I can’t stand this guy.
He’s the most prime example of someone living in their own little bubble, disregarding any other possible reasons people have for liking games while trying to claim what people like.
Also, he’s a Sean Malstrom fanboy. Awesome.
I might need to make a whole video just dissecting this guy.
Until I do, I’ll just say this: Daniel, please go fuck yourself.
Gives me a good excuse not to go now! V:
Apparently this is happening to everyone, and Gamasutra is looking into it to see what the problem is.
Though in all honesty this would be a good time to just delete the damn place then bring it back with anonymous commenting prohibited and higher standards.
“Weekend Pluralism,” I’m calling it. A small showcase of non-elitist writing on video games or other such non-elitist things, to lighten things up and such. Just need to search such writings out and I’ll be set.
Seriously, look at the blatant contradiction he typed.
The way he phrased it, it sounds like he’s saying that because HE likes a certain element in a game, any games that don’t have that element would be better off in a different medium.
Also, didn’t blank his name out since he’s anonymous thus doesn’t have a profile on Gamasutra…which I still think is ridiculous.
I think the last paragraph on page 4 showcases the back-and-forth nature of the writer. He states something to the effect of “You should find your own truth of what games are,” which sort of renders the article useless, and then follows that sentence up with “…so you can make the the most efficient, fun games they can possibly be,” which asserts that games MUST be “fun,” which invalidates the “find your own truth” advice he just gave.
Also, he gives the label “Enemies of the Decision” to game elements that he doesn’t like.
Articles on story/narrative in games seems to bring out the really obnoxious commentators it seems. Commentators smugly trying to assert their personal opinion as fact, claiming “games are actually THIS.” And when they don’t do that, they just default to “if I wanted story I’d read a book,” as if they thought the article writer was specifically talking to them or something.
Starts out as a fair criticism of the game, but then suddenly turns into the same old “this will give younger developers the wrong ideas” and “if you like this kind of thing, there are better mediums for it.”
No, Mr. Goren, developers aren’t wasting their time when making a film-like game, because there’s people who like that type of game. Forcing people to adhere to some fictional Overlord of Gaming’s commandments won’t automatically produce better experiences.
(Also, I suspect his first name isn’t actually Blackjack. Again, why the anonymity on a site for discussing the “art and business of making games?”)
“Different people find different things fun and interesting” is for losers.
Elitists *know* what they’re doing.
(Also I think the guy’s text sounds just as obnoxious as his picture looks).
P.S. Why does a site proclaiming “the art and business of making games” allow anonymous commentators who don’t discuss either art or business?
We should mourn the success of a game people like, because two commentators on gamasutra think it’s damaging the medium or something.
You can’t really say what a game can or can’t do in terms of gameplay or content, that’s up to whatever developer is working on a specific game (i.e. One game in development can’t have too many fast-paced sections, the next game in development will be nothing BUT fast-paced sections).
And there’s nothing wrong with people playing a game for just the story or just the gameplay. No need to cry about gameplay being “terminally ill” (especially when there’s sites like Kongregate that largely have plot-less arcade games).
(Also, I don’t see anything remotely remarkable or interesting about something like Minecraft or Dark Souls).
