Any out there feel gaming's been a little co-opted? (rant)

The way internet critique and game critique has spread on youtube these past four years, 2ndary only to lets plays and original yt content in notoriety. (which is more about the undisputed gameplay) it really makes you wonder if the power of social media has made it so that it's not as much about grabbing the controller and basking in the wonder of immersive digital experiences, but the media conversation fest, and internet wars around it. I wonder if sometimes hypothetically you could say gaming culture has had a train run on it by all parties, lowballers looking to make a buck, corrupt copycat megapublishers, and the worse bullies among us..

The aesthetic needs that game critics address seem relevant because we're older now, the medium has spread and different participants have different sensibilities. Plus we're in a post WoW, post Sims, post Mass Effect, and telltale era, where the value of player self-insertion is stressed on forums and game critique to levels never seen before.

Seriously. A decade ago rarely any of us gave two shits out of a donkey's asshole who we were playing, if the gameplay was hot and the story and lore was cool, we we're down like a weed party. MGS2 Raiden hate was about as vocal a disconnect I've EVER heard from the gaming community. and being that was Kojima's obvious fanboy subversion-happy-fun-time-experiment. among many others reflected in the gameplay. Its easy to reconcile now...for some of us anyways....

(Unlike the type of subversion you get from Bioshock Infinite, and Gone Home. I mean really. It can't hurt for some game auteurs to take a few hints from the land of the rising sun on being 'edgy', and lesson one starts with not taking the game too seriously.*)

But when gamers complained of gaming feeling too political, I could really feel where they were coming from. The culture was a peaceful escape from everyday bs, and constantly depressing world news. the biggest issues gamers have was stuff like junkie Dante and other nervous fits over character reboots, XBONe's original DRM plans, Watchdogsgate, studio closures and dead franchises, a place for solidarity and comfort when the Jack Thompsons of the world got bored and were looking for someone to blame after another crazed shooting spree, or politicians needed more donations.

"You are a scourge upon our children! Now Give me money!!!"

Getting to the point, its just unfortunate to see our peers fill the shoes of the same older, chastising media opportunists of yesteryear who never understood gaming when we were all younger. To judge games from CNN'o'vision, with the benefit of direct exposure and communication degrees and vlog experience, without celebrating their positive aspects, or harp on it like MtV executives as something to co-op for all its interesting qualities.

I've always stood by the point these (especially the M rated) are kitschy experiences meant for normal consumers who understand how the real world works. Its simply escapism, for lives bouncing back and forth between monotony and high stress rather than drugs for psychos. But you can't tell that to the folks that scared off Six Days in Fallujah, or the PR bombshell that was the Hot Coffee Mod when the industry bends over again to take it up the ass from more outside critics rather than saying "screw you, we're doin' this," for once in awhile. That this point is rarely echoed in the wider modern conversation about gaming confuses me. But I can only point to the vids below, which raise stronger assertions than me, and ask.

Do you feel that at least to a small degree. Gaming is being co-opted by some outside forces, or interest groups? Or people who really need to pick up a controller and learn to appreciate games?

That's the price we kind of pay when we start analyzing deeply into a popular medium of entertainment. Much like film, video games are starting to come under scrutiny as to whether or not it is "allowed" to say anything of value. This usually comes from within, from the people who advocate for it in the first place. This call to make games feel more included in modern society seems a bit hypocritical when said people are complaining about developers trying to "remove the fun," as it were, from the medium, when in reality they just want to use this highly interactive medium to explore deeper topics and issues. It comes from the developers too, who are often too afraid of stepping out of the comfort zone of only making fun games, even though there will always be a place for fun games, just like there's a place for mindless summer blockbusters in the film industry. There's nothing wrong with studying and analyzing the meanings behind games. Maybe we're getting a bit overzealous about it, but then again, how can this medium grow if all we're doing is trying to keep things the same?

@mastermetal777: The difference between movies and games is that the great movies don;t necessarily have to be "fun." Take, for instance, the movie The Road. Most people would agree that at the very least it's a well made film, some would say it's a good movie, but it sure as hell ain't a fun one. Yet it is still a well received movie in spite of its incredibly heavy atmosphere. But with a game, some level of it has to be fun in order to keep the player engaged. Gaming is a lot more interactive so while there is most definitely room for tackling interesting subject matter, it doesn't mean jack if there isn't some kind of enjoyment to be derived from it.

Look at say Hotline Miami. Fans agree that it is a really fun game, but it also tackles the idea of video game violence and why people enjoy it. The thing is that the game wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective if the game's mechanics weren't so well designed and fun to pull off. That's the issue with your comparison of the two mediums. With movies they don't need to be "fun" to be considered good, but with games there has to be some level of fun to be had in order to be considered good.

@turtlethetaffer: Well remember that film at one point was once considered only mindless escapism and nobody thought it could be taken seriously before we got movies like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, The Seventh Seal, and all those other wonderful films that pushed boundaries. I don't believe games have to be "fun" necessarily. They just have to be engaging.

Yeah see thats the thing. I do appreciate when Saints Row, TWD, Dark Souls, Papers Please, Journey, The Stanley Parable find mechanical ways to go outside the status quo and challenge what games mean, but looking back at the 4th 5th and 6th gen, I see there were very intelligent standards in game design that reinforced player behavior for years that are sorely neglected now.

The lack of pacing, challenge variety, conditioning and incentiv-izing in games (or in short the trend of dumbing down) is a bigger crime to me than hanging on old tropes and aesthetics, employment of them is one thing, but how they are executed is another. Though they may not prioritize more sensible and unexplored aspects of the human condition, they show just how capable games always were. (of course these examples will trot out the usual suspects of the 5th 6th gen) I think games were always capable of being profound while not having to be as serious as TLOU or self analyzing as Spec Ops to achieve drama. Chasing hollywood aspirations of acceptance and asking what the Citizen Kane of gaming is, will cause it to forget its strengths IMO.

While I believe this is a form of expression open to all types of mechanics, and challenges, I don't think the status quo needs to be villified as much to give light to what indie is doing. When side scrollers ruled the day. Wolfenstein 3D was indie. So its all in the execution.

This thread is definately way above my paygrade. I literaly don't understand a single thing being said by anyone.

@platinumking320: the status quo shouldn't be vilified, I agree, but most games don't usually make a big attempt at saying something important. All I'm saying is that there should be more risks taken by developers to make new interesting IPs. Hell, maybe even have the big AAA companies start an indie developer branch, much like film. Disney has Touchstone Pictures, so why can't Activision or Ubisoft (as examples) do something similar

Of course games are being co-opted and they are also being americanized, as we all know americans have a tendency to be quite polarizing and also be quite vocal about it, so when 90% of the media is all american and many in error feels that the north american market is the most important, it unfortunatelycreates an environment where the developers feel they need to cater to a small minority because they seem a lot bigger.

But yes they should just pick up a controller and learn to appreciate games but they wont because

Ubisoft do have a "indie" game department unless you want to claim that Child of Light and Valiant Hearts are AAA games.

@Jacanuk: Maybe Ubisoft was a poor choice in developer to name then. Maybe EA instead? Y'know, if they can get their heads out of their asses.

EA would never go ahead with making "indie" games but i do agree it would be nice if the big developers (more than ubisoft) also began to look at making smaller titles it would also allow them to experiment more without thinking so much in it has to sell huge to make a profit.

Like the OP this will be a rant.

That Mundane Matt is another one of those guys who thrives off of people who have the 'you tell it to them' mentality. There is not a single solution in his entire speech. He just rants and whines and apparently thinks what he says is important enough to share publicly. And while he's doing that he's contributing to the destruction, not of videogame journalism, but of videogame criticism. He's not actually thinking critically, he's just ranting and giving his personal opinion without attempting to consider different perspectives.

Also, all the controversy he's talking about relates to criticism, not journalism. There aren't too many journalists out there, there are too many critics out there, including him. Maybe game journalism lost its importance a bit, because people can't really go out there and do research anymore. Publishers and developers decide when to release their information and there's very little we can do about it. Games are very big business now and very big business is boring. So everybody relies on the same snippets of information. I doubt that is going to change, even if videogame journalism becomes less saturated. And so we fill up the space with editorials and entertainment, which have nothing to do with journalism. So really, what is this guy's point? What does he want? What are his solutions? Or is he simply making another empty case...?

The other guy isn't even worth my time. He's just picking on extremists, which are highly irrelevant and just shout a lot, like he does.

Of course, it is inevitable and dare I say irreversible, but I don't care. As so many people forget this is not some omnipresent phenomenon (it only seems that way to some people). Besides, it is something we, as a 'community', helped create and keep alive. We fuel the fire completely voluntarily. I understand we should critically look at the people who point the fingers, but the internet is filled with self-entitled assholes and trolls who think their opinion is truth and are just as hypocritical as everyone else. Besides, controversy and entertainment is what we want. The situation won't change if the community doesn't change. Matt whines about websites not being independent, but if people aren't prepared to pay for membership and want all their content free of charge, then you shouldn't complain when websites go for clicks and ads and are being bought up by larger companies. Integrity and responsibility my ass; this whole community generally lacks any sense of integrity and responsibility.

But what do you actually want? What do you want to see? Do you think what you want is feasible...?

Maybe I simply don't understand. I didn't play a lot of videogames when I was younger, I did not have a passion for them as an adolescent; I really only started playing and following videogames intensively about 5 years ago (I'm 27). I never experienced the 'good old days', so maybe I don't know any better. But I cannot help but feel that a lot of people can't accept that the market has changed, that times have changed and that they're blowing things out of proportion just as much as extremists like Sarkeesian are doing. The internet fucks up all views, not just your opponent's.

Sorry for my lack of empathy, but boohoo. Again, this might be my lack of historical experience (not awareness, mind you), but I consider myself pretty passionate about gaming and I feel this is something that can be solved by being a little bit more disciplined in what you pick to read or discuss. I'm aware of the console wars and occasionally I witness such a dispute, but I choose to avoid that nonsense in the forums, so I'm not really bothered by it. Therefore I see no reason to let it affect my enjoyment of discussing or playing videogames in any way, since it does not dominate every discussion I partake in, nor is it a dominant part of the games I play. I feel such an attitude can be applied to most aspects of the hobby.

People LET games become too attached to reality, because they choose to read all the contextual 'bullshit' surrounding it; because they cannot stand not having read it and complained about it in the comment section. I cannot sympathise with that. Don't get me wrong, if something relates to subjects you feel passionate about then you should discuss it and be critical, but personally I do not feel any of the complaints people have about these apparently peripheral issues (politics, sexism, racism, art even) are severe enough that it should negatively affect their overall experience of gaming as a hobby or that it's worthy of all the numerous complaints. Not that I wish to imply your post was the result of a more general disappointment; it's just something that seems to feed a lot of commenters on the internet. And I have a hard time believing that feeling is reasonable. It's understandable (what with a medium receiving more mainstream exposure and all the exploitation that comes with it), but I also think it's largely self-inflicted.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood some of your statements or if put words in your mouth. I chose to be a little less considerate and more personal in my response, seeing as the OP was also a rant... ;-P

If by "co-opted" you mean the companies realize they could be making more money by appealing to a more diverse customer base, then yes.... And despite the objections of certain people, that is actually the smart thing to do. The world is changing so companies have to change with it if they want to continue to grow.

It IS the smart thing to do. Just like how musicians moving towards Justin Bieber style characters was a smart move that made them a lot of money. But was Justin Bieber and his kind good for music? No, he was awful. He's still awful, and he will always be awful. The more these companies appeal to the dudebros and the non-gamers, the worse games get.

Their is money to be made off core gamers look for uncompromised gaming experiences that aren't five hour long hand holding tutorials with a generic multiplayer suite that becomes a barren wasteland a month after launch because the ADD crowd moved on to the next big thing already. From Software and their Souls line being a prime example.

They just have to be smart, and know their audience. Are gaming companies making more money as gaming continues to diversify? Yes. But that money is being made by an increasingly more concentrated and smaller group of people. It isn't a coincidence that so many people are turning to the increasingly vibrant indie scene for their gaming needs.

The concept that a game must be fun is an "old world" idea that lead to extreme amounts focus testing, statistics on mass audience appeal, and indecisiveness of vision for many developers. This concept is starting to be phased out as the industry changes and moves to a distribution method that is more accessible, non-reliant on publishers, and has a permanence not seen in brick and mortar stores. Some developers are leading with the idea that the game will find its target audience and are designing the experience how they want it. Yes, this can lead to a somewhat monotonous experience although it also opens up experimentation and allows for new ideas that could possibly implemented better down the road.

As for outsiders inserting their opinions where they don't belong, I would say this is exclusionary and not really healthy for the video game community/industry. Critiquing games and sharing beliefs, opinions, and ideas is helpful for blossoming new ideas in the industry. These ideas are not going to hurt the industry/community. Video games would change regardless of these ideas social/political ideas being spread, and they may change into something you don't agree with whether or not these opinions were stated, e.g. F2P and micro-transactions. To so vehemently fight against someone who is just speaking openly, ends up being an embarrassment on the video game community. If for some reason all games morph into some "monstrosity" that you don't want anything to do with, then there are still games to play and enjoy. The future doesn't replace the past -- that's sort of a lie -- and there is a high probability of finding older games that you did not know about that you would enjoy.

See, here is the problem with your way of thinking. Is Justin Beiber bad for music? Well, it depends on who you ask. Clearly his music results in massive sales and he has a legion of fans who enjoy his music. This is completely subjective. Just because you are I hate a certain type of music, it doesn't mean its bad. I hate country music and rap but there are millions of people who like both genres. Are they bad for music? In my opinion they are but I don't make the mistake of thinking my subjective opinion is a fact. That seems to be a common problem with people.

As a hardcore gamer, I already accepted the fact that the type of games I like (Tribes series, counterstrike, etc...) are pretty much done. Companies prefer to make casual games like the Call of Duty series and its clones because those appeal to a wider audience. Does that mean these games are bad? To me, yeah. But again, its just opinion. Sorry but the majority of money isn't made off hardcore gamers like me anymore. Most of their profits are made from the casual COD crowd and the fact that they move on from game to game quickly is actually one of the reasons why. Its why companies like Activision, EA and Ubisoft have been able to milk their customers for so much money with yearly releases of many series. The hardcore gamer demographic is too small to cater to anymore and that is how the companies are starting to view it.

I'm actually starting to embrace casual FPS games somewhat. After years on games that require a lot of skill, its like playing a game in easy mode when I get on modern shooters like COD and Battlefield 3-4. LOL I still think they are crap but its kinda fun just racking up a crazy amount of kills on these games. The downside is that I get bored after a while and have to find a new game.

You just keep coming up with those weak arguments. If you think companies need to be forced into making money you are just crazy, and thats the biggest problem you feminists have, you can try to form a public opinion against companies and try that way to force them into doing it a certain way, but you can also be 100% sure as soon as the heat is over, they will revert back to what makes them money.

Companies aren't going to do something that doesn't make them money, period. Regardless of public opinion. Many companies are making these decisions because they see the potential of this untapped market that they had ignored for so long. Companies like Naughty Dog for example. They weren't pressured by anyone when they forced a research firm to include women in the focus-testing group. They weren't pressured when their marketing firm wanted to put Ellie on the back cover and Naughty Dog refused. They made those decisions on their own because its just smart business.

If you had your way then all games would be made specifically to only appeal to the straight, white male gamer. And when women don't buy those games, you say "See, women don't buy games!" You're creating your own self-fulfilling prophecy. I understand that you're afraid of change and want to keep the old status quo but you need to accept the fact that the world is changing. You're becoming a relic of the past.

@loafofgame: Mighty thoughtful of you. Very deep response. Bet hey, I am aware that there's more to life than gaming. I never got into WoW for example when it launched back in '05 because the level of personal commitment seemed a bit too much for me when I had school and other creative pursuits. I played racers and fighters for the sake of a quick competitive rush, survival horror, campaign FPS, platformers and JRPGs for simply to be immersed in a challenging adventure and shooters for both.

I've seen what the hell hole of the perpetual gamer looks like. I used to run the register at a cybercafe in a mall 8 years ago, and witnessed MMO addiction up close and personal, read about addicts in South Korea in old articles here who killed themselves playing with no food or water.

Now we have documentaries about this type of compulsion and frustrated human relationships that drive people to put all their eggs in gamings basket. I think the attachment is only a symptom of emptiness in people's lives. Rational people can get the same experience and know when to put it down, but like poor communities always have the dumbest of the locals on the news making statements, press often looks for the most psycho of the fans to be the image of gaming. Its a sad sight to watch, but it ain't reflective of every hardcore player right?

I remember working with the owners of the cafe (real PC master race types) who were actually different, but also prudent with their hobbies, and were organized grounded people with goals and business ambitions, but made surprisingly a lot time for dedicated gaming. When God of War first came out I witnessed a sworn PC elitist get off his chair, grab a Sony controller and fall in love with it. For me if definitely had its strong suits, but being more into Devil May Cry I wasn't as fazed.

I remember wasting the better part of summers on Final Fantasy VIII and X, The Resident Evil and Half-life series's simply to finish the story. But they pushed me to bring my A' game and figure things out. Puzzles, variety, critical thinking and pacing were just the nature of the format in action games, and games considered AAA weren't as consolidated in their entertainment and engagement value as nowadays. and I suspect its because studioes werent as muscled about creatively by their megapublishers and marketing groups chasing hollywood's formula.

AAA Developers used to take pride in how hard, deceptive and schlocky their games were, and the community would largely suck it up and try to beat em.

As far as Matt. He knows he ambulance chases, but that perspective sounds like someone who sees current gaming press can get a little sensationalized, and drown out the impact of a game among its audience, when they're too busy being culturally conscious to play. I don't agree with everything he talks about. A lot of people decide to make their presence known on the internet by dropping like an asteroid, and deciding how to mitigate their early content over time because a lot of us have short attention spans. but you don't often see youtubers confessing where they know they went wrong. or being honest of what they endorse to make some cash on the internet.

I have family members that speak in similar very blunt, quick harsh tones, are stubborn in their opinions and sometimes come off kinda condescending. Often in situations where they try to entrap me. I'm so used to that. You have a good argument they'll ease up. If they're smart they'll acknowledge where they're wrong, and I do see some of that. A lot of Vh1-ish reality shows are far more unhealthy an visual addiction I think.

I listen to diatribes not to just consume them, but also to analyze them. Its easy to tell when someone can put thoughts together quickly on the mic through a stream of consciousness, and in contrast when a opinion piece is so plastic it feels over prepared. Totalbiscuit is another example of someone who speaks as a gamer.

I find myself more entertained by stream of consciousness speakers than overprepped ones. In stand up comedy for ex I like people like Paul Mooney, Kevin Hart, Natasha Leggero and Bill Burr because, there's personal human truth under the shock humor and absurd contrasts. They speak with a sense of honesty, for their perspective but not humanity at large. Its not so much their opinions but its looking through the media and sensing its not all an act but someone just leveling with you.

So the opposite is all I'm saying is I'm annoyed by. Outsiders judging when it'd be better if they played more and acknowledged what they hate after getting the full experience. I know the game community like the comic and film community's history has a nasty underbelly until it fosters growth amongst demographics they've rarely considered and broaden their medium for society at large, then endure the social criticism that goes with it. It has to be done like all forms of popular entertainment, and outside opinion can be valuable when they can see the egg on our faces, but the remorse, and pessimism I see in th community where people decline all the brilliance thats come from the 80's till now, and are uncertain of games they once adored, and pick at tropes and common game features rather than asking first how were said game or narrative devices employed? poorly? or reasonably well?

The community used to be universally annoyed, when politicans publicly chastised GTA: San Andreas and called in the creators to a senate hearing over an explicit sex mod. Gamers knew the content was low brow, but were sick of the pretentious moral judgement and bogeyman-creating considering how many millions of diverse players were already committed to the franchise, and how the chastising stopped into midterm election season.

Games don't have the clout and political strength the film industry does to have it's interests acknowledged and defended. Now we fight each other instead of sharing joy in the good things games do. Not everyone will see Mass Effect or Bioshock Infinite the same way Jim Sterling or Errant Signal will, and while opinions can be disagreed with, they dont get immediately doxxed based on their politics but you take what gems you can find from everyone and toss out the rest to form your own conclusions. Thats only possible in a vast marketplace of ideas where everything high brow and low brow is permitted.

It goes back to what Tom Mc Shea said in one article around the whole Sandy Hook situation. Where he responded to the notion 'why can't games grow up' by saying 'Games have ALREADY grown up'. I'd follow that up with "when are the South Park kids gonna leave elementary school? and what would be the reason for that. To reflect their fan's reality? Whos reality exactly?" Somethings can be objectively criticized and somethings can be subjectively criticized. Sturgeon's law applies heavily to games. Its like modern pop criticism forgot there was a time before corporate excess dominated the messaging of entertainment, where intelligent diverse content was aplently once you looked past the advertisement.

and gamers I knew didn't wait until the stuff they wanted to play felt socially comfortable. If we were psyched for the mechanics and visuals. We were going in. Simple as that. Just like when old hip hop fans got exasperated wondering when hip-hop would leave the 'gangster' phase, and evolve, I wanted the same things for years, but it's recent evolution wasn't a sudden turn of adulthood. Just a commerical image turnover, saturated by Pop EDM influence. It used to tell as many social and political stories as it celebrated just everyday shit like getting high, repping your home, and discussing the art and standard of lyricism. It was already grown up. Eventually its all in the eye of the beholder.

Thing is, as an audience, we have those grounded sentiments, but the greater gaming press sphere plays with the toxicity that kindles in the community more than it should. If its a boring news week, I'm sure there are other games gamers could discuss, than the sociopolitical media wars surrounding gaming. There's probably some diamonds in the rough that we'd consider playing. Enough airtime, and maybe Steam will have a reason to curate its storefront.

It won't take away the fact that the industry has an image problem, and could encourage more diverse opinions in game production, but it'll demonstrate that we have more class than the internet battle of sexes and other hot button 'ambulance chasers' trying to validate themselves all the time. Some indies out there could use that coverage, or some funny vid commentary and more original content covering their stuff. Maybe some more random encounter throwbacks to show you some of the great older games some of us used to enjoy.

the way social media fights start I feel like twitter should come with a soundtrack from the boxing announcer Micheal Buffer telling people 'Lets get ready to Rumble!', and that three ring circus of raged teen ideologues participating in "Baby's First Social Agenda" is waay unhealthier than our discussions. I can't wait till they're all 30 yrs old too and going, "yeah what the hell were we all thinking?"

You and I are able to acknowledge parts of where we're coming from, while disagreeing with others, and thats a rare thing. The community never used to need games to be safe to reflect our modern insecurities and problems, they brought people together in curiosity and competition despite how outrageous or one-sided they appeared thematically, all that mattered was can you perform. People could only be assholes online until they lost, and learning to progress was about learning to lose...OFTEN. They rarely fed our entitlement. IDK its just funny seeing how modern phenomenons have morphed the public faces of video games. We're all uncertain and don't know where things are headed, but I think some tenets, and perspectives of gamings older years could do well to propagate again in our current times.

Peace, dude.

That's not what I meant when I said that the issues mentioned aren't severe enough. I meant that within the context of gaming as a hobby. While I understand this attitude of 'it has all gone to shit' some people have, I do not think that attitude is reasonable. Even if gaming is all you do I don't think that in this day and age there's a reason to not constantly have something challenging or satisfying to play. Unless of course you restrict yourself to specific subgenres, which is why in many cases I feel people should start their complaints with mentioning what they generally play. Or it could be that they have simply worn themselves out and that they want changes that aren't feasible. There's only so much you can fundamentally innovate when it comes to an FPS for example. I experience a lot of the 'bad stuff' in the industry as an addition to, not as a replacement of better things. Granted, the bad stuff can be very dominating and has taken away a chunk of what a lot of gamers seem to be passionate about, but there's still so much out there. I just don't understand why people generalise everything so much and let it poison their mind and bring them down.

While that attitude might not be as dominant anymore, I don't think it has faded away completely, although one could argue about the AAA side of the industry. I understand why some people feel there's a lack of AAA games filled with said pride, passion and dedication, but well, if the whole indie scene continues to develop I don't see how it can't compete with AAA. If you look at Star Citizen for example, I don't think that game is in any way different from an AAA game, except that it seems to have all those elements that people seem to miss in AAA games (passion, pride and dedication). Such games might not come around as frequently anymore, but still regularly enough to keep me entertained and still miss out on so much. And I don't see a reason to be pessimistic about the future.

Meh, being self-critical should be a given really. These youtubers, no matter how sincere or honest they are, hardly ever offer solutions and most importantly, there's no dialogue. I'll take any discussion in these forums over videos like that.

I get your point, but I sometimes feel that these streams of consciousness are a product of the impatient internet, replacing actual critical thinking with eloquent ranting. This guy seems to think on the fly, he's not sitting down and considering what he's saying. His thoughts might be sincere, intelligent and even true, but I see no development, no actual contemplation, no multiple perspectives. Maybe that's too much to ask from one person, but I can actually get that in here. I don't hear anything in these videos that I can't find here in a richer and more interactive form. I sometimes get that experience when watching the GS podcasts, but I feel they're not using that format to its full potential. In the end nothing beats an actual dialogue. And I love forums for that, because there's no time pressure or physical intimidation. I can pick my discussions and dive into them, even if most of the people you have discussions with don't really want to have an actual discussion.

I understand, though I still have a tendency to think that all the pessimism and doubt is blown out of proportion by gamers, that all this misery is largely self-inflicted. There are plenty of articles discussing solely the implementation of game elements, celebrating the beauty of games as separated from real life issues (dare I say the majority of articles is still like that). The problem is, any alternative view is often turned into a monstrosity of misplaced controversy by gamers who should have simply ignored it. Petit's GTA V review is my favourite example. There was nothing controversial about that review. People MADE it controversial. People blew that footnote argument out of proportion in ways that still boggle my mind. There is reason to be critical of the AAA industry, videogame journalism and cooptation, but there's no reason to make it bigger than it is or to ignore any personal responsibility. And that's what a lot of people are doing in my opinion. Of course, I might very well be downplaying these issues, but still...

I don't know. As you said, it's in the eye of the beholder. I don't experience the gaming community like that at all. I see those fights and I discuss them, but there are plenty of ways to not actually experience them.

Do you mean that time has gone or that that time is still there, but critics don't see it anymore...? I can agree with the latter, though again, I think people blow it out of proportion, judge from nostalgia and generalise too much. Same goes for:

As for:

Is that what the audience really wants, though...? Don't people just want to whine and watch MundaneMatt all the time? ;-P Why doesn't that dude make nice gameplay videos, instead of discussing the issues that he doesn't really want to see discussed? I think there's a decent amount of the stuff you mention on offer, but if too little people watch it, then it disappears again. I learn a lot from shows like Megabit and Random Encounter, which are suprisingly informative, aswell as entertaining. I know I look like a GS fanboy now, but well... But you can only do so much of those things if the majority of people aren't really interested. The focus of videogame journalism and/or criticism might be a little bit too much on hot topics (though I'm tempted to deny that), but it's largely a result of reader feedback. Everybody apparently wants a quick and easy fix and since websites can't rely on membership revenues they can't specialise and as a result simply focus on what's trending. Specialisation and in-depth content do not pay the bills. I'm not sure that's the journalists/critcs' fault, at least not largely. But I guess you could argue over who made first mistake...

That's undoubtedly true. But I don't think that the idea that PART of the community needs games to be safe to reflect our modern insecurities and problems is a bad thing. It's an additional characteristic, the result of a more diverse audience. This isn't a homogeneous community anymore (if it ever was). Some aspects that were never questioned are now being questioned and that can be hard to bear, but it's not something you have to concern yourself with if you don't want to. That feeling of sheer competitiveness and performance (not a dominant reason I play videogames, by the way) is still there; it's just not the only feeling anymore.

To take the thread about female representation as an example: I know people hate political correctness, but I doubt adding content that adheres to minorites really makes a game that much worse (as some people seem to argue), especially when it comes to gameplay (which still seems to be the most important aspect for most people, even the ones who complain about forced representation). Countless threads have been started with the tagline: I don't like this, because it's done for the wrong reasons. This is an entirely consumer created issue; no journalists or critics are involved here. Gamers THEMSELVES disregard what they find so important about gaming; they ignore the actual implementation and execution of elements and immediately jump to all the questionable reasons why those elements were added. Shouldn't those reasons be irrelevant if the elements are executed in a satisfactory way? But no, if an element is added for questionable reasons there is no way it can probably be right and that element immediately starts off at a disadvantage.

Gamers create a lot of the controversy themselves and websites jump on that, because that's the only thing they can rely on to survive. And meanwhile, all these freelancers on youtube whine about it, adding to the pile of crap, instead of making the videos they want to see... I'm sorry, MundaneMatt, but you don't interest me. I'll watch Megabit instead.

Sorry, this is all kind of unrelated to the original post. :-P

Gaming is experiencing the bulk of these problems due to its deviation to realism and less abstraction. Games in the past required some degree of imagination to compensate for the lack of technology so the general gaming population was simply satisfied with what they had. Now games try to be something that its not, by trying to be more of a story telling medium and avenue for "expression". Thats all well and good but its normally at the expense of actual gameplay which is the very reason we game. The original sweep of gaming characters were either anthropomorphic or an abstract version of a human. No one felt a need to bond with these characters or even try to relate to them, they simply wanted to play. Now with fully realised humans that can represent all races, genders and personalities the expectations are higher and people desire more especially with the over emphasis on storytelling and the god awful cinematic experience. I personally would strangle the next dev who utters that bullcrap. I think these change is what has spurred interest in indie games. Because most indie games are small on the budget their games have to rely on the fun factor and less on the storytelling. It is also an avenue for the nostalgist to marinate in the origin of gaming.

I kind of agree. The cinematic experience approach felt fresh back in the PS1 and PS2 days, especially with the MGS series, but nowadays almost every major AAA game is trying to do that. Even the much-derided "casual" mobile games that "core" gamers love to hate seem to offer more gameplay and challenge than most AAA games. I'm not at all surprised why a lot of old-school gamers are slowly turning their backs on AAA games and turning more towards indie games, which balance out the lack of gameplay-oriented experiences in the AAA market, with few exceptions like Nintendo.

@Minishdriveby: Did I ever say I wanted to oust other peoples' opinions...?

Sorry turtle, I should have specified that wasn't targeted at you.

Oh whoopsie.

Anyways I see your point. I guess to me the terms fun and engaging are basically the same thing, at least as far as games are concerned. That's what I meant when I said games need to have that fun factor.

As an example, take GTAV. A lot of people consider that game a masterpiece in many ways, but to me there were a number of tasks in that game that were, simply put, not engaging whatsoever, and, therefore, not fun. Therefore, to me, that was a game that tried almost too hard to be "important" and ultimately failed (although it was definitely fun at times). My main issue was the buildup to the heists. I understand that Rockstar was trying to build anticipation, like building tension in a heist movie, but it came off as a failure to me because in a movie you're watching the things happen, and the dialogue and acting can help keep the more mundane moments interesting. But in the game, all the dialogue and good acting in the world couldn't stop the tasks required of you from being menial and boring.

This is opposed to say, Silent Hill 2. On paper, the game shouldn't be fun. But because of the way the story and gameplay merge, exploring the world is fun (for a lot of people at least). So that's what I meant when I said it needs to have that fun factor.

That child from the road is bloody annoying, all he did was whine and whinge, like a spoilt child that had just been thrown into an apocalyptic world, not lived in one pretty mich all his life.

I would expect him to have slightly better coping skills

@thehig1: Okay. But I fail to see how that's relevant to anything I said. It was just an example of a generally well received movie.

@turtlethetaffer

No man, You are right. Fun is kind of important, its the only thing seperating "play" from "work".

its not really relevant, you reminded of that dam kid so I had to rant about it

Gaming, music, sports, literally any and all entertainment eventually becomes watered down to appeal to the masses once the realization of profit settles in. Watch a documentary on hip hop, skate boarding, basketball, surfing, whatever and they all follow the same trend. Humble beginnings fueled by passion devolving into another corporate business venture where mass revenue and endorsements are the main concern.

I'll take it back even further to a time when video games included thick ass instructional manuals which favored mini comic books, printed in color, on high gloss paper that made a good read on the toilet.

Crack open the plastic for the latest over hyped game and you will a double sided black and white cardboard paper informing you 'this game include an in game instruction manual which is another step we have taken to reserve Earth's natural resources'.

The fun Up, Down, Left Right, A, B Easter egg cheats have been replaced with pre order bonuses and extra 'single player' missions. Pay $60 plus tax for 3/4's of a game, gamble another $20 - $30 for a season pass which may be 1 single player DLC with 5 multiplayer DLC's. New maps and guns. Yaaay!

"Next gen" represents an era where graphics take center stage to gameplay and quality takes a backseat to quantity. E3, Comic Con, liberalism, equal rights, gameplay trailers full of nothing but scripted cinematics, reviewers getting fired or receiving death threats for scoring a popular game too low, dev cutbacks on employees, next gen ports, and lo and behold, more sequels to boot! Gaming is becoming way too serious to actually be fun anymore if you think about it.

@HipHopBeats: I'm going to counter your last statement in that--at least with me personally--games becoming more serious is actually making them more fun. Deeper themes embeded into the gameplay and story just makes them more enjoyable to me. I guess I'm just tired of mindless games where all you do is kill without any real reason. Granted I still play classics like The Legend of Zelda and Mega Man X, as it's great to keep in touch with your roots, but I believe games can be so much more than they already are, and it makes me sad to see so many gamers against the idea of making games more meaningful. I don't know, maybe I'm asking too much of my favorite medium, but that's the way I see it.

@mastermetal777: I agree with everything you said, but I was referring to the business and politics aspect of gaming. In a more sarcastic point of view. It feels like less and less devs are actually passionate about their games and more corporate, schmorporate. I'm all for deep meaningful games like Bioshock, Mass Effect, The Last Of Us, etc.

What I was referring to are games like AC Unity and Far Cry 4 for example. Both games are being marketed with the same crap as Black Flag and Watch Dogs. "We've added this new feature, revamped the combat, ride an elephant, a rooftop map HUD, blah blah blah, "upgrade to the limited Collector's Edition for 3 extra heart pounding missions!" Lol!

We need more Ken Levines, Shinji Mikamis and Hideo Kojimas in the gaming indusrty. Hell, I'll even give Todd Howard a nod. Love it or hate it, at least Skyrim has strong influences on upcoming RPG's such as Inquisitions.

@HipHopBeats

Really ? Out of all the talented developers out there you chose the "movie producer" and "the overcompensator" ? What about Cliffy B and Itagaki ?

@Lulu_Lulu: You mean the bromancer and the ninja/boob man? Yeah, next. I can't stand Gears of War's characters and its gameplay is too slow for my liking. Ninja Gaiden is fun, yes, but not very compelling to me.

@mastermetal777

The "Bromancer" made the most mechanically superior 3rd Person Shooter, Ever ! And the "Ninja/Boob man", how can you not love Ninjas and Boobs, seriously, they're fantastic ! Also good gameplay.

Whats funny though is Kojima is also a great gameplay designer, unfortunately, nobody plays his games for gameplay.

@Lulu_Lulu: Yeah, I don't like Kojima's work at all, simply because of his lack of writing ability. All he knows how to do is design good gameplay, and while that's the most important part, he needs to do a better job at actually writing a story, or at least make another game like Stalker, which is an underrated gem in my book.

And while Gears of War is a good game mechanically, to me it feels so damn boring. Bland environments, bland characters, bland story, bland enemies. No matter how good the game feels to play, I just can't get past everything else. It all has to work as a whole, and Gears definitely doesn't work as a whole.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but ninjas and boobs just don't do it for me anymore.

@mastermetal777

I've always wanted to play a Gears type game that wasn't a Post Apocolyptic Depression Quest, and Looks like Nintendo heard my cries and actually did one better in the form of Splatoon. I have to play it.

And the The thing about Ninja Gaiden is that its just far to bloody and gruesome, I would love it there was a cartoon game with Ninja Gaiden's mechanics, like Naruto, that had loads of colour.

I think some one whom we can both agree did a great job with gameplay and story is Sefton Hill from Rocksteady, all thats missing is co-op.