default header

Theory

On Why Scoring Sucks And Those Who Defend It Are Aspies

Moderator: JC Denton

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 14:45

In short, I have empirically PROVED that there is an order of rank of genres, and that all talk of "equality of genres" is for fagots with no sensitivity to art.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 14:50

Never mind Recap's INVERTED order of rank, which basically betrays nothing less than spiritual retardation. If he'd rather be a two-dimensional character than a three-dimensional one, it's because he is A TWO-DIMENSIONAL PERSON, i.e. a STUNTED person, a RETARDED one.

(Which of course by no means implies that he is not a MASTER of the RETARDED, STUNTED little world that he inhabits.)
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 15:07

And why is it so important to keep pulling the string back? Why not be satisfied with a lax bowstring?

Because the arrow will fly farther.

It's all about the arrow.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 15:25

And here you can see once more why "indies" are doomed to create crap games that will not pass into history. For even if they realized that what they should be doing is COMPLEXIFYING instead of simplifying, they would still fail to see that this applies ALSO TO THE AESTHETICS, and that if the latter lag far behind the former you'll only end up with a very deep game that no one wants to play (see for example Dwarf Fortress).

BUT SOME ASPIES ARE PLAYING IT AND YADDA YADDA YADDA.

My point exactly.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 15:37

In short, the ENTIRE POINT of the mechanics is to help IMMERSE you INTO THE AESTHETICS. If the aesthetics suck, WHY THE HELL WOULD I WANT TO BE IMMERSED IN THEM? The only thing your deep mechanics would be good for then is as inspiration for another designer who's capable of great aesthetics.

Anyway, Dwarf Fortress is not such a good example because it is mostly a strategy game, and those are far less reliant on aesthetics than action games. But the strategy genre is a FAR LOWER GENRE than the action one, so in the long run this doesn't matter. Pac-Man is an action game too, and it is also far less reliant on aesthetics than Deus Ex: Human Revolution, but again that's only because it belongs in a SUBgenre of action games that's far lower than Human Revolution's subgenre.

Still, even at the level of Dwarf Fortress I can find a better example. Take Age of Empires -- they are more or less the same genre, but the latter is apparently far less complex than Dwarf Fortress. And so what? AoE is one of the defining moments of my gaming experience, while Dwarf Fortress I just booted up a couple of times and was flabbergasted at the amount of detail the designer(s) had injected into it for no apparent reason. If they had injected that much complexity in a Civilization sequel THEN we'd be talking. But modelling 100 types of grass or whatever a billion miles away from an underground fortress being built by seven fucking dwarfs? In a gameworld that barely even attempts to make it seem as if there's anything going on or anything is at stake?

See now what I mean by "aspieism"?
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 15:47

Do you see? Just as each genre has a certain maximum limit of MECHANICAL complexity, so too it has an upper limit of AESTHETIC complexity. For no matter how much powerful the hardware you have, there is only so much aesthetic detail you can cram into a Pac-Man clone. Past a certain point, more aesthetic detail in a genre that can't hold it starts to make it look ridiculous, which is why early digitized games have aged so horribly, and Street Fighter has always looked so much more elegant than fucking Mortal Kombat. Or look at Braid's, etc. "adult" aesthetic pretensions. Only a bona fide retard would fail to find them laughable (which is why only I didn't).
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 15:52

In the "Narrative Delusions" essay I speak of "harmony". Here I am practically talking of "string vibrations". There's perhaps an equation somewhere here to be "discovered" -- now THAT'S a job for a proper game academic.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 16:00

Recap's instinct is here again infallible when he rebels against the attempt to introduce "gritty, realistic-proportions" to 2D games and INSISTS that they all remain cartoonish: in the little corner of the artform that he inhabits he is indeed a master.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/of_genoci ... nventions/

What a beautiful article that is. And also incredibly well-written. Makes me almost forget how terrible the price was he had to pay to write it.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 16:06

And in the same vein we can say that each genre has an upper MEANING/MESSAGE COMPLEXITY limit. If you try to convey an adult/complicated meaning through a low genre the result will once more end up being unintentionally comedic, if not outright disgusting.

See for example Ebert's judgement of Braid's message: "Narrative on the level of a wordy fortune cookie", he had said. Any attempt afterwards to insist that your fortune cookie had a deep and profound message simply adds to the hilarity.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 16:08

Which is why it's much easier to accept the notion that Deus Ex: Human Revolution has something important to convey compared to what's being made in the TIGSource forums.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 16:15

Same with Blade Runner over a school production with no sets, improvised plot and bad acting.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 18:52

Ultimately, since videogames are not merely "an art" but art itself, all the rules we devise for them have to apply to all the artforms. It's just that the smaller/lower the artform, the more of a genius and "pedant" you have to be to see the rule's application.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 18:54

Like with my cutscene essay. What is the interactive aspect of movies? You have to bring in quantum mechanics to demonstrate that, or at the very least micromolecular physics, at which point you've lost all of your audience and are merely thinking aloud.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 May 2012 19:03

And it's absolutely no accident that it's only NOW, with videogames, that we are able to set down such solid and comprehensive aesthetic rules, whereas before we could hardly move further than "different strokes for different folks theory" (i.e. no theory). Because we didn't have much to work with before, given how tiny, how small, the artworks we had to work with were. It's like that huge gash across the surface of Mars, which could fit the Grand Canyon inside a tiny corner. That's the relation of the depth of all previous artforms compared to that of videogames.

Meanwhile Tim Rogers just released Ziggurat on the iPhone, which is a French New Wave postmodern-inspired masterpiece that people playing Pac-Man in the '80s would not even bother making fun of.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 May 2012 01:07

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25012/25012-pdf.pdf

Nietzsche wrote the rough draft of “The Case of Wagner” in
Turin, during the month of May 1888; he completed it in Sils
Maria towards the end of June of the same year, and it was
published in the following autumn. “Nietzsche contra Wagner”
was written about the middle of December 1888; but, although
it was printed and corrected before the New Year, it was not
published until long afterwards owing to Nietzsche's complete
breakdown in the first days of 1889.

In reading these two essays we are apt to be deceived, by their
virulent and forcible tone, into believing that the whole matter is a
mere cover for hidden fire,—a mere blind of æsthetic discussion
concealing a deep and implacable personal feud which demands
and will have vengeance. In spite of all that has been said to the
contrary, many people still hold this view of the two little works
before us; and, as the actual facts are not accessible to every one,
and rumours are more easily believed than verified, the error
of supposing that these pamphlets were dictated by personal
animosity, and even by Nietzsche's envy of Wagner in his glory,
seems to be a pretty common one. Another very general error
is to suppose that the point at issue here is not one concerning
music at all, but concerning religion. It is taken for granted
that the aspirations, the particular quality, the influence, and the
method of an art like music, are matters quite distinct from the
values and the conditions prevailing in the culture with which it
is in harmony, and that however many Christian elements may
be discovered in Wagnerian texts, Nietzsche had no right to
raise æsthetic objections because he happened to entertain the
extraordinary view that these Christian elements had also found
their way into Wagnerian music.

To both of these views there is but one reply:—they are
absolutely false.

In the “Ecce Homo,” Nietzsche's autobiography,—a book
which from cover to cover and line for line is sincerity itself—we
learn what Wagner actually meant to Nietzsche. On pages 41,
44, 84, 122, 129, &c, we cannot doubt that Nietzsche is speaking
from his heart,—and what does he say?—In impassioned tones
he admits his profound indebtedness to the great musician, his
love for him, his gratitude to him,—how Wagner was the only
German who had ever been anything to him—how his friendship
with Wagner constituted the happiest and most valuable experience
of his life,—how his breach with Wagner almost killed
him. And, when we remember, too, that Wagner on his part
also declared that he was “alone” after he had lost “that man”
(Nietzsche), we begin to perceive that personal bitterness and
animosity are out of the question here. We feel we are on a
higher plane, and that we must not judge these two men as if they
were a couple of little business people who had had a suburban
squabble.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 May 2012 02:25

Nietzsche wrote:The artist of decadence. That is the word. And here I begin to be serious. I could not think of looking on approvingly while this décadent spoils our health — and music into the bargain. Is Wagner a man at all? Is he not rather a disease? Everything he touches he contaminates. He has made music sick.


That is precisely how I feel about the "indie" bums -- and even the aspies now. Notice how both health and manliness come into it immediately.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 May 2012 02:29

Nietzsche wrote:A typical décadent who thinks himself necessary with his corrupted taste, who arrogates to himself a higher taste, who tries to establish his depravity as a law, as progress, as a fulfilment.

And no one guards against it. His powers of seduction attain monstrous proportions, holy incense hangs around him, the misunderstanding concerning him is called the Gospel,—and he has certainly not converted only the poor in spirit to his cause!

I should like to open the window a little:—Air! More air!—


The "poor in spirit" comment means that Wagner has even managed to convince smart people.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 May 2012 22:20

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41427

Quite an amusing thread. austere and zinger are putting in a brave effort to counter the objections of the aspies, but they can't counter the harder ones because they lack the insight into game design that I have. I could destroy every single one of the objections the aspies are making, but they don't want me posting there so I can't. I could destroy them in THIS thread of course, and perhaps I will do so for at least a few of them, but it's a shame to see that thread roll on and those pathetic objections still standing.

Take the case of Battle Garegga, for example. This is currently being argued by a bunch of utterly unimaginative people, while the funny dude already solved the problem in the first page:

dunpeal2064 wrote:Should make a Garegga patch.

Suicide or die


Which basically immediately points out how absurd the scoring system is, to the point that if you wanted to INTEGRATE it properly in the game, you would DESTROY the game.

Isn't that enough evidence that the scoring system is absurd?

"And then why does Rando love it so much?", would be the inevitable question.

Dude, people love Fez because they have to turn off the game and try to solve the puzzles by looking up anagrams on newspapers or whatever -- Rando simply loves all the math he has to do to keep rank in check and maximize his score -- BUT DOES DOING MATH HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PUREST, MOST ADRENALINE-FILLED ACTION GENRE EVER DEVISED?

It is the MATH/PUZZLE dimension from which Rando is drawing the majority of his enjoyment, hence if you removed it, no matter how much harder you might make the game to compensate for that, you would remove most of his enjoyment. Rando's enjoyment is therefore mostly CEREBRAL, while the shooting genre is by nature mostly PHYSICAL, hence no matter how much harder you make the game, you won't satisfy Rando's desire for an injection of a large dose of cerebrality (is that even a word?) into a basically reflex-based genre.

So is Battle Garegga a bad game then?

No, it is a masterpiece. But only when played full-on, with no regard for either rank or score, and just seeing how far you can get in that way. I mean seriously, now, even the game's most outspoken defenders DO NOT BOTHER TO DISCOVER HOW THE RANK SYSTEM WORKS ON THEIR OWN, so basically NO ONE really likes the system apart from the couple of dudes who made the strategy guide, and who by that fact alone have been diagnosed to suffer from Assburger's syndrome. So give me a fucking break with the "greatness" of its rank system already!

You want a cerebral shooting game that's not made for aspies? Play fucking Ikaruga.

icycalm out.

Now someone copy-paste this in that thread to show the aspies how a REAL shooting game player thinks.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 May 2012 22:35

And if you want some REAL math/cerebral gaming, grab a goddamn tactics/strategy/management game or whatever. -- But Rando only plays ACTION games. Hence why, when he wants to get his little tiny fix of math/mental videogame action, something A LITTLE DEEPER THAN POW-POW-BOOM-BOOM, he turns to Battle Garegga.

Just as the "competitive" aspies get their competitive kicks by outperforming other aspies at clicking a mouse instead of moving their actual bodies.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Do I win again or what?
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 May 2012 23:01

Do you see how good criticism works in conjunction with psychology? The "different strokes for different folks" truism is of course... true, but that doesn't mean that ALL STROKES ARE EQUAL. If you want to find out why dogs love "fetch" so much, you conduct a psychological analysis of dogs, and you will find the answer. This doesn't mean that dogs will suddenly STOP loving fetch. All it means is that when a dog barks out his opinion ABOUT THE GREATNESS OF "FETCH", you will not have to FUCKING SWALLOW IT, but you will be able to say "sure, fetch is no doubt great -- IF YOU ARE A DOG".

I am not saying that Rando is a dog. All I am doing is analyzing his preferences and uncovering the reasoning that lies behind them -- the physiological and mental requirements for loving Battle Garegga's scoring system. And as a philosopher, I point out the fact that it is healthier to play more physical games for the physical aspect and more cerebral games for the cerebral -- IF YOU CAN DO IT. Our lovable Rando, however, CANNOT DO IT, because he is simply not drawn to very cerebral games. This does not mean that he is an idiot, he is in fact one of the two or three smarter gamers on that board, and overall a very smart and open-minded person -- but he is nowhere near as smart as me. Hence our different preferences. And now that you've had both his opinion and mine, you can make your own choice -- or amend the choice that you've already made -- which will again be dependent, not only on the opinions you've read, but also on your very own particular physiological and mental qualities. If you'd like to become more like Rando you'll break out the strategy guide and the calculator and start medalling; if you want to become more like me you'll FIRE AND FORGET, and afterwards play a round of Civilization.

And this is how criticism works -- i.e. "different strokes for different folks", get it?
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 May 2012 23:10

But how is it possible to convey that I still respect his opinion? We are back to the cakecrumb analogy again, and back to Josh making his own scoring systems for Metal Slug because he's exhausted the official one.

Let's say both Rando (or Josh) and I have 100 energy units. But I pour them in 1,000 games, while Rando pours them in 10. These 10 games that Rando picked, are also part of my 1,000, but can you see how different our experiences of these 10 common games, and therefore our views on them (and on the best way to play them) will be?

I'll pick up this train of thought tomorrow. Really, just think of the analogy between a philosopher and a scientist, and you'll get it. The specialist basically overestimates the importance of "the nook into which he sits and spins", as Nietzsche has said. But the final arbiter of the VALUE of that nook COMPARED TO OTHER NOOKS, is not the specialist/scientist but the philosopher/critic. Etc. etc.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 May 2012 23:11

And this is also where the whole "acquired taste" business comes in.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 May 2012 23:14

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 47#p798347

That DJ Fagot kid wrote:You seem to be forgetting that we're talking about top-down scrolling shooters, which by default make very little sense from an aesthetic perspective.


zinger wrote:That doesn't mean the aesthetic dimension should be arbitrarily designed. Sure, the top-down perspective has its limits, but would you be just as content with Ketsui if every other sprite was automatically generated using random Google image searches?


lol

zinger cranks out some really sparkling examples and analogies now and then.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 17 May 2012 01:30

Let's explode another misconception that keeps coming up again and again and again in the aspies' forum, and which there's no way in hell anyone there would ever be able to explode BECAUSE THEY ARE NOWHERE NEAR HARDCORE ENOUGH TO DO SO. Do you hear me, aspies? Compared to me YOU ARE ALL GODDAMN CASUALS. You lack VIDEOGAME CULTURE, that's why you can't grasp any of this shit, EVEN AFTER IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU.

The myth here is that scoring makes the first stages of a game much more enjoyable, by giving you something extra to focus on on your way to the later stages. If scoring was not there, you'd play the early stages the exact same way every time through them, and thus they'd get boring.

Only someone who missed out ON THE ENTIRE PRE-1995 HISTORY OF THE ARTFORM COULD SAY THAT. For when I played The Super Shinobi, for example, back in 1989, I BY NO MEANS DID THE EXACT SAME THINGS ON THE FIRST STAGES EVERY TIME I WENT THROUGH THEM ON THE WAY TO THE HARDER ONES. I went faster, harder, with more finesse, using fewer shuriken, and so on and so forth. I DO NOT NEED A SCORE COUNTER IN ORDER TO UP MY GAME AND ENJOY THE SPEED AND THE POWER AND THE GRACE OF AN AWESOME PLAYTHROUGH. THE ACTUAL ACTION ON THE SCREEN IS ITS OWN REWARD. WAKE UP YOU GODDAMN MISERABLE SHUT-IN FUCKFACES. YOUR BRAINS HAVE TURNED TO MUSH BY TOO MUCH ASININE "SCOREPLAY".

Do I win again or what?
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 18 May 2012 00:57

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 81#p798781

Randorama wrote:My way of immerging myself in the game was by analyzing its algebraic structure, rather than looking at the pretty colours, so to speak.


Freud was a pseudo-psychologist compared to me.

And how stupid is Rando for reading every goddamn thread on Shmups, but not sparing even 5 minutes to check what I am writing in here? Meanwhile his post is full of stupidities or superfluous shit with no point to it beyond padding the thread so that it will seem as if he's saying something.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

PreviousNext

Return to Theory