Video Game General

[anthony]

I feel that in the 2010s there was a prevailing fear in the gay-ming community that any franchise could be dumbed down and become a stupid low-brow Cowadoody clone. This paranoia allowed the Sony movie game genre to sneak in and take over the scene for Triple A franchises. No one suspected Naughty Dog's vile scheme. 

"No, it couldn't be Uncharted. Uncharted would never do this to me. I trust Uncharted with my life."

You stupid bitch.

Call of Duty is really easy to quantify. Not so much the new thing.

The game where you crouch sprint across ultra detailed terrain which functions as a perfectly flat plain to stealth your way into an enemy camp to stealth takedown their leader to get experience points to unlock the next ability in your Survival Tree to skin capybaras, which will allow you to craft a pouch which will allow hold more fern potions.

[Guest]

I haven't played video games in a while so what I'm about to say is not well informed up-to-date commentary.

The biggest turnoff in games was when the games were not treating the shape of things as if they actually meant anything. You attack an enemy with a melee weapon and it goes right through them. It doesn't really make sense even if it is is with a sword or something instead of an impact weapon. People accepted a lot of BS when computers were less powerful and got used to the BS.

People learned about HP and now they like to have their "have I lost" variable be a number they can just look at. They like having their character state simplified down into one focal point. They prefer counting how much damage they took from an attack instead of intuiting that they are limping because an arrow is sticking out of their calf.

Devs say they can't do anything cool because they don't have enough compute resources but I bet they (or the tools they use) incompetently bloat their consumption far beyond what they really need. Fact is they don't have the imagination to make games as intuitive self-consistent systems. They are stuck making video games like video games.

[anthony]

I haven't played video games in a while so what I'm about to say is not well informed up-to-date commentary.

The biggest turnoff in games was when the games were not treating the shape of things as if they actually meant anything. You attack an enemy with a melee weapon and it goes right through them. It doesn't really make sense even if it is is with a sword or something instead of an impact weapon. People accepted a lot of BS when computers were less powerful and got used to the BS.

People learned about HP and now they like to have their "have I lost" variable be a number they can just look at. They like having their character state simplified down into one focal point. They prefer counting how much damage they took from an attack instead of intuiting that they are limping because an arrow is sticking out of their calf.

Devs say they can't do anything cool because they don't have enough compute resources but I bet they (or the tools they use) incompetently bloat their consumption far beyond what they really need. Fact is they don't have the imagination to make games as intuitive self-consistent systems. They are stuck making video games like video games.

I try to talk about this a lot. It's a problem that's allowed to run rampant because in the mind of a moron (average gamer) anything that isn't attached to accepted terminology doesn't exist. "Physicality", "physical fidelity", there are a few ways we can put it that make sense. But do I need to make a video essay before it sticks? Probably.

A lot of dirt eaters like uninteresting abstractions of course, because it's something they can get good at. Low fidelity, high complexity. A culture with a soul, like Japan, will not tend this way. Their games often feel stiff because they try to get 1-1 correlation between inputs and actions and tight collision based registration of contact. Which means lots of control and sensible reactions between things happening, but it looks less like a movie, so lower humans will be confused and upset. A game I recently tried playing again is 'State of Decay 2'. It's sickening because it has way too many animations for everything you can do, many of which are very different despite being the same input, and collisions are all forced by some behind the scenes logic that only loosely correlates to what appears to be happening. Trying to make sense of events in the game will give you a migraine as the game animation-snaps entities into each other, hits register seemingly arbitrarily, things pop through walls and floors, it's insanity. It should be unacceptable. But it's produced by a Microsoft owned official Xbox branded studio.

Japan of course has a strong record of getting this right, and still does so. The latest generation of Legend of Zelda games is all about this kind of logic. You still have "hearts" to track bodily health, but you can also drop something made of metal below a tree during a storm to attract lightning, which will knock the tree down and light it on fire. That fire will then spread to other flammable things. You can put something flammable to that fire then use your now burning object to light more things on fire. Incredible stuff.

[oyakodon_khan]

I have something to note about the Mario movie, which I'll preface by saying that I never watched it, and never will. What I want to point out is Donkey Kong, the caricature of an ape with humanoid features, now being voiced by a member of the tribe of Jacob. Oh, what a cruel irony of fate. Surely from their point of view, it was a safe pick. A free paycheck. Did you know that an episode of Family Guy costs more than an entire season of your favorite anime? Look it up. It's basically just the studio laundering money through the voice actors. This is the same.
In the 1960s, the Jungle Book was criticised for having an African-American caricature in the form of the orangutan King Louie, who was based on Louis Armstrong. The producers cast a white singer to voice him, indicating that the caricature was but a homage to the style of song that the Ape sings in the movie, but contemporary critics were still able to find fault with it. Now, Donkey Kong. He's the leader of the bunch, you know him well. You probably also know Seth Rogen well, a completely talentless unfunny hack, with flop after flop, one can only wonder how he stays afloat in such a competivie industry. I'm sure you can come up with a reasonable explanation. 
Of course, Donkey Kong doesn't need to talk, he's an ape. They are inherently charismatic and cartoony. Why does he need to be piloted by a fat ugly skeksis? Go on youtube right now and type in "Ape noises" I assure you're more likely to smile or laugh, than hearing anything that would come out of Seth Rogen's mouth. To me this may be more indicative of an incidental racial charicature than the Orangutan which aped Louis Armstrong. Probably some type of subconscious deed of confession. It makes perfect sense. Seth Rogen is where he belongs, him, Gonzo, the Rugrats, Krusty the clown, Barton Fink... Roman Polanski, Woody Allen... Well, not to digress, all other neurotic cartoonish buffoons. The supposed high verbal IQ yet endlessly low-brow... They're finally united in this ultimate charicature. The earthly, material force of darkness from the African continent has been complete'd by the cthonic, spiritual force of darkness hailing from the east. The dream of every single one of the villains of history. A powerful body with which to perform unspeakable evil. Their only limitation done away with. The phrase coined by John Lennon and Yoko Ono on December 12th, 1968, brought to it's truest meaning, with no irony. And the woman of races rejoices. A mad dance ensues, the unholy ying and yang tears the world into shreds.

[GraphWalkWithMe]

@oyakodon_khan

To be fair to Walt Disney Co., Louis Prima was basically Black-coded at the time. "Safe Black semi-jazzist", "might as well be at least part-Negro"...



The phenomenon of "Safe Black" casting/roles has endured and neurotically grown in pitch 56 years since, and deserves a proper thread of investigation. It didn't bear in films like Menace 2 Society, but it has or might as well have in most others with Negro cast-members. You raise an interesting matter in American Jew actors identifying with and opting to be casted in soft "Black" roles (like Donkey Kong, lol). I'm sure it owes at least in part to their unending feeling of "otherness"...

Anyway, the Mario Movie is a Film; the subject might not belong in this thread.

* complete'd

Impeccable wording. I never would have thought of that.

[ꦈꦒꦲꦸꦫꦲꦺꦴꦗ꦳ꦲ]

🅸 🅷🅐🆅🅔 🅑🅴🅔🅽 🅶🅔🆃🅣🅸🅝🅶 🅾🅝 🅡🅾🅑🅻🅞🆇 🅰🅢 🅞🅵 🅻🅐🆃🅔. 🆃🅗🅴🅡🅴 🅰🅡🅴 🅰 🅻🅞🆃 🅾🅕 🅒🅷🅘🅻🅓🆁🅔🅽 🅾🅝 🅣🅷🅔🆁🅔. 🅸 🅻🅘🅺🅔 🅒🅷🅘🅻🅓🆁🅔🅽. 🅣🅷🅔 🅛🅾🅡🅳 🅷🅐🆂 🅸🅝🆂🅣🆁🅤🅲🅣🅴🅓 🅜🅴 🆃🅞 🅓🅴🅢🆃🅡🅾🅨 🅐🅽🅓 🅒🅾🅡🆁🅤🅿🅣 🅒🅷🅘🅻🅓🆁🅔🅽. 🅗🅾🅦🅴🅥🅴🅡 🅣🅷🅔🆈 🅰🅡🅴 🅰🅛🆆🅐🆈🅢 🅞🅽 🆃🅗🅴🅘🆁 🅿🅗🅾🅝🅴🅢, 🅰🅛🆆🅐🆈🅢 🅞🅽 🆈🅞🆄🅣🆄🅑🅴, 🅣🆆🅘🆃🅒🅷, 🅕🅾🅡🆃🅝🅸🅣🅴, 🅞🆁 🆁🅞🅱🅛🅾🅧. 🆃🅗🅴🅨 🅓🅴🅢🅸🅡🅴 🆃🅞 🅑🅴 🅵🅞🆄🅝🅳 🅰🅝🅳 🅻🅘🅺🅔 🅟🆄🅣🆃🅨 🅘 🅦🅸🅛🅻 🅱🅔 🅜🅾🅛🅳 🆃🅗🅴🅜.

A cʰᵢˡd ₖⁿₒʷₛ ₙᵒₜʰᵢⁿg, ᵇᵤᵗ ʷₕᵃₜ ᵢᵗ ᶦₛ ₜᵒₗᵈ. Tʰₑʸ ᵃᵣᵉ ʰₒⁿₑˢₜ, ᵇᵤᵗ ᵉaˢᵢˡy ₘᵃₙᶦₚᵘₗᵃₜᵉd. ᴵₜ ᵢˢ ᵇₑˢₜ ₜᵒ ᵗaᵏₑ ₜʰₑᵐ ᵉaʳₗʸ ᵗₕᵃₙ ₜᵒ ᵇᵣᵉaᵏ ᵗₕᵉₘ ₗᵃₜᵉᵣ.

[GraalChud]

How do people feel about the Batman: Arkham games? I played Arkham City and a little bit of Arkham Knight as a teen, but didn`t pay much attention to the themes therein, the portrayal of the characters, etc. 

Now, I have started to play through the entire trilogy, and am currently about 25-33% of the way through the first game (at least I think so, anyway) and since I am much more inclined to actually pay attention to things I`d have ignored as a kid, I`m starting to notice some things about their overall portrayal of criminals and the mentally ill: the line demarcating the two is extremely blurred; there is little/no sympathy for villains or their henchmen - instead, what and who are good and bad is clear cut; and little/no excuses are made for villains, regardless of their circumstances. I find the simplicity of the moral paradigm in which Batman and his allies operate to be refreshing, as so much of our media today portrays everything as gray and nuanced (don`t get me wrong, when done well this can be great, but it is overdone and poorly executed in TV/movies and is often intended to soften up viewers` views on the actions of certain groups of people).

[JohnTrent]

How do people feel about the Batman: Arkham games? I played Arkham City and a little bit of Arkham Knight as a teen, but didn`t pay much attention to the themes therein, the portrayal of the characters, etc.

Loved Arkham Asylum and Arkham City growing up, but I never finished Arkham Knight. Arkham Origins was alright, but I have little memory of it.
Jonathan Bowden described some of the Batman criminal henchmen as "Lombrosian", which I think is accurate both in the comics he was speaking about and in the games. The focus on combat in the Arkham games, combined with this, gives for a great experience. When nearly all the side-quests were done, I would spend time flying around Arkham City and beating all of the NPCs senseless.

[GraalChud]

How do people feel about the Batman: Arkham games? I played Arkham City and a little bit of Arkham Knight as a teen, but didn`t pay much attention to the themes therein, the portrayal of the characters, etc.

Loved Arkham Asylum and Arkham City growing up, but I never finished Arkham Knight. Arkham Origins was alright, but I have little memory of it.
Jonathan Bowden described some of the Batman criminal henchmen as "Lombrosian", which I think is accurate both in the comics he was speaking about and in the games. The focus on combat in the Arkham games, combined with this, gives for a great experience. When nearly all the side-quests were done, I would spend time flying around Arkham City and beating all of the NPCs senseless.

I think "Lombrosian" is an excellent descriptor for the henchmen in the context of the games; whenever you get a closer look at them, you can see their robust, almost ape-like skulls with sloped brows and deformed features (many of them have scars or burn marks, especially in Arkham Asylum).

Even the main villains are portrayed in such a way that their physiognomy betrays their motivations, character, and mannerisms - Scarecrow`s lithe, spindly physique and voice make it fairly obvious that he is a madman who prefers to avoid direct physical confrontations; Zsasz is a muscular but agile-looking, bald, scar-covered psychopath who just looks like the type to run around murdering women; and Bane is a hulking, roided-out freak who, in spite of being intelligent, acts primarily out of rage and does so without any forethought (this is made clear when you fight him in AA, where he just blindly charges at you and throws things at you, barreling over henchmen who are there to help him in the process). After getting one good look at any given villain, there are no surprises w.r.t. how he will act in combat and outside of it, even if you`ve not yet seen him do anything of import.

[JohnTrent]

Even the main villains are portrayed in such a way that their physiognomy betrays their motivations, character, and mannerisms - Scarecrow`s lithe, spindly physique and voice make it fairly obvious that he is a madman who prefers to avoid direct physical confrontations; Zsasz is a muscular but agile-looking, bald, scar-covered psychopath who just looks like the type to run around murdering women; and Bane is a hulking, roided-out freak who, in spite of being intelligent, acts primarily out of rage and does so without any forethought (this is made clear when you fight him in AA, where he just blindly charges at you and throws things at you, barreling over henchmen who are there to help him in the process). After getting one good look at any given villain, there are no surprises w.r.t. how he will act in combat and outside of it, even if you`ve not yet seen him do anything of import.

Yes, I could try to think of other examples but this gets at the heart of it.
One added detail at the end is what happens whenever Batman wins a particular boss-fight or hallucinatory intermission (as seen in the Scarecrow and Mad Hatter parts of the game), which is that the specific villain has a meltdown of sorts. It is a pathetic display. This is seen in the completion of The Riddler minigames, and I'm sure is more prevalent beyond this example. This is the opposite with the Game Over scenes, with the villains gloating about their victory in front of Batman's dying vision. Everything about the characters seems to revolve around him, and the meltdowns that you see once their plans are foiled in rather infantile, like a child caught by his father. There was an attempt at this in the recent Matt Reeves Batman movie with the Riddler, but something about the Arkham games is more visceral than the movie.

Something bizarre that's come across in the fighting mechanics against Joker is that he is mentally ill beyond what people ordinarily think. It isn't about inflicting pain onto others or anything with other criminal in the game, it is this: when you ever get the chance of fighting him, it is immediately apparent to the eye of the player that Batman is far superior in physical strength than the Joker, yet the Joker willfully seeks out an unfair fight. You continue to beat on him before a gang of henchmen arrive, but the Joker only takes the punches without much complaint. If Harley Quinn is around during these fights, she will loudly yell to stop hitting on him, but it doesn't appear that Joker wants this to end quite yet. Joker is an older, weaker person compared to Batman, but he seeks this contact far more than he seeks out the companionship of Harley. Pair this with the plot of Joker's life-threatening sickness in Arkham City, and you have a very odd personality at the center of it all. It reminds me of the scene in Dirty Harry where Scorpio pays someone $200 to beat him to the point of near death, except that had an ulterior motive. Joker does not have one, at least, any observable one.

[ꦈꦒꦲꦸꦫꦲꦺꦴꦗ꦳ꦲ]

It reminds me of the scene in Dirty Harry where Scorpio pays someone $200 to beat him to the point of near death, except that had an ulterior motive. Joker does not have one, at least, any observable one.

ᴰᵉˢᵖᶦᵗᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ᵈᵉˢᶦʳᵉ ᵗᵒ ᶠˡᵉˢʰ ᵗʰᵉ ᴶᵒᵏᵉʳ ᵒᵘᵗ ᶦⁿ ᵐᵘˡᵗᶦᵖˡᵉ ᵐᵒᵛᶦᵉˢ, ᶜᵒᵐᶦᶜˢ, ᵃⁿᵈ ᵃⁿᶦᵐᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ. ᵀʰᵉ ᶠᵃᶜᵗ ʳᵉᵐᵃᶦⁿˢ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ʰᵉ ʷᵃˢ ⁿᵉᵛᵉʳ ᵐᵉᵃⁿᵗ ᵗᵒ ᵇᵉ ᵘⁿᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵒᵒᵈ. ʸᵒᵘ ʷᵉʳᵉ ᵐᵉᵃⁿᵗ ᵗᵒ ᵘⁿᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵃⁿᵈ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ʰᵉ ᶦˢ ᵃ ᵇʳᵒᵏᵉⁿ ᵖᵉʳˢᵒⁿ, ᶦⁿˢᵃⁿᵉ, ᵃⁿᵈ ʰᵉ ᵈᵒᵉˢ ᵗʰᶦⁿᵍˢ ᶠᵒʳ ʰᶦˢ ᵒʷⁿ ᵉⁿᵗᵉʳᵗᵃᶦⁿᵐᵉⁿᵗ. ᴬⁿʸᵗʰᶦⁿᵍ ᵈᵉᵉᵖᵉʳ ʰᵃˢ ᶜᵒⁿᵗᶦⁿᵘᵉᵈ ᵗᵒ ᵇᵉ ᵖᵉᵒᵖˡᵉ ᵈᶦˢˢᵉᶜᵗᶦⁿᵍ ʷʰᵃᵗ ᶦˢ ʲᵘˢᵗ ʷʳᶦᵗᵉʳ ᶦⁿᵗᵉʳᵖʳᵉᵗᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿ ᵒᶠ ᵃ ᶠᶦᶜᵗᶦᵒⁿᵃˡ ᶜʰᵃʳᵃᶜᵗᵉʳ ᶦⁿ ᵃ ⁿᵒⁿᵉˣᶦˢᵗᵉⁿᵗ ᵘⁿᶦᵛᵉʳˢᵉ.

🅰🆁🅺🅷🅰🅼 🅶🅰🅼🅴🆂 🆆🅴🆁🅴 🅰🅻🆁🅸🅶🅷🆃.

[anthony]

How do people feel about the Batman: Arkham games? I played Arkham City and a little bit of Arkham Knight as a teen, but didn`t pay much attention to the themes therein, the portrayal of the characters, etc. 

Now, I have started to play through the entire trilogy, and am currently about 25-33% of the way through the first game (at least I think so, anyway) and since I am much more inclined to actually pay attention to things I`d have ignored as a kid, I`m starting to notice some things about their overall portrayal of criminals and the mentally ill: the line demarcating the two is extremely blurred; there is little/no sympathy for villains or their henchmen - instead, what and who are good and bad is clear cut; and little/no excuses are made for villains, regardless of their circumstances. I find the simplicity of the moral paradigm in which Batman and his allies operate to be refreshing, as so much of our media today portrays everything as gray and nuanced (don`t get me wrong, when done well this can be great, but it is overdone and poorly executed in TV/movies and is often intended to soften up viewers` views on the actions of certain groups of people).

I always found them absolutely hideous and could only stomach about 5 minutes of the first one. Batman is a retarded idea. If I'm not attached to Batman why do I want to play his game? The stuff you're doing is "camp clearing" proto open world stuff (naturally they actually made an "open world" 2 onwards). The first one looks most acceptable as a kind of adventure game in which you spend a lot of time punching people. But again, the adventure is Batman. I am not interested in any kind of Batman experience. High production value multimedia Batman is still Batman.

Everything that you're describing as halfway interesting doesn't really seem related to the game itself, and instead just pulp crime media in general. Not even capeshit related. Maybe it's somewhat remarkable that this still gets made in the 21st century. This "Lombrosian" view on crime and criminality in which some people are just atavistic throwbacks or feral and insane and so NEED TO BE PUNISHED WITH SEVERITY.

Are they still making these games? I'm sure if they are they're somehow compromising on this element. If so that would be of interest to me. I won't play these. But I'm interested in how libtards working in bad pop-art try to cope with human nature.

[anthony]

Questions for @The_Author

Templist Canon speaks of games in general as useful recreations to help us solve non-game problems. It is critical of games that do not require skill or creativity because these are simply movies that people spend an inordinate amount of time "watching". It is critical in a few passages of "escapist gaming".

I liked the MGS games. Hitman is ok but has a problem with mission realism. I'm not that interested in video games anymore. The genre seems unconcerned with realism. I much prefer tabletop games. I used to like Paradox games but their complexity is artificial.

First Question: If video games have to be "useful" to have value. They have to serve as a kind of practical problem-based life-training, what does this say about the value of non-game art? Such as "movies" which you bring up in a seemingly negative fashion?

Escapism I do see as a key problem, if that's what you mean I see where you're coming from. But I believe that it's a very myopic and anti-human position to say that we need something immediate, visible, and practical to elevate our art and media beyond pointless distraction.

If you are suggesting that the essential nature of games is to provide stimulating, edifying experiences which are conducive to human growth I agree with you. I believe that many of my favourite games do this as a primary or essential element, but I also believe that many which I love don't. The latter could perhaps rightly be read as more of a kind with "movies" than traditional "games". Which then brings the question back to "when can a piece of media have value if it is not useful?"


Second Question: What do you mean by realism and how do you believe it contributes to the experience or value of a game?


Third Question: Could you elaborate upon what you like in MGS and Hitman? I'm a big fan of both and like hearing what people make of them.

And lastly, not a question. My own briefest thought on the value of "games" and media which don't serve as primitive WW3 training simulators is that they allow us to express and engage with our own humanity. We can talk about them. What is the value of a game which isn't teaching you to win a battle? This thread is the value.

[Guest]

I have many opinions to share, but little time to elaborate on them. Thus, I will share some short aphorisms, and hopefully they will be elaborated on. 2000sfag btw, so this will mostly speak about 00s-20s releases.

Indie now is in the state that triple-A was in the 2000s; producing exceptional games but without ideological vision (likely due to the concentration of devs into "indie companies" and negritization of internet), while indie in the late 00s and early 10s was in the state that triple-A was in the 90s; creating monumental sculptures that defined genres and showed vision beyond their years. Compare Cave Story to Hollow Knight and weep.

Developers nowadays are focusing on game-as-cinema, which implicitly weakens the form they are utilizing in their works. Game-as-mechanism and game-as-experience will always rule, and will always be the "true" gaming experience. Sony wants to be like Sony, rather than being like Sony.

The only true artistic game that fits the definition of an art game is Yume Nikki, and in fact Yume Nikki is the greatest game ever made. Retards claim that it's too devoid of content, and are incapable of understanding it. The later "walking sim" niggermind exposition games are effectively political propaganda, and are indicative of a infection underlying Western storytelling that will be near impossible to remove from the minds of even good storytellers in the (hopefully Aryanized) future.

Cuphead is a deeply worthwhile game to study as a sort of conservative game, trying to keep the feel and idea of the past while being forced into making a contemporary game. It is honestly somewhat beyond me to understand this fully, but it is simply different from the rest of it's ilk.

The campaign against random crits in TF2 is the continuation of it's murder at the hands of spiritually Chinese individuals, starting with the Make Your Match update. Almost every change that is being argued for is involved in this attempted assassination, and it revolves essentially around mindfucked esportsfags not wanting games to be fun. This contingent, once noticed, will be seen in almost every discussion around video games, and understanding them is essential to understanding video game "discourse".

Videogames without dedicated cunny characters or manly characters that aren't father figures are entirely worthless in the modern era.

[BillyONare]

Compare Cave Story to Hollow Knight and weep.

I weep tears of joy. Hollow Knight is a masterpiece and Cave Story is a bad, reactionary, cynical, and soulless game.

[Guest]

Compare Cave Story to Hollow Knight and weep.

I weep tears of joy. Hollow Knight is a masterpiece and Cave Story is a bad, reactionary, cynical, and soulless game.

Disturbing and tragic.

[anthony]

I am tired and will post tomorrow.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Cuphead is a deeply worthwhile game to study as a sort of conservative game, trying to keep the feel and idea of the past while being forced into making a contemporary game. It is honestly somewhat beyond me to understand this fully, but it is simply different from the rest of it's ilk.

Is Cuphead actually fun to play or do people just pretend to like it because they have fake nostalgia for old animation?

[Guest]

I have finally begun the empire-focused part of Kiseki, Trails of Cold Steel 1. It is, as I expected, of precisely the same high quality as the earlier games. The main character is a Juenger stand-in, and there is a cute French cat named Celine.

"He knew that he was not going to die." is the characteristic they took for the main character. And as such he is able to stretch in this way and that way. He is also an "in-between" man, a meritocratic noble.

The inclusion of Persians as "eternal friends" to the Empire is also a nice touch. In many ways, these games are an alternate history.

The commonly levied criticism "too anime" is one that makes no sense now that I have seen some of the game myself, and the words prove themselves to be only uttered by fools (yet again.)

These games are often a great inspiration. They depict basic conflicts in the most sincere and honest way possible. There is little moral lecturing, unless one already carries this in their heart. There is also that classic element of JRPGs, where one is shown and takes the leap of faith many, many times and reaps the natural, never-promised reward each time. Kiseki games always enforce this in another way too, via hidden quests that one will only see if they diligently "visit" all the people in the area they are in. If you invest in the world, you are tangibly rewarded. It's a simple idea, but a good one. If a society is well-structured, then this basic reality exists.

[anthony]

I have many opinions to share, but little time to elaborate on them. 

Okay I wanted to get back to this.

Thus, I will share some short aphorisms, and hopefully they will be elaborated on. 2000sfag btw, so this will mostly speak about 00s-20s releases.

I am also of the 2000s so this shouldn't be a factor in any disagreements.

Indie now is in the state that triple-A was in the 2000s; producing exceptional games but without ideological vision (likely due to the concentration of devs into "indie companies" and negritization of internet)

I disagree very strongly. Triple-A in the 2000s was a frontier. When not conceptually still technically. There was the "consoles holding gaming back" meme playing in a bit but new console games were still these forward leaping beasts trying to impress you by pushing what was possible. What you call "ideological vision" I would call "conceptual", but I think we mean the same thing.

Why I bring up the pushing of new technical possibilities is that that is itself a kind of conceptual vision. They believed in something still. If you want to talk about a period that truly had no vision where what passed for high technical standards were all that mattered, look a bit further. Around 2010 or so. Every game being an ugly, muddy, weightless third person shooter with multiplayer.

And despite the fact I made a thread speaking ill of the era we had a lot of genuinely cool games coming out then, even in the west. Things weren't too far gone yet. Getting worse, sure, but not disastrous.

Contemporary indie gaming tends to have poor craft, while also lacking vision. These games are practically defined by ideas which never quite come together, complex interconnected systems that never quite start simulating what they're supposed to, promises that can't be delivered on, etc. Maybe "Shovel Knight" is "exceptional" in that everything it does works, but it's basically a flash game. It would be very damn weird if they managed to fuck up a game which runs on a jump button and an attack button. This is not exceptional. I would say it's rather lacking in vision though.

while indie in the late 00s and early 10s was in the state that triple-A was in the 90s; creating monumental sculptures that defined genres and showed vision beyond their years. Compare Cave Story to Hollow Knight and weep.

What the hell are you saying? For one you're acting like western and eastern games are the same scene, AAA or Indie. Indie especially I'd say there's the widest distance between them. Cave Story is a doujin game. Japanese PC games didn't come into being when the western internet learned about them. It's a very rich tradition which has frankly blown western "indies" out of the water from the very start.

If you mean the western indies of the late 000s and early 10s, that was a hellish time. What could you possibly like from the period? I only remember Hotline Miami and Cry of Fear, because that's Europeans just about doing the doujin game thing. The solidified and self identifying "indie scene" was always a disgusting dumpster fire fueled by pure racism ("we want games that aren't about bald space marines no we will not play those chink yellow monkey fuck japanese games you fucking bastard, fuck your mother. Zoe Quinn invented games which aren't about shooting.")

Developers nowadays are focusing on game-as-cinema, which implicitly weakens the form they are utilizing in their works. Game-as-mechanism and game-as-experience will always rule, and will always be the "true" gaming experience. Sony wants to be like Sony, rather than being like Sony.

This has been a meme for the longest time but I don't think it ever actually held too much weight. That games are becoming movies. More recently they've started becoming multimedia prestige tv. Kind of similar. The Last of Us. God of Soy. Etc. The "cutscenes" are as vapid as the "gameplay", both are visual experiences. And even then they aren't vapid because of that. Again it's a conceptual drought. These things are boring and retarded. Turning the dial to "100% gameplay" does not fix either example. Might be better just because the voices of Neil Druckmann and Anthony Burch get drowned out by meaningless violence. But frankly I hate both options.

If you don't define what it means for media to be "cinema" or explain how that "implicitly weakens the form" this is mostly a meaningless statement.

Why do games as mechanism rule? What exactly does that even mean? I feel like you're trying to say something along the lines of "gameplay" purism there, but then "game as experience", I have no idea what that can mean which aligns with "game as mechanism". What are you saying? And the Sony part is obviously some kind of error in writing so I won't try to decipher it.

The only true artistic game that fits the definition of an art game is Yume Nikki, and in fact Yume Nikki is the greatest game ever made. Retards claim that it's too devoid of content, and are incapable of understanding it. The later "walking sim" niggermind exposition games are effectively political propaganda, and are indicative of a infection underlying Western storytelling that will be near impossible to remove from the minds of even good storytellers in the (hopefully Aryanized) future.

...

The campaign against random crits in TF2 is the continuation of it's murder at the hands of spiritually Chinese individuals, starting with the Make Your Match update. Almost every change that is being argued for is involved in this attempted assassination, and it revolves essentially around mindfucked esportsfags not wanting games to be fun. This contingent, once noticed, will be seen in almost every discussion around video games, and understanding them is essential to understanding video game "discourse".

This part I more or less agree with entirely as written.

Videogames without dedicated cunny characters or manly characters that aren't father figures are entirely worthless in the modern era.

Liquid Snake is not a father figure and that is why he is my father figure.