"Forbes is the new Spot for Pro-Gamer Reporting" - That didn't last long.
- Thread starter Krantos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Tell me, what was the first games you played? Did they demand you memorise complex controls with eight different buttons and two sticks doing all different things you had to know to succeed? or did it use a single joystick and three or less buttons to play?MammothBlade said:
Everybody started their gaming experience with games that are 'shallow' by today's standards, and many of those 'shallow' games are well loved classics cherished and beloved. Those who have a taste for the more complex will seek those out. Those that aren't, play the the games they enjoy. Either ways, we have new, happy gamers to welcome to the fold.
Forbes, the pretentious wanks that drool all over other people's wealth and live vicariously through their success, all the while shouting from atop a garish pedestal come facade, think anyone cares what they have to say?
A-ha, a-ha, a-haaaa.
A-ha, a-ha, a-haaaa.
Oh, I accept that they are gamers in a loose sense, that doesn't mean I have to like or view them positively. Every time I hear someone parroting on about how Angry Birds is the greatest game ever, I despair for the future. It's foolish to neglect such concerns about where gaming is headed, until the future of "premium" gaming is secured. I find it rather obnoxious that people can consider FarmVille and Angry Birds more interesting games than say, Deus Ex or Fallout. My expectations of a game are higher. About the only positive function of social games is as a gateway to premium games for those who haven't been exposed to them. Yet I'm not aware of any examples of people who've done just that, who started with social games and then realised that there were much better and bigger games out there that they could have been playing all the time.BloatedGuppy said:
The article raises a good point about "hardcore" gamers. It's ridiculous that some gamers complain about being ostracized as a "community" while actively ostracizing a subset of that community.
I don't know about you, but only saying positive things about gamers isn't necessarily my definition of good gaming journalism. Pointing out real problems among gamers is important too.
I don't know about you, but only saying positive things about gamers isn't necessarily my definition of good gaming journalism. Pointing out real problems among gamers is important too.
That's a bloody terrible comparison. The only way it would be relevant would be if you talked about the "quality" of a murder, and I'm sure we can call murder an exception to quality assurance.Frozen Fox said:
Try something actually relevant, like comparing it to a movie or food dish. In the case of a movie, you have "So Bad It's Good" cult classics. They make lots of money, and people like them, despite them being awful.
"Vampire's Kiss" is an objectively bad film, and "The Artist" is an objectively good one. Knowing that I like absurdism, hamtastic acting and Nicolas Cage, guess which one I would rather watch?
In the case of food, a well-plated steak tartar with a side of asparagus seasoned to perfection with mint garnish is objectively better executed, more artistic and more unique than, say, a Dairy Queen Flamethrower burger, but screw you if you're going to tell me that the burger isn't better than freaking steak tartar.
Of course you don't HAVE to. But judging someone sight unseen on their taste in entertainment? That's being a snob.MammothBlade said:
Angry Birds is kind of fun. Sure, it's basically "Crush the Castle" with birds, but it's crisp and clean and easy to learn and fun to play. The levels are short and well designed, and provide a nicely escalating challenge. It's not X-Com or Fallout, but it's not trying to be, any more than chess is trying to be Super Mario Bros.
It's good to be a connoisseur of things, and it's good to cast a critical eye on art. But you do have to recognize that much of what we love in these things is subjective, and someone having enthusiasm for something and enjoying it is a positive thing. I don't get to tell you what is and isn't appropriate for you to enjoy, and you don't get to set the bar for other people. Someone likes a social game? Good for them. They like a game. They are a gamer.
The only time Forbes was good for gaming stuff was then the whole ME3 thing happened they were the only ones being logical about it.
That would be because they were the only people commenting on it who didn't owe 100% of their advertising revenue to the gaming industry.Crazy Zaul said:
I'm inclined to agree with the article and I don't really have any qualms about the way it was presented. Sometimes there isn't a perfectly polite way to say something that should be said. I've been playing video games since as long as I can remember, so I definitely consider myself a "core-gamer," and I think it's important to recognize that having the experience that I've had with video games has molded my thoughts and opinions on what video games are and where they should be going.
That being said, I think that it's appropriate to recognize that resistance to new/different game types/markets just for the sake of resistance is snobbery and should be called out as snobbery. Just because I've mastered the second analog stick and I am a gamer should not mean that I expect everyone who play games to do so as well (unless they're on my team for a deathmatch xD). Games like Angry Birds etc. allow people who don't have the benefit of a large base of gaming experience to play a fun and (importantly) accessible video game.
As much as I personally oppose piracy in most circumstances, for some reason a point typically brought up in piracy debates seems like a nice analog to the topic here: casual gamers are not taking away from the core or hijacking it. They never would have bought a core game in the first place (though they might after experiencing some casual games and becoming familiar with gaming). Everyone that wants to support core games will still buy them, so the demand for core games shouldn't really be affected. In retrospect, I have no idea why that analogy came to mind. Somehow something seems wrong with it; it's probably just the fact that it's an analogy and analogies tend to suck. Oh well
/analogy
That being said, I think that it's appropriate to recognize that resistance to new/different game types/markets just for the sake of resistance is snobbery and should be called out as snobbery. Just because I've mastered the second analog stick and I am a gamer should not mean that I expect everyone who play games to do so as well (unless they're on my team for a deathmatch xD). Games like Angry Birds etc. allow people who don't have the benefit of a large base of gaming experience to play a fun and (importantly) accessible video game.
As much as I personally oppose piracy in most circumstances, for some reason a point typically brought up in piracy debates seems like a nice analog to the topic here: casual gamers are not taking away from the core or hijacking it. They never would have bought a core game in the first place (though they might after experiencing some casual games and becoming familiar with gaming). Everyone that wants to support core games will still buy them, so the demand for core games shouldn't really be affected. In retrospect, I have no idea why that analogy came to mind. Somehow something seems wrong with it; it's probably just the fact that it's an analogy and analogies tend to suck. Oh well
/analogy
Pokemon Gold Version and Super Mario. The former takes some dedication and exploration and the latter is to be expected because I was a child. That and I did not have access to a PC or games console. I later went on to play Age of Empires II and 007: Nightfire.Windknight said:
I'd like to see serious examples of people starting gaming with Angry Birds and then showing an interest in something more complex, because it seems rather different to someone who started with a gameboy and then became an enthusiastic Playstation 2 and PC gamer.
In response to that article, the thing I always feel is this: Facebook games and iOS games are a different industry. Yeah, you play them, but I'd say tabletop gaming is far more closely related to the types of stuff that people go to gaming websites to read about, and most barely cover those at all.
Call me a snob, but I will stop reading websites if they start reporting excessively on the inanity of FB shit because it's not interesting - it's not the same hobby, nor is it the same market. I'd be pleased that gaming had a huge audience if that audience had any interest in pursuing the medium to its natural end (*cough* Immersive Sims *cough*), but it doesn't.
I can't help but feel that gaming sites covering Facebook's titles would be like film sites covering straight-to-DVD and TV movies, most of which assuredly don't.
Call me a snob, but I will stop reading websites if they start reporting excessively on the inanity of FB shit because it's not interesting - it's not the same hobby, nor is it the same market. I'd be pleased that gaming had a huge audience if that audience had any interest in pursuing the medium to its natural end (*cough* Immersive Sims *cough*), but it doesn't.
I can't help but feel that gaming sites covering Facebook's titles would be like film sites covering straight-to-DVD and TV movies, most of which assuredly don't.
It's wrong to be exclusive for exclusivity's sake but demanding higher quality games isn't snobbery.
"It?s the natural evolution of any media... Even Farmville, the great enemy of all that is good and gamely, is really just a simplified version of any standard RPG. You perform simple tasks, you get points and level up. Farmville distills out the 3D graphics and little pictures of swords, but at the core, it?s all the same."
So saying Farmville is the same at its core as any other game is like saying Transformers 2 and The Avengers were basically the same movie, they're both action aren't they? Am I a snob for saying that Jack and Jill was schlock but Idiocracy was great just because one is a 'classic' and the other one appeals to the masses?
Suppressing dissent by saying we need to accept 'mainstream' media to avoid being a 'snob' is what leads to the cancellation of things like Arrested Development or Community in favour of the American Idol clone du jour.
These things exist because they appeal to a certain demographic, but saying that not liking them is snobbery is just idiotic.
"It?s the natural evolution of any media... Even Farmville, the great enemy of all that is good and gamely, is really just a simplified version of any standard RPG. You perform simple tasks, you get points and level up. Farmville distills out the 3D graphics and little pictures of swords, but at the core, it?s all the same."
So saying Farmville is the same at its core as any other game is like saying Transformers 2 and The Avengers were basically the same movie, they're both action aren't they? Am I a snob for saying that Jack and Jill was schlock but Idiocracy was great just because one is a 'classic' and the other one appeals to the masses?
Suppressing dissent by saying we need to accept 'mainstream' media to avoid being a 'snob' is what leads to the cancellation of things like Arrested Development or Community in favour of the American Idol clone du jour.
These things exist because they appeal to a certain demographic, but saying that not liking them is snobbery is just idiotic.
Okay, this kind of shit pisses me off.Frozen Fox said:
Good and bad are completely subjective terms, dependent upon the perceptions and judgements of individuals. They are not empirical qualities of the universe. Ultimately, any argument you can have for anything being good or bad holds no validity.
They most assuredly would if said straight-to-DVD and TV movies ended up beloved by tens of millions. A better analogy is a terrible but wildly popular pop song. It might not be Smoke on the Water, but people are aware of it, and it generates conversation.Woodsey said:
I thought Idiocracy was awful. It had horrible pacing issues, the humor was broad and flat, and the social satire was ham handed and relentless. This is alright for me to think. If I then go on to call you an idiot for liking it, then yes, I am being a total dipshit.Johnson McGee said:
Arrested Development got cancelled because it was an impossible show to drop in on. Most people do NOT watch shows serially, believe it or not, they catch episodes here and there. Which is why dense, plot driven shows tend to struggle to find an audience, and "every episode is the self contained" shows like CSI, House and Law and Order have huge viewerships. If you're a fan of Arrested Development, like I am, you're aware that by about halfway through season one virtually every single joke is a running gag. If you haven't been watching faithfully, you're not going to know WTF is going on half the time. Also, it declined in quality SHARPLY in the third season, so it's probably for the best it got cancelled. Went out before it went bad, and we can remember it fondly instead of ruminating over how it turned to shit.
I'd actually go as far as to say that a vast number of us can most definitely learn from this article. It's a tad cutting, but I see that as a point in it's favor.
Most gaming sites I visit don't cover it at all unless there is something big going on. The Escapist covers it the most, and even then they don't do it that often.BloatedGuppy said:
Angry Birds players don't want to read about Angry Birds. As a 'hardcore'/'mainstream' gamer, I don't want to read about Angry Birds either. So who would they be covering it for?