Gaming Confessions & Blasphemy

Fallout Vegas is a brillant game on so many levels. It's a underrated game in terms of design choices. Also, Fallout New Vegas is a better than Skyrim.

Disclaimer: I played it on the PC a year after it's original release. So most of the bugs were patched up by then.

Higgledy wrote:
'time to fist p*nis'

Ouch!

Redwing wrote:
Higgledy wrote:
'time to fist p*nis'

Ouch!

I'm pretty certain Higgledy meant "to strike" as opposed to the other connotation.

Or at least, I hope so. Oh God!

Mantid wrote:
I liked the Virtual Boy and 3D gaming in general.

You sicken me.

Burnt Toast wrote:
Redwing wrote:
Higgledy wrote:
'time to fist p*nis'

Ouch!

I'm pretty certain Higgledy meant "to strike" as opposed to the other connotation.

Or at least, I hope so. Oh God!

It was 'time to first' I'll change it on the original. Hope I haven't started a whole new meme.

gravity wrote:
Felix Threepaper wrote:
I liked using the Mako in Mass Effect 1
It felt like I was exploring planets, unlike planet-scanning in ME2

I haven't played ME2 yet, but I enjoyed the Mako too. It brought home that feeling like I was really exploring the universe in a way I haven't felt since gathering materials in Starcon 2. I'm sad that it's been removed from ME2.

I enjoyed the Mako. Quite a few people did on the quiet. Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the game play feature you quite enjoyed removed or replaced by something less fun.

I never have the desire to create an image of a p*nis a game

I never understood where the 'time to first p*nis' meme came from. For a while every podcast (with notable exceptions) seemed to think that Little Big Planet and other games, where crude representations of a falis might be possible, would be waist deep in 2D and 3D representations of male genetalia by the second hour of their release. Did it ever happen?

I don't like Nintendo. Their art style, their hardware, their games. Not for me.

I really don't like JRPGs. I've tried. I really have. But they require so much sitting there and watching the same thing happen over and over it's like watching those really bad 1960s - 1980s cartoon shows that reused around 25% of their animations in each episode.

If you like playing modern military shooters I'll likely think less of you. I'm happy to play any number of abstracted combat environments: from Mass Effect to Chess; but playing a modern Western soldier traipsing off to west asia to realistically re-enact the horrible things that are happening there now? You may as well make me play a rapist.

Maq wrote:
I don't like Nintendo. Their art style, ... their games. Not for me.

I try not to be all "WHHHAAAAAAT?!" here, but whenever I hear people say stuff like this it just sounds like someone saying they don't like Pixar movies. I can try and understand it, but it's unpossible for me.

Maq wrote:
If you like playing modern military shooters I'll likely think less of you. I'm happy to play any number of abstracted combat environments: from Mass Effect to Chess; but playing a modern Western soldier traipsing off to west asia to realistically re-enact the horrible things that are happening there now? You may as well make me play a rapist.

I understand this feeling because, in the past, I've been nonplussed by people who want to kill children in games or who want to run over pedestrians in cars. The thing to bare in mind is that non of it is real and the people who are playing know it isn't real. There maybe one or two people who are wishing the virtual civilians they are killing were real but the vast majority, I would hope, don't. Just as, when I play Battlefield 3, I'm not playing a simulation, as some kind of second best for actually being out there and shooting people in real life, I'm playing a game. A game that is tense and exciting because of the realism of the setting.

ccesarano wrote:
Maq wrote:
I don't like Nintendo. Their art style, ... their games. Not for me.

I try not to be all "WHHHAAAAAAT?!" here, but whenever I hear people say stuff like this it just sounds like someone saying they don't like Pixar movies. I can try and understand it, but it's unpossible for me.


I liked the way Maq said it, "not for me". I really hate the insinuation, joking or not, that there's something 'wrong' with someone for their preference. I think it's bad form to rub your preference for something in my face, like it or loathe it, don't beat me over the head with it. State your case and move on.

Blind_Evil wrote:
MrAndrewJ wrote:
Why does everything have to be a first person shooter in 2012?

Excerpts from this excellent Stephen Totillo piece (if you really want the answer, read the whole article):

I guess this should go into another evil confession.

I blacklisted Kotaku and all Gawker sites from my main web browser.
I went from having a star after my picture was used as the #1 example in gallery (Link) to losing my star when they got hacked and their servers couldn't handle the load of people trying to change passwords. Then I was asked to leave after asking "Can we talk about video games instead of spewing bigotry at each other?" They asked. I left. I installed a blacklist so that I don't accidentally click any short URLS or not-obvious links to their sites.

I'm all for free speech. Honestly. But I won't shed a tear for any of those tabloids when people figure out they can get real information from a higher class of publisher.

Back on the FPS front. Even though I understand the Call of Duty argument, I still don't get Syndicate. I'm glad so many people enjoyed it. I'll be happy if it inspires a new version or true sequel of the original game to get made. My Syndicate Plus cd still works. No harm done. There's a possibility of EA even coming back to me that may not have existed before. I just don't get Syndicate as an FPS. This is less blasphemy than difference of opinion, I hope. I feel similarly about Fallout.

kuddles wrote:
Mantid wrote:
I liked the Virtual Boy and 3D gaming in general.

You sicken me.

Backing up. My memory was fuzzy, but I do not remember the VB being 3D. My memory was playing a Gameboy with VR goggles.

KingGorilla wrote:
kuddles wrote:
Mantid wrote:
I liked the Virtual Boy and 3D gaming in general.

You sicken me.

Backing up. My memory was fuzzy, but I do not remember the VB being 3D. My memory was playing a Gameboy with VR goggles.

I liked the Virtual Boy, too
I love the glasses free 3DS 3d effect.

Virtual Boy never gave me a headache. My back wouldn't feel good after having to sit in one of those unnatural positions, but my head felt fine.

MrAndrewJ wrote:
Back on the FPS front. Even though I understand the Call of Duty argument, I still don't get Syndicate. I'm glad so many people enjoyed it. I'll be happy if it inspires a new version or true sequel of the original game to get made. My Syndicate Plus cd still works. No harm done. There's a possibility of EA even coming back to me that may not have existed before. I just don't get Syndicate as an FPS. This is less blasphemy than difference of opinion, I hope. I feel similarly about Fallout.

Yeah, I think in the minds of publishers more games exist as brands, for their settings, characters, etc, than they do for the type of game they are. Personally I'm at the 'reluctant acceptance' phase because that just seems to be where the industry is.

FPS at the moment just seems to be the 'this thing sells' at the moment, and for a graphics company like starbreeze (I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of ex-demo scene people there, although there's no long a starbreeze recruiting banner on scene.org) FPS is usually the genre to pick to show off graphics.

Scratched wrote:
ccesarano wrote:
Maq wrote:
I don't like Nintendo. Their art style, ... their games. Not for me.

I try not to be all "WHHHAAAAAAT?!" here, but whenever I hear people say stuff like this it just sounds like someone saying they don't like Pixar movies. I can try and understand it, but it's unpossible for me.


I liked the way Maq said it, "not for me". I really hate the insinuation, joking or not, that there's something 'wrong' with someone for their preference. I think it's bad form to rub your preference for something in my face, like it or loathe it, don't beat me over the head with it. State your case and move on.

Well there's good art and bad art; and there's art you like and art you don't like. They're on separate axes and anyone over the age of 15 should have learnt the difference.

Nintendo is Good Art. It's just not to my taste.

Higgledy wrote:
Maq wrote:
If you like playing modern military shooters I'll likely think less of you. I'm happy to play any number of abstracted combat environments: from Mass Effect to Chess; but playing a modern Western soldier traipsing off to west asia to realistically re-enact the horrible things that are happening there now? You may as well make me play a rapist.

I understand this feeling because, in the past, I've been nonplussed by people who want to kill children in games or who want to run over pedestrians in cars. The thing to bare in mind is that non of it is real and the people who are playing know it isn't real. There maybe one or two people who are wishing the virtual civilians they are killing were real but the vast majority, I would hope, don't. Just as, when I play Battlefield 3, I'm not playing a simulation, as some kind of second best for actually being out there and shooting people in real life, I'm playing a game. A game that is tense and exciting because of the realism of the setting.

It would be an overstatement for me to agree that I "think less of" people who play modern military shooters, but I will say that I just plain don't get the appeal. I mean, they can be well-designed games. They can be fun games. But at the end of the day, video games are a medium that allows you to go anywhere and do anything. Go to space! Explore an undersea steampunk dystopia! How's medieval Europe or ancient Rome sound today? Maybe you'd prefer a bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland-esque dreamscape?

With all of that to choose from, opting for a setting that evokes some of the most troubling events in recent history and then using that as a playground, and in most cases (as far as I can tell; correct me if I'm wrong) not even ATTEMPTING to use that setting to tell a compelling story or offer any kind of commentary or insight on those events....

Just. Don't. Get it. I don't get why anyone would develop a skillset of very specialized technical and artistic talents and do nothing more interesting or ambitious with them, and I don't understand why there was an audience for it when some people did anyway.

I suppose the thing with that is that not every game is trying to be big and noteworthy, they don't want to make a commentary on everything, they just want to make a nice little shooting game that sells. Also remember that most companies involved with games aren't in it for the art.

I'm not trying to live every second of my life to the fullest. I don't try and make every coffee the perfect brew with specially selected beans, heck I can't remember the last time I had anything but instant from granules. I'm not trying to make every meal an absolute delight, I'm usually happy with whatever being cooked enough to be edible. And I think it's the same with games, it's nice when something does go the extra mile, but I don't see it as essential criteria in everything.

Maq wrote:
Scratched wrote:
ccesarano wrote:
Maq wrote:
I don't like Nintendo. Their art style, ... their games. Not for me.

I try not to be all "WHHHAAAAAAT?!" here, but whenever I hear people say stuff like this it just sounds like someone saying they don't like Pixar movies. I can try and understand it, but it's unpossible for me.


I liked the way Maq said it, "not for me". I really hate the insinuation, joking or not, that there's something 'wrong' with someone for their preference. I think it's bad form to rub your preference for something in my face, like it or loathe it, don't beat me over the head with it. State your case and move on.

Well there's good art and bad art; and there's art you like and art you don't like. They're on separate axes and anyone over the age of 15 should have learnt the difference.

Nintendo is Good Art. It's just not to my taste.

I'm totally on board with all of that, and I'm not trying to call you out for it Maq. There have been a few people that mention not liking any Nintendo games, and to me it just seems like such a foreign concept I cannot wrap my head around it.

This is the only confession in this entire thread I've felt that way on, though. Everything else I can understand whether I agree or not. I just find it fascinating that this is the one inexplicable thing that seems so foreign to me.

Alright, I'll say it... prefaced with a big 'ol "In My Opinion" disclaimer:

First-person perspective games are THE most immersive types of games and I have trouble understanding how others don't agree.

I was that kid growing up who always had a stick, ruler, water gun, etc in his hand running around pretend shooting, ducking, hiding as if I was holding a blaster from Star Wars. When I discovered Wolfenstein (and strafing!) it was gaming nirvana for me and I've never looked back. Now I can do the same thing I did as a kid, but with limitless locations and stories.

First-person games make me feel like I AM the character in the game, rather than controlling someone else. I wish more rpgs and adventure games were in first-person and I actually get excited when I hear about games like Fallout, Syndicate and (yes) XCOM going first person.

Scratched wrote:
I suppose the thing with that is that not every game is trying to be big and noteworthy, they don't want to make a commentary on everything, they just want to make a nice little shooting game that sells. Also remember that most companies involved with games aren't in it for the art.

I get that, I guess what I don't understand is, if all you want to do is make a nice little shooting game that sells, sans commentary or artistic ambition... why would you choose a setting that just screams moral ambiguity? Why not add an extra layer of abstraction?

I mean, in the nineties, it was simple. You were fighting hell-demons from Mars. No moral ambiguity there. That thing looks like a demon, therefore I feel pretty good about putting a rocket in its face.

Replace "Mars" with "Middle Eastern country" and "demons" with "brown people with a culture and a history," and things get a lot murkier. So why go there in the first place if you're not prepared to deal with some murkiness?

People have loved books and movies about war forever. Kids grow up with army men and GI Joes. I don't know why anyone would expect there not to be all kinds of video games based on war, from first person shooters to turn-based and realtime strategy games.

I'm not a fan of Call of Duty and such, either, but I totally get why they are popular.

I own one of the Call of Duty games for the Wii. I had a blast using the Wiimote as a gun (see my earlier confession) and playing online where voice chat doesn't exist. It was fun. I love being able to join the GWJ TF2 servers from time to time.

That doesn't mean I want Secret of the Magic Crystals 2 to be an FPS with unicorn rainbow-laser horns. To follow this fully ficitious example through, just spin off the series as Magic Crystals: Deadly Secrets if it must happen, while the main series continues to get support as well. Pokemon did exactly this with Pokemon Snap, in a real-world example. Let's keep some things sacred.

Jayhawker wrote:
People have loved books and movies about war forever. Kids grow up with army men and GI Joes. I don't know why anyone would expect there not to be all kinds of video games based on war, from first person shooters to turn-based and realtime strategy games.

I'm not a fan of Call of Duty and such, either, but I totally get why they are popular.

Plus, subject is not theme. You can have a manshoot game set in current hotspots without endorsing what's happening there. I've only played the first Modern Warfare of the current military shooters. I understand later games went into straightfaced strapping-young-white-men-murdering-Johnny Foreigner territory, but that game had a lot of sneakily subversive and disturbing moments amidst the bombast.

PaladinTom wrote:
Alright, I'll say it... prefaced with a big 'ol "In My Opinion" disclaimer:

First-person perspective games are THE most immersive types of games and I have trouble understanding how others don't agree.

I was that kid growing up who always had a stick, ruler, water gun, etc in his hand running around pretend shooting, ducking, hiding as if I was holding a blaster from Star Wars. When I discovered Wolfenstein (and strafing!) it was gaming nirvana for me and I've never looked back. Now I can do the same thing I did as a kid, but with limitless locations and stories.

First-person games make me feel like I AM the character in the game, rather than controlling someone else. I wish more rpgs and adventure games were in first-person and I actually get excited when I hear about games like Fallout, Syndicate and (yes) XCOM going first person.

YES

I felt more like a 'role-player' playing 'super-spy' in made-up scenerios and backstories from my own head during my countless hours spent in Crysis than I ever did in MOST 'RPGs'.

I'm not interested in war, per se. I don't search out war movies or books. But BF3 and BC2 are my most-played games of the past three years. I don't think about the reality it's portraying at all. It's fun, and I can play online with my best friends. We played L4D, L4D2, some golf, etc. But the first-person shooter war games have offered the most longevity and variety. Would I play something else that didn't require shooting and killing other human beings? Hell yeah. Make a great game where four of us can play together in a strategic, tactical way, and I'm there.

Conflict between two parties is a foundation for a lot of stories, and removing obstacles to get from A to B in a game, or shooting guys who represent the opposing party and would otherwise shoot you, is a nice simple way to realise that.

PaladinTom wrote:

First-person perspective games are THE most immersive types of games and I have trouble understanding how others don't agree..

I agree 100%.

Looking back, my love for first-person perspective reaches all the way back to Night Driver (Atari) and AD&D Treasure of Tarmin (Intellivision) back in the late 70s/early 80s.

It's been really exciting to see the first-person perspective adopted by multiple genres over the past decade. Inevitably my favorite entries in the racing, rpg, etc. genres are those that let the player game in first-person.

hbi2k wrote:
It would be an overstatement for me to agree that I "think less of" people who play modern military shooters, but I will say that I just plain don't get the appeal. I mean, they can be well-designed games. They can be fun games. But at the end of the day, video games are a medium that allows you to go anywhere and do anything. Go to space! Explore an undersea steampunk dystopia! How's medieval Europe or ancient Rome sound today? Maybe you'd prefer a bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland-esque dreamscape?

With all of that to choose from, opting for a setting that evokes some of the most troubling events in recent history and then using that as a playground, and in most cases (as far as I can tell; correct me if I'm wrong) not even ATTEMPTING to use that setting to tell a compelling story or offer any kind of commentary or insight on those events....

Just. Don't. Get it. I don't get why anyone would develop a skillset of very specialized technical and artistic talents and do nothing more interesting or ambitious with them, and I don't understand why there was an audience for it when some people did anyway.

In the end it comes down to different tastes (an undersea steampunk dystopia sounds like my worst nightmare ;)) and that's fine. I veer towards enjoying realism more than fantasy. The more fantastic something gets the less connected I am. I bristle a little at someone making valuations of my morality based on a game I'm playing. After all, shooting people is shooting people. If it's morally reprehensible then an imaginative backdrop doesn't make it better.

It's also a very steep and very slippery slope when you start to associate morality with types of games. Which games are ok? Assassin's Creed? Horrendous things happened in the crusades and in the American War of independence that were easily equal to modern conflicts. Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, Cain and Lynch, Mafia? Do the people who play those games really want to revel in the lives of criminals who, in large and small ways, are making the lives of many ordinary people a misery at best and a waking nightmare at worst. Fallout 3: What kind of sick person would want to use the world after a nuclear war as their playground? Similarly, who wants to play games in a world where the entirety of humanity has died to a foul decease that leaves the victims corpses shambling on the streets as a sickening parody of their former existence? Burnout? Need for speed? Driver San Francisco? Whoo! I get to be a lunatic who drives at ridiculous speeds through traffic killing people in horrendous traffic accidents while I walk away scot-free.

A final list of morally acceptable games could be surprisingly short.

PaladinTom wrote:
Alright, I'll say it... prefaced with a big 'ol "In My Opinion" disclaimer:

First-person perspective games are THE most immersive types of games and I have trouble understanding how others don't agree.

I was that kid growing up who always had a stick, ruler, water gun, etc in his hand running around pretend shooting, ducking, hiding as if I was holding a blaster from Star Wars. When I discovered Wolfenstein (and strafing!) it was gaming nirvana for me and I've never looked back. Now I can do the same thing I did as a kid, but with limitless locations and stories.

First-person games make me feel like I AM the character in the game, rather than controlling someone else. I wish more rpgs and adventure games were in first-person and I actually get excited when I hear about games like Fallout, Syndicate and (yes) XCOM going first person.

But whats the point of finding all that phat loot if you can't see yourself wearing it?

thats the best part of the elder scrolls/fallout setups. run around in first person, and occasionally scroll out to 3rd person to check yourself out