Game Shame

[Vault101]

I stumbled upon the blog post/article thing http://www.dinofarmgames.com/the-evidence-of-game-shame/

game shame being the Idea that we dont really see gaming as "eaqual" in terms of artistic-ness or "acceptibility"

I know most people here (and other places) don't care and enjoy this hobby as much as they would any other

but are there certain "small" elements of "game shame"? do you think gaming is o=par with other mediums? (if they can be compared at all)

I mean...if somthing is "from a game" I know I'll be reluctant to say...I can feel myself cringe internally, a little

anyway what do you think of the article? what botheres me is he simpyl outright says "msot games are crap..period"

I mean really? Im not saying you have to liek all the games he mentioned (batman AC, portal 2, mass effect 2) but if those games are trash...then what does this guy think is "good"?

so what do you think? is it too hard to say this guy somes acorss as a pretentious asshat? or does he have some points?

 

[distortedreality]

Pretty decent article actually.

I'm not sure if I agree with him completely - I think game shame is a little deeper than the reasons he gives, but still a thoughtful article.

The section on games as art was particularly appropriate, given what's been happening recently.

 

[pure.Wasted]

He has SOME points. Games are still growing as an... medium. What they are capable of is still changing with every hardware upgrade in a way that isn't really true of literature, and is almost untrue of music, and is much less true of film.

I agree, for instance, that the Bethesda approach of creating a wide open sandbox is - given current technology, and given their other methods for creating a game - simply castrating what their game might have been with a ton of extra content. But the thing is, if they don't explore the limits of wide open sandboxes now, no one else will. Someone has to go out into that brave new world, and even if the process is that of trial and error, game designers are making ridiculously considerable progress and learning from their mistakes.

But what's his conclusion? All games should try to be different? Well, they do, to their own detriment in fact. Morality systems are underdeveloped, and BW is one of the few companies interested in making them work (to whatever degree), so that's where the "poor dialogue" comes from. Wide open sandboxes, in the sense of achieving world simulation, are something Bethesda is interested in, and unfortunately they're interested in very little else, so that's why the worlds feel so empty and directionless. But maybe if they focused on too much at once, the rest of the industry wouldn't be able to move in such huge spurts once they see what else is being produced, and HOW it's being produced.

His mistake is looking at the gaming medium as something that is complete, a field whose artists fully understand what they're doing, and are doing it all deliberately. But that's simply not true, and it won't be for a long time to come.

 

[Zhukov]

I find the guy downright obnoxious, but I do agree with a few of his points, or at least his general gist.

- Yes, I totally feel "game shame". If someone asks me what I'm doing after work I don't say, "Ah, y'know, go home, have dinner and try to get through the catacombs level of Dark Souls." Even though that's totally what I'll be doing.

- Yes, I think people, at least a lot of them, use the games-as-art business to try and legitimise their hobby. It's like the comics/graphic novels thing. "I'm not wasting my time indulging in juvenile digital fantasies, I'm appreciating an artistic interactive experience." Personally, I don't know and I don't really care. "Art" is a nebulous concept and I'm yet to see a definition that didn't render the term meaningless.

- No, I don't think games are equal to other mediums. Not by a laughably long shot. If I were to think back on the last three books I read (Unseen Academicals, War and Peace and Shantaram), they were more meaningful and profound and artistic and... whatever other words you want to use, than every single game I have ever played. Games can do frivolous entertainment well, but that's about it. We're little more than overgrown kittens playing with very expensive high-tech balls of wool.

- Yes, I think most games are crap. That said, most of everything is crap. Most books, most movies, most everything. Period. I don't think that the specific games he listed are crap (he seems to be one of those people who will tell you that anything made after 2000 is trash). However, I can sort of see what he's saying. as much as I love ME2 and Portal 2, it's a bit depressing to think of them as the apex of the medium.

 

[Vault101]

it's a bit depressing to think of them as the apex of the medium.

why?

I mean sure they are nowhere near the levels of the greatest works out there, most people know that...an most people say games arnt "there" yet

 

[distortedreality]

it's a bit depressing to think of them as the apex of the medium.

why?

I mean sure they are nowhere near the levels of the greatest works out there, most people know that...an most people say games arnt "there" yet

Because it shows that games really haven't come as far as a lot of us like to think.

 

[pure.Wasted]

it's a bit depressing to think of them as the apex of the medium.

why?

I mean sure they are nowhere near the levels of the greatest works out there, most people know that...

Because that's enough to convince many that video games aren't worth our time. There's no need to pour money into the industry. There's no need to throw talent at the industry. There's no need for the industry to have responsible, competent journalism.

 

[Vault101]

Because it shows that games really haven't come as far as a lot of us like to think.

how far do they need to go?

ok ok...Im going to admit that my general "veiw" on entertainment is very narrow, I don't think I "get" the distinction between "schlock" and "high art"

I can tell if a story is going to be predictable, pick out different cliches and apreciate if a game/movie does somthing different

but I dont "get" what makes thease amazing works that we hold in such high regard.."amazing" granted I probably havnt experenced enough of it first hand...but I mean WHY? why are certain books/films held in such high regard?

 

[pure.Wasted]

Because it shows that games really haven't come as far as a lot of us like to think.

how far do they need to go?

ok ok...Im going to admit that my general "veiw" on entertainment is very narrow, I don't think I "get" the distinction between "schlock" and "high art"

I can tell if a story is going to be predictable, pick out different cliches and apreciate if a game/movie does somthing different

but I dont "get" what makes thease amazing works that we hold in such high regard.."amazing" granted I probably havnt experenced enough of it first hand...but I mean WHY? why are certain books/films held in such high regard?

Depth, complexity, truth, our pretentiousness. Any and/or all of the above. A writer like Tolstoy is brilliant for his ability to describe every single aspect of every single character's life with perfect detail. No game has even remotely approached that level of versimillitude, making you feel like the world it occupies is THAT real. What's come close? Bioshock? Sure, the world is (mostly) believable and has its own distinct identity, but it isn't very deep. There's a great twist involved, and a great central question around which the game revolves, but as far as "substance" goes that's about all there is to it. If you've played it once (and paid only middling attention) you've seen most of what the game has to offer. It operates on a single layer. Maybe two.

Or let's take a movie example. Black Swan. Everything in that movie, from the actors, to the characters, to the writing, the atmosphere and plot, the precise cinematography of every single shot is built to further a particular agenda. Did the creators of Bioshock put as much thought into every single scene of their game as Darren Aronofsky did with Black Swan? As much as I love Bioshock, I sincerely doubt it. Put another way, given infinite resources and infinite time, it is easy to imagine Bioshock being better than it was. Better graphics, more characters, more details to Rapture, more varying content, more varying combat, and so on. The list goes on. It is not so easy to imagine Black Swan being "better" than it was. Different, certainly, but better?

 

[Vault101]

snip

I fucking love black swan.....

and yeah, I see where you are coming from (aside from the fact I think its unfair to compare games to other mediums in some cases)

where is the issue? is it in the AAA industry? the lack of creativity and risk taking due to publisher demands? the "sink or swim" results of a games release?

does the answer lie in indie games? or is that stuff just psudo high brow wankfests?


[quote/]It is not so easy to imagine Black Swan being "better" than it was. Different, certainly, but better?[/quote]

the answer to that would be perfect blue...its pretty much black swan but different

but yeah..youre right

I still think portal 2 comes damn close to brilliance though...in my humble peasant/lowest common denominator opinion

 

[Keoul]

Is this guy serious? he's kidding right?
This guy is so obnoxious to the level where he says we're all inflicted with this "game shame", a term he invented.

Spoiler

The idea that many or even most of us who play games don't believe that they are a legitimate interest in the way that films or music are.

Where did he even get this from? the fact that we have expos dedicated to video games (E3, Minecon, etc) has to be proof that we find them legitimate interests. Not to mention all his research seems to be from speculation and reddit.

Then he starts insulting anyone who claims games are an art form (which he admits to believing himself) which is basically him saying "We might believe in the same thing but you're stupid because my reason for believing in it is better".

Spoiler

This whole "games are art" movement is a defense mechanism for those who feel like it?s not enough for a game to just be a game.

(I should quickly clarify and say that I personally think all games are art, because they all require creativity to create. Unlike these other people, I have one very specific bit of criteria for how I define art: that it is the product of human creativity.)

Then there's the random insults towards actually good game with his strange logic

Spoiler

So, assuming you?ve already completed Portal 2 (which is really a puzzle, not a game, and therefore has zero possible replay value),

Puzzles are not games? Is he crazy? then I suppose there shouldn't be a puzzle genre at all, wait there is and it's filled to the brim with games.

I don't even get what he's trying to say near the end of it. He's saying that we all have "game shame" and how it should disappear, yet all he's done throughout the article is make fun of games.

Captcha: Taken aback
Me too captcha... me too

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

The time between 20 and 25 was a bit of game shame. I wasn`t sure if i wouldn`t grow out of gaming, since this hasn`t happened i don`t care anymore and keep playing. I`ve no problems in telling what i`m doing (gaming). One other hobby of mine are graphic novels (or just comics) and i`ve no problem with it. I don`t have to stick it in but i don`t hide it either. This article seems to be written by a guy with serious game shame troubles. I mean the CoDMW2 sales were much higher than any other released medium in the release year.

I don`t think this guy is right about his fact that even the good games don`t last long (i consider it good when i`m having fun - not some reviewer or metacritic). Sometimes it`s impotant to take breaks instead of taking replay after replay. The same goes for books and movies. I can do a few rereads or rewatches but then i need months/years to enjoy this movie or book again.

There are games who are considered a classic, not because they are old. They are still fun. The fun is everybody can have own classics and just sometimes there are people who feel the same ( to me it`s old Lucasarts adventures and after seeing a few avatars i`m sure i`m not the only one thinking this way).

"Games are for children, games are disposable, games are empty, games rot your brain."- There are many movies doing the same and i can still enjoy them. Do i wish for better thougt out stories in games- Yes but i hope the same for movies i`m watching. One of the reasons why there are so many better thought out movies compared to games is the age and experience of the medium film.

 

[pure.Wasted]

edit: I thiink I've started to ramble. Sorry. It's past my bedtime.

snip

I fucking love black swan.....

and yeah, I see where you are coming from (aside from the fact I think its unfair to compare games to other mediums in some cases)

where is the issue? is it in the AAA industry? the lack of creativity and risk taking due to publisher demands? the "sink or swim" results of a games release?

does the answer lie in indie games? or is that stuff just psudo high brow wankfests?

Honestly, I think it'll resolve itself. As I said before, I'm no fan of Oblivion or Skyrim... but just having someone out there making these huge games is giving everyone like Blizzard or Bioware or Rockstar or Bungie or whoever an opportunity to take notes for themselves: do this, it works. Don't do this, it doesn't work. And they'll then use their expertise in their own areas, combine it with what they can glean from the sidelines, and come up with something else. Meanwhile Bethesda is looking at Blizz/BW/Rockstar and taking notes of their own.

It's easy to get discouraged by noticing trends over very small periods of time. "I think Oblivion is bad, and I think Skyrim is bad, therefore Western RPGs aren't making any worthwhile progress." But then we put that into context... how long games have existed, versus how long other media (even movies) have existed. And games are, I think without a doubt, a more complex medium than film. Film has no tools that games can't appropriate for their own ends. But the same is not true in reverse.

I can only imagine that the author of that article thinks that if gaming doesn't snap out of some sort of rut, it's going to stagnate and stagnate... but it's just not true. New technologies are being introduced to gaming all the time: more photorealistic graphics, higher processing power, more complex physics, and so on. As everybody gets their hands on these, the variety in games will skyrocket. It just takes time. Just because all the AAA studios have access to these things now doesn't mean your regular indie developer does, and I think we forget that.

Back to physics for a second. What a powerful tool, right? Like that Red Faction game, destroy everything! How many games have this kind of technology now, I mean on a level above moving crates around or flinging corpses around? None, basically. First nobody has it. Then people make a huge deal out of it (destroy everything!). Eventually - and this is the good stage, the artsy stage - people learn to use it as a means to furthering their creative ends. Not as an end unto itself. Maybe you only blow up one thing in the entire game, but you get to CHOOSE where you plant those charges, and every single location will produce a slightly (or significantly) different result in the ensuing explosion. Such a simple idea, but our technology simply isn't up to the task yet.

That's why I think crying that the sky is falling... it's premature.

It is not so easy to imagine Black Swan being "better" than it was. Different, certainly, but better?

the answer to that would be perfect blue...its pretty much black swan but different

but yeah..youre right

I still think portal 2 comes damn close to brilliance though...in my humble peasant/lowest common denominator opinion

Perfect Blue... is that... the anime by Satoshi Kon by any chance? I think I've heard of it. I wasn't a huge fan of Paranoia Agent, but I loved Paprika. Just might have to check this one out!

Can't speak to Portal, unfortunately. I refuse to play 2 without playing 1, and I don't think my school laptop will handle 1... so I'm stuck.

 

[Vault101]

Perfect Blue... is that... the anime by Satoshi Kon by any chance? I think I've heard of it. I wasn't a huge fan of Paranoia Agent, but I loved Paprika. Just might have to check this one out!

Can't speak to Portal, unfortunately. I refuse to play 2 without playing 1, and I don't think my school laptop will handle 1... so I'm stuck.

i dont know..the first portal at least doesnt take up "that" much power...portal 2 a little more..but still nto much compared to other games

and yes, thats exactally what it is...Daren Aronofsky bought thr rights to perfect blue to use a certian scene in requiem for a dream

its not a long shot to say perfect blue insprired black swan

 

[Zhukov]

it's a bit depressing to think of them as the apex of the medium.

why?

I mean sure they are nowhere near the levels of the greatest works out there, most people know that...an most people say games arnt "there" yet

You basically said it yourself right there.

I don't think games are near the level of even the pretty good works out there, let alone the greatest. Bioshock is great and I love it, but it's still 99% setting guys on fire and shooting them in the face. Portal is a set of puzzles with funny voiceovers. Don't get me wrong, they're very good puzzles and very funny voiceovers, but... that's all it is.

Hell, most game developers evidently still haven't figured out what character development is, let alone how to do it well.

Eh, pure.Wasted said it better than I can.

I don't mean to be all doom and gloom. Hopefully gaming will eventually grow up. After all, Bioshock and ME2 and whatnot are leagues beyond what was possible in the days of Super Mario World. Give it a few more decades and we'll see.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Movies are just an amusing pastime that some people make a lot of money from and some nerds take way too seriously. So not too different to games except that games are better naturally.

But the main point of his article seems to be that reading reddit is annoying because it is full of stupid comments. No argument there.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Clicked on link expecting hilarious uninformed analysis. Read, agreed with him on most things, even if I think he takes several arguments too far.

This is the most irritating form of game shame. I?m sure you?ve seen the brand of article I?m talking about: anti-intellectual pretentious nonsense that blathers on and on in the most long-winded way possible about, basically, nothing. It?s all under the umbrella of existential non-arguments that stem from an ill-defined and unclear claim about ?some? games being art.

Huh, seems like he's been to the Escapist.

 

[Bertylicious]

I think Penny Arcade summed it up quite nicely by asking how dozens or even hundreds of people can be tasked with creating art for 2 to 5 years and then the outcome be something other than art.

As for "game shame" it is disolving as generations progress. I mean for Christ's sake; rock and roll was a stupid thing for kids back in the 50s which an adult would never dream admitting to enjoying to his peers for fear of derision.