Tuesday, February 28, 2012

thanks matt

close friend responded in my comment of this is a jedi with a picture of i doknt know anymore i just dont fucking know anymore



people buy this. they spend money on this. shit this isnt even about games anymore, really. i mean yeah its for bejewled but this is just people not fucking understanding how money works. you get th e money from your job, you put the money in your wallet, then you dont spend it on shit like this. 

Games Reviewers are hacks, frauds, and liars


I walked into my local Gamestop today *the audience cheers and applauds* and I realized something. If you take the word Gamestop, and rearrange the letters, you get Gamespot. There's no punchline.

your one stop shop for being a loser

The only unfortunate joke here is the awful shit that constantly is passed for as a review. It's hard to say that what these people do is classified as writing, but, well... I guess it has words. And they're stringed together consecutively, complete with punctuation, capitalization, and even sometimes grammar. I guess that's writing? Steinbeck couldn't hold a candle to these dudes.

It's kinda difficult to say what's wrong with any given amateur game reviewer, let alone someone who is paid to put this shit on the internet, without just screaming "all of it" at the top of my lungs. Now, I understand the need for a game review, I understand the demand. Games have become expensive and time consuming products. No one wants to spend $60-70 and 10-30 hours on a game only for them to come to the conclusion that they didn't enjoy the experience they just had. Like movie-goers, audiophiles, and every other first-world luxury consuming idiot, you need to be hand fed what exactly it is you like and don't like, because you are incapable of keeping your stupid-dollars in your moron-wallet.

stop buying these fucking wallets you stupid nerds. you aren't samuel jackson, and you aren't a bad motherfucker. i hate you.

What I don't understand with game reviewers, is why they are seemingly incapable of reviewing the fucking game. Okay, this isn't fair. Review has many definitions, one which is to "look over again", to create "a formal assessment or examination."

The problem is that most video game reviews go on for about two pages, if that. Most half their article is spent simply describing the game to fucking idiots too stupid or too busy to do any background research what so ever. What I'd want from a review is to tell me is it fun to play? What are the gameplay issues? Is it really easy to die in the game? Is it buggy?

Is it an RPG? What kind of RPG? Does it focus too much on story? Is the combat repetitive? Dissect the game. Tell me what you do, what you enjoyed, what you disliked. A review is a personal thing so fucking tell me what you personally did.

For shits and giggles, let's look at IGN (it stands for ignorant, gdumb, nstupid lol). Here they review Dragon Age II, a really good game.

average gamer, and reviewer, Kirstine Steimer, enjoying a refreshing gamerfuel

Over a thousand words were written. And a little less than three hundred are used to talk about things that actually pertain to, you know, playing the thing. The rest is all story, narrative, dialogue, setting, all those little things that the developer uses as a bright light and loud noises to distract you from the fact that there either isn't anything to actually do, or what there is to do isn't fun.

"You can easily play it like an action title and mash buttons on lower difficulty levels, but if you prefer to think about what you're doing, you can crank up the difficulty, pause the game, and issue commands for individual team members. "

Okay that's good, but somewhat precarious. It's good to be able to reach across the spectrum of difficulty and make an interesting game that can challenge people at all levels. However you never like to hear the words "mash buttons" because it makes you wonder how deep the combat exactly is at the higher difficulty levels. Kristine never goes much into detail about that though, so I'm only left wondering.

"The only trouble is your buddies aren't smart enough to play Dragon Age II like a straight action game, despite BioWare's claim that you can. Unless you set up specific instructions in individual characters' tactics menus, they won't take healing potions (and even then they might not do it)."

Oh ugh. Well this is good to know. A game in which a major feature (ie: your companions in Dragon Age II) might not work. This sticks out to me. For a game like Dragon Age II where you have combat that takes place with you and several select companions, the idea that you might not succeed because the game mechanics do not work correctly is frustrating and completely turns me off. Whether or not I succeed should be an element of my own skill, not because you hired one programmer who's resume listed HTML and Microsoft Word as his two major programming languages. 

"As I mentioned earlier, you're in the same city and surrounding areas for the entire game and it can get tiresome to see the same sights. Dungeons often look identical and even the mini-map doesn't change – the only variable is which pathways are blocked off. It's a major bummer that every time you try to explore, the places you discover feel familiar."

And the game is repetitive. Great. Just what I wanted. Especially in something like a role playing game where I might want to explore the world and build a role for my character in that role. So far, we've learned that we can't explore, that the game is repetitive, and the game feature of companions doesn't work properly. That's all we know about what you can actually do in the game. That's all we know about actually playing the game. At this point, why would I want to play? 

Even in the little gameplay rating box at the bottom she goes as far as to say:

 "This is a game that lets you play the way you want to: be a jerk or a saint, play it like an action game or employ your own strategy. It’s up to you, and that’s great."

Cool. Cool. Hmm, what score did she give this game?


Finally, a repetitive, buggy, game where the main gameplay feature doesn't work correctly gets the recognition it deserves


Fuck you.

Point systems like this are probably about as big a cancer on the gaming industry as story-telling. Game reviewing websites like IGN and Gamespot know that no one actually reads the review, and so do the Game Developers who repeatedly put up advertisements on a website that reviews the games. Let me just repeat that. The Game Developers are paying the people who review your fucking games. Hmm I wonder if the reviewer giving the game a bad score could result in the game company pulling all of the advertising money. Uhhhhhhhhh.

People who buy games just want to know if it's worth buying or not. So they make up a spectrum like 1-10 or 1-5 or F-A to let people know how good a game is. 

Which doesn't make any fucking sense at all.

One game can be better than another game. For example: the games that I like, are better than the games that you like, because I'm smart and cool, and you're... not smart, and not cool? But overall games are a very subjective medium. Someone may only like games where you shoot people, while other people may only like games where you get kicked repeatedly in the dick (massively multiplayer online role playing games). 

I can try to look at the game objectively. I see Civilization 4 as a very well made, highly polished game. As a turn based strategy game, it has a lot of depth, allowing a lot of different ways to efficiently run your civilization. It works on a tactical level in terms of maneuvering units and unit variety, and strategically in terms of specializing your cities, researching technologies, and choosing government policies.

 this game fucking sucks. where are the headshots? where are the hardcores? i think im going to puke

On the other hand, I see Dragon Age 2 as a poor game. There's very little depth to the combat available. While ordering your own attacks and getting your companions to work with you can work fairly well, the combat in the game is so repetitive you will find yourself fighting the same exact fight over and over. After the first fight, you run on auto pilot and have very little to do, tactically speaking. Exploration is limited because of the limited game world. And that's all the gameplay. There's some story, but story isn't gameplay so we won't talk about that as we are just looking at how they function as games.

not a writer

So while I'd say that Civilization 4 is a better game than Dragon Age 2, someone may hate turn based strategy games, and only like role playing games. At that point, what do you do? You'd look at how the consumer could procure certain games. You'd base your review on whether they should Buy It, Rent It, Play It At Your Friends House, or Stay Away. And you'd do this based on several factors like: are you a fan of the series, are you a fan of the genre, are you looking for a timesink, are you looking for this that or whatever. 

If you do anything else, you're a fucking hack. 

Monday, February 27, 2012

this is a bounty hunter in star wars the told republic


lmao come on dude come on. what do you make fun of? the bad textures? no AA? hahahahhhahaha

this is a jedi



You can't make this up though lol

stop putting romance in videogames

Listen, game developers, I realize that I am a 500 pound 20 year old virgin loser nerd, but please stop putting romance in video games.

Romance ain't a bad thing. It can make you feel strongly about a character and want to see them succeed. It can make you relate to the character better.

But in videogames it seems as if the primary purpose of putting romances in the game is entirely wish fulfillment. You have these poorly written caricatures that essentially only represent what the developers think will satisfy the average gamer's bulging erection. they have barely any depth. And it's insulting. Game developers are literally insulting you by carefully crafting these images and dialogue in such a way as to maximize fanboy squeel.

Yes! This! You guys have no idea how cute Merrill is. I work here and and I still squee when she says things I haven't heard.

There's a lot of this in the writer pit:

Merrill (in-game): (something unbelievably cute)
Sheryl: GIGGLESQUEE!!!!! SO CUTE!!!
Mary: Hee hee.
Sheryl: She's so adorable I love her and want to hug her omgIcan'tbelievehowadorablesheisCAN-I-NOM-HER-HEAD?!
Mary: ... No.


Wow I'm fucking shocked that this character is available for romance. With her perfectly plucked eyebrows, her large, inviting, Disney eyes, and her perfectly symmetrical face what more could one want? Oh, also she's socially awkward and naive and innocent. Fuck you. 

me irl

The thing that really gets me about romance in video games, though, is that it doesn't add anything to the game itself. the romance, like the story, is the side-dish, to distract gamers from the fact that, wow the mechanics of this game are a fucking piece of dogshit. 

Since I love picking on Bioware, and all their games suck dick (except Dragon Age: Origins, which is okay), let's take a look at Star Wars: The Old Republic. I played a shitload of that game, got a character up to level 50, was pretty much the best one to ever play the game (not hard: its full of scrubs and losers). Anyway I constantly noticed myself trying to avoid all of the enemy creatures as much as possible. I found myself actually wanting to minimize the amount of actual gameplay that I experienced because it was so fucking bad.

Great game, asshole.

It wasn't just me. Everyone around me was trying to hug walls or just run passed the enemies as much as possible and not get into fights unless it was absolutely needed. Hey, you shitheads, if people are trying to avoid actually playing the game, then maybe you should have actually made it fun to play instead of dressing it up. 

Would anyone who bought Star Wars: The Old Republic have even played it that far if there wasn't the dangling carrot of advancing the story, having sex with your companions, and so on? I know I wouldn't. This isn't good. Games should be able to stand on the game play alone, where you can strip out all the graphics, all the sound, all the story, writing, dialogue, and romance, and be enjoyable to play. You should be able to put a game into any setting, with any characters, while keeping the same core gameplay, and have it be genuinely enjoyable 

Come the fuck on. 

Sunday, February 26, 2012

John Walker Is The Biggest Moron On The Face Of The Planet

John Walker is possibly the biggest moron on the face of the planet, save for the person (who may or may not be mythical since how fucking stupid do you have to be to hire as big a scrub loser like Jon Walker).

A good friend of mine (just kidding, I don't have friends) runs a blog called Crystal Palace Zone. He recently had an article concerning game design, and what defines a game. Then this little loser nerd comes running in out of nowhere, screaming real loud at the top of his lungs and bangin all the pots and pans throwing a huge unprofessional fit because... well, CPZ's author had the nerve to do something that humans have been doing for eons: attempting to define a certain practice and what makes it different to other practices.


"Good grief, it's so tiresome to see people *still* arguing "games are the thing *I* say they are!" The things have been around for 35 years now - you'd imagine at some point some people might notice their preference is not the definition of the medium.

The suggestion that story-led games are a thing only happening "today", and not something that has existed since the beginnings of gaming, is impressively myopic. When the first arcade games were appearing, so were the first text adventures. A decade later, when R-Type came out for the arcades, so came Maniac Mansion and Zelda II. 

It's plain ridiculous to dismiss BioWare's games for containing romances, pretending that's all they offer. Not only are such story arcs sodding well optional (good grief, acknowledging that would really spoil the poorly disguised homophobia at the root of most of these anti-Hepler tirades, wouldn't it?), but they're a thin sliver of an enormous, multi-pathed plot, put there as a fun sidetrack for those who wish to explore them. Lying that they are the core of the game makes you look ill-informed and facetious. 

You like arcade games. You don't like narrative games. So why are you surprised when you don't like Mass Effect, and why do you act like you've been personally insulted by its existing? Don't bloody play the game! What were you expecting from BioWare - a company who have been making narrative-focused games since before you apparently realise gaming started existing? Games that contained romances between characters in 1998, fourteen years ago. 

Your entire thesis is a solipsistic mess." 


Let's just, for now, ignore the meat and potatoes of his response. Let's just focus entirely on the way he worded it: Good grief. Sodding well optional. Don't bloody play the game.



Muppet?

I shouldn't have to explain why colloquialism are essentially a hack writer's tools when they attempt to drive a point, but come the hell on. I'm really not sure why British colloquialisms are allowed much more leeway than any other language or dialect, but it seems like the going perception these days is that if you are British and speak in a British accent then you are both funny and intelligent. You say crazy random things that are normal to you but different to us!!


Ever since the popularity of Monty Python and Zero Punctuation's Yahtzee and that fat British Cynic guy and some other stupid loser British people, British colloquialisms and the British accent have taken off in such a way to essentially let people know that we are, indeed, dealing with a bad ass here.

"Please excuse me while I make the universal motion for a handjob."

Attention losers and scrubs: British people aren't any more funny than any one else, and neither is their stupid way of talking. I lived in Suffolk for 10 years and now I'm suicidally depressed. It's not a coincidence, its a fact, British people cause depression and also cause racism and slavery. If you meet a British person on the street, please have them deported back to their sad little island.

Okay, we've dealt with the colloquial part of Jane Walker's rebuttal. Let's just take a look at one more sentence before we dive right in to his stupid, stupid thoughts.

"Your entire thesis is a solipsistic mess."

I wanna fucking cry. Just, just try reading that aloud to yourself. Now, unlike Joe Walker, I've taken philosophy 101 in college. I got an A+ and I just smocked a bunch of weed joints while blowing weed smock in the professors face. The one time I wasn't high, though, was when they went over the philosophical perspective of solipsistic thought.

While his use of the word is correct, the one thing that our professor told us to do, was to never actually write it down or use it in a conversation because you just come up as a pretentious asshole who picks random words out of a thesaurus and tries really hard to shove them into any conversation they possibly can.

Any actual writer (not that I claim to be one) knows that you just straight up don't fucking use words like that in prose unless you are writing specifically about that technical term in some kind of thesis or other professional work. Using it in everyday conversation is stupid, and for someone like Walker who is paid to write, I shouldn't have to explain why! There's a reason why the word sesquipedalian exists and it's literally there to make fun of you for being an asshole.


Now that we've dealt with that, let's actually look at the content of his argument.


"Good grief, it's so tiresome to see people *still* arguing "games are the thing *I* say they are!" The things have been around for 35 years now - you'd imagine at some point some people might notice their preference is not the definition of the medium."

good gwief chawlie bwown


First, games have been around a lot longer than 35 years, which you would've known if you weren't a massive scrub. But, as much as you don't like to admit it, games are allowed to have a definition and there isn't anything wrong with a singular person trying to build a definition that allow people to realize what is the essence of a game, what is required to have something be called a game. The only thing wrong with someone attempting to do it is if their definition isn't accurate or does not fit the majority of the product they are attempting to define (ie: saying that games are a passive medium in which the 'player' has absolutely no influence on the game's outcome). 


For fuck's sake, games already have active definitions in dictionaries. What the guy over at Crystal Palace Zone is doing is simply using those definitions and attempting to hold modern video games to that standard definition. In this case he is using the given definitive constraints of games as being something with rules, goals, challenges, etc. What you are doing, Jonathan Walker, is essentially saying that a person is not allowed to dive into a dictionary, see the definition for banana, and get upset when someone sold them an apple labeled as a banana.


Shit. You tiny idiot. You even wrote an article attempting to define why a game isn't a game (or rather why a game is an 'un-game'). Did you fucking forget that? I mean, yes your writing is awful and I'd want to immediately forget that I'd read it to but goddamn.


"If spectacle is what you wanted from MW3, then clearly you would have been delighted with the result. Spectacle, as the name suggests, being something you stare at in a non-participatory way. Which, I would suggest, is the very definition of my newly coined term (that I now fully expect to see appearing in one of those end-of-year Times articles that lists the new words in the parlance), un-game. "

Those are exactly your words. Exactly your words. You define an un-game as something that is passive something that is not affected by player involvement. By extension of this, you define what a game is. Something that you so readily insult Crystal Palace Zone's author for doing himself. 

Really, in the end, you are a pathetic hack, an "un-writer" (that I now fully expect to see appearing in one of those end-of-year Times articles that lists the new words in the parlance) if you will. A hypocrite. A liar. An awful excuse for human garbage. Go fuck yourself. 

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Awesome Button


You can't appreciate good things if you do not experience bad things.

People like this make video games. This is who makes video games.
check out this sick new background!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i found it on AskJeeves images, fuckin sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gameplay Versus Story

Holy shit, people can't actually be this stupid.

So, Jennifer Hepler helped herself to a big plate of insults and criticism in the passed couple of weeks with her striking comments about game design and how they effect her process of writing for games such as Dragon Age and Mess Affect.

jennifer hepler, looking into a mirror lol!!!! is this poor taste?


She doesn't offend me, to be honest. While I completely disagree with her views concerning games and her position in Bioware and her overall complete inability to write convincing, real dialogue, I don't consider it to be a problem.

When fucking idiots at Rock, Paper, Shotgun, make an article entitled "Escape! Escape! Embracing Skippable Combat" that talks about why the argument to skip gameplay in games should be a valid one, you can only kinda scrunch your face up a little bit and make an angry face and just be like, what the hell.

Alright, let's start with the basics of John "i cant write" Walker's (that's his actual honest to god middle name, you cannot make this stuff up.) article.

"If I’m not reviewing something, I’ll exercise that ability to skip past dreary, pointless dialogue. If it’s proved to add nothing to the game, or actively made me want to not like it, then it makes far more sense to Esc Esc Esc my way through and get to the next bit I enjoy playing.

So why can’t the same apply to combat?

What’s interesting is the primary response seems to be extraordinarily defensive. “But that’s not the point of the game!” they cry. “You may as well watch a film if all you want is a story!” And it’s not even the poorness of those arguments that’s the issue here."

Alright, stop. Stop right here. Stop this fucking bus. Let me get off. It was this little paragraph that made me stop. I immediately started skimming the rest of his article. I don't see anything, so I start reading in detail, and rereading. He never once issues a statement as to why "But that's not the point of the game" and "You may as well watch a film if all you want is a story" are bad arguments.

That's because they aren't bad arguments, and Walker knows it.

Star Wars: The Old Republic should have been a movie, and not a game. What's the difference though?


Okay, let's define Game. Dictionary.com says that it is a:

 "competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators."

Webster says that it is:

 "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement" and "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other." 

Shit, even Wikipedia says that:

 "Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction."

So I guess the general consensus is that it is an activity in which you use skill, along the defined rules, to overcome challenges to complete a goal. Is everyone happy with that?

Okay, now let's look at Video Games:

Walker loves Dragon Age so let's take that as an example. The gameplay there is to use the abilities inside the game mechanics to inflict damage to defeat enemy monsters, while preventing yourself from taking enough damage that you are defeated. This is the primary gameplay feature, because it meets all of the requirements listed above to be a game. You have the skill (using abilities) along the defined rules (the game's artificial limitations) to overcome challenges (preventing yourself from being defeated in combat by enemies) to complete a goal (defeating the enemies).

oh man this game's dialogue and plot are so riveting that i just want to get passed the gameplay to see the next exciting chapteraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


If you skip it, if you remove it from the game, or if you remove the challenge (such as ME3's story mode difficulty level) then it is no longer a game.

Now, there isn't anything wrong with something not being a game. I fucking love books, and movies. I eat that shit up. I cried at the ending of Wild Wild West, I'm not afraid to admit it. A good story and good characters are the primary driving forces for these forms of mediums. But that's the thing. That's why a book, a movie, a choose your own adventure, aren't games. They aren't meant to be.

So to say that, all you want is the Dragon Age story, the codex, the whatever, then why are you playing the game? To reach the next chapter of the story? To find a new piece of codex? But you hate the gameplay, or find it frustrating, or just aren't good at it. You want to remove gameplay from a game. What you want, no longer becomes a game. And that means, you no longer need to play the game.

If we want to look at alternatives, there are a bunch of different, healthy things you can do that aren't the game itself. But if you are dead set on watching all of the Red Alert Full Motion Videos but aren't good enough to actually beat the game, or think Real Time Strategy games are fucking stupid, well, why don't you just watch them on youtube? Why don't you read the codex articles on www.dragonfaggot.wikia or wherever? Why do you insist on forcing developers to give the option to remove gameplay from games?

Not everyone deserves to beat a game, no one is entitled to winning the game, to see the credit screen roll.

To use a real world example, it's like saying that you're a fan of an American Football team, let's say the Baltimore Ravens. But you fucking hate watching the actual sport, don't want them to deal with any of the rules or the challenges or other teams. You just want to press a button and watch them lift the superbowl trophy.

Doesn't that take the joy out of winning? And I guess an extension of it would be, taking the gameplay out of games, doesn't that take the joy out of playing a game?

Walker goes on to say: 

"That’s what’s so very mystifying about the argument. We don’t need to be having an argument! Because no one anywhere is suggesting that combat should be removed from games, and certainly not that anyone should be under any obligation to skip combat, why is there even a reaction at all? It’s like someone wanting to ban people from visiting Burger King because they pick the tomato out of their Whopper. They’re not forcing you to miss out on your tomatoey goodness – they’re just eating the burger differently than you do. Your burger stays just the same."

But he misses the point entirely. It's more like I walk over to your book shelf, select one book, skim through it, and then complain that there's nothing to do in it. That there isn't any challenge, any goal. And then demand that all writers, from now on, include different little puzzles that you need to complete before you unlock the next chapter. Which I promptly skip past to get to the next set of puzzles. Fuck you.
No one can be this fucking dumb, I refuse to believe it.

This Blog's Purpose

This blog will look into how the continued stress of 'gameplay' is killing today's modern games, and why developers should go back to maximizing just having fun in a game.