Codswallop_
Neophyte
I was interested already, but looks like Greedfall just became a definite purchase this fall. Thanks Kotaku!
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.
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.Is that real or edited?
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"!)
That isn't true. There are plenty of games where things happen without the player being around to see them.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.
That isn't true. There are plenty of games where things happen without the player being around to see them.
Can you imagine playing a game and not being able to complete a quest because someone essential had been killed by another NPC?
Because they have nothing better to do with their time.Why can't some people just STFU and enjoy games without looking for some type of fake controversy BS.
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?Of course she has short pink hair.
Of course.
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.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.
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.
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.
So you only agree with someone on something if you have personally experienced it yourself? What???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???
Why?No, but I don't let other people's opinions unconditionally become my opinion about something I've never experienced.
Why?
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.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.
That is why I said that I understand her frustration. I really don't see a problem with empathising with someone.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.
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.
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.
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 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.