Get Out of Your Comfort Zone for 2016

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

The Enquirer:
SNIP

So wait, when it comes to games we should be playing, we need to step outside of our comfort zone and play games/genres we normally wouldn't to better expand out horizons, preferably those Yahtzee already likes.

But when it comes to games/genres Yahtzee doesn't normally play, its "What part of he doesn't do RTS don't you understand?!"

Don't you think that's kinda an absurdest attitude to take? I'm sure he would love some individual RTS games if he gave them a chance, but reading his little piece it seems to me he won't be expanding his horizon. Rather we need to expand our horizon to include games he likes.

Silentpony:
Don't you think that's kinda an absurdest attitude to take? I'm sure he would love some individual RTS games if he gave them a chance, but reading his little piece it seems to me he won't be expanding his horizon. Rather we need to expand our horizon to include games he likes.

No. Comfort zone and not liking something are not the same thing. Staying in your comfort zone means not knowing if you'd like things that are outside of it. Take me for example. I don't know if I'd like base-jumping. But I'm scared of it so I'm gonna stay in my comfort zone on the ground where it's relatively safe.

EyeReaper:
What exactly did Undertale innovate? I can think of two things:
A) The whole "We know what you did even if you don't save/we know when you save" thing, which was honestly the only part of the game that wowed me, even though the moments where this comes into play are too few and far between
and
B) the bullet hell-like combat, that (subjectively) is boring and time wasting.

Everything else seems pretty standard. None of the major players are anything new (Outside of Flowey, obviously), heck, Alphys and Papyrus's characters are pretty cliche at this point. It's hardly the first game to break the 4th wall or go "You know how in other video games, this happens? That's hilarious!"

I kinda figured that was the entire point of Undertale honestly. It doesn't do a whole lot of new things, but the things it does do, they're done very well. Except the combat. That was shit.

There's also the whole diplomacy thing and being able to go through the entire game without killing anyone. There are plenty of games that have done the latter, sure, but the only one that's done the former is Shin Megami Tensei, and it was kind of mashed-together and not very well done back then: you basically try to diplomance them a bit in a fairly generic and repetitive manner, and if you fail it's lost forever. Giving every single enemy a minigame of their own is definitely new.

And, for that matter, I'm pretty sure that making every single random encounter, down to the lowliest mook, an individual with at least a little bit of personality, is also new. Can't think of a single other game that's ever done that, at least.

I don't necessarily think there's anything inherently wrong with making comfortable increments on excellent games and providing customers with solid entertainment that doesn't do anything wildly different and challenging. Nor with trying to re-jigger the pieces of various things that worked in the past, fuse them into a whole, and make something better than the sum of its parts.

...You just can't do that forever. You shouldn't make that your long-term business model. Of all the people who got into making video games, I'd hazard a strong guess that very few of them did so with the primary thought "Well, this will be a safe and consistent paycheck for rote work that I can more or less do in my sleep." (Which is good, as anyone who thought that is probably getting royally screwed by the expand-and-contract pattern that seems to dominate AAA game publishing these days.)

It might well be great to cut your teeth on a successful franchise while you're still learning the ropes, maybe (if you're extremely lucky) even be the guy whose suggestion got taken to the top and included in the latest iteration. But if you're still doing nothing but that franchise five years later, that little spark inside you that said you were going to be a creator, you were going to be an artist, has to be weeping bitter tears.

And when the majority of your team reaches that point, you've got a sure recipe for slipping from "comfortably good" to "contemptibly mediocre". Or worse.

Adam Jensen:
SNIP

Actually no. A comfort zone is a state of mind where you feel at ease, where you don't feel stressed or are familiar with what a going on.

If you have certain genres you play, that is your comfort zone. Genres not in your comfort zone are, by definition, not in your comfort zone. So playing a genre you don't like for the sake of you not liking that genre and wishing to give it another try IS going outside your comfort zone.

So not only is it a absurdist attitude, but in telling others to go out of their zones while adamantly refusing to leave theirs we can add hypocritical too.

CaitSeith:

Johnny Novgorod:
I agree with Yahtzee, but doesn't Undertale belong to another kind of comfort zone? The little indie game that breaks the fourth wall by addressing player agency?

Maybe, but being crowdfunded kinda sets it apart (even if it got only about $50,000). About a year and a half ago, the creator made a demo and basically told to the Internet: If you like what you see, donate and I'll do more of it. Needless to say, people liked it. That's a lot more than it can be said about other little indie games that breaks the fourth wall by addressing player agency, like... uh... do you know any them?

The Stanley Parable, The Beginner's Guide, Only If, Homesick, Dream, Proteus, Potatoman Seeks the Troof, Thomas Was Alone, Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist... I'm gonna get tons of replies telling me how I'm wrong, but you asked.

This means more JRPG ZP in 2016. You heard it here first.

Johnny Novgorod:

CaitSeith:

Johnny Novgorod:
I agree with Yahtzee, but doesn't Undertale belong to another kind of comfort zone? The little indie game that breaks the fourth wall by addressing player agency?

Maybe, but being crowdfunded kinda sets it apart (even if it got only about $50,000). About a year and a half ago, the creator made a demo and basically told to the Internet: If you like what you see, donate and I'll do more of it. Needless to say, people liked it. That's a lot more than it can be said about other little indie games that breaks the fourth wall by addressing player agency, like... uh... do you know any them?

The Stanley Parable, The Beginner's Guide, Only If, Homesick, Dream, Proteus, Potatoman Seeks the Troof, Thomas Was Alone, Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist... I'm gonna get tons of replies telling me how I'm wrong, but you asked.

Good, thank you. I hate when people describe a group of games, but don't give names. I'm not sure about Thomas Was Alone, but I see what you're talking about.

I'm still trying to figure out what the whole deal is with Undertale. The screenshots make it look one step above the old text adventures I had on those complex calculators my school let students borrow specifically for their math classes and everyday use. My Tumblr dashboard has had nothing but Undertale on it for weeks.
I don't get it.

I put it on my wishlist and I await another sale.

Johnny Novgorod:

CaitSeith:

Johnny Novgorod:
I agree with Yahtzee, but doesn't Undertale belong to another kind of comfort zone? The little indie game that breaks the fourth wall by addressing player agency?

Maybe, but being crowdfunded kinda sets it apart (even if it got only about $50,000). About a year and a half ago, the creator made a demo and basically told to the Internet: If you like what you see, donate and I'll do more of it. Needless to say, people liked it. That's a lot more than it can be said about other little indie games that breaks the fourth wall by addressing player agency, like... uh... do you know any them?

The Stanley Parable, The Beginner's Guide, Only If, Homesick, Dream, Proteus, Potatoman Seeks the Troof, Thomas Was Alone, Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist... I'm gonna get tons of replies telling me how I'm wrong, but you asked.

I think mentioning all those games might illustrate a bit why Undertale is considered THE MOST PERFECT GAME EVAR by some and a great game by many others, because it's not JUST a game about player agency and breaking the fourth wall. Most of the games you mentioned, while maybe having cool messages, are walking simulators or games with simple mechanics, where Undertale is more of a "real" game experience by having a dynamic and interesting gameplay system that does more than just bullet hell, a real narrative arc that spans at least a few distinct outcomes, a not-short cast of lovable (maybe not to all, but still) characters, a setting and world that is interesting and has its own backstory, and on top of it creates an open-ended story that allows people to build on it.

As good as some of the games you mentioned were, they weren't Undertale, in either form or function. I liked the Stanley Parable (back when it was just a free mod at least, shows how hipster I am), but it never felt like a game to me. Not because of a lack of "failure state" or whatever arbitrary thing people want to define games as, but because it wasn't created to be a game in any traditional sense. Undertale was made to be a game first and foremost, and works on its own merits as one, which is why it's GOTY material by some, rather than just an hipster indie message game.

Silentpony:

The Enquirer:
SNIP

So wait, when it comes to games we should be playing, we need to step outside of our comfort zone and play games/genres we normally wouldn't to better expand out horizons, preferably those Yahtzee already likes.

But when it comes to games/genres Yahtzee doesn't normally play, its "What part of he doesn't do RTS don't you understand?!"

Don't you think that's kinda an absurdest attitude to take? I'm sure he would love some individual RTS games if he gave them a chance, but reading his little piece it seems to me he won't be expanding his horizon. Rather we need to expand our horizon to include games he likes.

Wow, it's almost like you didn't read my post at all.

While a game genre such as rts may be outside of one's comfort zone, there is an important distinction to be had between a genre you don't like, and something totally new. Again, now for the second time, I believe that's what the article is touching on.

The people I can't stand are the ones who preemptively dismiss it largely because its fans can be a bit weird

Um, isn't that a huge reason why people hate the Sonic and the Star Fox series (Despite how good the games are).

I have no issue at all to buy new IPs. I demand them on a regular basis just as I damn CoD and AssCreed.
But what's not my coup of tea are indie games. If you like indie games, more power to you.
I also stay away from art movies and low budget flicks. Most of them are simply not to my taste.
That's not to say that there isn't something like Clerks. I too have Transistor or Velocity.
But honestly I usually get exposed to them by PS+.
I do not seek them out.
If you have something like Life is Strange, Hunted - Demons Forge or Infinite Undiscovery yea that's more to my liking. New entertainment for the big screen.
Or in movie terms: I watch some Pacific Rim but stay away from Glen or Glenda.

I've probably relied on being in my comfort zone for a while. Despite all the stupid mistakes over the last few years, I still enjoy Nintendo's games and systems, and Nintendo is basically Comfort Zone: the Company.

That said, I tried out Saints Row 4 after Yahtzee reviewed it, and sure enough, I loved it.

Johnny Novgorod:
I agree with Yahtzee, but doesn't Undertale belong to another kind of comfort zone? The little indie game that breaks the fourth wall by addressing player agency?

Comfort zones vary by person because people are challenged by different things. They are far more that something that feels nice. It's something that doesn't challenge you or surprise you and you can basically go through the motions of watching it without having to think too hard. I'd be surprised if Undertale is this to many people though since there just isn't enough like it... and if retro JRPGs are your comfort zone then it's probably even less comfortable to you.

I've found a bizarre number of people who want a lot a reassurance that they'll enjoy Undertale before playing it, to the point where you'd have to ruin it for them before they'd make the decision to buy the damn thing... and it costs less than what people spend on their lunch. I think this is the epitome of being stuck in your own comfort zone.

The people I can't stand are the ones who preemptively dismiss it largely because its fans can be a bit weird, or because they regard it as 'hipster bait', whatever the hell that means. I'm almost certain these are the same kinds of people who will call me a pretentious neckbeard for not agreeing that The Force Awakens is the motion picture event of our generation. Who stay in their comfort zone throwing out phrases like 'guilty pleasure' and 'turn your brain off' but never seem to want to turn the thing back on and take a risk.

I have to protest this paragraph to be honest. Its a rather broad brush being waved around. What I thought of The Force Awakens? It was decent, was alright. Enjoyed it but...well...I've not gone rushing out to see it again yet. In comparison all those years ago when Jurassic Park first came out I saw it four times in about three weeks.

As for "comfort zone"...well, over the past year a handful of the things I've been playing extensively include Hearts of Iron 3, Car Mechanic Simulator, Cities: Skylines, Hand of Fate, Kerbal Space Program, Sunless Sea, War for the Overworld, Subnautica, Bloodborne and Omega Quintet. There are more of course but we'd be here all day if I kept going. So I'm not entirely sure anyone could make that accusation stick honestly.

And yet I'm someone who has preemptively dismissed the game through sheer fatigue of it. Without even playing. Its got absolutely nothing to do with taking risks in my gaming (which, frankly, I do all the time) and everything to do with being tired of seeing nothing appealing about the game at first glance but hordes of people yelling that you should play it but they can't say why. What little I HAVE had explained made it seem overly smug, if a game can be smug, at its own cleverness. Maybe I'll buy it in a year or two when its on sale and the craziness has blown over but honestly right now my backlog is incredibly long and I need a seriously good reason to add anything to it. Better than "no just play it!" at least.

This is something similar to what I was feeling just before the Force Awakens came out - realising that no matter how good the movie might be, it would never recapture that initial feeling of discovery when I first watched Star Wars as a kid. It's only natural of course - I'm not a kid for one anymore and my tastes and interests have diversified considerably since then all as part of expanding my horizons. The movie came out and my initial reaction was mixed probably because of how derivative it was of the OT but it was still a highly enjoyable movie with plenty of room to grow in the future.

My favourite game of 2014 was Brothers for many of the same reasons Yahtzee's was Undertale this year - because it did something truly different I'd never experienced before. The same goes with the movie Boyhood last year, which was my favourite movie of the year over Star Wars, a franchise that, no joke, was my life for so much of my childhood and adolescence. Thing is, Episode VII will be some kid's first experience of a Star Wars movie and it will, I feel, resonate with them as much as Episode IV did with me, so I think this has as much to do with perspective as anything else. Getting older and set in one's ways, in one's comfort zone, applies to all aspects of life not just one's choice of entertainment and its something every adult could do with being more wary of. It simply takes a willing and open mind to try new things of course, to be more like a kid in many ways that hasn't got a whole litany of preconceived notions holding them back because they're simply living life in the moment.

Johnny Novgorod:
I agree with Yahtzee, but doesn't Undertale belong to another kind of comfort zone? The little indie game that breaks the fourth wall by addressing player agency?

The Idea of a "comfort zone" is dependent on the person. If Undertale was new and different to Yahtzee then he's saying it was outside his comfort zone. It may be completely done and boring to someone else.

Freedom153:

No matter how much the installments improve, no matter how much a seventh sequel boasts of 'recapturing' the original, there can only ever be one moment of discovery.

Even if Yahtzee doesn't like television, the same can be said there. For any sequel series, you already know the world, and have certain expectations of what will be delivered, so unless you do a really good job, you end up with good to meh at best(The Legend of Korra)

See, I almost feel like Korra serves as an example of the opposite problem. Korra isn't a sequel so much as a counter-argument, a mirror-face that's trying to almost entirely deconstruct the kind of classical heroic narrative that the original series played much more straight. And because of that, coupled with all the other changes in the world, it manages a rather fantastic sense of discovery all it's own.

While I'll always love TLA I think Korra just edges it out because of that. It's a riskier, perhaps one could even say bolder show because it's trying to pit itself at odds with its predecessor and a lot of the expectations of the genre on a whole, delivering a much more atypical structure and arc for its protagonist. Was it always %100 successful? No, but then again neither was TLA. And I appreciate the effort, and have nothing but love and admiration for it's not-insignificant successes as well.

But I've always gotten the feeling like that just wasn't what a lot of people were looking for. Which is fine, I'm not saying they're wrong for preferring something more classical or that there's anything wrong with classical, but I'm less okay with the idea of criticizing the show for not being something it's clearly not trying to be. And it's clearly not trying to be just TLA-Again. It blatantly didn't try to recapture the original but more bounce off it instead and a lot of people slammed it for that. So I'm not sure where one exactly draws the line as far as any of this goes.

On the other hand, I am one of those people who thought Halo 4 had the best campaign of the series, specifically because of it's story, so maybe my opinion is just a big pile of shit.

I went to see Star Wars VII with some people who never seen the previous ones. They got very confused.

I went to see Mad Max Fury Road with no knowledge of the franchise and was blown away.

The problem with Star Wars VII is that they just wanted to make a "Star Wars Movie" in mind while Mad Max was made with the idea of making a great action movie in mind. Old franchises can make new and exciting things if they detached themselves from the franchise and simply think to create a great product instead of just referencing the old

Zydrate:
I'm still trying to figure out what the whole deal is with Undertale. The screenshots make it look one step above the old text adventures I had on those complex calculators my school let students borrow specifically for their math classes and everyday use. My Tumblr dashboard has had nothing but Undertale on it for weeks.
I don't get it.

I put it on my wishlist and I await another sale.

It's $10. It's practically on sale already. You can buy 6 Undertales or 1 Star Wars Battlefront.

Silentpony:
So does this mean Yahtzee is going to be playing RTS games, Smash Bros, and Space Marine? Or by 'leave our comfort zone' does he mean for us to come join him in his comfort zome and just sit quietly while he explains why his views are inherently correct and that he need not take any risks of his own, because that might ruin the facade of expertise he cultivates?

Also I went ahead a watched an Undertale Lets Play after the vitriol I received when I said Yahtzee was just baiting Indie gamers in his Top 5.
And I will admit if my only experience with RPGs were the Pokemon series and Skyrim, then yeah Undertale does a lot of new things. If on the other hand I had played FF6, FF7, Chrono Cross and maybe half a dozen other 90s RPGs...then no. No, Undertale doesn't really do anything unique or new that hadn't already been done 20+ years ago.

And here's an example of one of the people Yahtzee was talking about who refuses to leave their comfort zone. They didn't even play the game but are sure ready to tell you about how much they don't like it!

Worse, they ruined the game for themselves by WATCHING it. A game about making your own choices and reacting to the unexpected they watched someone else make choices and then are criticizing the game.

Well, getting into most of the games is like breaking trough a wall headfirst for me, so my comfort zone is already uncomfortable enough, thank you.

Thanatos2k:

Worse, they ruined the game for themselves by WATCHING it. A game about making your own choices and reacting to the unexpected they watched someone else make choices and then are criticizing the game.

Isn't there just one true approved behavior and everything else "bad time"? Hardly about own choices if there's just one supposed ending and you're a dick for doing otherwise.

Zydrate:
I'm still trying to figure out what the whole deal is with Undertale. The screenshots make it look one step above the old text adventures I had on those complex calculators my school let students borrow specifically for their math classes and everyday use. My Tumblr dashboard has had nothing but Undertale on it for weeks.
I don't get it.

I put it on my wishlist and I await another sale.

Glad you're giving it a try and hope it's down your alley. It's mostly a funny game and the tutorial purposely hand-holds you, but I think most people realize that.
It's mostly about the story, so don't be put off by pixels, please, at least it doesn't sink into the uncanny valley.

Well I will join the other posters saying that it's more than a little bit hypocritical to urge others to leave their comfort zone, while refusing to play certain genres entirely yourself.
As for Undertale: It's ok.
I played it and I can see why people like it, but I wasn't nearly as blown away by it as everybody else seems to be. Still a good game, though. Even though I found the gameplay, mainly the combat, to be very very boring.

To this end I will buy a mattress stuffed with golf balls and refuse to play anything but crappy simulator games(only crappy ones, nothing good). Even still I could see possibilities in there, I could invite friends over to stay the night and insist I sleep on the couch(Before they see the bed) and possibly create a youtube channel dedicated to breaking down and breaking shitty simulator games.

Honestly.
I don't know how Yahtzee manages to do it, but he never fails to destroy any and all aspects of my life that make me happy and turn them into more sources of anxiety.

So I guess I'm bad for the industry then? I basically played games BECAUSE of the security. They were my escape from the chaos and anxiety of real life and something solid. I could take pleasure in the fact that games were something that I can just do and go along with without having to over think and question everything because they were just something that made me happy.

But apparently, that's not how the industry NEEDS me to play games. Why would I ever play a game unless it reinvents the medium, right? Who cares if you enjoy Halo and Tomb Raider, they're "bad for the industry", so by enjoying them you're a part of the problem.

You know that movie you really enjoyed? The Force Awakens? Yeah that's also bad for the industry.
How dare you be a sheep and enjoy it and let if make you happy, You should be getting out of your comfort zone, Andy by that I mean playing the games and watching the movies that are collectively referred to as"Good" for the Industry.

So you want to create content on the future? Well you better not put the stuff you enjoy into it. Because you enjoy stuff that isn't good for the medium, anything you create won't advance anything either, because taking concepts from previous works that you enjoy is absolutely awful.

And now every time I try to sit down and enjoy myself, I just end up with stupid unanswerable questions ruining whatever I'm doing.

"Am I a bad person for enjoying games that people dub as mediocre?"

"Am I supporting the downfall of the Industry?"

"At what point does an artist's vision get overridden by what's considered best for the medium?"

"Is all the effort that AAA devs put into their games rendered invalid just because they didn't make a massive change in the industry?"

" Can it possibly be this black and white?"

"Does staying in my comfort zone make me a weak person? And if that's so, why do people want to stay in their comfort zones in the first place?"

"Who gets to determine what is good or bad for the industry and what gives them that right?"

"Does personal preference have any place in gaming then if all of this is true?"

"If games somehow meet this vison where nobody does the same thing twice, won't that just end up as a bunch of unpolished ideas, and restrict artists from realizing their vision because "it's not innovative enough? Won't that end up being the death of creativity then? Because, how can a game be special when every game is supposed to be special?"

Fuck this shit.
I can't play games any more because some British Sociopath in Australia is making me doubt myself from halfway across the earth.

EyeReaper:

Thyunda:

Silentpony:
So does this mean Yahtzee is going to be playing RTS games, Smash Bros, and Space Marine? Or by 'leave our comfort zone' does he mean for us to come join him in his comfort zome and just sit quietly while he explains why his views are inherently correct and that he need not take any risks of his own, because that might ruin the facade of expertise he cultivates?

Also I went ahead a watched an Undertale Lets Play after the vitriol I received when I said Yahtzee was just baiting Indie gamers in his Top 5.
And I will admit if my only experience with RPGs were the Pokemon series and Skyrim, then yeah Undertale does a lot of new things. If on the other hand I had played FF6, FF7, Chrono Cross and maybe half a dozen other 90s RPGs...then no. No, Undertale doesn't really do anything unique or new that hadn't already been done 20+ years ago.

So I assume this is the part where you present to us a bullet-point list of all the things Undertale is said to have innovated, but didn't - and you'll provide examples of these 90s RPGs that do it?

What exactly did Undertale innovate? I can think of two things:
A) The whole "We know what you did even if you don't save/we know when you save" thing, which was honestly the only part of the game that wowed me, even though the moments where this comes into play are too few and far between
and
B) the bullet hell-like combat, that (subjectively) is boring and time wasting.

Everything else seems pretty standard. None of the major players are anything new (Outside of Flowey, obviously), heck, Alphys and Papyrus's characters are pretty cliche at this point. It's hardly the first game to break the 4th wall or go "You know how in other video games, this happens? That's hilarious!"

I kinda figured that was the entire point of Undertale honestly. It doesn't do a whole lot of new things, but the things it does do, they're done very well. Except the combat. That was shit.

That's two new innovations alongside a well-rounded and decent game. Two whole innovations. That's more than the flat zero from the first post.

This is among the best EPs you've ever done. I'm not even sure it's about finance, it's about 'lazy ambition' of developers who want all the acclaim but none of the effort. Steam Greenlight has shown us over the last year that indie devs suffer the same lack of imagination as AAA powerhouses.

Oroboros:
The Irony is that when Lucas needlessly inserted silly things from the OT like C3P0 into the prequels to make them more interconnected, it was rightly criticized. Yet lifting the entire OT and dumping it into a new movie for 'familiarity' gets a free pass in the case of SW VII. I'm hoping that in a few years the general audience will be more open to analysis and critique of the new movie. Lord knows it has its share of problems beyond the creative bankruptcy of the whole copy-paste plot thing.

There are differences between these two cases, though. The Force Awakens did ape the original plot very closely, as well as including a number of 'greatest hits' moments (the cantina being the most obvious example) but it also, most importantly, introduced some brand new characters, all of whom were believable, interesting and well-rounded. The best criticism of Phantom Menace from the legendary Plinkett reviews was that its characters were profoundly empty. Who was Qui-Gon Jinn? A Jedi. He had no interesting character traits, no back story, nothing to make him memorable as a person, and so his death meant nothing to us.

At the end of The Force Awakens, I have a very clear sense of who all four of the main characters are; and what's more I'm intrigued to find out more. By keeping the story simple and familiar, they had enough space to explore some new territory with the characters, and that is what made The Force Awakens satisfying.

CarelessRook117:
Honestly.
Fuck this shit.
I can't play games any more because some British Sociopath in Australia is making me doubt myslef from halfway across the earth.

Sure you can, just take Yahtzee's opinion for what it is, an opinion... take it, analyze it, and if you disagree then ignore it and move on.

I love the Tomb Raider series and I don't give a flying fuck how much Yahtzee rags on it, he's free to do so in his own spaces and I'm free to enjoy it on my own, there's no need to ruin my own fun just cuz someone else disagrees. Your enjoyment of things should not be dictated or influenced by others.

I like the idea behind this EP, I also like to keep an open mind towards anything just in case it surprises me, whatever its nature or whatever reception (good or bad) it might have gotten. Of course it woudln't be a yahtzee column without an obligatory dose of hypocrisy in regards to him not playing certain genres, but hey, we all expect that by now as it is part of his shctick.

CarelessRook117:
Honestly.
I don't know how Yahtzee manages to do it, but he never fails to destroy any and all aspects of my life that make me happy and turn them into more sources of anxiety.

Snip....

Fuck this shit.
I can't play games any more because some British Sociopath in Australia is making me doubt myslef from halfway across the earth.

I really hope you aren't serious. The opinion of one dude you've never met, even if he is internet famous, shouldn't be a source of mental suffering or affect how you enjoy your free time. If it is, I'd recommend you a.) stop reading/listening to him and b.)Perhaps talk to a therapist.

Dalisclock:

CarelessRook117:
Honestly.
I don't know how Yahtzee manages to do it, but he never fails to destroy any and all aspects of my life that make me happy and turn them into more sources of anxiety.

Snip....

Fuck this shit.
I can't play games any more because some British Sociopath in Australia is making me doubt myslef from halfway across the earth.

I really hope you aren't serious. The opinion of one dude you've never met, even if he is internet famous, shouldn't be a source of mental suffering or affect how you enjoy your free time. If it is, I'd recommend you a.) stop reading/listening to him and b.)Perhaps talk to a therapist.

It's not so much his opinion by itself as it is the sentiment of the community as a whole.
He's right though and I can't prove him wrong.
And because of that, I have to question myself as a gamer, as a future artist, and as a consumer.

Disregaurding what he's said in this article as if it was just his opinon would just be fooling myself and trying to hide in ignorance again. And if he DOES turn out to be right, I'll just be contributing to the problem by supporting these games that are supposedly ruining the industry.

It's not like Yahtzee is a vocal minority when it comes to these kinds of views, so clearly there has to be more to this than just his opinion.

I continue to watch Yahtzee because I acknowledge that there is a pretty decent amount of truth to what he says. Even if it's buried beneath mountains of preferences and jokes about genetailia. Unfortunately that truth tends to leave me less than secure about my own meager views.

I've also been to therapy.
Clearly it hasn't been working.

Zjarcal:

CarelessRook117:
Honestly.
Fuck this shit.
I can't play games any more because some British Sociopath in Australia is making me doubt myslef from halfway across the earth.

Sure you can, just take Yahtzee's opinion for what it is, an opinion... take it, analyze it, and if you disagree then ignore it and move on.

I love the Tomb Raider series and I don't give a flying fuck how much Yahtzee rags on it, he's free to do so in his own spaces and I'm free to enjoy it on my own, there's no need to ruin my own fun just cuz someone else disagrees. Your enjoyment of things should not be dictated or influenced by others.

I like the idea behind this EP, I also like to keep an open mind towards anything just in case it surprises me, whatever its nature or whatever reception (good or bad) it might have gotten. Of course it woudln't be a yahtzee column without an obligatory dose of hypocrisy in regards to him not playing certain genres, but hey, we all expect that by now as it is part of his shctick.

My concern on more about what he said in the article that isn't an opinion.
The objective truths that he's put forth that have challenged my complacency in a way that puts me off balance. I can't write off the truth in what he's said.

Flatfrog:
There are differences between these two cases, though. The Force Awakens did ape the original plot very closely, as well as including a number of 'greatest hits' moments (the cantina being the most obvious example) but it also, most importantly, introduced some brand new characters, all of whom were believable, interesting and well-rounded. The best criticism of Phantom Menace from the legendary Plinkett reviews was that its characters were profoundly empty. Who was Qui-Gon Jinn? A Jedi. He had no interesting character traits, no back story, nothing to make him memorable as a person, and so his death meant nothing to us.

At the end of The Force Awakens, I have a very clear sense of who all four of the main characters are; and what's more I'm intrigued to find out more. By keeping the story simple and familiar, they had enough space to explore some new territory with the characters, and that is what made The Force Awakens satisfying.

Force Awakens gave us:
*Kylo Ren, a bad Darth Vader knockoff featuring all the traits that people complained about for his Pre-Vader form from the Prequels
*Ray, a girl with no backstory other than "She's waiting for her parents to come back for her" and who invokes strong heated debates about if she's a Mary Sue or not
*Poe Dameron, whose character amounts to "He's the Resistance's best pilot" and only comes back from certain death under circumstances that are never explained beyond a half-hearted handwave because - if what I've heard is correct - the actor threatened to quit the movie if Poe actually was killed off.
*Finn, who's wishy washy on exactly what his motivation is beyond "First Order bad, Ray good".

And then we've got a Luke who's gone into exile to run away from the responsibilities handed to him at the end of VI and a Han Solo who's regressed back from all the character growth he got over the course of IV-VI, and Leia who's just kind of static.

Phantom Menace gave us:
*Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi Master who has strained relations with the Jedi Council and is the guy who trained Obi-Wan Kenobi - Qui-Gon is arguably more fleshed out in Episode I than Obi-Wan was fleshed out in Episode IV (not to take anything away from what we got of Obi-Wan in Episode IV, mind you)
*Amidala, a young leader who wants the best for her people, with a desire to maintain peace but a willingness to go to war when push comes to shove
*Jar Jar Binks, who for all the traits people people complain about is someone who is actually recognized as a clumsy oaf in-universe (you know how some people would like to banish Jar Jar from the Prequels? - well that's effectively what the Gungans actually did.)
*Darth Maul, who people love and call one of the best parts of the movie in spite of having no backstory or character beyond "He's a dangerous Sith Lord with a Double-bladed lightsaber".

And we got expanded stories on the likes of Obi-Wan, Anakin Skywalker, and even the future Emperor Palpatine (in all his enjoyable evil scheming).

And, beyond characters, it also gave us the Jedi Order before it was wiped out, Coruscant and Naboo to provide us a larger galaxy that wasn't a knockoff of what came before, and it actually bothered to go to Tatooine - further fleshing out that planet beyond what was given in IV and VI rather than going to another knockoff world.

From where I'm sitting, I don't see Force Awakens doing anything better than the Prequels did with its new cast; any flaws you can point to with Episode I can just as easily if not more easily be pointed at the case of Episode VII.

CarelessRook117:

My concern on more about what he said in the article that isn't an opinion.
The objective truths that he's put forth that have challenged my complacency in a way that puts me off balance. I can't write off the truth in what he's said.

Well you go on and have fun with that... >.>

The only objective truth he put out there is that he likes some things and doesn't like others.

He talks about how devs aren't taking risks anymore due to consumer complacency.

Or how they are only obligated to do what nets them a profit, and because of the consumer taking what they've been given, there's no obligation to improve.

The way I see it, He's saying we should only play "innovative" games because by enjoying "mediocre" one's we're ruining the industry by encouraging stagnation.

I can't find a flaw in that logic, so I took it as something objective.

This whole article I would be pointless unless Yahtzee is trying to get some kind of message across, and that's what I've found so far so I assume it as the message he sent.

If you saw something else, I would be genuinely glad to hear about it, because otherwise this is just confirming my fears about where gaming is going.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.