Ever find a YouTube video that just states everything you think on a subject?

Because I did.

 

I did too.

 

@Hayabusa - I'd love your thoughts on the OP

Staff training video found.

 

That video does seem a lot like you, full of contradictions and then just going off and talking about something else. But I'll just address my core issue. He starts off by saying anything that involves a skill is a game... and then says stuff like quick time events, Gone Home, and Professor Layton aren't games. People have made the argument for Gone Home, but there's really no basis for that with QTEs or Layton, and really all of those three require skills, reflexes, pattern recognition and timing for QTEs, you need to be able to explore and find details in the environment to find the full story of Gone Home, and there's a small subset of people who try speedrunning the game, and Layton is literally a compilation of some of the oldest games in history, requiring a bunch of different games to solve puzzles.
But then at the end he's just talking about accepting opinions, women, telling everyone to share his video, saying people are close minded, saying things certain people find insulting is not insulting, and he has an ongoing thing about words being redefined that doesn't really go anywhere. There's absolutely no focus. It's a bunch of vague ideas strapped together by a storm of niceties, and not much substance.

 

Can't think of any off the top of my recently woken up head, but I think there were a few videos by the Two Best Friends, and outside of YouTube, some of the Escapist guys like Yahtzee, Jim Sterling, and occasionally MovieBob. However, more often than not, there's at least one thing I disagree with them on.

 

I meant on the video I posted in particular, but I'll let you do you and wake up :X

 

OH WHOOPS

Well, I'll give it a watch and let you know.

 

He says "Some of my favourite games are not games" showing Professor Layton, Phoenix Wright and Last Window. 13:30

 

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Now on to the meat.

He's correct about Professor Layton because the object of the game is riddle and word puzzle solving. Individual puzzles in themselves are not games. He is wrong about Professor Layton because there are games that involve riddles, like... a game of riddles.

The conceivable problem I notice with considering it a 'game' (by his definition) is this: The difficulty is subjective and the rules change with each puzzle. It's a game, but it's not a strict progression of difficulty and doesn't necessarily increase your skill at a consistent rate. He's trying to be objective about the games he himself likes.

You, on the other hand... You are taking 'Not a Game' as an insult. The point of this video was to point out how it is not an insult. Did you miss the part where he doesn't think non-games are worse than true games? He is saying that dividing them into these categories is valuable. He says that he wants these non-games on the market because they are great in their own right.

But they are not games. He wants true games to be made, too. He made this video because needs people to recognize what games are for that to happen.

If you are just going to insist that it's insulting, why are you in this thread?

 

Huh? I don't find it insulting. I have a very broad definition of what a game is, unlike most people, personally think a lot of people intend "Not a game" to be an insult, but I digress. My issue is that his initial definition of game doesn't match his definition at the end.
I still think it's pretty presumptuous to say that something people can find insulting isn't insulting though
Don't mistake me, I don't disagree with everything in this video, it just has a huge lack of focus and really hurts it

 

If that's the case, you should get better at displaying your appreciation. Attacking one contradiction while ignoring the rest of the points is cherry picking and it makes you look like an idiot who wants to start trouble.

 

It's a pretty interesting analysis. It makes me question how I've been classifying games like Gone Home and The Wolf Among Us. While the second I far more often have been considering a game, the first I've often gone against calling a game. I personally think part of that is something I don't recall the video discussing: direction.

Every good game needs to give the player some direction, to teach the player how to improve their own gameplay experience: Mega Man X does it beautifully with its level design and enemies that push the player to learn the mechanics without having characters (or worse, floating text) telling you blatantly what to do, Call of Duty does it horribly by putting giant arrows and floating text and having characters bark orders and sequences showing the controls you're supposed to use constantly, and (to me) Gone Home doesn't do it nearly enough, nor does it have gameplay that the player learns to improve on (as the video discusses.)

However, this is a pretty incomplete thought, I need to reiterate. I'm not sure it's accurate, as many open world games lack much direction, yet still give the player ways to improve on their skills: Minecraft and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim come to mind (though Skyrim has much more direction than Minecraft, by having quests given to the player by main characters)

So yeah, my scattered thoughts on this subject.

 

I have plenty of issues with it, I specifically said I was focusing on my main one. I don't really want to spend a bunch of time writing a whole thing about this video.
I don't know what appreciation I can show because none of the points it shows are really complete enough for me to get behind. When I say I don't disagree with everything in this I'm trying to express the fact that I don't have a binary opinion about it, but overall I disagree with it and have more issues with it than I do the opposite
(also, talk about cherry picking, you didn't even address anything else I said in my post)

 

WHERE DO YOU THINK WE ARE!?

 

"Hah. There was nothing to cherry pick; what you said made sense.

Let me add a fallacy to the well, if you still don't get it: Poisoning the well - a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.

The point I picked was why you said what you said. You were intentionally derisive and attacked a member as well as the video. In fact, there is reason to believe you would have said something good without prodding if this member were not the one who posted it.

Do not do it again.

 

No, I would have said the same thing if anybody posted this video because I fundamentally disagree with it. There are valid points but it doesn't change my overall opinion.
All that changed is it was personalized because Atlas posted it, if he can make unprovoked shots at me I can do, I figure we have an understanding at this point and will know not to get too upset with each other

 

[DOUBLEPOST=1402176809][/DOUBLEPOST]

How can I put this...?

If what you say does not offer an alternative solution to the problems, it has little value. You should not be as sure of yourself as you are when you have nothing to offer.

Have humility befitting someone without the answers.

 

Okay, my turn, what problem? @DigitalAtlas hasn't said anything. Am I looking for a solution to you and Jiku getting bent out of shape over how I talk to someone else?