Articles Rants & Raves We Are Not Important
 

We Are Not Important We Are Not Important Hot

We Are Not Important

I know I just recently did an article about gamer types, and then turned around Monday and asked people to help me find my wife's wedding dress. I really should review a game here. But something just occurred to me, and I want to talk about it, so lucky you.

Game reviewers are not important. We think we are, but we're wrong.

We provide a service, and it's really not that much of a service, all things considered. We're the functional equivalent of your buddy who already owns everything. We tell you 'hey, that was fun,' or 'that game was stupid' or 'playing games designed for children is going to impede our ability to get laid,' but we don't tell you anything you couldn't find out for yourself if you just sat down and played the game. We're about as useful as the corner dry-cleaner, except that the cleaner can press your pants and all we can do is pontificate.

We are not book critics or movie critics. Book and film critics can discuss the various interpretations of themes and dialog. They can discuss hidden symbolism. They can analyze the artistry found in the books and films they review, and draw comparisons to how those things affect us in real life. They can analyze the human condition as presented in the films they watch and the books they read, and then relate those findings to broader themes.

You can't do that in board games. Board games are an industry created by nerds who wanted to play board games. As an artistic medium, board games are slightly less viable than cooking desserts, and slightly more artistic than bowling. Even video games have the capacity to contain more artistic depth than board games. Board games are all about the rules, and rules are inherently not artistic.

You could, of course, argue that the narrative a game relates might have some depth. I would challenge you on that point, though. The story and the theme could be presented in a novel, a film, or even a video game, and be an order of magnitude more effective. Without the rules, there's no game. You can't say the same thing about the story, especially because the story could change when players take a different course of action, and often, there's no story in games in the first place.

If we want discussions of games to be a critical medium, we need better games. I don't know if it's even possible to create a game where the theme is moving and powerful. I have trouble conceiving of a game that asks big questions and begs us to answer them. I am not sure how you would make a game that forces us to examine ourselves and the world around us. But I do know that if you want game reviewers to be game critics, we need to be talking about games where fun is less important than the powerful message, and frankly, I don't want to play those games. Unless I miss my guess, neither do you.

Game reviewers who talk about the artistry of a game, and try to discuss the finer points as if they were connoisseurs of fine wine, seem rather self-absorbed in a best case, and horribly deluded in a worst case. There is an artistry to creating a boxed product that will cause a group of players to interact on the same level in a competitive and entertaining environment, but readers, for the most part, don't care. You want to know if the game is fun. You don't want to know if the game will help you understand the horrors of modern war. You're not hoping that the game will present a symbolic tale of the classic hero's journey. You just want to know if, when you play it, you will have a good time.

Really, we're just a selling tool. Reviewers set ourselves up as a sort of information dispensary, trying to get publishers to give us products so that we can tell you how much we like them. We are a marketing expense, a debit in the advertising budget. We work for free games because it gets us free games, and we don't mind trading a couple hours of writing time if it means we get a 60-dollar game we didn't pay for. We're walking, talking Superbowl commercials, and better yet, we do it for peanuts.

But then, there's no reason we have to be important. We write because we like it, and you read what we write because you like it. If you stop liking it, you'll stop reading it, but we're self-absorbed enough that we'll write anyway. We'll pretend that there's some deeper meaning to the discussion, that our analysis is somehow improving the overall caliber of the human existence, and that's fine because we like writing it and you like reading it.

I honestly don't feel any reason that we need to be important. I play games to have fun, and I write about them because that's also fun. If I can give you a reason to want to read what I write, that's great, but it doesn't make me important (unless you were just about to jump out a window and one of my dick jokes made you laugh so hard you changed your mind). 

I read lots of stuff by people who are doing their damnedest to be game critics instead of game reviewers, and they're having fun and people are having fun reading their unimportant nonsense, and I say more power to 'em. I think a lot of reviewers would be a lot happier if they quit pretending that we were a big deal, but then, lots of those people probably wish I would take myself a little more seriously.

Well, bad news - I'm not important. I'm a game nerd who enjoys bathroom humor. When that changes and I start to think I'm going to change the world by talking extensively about plastic goblins, I'll give it up and start painting gravestones as a symbolic outrage against the eternal nature of death.

And then I'll tell you if it was fun.


Matt Drake is a game reviewer and the author of the Drake's Flames blog, where you can read more of his crassly opinionated game reviews. 

Powered by JReviews
Comments (32)
  • avatarShellhead

    The first time I played Android, I was surprised to find that I was having an emotional reaction to my corrupt cop's story. He and his wife were separating, and the wording on some of the cards brought back some unpleasant memories of certain situations in my own past. And overall, the game speaks to an ongoing issue in my own life, seeking to find a reasonable balance between my career and the rest of my life. Android has some flaws, but it was an ambitious effort to reach beyond the rest of the industry. If we had more Android games and fewer me-too deckbuilders and DoaM games, intelligent criticism might flourish. Even so, once a game becomes familiar with replay, those themes are going to tend to fade into the background a bit and fun becomes more important.

  • avatarDukeofChutney

    I agree that you're a service. My expectation from reviewers is that they will save me money buy showing up bad games, and assist me in waisting monies on good games that i dont really need. My policy for writing the occasional reviews that i do is; things i wish i was told before i'd gone out and bought. Thus most of my reviews are negative.

    Whilst board games certainly don't have the narrative depth of films, books, rpgs, and video games, they can present some psycological issues. Such as, how people view risk, or reward, how far you have to drive people to lie. If you look at werewolf or resistance. For good or ill, i've found alot of things out about the people i play with, and perhaps people in general by playing these games, something that film, books, rpgs, or video games would struggle to do. Whilst i say this, this sort of discussion about the behavior brought out by people playing games is very rarely discussed in the boardgame media.

    power to the people

  • avatarmikecl

    Not to rain on your parade but here's a brand new game that goes a little deeper in theme than most. I don't know how good it is, but it's from the creator of Vinhos so it's got some real game design behind it and even though that's a Euro this one's got conflict.

    It certainly addresses some deeper issues so much so that Octavian has had to lock three BGG discussion threads.

    This is a debate that started with Michael Barnes (still waiting on his sequel) and had SuperflyPete flying off the handle at the pretentiousness of it all.

    Mostly games are a diversion. However, some like Phil Ecklund's are actually an education. High Frontier is his vision of the future of space exploration. Origins: How We Became Human is as much a philosophy as it is a game.

    From Phil's own notes:


    6) The "currency" of Origins is not monetary, but rather the allocation and expenditure of elders. This value system is constant from the stone age to the nuclear age.

    (7) I adopted the controversial Jaynes hypothesis for Origins: the idea that consciousness is an artifact of language (rather than the other way around), and thus is almost a technology-based advance, rather than an evolutionary one.

    (8) Progression is cyclic rather than constant. If your dynasty reaches a plateau, you must tear it down again in order to reach the next level. A unique feature of Origins is that often, you WANT to fall into chaos.

    (9) Origins is quite sexist. Most games represent only the male values of invention, administration, specialists, conflict, animal husbandry, and farming. In Origins, every card has a "male" half and a "female" half. Players must balance the traditional male values with the feminine values of demography, child care, pair bonding, and cultural diffusion. In Origins, the invention of marriage, "male parental involvement", "cuckoldry", and "exogamy" are big deals.

    (10) The Origins view of government is quite libertarian. Most civ games put you into the role as head of a supreme government, trying to control an unruly populace. In Origins, you assume the role of the populace trying to control an unruly government.

    In fact, I think we're at point #10 right now. We just don't know it yet. So games CAN be deeper. Whether anyone will play them or not is another matter. Personally I love Phil's games. When I'm playing them, I feel like I'm doing something worthwhile. It's more than just a diversion.

    Do I want that all the time? Hell no. But there's certainly room for this stuff in my world.

  • avatarChapel

    Amen to this topic. Quit talking about games and keep playing them. We're in a gaming renaissance and people still think the board gaming world is lacking art or substance. I've got shelves overflowing with lacking, apparently. But then again my opinion doesn't matter, but I still enjoy playing all those games. I just don't need public validation by talking about them.

  • avatarSpace Ghost

    Instead of that CO2 game, you should just play Pollution Solution

    http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/14307/pollution-solution

    What a horrible, horrible game.

  • avatarmikecl  - re:
    Space Ghost wrote:
    Instead of that CO2 game, you should just play Pollution Solution

    http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/14307/pollution-solution

    What a horrible, horrible game.

    yeah i'll get right on that.

  • avatardavidmorneau

    I disagree that reviewers are unimportant. It's true that I can figure out whether or not I like a particular game by playing it (the same as I can tell if I like a certain movie by watching it or a certain restaurant by dining in it.) The problem, of course, is that I don't have the time or money to invest in playing every new game. The informed recommendations of others becomes important. Those who review many games over time are especially useful since I am able to get a sense of what they like and don't like and how that corresponds to my own tastes. (In some cases a certain reviewer will hate a game that I end up loving, and I can usually tell this from the review.)

    The problem (which you spoke to) is that too often game review is confused with game criticism. I think that criticism speaks about gaming on a level larger than any particular game. It should address questions like: why do play games? why are games important? how do games tell stories (if they do)? what we can learn from playing games? etc.

    These are different questions than found in literary criticism, for example. Trying to talk about games as if they are literature or art or something else is misguided. A critical approach to the subject needs to address them first as games. I don't think we need better games. We have a lot of amazing games already. We need a better understanding of, and different goals for, criticism.

    My assumption is that a majority of the writers who make these mistakes are eager to share their passion for this hobby. They want others to see it as legitimate and as more than something that is just "for kids". We spend a lot of time and money on games and want to feel like it's not a waste, and we want others to see it as legitimate. (Maybe... but maybe my guesses are off-base. I don't really think so though.)

    Anyway, thanks for the rant. I understand this frustration and often feel it too.

  • avatarMichael Barnes

    I agree just about 100% with everything Drake wrote here. In fact, much it is very similar to what I've been thinking about a lot lately.

    The main takeaway here is that if we want to discuss games like we discuss other mediums...we need better games. And the point about board games being a medium created by nerds to entertain other nerds as well as the comment about board games ranking close to bowling or cooking deserts is particularly damning.

  • avatardragonstout

    Here's the problem with this way of thinking: you're knocking down a straw man.

    This whole idea of comparing board games to literature or movies is mostly bogus(for the most part, I'll get to that in a second). That doesn't mean board games can't be art.

    This might sound against the whole Ameritrash movement, but "narrative" in the sense of the narrative of Arkham Horror or Tales of the Arabian Nights or Talisman or High Frontier or Twilight Struggle, THAT is NOT what board games do best. If you're going to compare the narrative that a game generates in that way against the narrative of a movie or book, and look for depth and meaning in that narrative, yeah, you're going to be SUPER-disappointed, and convinced that board games can't be art.

    You'd be wrong, though. You're just looking in the wrong place; that's NOT where the art in board games comes from. High Frontier and Labyrinth and their attempts at making a serious statement about the outside world, that's not where you're going to find art in board games, for the most part.

    Instead of comparing board games to movies/books, compare them to music. Now, anything compared to music is, in my opinion, probably going to fall short. But classical music, like board games, is not REMOTELY well-suited to a narrative that makes statements about terrorism or space travel. Music is about EMOTIONS, and the narrative it generates is a purely emotional narrative: you felt happy, then you felt sad, then you felt like in the sadness you could see where happiness was peeking through. Games are the same way. The emotional range is admittedly more constrained, but they're still about that EMOTIONAL narrative: you feel adrift, and then you feel the joy of success, and then you feel tension and paranoia, you feel the fear that comes when you take a big risk, the relief/regret after you find out how it turned out.

    That's not art??!?!?

    This is not something that only highfalutin' games do: ALL games are trying to do this! And as much as I say that everything pales in comparison to music, I'd argue that the huge difference between board games and everything else is also its huge strength: board games are all about INTERPERSONAL interaction and emotions, and I think playing games gets at truths and feelings in that arena that nothing else does. Other works of art might make you reflect on interpersonal themes, but it's all still happening completely inside you, whereas with a game you are very directly learning things about other people FROM those people themselves!

    Also, like just about any art, board games can be appreciated on a purely aesthetic level (and I'm mostly not talking about visual aesthetics, but design aesthetics): just as you can appreciate a beautiful shot in a movie or a creative use of language in a book in and of themselves and independent of the meaning of the work of art, elegant and innovative game mechanics have their own aesthetic appeal.

    So stop looking for art in board games in the wrong places. There are plenty of very artful things about board games already, and we don't need a game to be about the horrors of war to achieve art just like we don't need music to be "about" anything beyond the emotions it generates to be great art. The way you write about it is by talking about HOW it generates those emotions.

  • avatardavidmorneau

    Dragonstout -- I think you've demonstrated the problem with comparing boardgames to other kinds of things as a basis for critical thought about games. As a metaphor, you're comparison is probably okay. When examined more closely though, problems arise.

    Coming from a background in music, I know that most critical thinking, theorizing, and philosophizing have long abandoned the idea of music as emotion. There can be an emotional/aesthetic reaction to music, but this usually has little to do with what makes music music. I think that tying an analysis of boardgames to this kind of thought about music can't provide any insight to what makes games special.

    Instead, it'd be better to begin by examining games for what they are (several game design books have specific ideas about this) and then building from there. Arming ourselves with a cohesive idea about what makes a game and how games work will allow us to find real insights to how games like High Frontier and Labyrinth differ from games like Puerto Rico and Carcassonne. This is the basis of criticism.

    The other comment I want to make here is about the urge to call boardgames art. There may be legitimate reasons to do this, but it will require a careful examination and definition of what makes art (at least in the mind of the writer) before seeing if boardgames (all or just some of them) fit the definition. Personally, I do not think that boardgames really are art.


    Micheal -- I don't buy the idea that we need better games before we can elevate the discussion to the kinds of critical discussions we have about art or literature or music. We need to approach the discussions about boardgames the same ways that the best critics in these other fields approach their subjects...

  • avatarInfinityMax

    Shellhead, Android came to mind while I was writing this piece. It does try really hard to have some emotional depth - but if you ask me, it does it by cheating. Having a shitload of flavor text that pulls your heart strings isn't an example of a game being deep. It's an example of the novel that was written inside the game being deep. The game itself had about as much intellectual prowess as a junior-high kid with a stolen Playboy. Sure, you want your PI to stay off the juice, but you're not doing it because you care about him as a person, you're doing it because you want the points you get for a happy ending.

    Dragonstout, your point about the emotions of gaming is excellent. We can definitely discuss the emotional experience of board games, and I absolutely believe that a game reviewer should definitely do that. I avoid rules summaries, and attempt to convey the experience of a game, because I believe that the emotions are why you play a game. I think that's my most important task in a review - the part that tells me how it feels to play a game. I don't always do a good job of relating that, but it's my #1 goal anyway.

    However, I also seriously believe that we definitely need better games if we're going to be serious about analyzing the critical aspects of games. Most of the games I own - by which I mean, somewhere in the area of 99% - have little cultural impact to discuss. Sure, we can talk about how Last Night on Earth is like playing out a zombie movie, but that's not impact, that's just fun.

    But I have one game that I believe does a surprising job of highlighting the human condition - The Resistance. Duke pointed this one out, and it's one that has been on my mind quite a bit since I wrote this. The Resistance is a game that operates on a level far beyond tactics or strategy or smart plays. It actively encourages us to lie and to examine motive. Without coming right out and challenging us, it asks us to think about how dishonest we can be if there are no consequences. The result can be a little scary, especially if, like me, you discover that you are an absolutely amazing liar - and you always thought you were a pretty honest guy. If I can deceive my friends without batting an eye and accuse people that I know to be good people of being liars, what could I do if I didn't have a conscience holding me back?

    Games CAN achieve a higher level. I've got at least one game that proves it. And when I reviewed The Resistance, I took a sidebar to discuss what it says about humanity that we can so quickly take to corruption and deception in the name of good, old-fashioned fun. But games with this much social commentary are rare enough to be exceptionally notable when they appear, especially because unlike books or movies or even music, games all have to overcome one serious hurdle before they can be discussed - they have to be fun enough to play. A particular tune does not have to be lyrical to have depth. A movie can be dark and depressing, and still have all kinds of powerful subtext. But a game that isn't fun is dead in the water. It's a wasted effort, and it might unlock the secret of unlimited energy and the cure for cancer, but we'll never know because it's not any fun so we don't play it.

    I might, from time to time, indulge my inner academic in some pseudo-intellectual prattle about the meaning of life as seen in The Game of Life. But by and large, until I find those needle-in-a-haystack games that actually rise above the mechanics of the game, I'm going to keep doing what I know how to do - telling you why I like 'em. That, and jokes about women of low moral virtue. If readers find any value in my writing, I'll count that as a success, but I still won't think I'm anything like a big deal.

  • avatardaveroswell

    'playing games designed for children is going to impede our ability to get laid,'

    Dammit! I was wondering why none of the sorority girls would pay attention to me in the bars in college. Perhaps me playing Snakes and Ladders in the corner in my boxers was a bit much...

  • avatarMattDP

    I could address some specific things from your article, but I don't have time.

    But one thing I would like to say is that wondering what we were "for" was the starting point of my interest in comparing art criticism with games criticism. Because I think it's actually worse than you paint it: we're not even any good at providing a service. Taste is so subjective, and mechanics so hard to put into words that reviews as a guide to buying are near-useless.

    But people read reviews. Why? Often because they're good jumping off points for discussion. And that's what it's all about. We might not be able to deconstruct the aesthetic qualities of a game (because often there aren't any) but a good review should provoke discussion and make all the participants think more deeply about not only the game in question but related games and the culture of games and gaming generally. *That's* where there are proper parallels with art because ultimately, that's also the purpose of art criticism.

  • avatarSuperflyTNT  - re:
    davidmorneau wrote:
    The problem (which you spoke to) is that too often game review is confused with game criticism. I think that criticism speaks about gaming on a level larger than any particular game. It should address questions like: why do play games? why are games important? how do games tell stories (if they do)? what we can learn from playing games? etc

    This is what I was harping endlessly on until my latest ban over at the BGG "I'm so smart if my head exploded it would devastate my city" thread. I mean, Barnes wrote 1500 words to say "Some games' level of fun defy explanation because the design sucks. A good reviewer needs to be able to explain the WHY they had fun despite bad design". And it was a good article, if not overly long to elicit such a simple and obvious premise.

    Yet the BGG asshattery managed to overanalyze, overthink, and as usual, totally miss his point.

    Then I went on to point out that while there is some demand for critical writing, it is minimal. People want to be told what to buy and what not to, because the BGG Hype Machine is everpresent to tell you that your nerd card is summarily suspended if you don't get X new game because you're obviously not smart enough to "get" why mixing colors to paint a fresco is the king shit and should be exalted as unparallelled game design.

    (deep breath)

    But I'm really not interested in the subject at this point. My banning has shown me the error of my way. The kinds of folks that will argue that there is no "fun first" are never going to understand what the article meant. And so, let them write pretensious shit, because for me, the internet is nothing more than a place to watch people implode, which is hilarious, so if I have places to "Weeks out" and poke them in the sack, then I am happy.

    Every time I manage to get a thread locked or derailed over there, an angel gets its wings. BGG is a place where God tests the faithful, and who am I to go against the word of God.

    Critical writing about boardgaming, in a nutshell, in 95% of cases amounts to this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkqfa-kaRFM

  • avatarmikecl

    There ARE games that address deeper social issues like almost all of Phil Ecklund's and potentially this newcomer, C02. Yes games are primarily entertainment and a diversion, but there is a certain "art" in delivering graphics and design around a ruleset that provides good thematic immersion.

    I like games that break the mold. I have and love Android for that and still play it despite its clunky mechanics. I like Tales of the Arabian Nights for the same reason. When you play War of the Ring it feels like you're living out the book. I might add that two of these, War of the Ring and Tales originated in the so-called Golden Age of Gaming. So did Dune.

    You could even call Magic Realm a work of art in the sense that it's a deeply immersive experience.

    I'm not sure there's the same appetite today for games like that because they all tend to be longer. There's a certain art to a well made game. Are games art? I think some can be. Art is the application of human creative skill and imagination. Art is form and content. Content is the idea the artist is trying to convey, form is the graphic medium he chooses to deliver it.

    Not all games make a statement or tell a good story. But some do.

  • avatarwice

    I always find it funny when people try to find the art in games looking at the graphics, or the story, or anything else that is the primary characteristics of a well established art form.

    Imagine that the only art form known to man is (e.g.) painting. Then, someone comes up with the idea of "sculpture", and suddenly you hear everyone saying things like "I guess it *could* be art, if he just used some colors on this stuff, and added some background". Or, the only known art form is writing, and someone invents music: "Well, it's nice and all, but unless it has lyrics, it's just entertainment". Or any other combinations.

    If games can be considered to be art (and I say, why the fuck not), then the art in them is not in the graphics, or the story, but somewhere else. Personally I think that Tigris & Euphrates is a beautiful piece of art, because of its (still recognizable) depiction of the rise and fall of empires with the least possible amount of chrome. I would also count at least two other Knizia designs as art: Modern Art (not because of the theme, but, because, while being a good auction-game, it manages to be a scathing satire of the painting market, without spelling it out explicitly) and LOTR: The Confrontation (it captures the essence of each character in LOTR with one simple ability, and the synergy between the special abilities is simply brilliant).

  • avatarErik Twice

    I think you have a hammer but in front of you there's no nail, but a screw.

    There are many claims in your article that are quite the jump or quite the statement but are not backed up, nontheless that rules aren't intrinsically artistical. Not that everyone has ever agreed on what the word "art" means, it holds as much meaning as "electricity" or "biweekly" and just promotes the creation of a non-debate that is as useful as wiping your ass with sandpaper.

    I really don't think you need such things as a "story" or a "theme" either. Those are tools, as much of a tool as what we call a "character". Tetris doesn't have any of those and yet it's inherently interesting to play, it attacks a very specific part of the human psyche and does it very well. Not that there aren't games with strong themes, and dimmising them is opening a door for quite the counterargument, specially on a site that is supposed to be so focused on that aspect of games.

    To argue that games aren't worthy because there are few "superior" games is kind of assinine, and aking to saying Animation isn't an artform anymore because since 1959 there have only been three or four good works.


    I do not consider the distinction between boardgames and videogames to be artistically meaningful anymore than the difference between copper and stone is.

  • avatarSuperflyTNT

    https://bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/stop.jpg

    1. You can hammer a screw in. I've done it.

    2. Wiping your ass with sandpaper is useful, but whether it's worth the pain is the question. Its usefulness can't be disputed, though. And, the clever lad might, I don't know, turn the sandpaper over to the non-sandy side?

    3. Really? Tetris as high art? And you're saying Matt isn't supporting his claims?

    4. Video games are inherently more capable of connecting to a player through the use of cutscenes. There's a narrative. There's a story. Oh, and creating stone sculpture is infinitely more difficult than making copper sculpture. You can't really melt and pour stone into a carved mold. Copper, much easier.

    5. Your last sentence, Erik, is ridiculous. It's like saying that if you raise the bar of conversation with your cat, eventually he'll understand what you're saying at best, or at least crave the conversation, at worst. Many people simply do not have the desire, nor in some cases capacity, to understand more about the gaming industry, the mechanics, yada yada.

    Most people look at a shiny new game, get all amped up because it has meeples that LOOK LIKE ZOMBIES! WOOT! and then seek out reviews to reinforce their already inherent desire. This is proven by the fact that negative reviews are 99% of the time infinitely less thumbed, and almost always more discussed more than positive ones. It's the nature of the game industry. People want to be told that they're smart and important. And reviews that underscore how they were right, and therefore important for making a good decision, is what drives the whole shebang. Just wait until you write a negative review and the publisher comes crashing down, or the fans come crashing down upon you. Instead of debating it rationally, they tell you you're a fucking fuck fucker. It's not because your opinion differs, it's because they see it as you telling them they're stupid and unimportant.

    + Reviews: Thumb! GREAT REVIEW! I AGREE!
    - Reviews: No Thumb! FUCK YOU FUCK FUCKER FUCKAPOO! I HATE YOU AND WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO GET MUMPS!

    Anyhow, If "critical thought" was as important to gamers as you say, there'd be 1000 Jesse Dean and MartinQWETYERYWRTQEWT writing deep thoughts of great import because THE MARKET'S DEMANDS ARE ALWAYS MET WHEN THERE IS AMPLE SUPPLY. And it's not like every motherfucker with an iPhone isn't blogging about something, trying to catch some nerd-celebrity or just some free shit. That, and the top blog spot on BGG wouldn't be some lesbian chicks talking briefly about opening up Mage Knight and having to move a desk to play it over Martin's "Red Herring Of Fun" article.

    FUCK SAKES!!!!!!!!!!11

  • avatarErik Twice

    "4. Video games are inherently more capable of connecting to a player through the use of cutscenes."
    C'mon dude, if you are going to troll, do it better!

    BTW, my last sentece was removed because it was a a leftover from a previous version of the post, don't give it much thought.

  • avatarInfinityMax  - re:
    Erik Twice wrote:
    I think you have a hammer but in front of you there's no nail, but a screw.


    This does not make any sense to me at all. I don't even see how this statement applies to the bit I wrote at all.

    Quote:
    There are many claims in your article that are quite the jump or quite the statement but are not backed up, nontheless that rules aren't intrinsically artistical. Not that everyone has ever agreed on what the word "art" means, it holds as much meaning as "electricity" or "biweekly" and just promotes the creation of a non-debate that is as useful as wiping your ass with sandpaper.


    Why would I provide supporting evidence for an opinion piece? Furthermore, why would you bother asking for it?

    Also, 'electricity' and 'bi-weekly' are pretty well-defined. One is what keeps your lights on. The other means every two weeks. I think you did not pick very good words. That, or you meant something else. That, or you read a different article. That, or you are high as balls.

    Quote:
    I really don't think you need such things as a "story" or a "theme" either. Those are tools, as much of a tool as what we call a "character". Tetris doesn't have any of those and yet it's inherently interesting to play, it attacks a very specific part of the human psyche and does it very well. Not that there aren't games with strong themes, and dimmising them is opening a door for quite the counterargument, specially on a site that is supposed to be so focused on that aspect of games.


    Dude, I am having an incredible amount of trouble understanding what you're saying. Tetris attacks the psyche? Only if you play it while tripping acid. What in God's name are you talking about?

    Quote:
    To argue that games aren't worthy because there are few "superior" games is kind of assinine, and aking to saying Animation isn't an artform anymore because since 1959 there have only been three or four good works.


    Who the hell said games weren't worthy? They're worthy of me playing them. They're worthy of me reviewing them, especially if they're free. They're worthy of discussion, or I would not have much of a gig. I don't even understand how this paragraph relates to the article I wrote. It's like you're responding to ghost people.

    Quote:
    I do not consider the distinction between boardgames and videogames to be artistically meaningful anymore than the difference between copper and stone is.


    If you were trying to make me understand what it feels like to eat psychedelic mushrooms, I think you're well on your way. If you're trying to make any sense, I think you have failed. Possibly because you are on mushrooms. There's a huge difference between copper and stone. One is metal. One might have metal in it. Where do you get these examples? Is your spirit guide whispering in your ear while you eat pot brownies? What drug-addled SAT test would say 'Boardgames are to video games as copper is to... stone?' Seriously, that's just crazy.

  • avatarErik Twice

    Hey dude, no need to get hairy!

    Quote:
    Why would I provide supporting evidence for an opinion piece? Furthermore, why would you bother asking for it?


    Why would you make a claim that you cannot support? I would like to think that you reached a conclusion through logical thoughts and facts not just because it's your opinion.

    I mean, otherwise it's just silly.

    Quote:
    I think you did not pick very good words.


    Biweekly means both twice a week and twice a month. Electricity is used to refer to a wide range of natural phenomena, and while electric current is what lights up your lights, an electric field does not need to have any current in it.


    I conflated the worthyness comment, though, unfortunateldy, there are many that think that way. No need to give names, really. So yeah, it isn't really related.


    Obviously copper and stone are to sculpture what cardboard and digital logic are to games, hence my comparison.


    No need to get like, angry, man

  • avatarSuperflyTNT

    I wasn't trolling Erik. I'm serious. Film and videogames are slowly having the lines between them blurred. Example:

    How many people went totally batshit crazy over the ending of Mass Effect 3. The fact that it spoke on society, how the greater good is important than the individual...all that.

    Now, how many people lamented that A Few Acres Of Snow is broken as fuck and not a single reviewer caught it. Like 200? Maybe? And that's counting people who have different accounts on F:AT and BGG?

    There's no comparison. Fiction novels have the luxury of creating a movie in your mind, one that your mind populates with the imagery. Movies do the same thing, but they furnish the pictures. Video games allow you to play the movie. In all three, there's always a narrative. In many cases, an interesting or compelling one, and in others, one that makes you think about the overarching theme in relevant and meaningful ways. One that connects to you, as a person, or enlightens you.

    Board games? You get static pictures. They rarely do anything to invoke real feelings in you other than competitiveness or anger. They rarely tell a story with a deeper meaning than that your Druid clubbed a Vampire to death, or that you managed to run over 16 pedestrians, 2 with walkers, and one small child. There's very, very often no enlightenment value.

    I'd argue that at least High Frontiers can illuminate you about spaceflight, or you might get some historical information playing Command and Colors.

    But, let's say that games do merit higher-level criticism, which I believe some do. What I am saying (and have said) is that the meat of the discussion should be on "games" not on "a game". Very rarely is a game worth talking about on a higher level.

    Space Alert, that one is one I'd like to see more people talking about from a critical standpoint, how novel of a design it is. But Broadsides and Boarding Parties or Sword and Skull (that AH Pirate abortion)? Fuck no. Pure tripe. They're games you play for entertainment. There's no "higher meaning" there.

  • avatarErik Twice

    Ah, I see where you are coming from now. Sorry.


    It's just that this wave of making videogames like films is making for very poor games. I mean, I think most uses of cutscenes are bad. Really bad. Many games feel like a bad movie splice along a completely unrelated game. The mechanics doesn't help the plot of the film, the film doesn't tie with the game, what gives? Final Fantasy falls into this, and I hear a lot about Uncharted having cutscenes where the PC feels bad for killing people and then kills two hundreds more when you get the controller again.

    Quote:
    But, let's say that games do merit higher-level criticism, which I believe some do. What I am saying (and have said) is that the meat of the discussion should be on "games" not on "a game". Very rarely is a game worth talking about on a higher level.


    I really agree with you here. Really, really agree. I think that criticism in this sense is circular, one leads to the other. Focusing on the "game" may very well be what makes everything short-sighted.

  • avatarmikecl  - re:
    wice wrote:
    I always find it funny when people try to find the art in games looking at the graphics, or the story, or anything else that is the primary characteristics of a well established art form. .

    Really? I think it's hilarious when nit pickers try to sound hip by twisting a well intentioned argument only to make the very same point. If you read what I said you'd see I wasn't focusing on just graphics, but the marriage of ALL the elements that go into making a well designed board game. It's a package deal.

  • avatardragonstout

    I agree with Wice, who more succinctly said what I was trying to get at, about not looking to games to provide deep stories just like we don't look to music to provide deep stories, etc.

  • avatarInfinityMax  - re:
    Erik Twice wrote:
    Why would you make a claim that you cannot support? I would like to think that you reached a conclusion through logical thoughts and facts not just because it's your opinion.


    They weren't claims. I'm not purporting to have all the answers. I'm stating an opinion. If you want an academic thesis, you're in the wrong living room. I'm not going to provide footnotes and references, because I don't need them to just say what I think. I think Avatar was a cool movie. I don't need evidence to support that claim, because not only is that not a claim (since it's a statement of opinion), but you don't need evidence to support something that is pure opinion. Other people can disagree, and they don't need supporting evidence, either. I don't see a need for high-level critique of board games and their cultural impact. If you do, then we disagree.

    You want academic writing, go find an academic. You want crassly opinionated dick jokes, I'm your huckleberry.

    Actually, maybe you could clarify your point and show me where I made a claim that needs some support. Because I don't see anything but me saying what I think.

    Quote:
    I mean, otherwise it's just silly.


    I'll be honest, when the guy who sounds like Cheech & Chong teaching an upper-level linguistics class thinks I sound silly, I don't really take that as seriously as you might imagine.

    Quote:
    No need to get like, angry, man


    Brother, this is not me angry.

  • avatarwice  - re: re:
    mikecl wrote:
    wice wrote:
    I always find it funny when people try to find the art in games looking at the graphics, or the story, or anything else that is the primary characteristics of a well established art form. .


    Really? I think it's hilarious when nit pickers try to sound hip by twisting a well intentioned argument only to make the very same point. If you read what I said you'd see I wasn't focusing on just graphics, but the marriage of ALL the elements that go into making a well designed board game. It's a package deal.

    What makes you think it was a response to your comment? It wasn't.

  • avatarmikecl

    Well your comment came right after mine and seemed to reference it. Never mind. I thought it was the same kind of passive aggressive bullshit I get on BGG. My apologies for jumping on you.

  • avatarErik Twice

    Whatever Max, if you are more concerned with insulting me and saying I do drugs than actually talking, you are not worth my time. I mean, seriously, that's childish as fuck!

  • avatarInfinityMax  - re:
    Erik Twice wrote:
    Whatever Max, if you are more concerned with insulting me and saying I do drugs than actually talking, you are not worth my time. I mean, seriously, that's childish as fuck!


    I take some offense to that. Children should not be fucking at all.

    ALTERNATE RESPONSE #1:

    Childish? You mean, as opposed to my normal routine of boob and fart jokes?

    ALTERNATE RESPONSE #2:

    I was responding. I just ALSO mentioned that you sound like you're on drugs.

    ALTERNATE RESPONSE #3:

    So, does that mean I win?

  • avatarSuperflyTNT

    You people sicken me. That was the weakest Friday Freakout ever.

Only registered users can write comments!
Text Size

Top