A "Cracked" Article That I Actually Really Liked

I mean, I used to love the site, but for some reason it's had a lot of shite articles lately.

So, here's something I was pleasantly surprised by: David Wong's two-part article that nails many of video gaming's present issues on the head.

Part One.
Part Two.

I especially enjoyed his thoughts on the growing lack of local multiplayer, a lack of non-attractive & non-lighter-skinned protagonists (in non-indie games), bad game mechanics (like bullet sponges and multiple nonsensical enemy waves) and bullshit moral choices.

What does everyone else think of them?

 

You linked the wrong thing for Part 1.

 

Just started reading through the article and agreeing so far, but a couple minor nitpicks:

• Why is Delsin lumped with the 'white male protagonists' when he isn't white?
• TLoU spoilers?? Isn't Ellie the protagonist of TLoU & Jole is just the one we play as (similar to the Ashe/Vaan thing in FF12)?
• Using Mirror's Edge as an example for the 'fit busty female protag' isn't really apt to me since Faith 1). kinda has to be fit to do all the crazy parkour Runners are required to (and she also canonically trained for years to do it), and 2). she isn't really busty?

 

1. What is he if not Caucasian?
2. Matter of perspective. Are we talking about the hero or the character we're meant to follow the closest?
3. Mirror's Edge was meant as an example of something that broke the mold... But did it really? It's not intended as a shining example of the trope. She was mentioned for comparison to the norm.

 

I'm not sure about the finer details of what falls under caucasian classification, but generally when people say white they're talking typical British ancestry sort of thing, Delsin is Native American

 

Oh, I see. I couldn't tell from pictures but alas. If the game says they're Native, who cares what they look like?

Caucasians are of Northwestern European descent as far as I know.

 

1. He's Native American.
2. I haven't played TLoU (yet), so I can't talk more than that question than I have. On FF12 though, I'd say Ashe is definitely the character we're meant to follow the closest and eventually becomes more of a heroic character after she starts to let go of her quest for absolute vengeance.
3. That's true. Although while it doesn't truly break from the mold, it does at least offer representation of another race & doesn't put her down to stereotypes, so it is a step in the right direction in my book, even if it's not a very large one.

 

I guess we all earn a living in some way or another.

 

No, it's correct. MGS5 is obviously the first five annoyances.

 

1 & 3. Does it really have representation of another race? Do they (Delsin and Faith) face the racism people of their race face in the real world? Does Faith face the sexism? In other words, is the mold breaking anything more than a change in appearance?

 

I agree with part 1, not with part 2.

I don' t give a crap whether the characters are diverse or not, that' s superficial cosmetic stuff. I just signed to play a good game. I don' t really care how original my avatar is, it' s just an avy. Doesn' t fundamentally alter the game itself. Never bought any costume DLC, never will. If the story somehow matters, which is utterly optional when it comes to games as far as I' m concerned, then I would just want the story to be good.

As for having more and more games being about killing stuff, well, the medium breaks down to action and/or reflection. Whether you test my eye-hand coordination by having me pile bricks or shoot people is just a cosmetic change. I haven' t played Watchdogs so I' m not sure whether it qualifies or not, but there are plenty of games out there that give you the fight or flight option. Survival horrors come to mind. One of them tried to remove the fight option completely, namely Silent Hill Shattered Memories. Apparently its director' s girlfriend would just give up playing video games as soon as she was asked to hit something. The end product just felt ******ed to me. Look, I' m no violent guy, I' ve never punched anyone, but if an army of creepy smurfs was relentlessly trying to rape hug me the first thing I' d do is grab something blunt, not run away. I' m no good at running anyway, and the everyday main character of that game shouldn' t be either. I would gladly have overlooked it if the game managed to be interesting and challenging anyway. It didn' t.

 

The purpose is to offer variety more than anything.

 

Your idea of a good game is too narrow. There are so many skills to test than hand-eye coordination. You can't even call it a test of hand eye coordination when your task is to fire at something in general until its health bar reaches zero. Shooters are worse than one-trick ponies: They're the same one-trick pony a million times over.

I agree with both sides of the argument for different reasons.

I believe that the game part of gaming is very important. However, as a corollary of that, I believe that innovative gameplay that relies on gaining new skills instead of repetition of the same basic skill (i.e. shooting a target) is crucial to a good game. New experiences are necessary for us to grow.

I believe that exploring other uses for the interactive medium is at least as important. Gaming is such a powerful way to gain new experiences and reach new emotional states. Games where your choices matter and you create a narrative are extremely valuable to me. They mimic real life but can allow you to take risks and paths that you would not be able to in reality, opening the door to self-exploration. Where novels make you empathize with a character, games can make you feel genuine regret for things you have done of your own volition. They can evoke deep and personal feelings.

Bottom line: If you think gaming is just killing time you are seriously underestimating the potential and are part of the reason why we have not reached it yet.[DOUBLEPOST=1402954737][/DOUBLEPOST]On second thought, 'narrow' is probably closer to the opposite of what it is. Your criteria are too specific, making you accept many games that are not good because of a few things that you like.

 

Well, I did mention reflection. The more strategy you inject the better, obviously. Never been into FPS myself, unless they threw something else into the mix.

I' m not saying that' s all it should strive to be, I' m just saying there' s nothing wrong with being an unashamed time killer. There' s a public for both and one doesn' t have to go for the other to flourish. Blockbusters didn' t kill independant movies.

 

Video games have potential beyond killing but
for one thing, it's hard to make. Video games are an action based genre. You perform an action, and onscreen an action is performed. that lends itself to combat and the like WAY more than pretty much anything else.
Combat also sells WAY better than most things. It's human nature. I actually really liked this part in Assassin's Creed 4, where you can read the employee's messages as they design their game/movies. It gives some legitimate insight into how games (and I assume movies) are made

 

Independent movies do a lot better than independent games.

The gaming medium is one where people take very little risk with the new which is whole reason for upset.

 

I'd say that's because right now EVERYBODY wants to be a game maker. You need to make money, even if you're small, so doing something a bit safe is pretty much required unless you have a lot of financial stability already

 

Doesn't make sense given how it's the biggest companies that are the most homogenized.

 

they're big because they're homogenized. They appeal to the broadest demographics.
They put so much money into their games they HAVE to sell well, and being homogenized is a fairly easy way to do that

 

So you see why your earlier defense is worthless.

The problem is with consumers who want homogenized repeats of the same things. They need to want different things.