Seriously, though, I want you to consider that your issue might be just that it's a game that forces the player to confront the issues with why they play games in the first place. Because I honestly have a hard time seeing any through-line to your criticisms other than that.
Trust me, you're not the first.
I don't like assumptions being made about my character because I thought a video game was not that spectacular, so this is where our conversation ends.
In turn though, I would like you to consider how much you actually care about the impact military FPSes and similar games may be having on society.
I'm not making assumptions about your character. And, hell, I might have been projecting a bit because that's an issue I've had. Being told your reasons for enjoying something are wrong sucks. The initial response is always gonna be defensiveness. I don't know if that is what you were doing (and I don't intend to imply you're immature or anything if you even did have that response) but given your lack of criticism for the game's presentation of its moral (your only problem seemed to be the moral's conceptualization in the first place), I don't really know what other conclusion I can draw.
And my issue with MW-style FPSes is really a matter of issues compounding each other. Heroism is not a concept to be played with lightly outside the realm of escapism. There is nothing wrong with escapism provided it remains clearly within the bounds of fantasy. But when you place a fundamentally escapist fantasy in a setting pretending to be realistic, you'd better fuckin' believe it's going to spread an incorrect message. And when you make the conflict politically-charged, the message stops being misleading and starts being almost sinister. Politically-charged conflict is fine. Conflict in a realistic setting is fine. Conflict that does not dramatize consequences of actions (for any number of reasons) is fine. But the combination creates a hell of a lot of issues.
I'm not saying anyone will jump into a war and send it spiraling out of control because of Call of Duty, but this kind of stuff does influence attitudes regardless.
want you to consider that your issue might be just that it's a game that forces the player to confront the issues with why they play games in the first place.
is this supposed to be a dark secret I have or something? Because this is lobbed at me as some sort of insult every time I have this conversation--and believe me I have it all the damn time--and I don't make a secret of the fact that I kind of do have a problem with games whose central point is making you question why you play games. It's analogous to going on twitter and bitching about how people use twitter too much these days, and is also related to what I meant by needing to offer an alternative.
The idea that that should just inherently not be my viewpoint, and the idea that me having that viewpoint somehow makes what I'm saying totally invalid, is infuriating.
I want to reiterate here, when I said I have softened up on SOTL over the years I meant it. I said on the last page I'd give it a 2 or 3 out of 5, which is not a bad score, I simply don't think it's as amazing and eye-opening as it is often praised as being, that is all. I am even completely willing to acknowledge that it's probably just not for me--most things I'd rate at a 2 or 3 are.
But this is so frustrating, because it makes having an actual conversation about the game's flaws impossible. "No, you don't understand, this game is amazing" is the endpoint of every argument I have ever heard in its defense, and that also applies to a number of other games--Middens and BioShock have similar themes and spring to mind, keep in mind I liked Middens.
My own personal opinion is that criticism embodied in a work of art, is, in of itself, not enough to make that piece of art worth experiencing. For me, like I said earlier, if you thought any of the above were amazing, cool, go ahead and think that, I am not going to try to stop you and couldn't anyway if I wanted to.
Am I being clear? I want to be completely 100% positive that I am not being misunderstood at all.
TLDR: I don't like Call of Duty either, but would rather play Robot Rollerderby Disco Dodgeball--a game that has the fun parts of an FPS without any of the problems--than SOTL in response to that.
I think it does more, and I think that's worth something.
Look, I don't want to come off like I'm attacking you, okay? None of this is about attacking you or your preferences. But honestly, the fact that this is the analogy used
and I don't make a secret of the fact that I kind of do have a problem with games whose central point is making you question why you play games. It's analogous to going on twitter and bitching about how people use twitter too much these days, and is also related to what I meant by needing to offer an alternative.
is pretty much exactly what the problem is in the first place.
If it were a game about how games are evil, yes, that would be an issue. But it's not. It's a game about how certain morals combined with the framing, context, and presentation of those morals in the medium of gaming, can have, and has had, a negative effect. And there is a big difference between the two.
Maybe I came off like I was psychoanalyzing you for having this opinion, and I'm sorry about that. But the logical extension of what you're saying is that games shouldn't be allowed to confront issues endemic to gaming.
And if I'm reading you right, you're saying that a criticism of a trope and how it's used, using the same medium as said trope, is inherently hypocritical.
And what I ask is why is this the case? And why are you willing to make exceptions in some cases but not others?
Look, I don't want to come off like I'm attacking you, okay? None of this is about attacking you or your preferences. But honestly, the fact that this is the analogy used
and I don't make a secret of the fact that I kind of do have a problem with games whose central point is making you question why you play games. It's analogous to going on twitter and bitching about how people use twitter too much these days, and is also related to what I meant by needing to offer an alternative.
is pretty much exactly what the problem is in the first place.
If it were a game about how games are evil, yes, that would be an issue. But it's not. It's a game about how certain morals combined with the framing, context, and presentation of those morals in the medium of gaming, can have, and has had, a negative effect. And there is a big difference between the two.
Maybe I came off like I was psychoanalyzing you for having this opinion, and I'm sorry about that. But the logical extension of what you're saying is that games shouldn't be allowed to confront issues endemic to gaming.
You know, I was prepared to ask you to stop being overly defensive, but this is actually a reasonably good point. That said, I fully understand why Mo would be less than keen on this setup as well—although I might disagree with him.
If it were a game about how games are evil, yes, that would be an issue. But it's not. It's a game about how certain morals combined with the framing, context, and presentation of those morals in the medium of gaming, can have, and has had, a negative effect. And there is a big difference between the two.
The thing is that it is using that exact same combination of morals, framing, context, and presentation to try to criticize that combination, which, in my opinion, it does not do well.
And if I'm reading you right, you're saying that a criticism of a trope and how it's used, using the same medium as said trope, is inherently hypocritical.
I am actually saying that using a combination of tropes to criticize those same tropes is hypocritical. Even then only usually.
It's possible to go too far on the other end of the spectrum too, and have a game that's criticizing a completely different kind of game, which is just nonsensical. That was the problem I had with Middens, a game that had about as much to do with FPSes as pickles do with Chinese politics.
You can't just make a COD clone that's bad on purpose, make the main character psychologically tortured in a slightly different way from the usual, and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
You need to offer an alternative, which is the same thing I have been saying this whole time.
This is not something specific to SOTL or even video games, it's also why I dislike, as an example, boring 90s-aping rap with lyrics about how things used to be better/more real/etc (eg. Joey Bada$$)., but don't dislike say Aesop Rock's music.
The former is boring, hypocritical, and only really tells me that you think you're better than some other group of people. The latter is interesting, engaging, and actually says something beyond "I'm smarter than you".
I wouldn't even say that SOTL is that bad, since I more get the impression that the developers tried to make a good game and imo failed instead of just not trying in the first place.
If it were a game about how games are evil, yes, that would be an issue. But it's not. It's a game about how certain morals combined with the framing, context, and presentation of those morals in the medium of gaming, can have, and has had, a negative effect. And there is a big difference between the two.
The thing is that it is using that exact same combination of morals, framing, context, and presentation to try to criticize that combination, which, in my opinion, it does not do well.
And if I'm reading you right, you're saying that a criticism of a trope and how it's used, using the same medium as said trope, is inherently hypocritical.
I am actually saying that using a combination of tropes to criticize those same tropes is hypocritical. Even then only usually.
It's possible to go too far on the other end of the spectrum too, and have a game that's criticizing a completely different kind of game, which is just nonsensical. That was the problem I had with Middens, a game that had about as much to do with FPSes as pickles do with Chinese politics.
You can't just make a COD clone that's bad on purpose, make the main character psychologically tortured in a slightly different way from the usual, and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
You need to offer an alternative, which is the same thing I have been saying this whole time.
It does not use all the same tactics of MW. The fact that the narrative is contingent on the main character defying orders and heading into a delicate situation guns blazing is a hell of a meaningful difference. The issue with faux-heroism is that collateral damage isn't acknowledged. The entire game's plot is about collateral damage caused by false bravado, good intentions, and tactics borne of desperation. MW would barely do lip service to anything like that.
I get not doing it well, but saying that you can't reframe the same set of tropes to make a point about those tropes strikes me as really silly. I mean, how else do you criticise something than demonstrate its problems?
Also, I get the idea of offering a positive alternative, and I would be all for that, but sometimes you have to demonstrate the flaws in the original model before you can properly show off the new model or paradigm.
If it were a game about how games are evil, yes, that would be an issue. But it's not. It's a game about how certain morals combined with the framing, context, and presentation of those morals in the medium of gaming, can have, and has had, a negative effect. And there is a big difference between the two.
The thing is that it is using that exact same combination of morals, framing, context, and presentation to try to criticize that combination, which, in my opinion, it does not do well.
And if I'm reading you right, you're saying that a criticism of a trope and how it's used, using the same medium as said trope, is inherently hypocritical.
I am actually saying that using a combination of tropes to criticize those same tropes is hypocritical. Even then only usually.
It's possible to go too far on the other end of the spectrum too, and have a game that's criticizing a completely different kind of game, which is just nonsensical. That was the problem I had with Middens, a game that had about as much to do with FPSes as pickles do with Chinese politics.
You can't just make a COD clone that's bad on purpose, make the main character psychologically tortured in a slightly different way from the usual, and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
You need to offer an alternative, which is the same thing I have been saying this whole time.
It does not use all the same tactics of MW. The fact that the narrative is contingent on the main character defying orders and heading into a delicate situation guns blazing is a hell of a meaningful difference. The issue with faux-heroism is that collateral damage isn't acknowledged. The entire game's plot is about collateral damage caused by false bravado, good intentions, and tactics borne of desperation. MW would barely do lip service to anything like that.
See that really doesn't strike me as a meaningful difference, the end result is the same. The main character has shot Many Things and caused stuff to explode.
The sole difference, to me, is that in COD you're supposed to feel good about that, and in SOTL you're supposed to feel bad about it. And that's just not enough of a difference in my opinion.
I get not doing it well, but saying that you can't reframe the same set of tropes to make a point about those tropes strikes me as really silly. I mean, how else do you criticise something than demonstrate its problems?
I didn't say you can't, I just said it usually doesn't work.
Also, I get the idea of offering a positive alternative, and I would be all for that, but sometimes you have to demonstrate the flaws in the original model before you can properly show off the new model or paradigm.
Yager's current projects are a zombie survival game and a dogfighter called Dreadnought.
It does not use all the same tactics of MW. The fact that the narrative is contingent on the main character defying orders and heading into a delicate situation guns blazing is a hell of a meaningful difference. The issue with faux-heroism is that collateral damage isn't acknowledged. The entire game's plot is about collateral damage caused by false bravado, good intentions, and tactics borne of desperation. MW would barely do lip service to anything like that.
See that really doesn't strike me as a meaningful difference, the end result is the same. The main character has shot Many Things and caused stuff to explode.
The sole difference, to me, is that in COD you're supposed to feel good about that, and in SOTL you're supposed to feel bad about it. And that's just not enough of a difference in my opinion.
From what I can tell about the game, that is an oversimplification. It's about telling a story where the same sorts of things happen as in a game where you would be rewarded for such things, but where the consequences are completely different. It's not about "feeling bad" so much as having to really look at what you are doing in an honest way.
Although there may be better ways to execute that. Making game mechanics difficult for narrative purposes is cool and all, but if you're not explicitly playing it with absorbing a narrative in mind, that could be a little excessively frustrating. But then, unless you really think it's another MW clone, what else are you playing it for than the story?
I get not doing it well, but saying that you can't reframe the same set of tropes to make a point about those tropes strikes me as really silly. I mean, how else do you criticise something than demonstrate its problems?
I didn't say you can't, I just said it usually doesn't work.
You kind of did, or at least implied that it's a bad idea:
Extra Credits explained the mechanical issues as being about causing cognitive dissonance (because of the mechanical banality) and cluing in the player that the protagonist is mentally unstable (because even early on the mechanics are suspiciously artificial.)
That's a fair point, but if you don't pick up on that ahead of time or aren't looking out for it, I can imagine that becoming annoying before it becomes interesting.
You kind of did, or at least implied that it's a bad idea:
I don't understand what's contradictory about the two things you quoted, I clarified "usually" in both cases.
From what I can tell about the game, that is an oversimplification. It's about telling a story where the same sorts of things happen as in a game where you would be rewarded for such things, but where the consequences are completely different. It's not about "feeling bad" so much as having to really look at what you are doing in an honest way.
This'd matter if SOTL was like, a visual novel or something (though that can have problems too, see the Middens example above), but it's not, it's a shooter criticizing other shooters. By choosing to include those mechanics and those themes and etc. etc. etc. as part of the game, you're necessitating that they be a part of the conversation about the game too. Games cannot be non-mechanical, if you include mechanics in a game their quality is going to be judged and is going to be a part of why that game is considered good or bad.
In a regular shooter, you shoot people for questionable reasons. In SOTL, you shoot people for questionable reasons as part of a narrative on why shooting people for questionable reasons is wrong. There's a problem there.
And none of this answers the thing about needing to provide an alternative, because SOTL doesn't do that.
hey I'm going to be running a D&D 5th Edition campaign soon, and am going to be looking for feedback on my dungeon design and some plot stuff. If anyone is interested (or wants into the game, I'll give you details if you express interest) PM me.
Comments
The idea that that should just inherently not be my viewpoint, and the idea that me having that viewpoint somehow makes what I'm saying totally invalid, is infuriating.
I want to reiterate here, when I said I have softened up on SOTL over the years I meant it. I said on the last page I'd give it a 2 or 3 out of 5, which is not a bad score, I simply don't think it's as amazing and eye-opening as it is often praised as being, that is all. I am even completely willing to acknowledge that it's probably just not for me--most things I'd rate at a 2 or 3 are.
But this is so frustrating, because it makes having an actual conversation about the game's flaws impossible. "No, you don't understand, this game is amazing" is the endpoint of every argument I have ever heard in its defense, and that also applies to a number of other games--Middens and BioShock have similar themes and spring to mind, keep in mind I liked Middens.
My own personal opinion is that criticism embodied in a work of art, is, in of itself, not enough to make that piece of art worth experiencing. For me, like I said earlier, if you thought any of the above were amazing, cool, go ahead and think that, I am not going to try to stop you and couldn't anyway if I wanted to.
Am I being clear? I want to be completely 100% positive that I am not being misunderstood at all.
I think it does more, and I think that's worth something.
wheeeeeeere I wanna be, she may be
Look, I don't want to come off like I'm attacking you, okay? None of this is about attacking you or your preferences. But honestly, the fact that this is the analogy used
You know, I was prepared to ask you to stop being overly defensive, but this is actually a reasonably good point. That said, I fully understand why Mo would be less than keen on this setup as well—although I might disagree with him.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
It's possible to go too far on the other end of the spectrum too, and have a game that's criticizing a completely different kind of game, which is just nonsensical. That was the problem I had with Middens, a game that had about as much to do with FPSes as pickles do with Chinese politics.
You can't just make a COD clone that's bad on purpose, make the main character psychologically tortured in a slightly different way from the usual, and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
You need to offer an alternative, which is the same thing I have been saying this whole time.
The former is boring, hypocritical, and only really tells me that you think you're better than some other group of people. The latter is interesting, engaging, and actually says something beyond "I'm smarter than you".
I wouldn't even say that SOTL is that bad, since I more get the impression that the developers tried to make a good game and imo failed instead of just not trying in the first place.
The sole difference, to me, is that in COD you're supposed to feel good about that, and in SOTL you're supposed to feel bad about it. And that's just not enough of a difference in my opinion. I didn't say you can't, I just said it usually doesn't work.
They stopped at step 1, and that does matter.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Yello's debut album, a bootleg of a Doors concert, and a studio compilation of original music broadcast by exotica program Hawaii Calls.
falls upon
you and i
fluffy music
In a regular shooter, you shoot people for questionable reasons. In SOTL, you shoot people for questionable reasons as part of a narrative on why shooting people for questionable reasons is wrong. There's a problem there.
And none of this answers the thing about needing to provide an alternative, because SOTL doesn't do that.
i just wasted another hour watching his vids of super mario x
the good: raocow plays lots of really interesting and nifty games, including various mario hacks.
the bad: raocow really doesn't know when to shut up.
i'm sorry, his style of commentary is really not mine.
but despite that, i still find his videos enjoyable, because the games he covers are quite interesting.
in his last video he played a level based on Rayman, made me think of Tre