LilithSlave said:
I think you're pretty deluded if you think that playing a game about raising animals or something is horrible and shallow, while shooting things randomly is some kind of high peak of human behavior. Duke Nukem is a power fantasy. And it's less shallow than "To the Moon"? Please. Not to mention the entire Survival Horror genre, which is by nature the opposite of a power fantasy. So you think that the entire survival horror genre is shallow in comparison to something like Duke Nukem? Please.
One could also argue that MMORPGs are a lot more of a power fantasy in comparison to wRPGs, which are more about exploration, discovery, and self expression. While MMORPGs are more about pure statistics and strength. Is the wRPG more shallow than the wRPG by its focus on exploration and discovery instead of personal gain?
Furthermore, you seem to be agreeing with the idea that black people, poor people, women, homosexuals, and so forth, are shallow in comparison to white people, rich people, men, and heterosexuals. That's disgusting.
Uh, don't stealth edit please.
It's less shallow to simulate destruction because it is closer to the ideal of exerting power over your surroundings (will to power.) That's not to say farming games are devoid of will to power though, you certainly exert your control in them.
Is To the Moon another fucking "artgame?" OF COURSE Duke is more meaningfull and complex than any of those pos (if To the Moon is not an art game I apoligize but it has a really pretentious sounding name.)
Survival Horror are power fantasy. Just like Demon's Souls, Shmups or fighting a godlike diamond level SCer. They empower the player by letting them face adversity in an attempt to conquer it.
Uh there are mechanically complex MMO (EVE) and mechanically complex wrpg (Fallout). Wrpg are not about exploration and discovery, they are about making decisions of consequnce on the world (will to power.) EVE and Fallout allow the player to have huge effects on the world, while Runescape allows people to to level up and pvp eachother to no real consequence.
Saying underprivelaged people are shallower is "disgusting", please save the fucking moralizing. Kings in the old days were all about conducting wars and shit, peasants were concerned with doing the jobs their crappy lives required of them, they were clearly shallow in comparison. It isn't about race either, in western society black people have less power but in other societies they have taken master morality to it's height by becoming dictators (will to power.) In Nietzsche terms slave morality is shallow, master morality is profound plain and simple.
LilithSlave said:
Halo Fanboy said:
Power fantasies aren't just the aesthetics of videogames, they are also the mechanics of videogames and competetive games period.
I don't actually have a problem with a degree of power fantasy in video games. As I've stated before, I disagree with the machismo direction. Or at least that's what I disagree with most. That which props up masculinity on a pedastul.
However, power fantasy is not what makes good art. And is not a consistent part in Games tend to mostly have this mostly just because they're "games", and games have never been held in high regard in terms of art and other media. It's arguable that people in more privileged media regard video games as less closely to art because "they're just games". And thus why video games struggled so long to be considered "art".
I'm also a bit confused as to how you're comparing and contrasting aesthetics and mechanics. Somehow I get the feeling it leads up to some conclusion that building stuff like in Minecraft, raising stuff on a farm like in Harvest Moon, or that or that cute, serene, peaceful, romantic things are inferior to the giblets flying. And are trying to justify it with philosophy.
Are you trying to argue that aesthetics are important in video games, or are you trying to claim that aesthetics are not very important? Gosh, you're confusing me in general.
I will say this about gameplay. Video games are nothing more than a challenge with nothing more than a fictional reward. Though gamers like to place emphasis on gameplay as a high point in arte, there's nothing greater achieved aside from interaction, than say, a painting.
Machismo is the superior aesthetic for a reason.
Power aka
glorifications is in fact the basis of art before democracy and slave morality changed the perception of art. Nietzsche noted this in his analysis of art.
Sorry about the confusion in the aesthetic department. Shallowness basically sets in when syle superceds substance, while a sharp eye for eye for looks is important it is ultimately secondary for videogame imho.
Yeah videogames are decadent in that sense, but effemate challengless games are decadence upon decadence. Maybe the future ubermensch won't even play videogames, who knows?
Icycalm from insomnia.ac (http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_genealogy_of_art_games/) is my mentor in these issues, be wary that he's a lot more meanspirited and rude than me. I probably got a lot of things wrong so check him out.
And so that's the point of no return for me. If I get ostracized from this community it'll probably be better for my development in the long run. Didn't expect this from a thread about someone wanting to have sex with a darkstalker character.
