Norwood Game Commentary and Media Literacy
#41
believe me we do not.
#42
I find /pol/ and this stuff hard to read because so much of it is incidentally right. Achilles Heel of both is the warehouse knights who make up not only the rank and file, but also the drivers of the things. There's a critical lack of taste and proper discernment here. We had nice cool nerd things for nerds and then women and their eunuchs destroyed it. Yes. That part's right. But most of the people complaining just want everything to be warhammer 40k forever and don't actually have notably better taste or more interesting ideas than Anita Sarkeesian (or you know, her male handler who actually wrote the two videos she made). Is the problem institutional control or is it artistic vision and taste?

There's a fantastic gamergate thread on ParadiseHotel51, which is undergoing renovations right now. I'll link it here when it's back up.
#43
this video about millenial writing



explain the problem with modern games,and also refers to norwoods and their speech pattern,and  debunk the idea that games always has been political and saying is not the same thing adressing subtlety political themes and outright political activism of modern issues.
#44
(07-06-2023, 01:27 PM)Guest Wrote: this video about millenial writing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyHG8EfcA5c&t=961s  explain the problem with modern games,and also refers to norwoods and their speech pattern,and  debunk the idea that games always has been political and saying is not the same thing adressing subtlety political themes and outright political activism of modern issues.

I remember finding this guy a long time ago and hating him. Still do. He's what me, Pigsaw, and a few others call a "knight". A subject which might belong in this thread, probably warrants its own eventually. Actually mentioned in this thread by me already with a little exposition.

The Knight is the opposed match of the SJW. This guy, shreddednerd, is the opposed match of the SJW.  I listened to this to get a feel for where his head was at because this subject interests me:

He has the typical knight reaction to SJW misappreciation of video games. He doesn't present what you should be appreciating within the thing. He tells you to stop trying to appreciate it. And rather offensively, he does actually present his own attempts at discerning creative will and intentions behind this thing he ostensibly appreciates (unlike those darn dirty SJWs) but then dismisses his own potential reading saying that it's all just projection which is possible from any angle. And then also kind of defuses his own point by saying the thing just kind of autonomously takes on influences from a variety of sources like art and media are tofu that just sort of soak in the world around them and so meaninglessly and arbitrary resemble bits and pieces of the world as we see it. It contains things. A variety of things. And these make it interesting. But I don't see how you can find interest in any aspect of a thing when you are resolved to believe it is meaningless.

Typical gamer. "Stop saying things mean things. Imagine if cool nigger saw you. SJWs say things mean things." My personal reading of Halo is that it is extremely political. Basically I hold a far more elaborate spin on the alternate "projection" take he presents in this video. He would say this makes me a mirror SJW. But the SJWs aren't defined by their belief. They're defined by the hollowness of that belief, which means as much as this guy's honest lack of belief.

And as for Halo itself, I'm putting something together myself on the subject which I'll bring here soon.

Quote:and debunk the idea that games always has been political and saying is not the same thing adressing subtlety political themes and outright political activism of modern issues.

This man does not believe in subtlety. What he means by that is meaninglessness. You can vaguely allude to suggestions of shadows of the edges of real things. Because the real world is real, and that gets into a game. Themes. Storytelling. But god forbid anybody mean anything.

As for activism, it's what I said in the art thread (I think, I don't remember). Political art is shit because it's a very lame, boring, and unpleasant kind of person who wants to pin a slogan to a thing. It's unintelligent politics divorced from creation. Politics on top of the thing rather than through the thing. That's all this guy can probably imagine. Politics is when the Aaron Sorkin stand-in looks at the camera and tells you to vote democrat. A right wing game would be one where the ben shapiro stand-in tells you to vote republican. If that doesn't happen all politics are imagined in the mind of the viewer who needs to touch grass. And he basically says that in the above video. That rather than engaging with the "le you made someone up in your head to get mad at online" meme people should "go outside and make real friends". He's right that retarded e-leftists imagining 2000s dudebros not understanding video games is a waste of time. But the answer is not to give up on understanding. It's to engage with the people who are actually talking about Halo.

I'm now repeating that great PH51 post on Gamergate. Anita Sarkeesian was not wrong because she said video games were about things and reflected the creators and their view of the world. Anita Sarkeesian was wrong because her particular readings of particular works were completely retarded. She was dishonest in not talking to creators or serious critics. But the "knights" of /v/ and reddit played right into her hands by calling her a bitch rather than writing their own interpretations of the works in question. The way to win was obviously to produce as much sincere appreciation from your own perspective as possible while constantly inviting her to talk. She wouldn't, because again, dishonest player who doesn't actually give a shit about the subject at hand. But if you want to push them out be the real thing. And even if you don't want a fight and there's more money and audience in being a lying retard shouldn't you be appreciating anyway? I do for my audience of a few dozen with anything I like. But the knight doesn't do this because they're the SJWs true mirror. It's two sides who don't care accusing each other of ruining the thing by daring to have feelings about it.
#45
(12-27-2022, 01:27 PM)Moyai Wrote: Are there any actually good video essayists?

That none of you mentioned Mathewmatosis tells me that some of you are stuck only looking for the rightward equivalent of generic culture commentary peddlers and not people whose perception of the medium is clear and precise. Mathewmatosis may very well be one of the purest appreciators of the medium who can articulate its strengths in ways that are years ahead of people who are both paid and unpaid to talk about it.
#46
(07-16-2023, 02:10 PM)Guest Wrote:
(12-27-2022, 01:27 PM)Moyai Wrote: Are there any actually good video essayists?

That none of you mentioned Mathewmatosis tells me that some of you are stuck only looking for the rightward equivalent of generic culture commentary peddlers and not people whose perception of the medium is clear and precise. Mathewmatosis may very well be one of the purest appreciators of the medium who can articulate its strengths in ways that are years ahead of people who are both paid and unpaid to talk about it.

Do we really *need* people who explain things on this mechanical level? Are the best game makers building on this stuff? Are the connoisseurs with the best taste informed by this stuff? Or is it just a mild edutainment intellectual exercise?

I admit I don't know where he's at because I gave up on paying attention to this kind of thing years ago. They're just so tedious and exhausting. Yes I know I spend 20 minutes talking about grass on youtube.

Anyway point I wanted to make here is that I am very opposed to the idea that the "purest appreciator" is the one who is the most reductive and mechanical. You say "generic" like that's your problem, but it seems far more like you believe that there is simply no value in cultural commentary. Perception of "The medium is clear and precise". What does it mean to understand video games in the abstract? In my opinion it means nothing. Like talking about the purest understanding of the novel, or film. This reductive view in which all becomes "content", meaningless iterations which are all more or less perfect aspirations towards optimal forms of novelty.

IN MY OPINION the true value in these works to be appreciated by the finest observers is the human value. The particulars of particular works through which we understand the minds and wills behind them. You don't talk about particular games or particular artists here. You say that Matosis appreciates the medium. What is the point of appreciating video games in the abstract? This feels more like an adjacent field of interest to studying something like chess strategy. The appreciation is all impersonal, each individual work (or "video game") only becomes an iteration of the true field of interest which is the medium. What is Death Stranding? It is a better or worse attempt at a video game. How's the gameplay? Did the gameplay reinforce the themes? When you do that it's good. The video game is stronger because it showed rather than told. That's like a score multiplier.

I don't actually know or really care what this guy has to say about Death Stranding, because I don't care about Death Stranding as a pure work of the medium. I care about it as an expression of Hideo Kojima. Just like I care about Metal Gear Solid. A comparison between Metal Gear and Splinter Cell which does not read each work as a product of distinct human wills is completely pointless in my opinion. And it seems to me that Matosis and your ideal of talking about video games is devoted to exactly this kind of babble.

Edit: By the way, guest, have you read your Icycalm? If you want to talk pure analysis and you haven't you are very, very behind. As I just said in the shoutbox I see Icycalm's problems largely being what I described above. But I will still acknowledge him as being very good and interesting at talking about video games in that way. I think he reduced mechanical appreciation of video games down to its purest base form very early on in his writing and that's about all there is to this kind of exploration. (Did Icycalm do the reduction himself or did I correct his understanding into my own? Now I don't remember...)
#47
(07-16-2023, 09:20 PM)anthony Wrote:
(07-16-2023, 02:10 PM)Guest Wrote:
(12-27-2022, 01:27 PM)Moyai Wrote: Are there any actually good video essayists?

That none of you mentioned Mathewmatosis tells me that some of you are stuck only looking for the rightward equivalent of generic culture commentary peddlers and not people whose perception of the medium is clear and precise. Mathewmatosis may very well be one of the purest appreciators of the medium who can articulate its strengths in ways that are years ahead of people who are both paid and unpaid to talk about it.

Do we really *need* people who explain things on this mechanical level? Are the best game makers building on this stuff? Are the connoisseurs with the best taste informed by this stuff? Or is it just a mild edutainment intellectual exercise?

I admit I don't know where he's at because I gave up on paying attention to this kind of thing years ago. They're just so tedious and exhausting. Yes I know I spend 20 minutes talking about grass on youtube.

Anyway point I wanted to make here is that I am very opposed to the idea that the "purest appreciator" is the one who is the most reductive and mechanical. You say "generic" like that's your problem, but it seems far more like you believe that there is simply no value in cultural commentary. Perception of "The medium is clear and precise". What does it mean to understand video games in the abstract? In my opinion it means nothing. Like talking about the purest understanding of the novel, or film. This reductive view in which all becomes "content", meaningless iterations which are all more or less perfect aspirations towards optimal forms of novelty.

IN MY OPINION the true value in these works to be appreciated by the finest observers is the human value. The particulars of particular works through which we understand the minds and wills behind them. You don't talk about particular games or particular artists here. You say that Matosis appreciates the medium. What is the point of appreciating video games in the abstract? This feels more like an adjacent field of interest to studying something like chess strategy. The appreciation is all impersonal, each individual work (or "video game") only becomes an iteration of the true field of interest which is the medium. What is Death Stranding? It is a better or worse attempt at a video game. How's the gameplay? Did the gameplay reinforce the themes? When you do that it's good. The video game is stronger because it showed rather than told. That's like a score multiplier.

I don't actually know or really care what this guy has to say about Death Stranding, because I don't care about Death Stranding as a pure work of the medium. I care about it as an expression of Hideo Kojima. Just like I care about Metal Gear Solid. A comparison between Metal Gear and Splinter Cell which does not read each work as a product of distinct human wills is completely pointless in my opinion. And it seems to me that Matosis and your ideal of talking about video games is devoted to exactly this kind of babble.

Edit: By the way, guest, have you read your Icycalm? If you want to talk pure analysis and you haven't you are very, very behind. As I just said in the shoutbox I see Icycalm's problems largely being what I described above. But I will still acknowledge him as being very good and interesting at talking about video games in that way. I think he reduced mechanical appreciation of video games down to its purest base form very early on in his writing and that's about all there is to this kind of exploration. (Did Icycalm do the reduction himself or did I correct his understanding into my own? Now I don't remember...)

To be fair, I would like to not have the words that came to mind for me in my praise to be mistaken for Matt's words or a representation for what his own thoughts are. He does do a lot of mechanistic analysis but he also has comprehensive judgement for what makes a game worthwhile or worth considering in ways that are not broken into crude subcomponents. He's done a fair share of individual reviews but his later work moves more into general analysis of comprehensive qualities that make games work well, albeit still with a focus on the mechanical. Although I don't think the mechanical can ever be entirely disregarded when it is an important component upon which so many other aspects are contingent on. Even the simplest of games such as The Silver Case have some sort of mechanical through line that separate it from being a simple virtual novel. Even "non-games" have some sort of mechanical component although they may not be the main aspect that drives us to those games in particular.

I do not mean to imply that cultural impact or larger implications are not worthwhile, but as was pointed out earlier in this thread there are those critics such as Krogan whose material basically consists of trolling through low quality media and picking through it for inverted SJ points, like the video review equivalent of selling Daily Wire candy bars. I think its good to have some good foundational appreciation for the medium, which if one has can only strengthen their broader human or meta-analysis of the medium. As for who meets that standard, I'm not sure. It certainly doesn't exist on the left with their crass effort to using everything they touch upon as a hollow vehicle for self-validation. But I'm not sure if the rightward equivalent exists yet either. Maybe it does here on this forum or somewhere I haven't seen yet. But I think its a mistake to disregard "basic" analysis because frankly most others out there don't even have a basic understanding.

Maybe starting with "pure" is what set off the chain of misunderstanding. It was a reflexive word choice. I simply meant that he has a great care for the medium and that he pours a lot of thought into what makes it worthwhile. I do not mean to imply that he is the only or the last stop in the greater analysis. He doesn't necessarily go into the objects of concern for this forum, but I think he has a lot of insightful things to say about the medium nonetheless and that can be useful to build off of. At least up there with icycalm with relevant things to say for this medium (which btw I have read but it has been some time so I may have to brush up on to remember some of his particulars. But I remember some of his individual articles well with their distinct writing style)
#48
(07-16-2023, 10:34 PM)Guest Wrote: To be fair, I would like to not have the words that came to mind for me in my praise to be mistaken for Matt's words or a representation for what his own thoughts are. He does do a lot of mechanistic analysis but he also has comprehensive judgement for what makes a game worthwhile or worth considering in ways that are not broken into crude subcomponents. He's done a fair share of individual reviews but his later work moves more into general analysis of comprehensive qualities that make games work well, albeit still with a focus on the mechanical. Although I don't think the mechanical can ever be entirely disregarded when it is an important component upon which so many other aspects are contingent on. Even the simplest of games such as The Silver Case have some sort of mechanical through line that separate it from being a simple virtual novel. Even "non-games" have some sort of mechanical component although they may not be the main aspect that drives us to those games in particular.
I understand that you aren't Matosis, and that acting as a proxy defender for particular views can get very awkward, so I won't ask you to. I appreciate that you sound intelligent and am going to take that into account when considering your reading of this. Intelligent people can see value in Matosis. We seem to know where we each stand here and can only really go further if I can will myself to watch his videos.

Quote:I do not mean to imply that cultural impact or larger implications are not worthwhile, but as was pointed out earlier in this thread there are those critics such as Krogan whose material basically consists of trolling through low quality media and picking through it for inverted SJ points, like the video review equivalent of selling Daily Wire candy bars. I think its good to have some good foundational appreciation for the medium, which if one has can only strengthen their broader human or meta-analysis of the medium. As for who meets that standard, I'm not sure. It certainly doesn't exist on the left with their crass effort to using everything they touch upon as a hollow vehicle for self-validation. But I'm not sure if the rightward equivalent exists yet either. Maybe it does here on this forum or somewhere I haven't seen yet. But I think its a mistake to disregard "basic" analysis because frankly most others out there don't even have a basic understanding.

I would say that a mechanical appreciation of games can augment a human appreciation of them. But cannot fundamentally correct or provide one. You cannot fix an American Krogan by teaching him about weapon balance and factors which make a game's sandbox a more expressive and ludonarratively harmonious open world. Just like this also wasn't Anita Sarkeesian's problem.

You want to talk foundations, you can say this is a personal belief of mine, I believe the foundation of any true appreciation has to be an appreciation of humanity. And that without this one cannot really be said to be appreciating anything. Without this you're either living the thing without much thought like an animal (which is fine), or you're wrong (which is not fine). You say that foundational appreciation of the medium will strengthen a human appreciation, but where does that human appreciation begin? The foundational knowledge is human. And as for the medium, frankly I think believing that video games in the abstract have broad and shared foundations is the source of most of the idiotic things said about them online. If we were to look at each one as a unique human creative emanation we would circumvent the idiotic impulse to start searching for things we have been taught to look for within them. We could then just enjoy them and appreciate other people. Yes, I am suggesting people be told to search for another thing I would teach the people to look for within them. But unlike a weapon sandbox or an open world design philosophy, there is in fact always human will behind a creative work.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)