Let's say there was a movie critic in your local newspaper. That movie critic had never seen Citizen Kane. Well, what kind of a movie critic is that? Whatever they have to say really doesn't count now, does it?
Let's say there was a video game reviewer. They had never played Zelda or Doom. Well, whatever they have to say doesn't mean shit, now does it?
Actually, it does. As long as the critic seem to know what he is talking (writing) about I don't care if he hasn't seen the one specific peace of mediums history. Also last time I checked, the "Citicen Kane of video games" wasn't decided yet, but apparently you are such a master of all things games that you can name it, them.
Consider our friend Timo. He is a professional physicist, for reals. If he tells me something about physics, I just take for granted whatever he says. I'm not going to argue with him because I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about. He could very well tell me something that is not true, and I may believe it. But I know that I do not know enough to question his knowledge on that topic, so I don't.
Funny thing about physics is that it's a field of science. When you are talking about physics there is two possibilities, you are talking true, or you are talking bullshit. Also there are some topics where the truth value is unknow, but you got my point, physics have little room fro subjective opinions.
So now consider the position of Rym and I. We have played games for many moons. Many more games than most people. We have played games from all of history, from the old to the new. Games of every genre, every system, every era, format, you name it. Our experience is vast. We learn some things in the course of play, but we have no validation for them. They are our own discoveries. Then we discover game theory. We read books, such as that one, and it turns out that the academic research in those books almost entirely agrees with the things we have discovered on our own. So we study it and keep playing games to vastly expand our knowledge in this area.
hey look it's the old magic term of "game theory", it has a word theory in it so it makes you sound smart. Game theory studies specific systems it calls games and yes such systems are found in most video games. Does this mean then that study of game theory is study of video games? Fuck no. Just because C includes B doesn't mean that C==B, that should be obvious for anyone to see.
Then some punk kids who haven't played half the games we have played or studied anything at all come try to tell us what's what. How is that any different than me telling Timo he's wrong about something related to physics?
Remember what I said about physics being science? I know that everyone does not agree with me when I say that video games are art, but probably most people agree that video games are closer to arts than science.
We suggest you read the book, because that is a shortcut. It is an elevator that will teach you almost everything we know about games. That will bring you up to our level where we can speak the same language and have a useful discussion. Instead, this same argument goes around 100 times where we say the same things every time because it is very difficult for you to learn anything from a post in a forum.
I'm going to read the book at some point, but not so I could have elitist wank with you, or even arument, I'll read it because I like video games, I'm interested of them and I want to learn and know about all the different elements of them.
And going back to the movie critics, Scott the way you go on and on about games every time we talk about video games makes you sound like a movie critic who watches the films without any sound.
I wouldn't trust a movie reviewer or critic for shit who hadn't seen, say, Citizen Kane or The Godfather. It belies their ability to compare any movie to another to have no experience with a foundational work of their medium.
Videogames are so young and so new, that I wouldn't trust ANYone to critically analyze gamse who hadn't ever played, say:
1. at least one Atari 2600 game 2. Super Mario 1 3. Doom 4. An NES Megaman since Megaman 1 5. Sim City 6. Tetris 7. at least one rhythm game 8. Donkey Kong 9. TIE Fighter or X-Wing 10. at least one MMORPG
1. at least one Atari 2600 game 2. Super Mario 1 3. Doom 4. An NES Megaman since Megaman 1 5. Sim City 6. Tetris 7. at least one rhythm game 8. Donkey Kong 9. TIE Fighter or X-Wing 10. at least one MMORPG
This list means nothing on it's own. Sure reasoning for the games to be on that list could be deduced, but I'm just a random joe and my deductions mean nothing at all. So why these items on the list? I'd like to especially know why most items on the list are specific games, but then there are things like "at least one rhythm game", what's up with that shit?
This list means nothing on it's own. Sure reasoning for the games to be on that list could be deduced, but I'm just a random joe and my deductions mean nothing at all. So why these items on the list? I'd like to especially know why most items on the list are specific games, but then there are things like "at least one rhythm game", what's up with that shit?
One of the reasons is obviously: Rym can check off each point. Second reason is probably just passing knowledge about a diverse number of platforms, genres, and playstyles. Funny enough, no specific mention of any rts!
Rym doesn't personally enjoy rtses so obviously there is none on this totally objective list.
An RTS should definitely be on the list as well. I'd probably say Starcraft 1 at minimum.
It's by no means a complete list. But if you pretend to discuss videogames in a semi-professional way, you'd better have at least covered these basics and then some.
That list... by the time I was... well DDR and MMOs came out later in life. But other than that, by the time I was 12? Not that the list matters. Nobody argues with me so I'll just assume I'm right on all the things.
I'm pretty sure I have most of the list handled, except of the x-wing/TIE fighter part. So if I ever pretend to be expert when I talk about fly shoot space -games you can call my bullshit.
1. Leisure Suit Larry 2. Star Wars Tie fighter arcade game 3. That Burger King Xbox game 4. Sonic and Knuckles special chaos emerald stages that you unlock by inserting different games into it
My list would probably be the same thing, replace Atari 2600 with Intellivision so I can check it off. I feel like there have been several attempts to build a canon of games before, magazines love lists.
This hits most of the same beats as Rym's list, but also includes Zork. I'd say take your pick of text adventure or graphical adventure game and go for it.
Scott, you got owned by Churba pretty hard, but there is a point I would like to make: It appears that you are very, very quick to assume that you are on an objectively correct position and someone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong (as very evident in your "1 + 1 = 2" analogy). However, what we are discussing here is not in any way objective. It is a subjective opinion on game design. That includes your subjective opinion.
Just because we have differing opinions on the statefulness of competitive games, on how to quantify "fair" in a game, or how to use achievements in video games, doesn't make you right and us wrong. It simply means that we disagree on it.
Can you explain for me, in proof form, why you are correct? Up to this point, and especially after that 1+1=2 analogy, I need some sort of evidence to show that Non-stateful games are better. In the 1+1=2 analogy, I can prove why that is correct.
Let me put it like this. The reason that you know that Timo knows his shit is that he has proven it time and time again, and he can show you his work and detail his steps along the way. If he says that something is true, he can surely walk you through why it's true. It just saves time to assume he's right. If you call him on his shit, he can prove it.
You evidently cannot. You're just making a statement and calling it true, without a way to back is up, and then failing to provide evidence when called out, instead recounting past experiences as fact, not opinion.
This is an opinionated discussion. It's subjective. You cannot argue from a place of higher knowledge on this issue because there really isn't one. Experience in this case will only give you personal knowledge of your opinion, and it will help you form a more detailed one, but it's always just an opinion.
tl;dr - Show us proof that you are right like every other science field, or stop arguing that you're right.
Comments
And going back to the movie critics, Scott the way you go on and on about games every time we talk about video games makes you sound like a movie critic who watches the films without any sound.
Me: 1 + 1 = 2
They: It feels to me like 1 + 1 = 3. I've taken one and one and put them together to make 3 before. I also like it better if 1 and 1 is 3.
You: They sound right to me!
Fuck. That. Noise.
Videogames are so young and so new, that I wouldn't trust ANYone to critically analyze gamse who hadn't ever played, say:
1. at least one Atari 2600 game
2. Super Mario 1
3. Doom
4. An NES Megaman since Megaman 1
5. Sim City
6. Tetris
7. at least one rhythm game
8. Donkey Kong
9. TIE Fighter or X-Wing
10. at least one MMORPG
I have also designed, as of this moment, three games. I hearby declare myself superior to Scott.
All Scotts must bow.
Second reason is probably just passing knowledge about a diverse number of platforms, genres, and playstyles. Funny enough, no specific mention of any rts!
It's by no means a complete list. But if you pretend to discuss videogames in a semi-professional way, you'd better have at least covered these basics and then some.
That'll complete the list for me, though.
This just keeps getting better and better.
What the "magic" age? At least 27?
Do I need to drink Mountain Dew?
Is it OK if I have a girlfriend?
2. Star Wars Tie fighter arcade game
3. That Burger King Xbox game
4. Sonic and Knuckles special chaos emerald stages that you unlock by inserting different games into it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_canon
This hits most of the same beats as Rym's list, but also includes Zork. I'd say take your pick of text adventure or graphical adventure game and go for it.
Just because we have differing opinions on the statefulness of competitive games, on how to quantify "fair" in a game, or how to use achievements in video games, doesn't make you right and us wrong. It simply means that we disagree on it.
Can you explain for me, in proof form, why you are correct? Up to this point, and especially after that 1+1=2 analogy, I need some sort of evidence to show that Non-stateful games are better. In the 1+1=2 analogy, I can prove why that is correct.
Let me put it like this. The reason that you know that Timo knows his shit is that he has proven it time and time again, and he can show you his work and detail his steps along the way. If he says that something is true, he can surely walk you through why it's true. It just saves time to assume he's right. If you call him on his shit, he can prove it.
You evidently cannot. You're just making a statement and calling it true, without a way to back is up, and then failing to provide evidence when called out, instead recounting past experiences as fact, not opinion.
This is an opinionated discussion. It's subjective. You cannot argue from a place of higher knowledge on this issue because there really isn't one. Experience in this case will only give you personal knowledge of your opinion, and it will help you form a more detailed one, but it's always just an opinion.
tl;dr - Show us proof that you are right like every other science field, or stop arguing that you're right.