Gaming General Chat Thread

[Prospero101]

10/10 GOTY all years

[Kapol]

That feeling when you see a game so bad that you instant email it to the watch+play email address...

[Phailhammer]

There's a Watch+Play email address now? I know Graham was going to set up a method of submission, but I didn't think it was up yet.

[Kapol]

If I'm not mistaken, it's [email protected]

[Phailhammer]

Thanks for that. I have one a friend showed me yesterday, which I want to suggest.

[Bebop Man]

Important question of the day - are there physical copies of Okami (HD) for the PS3 on retail, or do I have to get it digitally through the PSN?

[ch3m1kal]

Yep, look for Okami Zekkeiban. Amazon seems to sell them in pretty much all regions.

[Bebop Man]

[GDwarf]

For those who haven't had enough of the Zoe Quin and Anita Sarkeesian tempests in teacups, Ars Technica has a pretty good write-up about both.

[JackSlack]

That's the third 'death of gamers' argument I've heard. And the thing is? I'm not convinced the discussion of the idea is wrong. I'm unsure, but maybe we're in zombie territory now; we're dead and we don't know it. The landscape has shifted; casual games and games aimed at other demographics are booming and thriving, while the AAA market has stalled out creatively and is tempestuous at best financially.

I begin to think that there was a point where 'gamer' could have been saved; maybe around the PS2 era. But we sailed past it, and we may very well be in a tipping point where the big triple-A market dies while tablet and small game development becomes the 'face' of games.

[J_S_Bach]

Don't you find that 'gamer' is a rather nebulous term? Is it exclusive to people who partake in table-top games? or does it refer to people who play video games? or both? How does one qualify to be referred to as a gamer? I'm in the same camp as Total Biscuit where I do not think it's a good idea for people to identify themselves through a pastime or hobby.

[JackSlack]

But that's just it: We're seeing it break down. There's clearly a notion of 'gamer' as an identity, hence why we get the constant "they're not real gamers" comments whenever any poll shows that yes, more women and older people (and older women, for that matter) are playing games. The notions of it aren't that hard to see: It's tied very strongly to the AAA game industry, etc.

I dunno. None of this is a firmly formed set of ideas in my head. But it's not hard to see a shift in the games industry away from larger, expansive game designs and toward smaller, simpler ones. They just seem to be more profitable, mostly from lower costs and partly from increased demographic coverage.

[empath]

...you know? I can't remember hearing the term 'gamer' before Wil Wheaton's PAX keynote - I figure I must have, but it doesn't really stand out before that; my 'table-top gaming' friends "played RPGs" and so forth.

I...I think Mr W might've unintentionally gave this subculture a rallying identity and label.

I while I agree there's a change in the works, I don't think it's so much a 'death' as an evolution. The label may become irrelevant, but the activity will go on (and for so many more people than before)

(dangit, why do I get all these ideas in my head just as I need to leave for work? I'd say more, but I wanna keep paying for a roof over our head )

[CSt]

But that's just it: We're seeing it break down. There's clearly a notion of 'gamer' as an identity, hence why we get the constant "they're not real gamers" comments whenever any poll shows that yes, more women and older people (and older women, for that matter) are playing games. The notions of it aren't that hard to see: It's tied very strongly to the AAA game industry, etc.

I dunno. None of this is a firmly formed set of ideas in my head. But it's not hard to see a shift in the games industry away from larger, expansive game designs and toward smaller, simpler ones. They just seem to be more profitable, mostly from lower costs and partly from increased demographic coverage.

And we will see how dead the AAA industry is, when on November 4th the newest carbon copy of Call of Duty: One as good as the other is released and the hordes will come forth to consume. And nine days later, when about 6 Million people will get Warlords of Draenor.
Practically every aspect of gaming has been declared dead at one point or the other and it has always been wrong.

[Trippzen]

But that's just it: We're seeing it break down. There's clearly a notion of 'gamer' as an identity, hence why we get the constant "they're not real gamers" comments whenever any poll shows that yes, more women and older people (and older women, for that matter) are playing games. The notions of it aren't that hard to see: It's tied very strongly to the AAA game industry, etc.

I dunno. None of this is a firmly formed set of ideas in my head. But it's not hard to see a shift in the games industry away from larger, expansive game designs and toward smaller, simpler ones. They just seem to be more profitable, mostly from lower costs and partly from increased demographic coverage.

And we will see how dead the AAA industry is, when on November 4th the newest carbon copy of Call of Duty: One as good as the other is released and the hordes will come forth to consume. And nine days later, when about 6 Million people will get Warlords of Draenor.
Practically every aspect of gaming has been declared dead at one point or the other and it has always been wrong.

TV? That'll never catch on. Movies? That'll never catch on. Rock and roll? That'll never catch on. Internet? That'll never catch on.

[GDwarf]

AAA games aren't dead or dying, they're stagnating, which is different. We've seen this stagnation before, it used to happen about once per console generation. It's also what Hollywood goes through every decade or so. We may eventually see more big publishers collapse, but the idea of big-budget games won't go anywhere, the potential rewards are just too high.

[JackSlack]

And we will see how dead the AAA industry is, when on November 4th the newest carbon copy of Call of Duty: One as good as the other is released and the hordes will come forth to consume. And nine days later, when about 6 Million people will get Warlords of Draenor.

Call of Duty is doing great. WoW is declining, but doing OK.

But you've picked the two best franchises in AAA.

To quote Jim Sterling, game marketers care about three games: Call of Duty, Candy Crush Saga, and Clash of Clans. There's a reason two of the three there are mobile casual games, and that segment is doing way better.

AAA games aren't dead or dying, they're stagnating, which is different. We've seen this stagnation before, it used to happen about once per console generation. It's also what Hollywood goes through every decade or so. We may eventually see more big publishers collapse, but the idea of big-budget games won't go anywhere, the potential rewards are just too high.

But we've never seen a scenario in which gaming has gone broad-spectrum appeal like this before, and the profits are way, way higher in the mobile sector. It would be foolish not to expect more and more of the efforts to flow in that direction.

[J_S_Bach]

But that's just it: We're seeing it break down. There's clearly a notion of 'gamer' as an identity, hence why we get the constant "they're not real gamers" comments whenever any poll shows that yes, more women and older people (and older women, for that matter) are playing games. The notions of it aren't that hard to see: It's tied very strongly to the AAA game industry, etc.

The problem I find with those polls is they don't classify what their definition of game is. Also does simply playing games make you a 'gamer'? This is something that was raised on the co-optional podcast that I believe aired on August 21. The discussion was raised over a click-bait article that read along the lines of more women play games than teenage boys. But when Total Biscuit went through the breakdown of different games it showed 90% of WoW players are male, 90% of LoL players are male and I think the other state was 80% of CoD players are male.

One of the problems that I have with these stats is that, if you know what you're doing, they can be easily manipulated in order to suggest different things. Personally I don't care who plays video games, I also believe there are different levels or categories of video games. Farmville shouldn't be treated as the same quality as a game like Bioshock: Infinite. People who identify themselves as 'gamers' aren't a problem it's people who just happen to be jerks who just happen to consider themselves to be gamers. It's wrong when people bully and threaten others because of their gender, I believe that the majority of people would agree that video games are just a hobby. Different people enjoy them to different extents and gender shouldn't matter to who does or doesn't partake in the pastime.

Similarly I do not agree with a lot of self identified SJW who seem to take the exact opposite side of said jerks causing the problems and bully/insult them back (I've noticed Cameron Lauder has been known to do this). Simply put I'm against censorship in all forms and it seems that a lot of the vocal SJWs want to censor people who they don't agree with. If someone says something you find offensive or you do not agree with you have the choice of ignoring them, pointing out how and why they're wrong but I don't think it's correct to simply delete a comment or silence someone because you don't agree.

[JackSlack]

@J_S_Bach: That's exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about here, the blinders that are keeping us thinking AAA gaming is going to plug rather than realising it's stumbling onward by nothing more than inertia.

"But lots of people who don't identify as gamers are playing games!"

"Yeah, but they're not real games, that doesn't count."

"They're spending more money and there's more of them. As far as the game makers are concerned, they'll be the new players, and we're the minority now."

[empath]

*waves bye-bye to the 'real gamers'*

Seriously.

When my folks got me a Sears VCS, I didn't call myself a 'gamer'.

When I pulled all-nighters to get through Pool of Radiance or Starflight on my 100% AT-compatible, I didn't think of myself as a 'gamer'.

When I got together with my high-school buddies and we slogged through Shrine of Tamoachan (over a period of months, not the hours that tournament module was intended to last), we didn't call ourselves 'a gaming group.'

This clique, sociological bubble, neologism, or whathaveyou is - to be blunt - a fairly recent development, and to be honest, it's played its string out, and had its time.


Video games - and 'tabletop games' BOARD games that have existed as a significant commercial product for at least a century (the names "Parker Brothers", "Milton-Bradley" or "Waddingtons" mean nothing to you lot, do they? ;P) and been culturally relevant for thousands of years - are reaching a broad spectrum acceptance and adoption by society in general that is pretty much unprecedented. And that sort of thing KILLS private, exclusive groups that thrive on affiliation with a niche activity, because that activity is NOT a 'niche' thing anymore - EVERYONE DOES IT.

So to be absolutely accurate, everyone is a gamer.

...and that term doesn't mean the same thing anymore, and the unevolved, unenlightened holdbacks that can't accept change and ride the changing tides are going to get hostile and violent toward 'these interlopers infringing on OUR hobby'.

But don't worry, we won't have to put up with their tantrums and other reprehensible behaviours for much longer - either they'll learn to adapt and change to be accepted by the rest of society, or they'll just stay 1337 and gatekeep themselves right out of the breeding population, and we'll be rid of them in another generation or two.

[J_S_Bach]

@J_S_Bach: That's exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about here, the blinders that are keeping us thinking AAA gaming is going to plug rather than realising it's stumbling onward by nothing more than inertia.

I'm not sure I entirely agree (but to be fair it is late here and I'm feeling like I'm trying to think through a thick fog so I may just not be understanding what words mean). I'll fully admit that I'm simply a casual observer to the video game industry process but from what I've been able to gather it feels like the 'hardcore video game culture' that Nintendo has recently claimed to be targeting is currently at a cultural crossroads. Where there are the uncultured ultraconservative that honestly believe gender and gender identity actually will affect the industry in some horrible cataclysmic way and the people who understand that being inclusive is good and being exclusion is bad are becoming more vocal meaning that the AAA companies don't know who to please. I hope that AAA attitudes are like a pendulum and I feel we're at the apex of the swing where each company is seeing what's doing well and trying to copy that to make lightning strike twice. Here's hoping that we'll begin to see more companies focus on making games that they want to make, not some carbon copy thing that's trying to pander to everyone. How does that saying go? "If you try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one"?

[GDwarf]

And we will see how dead the AAA industry is, when on November 4th the newest carbon copy of Call of Duty: One as good as the other is released and the hordes will come forth to consume. And nine days later, when about 6 Million people will get Warlords of Draenor.

Call of Duty is doing great. WoW is declining, but doing OK.

But you've picked the two best franchises in AAA.

To quote Jim Sterling, game marketers care about three games: Call of Duty, Candy Crush Saga, and Clash of Clans. There's a reason two of the three there are mobile casual games, and that segment is doing way better.

AAA games aren't dead or dying, they're stagnating, which is different. We've seen this stagnation before, it used to happen about once per console generation. It's also what Hollywood goes through every decade or so. We may eventually see more big publishers collapse, but the idea of big-budget games won't go anywhere, the potential rewards are just too high.

But we've never seen a scenario in which gaming has gone broad-spectrum appeal like this before, and the profits are way, way higher in the mobile sector. It would be foolish not to expect more and more of the efforts to flow in that direction.

Sure, but AAA titles aren't going anywhere. Less profitable != no profit. It's movies vs. TV again, really.

[CSt]

*waves bye-bye to the 'real gamers'*
[...]
...and that term doesn't mean the same thing anymore, and the unevolved, unenlightened holdbacks that can't accept change and ride the changing tides are going to get hostile and violent toward 'these interlopers infringing on OUR hobby'.

But don't worry, we won't have to put up with their tantrums and other reprehensible behaviours for much longer - either they'll learn to adapt and change to be accepted by the rest of society, or they'll just stay 1337 and gatekeep themselves right out of the breeding population, and we'll be rid of them in another generation or two.

I have a different view of this whole debate ever since I got a direct experience of it. This may be a bit longer, but bear with me:
I have a godson, who last year turned 14. His parents decided he should have his real gaming computer and for that they conscripted me (30) and my brother (28). We were to get the components and build the system with him together. Which we did, with him sitting next to us, being bored, not really paying attention to what we were doing, but what we were talking about. Which was, basically "gaming nostalgia" none of which he understood since he hadn't the reference-pool we had. But at the same time, her desperately wanted to impress us. So when we were talking about something recently he understood (I think it was Aliens: Colonial Marines) he threw in "At least it's not The Sims" which seemed like a safe bet to him. Earlier his cousin (12 and a girl) had told the dinner table that she love playing The Sims and was met with muted expressions, so for him that was condemnation. He was crushed when we told him, that he made no sense and didn't know what he was talking about. He plays TF2 now, I am not sure what that says about him.
But that is the image I have whenever I read another "real gamer" story. It's a desperate teenager doing anything he can to try and impress the grown ups, who have no idea what is going on and why this guy is spouting nonsense. These debates come not from the holdbacks but from the new guys, who got an PS4 for graduation and who desperately try to form a bond with the guy who has had 3 PS3s and now has 4 PS4s and who are crushed when they realize he actually only has a PS2 and plays on a PC.
Real gamer debates will always pop up and frankly I am happy because it means there is new blood coming into the community.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

After my third four and a half hour stint of Assassin's Creed IV, I'll say this- it might have taken me eight months to be able to play the damn thing, but my goodness it was worth it

[Geoff_B]

I've gone back to Assassin's Creed II. Took me a while to remember how to play it after III and IV