Game Shame

[LadyCrimson]

While I've had minor bursts of 'game shame', mainly related to not wanting to tell family/friends exactly how much time I sometimes have spent playing - altho in the past few years not so much because I don't play as much (until FNV that is) - I also have general problems in obsessive-task orientation even outside of games, so it's not a unique thing to gaming.

 

I don't think I've ever had any issue akin to the OP's problem. Sometimes I do think "I should really try that game again/give it another shot" ... but then the thought fades a few minutes later and I forget all about it. I have no guilt in that regard, nor do I buy sequels to games I don't like/didn't play.

Edited December 23, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Amentep]

I really, really enjoyed Tomb Raider - jumping around, solving puzzles and shooting stuff. I bought Tomb Raider II and didn't like it. I went ahead and got Tomb Raider III hoping it'd be more like the first one. Didn't like it either and haven't had anything else to do with the series. That's about as close as I've come to buying the sequel of a game I didn't like, I think.

 

I never beat God of War - I had the same revelation that entrerix had, only about half-way through the game. Can't see a point in getting any of the sequels as it seems to be more of the same (although perhaps more ridiculous).

 

That said if a sequel appeals to me enough, I'll get it even if I didn't play the first game.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Amentep

[LadyCrimson]

That said if a sequel appeals to me enough, I'll get it even if I didn't play the first game.

Yeah, I'm willing to do that too...especially if it's a sequel to an old game where I probably don't want to play the older game anyway, but the newer version I might.

 

I mostly just meant if I didn't like a game I won't buy a sequel just because it's a sequel & everyone says it's great. There's also very few series that I'll buy only because of that, even if I did like the previous games. Diablo3 will fit into that category at this point tho....but if for some reason I don't like D3 all that much, I won't buy Diablo4 when (you know it'll happen) it comes out 15 years later.

Edited December 23, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Orogun01]

Comic strips and comic books are older than radio and television and arguably dramas in both of the latter two formats have a better chance of being seen as art than any in the former two. Comic strips didn't even start off as entertainment for children - it was that (oft forgotten) family entertainment. Adventure strips, romances, gag strips and dramas - they all populated the early newspaper page attempting to provide something for everyone. The comic strips' ties into panel gags in older magazines even belies a more adult origin.

 

"Comics" problem is that they marginalized themselves (in the US at least and partially out of necessity). Note that any book that originally was published in paperback form (a form arising in the 1950s and as opposed to being serialized in a magazine or appearing first in hardback) was considered "trashy", so the problem isn't really format but perception (nowadays, the $12 trade paper back is the ideal for anything but the most likely sellers as its a profitable product*).

Comics by themselves and out of the comic strips were targeted towards a younger audience. The problem has always been perception, that's what needs to change; comics had The Sandman as which was treated as a serious book. Even though it was changed afterwards to make sure that no other comic would receive the award, it's that kind of rejection by the the established institutions that have turned comics into their own institution. Same with games.

Even still the classical arts have struggled with modern variations - there are many who wouldn't class an abstract artist as really being art, for example. I personally struggle with considering something like Duchamps' Fountain as art even if I intellectually understand the point of the piece, the emotive part of me that wants to connect with such a work refuses. I absolutely can't get behind the comic panel pop art of Roy Lichenstein because I don't think that portion of his work is properly transformative enough.

I'm one of those people, abstract expressionism is a piece of crap, I specially hate Duchamps, Warhol and Pollock. Despite this being a low point in art, movements come and go and now we are moving towards more elegant, classical and at the same time technical forms of art. Probably as a reaction to the modernists ideals of originality and content over elegance and aesthetics.

Which kind of leads me into games; most games visual representation doesn't match the dynamics of a painting, a photograph or a film. The stories aren't complex enough generally speaking to compare with other narrative arts. The very fact that - even if a game was of the highest artistic value - the experiencing person has to play the game in order to find the art** will make it a tough nut to crack in terms of artistic merit (at least beyond those already inclined to see/experience the medium).

 

In this sense I suppose I've never had any problem with spending my time and money on games provided I get something I enjoy out of it. So I can't say that I feel that I have "game shame", although occasionally the rare occasion I rather vitriolically dislike some game makes me think I'm spending to much time holding a negative passion against something.

 

*Arguably, the commercial & disposable intentions of a new medium work against the majority seeing it as art which may explain why the early (commercial) years of any medium are so sparsely populated with well regarded works

 

**interestingly, classical art has been slowly bringing in ideas of making the individual a part of the art itself something already achieved in a some way in games

Another point in which I find myself agreeing with you, specially the medium part. It's one of the reasons why I believe that games can't be considered art, they don't grow outside of their format and depend solely on the commercial aspects for promotion.

[Amentep]

I tend to give certain people/teams/company some benefit of the doubt on sequels or new games. But if bad games kind of use up that goodwill then its hard for me to go back to buying games from that group even if its a sequel to a game I liked.

[Purkake]

If that's the case, why does it matter which is seen as a more "noble" pursuit?

Because they are considered more established and because we have grown to believe that they create a more integral person. Games and comics are relatively new and still have to prove themselves; namely produce remarkable work that transcends boundaries and breaks into the mainstream. They both share the same beginning since they both were conceived as children's entertainment that grew as the children grew into adults and sought more mature content.

Truth is that just because one person watches the whole Rambo movies, reads the Twilight series or listen to Vanilla Ice, doesn't make them any more knowledgeable or integral. There is work that should be taken purely at entertainment value and there work with serious artistic value. Same is true for games, problem is that it's a hard medium to promote and break into the mainstream. On the other hand there are very few games with real artistic value, so we may be lacking in serious content.

That's not what I asked. I meant why does it matter to you?

 

It's the character(s) and the story that make TLJ, not the gameplay or puzzle design.

You got burnt by the rubber ducky, didn't you?

Never played it, I experienced it via a let's play.

[Orogun01]

If that's the case, why does it matter which is seen as a more "noble" pursuit?

Because they are considered more established and because we have grown to believe that they create a more integral person. Games and comics are relatively new and still have to prove themselves; namely produce remarkable work that transcends boundaries and breaks into the mainstream. They both share the same beginning since they both were conceived as children's entertainment that grew as the children grew into adults and sought more mature content.

Truth is that just because one person watches the whole Rambo movies, reads the Twilight series or listen to Vanilla Ice, doesn't make them any more knowledgeable or integral. There is work that should be taken purely at entertainment value and there work with serious artistic value. Same is true for games, problem is that it's a hard medium to promote and break into the mainstream. On the other hand there are very few games with real artistic value, so we may be lacking in serious content.

That's not what I asked. I meant why does it matter to you?

 

I doesn't, I have no such shame. My beef is more with the lack of actual serious games and the lack of interest amongst the industry to produce them.

[Purkake]

It's not that there's a lack of interest, but there's a lack of resources. You can make a crazy indie movie with very minimal resources, making a game, especially alone, requires a lot of skill and time and even then it won't be near anything you see selling for $60.

 

Basically you need funding and people who fund you don't like taking risks. (which isn't because they are evil or bad, but because their purpose is turning a profit, not charity)

Edited December 23, 2010 by Purkake

[HoonDing]

Never played it, I experienced it via a let's play.

Son, I am disappoint.

[Purkake]

The play-y part seemed pretty tedious, but it's still a great story with fun characters. I'm not a big fan of nonsensical adventure game puzzles.

[HoonDing]

There's nothing nonsensical about TLJ puzzles, save for the rubber ducky they're all quite logical and well-thought out, like the huge island puzzle & the ones where you need to use the potions.

 

Broken Sword: shadow of the Templars & Smoking Mirror, now those are something else (not to mention they include some actiony quick-time events).

[Purkake]

Perhaps your grasp for the nonsensical has been honed over the years of playing Sierra games.

[Orogun01]

It's not that there's a lack of interest, but there's a lack of resources. You can make a crazy indie movie with very minimal resources, making a game, especially alone, requires a lot of skill and time and even then it won't be near anything you see selling for $60.

 

Basically you need funding and people who fund you don't like taking risks. (which isn't because they are evil or bad, but because their purpose is turning a profit, not charity)

No, I believe that there is a lack of interest. Since this bears much similarity to the movie industry I will put an example, for every guaranteed blockbuster that a film company makes theres is at least three flukes that they finance to see if they pan out. This gives new talent a chance to be discovered and to profess their skill, for every three major movies that a director may have they make an artistic one where they risk it for the sake of doing the film. These films are financed because of the names on it, usually well established actors and directors who liked the script and would like to see the movie made. All done without any prospects at the box office, they are dedicated to making that film some to the extent of accepting cuts on their salary.

I see no such commitment from the directors and the people in the industry. I'll admit that games are made for an audience and that it plays a big part on the development procedure. But most of the time there seems to be a clear distinction made by developers "If you want to make games for yourself go indie, if you take the resources of others you have to make their game".

[Purkake]

There is still the fact that any Joe with a (relatively cheap) camera can make a movie and get attention/awards/whatever, while going indie requires a lot of time and you are still limited in your scope.

 

Also, the gaming public doesn't know or care about "star developers".

[entrerix]

Also, the gaming public doesn't know or care about "star developers".

 

 

this is becoming less and less true every year though.

 

Cliff bleszinki, shigeru miyamoto, hideo kojima, etc, and some studios are getting the same type of recognition as a named director of film might, ie bioware is getting a major reputation amongst mainstream gamers because of mass effect. its not hard to imagine in a few years a studio like bioware getting the chance to make a riskier game because they can sell a certain % of copies simply because the box says "biowares next game" on it.

[Thorton_AP]

There is a world of difference in sheer asthetics between an indie game and an indie film, when comparing to their mainstream blockbusters.

 

An indie movie still contains real people in it and a well done indie movie doesn't have markedly different looks to them than a "blockbuster" sans things like special effects.

 

 

That's not to say an indie game can't be successful (many are) but from a general observation point of view there's a ton of difference between how A Big Fat Greek Wedding compares to other movies, compared to Minecraft.

[Orogun01]

There is still the fact that any Joe with a (relatively cheap) camera can make a movie and get attention/awards/whatever, while going indie requires a lot of time and you are still limited in your scope.

 

Also, the gaming public doesn't know or care about "star developers".

As enterix said there are those; particularly the BW, that have become a brand. I see no reason why they wouldn't use their name power to push something a little more innovative, specially when they have such great IPs on their back-pocket to fall back in case of a failure. In which case the reception would be a sound "now they can go back to making ME" from it's community, which is one of the main points of criticism when it comes to BW: it listens too much too it's audience.

The reason for the lack of risk I don't know, my guess would be pressures from the publisher and since a director it's not indispensable when it comes to developing a game (seeing as the star power lies with the team name) they may be reluctant to push for a new IP. Despite the fact that Indie games have been steadily breaking into the market as successes.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Orogun01

[Purkake]

Really? Do you think that Joe at the gamestop knows who Bioware or Cliffy B are?

 

You are giving them way too much credit, most of the gamers probably don't go on gaming boards and buy games by the franchise(and marketing).

[Orogun01]

Really? Do you think that Joe at the gamestop knows who Bioware or Cliffy B are?

 

You are giving them way too much credit, most of the gamers probably don't go on gaming boards and buy games by the franchise(and marketing).

Judging from the huge advertisement campaign made for both DA and ME I think that they have broke some ground when it comes to reaching an audience. Plus there is a flood of people on the Bioboards that came after these two games. I would risk to say that most gamers look to the hype and publicity of AAA games before buying, since none of us want to make the mistake of buying a crappy game. Selling the brand name (dev's team name) as an assurance of the product has become something of a practice. Don't we see a lot of "from the makers of" when it comes to launching new IPs?

[Thorton_AP]

I do hope the success of games like Minecraft can help convince devs that money into graphics isn't necessarily that important.

 

Due to the technical differences though, I really think that indie games suffer from a larger disadvantage than an indie movie would. Making a game for $60k is basically paying 1 guy for a year to work on a game.

[Purkake]

Really? Do you think that Joe at the gamestop knows who Bioware or Cliffy B are?

 

You are giving them way too much credit, most of the gamers probably don't go on gaming boards and buy games by the franchise(and marketing).

Judging from the huge advertisement campaign made for both DA and ME I think that they have broke some ground when it comes to reaching an audience. Plus there is a flood of people on the Bioboards that came after these two games. I would risk to say that most gamers look to the hype and publicity of AAA games before buying, since none of us want to make the mistake of buying a crappy game. Selling the brand name (dev's team name) as an assurance of the product has become something of a practice. Don't we see a lot of "from the makers of" when it comes to launching new IPs?

The advertising campaign was for DA and ME respectively, not for Bioware itself.

 

Another question is, would that audience actually want anything more artsy or different instead of more of the same?

[Orogun01]

Did we not get a "from the makers of Mass Effect" when DA came out? The industry has realized that it's easier to market a game when a company's star power it's behind it. It's both a campaign for the game and a tip to the quality of the game (developers) It's a very common advertisement tactic, elevate the product by paying tribute to the star.

 

I don't think that it's about what the audience wants, in my mind that is what has held any development of the medium as an art. The irony of course is that a lot of the people that want the same games; and don't know the first thing about art, are the ones pushing for games to get treated as an artistic medium. I think that there should be a level of compromise, you give the audience entertainment but not at the cost of your personal vision. Hideo Kojima has been able to do this quite well and find financial success.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Orogun01

[Purkake]

There's a bit of a difference between "from the makers of Mass Effect" and "from Bioware", goes back to my franchise theory. Bet they would have loved to call it Mass Effect: Dragon Age

 

It may not be about what the audience wants, but they are the ones buying it, often instead of another competing product. I think we need more niche-ization(yes, I just made up a word), where you market certain products at a certain segment of the market. This is happening a little, but because of the videogames' problem of needing an ever-bigger budget and thus even more sales to make a profit, everyone aims to make a blockbuster.

[Orogun01]

There's a bit of a difference between "from the makers of Mass Effect" and "from Bioware", goes back to my franchise theory. Bet they would have loved to call it Mass Effect: Dragon Age

 

It may not be about what the audience wants, but they are the ones buying it, often instead of another competing product. I think we need more niche-ization(yes, I just made up a word), where you market certain products at a certain segment of the market. This is happening a little, but because of the videogames' problem of needing an ever-bigger budget and thus even more sales to make a profit, everyone aims to make a blockbuster.

 

Same difference between Natalie Portman nominated for a Golden Globe and the Black Swan, but that's never stopped a film to put their nominations on their tv spots. Games are the same, remember "The much awaited sequel to game of the year Fallout 3". It's the ethos, when we go to buy we have an assurance that it comes from a good source and the risk it's diminished.

 

The fact that video games budgets are ever growing is what I consider to be the main obstacle for more "artsy" games. It seems that every game has to come up with better graphics and engine than the previous one; the shiny effect, which raises the budgets and the development time. The fact of the matter is that if the blockbuster games don't come up with these new ideas they are never seen by the mainstream, because unlike movies you can't distribute games outside of their format (via TV) like movies. Thus a series of obscure games who are the true innovators whose names are only paid tribute by someone having an argument over some AAA game whose "new" tech comes from those games.

Considering that the artistry of video games is in it's design more than it's content, the jewels of our medium are becoming lost to us (with exceptions) The best analogy I could make would be if Citizen Kane was released, a complete box office failure; then another movie with the same techniques becomes a hit and it's regarded as the innovator.

[Purkake]

Nothing is becoming lost. I guess we'll just have to reach the graphics plateau. A lot of games are already going with a distinct art style instead of focusing on more realistic graphics and if this console generation continues for a year or so, there is no other direction to go anyway. The budgets will either implode or someone will realize that it is not a sustainable business model at some point.