he weren't so busy slowly making a game, he might find a good living in the games journalism space, where "THINGS ARE BAD!" blowhardism apparently generates clicks. Alas, the world would have to wait.

SixteenBlue wrote:

You're the one that equated Transformers with specifically Call of Duty, not him. Also Transformers not winning awards is exactly the point he's making. Games do it, movies don't.

Actually you did, I just said it wasn't as bad as Transformers. Or dog food. If anything my point is it's a comparison that can't be made because there's more to consider with Call of Duty than just the terrible narrative.

What could he possibly be talking about in his rants, and does it really deserve to be compared to dog food? Does any game that's been getting accolades by the gaming public and media deserve that comparison? He's being elitist.

SixteenBlue wrote:

You can also make all of those arguments about film. Film is complex and has lots of various categories to judge (visuals, narrative, etc) but that doesn't stop them from declaring something Best Picture. How do you compare a comedy vs a drama vs a documentary?

I think that's a fair argument that perhaps a Best Picture award is equally as flawed, but even still I don't think the variance between movie genres is anywhere to the degree of that in video game genres, simply because all the variance and complexity you have in movies you'll have in games... and then you add the rest of the variance and complexity, and there's a lot of it.

How do you begin to judge something like Call of Duty against Drop 7? Or World of Warcraft? Or Cart Life? These are all radically different games, much more so than anything you'll see at the Oscars. It's a crap analogy.

I haven't played a game in three weeks. Splotches have appeared. On my body.