on the grounds that they should be in the movies section, not the games section.
Preamble: I realize you and I have disagreed vehemently in the past and, alas, this is not going to be that much hoped for high five moment. There’s no consensus on the horizon, I’m afraid, but I hope you’ll acknowledge my candour just as much as I do yours. Thanks Bloth for stirring up such an interesting discussion.
There’s a moralistic, recriminatory undertone to your use of the verb Should that I take issue with. To the extent they are not breaking the Law or infringing upon basic ethical tenets, people should do whatever the fuck they want. Period. That is especially true when it comes to how they choose to spend their hard earned cash. Top down attempts to regulate lives beyond that strict sphere have left a catastrophic trail behind. I understand you’re calling for the opposite, for gamers out of their will to stop seeking after the games they have traditionally sought after. Yet you provide no logical foundation, no rationale for such drastic move. Forgive me, but from where I stand all I read is thinly veiled condescendence that systematically disregards or diminishes the very real reasons why gamers en masse have behaved the way they have. Namely, that these blockbuster franchises fulfill their gaming needs on their own terms.
It also seems to me your questions are all rhetorical. They are variations on the theme Should we support Satan?! directed from the pulpit at a Southern Baptist congregation. Every single one of them is framed in a very specific, very deliberate way so that the answer is implied and seemingly self-evident. But, of course, it is not.
I’ll take on three of them.
Day 1 DLC, microtransations, DRM, glitch-ridden premature games, etc., all could be argued to be examples of shady practices. Here’s the silver lining though: a game is a business proposition that the gamer accepts voluntarily. Each individual makes an a priori rational assessment, a cost benefit analysis to determine whether or not the title is worth the kind of money being asked. Some gamers are indeed prepared to pay extra to unlock content. I suppose this irks many. Nonetheless, there is nothing morally reproachable about the practice per se provided, and it’s a big caveat, provided everything is crystal clear upfront. For example and to the point, it’s downright dishonest to release a title which cannot be finished unless you pay additional money later on and omit that fact from the buyer. It’s also highly questionable to promote microtansactions that award decisive advantages in multiplayer games.
What exactly does it mean to not support shady practices? If a gamer believes he’s about to fall victim of what he deems shady practises, he 'll likely not go ahead with the purchase. He will however realize the game is unplayable at launch all too late. So the question only makes sense in the context of the potential purchase of a future title from the same developer. What’s the appropriate course of action for the conscious consumer then? It depends. Depends on the track record of the developer. Depends on the magnitude of the offense. Depends on whether or not the publisher issued a tangible apology in the form of a refund, discount coupon or sizeable free content. Yes, it does depend.
Are you prepared to claim the cost structure of AAA titles such as TW3 has not changed over the years, that it has remained intact for the past two decades, so much that it is reasonable to demand both more physical content and more in-game content than what’s allegedly the norm now and for the exact same money? Did you take a look at TW3 budget? Did you notice the ratio between development costs and marketing costs? Can you name a company employing 300 full-time devs to ship a single title around the mid 90’s?
Let’s contrast two landmark titles: Might and Magic VII (1999), whose retail version I bought at the time, and Skyrim (2011), purchased full price on release and on Amazon. For all its copious and often crass shortcomings, the latter is several orders of magnitude bigger, both hours and map size wise. Gameplay, flawed as it is, is at the very least comparable. Furthermore, I got a faux cloth map with my regular copy of TES V, whereas nothing of the sort was to be found inside Mighty and Magic VII’s box.
There is simply no way you’d be able to ship a successful AAA game – the one and only kind that allows for successors - with production values from the 90’s. Nowadays these include, but are not limited to, professional voice acting and cutting edge 3D graphics, both of which are quite costly and impact the final price tag in an unprecedented manner.
CDProjekt will not be including big manuals or big storybooks in the standard TW3 edition and that is very telling. Personally, I have no interest in physical manuals as I find their electronic and in-game counterparts more convenient. And while I welcome artbooks and storybooks, my standards require a hardcover, decent paper, quality printing and sturdy binding. I understand these are a luxury and that luxuries come at a price.
Yes, definitely. Those of us – and I am not one of them - keen on cinematic games should definitely support them. Otherwise companies that develop in the genre will eventually go out of business and our appetite for it will remain unsated. Note the disparity: buying the cinematic game you feel like buying has no impact whatsoever on the survival of all the other genres, whereas abstaining from buying the cinematic game you're inclined to buy amounts to casting a vote to reduce genre plurality.
Companies who develop such games have a legitimate artistic reason. These hybrid tittles fall somewhere in the middle of the interactivity spectrum. Not really a movie, not a traditional game either. Developers get to exercise much greater control over the end experience; they get to tailor it in its minute details, to a degree that is not possible in conventional games. And some creators do crave that kind of artistic sovereignty. Who here really believes developers of Heavy Rain or The Order 1886 have not poured their heart and soul onto these titles, that they do not reflect an indomitable creative vision and are just mere stunts? And some gamers do appreciate the tightly choreographed but still interactive experience these games provide. They enjoy the pristinely framed shots, the fine-tuned pacing and the uniqueness of each encounter, each scene, each adversary. That's what is called a meeting of supply and demand.
On what grounds exactly would you strike cinematic games out of the list of legitimate genres?
1. I don't know you from Adam sunshine.
2. There's no condescension or recrimination in my post, i'm just asking what people think we dhould do as good consumers.
3. Sod off wi Satan shit and accusations of all that, there not welcome or needed, act civil kid.
4. If you want less DLC and shady practises don't support it, if you want more support it, seems simple and doesn't require any nous to work out if something's shady. Once again making no moral judgements.
5. I don't care what the budgets of game companies or their investments are, that's their problem, all I know is that twenty plus years ago I could get a game like Ultima VII with loads of stuff in the standard edition, a gameworld bigger and more interesting than Skyrim, with far more reactivity in plot and environment, NPC routines, a great narrative and a well made plot, far superior in both features and content than the puddle deep hiking simulator.
6. Not my cup of tea, i'd rather that cinematics serve to enhance the narrative and reward the player rather than dictate what little gameplay there is and rob the player of control, it might look all very nice but it takes away interactivity and control which is the core strength of this genre. If I want to watch a movie i'll go and watch one.
Who the hell has ever said that everybody should do as i've said, i'm just asking questions. Have I done something wrong to you kid, because you seem major butthurt and anxious to say that i'm trying to tell people what to do, which i'm not in any way shape or form. Drop the outrage eh.
Who the hell has ever said that everybody should do as i've said, i'm just asking questions. Have I done something wrong to you kid, because you seem major butthurt and anxious to say that i'm trying to tell people what to do, which i'm not in any way shape or form. Drop the outrage eh.
Not saying that CDPR is headed down this road (yet) but it usually starts with the little things like simplifying this mechanic here or introducing that hand holding feature there, and assuming that everybody has just waited for this to be brought into the game.
I'm very glad actually, that The Witcher 3 is the last installment of the franchise for now. I don't even want to imagine with what 'improvements' a fourth Witcher would be riddled and defiled with, if it were the next project to go into development over at CDPR HQ.
Even without knowing anything major about Cyberpunk 2077 I can't help but already feel a bit concerned about how it's going to turn out, especially in face of some very troubling trends in mutiplatform game design and development in recent years.
Holy shit, some topics escalate so quickly...
This is not about a gamer code of conduct or morality or about who exercises their rights as a consumer.
If there's a market for people to get ass raped with metallic pineapples then just let it be. It's their right as consumers and they may willingly choose to support this business. We are not questioning their choices.
What really is a problem is transforming what used to be a different market to serve and fulfill the needs and wants of an increasing population of metallic pineapple fetishists. This affects us all because it moves the industry towards a different production model, one with massive budgets and expenses the least of which go into the actual game. Or developer salaries. The problem is, precisely, when an economic or production model takes over game or art creation efforts.
Thankfully there are technologies that allow for alternative markets to develop and distribute actual games, bypassing this shitty industry. If we really care about games though we should be more careful with our choices, each purchase is a vote for a tuple of <game, company, development, distribution>. Remember the implications when you buy a game, some are pineapples in disguise.
Very well.
So, again, I have to ask. What seems to be the problem?
Personally I wouldn't blame the younger demographic, because i'd blame no majority for the actions of others, but i'd ask whether they feel less inclined to exercise their rights as consumers? It seems to me that it's no longer fashionable to court the consumer and champion their rights, indeed it seems "cool" to mock them. I wonder if this apathy(?) to protecting their own rights and ensuring better service is a response to a larger pool of disposable income, or whether it is the demonisation and prejudice that is aimed at game players by the media?
Democracy + capitalism? Nah, it is a lesser evil than any available alternative nowadays.
(...) I don't detect an overbearing undercurrent of condescension or force at all in what I read, if I were to interpret it so it would be my mistake probably constituting an instance of Freudian Transference.
Are concepts such as Democracy & Capitalism static institutions ? Has every / Is every / Should every incarnation of these follow an identical model ? Patently not. Earlier in the thread I quoted from Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations, the bible of economic capitalism, famously carried by Thatcher in her handbag constantly. We haven't even had capitalism as described by its Father, and this issue displays that to its core, in that his consumer focussed version has essential internal forces that are simply not present in the form of producer based capitalism that prevails.
If Smith were here he'd be saying that strong, critical, informed consumer demand for better products drives producers to better performance, value, and behaviour as they compete with eachother for attention. Competing producers racing to the lowest common denominator is the opposite of the constant innovation he envisioned. He could therefore assert we haven't even had the original capitalist system yet, nevermind the multitude of variations on the theme. His vision offers many wide benefits to both consumer & producer, but its highly risky for financiers who would rather invest in competing companies, have them barely compete but all show small profit, thats if they don't just fix the market, rather than chance it all on riskier ventures.
I wouldn't be so sure we've had the best version of Democracy yet either, or even a broad selection even considering from Athens to the present and across the whole world. Personally I think it - thats the general form employed today because even all current "democratic" countries aren't particularly comparable - can certainly be improved, no question. The notion that these things aren't fluid even within a lifetime is also flawed. I was born in an Apartheid police state within a generally recognised - and not entirely inappropriately so - "cradle of democracy". An almost unbelievable state of affairs. It's gone now, and I have rights & freedoms I didn't have for the first half of my life. I haven't been assaulted by the Police since, its great. Theres even hope that it could improve still further. You should look into what the Northern Ireland Civil Rights movement was asking for, in particular in regards voting rights, think what I have now, and come back insisting things don't / can't / won't change.
TL / DR : I'm a trained programmer. Programmers are Software Engineers and work in Software Engineering. "Engineering" conveys a necessity for precision. Every other engineering discipline that is though, programming seems to want the name, its sophistication, its innovative heritage, but not the responsibility. Yes its an artform, but it's primarily a science, it can and should be accurately descriptive and "mission critical". Most of the people who do the job want it to be that way, but once the industry gets dragged down by the SMOO, its lofty ideals are easily silenced by voices of "market forces practicality", you know... the "change is bad", "down with this sort of thing" crowd.
The point remains though: the OP contained half a dozen or so should we questions. Now, to me such reiterated a use of the auxiliary verb should conveys a strong, almost imperative sense that borders on moral obligation, especially when coupled with the expression «Players' responsibility» and the use of the indiscriminate, all-encompassing, first person plural pronoun we. The case further compounds when I scrutinize the biased way in which the questions have been worded out.