Support NeoGAF

[Codswallop_]

I was interested already, but looks like Greedfall just became a definite purchase this fall. Thanks Kotaku!

 

[Memorabilia]

JFC this SJW bullshit has got to stop.

 

[hariseldon]

The idea was, or at least how I understood it, was that the events and ai were acting like performers in a theme park where you are the only visitor. The universe stands still unless it's in your field of view. I haven't played Red Dead 2 so I can't say if it is true or not but I can definitely understand her frustration if she felt the game is like that.

To function as a game it must be like that. There aren't sufficient computing resources to simulate characters living lives away from the player in any meaningful way, and most games have plot points and interactions that if missed rather ruin the game, hence npcs hanging around waiting for the player before launching into exposition.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Is that real or edited?

yeah it's the dumbest fucking thing i've seen from any game journalist tbh. this doesn't even fit with "are games art or not?" because even art needs an audience. this idiot would probably say art doesn't need an audience, which is utter nonsense. this person is 100% talking out of their ass to sound smart. that's what postmodernism does, when all you know is deconstruction, you just turn everything into meaningless bullshit.

art requires someone to appreciate it, and games games require players. someone to take inert systems and put them in motion. someone to risk succeeding or failing. a deck of cards with nobody playing poker is just an inert deck of cards. you aren't going to see a Full House with nobody playing. similarly a piece of computer software requires a player in order to function. without a person operating it, a game is code that will never be executed.

as for the "danger" in emulating the past, don't games cover past eras all the time? Ancient Rome? Victorian England? all the dark fantasy games are just playing on IRL medieval lore? shut them all down, I guess, our ancestors were not woke as us. you know, the current time period, where we have robots killing people from the skies and "concentration camps" setup by our previous, "progressive" president.

which begs the question, if doing what is morally right is so important, why is she glorifying violent video games instead of being a full time activist? or volunteering at a hospital? or joining Green Peace? why isn't she in Africa building water filters? sounds like another coward of their era who wants to just do what is politically convenient instead of what's morally right.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

25 hours into the game, I love the setting and the world. The quests have been great and better than I was expecting them to be. Gameplay is clunky/janky and combat is slow and the same as opposed to being fluid and responsive but it's not horrible or anything. It's good for what it is. It's everything else that's making me enjoy the game and want to see it through to the end.

 

[CrisPy2019]

If the player is not necessary as "he she it they xer ser blah" says.

What's the problem with the game then?

The game does not want to say anything to the player. It does not want to tell the player wokeness is irrelevant or whatever. Or that being non-woke is good.

The player is not important for the game... so what EXACTLY is the problem?


Games are not made for people and therefore games do not need to "teach" players anything right?

Am I missing something here? I don't understand. Can a super lefty explain this to ignorant me please? (I don't accept centrist/right answers that say things like "left has no logic"!)

 

[Hypereides]

I miss the days when Kotaku actually lived up to its name. Now, they might've as well rebrand themselves into politaku.

 

[Contica]

If the player is not necessary as "he she it they xer ser blah" says.

What's the problem with the game then?

The game does not want to say anything to the player. It does not want to tell the player wokeness is irrelevant or whatever. Or that being non-woke is good.

The player is not important for the game... so what EXACTLY is the problem?


Games are not made for people and therefore games do not need to "teach" players anything right?

Am I missing something here? I don't understand. Can a super lefty explain this to ignorant me please? (I don't accept centrist/right answers that say things like "left has no logic"!)

Well, I've played it quite a bit now, and something is starting to grate on me about the whole presentation. I get that we're put in the shoes of a colonist who might not inherently see anything bad about that, however..

There is something bad about it. The way factions you ally with are actively trying to convert the native "savages" to their "civilized" religion is, well, ignorant cruelty, to put it simply.

I have no problem with a game exploring these issues. I do however vee have an issue with a game that puts a lot of emphasis on letting you solve things yourself, not really letting you oppose things.

So you just stopped the inquisition from torturing natives. Now what? You pretty much thank them for their time and understanding and move on. It's really weird. Every bone in my body screams for an oportunity to strike back at these religious zealots, but I'm never allowed to. I just nod and move along, accepting new quests from them, and talk the natives into accepting their fate.

It kinda sucks.

Outside of this, I really enjoy the game. Quest design is great and it sucks me in. The game states pretty frequently that the natives are innocent victims, so it's not like the devs treat them like "wild men", they just never seem to give us any ways of doing anything for them that actually matters.

I'm only 15-20 hours in though, so things could change, but it's been enough so far to put a damper on some quests.

 

[Mendax89]

Stop giving Kotaku attetion, they're not a gaming site, they're a SJW site.

 

[mcz117chief]

To function as a game it must be like that. There aren't sufficient computing resources to simulate characters living lives away from the player in any meaningful way, and most games have plot points and interactions that if missed rather ruin the game, hence npcs hanging around waiting for the player before launching into exposition.

That isn't true. There are plenty of games where things happen without the player being around to see them.

 

[Iorv3th]

That isn't true. There are plenty of games where things happen without the player being around to see them.

Not without a player to power it on/boot it.

 

[hariseldon]

That isn't true. There are plenty of games where things happen without the player being around to see them.

Simplified routines but never anything plot-critical, anything they do is thought of in the context of the player so it's just enough for the player to believe in it, but no more than that. Can you imagine playing a game and not being able to complete a quest because someone essential had been killed by another NPC? We may well think that'd be amazing but in practice it would be irritating and would deprive us of part of the game and would likely be picked up as a bug, not a feature.

 

[Nickolaidas]

Can you imagine playing a game and not being able to complete a quest because someone essential had been killed by another NPC?

Unless you protect the citizens with mods, or finish the Dawnguard storyline, most of Skyrim's cities effectively become ghost towns after a while. Now, there are some essential NPCs, but there are also NPCs who have small, non-vital quests that CAN die and prevent you from ever doing said mini-quests.

 

[Macapala]

Why can't some people just STFU and enjoy games without looking for some type of fake controversy BS.

Because they have nothing better to do with their time.

 

[stickkidsam]

BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH HO HO HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh my god this is rich and juicy.

Players aren't necessary for games. Yeah. Sure. A basketball has such purpose without someone to dribble it. Tag is so fun when nobody is "it". Has anyone tried Dodgeball without people? Oh my god it is so much fun!

 

[TLZ]

Of course she has short pink hair.

Of course.

I was just going to say that. What's with short pink hair? Where did it start? Why pink? Why short? Is it short because they don't want to be looked at as feminine? But I thought they're super pro women, which should mean celebrate femininity? Or they showing equality to men? But I thought they hated masculinity, because it's toxic, qnd don't want anything that resembles it? The same question could be asked about pink. Does pink mean feminine? But I thought you don't want to be generalized because you don't like how females are automatically connected with pink since birth? So what the actual f is it?

I suggest you change SJW to CP, Confused People. Also, you're no warriors, because warriors are typically masculine manly men filled with toxicity. You sure don't want to be associated with that. Or do you? F I know anymore, CP.

 

[mcz117chief]

Simplified routines but never anything plot-critical, anything they do is thought of in the context of the player so it's just enough for the player to believe in it, but no more than that. Can you imagine playing a game and not being able to complete a quest because someone essential had been killed by another NPC? We may well think that'd be amazing but in practice it would be irritating and would deprive us of part of the game and would likely be picked up as a bug, not a feature.

I get you, man. Still there are games like that. Gothic 3 comes to mind. I accidentally killed a plot critical character once and other time another one died before I even got there. I think it fell off a cliff or something. I am sure there are more games like that that have a living world which isn't reliant on player action, like the X universe games. You pick a quest to kill a pirate, 30 seconds later you get a message that he is already dead.

 

[bigol]

In my opinion i would suggest to not even create a topic about these kind of articles on here. It only pushes people to check the article and gives way more attention to it than it needs.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

In my opinion i would suggest to not even create a topic about these kind of articles on here. It only pushes people to check the article and gives way more attention to it than it needs.

Cancel culture? In my neogaf? No thank you.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The idea was, or at least how I understood it, was that the events and ai were acting like performers in a theme park where you are the only visitor. The universe stands still unless it's in your field of view. I haven't played Red Dead 2 so I can't say if it is true or not but I can definitely understand her frustration if she felt the game is like that.

You haven't even played the game and you thought it was a very well thought-out article that really made you think and agree with her on just about everything? What???

 

[mcz117chief]

You haven't even played the game and you thought it was a very well thought-out article that really made you think and agree with her on just about everything? What???

So you only agree with someone on something if you have personally experienced it yourself? What???

 

[Deleted member 17706]

So you only agree with someone on something if you have personally experienced it yourself? What???

No, but I don't let other people's opinions unconditionally become my opinion about something I've never experienced.

 

[mcz117chief]

No, but I don't let other people's opinions unconditionally become my opinion about something I've never experienced.

Why?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Why?

What's the point of even being alive and having a working brain if you're just going to let others decide for you how to feel and think?

Not to say there isn't a lot of value in other people's opinions. Reading them can give you access to perspectives that wouldn't naturally come to you and trigger further introspection about the topic. In the end, though, I feel like you should always remain skeptical and come to your own conclusions about things without taking someone else's view as the singular truth.

 

[mcz117chief]

Not to say there isn't a lot of value in other people's opinions.

And there it is. If somebody tells me, "mate, don't go in there, you might get hurt." I'm not gonna go there to figure out if it's true or not, I'll just take their word for it. If somebody tells me "dinosaur had feathers." I won't start my own paleontological study to find out if it's true, I'll just take their word for it. I don't expect that every person out there is trying to deceive me, I like to trust people. So if a reviewer says that he/she feels certain way about something I have no reason not to work with it as a true way of how they feel about the subject.

 

[DESTROYA]

I stopped paying attention to Kotaku years ago, so no big deal.
They haven’t been relevant in years and there on the bottom of the list when it comes to reviews.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

And there it is. If somebody tells me, "mate, don't go in there, you might get hurt." I'm not gonna go there to figure out if it's true or not, I'll just take their word for it. If somebody tells me "dinosaur had feathers." I won't start my own paleontological study to find out if it's true, I'll just take their word for it. I don't expect that every person out there is trying to deceive me, I like to trust people. So if a reviewer says that he/she feels certain way about something I have no reason not to work with it as a true way of how they feel about the subject.

You're conflating the conveyance of objective facts with subjective opinions and feelings about an experience. Obviously, you can't tell if a person is telling the truth in either case, but it doesn't make sense to take someone's subjective impression of a work of art/entertainment as the objective truth. You might have no reason to not believe that they are being true in telling how the felt, but it does not make sense to take their subjective impression and make it your own without experiencing the thing they are talking about for yourself...

 

[mcz117chief]

You're conflating the conveyance of objective facts with subjective opinions and feelings about an experience. Obviously, you can't tell if a person is telling the truth in either case, but it doesn't make sense to take someone's subjective impression of a work of art/entertainment as the objective truth. You might have no reason to not believe that they are being true in telling how the felt, but it does not make sense to take their subjective impression and make it your own without experiencing the thing they are talking about for yourself...

That is why I said that I understand her frustration. I really don't see a problem with empathising with someone.

 

[John Day]

Read Kotaku in the title, “gee must be a Heather Alexandra piece”.

Never fails.

 

[Amish Death Metal]

Anyone remember when video games were just games?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

That is why I said that I understand her frustration. I really don't see a problem with empathising with someone.

I must have quoted the wrong post initially. I meant to respond to this part:

I find it quite disheartening that people automatically discredit all her opinions just because she has a sjw type hair style. I remember an article from her about the AI in Red Dead 2 being there solely to entertain the player instead of trying to create a compelling virtual world. It was a very well thought-out article and really made me think and agree with her on just about everything. The tweets in the op are fine too. Video games are an art form so they can, and honestly should, contain more than just brainless entertainment. That is why games like Shadow of the Colossus and NieR are so great. Seriously just stop automatically condemning everything she says just because she has different colored hair, most of you sound like "Orange man bad" just on the opposite side.

Edit: I read through the article. She makes some interesting points. The hate she is getting is absolutely undeserved. Again.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

"Players are not necessary"

Well, how about videogame "journalists" ?


Thank god that this kind of people are like venomous animals, they are easily recognized by their looks.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

So TLDR: What is the issue exactly?

 

[Whitesnake]

I find it quite disheartening that people automatically discredit all her opinions just because she has a sjw type hair style. I remember an article from her about the AI in Red Dead 2 being there solely to entertain the player instead of trying to create a compelling virtual world. It was a very well thought-out article and really made me think and agree with her on just about everything. The tweets in the op are fine too. Video games are an art form so they can, and honestly should, contain more than just brainless entertainment. That is why games like Shadow of the Colossus and NieR are so great. Seriously just stop automatically condemning everything she says just because she has different colored hair, most of you sound like "Orange man bad" just on the opposite side.

Edit: I read through the article. She makes some interesting points. The hate she is getting is absolutely undeserved. Again.

This article is dumb and so is the one about Red Dead AI.

This article is dumb because the author has this idea that if fiction takes place in a time period where unsavory things happened (i.e. all of history), then the fiction has to be a constant criticism of every aspect of that time period and must be about an upheaval of those unsavory factors or else it’s not being woke enough.

The Red Dead article was dumb because it complained that pieces of computer code didn’t have enough agency (???) and that made them feel bad, and that article also went into a whole diatribe about “problematic setting” and “toxic masculinity”.

These criticisms hold no value, and prove the danger-hair stereotype correct.

 

[Ixiah]

So TLDR: What is the issue exactly?

The Fantasy Colonialists arent all evil as Satan, the Natives arent Angels, it doesnt beat you over the head with the Fact that Slavery is bad nor does it make any other grand Virtue Signaling.

 

[SlimySnake]

She is consistently the worst writer at Kotaku. ive never seen anyone who gets things wrong on a consistent basis like this.

the weird thing is that the game deals with colonialism and imperialism so its already more political than 99.9% of the games out there.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

The Fantasy Colonialists arent all evil as Satan, the Natives arent Angels, it doesnt beat you over the head with the Fact that Slavery is bad nor does it make any other grand Virtue Signaling.

So does this mean Kucktaku is cucking me again or something?