So I've been playing Zoe's "games"...

[carnex]

OK, the game itself might be as advanced as old hyperlink games we made in 1998 but at least they tried to tackle topic that is close to heart and frankly frightening to so many gamers.

But then again, i do wish they did it better. Hell, game that dealt with what Social Justice whatevers advocate about is Persona 4 especially Kanji Tatsumi and his struggle with homosexuality. Even if they opted for ultra triple sweet happy ending for him.

 

[Lupine]

When I glanced at the title I thought this thread was about someone getting round to playing the Zone of the Enders (am I the only one?) which is pretty damn sweet thing to be happening...but no its another Zoe Quinn thread.

Games are subjective, some people believe Heavy Rain to be one of the best games ever, others don't. That is all there is to it. Anyway as far as I'm aware she isn't presented as some elite female developer as I'm pretty sure the large majority of people didn't even know who she was until all this bunkum.

You are not the only one. Also, I freaking love ZoEs. So I am obviously saddened at the lack of giant robots and energy swords on display in this thread.

As for the thread itself, you hit it on the head. I for one pretty much hate everything about Heavy Rain while a good friend of mine loves it with the force of a million suns. People like different things. Heck, even people that share a lot of similarities can have interests that vary widely so much so as to the previously mentioned friend of mine...right now I'm trying to get him into reading more literature with female protagonists. Some of my favorite series at the moment have female leads and he says that he has trouble getting into them from a first person narrative perspective and I'm trying to change his mind one good book at a time, while showing him authors and stories where it won't be distracting to his sensibilities.

People like different things, pretty much the only thing that needs to be said.

 

[Sea Sponge]

As far as Zoe Quinn as a developer goes.... All I know about is Depression Quest, no idea if she has more stuff out but I didn't know anything at all about her until all the controversy blew up.

To be fair, I didn't know about Depression Quest until all the controversy blew up. It isn't the kind of thing i'd look for so it never popped up on my radar.

 

[synobal]

I honestly wouldn't even call depression quest a game.

 

[Nieroshai]

For all those praising Depression Quest for being a good simulation of depression...

I've had depression for years, honestly longer than I can remember. And this game did not feel like Depression to me. It describes depression from the perspective of a single person in a very unemotional way with piano music in the background, but what I was reading did NOT feel like it was showing me what depression is like. Maybe it works for other people, but Silent Hill helped me understand depression than this subpar text adventure ever did.

Captcha: good grief

 

[MrCatchTwenty2]

So I played a bit of depression quest. It just seemed to me that it was a game that involved a lot of thought in its creation but not enough actual effort. The game felt lazy to me, and that probably spoiled whatever the game was trying to get across. That being said, it also doesn't seem like the kind of thing that anyone could form a strong opinion on it one way or the other:

It's like a college assignment given to a freshman CS major, "Make a game, doesn't matter what it's about." Then the student gets really into an idea and becomes overly ambitious about what the game could be, but when the time comes to do the actual work they just put together what would require the least amount of work but still fit the bill as a "game". All while keeping all those ambitious ideas at the core of it.

How can you form a strong opinion on something that isn't more than "an ambitious idea, with bare minimum work". How do you judge something that's creator seemed to not really be trying. It feels like Quinn made the game because she had to, not because she wanted to. Something that never really advanced beyond the brainstorming process.

I really am rambling at this point, does anyone understand what I'm trying to say?

 

[Dragonbums]

It seems her "games" are very popular with the SJW crowd. It says everything I need to know about their "quality".

Isn't that quite the assumption. You yourself has never played the game, and your going to pre judge it by the simple fact it's enjoyed by the "SJW" crowd? (Which is pretty heartless of you to say because the "SJW's" who liked this game have admitted to being clinically depressed themselves or have relatives and friends who suffer from it.) That is assuming that the people who did like the game aren't SJW's themselves, but simply people who just play fucking videogames.

 

[Desslok]

I haven't played Depression Quest, but text-based games can be incredibly immersive. Leather Goddesses of Phobos was hilarious. Curses has an amazing dry wit and responsiveness that can catch you by surprise. A Mind Forever Voyaging was poignant and offered real political commentary.

I cant be the only one who cried when Floyd died in Planetfall. . . .

 

[WickedLordJasper]

I haven't played Depression Quest, but text-based games can be incredibly immersive. Leather Goddesses of Phobos was hilarious. Curses has an amazing dry wit and responsiveness that can catch you by surprise. A Mind Forever Voyaging was poignant and offered real political commentary.

I cant be the only one who cried when Floyd died in Planetfall. . . .

Oh god, I still remember that. That was one of the genuinely saddest gaming moments I can remember.

Did you ever just, you know...not open the door when he knocked? I tried once and I felt like a horrible person in a way that no graphical game has ever made me feel.

 

[NoeL]

I'm going to put this part at the top, since it seems to be the biggest source of confusion.

a lot of us didn't like how OP basicaly called Depression Quest and anything Zoe Quin does in that vein "not a game". Just because OP didn't find it to his liking doesn't mean it's not a game. I didn't oppose his "arguments", I opposed his arguments - see the difference?

I guess I should attempt to clear that up. When I said "games" (quotation marks) rather than games (no quotation marks) it was more to do with the question of what constitutes a game, not a slight against the quality of the product. A choose your own adventure novel isn't a game - it's an interactive narrative. There's a categorical difference. Minecraft technically isn't a game - it's better categorised as an electronic toy. The confusion comes where we've began to identify all forms of artistic interactive digital media as "games" simply due to it being a new thing and us not having a more appropriate (or I should say, less cumbersome) label for it. Depression Quest is not a game, in its literal sense. There are no win/lose conditions (something fundamental to games), it's just a narrative experience. Fake Geek Girl Detector is not a game either. That said, Jeff Goldblum Staring Contest and Realistic Relationship Simulator are games - incredibly simple (and poor, IMO) games, but they're games nonetheless and I wouldn't say otherwise. I guess that was lost on people.

The quality of a game isn't purely subjective. If it was, what would be the point of assigning scores in game reviews?

I haven't played Depression Quest but I think NoeL is perfectly entitled to question the quality of workmanship workpersonship (check your privilege, spellchecker) on display. Zoe Quinn markets herself as an indie dev so it's completely valid to critique her on the strength of her games - her personal life, that's an ad hominem - so what's with the tutting and shushing? If NoeL's appraisal is correct and Quinn is little more than an enthusiastic amateur who for some reason enjoys power and publicity above her station, that's not something we should feel compelled to keep quiet about.

Tl;dr: It's wrong-headed and possibly a bit patronising to suggest that Quinn shouldn't receive critique on her games. Being a developer wasn't a "protected characteristic" last I checked.

Thanks, you're the first person in the thread to actually understand what I was going for.

Out of curiosity, and I do not mean this in an antagonistic way, so please do not take it as such, why does it matter?

Because I think prominent figures in any area where people look up to and are influenced by those figures should actually be good at what they do. If young girls are saying "I want to be a game developer, just like Zoe Quinn!" I would want Zoe Quinn to be a good role model for a game developer. IF she's a poor developer that's only noticed because of her visible personality as opposed to her actual games, that's not a good role model. It's like wanting to be Jaden Smith rather than Will Smith.

I mean, evidently her games speak to some and don't speak to others. They don't personally speak to me. But I can say the same about COD, while I really like Borderlands.

I'm sure her games speak to plenty of people, but that's not really what this is about (both you and the guy below, and probably many more replies I've yet to read kind of misunderstood me). Whether or not you like COD is irrelevant - you still wouldn't deny the developers are more than capable of making games, and could make a wide and diverse assortment of games if they wanted. They have the design, artistic and programming chops to pull off something way above the average schmo. Zoe on the other hand - as far as what her previous game(s) have shown - doesn't have this. There seems to be little difference between what she's doing and what hundreds of thousands of fan-fic authors across the world are doing - and that little difference is that Zoe learned how to make her writing interactive, therefore making her a "game developer". I'm not saying Depression Quest is a bad game, or that it doesn't/shouldn't have people that are fans of it and or Zoe herself, I'm just saying I don't think Zoe has proven herself to be anything noteworthy as a game developer. Compare her with someone like Roberta Williams, who IMO is a fantastic role model for aspiring female game developers. King's Quest was amazing, both technically and from a gaming standpoint. Being able to make King's Quest is faaaaaaar more impressive than being able to insert hyperlinks into a document, regardless of which of them has more appeal, and so aspiring developers should be looking to people like her instead of Zoe as an example of a good game developer.

It seems quite condescending that you just assume everyone that plays the game doesn't like the game, and they're only supporting her because she's making a fuss about being a female developer.

I don't think that's just it.

That would be condescending, but that's not what I'm doing. Like I said, it doesn't matter how popular she or her games are, just that (judging solely by her games) she's a poor role model for aspiring developers and doesn't deserve the recognition she gets as such. She may have written a compelling story but she's done nothing to show she's at all competent at game[i/] development.

Just out of curiosity, have you played those "games" because of all the controversy surrounding her?

Not because of the controversy, but because her name has been bandied around so much it piqued my curiousity - particularly after reading about the GAME_JAM fiasco. I would have checked her out if she got an equal amount of positive attention instead too. It's just a matter of reading a lot about someone and getting curious about their work. Though I have my opinion on the "controversy" I'm not going to talk about it here, as that's not what this thread is about.

As a Nurse working in Psychiatric Care I love Depression Quest. It is a game that fully captures what it means to suffer from depression, while also being a pretty good guide on how to act to recover from it. Whatever your misgivings about it are though, it is important to realize that Depression Quest, just like Papers, Please, isn't meant to be an entertaining game. It is meant to be an eye-opener for people who haven't suffered Depression or are suffering from Depression but doesn't know how to begin seeking treatment. Just like Papers, Please, it is meant to make the player think about the topic at hand and their own thoughts and feelings about it.

In essence, Depression Quest is an indie game at its' finest, a game that breaks the mold of what games are or what games are "supposed to be" as well as daring to talk about topics that are normally taboo or hush-hush. Even if you don't care for it, it is a well-crafted and well-researched game with a clear message about a controversial topic. You don't have to like it, but trying to deny its' uniqueness or artistic merit at this point in time just makes you seem as just another person trying to discredit Quinn.

Thanks, that's more of the response I was looking for. I wasn't able to make it through the game (didn't appeal to me in the slightest) so I can't comment on how well-crafted or well-researched it is, although naturally I've seen people that felt the exact opposite - sufferers of depression that felt offended that what was presented in the game was being called "depression". But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and yes if Depression Quest actually is a well-researched and well-crafted game that really does capture the essence of depression and translates that into something interactive and engaging, that's worthy of some admiration as a game developer. Again, it's not about whether or not I like the game, it's whether or not she's been able to do something noteworthy - something beyond what any average schmo could do, or more specifically, make a game better than any average schmo could do. If you think she's done that, cool. That's what I want to hear.

I also find it kinda funny when you wrote

and when she's presented as a top female developer in the indie scene that's incredibly depressing.

in a thread about Depression Quest. I'm aware that calling something depressing is ingrained in common language due to general lack of understanding of what depression actually is, but come on. When you're complaining about someones style of writing, at least be careful about your own choice of words.

"Being depressed" =/= "having depression". Like you said, "depression" is the name of a recognised clinical illness but something being "depressing" doesn't mean it causes the clinical illness "depression". People can and do get depressed all the time WITHOUT having depression. Being depressed is just a normal human emotion - it's when that emotion is perpetual and difficult to regulate that people are diagnosed as having "depression". The word "depressing" isn't "ingrained in common language due to general lack of understanding of what depression actually is", it's an actual English word from which the clinical label "depression" is derived, not the other way around.

Welcome to gaming circles: where a walking simulator made in someone else's engine is a game, but text in someone else's engine isn't a game.

I wouldn't call walking simulators "games" either so your snide remark there falls pretty flat.

This reply's long enough so I think I'll leave it here for now.

 

[Something Amyss]

When I said "games" (quotation marks) rather than games (no quotation marks) it was more to do with the question of what constitutes a game, not a slight against the quality of the product.

Not sure that makes any difference.

I wouldn't call walking simulators "games" either so your snide remark there falls pretty flat.

A shame I didn't name you personally, then. It's almost like I was addressing an overall trend or something. A trend that is related to the implication that this isn't a game, and therefore on topic, but still valid in a general sense. I apologise if you infered a snide tone, but I assume you I was actually quite jovial when I made the comment. I think this attitude is absurd, not tragic. As such, I muse rather than gloat.

That is, until the inevitable reboot, where I will be grim and gritty and probably have lost both my parents at a young age.

Though I would point out that it's a little strange, as putting something in "quotes" is generally far more "snide" than anything I did. I would point it out, but Daystar already did and better.

Isn't that quite the assumption. You yourself has never played the game, and your going to pre judge it by the simple fact it's enjoyed by the "SJW" crowd? (Which is pretty heartless of you to say because the "SJW's" who liked this game have admitted to being clinically depressed themselves or have relatives and friends who suffer from it.) That is assuming that the people who did like the game aren't SJW's themselves, but simply people who just play fucking videogames.

In fairness, maybe the poster in question actually likes having their tastes dictated to them by others. If that's true, we should honour it. Self determination is a very important right, one which we should afford everyone.

 

[NoeL]

When I said "games" (quotation marks) rather than games (no quotation marks) it was more to do with the question of what constitutes a game, not a slight against the quality of the product.

Not sure that makes any difference.

How doesn't it? People seem to have misinterpreted the quotes as sarcasm, meaning they think I consider DQ to be a game, but of too poor quality to be associated with "real games". That wasn't the intent.

Or maybe you're saying it doesn't make a difference because most people that would've wanted to comment already have, and so won't bother coming back to realise their misinterpretation? In that case, you're probably right.

I don't think she's the shining beacon of role models that you're worried she may be.

And that's a fair point. Maybe I'm just giving more credit than she actually has.

 

[Malpraxis]

I played Depression Quest before all this blew up. I finished it and explored all the scenarios. I found the game had heart but could be easily improved adding a few more realistic scenarios based on real experiences patients have, which I know about, because I'm a doctor. I suggested that they expand the game beyond just black and white outcomes. Add a couple red herrings, thread the ground of self destructive tendencies and psychosis.

I offered my expertise for free on the forums, anonymously. I didn't want money or publicity, just to raise awareness in a better way.
My post got deleted within 30min.

So screw her.

 

[florzk]

Not necessarily on topic, but I would like to take a moment to appreciate and applaud how civil and noninflammatory everyone is being here. Seriously, it seems silly, but I used to love coming onto the forums because it used to be full of calm, civil discussions about games and the like, where people generally had at least a passing understanding of other's viewpoints. On topic, I've never played DQ, and simply have no desire to, but I'll accept things like it as "Games" because, well, things like Zork happened. I'll openly admit that the controversy kinda kills my desire to play the game at all, simply because I know it will be hard to find fully informed, unbiased reviews of it. In much the same manner of the infamous ET game, the game itself is almost irrelevant in the massive uproar it caused. Nevertheless, all things aside, I'd like to thank y'all for restoring a bit of my love for this site.

 

[AIMonster]

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of a game, specifically the one that makes the most sense in the context of this conversation:

activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

The activity part can easily be replaced with what we call "interactivity".
Thus, interactive narratives as you put it are in fact games. They match the criteria of a game according to the literal definition. Visual novels are games, Sandboxes like Minecraft are games, and interactive stories are games. I really wish people would stop making up their own definition for what constitutes a game. You do not need the possibility of win/loss scenarios for something to be a game.

As for Quinn's games I don't care for them and don't see why they get such praise, but they are free so I don't think there is much point in complaining about them.

 

[carnex]

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of a game, specifically the one that makes the most sense in the context of this conversation:

activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

I don't like that definition, it's condescending at the best of times. Games have much, much bigger capabilities than diversion and amusement. Even in 8 bit era we had games that were abstract pieces that were about expresion of opinion or exploration of human condition rather than diversion and amusement. Like Human Race on c64


Then there are numerous great educational games etc etc...