🎭 Dramacow Gamergate / Depression Quest Shitstorm

[Mauvman Shuffleboard]

Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with this. The narrative of a game is JUST as important as something like how well the controls are implemented. Allowing games to get away with shitty writing (or even simply mediocre writing) is ridiculous, and it's exactly WHY games are looked down upon as potential vehicles for sophisticated storytelling (Grim Fandango, anyone?).

Some people like story oriented games but that's not really my thing. For me an enjoyable story is an added bonus to an enjoyable game, but I don't think I'd be very interested in a game with a good story and a poor quality of gameplay. On the other hand, I've quite liked games with shitty stories and good gameplay. If the story is a major component of the experience a review should definitely spend a good amount of time on that too. It's just that I personally wouldn't be looking for that kind of game, I like games I can enjoy for a long time and story doesn't contribute to longevity. (For the record, some of the games on my steam with the most time spent in them are Team Fortress 2, The Binding of Isaac, Payday 2 and Company of Heroes).

 

[A Random]

Well, I want to know your opinion as a game designer, then.

If you had been involved in the Tropico games' design, the whole 'SimCity games, but you're a dictator in Latin America' thing, how would you address criticism such as 'the game made me feel like a bully, it didn't address this subject in a very mature manner'?

[This one review annoyed me with its hypocrisy, which is what's making me think of it so much.]

 

[Francis York Morgan]

Okay, I mean, sure, when it comes to a genre such as fighting games, I can agree. But, for example, moving into the broader topic of RPGs and action-adventures, even first-person shooters? These games are FRAMED around their plots, and often include shit-tons of dialogue and cut-scenes. Why should we allow these to be substandard, when they could be used to tell a fascinating story AS WELL as offering brilliant gaming? Why not aim high, and try to go for a game which pushes for the very best in ALL respects, artistic AND technical?

I'm sorry if I'm getting a bit riled up, but as a game designer, I am extremely fastidious, to the point where if ANY one aspect of my game isn't working, I will rework it until I can be proud of it, whether it be the mechanics, the music, the writing, or the level design. I think designers should demand the very best they can in all areas of their product. THAT is what makes for good games.

No need to apologize. I think it's cool that you are very passionate about the subject and you are coming from a position that gives you a different perspective than the rest of us. I should have mentioned narrative somewhere in my original post especially considering where my username comes from. Deadly Premonition is not a technical masterpiece but its bizarre narrative and characters make it an experience that made me forgive many of its faults.

While I'm thinking about it, I think game reviews should move away from things like the 10-point grading scale. These number-based reviews feel ambiguous and arbitrary to me. Like, there's a review I remember from EGM for Kirby: The Crystal Shards where the reviewers couldn't list any cons but still gave it an 8/10. Plus, the system has gotten to this weird point where anything at 7.5 or less is essentially garbage.

 

[snakesvsplanes]

Well, I want to know your opinion as a game designer, then.

If you had been involved in the Tropico games' design, the whole 'SimCity games, but you're a dictator in Latin America' thing, how would you address criticism such as 'the game made me feel like a bully, it didn't address this subject in a very mature manner'?

[This one review annoyed me with its hypocrisy, which is what's making me think of it so much.]

Are you asking me? (Sorry, not trying to be rude, just wasn't sure who you were directing this towards!)

Some people like story oriented games but that's not really my thing. For me an enjoyable story is an added bonus to an enjoyable game, but I don't think I'd be very interested in a game with a good story and a poor quality of gameplay. On the other hand, I've quite liked games with shitty stories and good gameplay. If the story is a major component of the experience a review should definitely spend a good amount of time on that too. It's just that I personally wouldn't be looking for that kind of game, I like games I can enjoy for a long time and story doesn't contribute to longevity. (For the record, some of the games on my steam with the most time spent in them are Team Fortress 2, The Binding of Isaac, Payday 2 and Company of Heroes).

Well, in the case of Team Fortress 2, for instance, it might not be about the story itself, but can you deny that the writing is excellent and witty? I know the main selling point might be the gameplay itself, but the strong characterizations are an aspect which make it incredibly memorable.

I can agree that it's entirely possible to enjoy a game without a narrative (Minecraft, say), or a weak one (let's go with Mario-- don't hate, but come on now). However, when it comes to products which include extensive dialogue, and where the whole purpose of the game is to progress through a story (Sleeping Dogs, Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Fallout, the Final Fantasy series, GTA, the various Telltale games, any Sierra/LucasArts classic, even most MMOs), then the writing of the dialogue and the flow of the narrative DOES come into it. It simply cannot be avoided. Would you play The Wolf Among Us if the main character was a shallow asshole whose quest had no merit at all? Would Final Fantasy VII be as memorable if it was just a series of boss fights with absolutely generic, one-note characters and a recycled fantasy setting phoned in (and yeah yeah, I know a lot of you have complaints about FF7, but it was still very distinctive)? Would Phoenix Wright even EXIST without its writing?

 

[A Random]

Are you asking me? (Sorry, not trying to be rude, just wasn't sure who you were directing this towards!)

Yeah, it was you. I didn't see the guy posting before me in time.

 

[Batman VS Tony Danza]

Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with this. The narrative of a game is JUST as important as something like how well the controls are implemented. Allowing games to get away with shitty writing (or even simply mediocre writing) is ridiculous, and it's exactly WHY games are looked down upon as potential vehicles for sophisticated storytelling (Grim Fandango, anyone?).

When I was a kid all I cared about was the story. I burned through point-and-click adventure games, got into Baldur's Gate 2 just because people said the story was great. I knew nothing about D&D but I heard about a good story where the player could make choices. I ended up loving it despite getting into a game where I wasn't at all familiar with the mechanics. This led to me checking out other RPG titles from Black Isle, Troika, Bethesda, etc. The story/setting/atmosphere in these titles is what makes you WANT to continue playing and the mechanics determine how smoothly you can achieve that. The combat in Silent Hill games were fucking terrible. The scary atmosphere carried the series for quite awhile. You'd get enough of a story to make you wonder what you'd find out next, what horrors you'd see, and if you could make sense of what seemed like a madness.

Now, there are also lots of games that are carried almost entirely by how they run. Simulators, fighters, many RTS games. In games like those balance and accuracy are extremely important. A good reviewer should be able to review the story just as much as the game mechanics. They should be able to tell me if the story in the main campaign is weak or the multiplayer is worth it in itself (if that's your thing).

If a game is so buggy that I can't progress through the story without feeling frustrated then I want to know. If the story is so bad that it doesn't drive the player to continue and potentially unlock some rather smooth and clever functions then I want to know.

 

[Francis York Morgan]

Would Final Fantasy VII be as memorable if it was just a series of boss fights with absolutely generic, one-note characters and a recycled fantasy setting phoned in (and yeah yeah, I know a lot of you have complaints about FF7, but it was still very distinctive)?

*insert FFXIII joke here*

I think one of the biggest worries with reviews discussing the narrative of the game comes from experiences with biased reviewers who trashed an otherwise good game just because it had a narrative they didn't agree with. Even though I don't think it hurt Divinity: Original Sin's reviews that much, it was still shitty to see all those clickbait articles ripping into the developers for them going with the direction they chose or attacking the players for enjoying said game.

If a game is so buggy that I can't progress through the story without feeling frustrated then I want to know.

God, this is exactly what happened to me with Skyrim. I thought I did everything right. I waited for 10 months before even touching it and yet one mission ended up being completely broken for me so I can't continue the quest line at all. What made that even shittier was that it was one of the most important non-story quests in the game. That completely killed any interest I had in it and now I don't know if I can ever really support a Bethesda game again because this always happens with them. /endrant

 

[snakesvsplanes]

Yeah, it was you. I didn't see the guy posting before me in time.

Oh, well, jesus christ, if I'm going to PLAY as a dictator, I'd absolutely want the full experience. Feeling like a bully would be the LEAST I'd expect from this!

I mean, if I download a game where it's advertised that I can play as Hitler himself, I'll EXPECT that it will make me do some pretty horrible and repulsive things. That doesn't mean that it's ME doing them, but it's putting you in a character's shoes-- from there, well, you play his/her role. What else can you expect?!

My game allows you to step into the life of a pathological liar. Am I saying that I think people should become pathological liars in real life? Of course fucking not. It's a character. It's a game.

 

[Batman VS Tony Danza]

Oh, well, jesus christ, if I'm going to PLAY as a dictator, I'd absolutely want the full experience. Feeling like a bully would be the LEAST I'd expect from this!

I mean, if I download a game where it's advertised that I can play as Hitler itself, I'll EXPECT that it will make me do some pretty horrible and terrible things. That doesn't mean that it's ME doing them, but it's putting you in a character's shoes-- from there, well, you play his/her role. What else can you expect?!

My game allows you to step into the life of a pathological liar. Am I saying that I think people should become pathological liars in real life? Of course fucking not. It's a character. It's a game.

Yeah, how "triggered" that guy sounded from the Tropico 5 review makes me want to play it just because it suggests a level of immersion.

 

[snakesvsplanes]

*insert FFXIII joke here*

I think one of the biggest worries with reviews discussing the narrative of the game comes from experiences with biased reviewers who trashed an otherwise good game just because it had a narrative they didn't agree with. Even though I don't think it hurt Divinity: Original Sin's reviews that much, it was still shitty to see all those clickbait articles ripping into the developers for them going with the direction they chose or attacking the players for enjoying said game.

Oh, I completely agree with this. If someone tears apart a game JUST because it features a viewpoint they don't happen to agree with, then, well, this is not unbiased journalism. (For the record, when my game went on Kickstarter last year, a certain well-known gaming news site refused to feature it because it was too "politically-charged"... I just laughed and said, "Eh, then they're not my audience, I guess." Then this year? They apologized for being so dismissive, and sent an interviewer to Gamescom to write a piece about my game. Really, you just need to be level-headed about this kind of thing, I think.)

 

[Arctic]

Jesus Christ the Gamergate wiki page is so bias it's not even funny.

Bizarro Land, where Wikipedia is full of edit wars and obvious bias and Encyclopedia Dramatica is where the facts are at.

 

[Damocles_Sword]

Bizarro Land, where Wikipedia is full of edit wars and obvious bias and Encyclopedia Dramatica is where the facts are at.

This whole thing has been bizarro land. 4chan's been all SJW-y. IGN's coming off as uncorrupt. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

 

[DuskEngine]

I used to work for our college radio station in Boston, and for one show we covered the local game industry. We tried calling Zoe in, and she said in an email that she was on her way, never showed up, and promptly stopped responding to emails/calls.
Also one of my friends tried messaging her on OKCupid and she never responded.
That's all I've got to add to this.

 

[StallChaser]

There was a stream last night where they talked to devs on both sides of the debate. One of the points brought up about bias is that there's no such thing as unbiased (in reviews or reporting). But I don't think that's the real issue. It's when they flat out lie (like intentionally misrepresenting the gamergate movement out of spite) or try to spread their ideology beyond their own websites. I have no problem with sites existing that have biases different from my own, but I do have a problem when they try to take everything over at the expense of having other voices heard. There's also shit like metacritic, which I'd be stoked if Gamergate took on, but that's a whole other story...

 

[snakesvsplanes]

There's also shit like metacritic, which I'd be stoked if Gamergate took on, but that's a whole other story...

Metacritic? What's wrong with it? (Not trying to be snippy, by the way, just genuinely curious, as I just figured it was akin to Rotten Tomatoes.)

 

[Batman VS Tony Danza]

There was a stream last night where they talked to devs on both sides of the debate. One of the points brought up about bias is that there's no such thing as unbiased (in reviews or reporting). But I don't think that's the real issue. It's when they flat out lie (like intentionally misrepresenting the gamergate movement out of spite) or try to spread their ideology beyond their own websites. I have no problem with sites existing that have biases different from my own, but I do have a problem when they try to take everything over at the expense of having other voices heard. There's also shit like metacritic, which I'd be stoked if Gamergate took on, but that's a whole other story...

I'm sick of the "There's no such thing as being unbiased" or "Objectivity is impossible" being thrown around by some of the bloggers/journalists. It's a cop out. When you judge a concept like that as an absolute then of course it's impossible to obtain. Justice, innocence, selflessness, any of them. They all become meaningless when examined that way. They're ideals. You fucking strive for them as best as you can.

 

[Whatisgoingon]

Metacritic? What's wrong with it? (Not trying to be snippy, by the way, just genuinely curious, as I just figured it was akin to Rotten Tomatoes.)

I know that this wasn't directed towards me, but I dislike Metacritic as well. But it isn't Metacritic's fault, it is like Rotten Tomatoes, it is just how people in games journalism and even the gaming industry look to it as the ultimate source of how good something is, when instead of looking at a number, they should be looking at what the reviews said. Steam puts the Metacritic number next to every game (well, every game that has a metacritic number), and I remember that Obsidian got screwed out of a bonus from Bethesda because they were, if I remember correctly, one point away from the number that Bethesda set for them to reward a bonus. The ridiculous thing about that particular situation is that most of the reviews complained about the bugs, and Bethesda was the one who handled Q&A for the game.

Edit: I accidentally put Bethesda twice instead of Obsidian, whoops.

 

[teheviltwin]

I pretty much got the brush off from the BBC with my complaints about their bias in covering the open letter thing. Apparently it would require more license payers complaining to get them to look at it. If not then they have more important complaints to deal with.

 

[Smutley]

I mean, if I download a game where it's advertised that I can play as Hitler himself, I'll EXPECT that it will make me do some pretty horrible and repulsive things.

Baby you don't know the half of it: Double Hitler

Double Hitler Made Me Feel Powerful In The Worst Way
#WriteAPolygonReview

 

[DuskEngine]

it is just how people in games journalism and even the gaming industry look to it as the ultimate source of how good something is, when instead of looking at a number, they should be looking at what the reviews said.

That's why I like Steam reviews- I don't really need to know anything more specific than whether you'd recommend the game to other people, and why. The whole x/10 thing seems fucking stupid anyway.