Theory

[losganados]

Okay, I think I get it now. What still confuses me a little is that icycalm also mentioned better music, better graphics etc. - things that have nothing to do with complexity or depth and then asked "what do all of these things have in common?". So, the question I have is: "What is the common point between mechanics and presentation?"

But aesthetics and mechanics are the same thing. I am not exactly sure about this but I understand it as when graphical detail adds complexity even if it only serves as a distraction. Think of the flash grenades in some FPS where you are blinded and deafened temporarily. The flash grenade was an aesthetic and mechanic.

[icycalm]

dA's and chb's posts were correct. Naoshige muddled the issues a bit by confusing videogames, which we have been discussing, with games in general, which we HAVEN'T been discussing, though the things we are saying here could be applied to all games eventually with certain modifications (which we will not make here, because this is a thread about videogames).

I agree with losganados, that icy's point was that the 'childish,' or 'instinctive' reaction is to want more complexity, and more depth.

Not exactly the childish reaction, but the reaction of the child who has attacked the game with so much passion that he has mastered it. Everyone else will NOT want a more complex game. They will be just as happy to play and replay the same game for all eternity, because, after all, they don't have what it takes to play the more complex one. Kind of like the rat who runs and runs on the wheel and to whom it never occurs to try and escape from it, because after all HE CAN'T.

Ideally, you would like for a game to be such that, the more you play it, the better you get at it, forever, with no ceiling. The ultimate reward for playing a game more than everyone else should be being better at it than everyone else (individual variations in natural aptitude or talent aside).

Exactly. Only the last word should be "included" instead of "aside".

chb, you might want to consider what it is you even mean when you use terms like "immersive" or "escape from reality," as I think they are leading you off track. Likewise, I think that all of this:

(and wanting to forget the real world for a while is why we play games in the first place). Thus, it follows that the games that are more immersive are also the superior ones because they are better at doing what games are supposed to do: providing an escape from reality.

is false.

It is correct. This is also proved by the fact that if you think through complexity and immersion to the end, they are ultimately the same thing.

Think: what does "immersion" mean for a human being? How can it be improved? And what is the ceiling of this improvement?

[icycalm]

On the one hand, it is plain that, in the long run, better graphics presuppose better physics and better physics better graphics.

For those who don't understand this, consider: what does "photorealism" mean in a 3D environment?

Read also this:

If you are still wondering where I am going with all this let me make my position clear: I believe that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 are not powerful enough to handle true HDTV resolutions, and at the same time deliver the large variety of new effects necessary to approach photorealism. The quest for photorealistic graphics is, after all, the main reason for designing new consoles every four or five years -- once it is accomplished the console cycle will grow longer and everyone will start concentrating more on peripherals and human/machine interfaces (Nintendo simply jump-started this process with the touch screen of the DS and the remote of the Wii, because they didn't have the R&D budget to stay in the graphics game).

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/not_powerful_enough/

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=9969#9969

[Naoshige]

So, the question I have is: "What is the common point between mechanics and presentation?"

That question once had its own thread, but it was closed due to people making stabs in the dark that weren't too helpful.

Here it is for your reading pleasure.

Edit: Sorry, didn't notice that the link was already given above.

[Nic P]

On the one hand, it is plain that, in the long run, better graphics presuppose better physics and better physics better graphics.

For those who don't understand this, consider: what does "photorealism" mean in a 3D environment?

Is it because light as we understand it is part of our laws of physics?

Will there be a time where being able to create a perfect simulated world will be limited by our understanding of physics (or our lack of full understanding)?

Also:

Therein lies Mr. Pratt's answer, and with this answer the instinctive criteria which were formerly subconscious become conscious. It is only at that point that superior criticism can begin.

Then the strong man uses these criteria as a guide to increase his power over the world, i.e. to shape it in his image (the extent to which he achieves this being determined by his passion and strength), while the weak man will question his preference and submit to others' values?

[icycalm]

What are you even talking about? That quote is about game criticism, about creating better games. What do "strong men" and "shaping the world" have to do with that? Honestly, random smarmy posts like this really annoy me. I've banned plenty of people for posting this sort of stuff. What the fuck is even going through you head when you write shit like that? If you are a stupid child locked in a basement somewhere stick to button-pressing and masturbation and leave the philosophy alone, please.

[icycalm]

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/mo ... review.php

review.jpg (65.41 KiB) Viewed 28437 times

Paramount Pictures has had a lot of success in the past. They are a large company and they have a lot of money. For this reason, fans of the distributor know that their newest movie is sure to be good. World War Z is that newest movie. The camera never falls over during a scene. Actors are always in frame. The film runs at a steady 24 frames per second with very few frame drops. Since World War Z has a big enough budget to ensure that it doesn't have any glaring mistakes, we're happy to say that it will at least score a 7/10.

World War Z's visuals are top-notch. It has all sorts of cool effects like shadows, sunbeams pouring through windows. and impressive reflections on shiny surfaces. Multiple light sources hit objects at the same time, making everything look very realistic.

The screen that you see the movie on is quite large. When there is a close up of a face it's like you're looking at a giant. Impressive! As all true moviers know, World War Z was filmed with the Arri Alexa M cameras, so the resolution is very high and therefore very good and worth watching.

Many of the actors are attractive. Some of the women have flaws, which really takes you out of their respective scenes. I like scenes where a dog reacts to a situation by laying his head down then comedically covering his eyes with his paws while whimpering. That doesn't happen in this movie, which is rather unforgivable.

On to the sound. You can clearly hear everything that the actors say. The theater I saw the movie in had speakers that were likely running the latest firmware update. The music plays at the right time. When a scene gets sad the music becomes sad. When there is a battle the music becomes exciting. It is quite cinematic.

World War Z has a great story. A lot of people talk in it and things keep happening, which makes it cinematic. There are also a lot of impressive explosions, which make the movie even more cinematic. This is some next-gen stuff. You can clearly see everyone's facial expressions and everyone's face has a lot of detail so that makes the movie good.

There is a lot of shooting, and a lot of people get killed. It's very satisfying. Some people have been complaining about the level of violence as of late (I call them entitled whiners) but what else is going to be in a movie?

World War Z clocks in at 116 minutes, so it passes our dollar-to-entertainment ratio test with flying colors.

That said, the movie isn't perfect. My seat had a bit of a wobble to it, so I could never quite get comfortable. There aren't any scenes with dogs putting their paws over their eyes. I can't stress how important that is. It has been established as something that works, so it should be in every single movie. The makers of World War Z got lazy on that front.

Still, fans of the genre will have an absolute blast with this cinematic marvel. It might just be the Legend Of Zelda: A Link To The Past of movies. You should pay to see this movie because it functions and does many of the things you expect.

score.png (16.47 KiB) Viewed 28437 times

It's funny and all, but there are very good reasons for many of the features of the typical game review he makes fun of. I should explain that somewhere. If you take his advice and start reviewing games like movies you'll end up with artfag fluff, and if you start reviewing movies like games you'll end up with what he wrote. Neither approach is a good one because guess what, Einstein: movies and games are different things, and should therefore be reviewed differently.

[icycalm]

By the way, maybe someone can help me with this. In the movie Carnage, Kate Winslet says something that I would like someone to cut and put up on YouTube so I can link it in my reviews. I won't say what she says because I don't want to spoil this masterpiece for anyone, suffice it to say that you will know it when you see it. The line goes something like "And if your kid wasn't xxxx x xxxxx-xxx xxxxxx". That's all I want, these dozen words or so. If someone can do this, post the link here when you are done. And once again let me warn people to not click on the link before they've seen the movie, because that line is the entire point of it and you'll ruin it for yourselves.

[SriK]

Wow, cool movie. Amazing script and performances. I haven't seen many other realtime dialogue-heavy movies like this (the only kind-of-similar one that comes to mind is Before Sunrise, which I loved, but that had multiple locations in addition to being in a different genre).

Here's the clip you wanted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EsNhCgRjJQ

[icycalm]

Thanks. Can you make a little alteration to it? Cut it down to "a little wimpy-ass fagot". That's all. I want every time I write the word "fagot" to link to that video.

[icycalm]

That clip cracks me up every time. I can hit replay 20 times, and I'll laugh all 20 of them. I'll even laugh when I am thinking about how I laughed about it. I actually have the movie in a prominent place on my laptop just for that scene. The way her mouth fills with the words, and how she draws out the ffffffagot in the end. Amazing.

[icycalm]

There's no greater insult than for a woman to call you a fagot. That's a line from my other book.

[icycalm]

https://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/206217497/#206221035

>>206220641
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/how_good_ ... s_perfect/

The ONLY sensible system for reviewing anything is measuring how much the reviewer liked it. Of course the reasons why he liked it are what we care about, but so far as the score goes that's all it boils down to. The highest rating doesn't measure "perfection", it just means the reviewer strongly recommends the thing.

The advancement of criticism is answering the question "who likes what, and why do they like it" in progressively better detail and precision.

[icycalm]

http://tevisthompson.com/on-videogame-reviews/

This is beautifully written, and parts of it are sensible, but most of it is rubbish. It's huge, so I am not going to be pointing out which parts are which. You should be able to figure it for yourselves after reading my articles on the subject, which are anyway not only infinitely better but also far more comprehensive. (Note that this includes VG CULTURE II, which is not out yet.)

[icycalm]

I sent him this email:

I read your article on game reviews. It was quite an unusual experience. I don't think I've ever come across anyone who can go from being 100 percent right in one paragraph to 100 percent wrong in the very next, or even from sentence to sentence at some points. Most liberal scum are usually 80 percent wrong 20 percent right, and none of them outside of the big names like Orwell or something can write half as well as you. In fact you may even be the best writer to ever write about games, period. The problem is that you are not also the best thinker. But you are not an altogether bad thinker either. So you have potential, is what I am trying to say, and that's why I am taking the trouble to email you.

Take for example the part where you talk about ratings. Some of it is sensible, but the rest is rubbish. And the whole matter has anyway been closed since 2009:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/how_good_ ... s_perfect/

You have nothing to say beyond what is already in there, and you even commit several mistakes which I went out of my way to point out.

Anyway, I won't trouble you with more specific criticisms -- or praise for that matter. All I will say is that I can see by your writing that you could very well have what it takes to make it to the next level, but you can't do it on your own. You need guidance, and you won't find it in the decadent liberal literature you are reading. You laud perspectivism, for example, while simultaneously adhering to a rigid moral agenda. How can a person as intelligent and articulate as you not be able to see the contradiction? So, if you want to level up you need guidance, and this is where it's at:

http://orgyofthewill.net/read/

Good luck and all the best.


AK

[icycalm]

http://anandtech.com/show/7502/ode-to-wasteland

"Ode to Wasteland." With a title like this I was expecting an epic multiple-page essay like my Videogame Art ones, but got this instead:

I’ve been covering some gaming stuff more of late, branching out from my laptop reviews to look at the various Humble Bundle offerings and a few other titles. I’ve also got several new releases on my plate, like Batman: Arkham Origins (a prequel to the earlier games) and Call of Duty: Ghosts (which I haven’t even launched). Instead, I just started playing something else (again). Consider this a short fanboy letter for one of my all-time favorite games, Wasteland.

I mentioned in the latest Humble Weekly how I started playing computer games back in the halcyon days of yore, when Sierra Online and Origin Systems were a couple of the biggest names in the business. Electronic Arts (with its square-circle-triangle logo) was around as well, and there was another company called Interplay Productions (then a developer as opposed to a publisher). Interplay created the Bard’s Tale series (which I’ll be honest hasn’t aged very well), and then in 1988 they released the granddaddy of post-apocalyptic RPGs, Wasteland (published by EA).

I first played Wasteland on a Commodore 64, swapping floppies and dealing with level load times measured in minutes. Ah yes, the good old days of LOAD “*”,8,1 how I miss them…. I finished the game, then I went back and played it again, and again. Then I got an IBM compatible computer (thanks, dad!) and played the game again (more than once). I yearned for a sequel for a very long time, and when the Fallout games came out I was thrilled and enjoyed those as much as Wasteland, though they weren’t quite the same. Later we got Fallout 3 and New Vegas, which while excellent games in their own right continue to be quite different from the original. Eventually Wasteland was even given away for free, on a magazine CD if memory serves, and I think I’ve gone back and played it at least a couple more times over the past 25 years. So it’s perhaps only fitting that as we pass its 25th anniversary, Wasteland is getting a new release.

No, I’m not talking about Wasteland 2 – well, not entirely, though I backed that Kickstarter, and I’m really excited to return to the wastes. What I’m talking about is Wasteland 1 – The Original Classic, which is an updated version of the original Wasteland with some improved graphics, integrated journal entries (no more spiral bound book containing descriptions of areas!), new music, and even some voiceover work for good measure, plus there’s the ability to have multiple save games. The game is free to all backers of Wasteland 2 as well as Torment: Tides of Numenera, and if for some reason you missed both of those but still want in on the action, you can go hit up the Wasteland 2 Late Backer Store. I’d assume it will eventually show up as a game you can buy on Steam or GOG as well. I just received my Steam code in the mail today, and I’ve downloaded the 300MB (!) game and fired it up.

As for the gameplay, it’s definitely from a different era, but it’s still a fun way to see the precursor to the Fallout series, not to mention a good way to get you ready for the eventual release of Wasteland 2. So if you don’t have anything else going on this weekend, why not revisit the wastes and brush up on your toaster repair skill – you never know when you’re going to need it!

It doesn't even give me the impression that he's played the game. Anyone could come up with such drivel. "An ode" -- i.e. some random drivel that has nothing to do with the game and is even more boring than a PR description of it.

Journalistic odes lol.

[icycalm]

http://videospel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1049#p1049

Moving on to videogame reviews in specific, the goal is to rank the game against similar games, to help gamers and designers enjoy and be inspired by the better ones. The fundamentals of what must be said is 1. What we get to play as, 2. What the world is like, and 3. What you're up against, what you're doing.

Qpo, all your attempts at theory I have seen are stupid. You are trying to turn everything into a spreadsheet before you can even write a decent review yourself. It's the same thing you do when you try to criticize the English language before you can even properly speak it or trying to write maxims before you have even lived. The only way for you to improve in any of these endeavors is the same one I have recommended to the Ghetto moron: to turn off your computer and go outside your house. No other way forward exists for you. I have spoken.

[icycalm]

http://gatotsu2501.wordpress.com/type/aside/

Aside 20 Oct

Whoever said that critiquing mediocrity is the real test of one’s critical facilities had it right: pointing out good things about particularly good work and bad things about particularly bad work certainly requires skill, but in those cases you start out with enough momentum to hit the ground running right away. Explaining why unremarkable work is unremarkable, though… that’s difficult. You have to make your own momentum, and it’s that strenuous process that teaches you the material components of the thing you’re putting together from scratch. Not having clear binary classifications of “good” and “bad” to fall back on – that’s what forces you to examine just how you distinguish between the two in the first place.

Where does that leave the authors of all those bad God Hand reviews?