Why is Gaming declining?

[MrTrust]

13 minutes ago, Tommy2D said:

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhht...So because Kid Rock existed in the 90s that erases REM, Weezer, Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Radiohead, etc.?

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, that's what I said.  Kid Rock makes all music that was made in the 90s bad by dint of his existence.  Yes, that's a very astute rephrasing of the argument.  Well done.

Edited June 8, 2023 by MrTrust

[roots.genoa]

9 hours ago, MrTrust said:

It's not subjective.  If it was, there would be no point of criticism.  You'd just be reporting your subjective experiences like everyone else on the internet.  What do I care what your subjective experiences are?  You're not me.  The fact that you felt this or that thing while playing a game says nothing to be about its merits.  I mean, I know you're French, but come on.  You're a professional critic, no?  At least try to justify yourself.

IT IS SUBJECTIVE. The job of a professional critic is not to decide what's good or what's bad. I don't know on which planet you live but on mine, critics rarely agree. I only read critics that have similar tastes as mine. That being said, I admit critics may still agree more often in the realm of video games, probably because there are still a few objective aspects like input lag, load times, bugs, and technical stuff, but it's mostly because video games are still young. One day, games won't have any technical problems and they will only be judged on the emotions they convey, like music and movies.

 

Let's take a quick example: a game's lifespan. In the 90s, it already incensed me when reviewers would pan an arcade game because it was short although it was very fun (like Streets of Rage, that wasn't considered a classic by French reviewers at the time). On the other hand, a lot of reviewers still tend to endorse games that are very long because they're supposed to offer more 'value', but as a survival horror fan, I for instance consider that Alien Isolation's biggest flaw is that it's far too long for that kind of stressful experience. Nobody would think a 5 hour movie is automatically better than a 2 hour one because it offers more value. That would be dumb.

 

As a professional critic, I consider that my job is mainly to describe a game as much precisely as possible, in order for the reader to guess if it will be a game for them or not. That's why a lot of video game websites have dropped any type of grade by the way.

[MrTrust]

3 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

As a professional critic, I consider that my job is mainly to describe a game as much precisely as possible, in order for the reader to guess if it will be a game for them or not.

 

Well, have fun being replaced by a chatbot then, if that's going to be your attitude.

 

I don't believe Rock music is art.  I think the best of it comes close, though, and it is in the treating of it as though it were art that the form ever got advanced.  Only in taking it seriously as a form of creative expression can any of its potential be realized.  If The Beatles had never tried to make art with Rock music, they would have been a neat little dance band that people got overly excited about.

 

Literary criticism isn't simply describing a work so the reader can guess whether or not it's "for them."  Art criticism isn't like that.  Classical and Jazz criticism isn't like that.  Genuine criticism is studied analysis.  It's creating a critical vocabulary so you can explain how we know a good game from a bad one, how we know which games to elevate and which ones not to.  It is analyzing a game's purpose, its promise, the spirit of it.

 

What you describe is Consumer Reports applied to video games.  In other words, these are simply products, the purpose of which is to tickle your amygdala and that's it.  The highest height they can achieve is, apparently, to make you feel emotions.  Is The Garden of Earthly Delights great art because it makes you feel feelings?  Is Crime and Punishment great art because it made you feel feelings?  Is Scheherazade great art because you feel feelings?

 

3 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

I don't know on which planet you live but on mine, critics rarely agree.

 

I live on the planet where scientists disagree about whether the fundamental constituents of matter are particles or vibrating strings, and even though we don't know which of them is wrong, and don't really have the means to settle the issue empirically, we know not all of them are right.

 

Is Math real or just a human construction?  Whatever your opinion, there are much smarter and more qualified people than you who disagree with you.  That doesn't mean they're right, or that the existence of disagreement means everyone's opinion is equally valid.  That the answer is elusive doesn't mean that there isn't an answer.

 

How many ants are under the surface of the Earth at the moment you're reading this?  We don't know, and we probably will never know.  It's not something that will ever be determined empirically.  That doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist, and that we can't learn things about the answer.  We know it is an integer.  We know it's not 1, etc. etc.

 

4 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

That's why a lot of video game websites have dropped any type of grade by the way.

 

Well, hell, why not drop the reviews all together?  Just list a bunch of other games that you like, and then issue a thumbs up or down about a new game.  Then, I can look and say "Well, this guy likes a bunch of games that I like, and he also likes this, so therefore, it is 'for me'." I mean, you're not evidently there to do anything else but let me predict if I will enjoy a game based on my general agreement with you, so why bother with all this extra verbiage?

 

Or, we can just get more accurate data by aggregating a million other people'e preferences and cross-referencing them with yours to create a list of games "for you." Maybe there could be some kind of menu with a "recommended for you" list that's curated by an algorithm.  Oh, wait, that's exactly what happens now and is going to be happening in overdrive very soon.

 

What could go wrong?

[+5-11under]

33 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

 

Well, have fun being replaced by a chatbot then, if that's going to be your attitude.

 

Just a few things your post reminded me of...

 

Yep. I've seen enough chatbot/AI reviews of lawnmowers or whatever I'm shopping for at the time. Worse than useless. Nobody needs more of this.

 

Definitely having a critical reviewer you can trust is beneficial. For cars, I use the Lemon-Aid books. Is it the be-all and end-all? No. But I trust it enough to provide >50% of input I need. It saves me a lot of time (and money).

 

I had an acquaintance who said it was movie genres that mattered the most. He said he liked Science Fiction, and didn't like some other genres. Genre comes into play because yes, we usually have our favorites, but that's only a part of the story. I want the reviewer to tell me about the story, flow, characters, believability, style, direction, acting, immersion, production, and whatever else, so I can determine if the movie/etc. is for me.

[MrTrust]

31 minutes ago, 5-11under said:

Yep. I've seen enough chatbot/AI reviews of lawnmowers or whatever I'm shopping for at the time. Worse than useless. Nobody needs more of this.

 

Lol, you act like the purpose of consumer product reviews is to maintain high technical standards or something.  How quaint. You're not even meant to read those, of course  They're just there to game algorithms and surface the products they're attached to.  All you're supposed to do is take the Amazon recommendation and be on your way.

 

Yes, this is absolutely terrible for maintaining decent standards, but that's what happens.

 

31 minutes ago, 5-11under said:

I want the reviewer to tell me about the story, flow, characters, believability, style, direction, acting, immersion, production, and whatever else, so I can determine if the movie/etc. is for me.

 

That's what a friend does.  Hey, Bob, did you see the new Star Trek?  It's pretty bad.  I don't know; they're singing "Row Your Boat" for the first half hour, and then there's this omnipotent being that needs at starship for some reason that's never explained.  There's really bad green screen at the end, and 65 year-old Uhura does a strip tease.  I'd wait for rental if I were you.

 

Can someone explain to me what this "for me" means, particularly in this day and age?  Do you not know if Indiana Jones is 5 is "for you" unless somebody describes it to you in detail?  Do you not know if the hip-hop Little Mermaid is "for you?" Have we all not seen enough movies at this point that we can make pretty accurate guesses about them from the trailers, especially given half of them are sequels and reboots anyway?

 

And why is it a good thing?  You should watch movies that are not for you.  If I only watched movies that were "for me," my cinematic tastes would not have developed past what they were at age 12.  The Godfather was not "for me" when I saw it.  The Godfather is a masterpiece.  If that film is not for me, then that's a problem with my taste in movies, not with The Godfather.  

 

A critic is there to improve people's tastes, not help them to curate their "experiences" so everything they buy or see conforms to their personal taste.  If this mentality prevailed among the creative class in 1968, you'd have no 2001, because that film was not for anyone.  You had to conform your expectations of film to Kubrick, the genius auteur's vision, not the other way around.

 

Making geniuses work within a system where popular tastes have market pressure can hone that genius, which is something art people neglect, but the popular tastes should never be in the driver's seat the way you're describing.

[+5-11under]

10 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

Can someone explain to me what this "for me" means, particularly in this day and age?  Do you not know if Indiana Jones is 5 is "for you" unless somebody describes it to you in detail?  Do you not know if the hip-hop Little Mermaid is "for you?" Have we all not seen enough movies at this point that we can make pretty accurate guesses about them from the trailers, especially given half of them are sequels and reboots anyway?

 

And why is it a good thing?  You should watch movies that are not for you.  If I only watched movies that were "for me," my cinematic tastes would not have developed past what they were at age 12.  The Godfather was not "for me" when I saw it.  The Godfather is a masterpiece.  If that film is not for me, then that's a problem with my taste in movies, not with The Godfather.  

 

A critic is there to improve people's tastes, not help them to curate their "experiences" so everything they buy or see conforms to their personal taste.  If this mentality prevailed among the creative class in 1968, you'd have no 2001, because that film was not for anyone.  You had to conform your expectations of film to Kubrick, the genius auteur's vision, not the other way around.

 

Making geniuses work within a system where popular tastes have market pressure can hone that genius, which is something art people neglect, but the popular tastes should never be in the driver's seat the way you're describing.

For sure. Don't read too much in the "for me" words. I'm not talking about conforming to limited tastes. Sometimes the "for me" depends on how I'm feeling that day. Comedies are for me when I'm hanging out with friends. Long dramas are not for me when I'm tired. Sometimes "for me" is indeed genre-specific. I don't like most music that has someone screaming all the time. I don't like most of modern "popular" country music. It does nothing for me emotionally (usually). Games such as Doom are not for me, because I get a headache after a few minutes. "For me" doesn't mean I'm not open to different works... usually it just means I'm likely not interested in a movie that has a very predictable or bad story, with poor writing and poor acting, fake acting and situations that reduce my immersion in the story. Some movies can break many of these and still be good, I guess by making up for it in other ways, somehow.

[zzip]

17 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Karateka is a classic because it spawned a genre, and it expanded the vocabulary of the game designer and also the critic.

Karateka is a game that wowed me for its presentation when I first saw it.   But it doesn't seem like the gaming community views it as a classic, its review online are rather mixed.

 

17 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Mostly agree, and I think it's obvious that this period in gaming was roughly '85-'05.

It's possible we're past the peak, but there's still a lot of vibrancy.  We won't really know until some years down the line.

 

For instance it's now pretty much accepted that Napster did mark the end of the music industry as we knew it,  but back then nobody wanted to believe that and assumed everything would be fine.  But it never fully recovered and that's much clearer in retrospect.

 

18 hours ago, MrTrust said:

They're not; they're aspiring to be Twitch streamers and YouTubers.  That's not a joke; that's what they literally report wanting to do.

That's true also.   Youtubers are like the rock stars to GenZ,  they even go on tour as well!

 

But I do still see many more young people wanting to be game developers than picking up guitars hoping to be the next EVH.   I mean somebody needs to make the crappy games those youtubers make fun of! 

 

18 hours ago, MrTrust said:

 

This is something worth looking into more.  When you say "the money" in rock music, you're essentially referring to record companies keeping bands on that don't sell very well, and letting them develop and mature, also giving the audience a change to find and catch on.  I would be very interested to know what the demographics of current devs are like, particularly what the churn rate and average age is.

That's part of it.  They don't invest in artists like they used to which is a big part of why there's fewer artists with staying power these days.   Now instead of giving an artist several albums to break through, they might get dropped if their first album under-performs.   Labels also now sign more artists hoping one of them gains traction, but there's less money in the record deals   Few artists make money from records, and instead make money from touring, but increasingly labels are trying to take cuts of the touring revenue too. 

 

15 hours ago, Tommy2D said:

Your argument seems very similar to people who claim that music was "better" when they were young.  Shockingly, people who were coming of age, in the 60s, tend to prefer 60s music. Ditto for folks who hit their stride in the 90s, the 00s, etc. I don't think you need a PhD in sociology or musicology to recognize that trend. Those same folks tend to dislike contemporary music.  I've seen the same basic argument for cars, clothing, movies, TV, etc. 

When I was young, I considered 60s and 70s music to be old hat.   80s music and MTV was were it was at and that was all I was interested in hearing.

 

As I got older, I learned to appreciate 70s and 60s music in ways I never could when I was a teen.  Stuff like Steely Dan, Chicago, Yes,  even a "pop" song like Beach Boys "Good Vibrations", so intricate and immaculate, and all that done without DAWs or any modern tools.

[MrTrust]

2 hours ago, 5-11under said:

"For me" doesn't mean I'm not open to different works... usually it just means I'm likely not interested in a movie that has a very predictable or bad story, with poor writing and poor acting, fake acting and situations that reduce my immersion in the story. Some movies can break many of these and still be good, I guess by making up for it in other ways, somehow.

 

This implies there is a standard of goodness or badness in writing or acting, or a standard of fakeness.  Something a film can be evaluated against and either found wanting or not.  Something that, presumably, is not your own subjective experience of the thing.  Otherwise, what can the critic tell you that is useful?  The dialog is bad?  Well, maybe to him it is.

 

What is the point of a critic if not to know better than the average man on the streets and to tell him what he should like and shouldn't.

 

31 minutes ago, zzip said:

Karateka is a game that wowed me for its presentation when I first saw it.   But it doesn't seem like the gaming community views it as a classic, its review online are rather mixed.

 

You understand the point I was making there, do you not?  Karateka, in and of itself is not some tour de force of great gameplay, but it pointed in the direction of something greater.  With the game, Jordan Mechner gave himself and Eric Chahi and Paul Cuisset the vocabulary to deliver on the promise of Karateka.  You need Karateka to have all these other things.

 

Now, of the community doesn't recognize that, and the community doesn't think young people who are being educated about the history of the form need to be made aware of Karateka, then the community is foolish.

 

What I want to know is what are the Karatekas of today?  What are the games that are pointing in the direction of something greater in the future?  I don't see any, and nobody seems to be making that argument for any of the games they've brought up.

 

37 minutes ago, zzip said:

But I do still see many more young people wanting to be game developers than picking up guitars hoping to be the next EVH.   I mean somebody needs to make the crappy games those youtubers make fun of!

 

Yeah, there will be a million of them churching out ChatGPT-generated crap if current trends are any indication.  What signs of positivity actually exist on this front by your lights?

 

[+5-11under]

21 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

This implies there is a standard of goodness or badness in writing or acting, or a standard of fakeness.  Something a film can be evaluated against and either found wanting or not.  Something that, presumably, is not your own subjective experience of the thing.  Otherwise, what can the critic tell you that is useful?  The dialog is bad?  Well, maybe to him it is.

 

What is the point of a critic if not to know better than the average man on the streets and to tell him what he should like and shouldn't.

Sorry... I'm not trying to write a thesis or essay... just adding my 2 bits into a topic of conversation...

 

There is a standard of goodness or badness... ... but for me, it's my standard, and it depends on a lot of factors, for any given situation.

 

To me, a movie (for example) is awesome or it sucks (or is somewhere in-between) based on my subjective view of the story, characterization, and implementation. I sometimes try to figure out exactly why I like certain music, etc., or why I don't. I can usually come up with a few good reasons, but in the end, it's not a 100% foolproof formula. And that's fine for m. I don't mind keeping the mystery of why I find some things better than others.

 

As far as critics go, like I said, I like to have someone I trust provide some guidance and their opinion. That doesn't mean I'll follow their lead completely, but their input can be useful for my decision making. Maybe that's more an old-school thing, when deciding whether to spend my $$ on a movie ticket... if something is free or included in a subscription, it's easy enough for me to start watching it, and see if it proves to be interesting or good or educational or whatever, or not.

 

[zzip]

37 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

You understand the point I was making there, do you not?  Karateka, in and of itself is not some tour de force of great gameplay, but it pointed in the direction of something greater.  With the game, Jordan Mechner gave himself and Eric Chahi and Paul Cuisset the vocabulary to deliver on the promise of Karateka.  You need Karateka to have all these other things.

To me Karateka raised production values and animation quality in videogames,  I never finished the game so I can't speak to whether it was good or bad, but it was impressive to watch.    Alternate Reality was similar, really impressive production values for the time, rather underwhelming game.

 

1 hour ago, MrTrust said:

What I want to know is what are the Karatekas of today?  What are the games that are pointing in the direction of something greater in the future?  I don't see any, and nobody seems to be making that argument for any of the games they've brought up.

Something like No Man's Sky that generates a near infinite universe.   Maybe future variations on this can create worlds that feel less repetitive and worth exploring.   Minecraft is similar, every world is different but feels similar.   Would love to see a future iteration of this concept that did away with the blocky graphics, for instance.

 

1 hour ago, MrTrust said:

Yeah, there will be a million of them churching out ChatGPT-generated crap if current trends are any indication.  What signs of positivity actually exist on this front by your lights?

AI could revolutionize games,   imagine NPCs that had depth and weren't entirely predictable.   Maybe you could piss them off, they hold a grudge against you and refuse to help you unless you figure out how to placate them, and they did this on their own, it wasn't part of the games storyline.

 

Or maybe AI is just used to generate cheap content that pollutes games and the internet at large and leads to the decline?   Who knows?

[roots.genoa]

8 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Literary criticism isn't simply describing a work so the reader can guess whether or not it's "for them."  Art criticism isn't like that.  Classical and Jazz criticism isn't like that.  Genuine criticism is studied analysis.  It's creating a critical vocabulary so you can explain how we know a good game from a bad one, how we know which games to elevate and which ones not to.  It is analyzing a game's purpose, its promise, the spirit of it.

I've been reading Cahiers du cinéma for more than 20 years, which is probably the most famous cinema magazine in the world, and I can assure you their critiques are subjective. There are literary essays about how they felt watching the movie, nothing more (and especially not details about technique).

 

And yes, I'm aware I will be replaced by a chatbot because people only care about "is it good or bad" and skip the text to check the final ranking. 😔

 

6 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Can someone explain to me what this "for me" means, particularly in this day and age?  Do you not know if Indiana Jones is 5 is "for you" unless somebody describes it to you in detail?  Do you not know if the hip-hop Little Mermaid is "for you?" Have we all not seen enough movies at this point that we can make pretty accurate guesses about them from the trailers, especially given half of them are sequels and reboots anyway?

 

And why is it a good thing?  You should watch movies that are not for you.  If I only watched movies that were "for me," my cinematic tastes would not have developed past what they were at age 12.  The Godfather was not "for me" when I saw it.  The Godfather is a masterpiece.  If that film is not for me, then that's a problem with my taste in movies, not with The Godfather.  

 

A critic is there to improve people's tastes, not help them to curate their "experiences" so everything they buy or see conforms to their personal taste.  If this mentality prevailed among the creative class in 1968, you'd have no 2001, because that film was not for anyone.  You had to conform your expectations of film to Kubrick, the genius auteur's vision, not the other way around.

 

Making geniuses work within a system where popular tastes have market pressure can hone that genius, which is something art people neglect, but the popular tastes should never be in the driver's seat the way you're describing.

Well, you clearly didn't understand what I tried to explain. When I'm doing my job right, the reader can think after reading my review, "it's usually not the kind of games I like, but the reviewer managed to make me understand why I could maybe like this one".

 

And it's perfectly OK to dislike The Godfather, I'm sorry. Which doesn't mean there's a problem with The Godfather either. I like it but it's far from being my favorite movie from Coppola. And every movie critic I've ever read has always disliked at least one film considered a masterpiece by many.

 

3 hours ago, MrTrust said:

What is the point of a critic if not to know better than the average man on the streets and to tell him what he should like and shouldn't.

What don't you go and ask critics? I'd be very surprised they agree with you, just because it sounds very presumptuous. Critics are human beings and usually don't feel superior to anyone (except the very bad ones). They just have a passion for an art that make them watch/play a lot of things, so they can appreciate a lot of different things and convince people to at least get interested in them.

 

3 hours ago, MrTrust said:

What I want to know is what are the Karatekas of today?  What are the games that are pointing in the direction of something greater in the future?  I don't see any, and nobody seems to be making that argument for any of the games they've brought up.

Breath of the Wild redefined open world games (and yes, I know, it's already 6 years old, time flies).

[MrTrust]

5 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

Breath of the Wild redefined open world games (and yes, I know, it's already 6 years old, time flies).

 

That's your opinion.  That's far from my favorite Zelda game.  I find it excruciatingly boring to play.  I've had far better experiences for my 30 hours' time with other games.  Not all critics say it's a great game; many have acknowledged flaws with it.  If you like it, that's okay, but not everyone agrees with you.

 

Do you not see how pointless that is?  What did I tell you or anyone else about Breath of the Wild in that paragraph?  What did it add to the conversation?   What did it even tell you about me, or why I think the way I do?  Nothing; it was just pointless bitching.  You're making a considered judgment about the game, and I'm just over here saying "Nuh-uh." You can say that it did whatever, but I.  But ME.  But MY.  It has a 97 Metacritic score.  It sold 31 million copies.  It made the Switch one of the most popular consoles ever.  It's nearly universally regarded as a masterpiece, but I did not personally have an enjoyable experience playing it.  I really didn't, by the way; I'm not just pretending for the purposes of argument.  I don't like that game and I feel that it ruined the series.

 

Well, so fucking what that I did not enjoy it, or that I enjoyed other Zelda games more?  What on Earth does that have to do with anything?  It is a statement that has no content, and yet I am adamantly nipping at your heels with it as if it means anything.  Here:

 

https://videogames.si.com/features/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-bad-taste

 

Boom.  Right in the headline.  If you don't like this game, you have bad taste.  Thank you, Mr. Aubrey, for saying so.  I wish all champions of this game would say the same thing.  I don't believe it's true, and I think his defense of the game is not persuasive and kid is dumb, but if I was debating him, we'd at least be debating about the game itself and not having this inane back and forth about whether it's "OK" for him to like it, or for me not to.  

 

Of what possible interest could that be to anyone about anything?  Is it that difficult to wrap one's mind around the idea that you can dislike good things or like bad ones?  I don't like Astral Weeks.  I know it's a good record; I just don't like it.  I like Friday the 13th for the NES.  I know it's not very good, but I enjoy playing it and have for many years.

 

To me, it is the height of arrogance to say to someone who is thoughtfully assessing either of these works that, nope, me and my subjective preference.  Therefore, you can't make any general statement about the game that I don't agree with no matter how universally attested it is.  I'd much rather have someone tell me I'm a moron for not liking BotW (ooh boy, are you going to get a lot of likes for being the first to make a snarky remark about this sentence, dear reader; you're super clever) than to have him nag me to death with this personal preference crap.  If it's all just picking ice cream flavors, then why do you even care if somebody says it's all crap and gaming is in decline?  That's a statement that can have no meaning anyway under this construction.

[roots.genoa]

Well, I get you're a weird guy that nobody agrees with anyway, but I think the article you mention is precisely a bad one. You said yourself it's impossible to change other people's beliefs in another topic. Do you really think telling people they have bad taste because they don't like the same thing as you will change their minds?? If yes, you're an hypocrite. I think a good reviewer would make people want to play BotW in a more subtle way.

 

BotW had an objective influence on following open-world games, that's why I said it was an example of a "Karateka of today". Whether we like it or not is moot, and nobody has to play this game unless they want to check it for historical purpose or out of curiosity (and I encourage curiosity a lot). Halo was probably important in the history of video games as well but I hated it, mainly because it doesn't have a proper level design (and I'm far from being the only one that thinks so). Which by your definition should make it a complete dud, not a masterpiece...

 

4 hours ago, MrTrust said:

why do you even care if somebody says it's all crap and gaming is in decline?

Good question. I guess I have empathy, and I just find sad that someone who is apparently younger than me thinks like a bitter old man. Do you know I tend to read your posts in the voice of Larry David? 😅 (and it's not new, I already did when you posted in Tommy Tallarico's thread before you were banned from it)

 

There are also a lot of people who think that there are too many foreigners in my country, who think that poor people shouldn't be given any money, etc. And I can't help but trying to do something about it, even though I probably can't. Sorry for not being a cynical douche I guess. 🤷‍♂️

[Wayler]

5 hours ago, MrTrust said:

I'm a moron

I don't have the energy or the willpower to write a 10,000 word thesis, so I'll just leave this super clever snarky remark.

[MrTrust]

2 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

Well, I get you're a weird guy that nobody agrees with anyway, but I think the article you mention is precisely a bad one. You said yourself it's impossible to change other people's beliefs in another topic. Do you really think telling people they have bad taste because they don't like the same thing as you will change their minds??

 

What makes you think I'm trying to change anyone's mind?  Do you think you're going to change mine?

 

2 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

If yes, you're an hypocrite. I think a good reviewer would make people want to play BotW in a more subtle way.

 

The point of criticism is not for an individual reviewer to influence individual people to appreciate and individual good thing.  If that happens, fine, but it's not the purpose.  The purpose is to create a consensus among particularly knowledgeable people about what constitutes a good or a bad work, and whether a particular one measures up.  Doesn't mean every single critic is going to agree on everything all the time.  It is a generational project.

 

A culture which produces good criticism should have better appreciation overall than one that doesn't.  It's maintaining a standard.  That I don't prefer to listen to Bach over Thin Lizzy most of the time isn't a problem so long as I was properly taught that Bach is more important and why.

 

Yes, I do force myself to listen to Ravel or Last Exit even though I don't want to.  Everyone should.  Everyone should watch films they're not interested in but that are great works.  Everyone should read Crime and Punishment even if they have the low attention span and maturity of @Wayler.  They should do it anyway for the same reason you shouldn't just eat pizza and candy at every meal just because you happen not to enjoy fish and vegetables.  Too bad if you don't like it.

 

2 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

Good question. I guess I have empathy, and I just find sad that someone who is apparently younger than me thinks like a bitter old man. Do you know I tend to read your posts in the voice of Larry David?

 

You mean one of the most beloved and celebrated comedians in America for decades?  Good thing you informed me of this; I'd hate to be anything like that.

 

2 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

There are also a lot of people who think that there are too many foreigners in my country, who think that poor people shouldn't be given any money, etc. And I can't help but trying to do something about it, even though I probably can't. Sorry for not being a cynical douche I guess.

 

These would also be "the very bad ones" you referenced earlier, yes?  So do know about how to make objective value judgements after all.  And I presume "cynical douche" is one of your subtle techniques that will change people's minds?

[roots.genoa]

24 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

You mean one of the most beloved and celebrated comedians in America for decades?  Good thing you informed me of this; I'd hate to be anything like that.

I love Larry David, but remember he plays a part in his show. But I guess it's a good thing if that makes you happy to sound like a 70-year-old asshole. 🙂

26 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

Do you think you're going to change mine?

Obviously not, since you're stubborn. 😔

27 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

The point of criticism is not for an individual reviewer to influence individual people to appreciate and individual good thing.  If that happens, fine, but it's not the purpose.  The purpose is to create a consensus among particularly knowledgeable people about what constitutes a good or a bad work, and whether a particular one measures up.  Doesn't mean every single critic is going to agree on everything all the time.  It is a generational project.

I get your point but that "purpose" is as you say generational, so it takes a lot of people and decades (hence games are considered classics after a while). If that's a natural effect of critics' activity, they shouldn't care about it or try to actively push that purpose. Once again, a critic that claims something is good or bad and that everyone disagreeing with them is wrong would be considered a pretentious douche.

 

28 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

Yes, I do force myself to listen to Ravel or Last Exit even though I don't want to.  Everyone should.  Everyone should watch films they're not interested in but that are great works.  Everyone should read Crime and Punishment even if they have the low attention span and maturity of @Wayler.  They should do it anyway for the same reason you shouldn't just eat pizza and candy at every meal just because you happen not to enjoy fish and vegetables.  Too bad if you don't like it.

Then maybe try to play more modern games. You may even enjoy it.

 

29 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

These would also be "the very bad ones" you referenced earlier, yes?  So do know about how to make objective value judgements after all.  And I presume "cynical douche" is one of your subtle techniques that will change people's minds?

No, you didn't understand anything I said. There's nothing objective about what I said; I personally feel foreigners aren't a problem, but if it was objectively true, why would politicians keep on fighting the presence of foreigners? Also I wasn't trying to accuse you of being a cynical douche, I just claimed I was trying not to be one by trying to make you see things differently. You're obviously too proud to change your mind, but I still hope our conversation was interesting to you. Bye.

[Creamhoven]

Thanks to everyone contributing to this thread. I have alot of catching up to do.

[+bent_pin]

[Wayler]

And now even the memes are declining. Is there a reason to get out of bed anymore? oh the dispear

[+Spriggy]

1 hour ago, Wayler said:

And now even the memes are declining. Is there a reason to get out of bed anymore? oh the dispear

Let me fix that .... 

 

 

10-to-1 on @roots.genoa 

 

[Creamhoven]

15 hours ago, Wayler said:

And now even the memes are declining. Is there a reason to get out of bed anymore? oh the dispear

Wayler, I have found this beautiful song for you to check out:

 

 

[82-T/A]

I just wanted to add my 2 cents here... I don't think gaming is declining, I think it's changing. It seems to be expanding in some areas, and changing for the different demographics. I remember "Myst" being the first game for old people (the age I am now), and it being lauded by old people. But there are now games for people who are always on the move... mobile games, the POV shooter market, puzzle games, and MMORPGs for a variety of different user bases from small kids to basement dwelling 40 year old virgins. So I think gaming isn't going anywhere, it's just evolving.

[Cebus Capucinis]

Gaming has been declining since 2018.

What was the year Amico was announced?

 

COINCIDENCE? I THINK NOT.

[Tanooki]

The Coleco Chameleon would like to have a word with you about that.

[Wayler]

Gaming is certainly in decline. I'm just now in our hospital's on-call dental service with the wife having root canal treatment. There's not a dental camera in sight that beckons me to pick up a controller and remember when, so I can play again. 😢