surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Hopefully we'll see some more interesting and smarter commentaries in games once some of the online platforms evolve beyond the age of Flash. Perhaps after some of the new online tech like Unity, or Instantaction's use-pc-hardware-instead-of-streaming, gets adopted we'll see some more games with a bite that don't look like crap. And if they get a good reception, perhaps bigger studios will dare to take the leap as well? One day..
Amen. This was a phenomenal read and I can't agree more. If we ever want to make video games into something more than a pastime for the lazy and unemployed we need to do something about it, we need to make these games into something that we can look back at as something along the lines of the way scholars look back to Shakespeare rather than the way we look back at cave drawings.
But whatever, Studio 60 was an awesome show.
But whatever, Studio 60 was an awesome show.
That was an interesting and thought provoking read. It is true though, the games industry is completely spineless.
What really needs to happen is all forms of entertainment need to be stripped away and then we'd actually care what's happening in the world around us.
We need to stop relaxing and start kicking ass.
You want a real challenge? Put down the TV/Game controller and try fixing the world around you.
This is me talking to me, by the way. Not directed at the author, the readers or any other comments.
We need to stop relaxing and start kicking ass.
You want a real challenge? Put down the TV/Game controller and try fixing the world around you.
This is me talking to me, by the way. Not directed at the author, the readers or any other comments.
ralphster is an example of that twelve year old kid.
On the topic, I'll have to agree. Nothing has really changed from the past decade in gaming in terms of internal advancement of the genre.
With guts and risk comes the potential loss of money and success and thus developers these days don't want to risk it. Publishers are not interested in backing up such an idealism, if it doesn't carry immediate benefits and a large portion of it's target audience will complain with whatever is uncomfortable (See: Medal of Honor) which takes down the confidence in such an idea.
On the topic, I'll have to agree. Nothing has really changed from the past decade in gaming in terms of internal advancement of the genre.
With guts and risk comes the potential loss of money and success and thus developers these days don't want to risk it. Publishers are not interested in backing up such an idealism, if it doesn't carry immediate benefits and a large portion of it's target audience will complain with whatever is uncomfortable (See: Medal of Honor) which takes down the confidence in such an idea.
Great article! I tip my hat to you.
EVERY industry has this problem of risk aversion. History has proven only individuals and small, tight groups can create great art. The more fingers you have in the pie, the more you fuck that pie up.
Also, PUPPIES!!!
EVERY industry has this problem of risk aversion. History has proven only individuals and small, tight groups can create great art. The more fingers you have in the pie, the more you fuck that pie up.
Also, PUPPIES!!!
Problem is when the industry does show a spine, gamers and game journalists also have a habit of whipping out their nostalgia checklists to see if the game has met all its requirements.
You have people that hold Silent Hill 2 as the standard of the Silent Hill series and want every game in that franchise to bring back the feeling of that exact game. But that was Silent Hill 2. Silent Hill is kinda like the Twilight Zone of video games. Every character that goes to Silent Hill faces their personal demons in a different way based upon who the are.
BUT DON'T YOU DARE CHANGE HOW PLAYS.
I liked Shattered Memories, for example, because Harry Mason wasn't magically proficient with guns and crowbars. The man is is a writer, he has no training with guns or hand-to-hand combat. When he sees a monster, he should run like hell.
But the twelve year-old wants him to fight back and overcome great odds physically. You know what? Leave that shit to Resident Evil, let Silent Hill redefine how things unfold based upon who visits the place. A marine can and should be able to be combat, capable, but a sixteen year-old girl is another matter entirely.
And we do this to all kinds of franchises that may want to grow beyond a particular definition of gameplay. Final Fantasy goes this route all the time and people always complain that isn't like this or that Final Fantasy.
And yet, Mario is always Mario and people will complain about that, too, but the second you change what he does its out with the torches and pitchforks. At least initially it is.
You have people that hold Silent Hill 2 as the standard of the Silent Hill series and want every game in that franchise to bring back the feeling of that exact game. But that was Silent Hill 2. Silent Hill is kinda like the Twilight Zone of video games. Every character that goes to Silent Hill faces their personal demons in a different way based upon who the are.
BUT DON'T YOU DARE CHANGE HOW PLAYS.
I liked Shattered Memories, for example, because Harry Mason wasn't magically proficient with guns and crowbars. The man is is a writer, he has no training with guns or hand-to-hand combat. When he sees a monster, he should run like hell.
But the twelve year-old wants him to fight back and overcome great odds physically. You know what? Leave that shit to Resident Evil, let Silent Hill redefine how things unfold based upon who visits the place. A marine can and should be able to be combat, capable, but a sixteen year-old girl is another matter entirely.
And we do this to all kinds of franchises that may want to grow beyond a particular definition of gameplay. Final Fantasy goes this route all the time and people always complain that isn't like this or that Final Fantasy.
And yet, Mario is always Mario and people will complain about that, too, but the second you change what he does its out with the torches and pitchforks. At least initially it is.
The game industry is spineless, but so is the film industry. The most thought provoking movies are usually made independently. Now, sure, we can make an independent game but it'll look like shit to the average casual or mainstream gamer. The difference between the two is that for 50,000 dollars you've got yourself an indie movie with real people. Ya know, the type that look real.
But for 50,000 dollars you don't get that from a game. Usually you get crude or even ugly graphics, and even if you get clean and decent graphics, you're not going to stand out to some frat boy who sees games like Gears of War and Call of Duty on the shelves.
I personally think that someday, when making realistic looking games is cheap and easily doable, we'll have our risks taken. Why? Because there won't really be a risk. I just don't see today's big publishers changing anytime soon. It's unfortunate, but we'll get there someday.
I just hope it's while I'm still alive.
But for 50,000 dollars you don't get that from a game. Usually you get crude or even ugly graphics, and even if you get clean and decent graphics, you're not going to stand out to some frat boy who sees games like Gears of War and Call of Duty on the shelves.
I personally think that someday, when making realistic looking games is cheap and easily doable, we'll have our risks taken. Why? Because there won't really be a risk. I just don't see today's big publishers changing anytime soon. It's unfortunate, but we'll get there someday.
I just hope it's while I'm still alive.
Oh, and guys: The corny comments about having to see Justin Beiber on here are just stupid and immature. He's a young kid getting paid millions to sing, not to mention there are plenty of girls his own age who would love to even be in the same room as him.
You wouldn't sing those songs if you could have what he has? I would in a heartbeat, except I can't sing nor do I look good to teenage girls.
In fact, I don't look good to anybody except my wife. What the fuck is that bitch smoking?
You wouldn't sing those songs if you could have what he has? I would in a heartbeat, except I can't sing nor do I look good to teenage girls.
In fact, I don't look good to anybody except my wife. What the fuck is that bitch smoking?
@The Silent Protagonist
Silent Hill 2 was great because it had a interesting and dark take on sexuality. You don't see that a lot in games.
Silent Hill 2 was great because it had a interesting and dark take on sexuality. You don't see that a lot in games.
Oh, and about idiot kids who equate chainsawing people in half as quality: They're no more wrong or right than you or I. They like what they like. If they enjoy it then it is quality to them.
Some people are happy with things the way they are, you know? Some would be perfectly content with better graphics every 5 or so years so long as the games that are released involve guns and shooting people with those guns.
Some people are happy with things the way they are, you know? Some would be perfectly content with better graphics every 5 or so years so long as the games that are released involve guns and shooting people with those guns.
@ mattrodroid: By 2020 they probably will be able to wipe your ass and feed you. But the part about the meaning of life? Nah.
An excellent read as always Mr. Kauz. Although I believe video game companies favor quality over commerce (Irrational, Bethesda, and Bioware are good examples) more often than movies and TV, there's an insane amount of ground to make up.
things come and go in waves. video games were huge, then the crash happened. then they got huge again, and i think they are getting close to being on a decline again.
In order for games to pose real thought-provoking questions to the gamer, the developer has to be willing to approach the subject of the question fully and without restraint. This seems obvious, but you don't seem to think much of Medal of Honor, which is precisely the game that will, more likely than not, usher in serious debate about the "War on Terror". Perhaps not in Medal of Honor itself, but certainly in the games following it - games where publishers will be more willing to allow the developers freedom to explore our conflict in the Middle East. Simply because Medal of Honor is the first mainstream game to even approach such a topic. In that regard, it's very much an important evolution in gaming - certainly more than a means to insult those uncomfortable with the subject matter.
I admire your spirit to challenge the mind, and to ask questions, but the ironic bit is that this could all lead to indoctrination on the other swing of the pendelum.
This is actually one of the first articles on DTOID that actually moved me...I mean, I've agreed with past blogs before, and can clearly understand the varying opinions of different bloggers on this site, but this article...I don't know. It made me finally open my eyes on a topic that I certainly did notice was a problem, but wasn't fully aware of how large it really was. This and the newest Jimpression definitely made me realize why I love DTOID each and every day. Well done, guys :D
I have a friend who has a philosophy degree and wants to teach philosophy. He is not a happy man. He sees the big lie of the world just like every philosopher from previous generations, till many generations after this universe is just a pile of broken ash.
And you want a videogame to challenge me? You have lost your damn mind.
And you want a videogame to challenge me? You have lost your damn mind.
I've been a long time lurker, now first time commenter, so before I say anything hi everyone.
The problem with pushing boundaries and actually advancing video games as an art form, is that we continue to treat them as "games". That may seem like an odd thing to say, but we as gamers and the rest of the buying public at large, expect that no matter what games deliver at least one thing, and that thing is fun. In order for games to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator, developers have to get cozy with the thought of games not always entertaining.
Movies, books, music, and every other artistic medium aren't afraid to push buttons, to make their public feel a little uncomfortable, or to make them think. Videogame devolopers embrace this idea to a point, but are still overly concerned with the thought of, "is what is going on right now fun?".
Silent Hill is the perfect example. I remember playing SH2 and thinking it would be great if there wasn't any combat in this game, but I'm sure Konami was thinking that combat is what makes the game fun. I really enjoyed Shattered Memories for that reason, although I wished it would have been a new entry in the series instead of a re-imagining.
Unfortunately, I don't think that developers are going to be ok with letting go of the idea of fun anytime soon, and I'm not saying that they should ever abandon it entirely. It just wouldn't make financial sense, and that's ultimately what they have to be concerned about.
The problem with pushing boundaries and actually advancing video games as an art form, is that we continue to treat them as "games". That may seem like an odd thing to say, but we as gamers and the rest of the buying public at large, expect that no matter what games deliver at least one thing, and that thing is fun. In order for games to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator, developers have to get cozy with the thought of games not always entertaining.
Movies, books, music, and every other artistic medium aren't afraid to push buttons, to make their public feel a little uncomfortable, or to make them think. Videogame devolopers embrace this idea to a point, but are still overly concerned with the thought of, "is what is going on right now fun?".
Silent Hill is the perfect example. I remember playing SH2 and thinking it would be great if there wasn't any combat in this game, but I'm sure Konami was thinking that combat is what makes the game fun. I really enjoyed Shattered Memories for that reason, although I wished it would have been a new entry in the series instead of a re-imagining.
Unfortunately, I don't think that developers are going to be ok with letting go of the idea of fun anytime soon, and I'm not saying that they should ever abandon it entirely. It just wouldn't make financial sense, and that's ultimately what they have to be concerned about.
Haha, I put Bieber in there for a very good reason. SNL used to have some of the best and brightest entertainers as guest hosts (though I do have to admit that I was really impressed that they had Betty White on...too bad that it took millions of votes from the public). Now we get people like Justin Bieber who can't act, can't make anyone laugh, and frankly has no value outside of a bunch of people who think he is cute. It's depressing, not only that he was selected for the show, but that people watched.
@doos: I agree...to some extent. Entertainment will always be here, and people will always use it as a replacement for actually doing anything. The same will always be true of games, That's why I think games are in such a fantastic position to say, "Hey, I'm glad that you're playing our game, and I hope you keep playing our games, but when you're finished, you might want to think about X." Don't need games to save the world or anything, but any game that makes us change our behavior for the better after we put down the controller is a pretty amazing achievement.
@The Silent Protagonist: I absolutely love Shattered Memories, and I agree that it was a game that took a lot of great risks, and it's a game that really made me think. It really brought to light a lot of the horrors of raising a teenage girl in our modern times, and I really, really applaud the game for it. I wish the nightmare sections had been more fun, but it's still a wonderful videogame.
@doos: I agree...to some extent. Entertainment will always be here, and people will always use it as a replacement for actually doing anything. The same will always be true of games, That's why I think games are in such a fantastic position to say, "Hey, I'm glad that you're playing our game, and I hope you keep playing our games, but when you're finished, you might want to think about X." Don't need games to save the world or anything, but any game that makes us change our behavior for the better after we put down the controller is a pretty amazing achievement.
@The Silent Protagonist: I absolutely love Shattered Memories, and I agree that it was a game that took a lot of great risks, and it's a game that really made me think. It really brought to light a lot of the horrors of raising a teenage girl in our modern times, and I really, really applaud the game for it. I wish the nightmare sections had been more fun, but it's still a wonderful videogame.
I wish games really had this sort of critical meaning. It's not uncommon for a game to hint at questioning how America (or the world) does/do things, but it's so rare that they actually deliver on that theme. Infamous, Metal Gear Solid, Assassin's Creed...all big names, all had that potential, none had the balls to see the theme through to the end.
Bravo Mr. Kauz, you've expressed something i've thought about the games industry better than i ever could hope to achieve, this article should be a mandatory read for anyone from gamers to devs.
@Silent Protagonist: I tip my hat to you too sir.
@Super Drybones: maybe, but the point is that fans got so damn fixated with that game that everything after it is never good enough, SH: Homecoming's combat was "too good for a SH game", SH: Shattered Memories "shouldn't have lacked combat at all", SH3 "wasn't as good", you see where i'm going?, it's the same for almost any franchise, "no Zelda will surpass Ocarina of Time", "RE2 was the best, then it went to shit" .
On the other hand the industry seems to be unable to analyze and realize what it's doing right and replicate it in other games, you mentioned that SH2 had an "interesting and dark take on sexuality" which is true, but just like you said, that's something very rare, even Konami itself seems to have missed that and instead all they seem to have taken from SH2 are the busty nurses to the new entries on the IP.
I swear sometimes i think i'm mentally challenged or some kind of freak for actually enjoying SH:H, SH:SM and SH2 just as much for the good points each had, but then i realize it doesn't matter because if i am at least i'm happy.
@Silent Protagonist: I tip my hat to you too sir.
@Super Drybones: maybe, but the point is that fans got so damn fixated with that game that everything after it is never good enough, SH: Homecoming's combat was "too good for a SH game", SH: Shattered Memories "shouldn't have lacked combat at all", SH3 "wasn't as good", you see where i'm going?, it's the same for almost any franchise, "no Zelda will surpass Ocarina of Time", "RE2 was the best, then it went to shit" .
On the other hand the industry seems to be unable to analyze and realize what it's doing right and replicate it in other games, you mentioned that SH2 had an "interesting and dark take on sexuality" which is true, but just like you said, that's something very rare, even Konami itself seems to have missed that and instead all they seem to have taken from SH2 are the busty nurses to the new entries on the IP.
I swear sometimes i think i'm mentally challenged or some kind of freak for actually enjoying SH:H, SH:SM and SH2 just as much for the good points each had, but then i realize it doesn't matter because if i am at least i'm happy.
This is the best community blog I've read yet. It makes me depressed on how slow the industry progresses.
After reading this, I have to say that I just think it's... obnoxious.
It reeks of unnecessary, overblown social commentary that just doesn't have any realistic bearing that I can decipher.
What is this "risk" factor in this industry? Why are people always calling for it, and demanding that "risks be taken"? Risks are being taken all the time. We're fucking SURROUNDED by risks; near every capitalistic venture in this industry constitutes a risk. In fact, at the moment, I'd say the risks are higher than ever with the amount of companies in competition and the dollars being shelled out in development. There are inventive, risky moves being made all the time, but they're tossed out or maybe just easily forgotten in the seemingly ever-constant lack of satisfaction in the game consumer market.
Risk and innovation surround and penetrate this industry perhaps more than any other out there; there are advances being made all the time, ideas being tested, and concepts being floated. There isn't a day that goes by that somebody doesn't have an idea or two that stretches the boundaries. You want risk? Nintendo's Wii and now the 3DS are incredibly risky concepts, one of which has already paid dividends beyond even the wildest of dreams. You want risk? World of Warcraft seemed like a completely insane proposition at the time and has become a self-regulating money-printing machine. You want risk? Innovative or simply imaginative titles like Little Big Planet, Scribblenauts, Mass Effect, Brutal Legend, or the upcoming Kirby's Epic Yarn, and more. You want risk? Splinter Cell: Conviction constituted an entire re-imagining of the franchise design philosophy up to that point, taking it in a completely new direction. That's just a meager handful from the last couple of years, not even vaguely representative of the kind of aggressive changes pursued in older games through patching or through modding communities.
It seems to me that this article isn't asking for risk so much as begging for a change in writing philosophy, and it's a change that isn't even necessary. We live out the entirety of our lives in the mundane; every once in a great while there is a jewel of a moment that has some sort of lasting, penetrating effect, and then that moment is gone, suspended alone again in a sea of monotony, vaguely connected in some kind of cosmic connect-the-dots that we call our life. So it is with all things, including all arms of the entertainment industry.
Asking for, or rather condemning due to a perceived lack of, "risk" is a bunch of self indulgent crap. Not every thinker will be an Isaac Newton, an Aristotle, or an Einstein. Not every book will be a Lord of the Rings, or a Dune. Not every movie will be a Full Metal Jacket or a Terminator. Why in the Hell should we expect more from games? You have a Half-Life here, a Metal Gear there, and the occasional Valkyria Chronicles to round out the mix. Get these things into perspective, because what you’re experiencing is the very essence of history repeating itself in an easily observed algorithm. Look to the universe; how much empty space to every spatial anomaly, star cluster, planet body, or galaxy?
I don't know about any of you, but I don't need a game making stunning social commentary to me about the Iraq War or most things, really. I get plenty of that just talking to people or keeping up on current events. What I want from most my videogames, both as a consumer and as a person, is an engaging, and more importantly fun experience. Every now and then something deeper can be good, and there will always be games that represent these deeper philosophical designs, but most of the time it's just nice to jump around as Mega Man and blast the shit out of some Robot Masters. The games market overwhelmingly reflects that; for every Shadow of the Colossus you're gonna see 20 Mega Mans, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I also don’t think there’s anything expressly wrong with dreaming of a different ratio, but… keep on dreamin’.
It reeks of unnecessary, overblown social commentary that just doesn't have any realistic bearing that I can decipher.
What is this "risk" factor in this industry? Why are people always calling for it, and demanding that "risks be taken"? Risks are being taken all the time. We're fucking SURROUNDED by risks; near every capitalistic venture in this industry constitutes a risk. In fact, at the moment, I'd say the risks are higher than ever with the amount of companies in competition and the dollars being shelled out in development. There are inventive, risky moves being made all the time, but they're tossed out or maybe just easily forgotten in the seemingly ever-constant lack of satisfaction in the game consumer market.
Risk and innovation surround and penetrate this industry perhaps more than any other out there; there are advances being made all the time, ideas being tested, and concepts being floated. There isn't a day that goes by that somebody doesn't have an idea or two that stretches the boundaries. You want risk? Nintendo's Wii and now the 3DS are incredibly risky concepts, one of which has already paid dividends beyond even the wildest of dreams. You want risk? World of Warcraft seemed like a completely insane proposition at the time and has become a self-regulating money-printing machine. You want risk? Innovative or simply imaginative titles like Little Big Planet, Scribblenauts, Mass Effect, Brutal Legend, or the upcoming Kirby's Epic Yarn, and more. You want risk? Splinter Cell: Conviction constituted an entire re-imagining of the franchise design philosophy up to that point, taking it in a completely new direction. That's just a meager handful from the last couple of years, not even vaguely representative of the kind of aggressive changes pursued in older games through patching or through modding communities.
It seems to me that this article isn't asking for risk so much as begging for a change in writing philosophy, and it's a change that isn't even necessary. We live out the entirety of our lives in the mundane; every once in a great while there is a jewel of a moment that has some sort of lasting, penetrating effect, and then that moment is gone, suspended alone again in a sea of monotony, vaguely connected in some kind of cosmic connect-the-dots that we call our life. So it is with all things, including all arms of the entertainment industry.
Asking for, or rather condemning due to a perceived lack of, "risk" is a bunch of self indulgent crap. Not every thinker will be an Isaac Newton, an Aristotle, or an Einstein. Not every book will be a Lord of the Rings, or a Dune. Not every movie will be a Full Metal Jacket or a Terminator. Why in the Hell should we expect more from games? You have a Half-Life here, a Metal Gear there, and the occasional Valkyria Chronicles to round out the mix. Get these things into perspective, because what you’re experiencing is the very essence of history repeating itself in an easily observed algorithm. Look to the universe; how much empty space to every spatial anomaly, star cluster, planet body, or galaxy?
I don't know about any of you, but I don't need a game making stunning social commentary to me about the Iraq War or most things, really. I get plenty of that just talking to people or keeping up on current events. What I want from most my videogames, both as a consumer and as a person, is an engaging, and more importantly fun experience. Every now and then something deeper can be good, and there will always be games that represent these deeper philosophical designs, but most of the time it's just nice to jump around as Mega Man and blast the shit out of some Robot Masters. The games market overwhelmingly reflects that; for every Shadow of the Colossus you're gonna see 20 Mega Mans, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I also don’t think there’s anything expressly wrong with dreaming of a different ratio, but… keep on dreamin’.
Nice piece of writing.
I was one of the people, looking forward to what Atomic Games wanted to do with Six Days. As a gamer in his 30's I actually give a damn about what goes on in the world, its unfortunate that those outside of the industry, misunderstood their intentions or those of gamers. I was more disappointed with Konami, for not growing some balls and sticking to their guns with Atomic, and see the game released (its not like the catalogue is risky at all). The smaller developer loses out once more.
Its ironic that it takes the likes of EA, who have enough financial muscle and brass balls to try a similar thing with Medal of Honor. I knew it would draw the fire of those same objectionists to games doing anything other mediums do, but for once I'm glad EA are getting MoH to shelves, and will also buy it. I think what they have produced in single player will prove interesting, and its best to judge it then
Yes, the greatest shame of those in the power seats of this industry, is that they didn't get behind fellow developers and publishers, in times of great need such as this, when the non gaming, fox whipped vultures circle us and attack with next to no proof and hear say bs about a game. I still remember the poor chap on Fox News, coming out in defence of Mass Effect and getting a verbal beat down, when Bioware and MS should have been doing what he did. Where were they, or Peter Molyneux or Warren Spector (big smart industry names with good media training and knowledge of the industry)?
Putting out statements is the best we get (I'm glad EA responded to the MoH biz), but even that seems a bit pussy whipped and faceless. Get on the news and defend your product. I hope MoH does well, because we need game media that pushes the boundaries. A gamer that thinks about the world, after walking away from a game, is a richer one in my opinion. Bioshock was great at this, though in a made up world (made me check out Ayn Rand's works too). Its about time we see the same, from a game based in the real world events.
I was one of the people, looking forward to what Atomic Games wanted to do with Six Days. As a gamer in his 30's I actually give a damn about what goes on in the world, its unfortunate that those outside of the industry, misunderstood their intentions or those of gamers. I was more disappointed with Konami, for not growing some balls and sticking to their guns with Atomic, and see the game released (its not like the catalogue is risky at all). The smaller developer loses out once more.
Its ironic that it takes the likes of EA, who have enough financial muscle and brass balls to try a similar thing with Medal of Honor. I knew it would draw the fire of those same objectionists to games doing anything other mediums do, but for once I'm glad EA are getting MoH to shelves, and will also buy it. I think what they have produced in single player will prove interesting, and its best to judge it then
Yes, the greatest shame of those in the power seats of this industry, is that they didn't get behind fellow developers and publishers, in times of great need such as this, when the non gaming, fox whipped vultures circle us and attack with next to no proof and hear say bs about a game. I still remember the poor chap on Fox News, coming out in defence of Mass Effect and getting a verbal beat down, when Bioware and MS should have been doing what he did. Where were they, or Peter Molyneux or Warren Spector (big smart industry names with good media training and knowledge of the industry)?
Putting out statements is the best we get (I'm glad EA responded to the MoH biz), but even that seems a bit pussy whipped and faceless. Get on the news and defend your product. I hope MoH does well, because we need game media that pushes the boundaries. A gamer that thinks about the world, after walking away from a game, is a richer one in my opinion. Bioshock was great at this, though in a made up world (made me check out Ayn Rand's works too). Its about time we see the same, from a game based in the real world events.
@Blindfire: If you're fine with living out most of our entertainment in the mundane, that's fine. It's also the sort of philosophy that's allowed CBS's Big Brother to have its twelfth season. If asking for something better is obnoxious and self-indulgent to you, I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly sad.
Wow, and an excellent rebuttal, Blindfire. You actually create a more compelling argument. And on that note, I'm gonna go face-whip some zombies in Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin.
Thank you for the absolutely brilliant read. I remember being on the edge of my seat watching the opening of Studio 60 (being a long time West Wing fan) as that monologue played out. Rather than add my own thoughts, I plan to forward yours instead.
@Andrew Kauz,
I recognize that I don't have a choice in the matter. The fact is, the majority of entertainment as a whole will always be mundane. This isn't necessarily due to the fact that mundane sells, so much as the fact that there's just so much out there. I wish I had a figure to throw out, but take a moment to consider how many television programs are produced in a given year; how many new seasons of old series, how many new series brought to life or given a shot via pilot, and all that waits in the wings drawn up in scripting or just as concepts. And not just in the United States, but everywhere, all over the world.
I can not even remotely attempt to consume that much entertainment product in my entire life, and it only represents one year's worth. Imagine the amount produced during a lifetime of a single person; there are certainly going to be gems contained therein, but statistically speaking everything can't be good. In fact, I'd wager that the greater majority of it isn't all that palatable in general. Factor in personal taste, and the number of universally amazing content is marginalized even further. The very nature of our existence is that of mediocrity. Take a hard look at human lives; your own, or someone close to you. How many days are spent going through the motions, and how many are truly memorable because of some incredible discovery, either personal or universal; how many things have really moved you, and how many days in relation to that are basically marginalized by comparison? For me, I know that the day to day motions make up the majority of my life, and there are a few golden instances that break up that monotony.
Or how about the world around us? Brilliant strides in intellectual understanding of the world around us are not a dime-a-dozen, which is a painfully sad thing considering how many human beings are living on this planet as we speak, and how many have come before us.
Mediocrity, with brief, spellbinding moments of understanding or awareness, is just the nature of things. We can, and will, always demand more. The slightest taste of that sweet elixir, even by proxy, drives us to newer discoveries or intellectual heights. The reality, however, is that the majority will still suffer mediocrity and marginalization, because that is the best that nearly any given majority is capable of.
Sad it may be. Hell, it is sad. But try as I might, I always seem to find it the truth.
I recognize that I don't have a choice in the matter. The fact is, the majority of entertainment as a whole will always be mundane. This isn't necessarily due to the fact that mundane sells, so much as the fact that there's just so much out there. I wish I had a figure to throw out, but take a moment to consider how many television programs are produced in a given year; how many new seasons of old series, how many new series brought to life or given a shot via pilot, and all that waits in the wings drawn up in scripting or just as concepts. And not just in the United States, but everywhere, all over the world.
I can not even remotely attempt to consume that much entertainment product in my entire life, and it only represents one year's worth. Imagine the amount produced during a lifetime of a single person; there are certainly going to be gems contained therein, but statistically speaking everything can't be good. In fact, I'd wager that the greater majority of it isn't all that palatable in general. Factor in personal taste, and the number of universally amazing content is marginalized even further. The very nature of our existence is that of mediocrity. Take a hard look at human lives; your own, or someone close to you. How many days are spent going through the motions, and how many are truly memorable because of some incredible discovery, either personal or universal; how many things have really moved you, and how many days in relation to that are basically marginalized by comparison? For me, I know that the day to day motions make up the majority of my life, and there are a few golden instances that break up that monotony.
Or how about the world around us? Brilliant strides in intellectual understanding of the world around us are not a dime-a-dozen, which is a painfully sad thing considering how many human beings are living on this planet as we speak, and how many have come before us.
Mediocrity, with brief, spellbinding moments of understanding or awareness, is just the nature of things. We can, and will, always demand more. The slightest taste of that sweet elixir, even by proxy, drives us to newer discoveries or intellectual heights. The reality, however, is that the majority will still suffer mediocrity and marginalization, because that is the best that nearly any given majority is capable of.
Sad it may be. Hell, it is sad. But try as I might, I always seem to find it the truth.
I can't think of a solider and a puppy together without thinking about that one video of a solider throwing a pup off a cliff.
Excellent article, Kauz. Echoed some of my own sentiments about the gaming populace in general, and the industry for pandering to them so strongly.
But at the same time, I can't deny that I find satisfaction in the lowest common denominator, too, especially when the gameplay feels great to me. Gears of War is absolutely one of my favorite series on a gameplay and stylistic level (save for the bulk of the main characters -- it would've been much more convincing of their desperate struggle to save humanity if they'd not been so huge-necked and large-armed).
So in a way, I'm a bit of a hypocrite on the issue -- that's the honest truth. I do feel some degree of regret when we celebrate all of these super soldiers in the face of a tough, real-life war, especially since my childhood home is near two military bases and I hear the honorary song play across the base when stationed personnel die in the line of duty. I've heard it many, many times since March 2003. I grew up alongside many people who are soldiers now, and knew families growing up that had to suffer the loss.
And then we virtualize it, with heroes that can come back from taking bullet damage after staying in cover for a few seconds, blah-blah. I know I come off as ranty, but my experience is that many gamers have NOT been closely related to the actual horrors of war. And it goes both ways -- we're causing the same exact devastation to innocent families abroad, but it's not completely black and white. It's very gray. These games try to make it so black and white, but making the enemy playable and getting comments from CoD's military advisor about the courage of the enemy's troops isn't saving lives, people: Instead, we're just changing our thoughts to "Oh, well it sounds like both sides are honorable in killing one another, may the most courageous warriors win!"
It's hollow and cold to feel that way, folks. It's like stepping back and watching two stubborn, angry animals fight to the death. If you can't see otherwise, I'm sorry that your lifelong passion for videogames has utterly failed you in your capacity for a decent level of compassion.
But at the same time, I can't deny that I find satisfaction in the lowest common denominator, too, especially when the gameplay feels great to me. Gears of War is absolutely one of my favorite series on a gameplay and stylistic level (save for the bulk of the main characters -- it would've been much more convincing of their desperate struggle to save humanity if they'd not been so huge-necked and large-armed).
So in a way, I'm a bit of a hypocrite on the issue -- that's the honest truth. I do feel some degree of regret when we celebrate all of these super soldiers in the face of a tough, real-life war, especially since my childhood home is near two military bases and I hear the honorary song play across the base when stationed personnel die in the line of duty. I've heard it many, many times since March 2003. I grew up alongside many people who are soldiers now, and knew families growing up that had to suffer the loss.
And then we virtualize it, with heroes that can come back from taking bullet damage after staying in cover for a few seconds, blah-blah. I know I come off as ranty, but my experience is that many gamers have NOT been closely related to the actual horrors of war. And it goes both ways -- we're causing the same exact devastation to innocent families abroad, but it's not completely black and white. It's very gray. These games try to make it so black and white, but making the enemy playable and getting comments from CoD's military advisor about the courage of the enemy's troops isn't saving lives, people: Instead, we're just changing our thoughts to "Oh, well it sounds like both sides are honorable in killing one another, may the most courageous warriors win!"
It's hollow and cold to feel that way, folks. It's like stepping back and watching two stubborn, angry animals fight to the death. If you can't see otherwise, I'm sorry that your lifelong passion for videogames has utterly failed you in your capacity for a decent level of compassion.
Not a 30 Rock fan, Kauz?
C'mon, they do the same jokes as Studio 60, but funnier/broader/worse (delete where applicable).
C'mon, they do the same jokes as Studio 60, but funnier/broader/worse (delete where applicable).
this was the best thing i read all day. the industry is running down a one way street that will lead to another crash. games today lack passion. they lack heart and soul. i remember when games had those things. you could feel it. it was like reading a book. the story was alive but now its all about recycled trash, empty stories with repeditive missions, and ultimatly no brainz ares involveded for dem 12yrs old boyzes. what happend to having to think and actually question critical ideas.
I was afraid this would be another Kauz article that I find eye-roll inducing but you've brought to light a good point that I'm sure many people have noticed already.
The worst part of it all are the enthusiasts within the medium who are protecting how it is right now. People like Blindfire get enraged about this, when really there's nothing to be super upset about outside of the idea of changing things, but those people exist within the industry itself.
The first that comes to mind is Ryan Davis over at GiantBomb. He's a smart guy and I agree with him about a lot of things, but he seems very down on the thought of games being anything more than what they are now. At one point he was defending Mercenaries 2 for being shallow and action-junkie focused because "that's what games are." If one of the big voices people listen to about games thinks like this, then what is the audience supposed to think?
The most depressing part of this tale, is the history itself. Studio 60 was canceled, and television still sucks. What does that mean for us?
The worst part of it all are the enthusiasts within the medium who are protecting how it is right now. People like Blindfire get enraged about this, when really there's nothing to be super upset about outside of the idea of changing things, but those people exist within the industry itself.
The first that comes to mind is Ryan Davis over at GiantBomb. He's a smart guy and I agree with him about a lot of things, but he seems very down on the thought of games being anything more than what they are now. At one point he was defending Mercenaries 2 for being shallow and action-junkie focused because "that's what games are." If one of the big voices people listen to about games thinks like this, then what is the audience supposed to think?
The most depressing part of this tale, is the history itself. Studio 60 was canceled, and television still sucks. What does that mean for us?
So are we talking just politically challenging or philosophically challenging in the broader sense? Politics is one thing but id say that every game has something to contribute philosophically.
@Blindfire: I really do recognize that as well, and I'm under no illusion that anything is likely to change. In fact, it's that sense of helplessness that made me want to post this. It's more of a rant, like Wes's on Studio 60, than anything else. I just needed to say it. I know what the likely path is, and that it includes a lot of stuff that's really similar and doesn't rock the boat, but I really do believe that the more we vocalize what we want, the more likely we are to get it, even if that still just puts us at "not damn likely."
@Roek: I don't think the way you feel is at all hypocritical. After all, if fun has to be sacrificed to give us a different type of Gears game, then it would be a failure. That's not at all what I want. For what Gears does, I think it is fine, but it just doesn't appeal to me on a stylistic, story, or gameplay level. Same would go for a "horrors of war" game. If it's so horrific that it's not fun, no one will want to play it, and its message will be entirely wasted.
It's a horribly slippery slope, and that's why it's such a risk to try something different. But I know when a risky idea is executed extremely well, it's going to absolutely blow us all away.
@Roek: I don't think the way you feel is at all hypocritical. After all, if fun has to be sacrificed to give us a different type of Gears game, then it would be a failure. That's not at all what I want. For what Gears does, I think it is fine, but it just doesn't appeal to me on a stylistic, story, or gameplay level. Same would go for a "horrors of war" game. If it's so horrific that it's not fun, no one will want to play it, and its message will be entirely wasted.
It's a horribly slippery slope, and that's why it's such a risk to try something different. But I know when a risky idea is executed extremely well, it's going to absolutely blow us all away.
follow
