gaming Why is gaming still so disrespected in 2018?

[KillerKingBakudan 702]

Let me just start by saying I'm a stern believer that replay value comes before anything else. Regardless of what platform- PS4, XBox One, Switch, PC, etc- we're paying $60 on average for games now, or $120 in the case of collector's editions, and we need to get our money's worth. No matter how advanced today's technology is, no matter how well-crafted in-game cinematics and storytelling are, they should not outprioritize giving players the incentive to keep coming back. That's why I rarely play anything that's not competitive. Most developers have become so fixated on storytelling in the last several generations that they don't know how to make their products fun anymore.

BUT, that being said, I do think that anything added to a game for artistic value should still be done well. While I don't think our games should be developed as "interactive movies" by any stretch, if they can be presented like movies, then I think they deserve to be treated with the same respect as actual movies.

Anyway, I'm sure most of us are aware of the controversy from the recent Battlefield V trailer, showcasing a female soldier with a prosthetic arm fighting in a WWII setting. I have no personal attachment to this franchise whatsoever, so I'm not going to debate for or against that creative direction EA took in this thread. I do have a position on this, but that's not what I want to talk about here. There's a certain argument being presented in this debate that irks me. While a lot of fans are against the idea of playing as females in this game because it's historically inaccurate, people in favor of it say that it doesn't matter for one of two reasons. The first is that it's inclusive and makes the experience more inviting to female gamers, and that they shouldn't feel alienated. Fair enough.

But the other argument? Apparently, it doesn't matter because "it's just a game". Details like that are trivial because we only play games for fun; if somebody wants historic accuracy, they could just watch a documentary or a biopic.


...... What in the actual FUCK is that supposed to mean? So because it's "just a game", the developers shouldn't give it the same artistic merit as other mediums? What if Battlefield V was a movie playing in theaters? If audiences came into it and they saw women on the big screen killing German soldiers on the coast of Norway, everybody would lose it and start bashing the final cut for feminist pandering and historical inaccuracy. And that would be considered an acceptable criticism. But because it's a game, EA can just dump whatever the hell they want into it, and I'm supposed to believe that ISN'T going to detract from my experience? Gee, if you're gonna put in female soldiers with prosthetic limbs, why not give me Zelda and Princess Peach? Hell, maybe some fucking Skylanders too while you're at it? Yeah, because games are never meant to be taken seriously; there's no WAY fans could get pissed off over something like that.

This dismissive labeling doesn't just pertain to Battlefield, but all games. It's ridiculous. There's a reason I traded in my copy of Hitman: Absolution. Not only were the series' most fundamental stealth mechanics horribly downplayed in favor of gunfights, but Square tried so hard to give it the flare of a Hollywood blockbuster that it just didn't feel like a real Hitman game. Not even David Bateson's voice acting could save it. The new characters were trite and cliched, the dialogue was laughably bad, the script was stupid and uninspired, and the music they chose to compensate for the lack of Jesper Kyd scores was generic to the point of being nauseating. It was the first sequel I genuinely hated in ANY game series I loved. And it's not because all the shooting I could do wasn't fun. It's because I didn't care for it. They just made some piss-poor action game and slapped the Hitman logo on it just to get me to buy it.

That was probably the worst buying decision I've ever made. A lot of the fun in a game doesn't JUST come from how we play it, but from what we see. And at no point am I going to appreciate someone telling me I should just accept Absolution for what it is because it's "just a game."

That stupid catchphrase would have made sense in the 16-bit era. You know, back when KIDS were still the main gaming demographic, and we were limited to playing platformers and side-scrolling shooters. But those same kids who played games on the Super Nintendo are adults now, many of whom have broken into the industry to develop their own projects, and as such, gaming as a whole grew WITH them. Now we can pick up a PS4, pop in a triple-A game like Grand Theft Auto V, and we don't have to feel embarrassed about it.

So why is it that we still have people talking down on gaming like we should be? I'd expect that kind of talk from movie studio executives, but guys who claim to enjoy gaming as a hobby? This is unbelievable.

[Gestum 2,493]

What people mean by "It is just a video game" isn't "games are stupid" but rather "you shouldn't get upset over it". Likewise many people say "it's just a movie" or "it's just a book" but that doesn't mean they disrepect movies/books.

[Here No Longer 5,270]

It is just a game, but I nonetheless understand what is meant here. It's like gaming is not a legitimate hobby to some people. 

[Guest]

I think any artist be it a game designer or otherwise that compromises their vision for the sake of getting equality brownie points deserves less respect. If it's in the game for a LEGITIMATE reason because that's what the developer wanted and they were not doing it to push an agenda or meet an equality quota, I'm cool with it. However, if it's literally just there because we needed to meet our diversity quota, then I am not that keen on it.

I think the argument of "it makes it more accessible to X group" is a flimsy one, because we are typing this on a forum dedicated to a cartoon that was aimed more at little girls and family audiences, yet has a large adult male following. AKA: proving that one doesn't NEED to make such changes to appeal to such audiences. Otherwise you are basically saying women can not relate to, or enjoy something UNLESS it's got women in it, which kind of makes women seem... petty or less intelligent which is an insult to them.

I mean it's not like men have not been able to enjoy or relate to games with female leads for years... Right?

Edited July 3, 2018 by Guest
Added

[Jeric 46,834]

53 minutes ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

That's why I rarely play anything that's not competitive. Most developers have become so fixated on storytelling in the last several generations that they don't know how to make their products fun anymore.

Your thread had a lot to unpack, but this is what I'm going to focus on. Video games, like film and literature did, are evolving. Your point is similar to critics that lamented the introduction of traditional storytelling elements in Citizen Kane, when they saw the medium as most pure during the German Expressionism movement. That isn't to suggest that your preference is wrong, but that game designers are, like film, trying to evolve the art form using other tools. Strong narrative is one of those. 

 

 

Tetris : Last of Us :: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari : Citizen Kane

[KillerKingBakudan 702]

Just now, Jeric said:

Your thread had a lot to unpack, but this is what I'm going to focus on. Video games, like film and literature did, are evolving. Your point is similar to critics that lamented the introduction of traditional storytelling elements in Citizen Kane, when they saw the medium as most pure during the German Expressionism movement. That isn't to suggest that your preference is wrong, but that game designers are, like film, trying to evolve the art form using other tools. Strong narrative is one of those. 

Tetris : Last of Us :: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari : Citizen Kane

If the latest advancements in graphics processors and sound chips can make a strong narrative possible and even improve on it, then I don't object to its inclusion in modern games at all. I just want gameplay that's engaging enough to make me spend $60 on them.

[SaburoDaimando 1,196]

I usually don't pay attention to big Triple A games like Battlefield V or Call of Duty: Black Ops 4(Which, BTW, won't have any Single Player content).  I'm more focused on other titles.  Some of em are almost as huge(Doom 2016 and I'm thinking of getting Wolfenstein 2 on Switch, plus Skyrim), some are slightly smaller(Super Mario Odyssey, and I plan on buying Crash: N-Sane Trilogy), and some are really small(Many indie titles, many Retro-inspired games like Mega Man 9 and 10, and Sonic Mania).  

There is a variety of games outside of the usual annual title that EA, Activision and Ubisoft pumps out year after year.  My recommendation is to focus on those smaller games.

[Lord Valtasar 12,685]

i personally have the exact oposite taste it seems and love it when they focus on storytelling instead of just throwing a half-thought script just to fit the gameplay(e.g.adding vilains with no actual motives just because we need a boss battle)while i still enjoyed some of those games aswel,in the end it comes down to preference,and on the rare ocasion that a game is ballancing both elements we can all enjoy it,otherwise we just have to pick the ones that fit our needs and skip the rest.

this also applies to the battlefield example,while some prefer realism(be it in their games or movies or anything really),others just want something different that would transport them somewhere new,especially when a title is old and becomes a bit repetitive.

sorry for ranting,i'm not trying to attack your oppinion,i'm just trying to also represent the other side of the argument

[碇 シンジン 27,427]

1 hour ago, Lord Valtasar said:

i personally have the exact oposite taste it seems and love it when they focus on storytelling instead of just throwing a half-thought script just to fit the gameplay(e.g.adding vilains with no actual motives just because we need a boss battle)while i still enjoyed some of those games aswel,in the end it comes down to preference,and on the rare ocasion that a game is ballancing both elements we can all enjoy it,otherwise we just have to pick the ones that fit our needs and skip the rest.

this also applies to the battlefield example,while some prefer realism(be it in their games or movies or anything really),others just want something different that would transport them somewhere new,especially when a title is old and becomes a bit repetitive.

sorry for ranting,i'm not trying to attack your oppinion,i'm just trying to also represent the other side of the argument

I agree with this i mean I got nothing against accurate historical portrayals, but its pretty tough for me getting into them i mean we know what happened in the history so there is nothing new in the game. they just feel boring

I personally enjoy games, shows, and all kind of creative media that tries to portray or portrays something that is not something that we are familiar with. Something new and that way offering us a new approach into something else that we may or may not be familiar with.

[Passion 3,478]

I'm pretty sure neither CoD or BF can be used as prime examples and realistic discussion subjects. Both of these titles belong to companies which are currently despised by the gaming community and majority of sensible critics at once. They have been watered down to mindlessly drain their fanatical playerbase of their money, and both companies would go as far as they can to make it happen.

 

Then again, let's look at the industry itself. Pong is a first game ever created, dating back to 1972. How long does it give us? 46 years of game development? Considering it was initially labeled as completed waste of time, and even about 18 to 10 years ago in many places it was still considered to be a laughable past-time activity, we cannot say that's a lot of time. But the case is... with time, the ways to monetize the market, tax it, find the best ways to exploit it for money... all of this evolved.

And once the addictive tendencies of gaming were connected with the competitive spirit and many different human aspects, the games were developed in that direction. To bring money. It was always all about money for the companies.

It is easy to say that gaming is being disrespected when you take into consideration titles like CoD, BF. Companies like EA/Activision.

 

But why nobody speaks about, for example VA-11 Hall-A? Salt & Sanctuary? Aquaria? Because they're Indie? Does Indie mean it's not a game anymore? What about Borderlands or Warframe?

Or NieR: Automata, a game which has taken its artistic approach to storytelling to extremely high levels?

 

It is not gaming as a whole that is disrespected. Its a number of select developers and publishers who disrespect it. Companies like Digital Extremes, Double Fine, Arkane Studios or CDProjekt Red. Or even single units, like Yoko Taro who is without doubt the most influential person behind NieR: Automata's success. There's a ton of examples out there which show that gaming is getting a ton of love as an industry. Cherry picking the horrible examples does not constitute for entire industry.

[KillerKingBakudan 702]

27 minutes ago, Passion said:

I'm pretty sure neither CoD or BF can be used as prime examples and realistic discussion subjects. Both of these titles belong to companies which are currently despised by the gaming community and majority of sensible critics at once. They have been watered down to mindlessly drain their fanatical playerbase of their money, and both companies would go as far as they can to make it happen.

 

Then again, let's look at the industry itself. Pong is a first game ever created, dating back to 1972. How long does it give us? 46 years of game development? Considering it was initially labeled as completed waste of time, and even about 18 to 10 years ago in many places it was still considered to be a laughable past-time activity, we cannot say that's a lot of time. But the case is... with time, the ways to monetize the market, tax it, find the best ways to exploit it for money... all of this evolved.

And once the addictive tendencies of gaming were connected with the competitive spirit and many different human aspects, the games were developed in that direction. To bring money. It was always all about money for the companies.

It is easy to say that gaming is being disrespected when you take into consideration titles like CoD, BF. Companies like EA/Activision.

 

But why nobody speaks about, for example VA-11 Hall-A? Salt & Sanctuary? Aquaria? Because they're Indie? Does Indie mean it's not a game anymore? What about Borderlands or Warframe?

Or NieR: Automata, a game which has taken its artistic approach to storytelling to extremely high levels?

 

It is not gaming as a whole that is disrespected. Its a number of select developers and publishers who disrespect it. Companies like Digital Extremes, Double Fine, Arkane Studios or CDProjekt Red. Or even single units, like Yoko Taro who is without doubt the most influential person behind NieR: Automata's success. There's a ton of examples out there which show that gaming is getting a ton of love as an industry. Cherry picking the horrible examples does not constitute for entire industry.

I'm talking about people judging games for being some kiddy activity, not for the bad business practices that certain companies are getting away with. You could have an award winning product from a developer that doesn't take advantage of its consumer base, and it won't matter. Any discussion regarding its qualities or flaws will always be dismissed by someone writing it off as just another video game, implying that all games are inherently meant to be stupid, or made with minimal attention to detail in terms of art.

That's the impression I get from that tiresome remark. It just seems spiteful. You might hear someone say that about books and movies, but it's not nearly as frequent. Critiqueing those forms of media and engaging in dialogue is deemed normal by our society. If something in a movie pisses you off, you could write whole paragraphs about it on a blog, and a lot of people may give you props for it. Say something negative about a video game though, and more than likely, you'll be looked at as a socially inept person who's wasting his time attacking something that nobody should care about. Even from people that happen to play games themselves.

Bronies should know that feeling well. MLP gets that stigma from being a kid's show. So if a bad episode airs, and you voice your opinion on why it sucks, you'll not only get ridiculed by outsiders, but OTHER bronies, for making a big deal on things you didn't like happening on a kid's show. As if we're not supposed to demand better from it, given its track record of churning out good episodes.

[DonMaguz 1,023]

5 hours ago, Gestum said:

What people mean by "It is just a video game" isn't "games are stupid" but rather "you shouldn't get upset over it". Likewise many people say "it's just a movie" or "it's just a book" but that doesn't mean they disrepect movies/books.

I agree 100% with this.

I would add that, as with any form of art, the opinions and scenarios expressed in games are not to be taken seriously unless they're explicitly meant to. There's nothing disrespectful about the argument.

[Passion 3,478]

It is said that there's a grain of truth to be found everywhere.

 

The games themselves as an activity were developed fairly recently, as a new piece of activity one can dedicate their time to. And I think you will not argue when I say that the lifestyle that developed alongside the industry can not really be considered healthy. Major gamers spend most of their times inside, as shut ins, not interacting with the outside world as often as they could. And while it does not touch every single person, it's a trend associated with the activity.

This results in lack of interpersonal relationships with people, potential flaws in developing many important social skills and insufficient physical activities. Virtual text-to-text or even speech-to-speech contact cannot replace an actual physical interaction with another human being. The stigma developed and it remains for the time being.

 

I am certain you know how everyone blamed gaming for developing violent tendencies in children. An accusation that certainly made gaming look like a horrible and despised activity. But do you think the dawn of movies was any different in this regard?

 

It might take many more years, and especially a new generation to grow up for gaming to become more socially acceptable. I grew up on verge, many of my classmates were not into gaming, and speaking to them about it would be futile. It would be like speaking about music to one of my friends who's an audiophobe. Totally pointless.

But I've noticed my coworkers that are a few years younger than me do not react negatively to conversations about gaming. In fact, most of them can add into these conversations, provided it does not boil down to things like "Man this boss was awesome!". I discuss development, ideas, soundtracks, character design and story with a few people in my work, and these are interesting conversations indeed.

 

We might be born in wrong time for this, but give it time and it'll become normal. I mean in the past I used to hear that you cannot make a living out of gaming. Nowadays, upon hearing this, I point at successful streamers, WCS, IEM, online game critics or even news channels regarding companies, their developments etc etc. You wouldn't be able to point that all out say, 15 years ago. Sure, Starcraft and WIII and so on were a thing back then, but nobody hosted events on that scale. Nobody streamed them 24/7 (probably). We're in the years of transition, and perhaps in a decade or so it'll all become much more socially acceptable. I mean, seriously, Asian multitasking is the real deal, just look at their SC II game replays...

[Olly 1,008]

we live in a society 

the jury is still out of whether video games are an art form. They incorporate art into them, in some contexts they are treated as sport. Certainly games have become much more sophisticated in a relatively short period of time. But the word 'game' means just that. A game. It means something frivolous to pass time... just having that word attached will guarantee some people won't take them seriously. I think people are just starting to understand that games are more than they were- but they've evolved so fast in such a short time it may still be awhile before they reach the same status as, say, TV shows or movies. 

[honk friend 1,972]

1 hour ago, Olly said:

we live in a society

i knew i wasn't the only one who thought of this

GAMERS RISE UP

[Thorgir the Mighty 736]

I think it’s because of...

WIFI-MULTIPLAYER-ONLY-BATTLEROYAL junk these days!

The only games that are GOOD are the classics with limitless replay value!

[Kapitan zur See Hans (Daz) 883]

Disrespect for gaming? No, there is just ignorance for the potential as well as well as the massive diversity of gaming. Nothing wrong with that either as they aren't as marketed as the more silly side (Can't find a proper term as not all are silly, but less serious in their gameplay and story) or just aren't shown in detail. 

People who may look down upon gaming just only really get to see one side of it. Show them the Telltale games, The Witcher series, Kingdom Come: Deliverance, ARMA, Squad, any flight simulator, etc and they will take it more seriously. I mean how many ads have you seen on TV or other major mediums for these? Even the ones they may see on television they don't get the full experience of it.

Take for example the Fallout series (I'm biased, but yea), they don't see the massive amount of world building, the complex story, detail, everything about it. All they see is flashy trailers of some living thing being shot/killed or hear some narrator with some old music in the background. Now put it into a book (By some decent author who does better than the Elder Scrolls novels), have the people who "disrespect" gaming read it, and they may change their tune. Of course they may just say it is because of it being a novel, but they will probably see the value of gaming as well as its potential.

Now as for addressing every game meeting a certain quality standard to have it match other mediums, I ask why? To bring back one of my earlier points, gaming is diverse. Battlefield V appeals to a certain crowd, much like those who play ARMA 3 (The more milsim side). Though we may not always like what comes out of the gaming industry, it provides something amazing that other mediums cannot always accommodate by being able to have some appeal to everyone. 

Essentially, to sum it up gaming appeals to everyone and to have it as respected as other mediums you must show everyone the diversity of games. You can't do that in a 15-30 second trailer on TV.

Addendum: Show me a person who will call playing DCS World, Hearts of Iron 3, X-Plane immature or a frivolous passtime over television or movies.. May be out of the norm, but only furthers my point of gaming being diverse

[Stone Cold Steve Jobs 22,410]

I wasn't aware there was some kind of group out disrespecting gamers. Most people are too busy being triggered by literally everything else and I flat out don't give a rat's ass what other people think anyway.

[Yakamaru 3,074]

On 7/3/2018 at 9:53 PM, Annie said:

i knew i wasn't the only one who thought of this

GAMERS RISE UP

Ye. Rise up, walk to the kitchen and fetch some soda and chips. :P

[Guest]

On 7/3/2018 at 8:19 PM, Olly said:

we live in a society 

the jury is still out of whether video games are an art form. They incorporate art into them, in some contexts they are treated as sport. Certainly games have become much more sophisticated in a relatively short period of time. But the word 'game' means just that. A game. It means something frivolous to pass time... just having that word attached will guarantee some people won't take them seriously. I think people are just starting to understand that games are more than they were- but they've evolved so fast in such a short time it may still be awhile before they reach the same status as, say, TV shows or movies. 

Art can be used to pass time, movies and music are the same.

I'd say that argument is a flimsy one at best. By that logic, nothing is art.

[Olly 1,008]

8 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

Art can be used to pass time, movies and music are the same.

I'd say that argument is a flimsy one at best. By that logic, nothing is art.

Art is self expression, or a vessel to communicate the beliefs/views of the artist . Movies and music are someone else's art, or vision. The viewer/listener experiences the art as a passive participant. Video games are an active experience, they're games. I'd say games are defined by not being art, but by being games.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Olly

[KillerKingBakudan 702]

4 hours ago, Olly said:

Art is self expression, or a vessel to communicate the beliefs/views of the artist . Movies and music are someone else's art, or vision. The viewer/listener experiences the art as a passive participant. Video games are an active experience, they're games. I'd say games are defined by not being art, but by being games.

Ironically, developers have de-emphasized gameplay so much since the PS1-era, I'm getting more enjoyment just watching people finish them in Let's Play videos on youtube. But so can everybody else. If it weren't for huds displaying all the life bars, equipped weapons, ammo counters and so on, I'd almost think I was treating myself to a really long CG-movie.  Other than those minute details, the more casual viewers should be looking at games as an art form.

[Olly 1,008]

4 hours ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

Other than those minute details, the more casual viewers should be looking at games as an art form.

what makes you think that? if you're excluding the movie aspect

[KillerKingBakudan 702]

Just now, Olly said:

what makes you think that? if you're excluding the movie aspect

Games are a lot like movies when you're watching someone else play them.

In some ways, they're more entertaining than movies because human error is involved.

[Olly 1,008]

2 minutes ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

Games are a lot like movies when you're watching someone else play them.

In some ways, they're more entertaining than movies because human error is involved.

Then aren't you really talking about youtube videos that involve games, rather than the games themselves