What are some things that make you suspect you won’t like a game?

[Shagger]

4 minutes ago, m76 said:

• First and foremost, any game that is multiplayer oriented and has no narrative driven single player campaign (except for driving sims)
• Non-customizable player character will usually keep me away from RPGs, or at least give me reason to suspect I won't like the game.
• Bullet sponge enemies are an immediate deal breaker
• Games that are advertised as a "live service"
• Excessive hype for a game that seems unjustified, for example Ghost of Tsushima, or that in-development Wukong game. When this kind of adulation happens I take two steps back and become very suspicious.
• Terrible driving physics in any game that involves much driving
• When the game tries to incorporate current day political messaging. Games are escapism, I play them to get my mind off of day to day issues, not to be reminded of them. There is twitter if you want to be a couch politician, no need to bring it into games. 
• Taking sides: When a game doesn't just present events, but immediately passes judgement on them
• No anchor in reality. I need at least basic laws of physics to apply even in fantasy games.

 

I always find this statement fascinating because it's impossible to say that without coming out of looking, at least to some extent, like a hypocrite. 

Video games are an entertainment media. Even when it's a work of fiction, it's still something from the imagination of someone living or has lived in our reality, so no matter how far the fantasy goes, there's always at least reflection of reality because there nothing else to inspire it. Because if that, and this is especially true if any game telling a story, it's pretty much impossible to avoid real world social and/or political issues if you want to create something compelling and relatable. You can't a GTA game free of politics because it's a crime SIM. You can't have COD (or similar) without politics because it's themed around war and conflict. You can't have any game that karmic or moral choices without politics or social ideology either. There's very little you can do that doesn't involve politics or social in any fiction worth a damn, and only becomes a problem when an individual decides it is.

Take yourself, for example. I remember you very recently speaking a lot of praise about The Last of Us Part II, and deservedly so, it's a great game, but there's a lot of modern social politics in that game, more specifically with regard to the LGBTQ themes in it. They're 100% wrong of course, but there are people who consider that "too political". The truth is that there homophobic prats, but that's not the point. The point is that would you have been so happy with the if the the game had demonstrated a positive stance on BLM? Something you've criticized?

That's the problem with the "too political" card. It's only played by people when a game promotes a social ideology or makes a social/political statement that they don't like, but would offer no complaint or maybe offer praise when it's a ideology or statement they do like or agree with. It's hypocritical, self-centred and goes against a creator's right to freedom of expression.

[m76]

37 minutes ago, Shagger said:

I always find this statement fascinating because it's impossible to say that without coming out of looking, at least to some extent, like a hypocrite. 

What I find fascinating are the people who cannot differentiate between making political statements and presenting a political theme in a work of fiction.

What I have a problem with are direct political statements, when the writers use the fictional characters as their personal mouthpieces.  When it is clear as day that the goal was not to write a convincing character, but to send a certain message regardless of how much sense it makes in the fictional setting of the game.

39 minutes ago, Shagger said:

Video games are an entertainment media. Even when it's a work of fiction, it's still something from the imagination of someone living or has lived in our reality, so no matter how far the fantasy goes, there's always at least reflection of reality because there nothing else to inspire it. Because if that, and this is especially true if any game telling a story, it's pretty much impossible to avoid real world social and/or political issues if you want to create something compelling and relatable. You can't a GTA game free of politics because it's a crime SIM. You can't have COD (or similar) without politics because it's themed around war and conflict. You can't have any game that karmic or moral choices without politics or social ideology either. There's very little you can do that doesn't involve politics or social in any fiction worth a damn, and only becomes a problem when an individual decides it is.

There is no problem with being inspired, the problem starts when the game doesn't just presents something, but also tells you what you should think about it. It's annoying, and condescending. You don't need to tell players that killing is bad, we already know it, and those who don't won't be magically reformed by you telling them it's bad. Of course killing is just a crude example, it could be any issue. 

47 minutes ago, Shagger said:

Take yourself, for example. I remember you very recently speaking a lot of praise about The Last of Us Part II, and deservedly so, it's a great game, but there's a lot of modern social politics in that game, more specifically with regard to the LGBTQ themes in it. They're 100% wrong of course, but there are people who consider that "too political". The truth is that there homophobic prats, but that's not the point. The point is that would you have been so happy with the if the the game had demonstrated a positive stance on BLM? Something you've criticized?

There are no LGBTQ themes in The Last of Us II, I'm sorry, but if you cannot see that, you are no better than the people you are criticizing, because you think of LGBTQ inclusion as if it's automatically political. Both of you view them as political puppets at that point. The inclusion of a gay couple, is not political.

TLOU2 never makes a fuss about the included characters LGBTQ status, it's all seamless and natural. Like it should be. LGBTQ people are not defined by their LGBTQ status. You can't just lump them together, like that is all you need to describe them as individuals.

If the game had made any mention of BLM it would not make sense, because it doesn't exist in the game world, so of course I'd not approve of it. But if it existed in that universe, mentioning it wouldn't be an issue, unless they automatically pass judgement on it as well.

1 hour ago, Shagger said:

That's the problem with the "too political" card. It's only played by people when a game promotes a social ideology or makes a social/political statement that they don't like, but would offer no complaint or maybe offer praise when it's a ideology or statement they do like or agree with. It's hypocritical, self-centred and goes against a creator's right to freedom of expression.

I don't approve of any political message. If there was conservative messaging in a game it would just as bad, or worse than the currently common far left rhetoric. I know that the left automatically labels alt-right anyone who doesn't fully agree with them, but that doesn't make it true. I'm not even from the US, I think Zrump and his cabinet are scientifically illiterate fools, who govern on nothing but populism, but in any far left circle I'd be immediately labelled as alt-right if not a nazi. But then again I think politics as a whole is a waste of time. Putting labels on things doesn't solve anything. Issues are not political.There are human issues and technical issues, nothing else matters.

[Shagger]

8 hours ago, m76 said:

What I find fascinating are the people who cannot differentiate between making political statements and presenting a political theme in a work of fiction.

What I have a problem with are direct political statements, when the writers use the fictional characters as their personal mouthpieces.  When it is clear as day that the goal was not to write a convincing character, but to send a certain message regardless of how much sense it makes in the fictional setting of the game.

There is no problem with being inspired, the problem starts when the game doesn't just presents something, but also tells you what you should think about it. It's annoying, and condescending. You don't need to tell players that killing is bad, we already know it, and those who don't won't be magically reformed by you telling them it's bad. Of course killing is just a crude example, it could be any issue. 

There are no LGBTQ themes in The Last of Us II, I'm sorry, but if you cannot see that, you are no better than the people you are criticizing, because you think of LGBTQ inclusion as if it's automatically political. Both of you view them as political puppets at that point. The inclusion of a gay couple, is not political.

TLOU2 never makes a fuss about the included characters LGBTQ status, it's all seamless and natural. Like it should be. LGBTQ people are not defined by their LGBTQ status. You can't just lump them together, like that is all you need to describe them as individuals.

If the game had made any mention of BLM it would not make sense, because it doesn't exist in the game world, so of course I'd not approve of it. But if it existed in that universe, mentioning it wouldn't be an issue, unless they automatically pass judgement on it as well.

I don't approve of any political message. If there was conservative messaging in a game it would just as bad, or worse than the currently common far left rhetoric. I know that the left automatically labels alt-right anyone who doesn't fully agree with them, but that doesn't make it true. I'm not even from the US, I think Zrump and his cabinet are scientifically illiterate fools, who govern on nothing but populism, but in any far left circle I'd be immediately labelled as alt-right if not a nazi. But then again I think politics as a whole is a waste of time. Putting labels on things doesn't solve anything. Issues are not political.There are human issues and technical issues, nothing else matters.

 

Could you please provide some examples of this? I can't think of a specific character or game that fits that pattern. I can definitely imagine such things being annoying and in poor respect to the intelligence of the audience, but I personally don't recall seeing it happen myself outside of something specific and indigenous to the story.

 

You are 100% correct on how Ellie and Dina's relationship was portrayed in that game and no, I don't see the inclusion of LGBTQ characters as political at all, I'll leave that to morons. I was just making the point that some people (as in the aforementioned morons) did see it that way and it became political because of their own, selfish prejudices, not because it actually was a statement.

 

What you are not correct on is the game not having LGBTQ social/political themes in it, and l'm not even focused on Ellie and Dina when I say so. You're right, their relationship was portrayed in a realistic, subtle manner that wasn't shoved in one's face. There is some limited bigotry put on display with regard to them, but I was mostly referring to Lev. For spoiler reasons I'm not going to go into any more detail than that, but as someone who's played the game, you'll know what I'm on about. Lev's struggles and the way the society he's grown up in for being who he is a very potent theme, a vital part of his story arc, and a very deliberate example of the kind of reflections of reality that I spoke of earlier. I obviously agree what the game subtly states about his rights, but whether one does or one doesn't agree the game makers and writers make how they feel about it quite clear and that's their right to do so without being accused of imposing some kind of agenda.

 

So that's why this part doesn't really make sense. In an ideal world, it would, but that's not the world we live in. You can't separate stories that you find relatable and can feel passionate about from reference to real world social and political issues, no matter how metaphorical, vague or subtle they are. Even if creators are blatant about it, like with Wolfenstein or BioShock Infinite, that doesn't automatically make it a bad thing and it certainly doesn't automatically spawn bad games. Social politics, especially from the perspective of the individual, are always more complex than just left and right, so the expression of it is inevitably more complex as well. Whether I agree or not with what the creators feel about the subject at hand, I always defend their right to creative liberty. The problem with most people is that they will only defend a creator's creative liberty when they agree with the statement and not otherwise, and brings us right back to what is the main concept of the "too political" card, hypocrisy.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Shagger

[Crazycrab]

1 hour ago, m76 said:

2 hours ago, Shagger said:

Take yourself, for example. I remember you very recently speaking a lot of praise about The Last of Us Part II, and deservedly so, it's a great game, but there's a lot of modern social politics in that game, more specifically with regard to the LGBTQ themes in it. They're 100% wrong of course, but there are people who consider that "too political". The truth is that there homophobic prats, but that's not the point. The point is that would you have been so happy with the if the the game had demonstrated a positive stance on BLM? Something you've criticized?

 

There are no LGBTQ themes in The Last of Us II, I'm sorry, but if you cannot see that, you are no better than the people you are criticizing, because you think of LGBTQ inclusion as if it's automatically political. Both of you view them as political puppets at that point. The inclusion of a gay couple, is not political.

TLOU2 never makes a fuss about the included characters LGBTQ status, it's all seamless and natural. Like it should be. LGBTQ people are not defined by their LGBTQ status. You can't just lump them together, like that is all you need to describe them as individuals.

If the game had made any mention of BLM it would not make sense, because it doesn't exist in the game world, so of course I'd not approve of it. But if it existed in that universe, mentioning it wouldn't be an issue, unless they automatically pass judgement on it as well.

 

I can't believe I'm gonna say this but I actually think that @m76 is (at least particaly) right.  I've not played through the entire game yet but to the best of my knowledge, the only time when LQGTQ+ social/political themes come into play is the "bigot sandwich scene" and the flashback sequence that plays out the events that led up to this from the previous night.  Note that in the video it plays chronologically, which is the opposite way from how it's presented in the game.

 

 

I find these sequences interesting because it's obvious that it frames the Seth character as being in the wrong it doesn’t really frame Ellie as being entirely right either.  She's short-tempered, confrontational, and has a dismissive attitude especially towards Joel and later Seth when he is trying to apologize.  It presents itself from a certain perspective, in this case, an LBGTQ+ positive one but lets you make your own judgment about these characters handle the situation.  Which in my opinion the 100% right way to do it.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Crazycrab

[KuroInDistress]

Somewhere into a games dev cycle, you can sort of get the feel from the developers how confident they are in their game. From their marketing, updates, press releasees etc. Sometime you can see dev's not fully confident in their game, or clashes with publishers that show what to expect the game. Those kind of things make me super cautious about a game

[Shagger]

On 9/3/2020 at 1:59 PM, Crazycrab said:

 

I can't believe I'm gonna say this but I actually think that @m76 is (at least particaly) right.  I've not played through the entire game yet but to the best of my knowledge, the only time when LQGTQ+ social/political themes come into play is the "bigot sandwich scene" and the flashback sequence that plays out the events that led up to this from the previous night.  Note that in the video it plays chronologically, which is the opposite way from how it's presented in the game.

 

 

I find these sequences interesting because it's obvious that it frames the Seth character as being in the wrong it doesn’t really frame Ellie as being entirely right either.  She's short-tempered, confrontational, and has a dismissive attitude especially towards Joel and later Seth when he is trying to apologize.  It presents itself from a certain perspective, in this case, an LBGTQ+ positive one but lets you make your own judgment about these characters handle the situation.  Which in my opinion the 100% right way to do it.

 

Like I said to @m76 already, Ellie and Dina's relationship and this incident with this blatant bigot is not the bulk of what I'm referring to. I'm more referring to Lev's story arc that makes more of a statement in its own way. Get back to me then tell me after you've beat the game that the developers haven't made their viewpoint on that issue 100% clear, whether you agree with them or not. That's not a critique, like a said, it's part of a developer's creative liberty to express a social/political viewpoint, but just because you agree with and/or sympathize with the statement, doesn't mean it's not a statement.

[m76]

On 9/3/2020 at 2:43 PM, Shagger said:

 

Could you please provide some examples of this? I can't think of a specific character or game that fits that pattern. I can definitely imagine such things being annoying and in poor respect to the intelligence of the audience, but I personally don't recall seeing it happen myself outside of something specific and indigenous to the story.

So that's why this part doesn't really make sense. In an ideal world, it would, but that's not the world we live in. You can't separate stories that you find relatable and can feel passionate about from reference to real world social and political issues, no matter how metaphorical, vague or subtle they are. Even if creators are blatant about it, like with Wolfenstein or BioShock Infinite, that doesn't automatically make it a bad thing and it certainly doesn't automatically spawn bad games. Social politics, especially from the perspective of the individual, are always more complex than just left and right, so the expression of it is inevitably more complex as well. Whether I agree or not with what the creators feel about the subject at hand, I always defend their right to creative liberty.

the most recent example of this that comes immediately into my mind:

XCOM:Chimera Squad, where literally all characters are used to randomly utter current day sociopolitical statements, without regard to how much sense it makes. The most blatant being, when the Muton (if you are not familiar with the game they are brutish tank-like creatures specifically bred for fighting) randomly proclaims that human females are stronger warriors than human males.  I mean not only is it a stupid generalization, but it makes zero sense coming from this character. I'm all for female empowerment, so I do believe that some females are/ can be sronger warriors than men, but this is not the way to make that widely accepted. If anything statements like these I think are specifically made to piss some people off. If you want the "morons" to come around this is not the way.

This is where we have to disagree.

I think it does make things worse, or outright bad when  there are out of context references in them, trying desperately to convey the writer's ideology instead of crafting a convincing character. For example The Mass Effect Uprising novel, was so bad due to this that I Couldn't read it all the way through. The main character was constantly obsessing over the race of her cohorts, and the book desperately tried to convey the message that feelings trump logic and reason. It made the book unconsumable trash. It is clearly the ideology of the writer, and not the character. Because it doesn't make sense in the context. Or a hollywood example can be: Star Trek Discovery, and Michael Burnham. Where again the way the character acts doesn't make any sense in the setting. The selfishness, self-centeredness and pettiness would have explelled her from starfleet long before becoming an officer.

Quote

The problem with most people is that they will only defend a creator's creative liberty when they agree with the statement and not otherwise, and brings us right back to what is the main concept of the "too political" card, hypocrisy.

As my first example shows I agree with the sentiment, and I still don't want it presented to me the way they are doing it. So I stand by my statement that political messaging shouldn't be in entertainment products. There is no hypocrisy there on my part. But I do agree that there are a lot of hypocrites in the anti.sjw camp who only call out messaging if they disagree with it. And are perfectly happy with messages they agree with.

Edited September 5, 2020 by m76

[m76]

1 hour ago, Shagger said:

 

Like I said to @m76 already, Ellie and Dina's relationship and this incident with this blatant bigot is not the bulk of what I'm referring to. I'm more referring to Lev's story arc that makes more of a statement in its own way. Get back to me then tell me after you've beat the game that the developers haven't made their viewpoint on that issue 100% clear, whether you agree with them or not. That's not a critique, like a said, it's part of a developer's creative liberty to express a social/political viewpoint, but just because you agree with and/or sympathize with the statement, doesn't mean it's not a statement.

The difference between XCOM Chimera squad and The Last of Us II, is that every scene in the Last of us II is plausible. I could easily see the dance scene play out exactly like this in reality in some backwater town fair. Yes the bigot sandwitches part was out there, and that is the only line in the game I don't approve of. But that's only the writing, the context is still valid, Ellie being upset with the guy is perfectly plausible. And I do think Elllie being a jerk at that point makes sense in context. So I'm sorry I cannot view it as a direct political statement.

You still seem to miss the difference between presenting a string of events as they play out, without commenting on them, and direct statements out of nowhere, and out of context.

Lev's story arc doesn't make any statements. I don't remember any parts where they use it as a flare. In fact it is so subtle, that on my first playthrough I swear I completely missed that he was supposed to be trans. I just assumed the seraphites were giving boys as "wives" to their elders. As we saw real churches doing something similar. Only in my second viewing did I catch the part about being called Lily before.

Oh and one more thing, the story could play out exactly the same way if we replace Lev with Lily, or Lily with Lev. So it's not a defining trait of the character, just happens to be part of his backstory. That's how you write an LGBTQ character well.

Edited September 5, 2020 by m76

[m76]

On 9/3/2020 at 2:59 PM, Crazycrab said:

I find these sequences interesting because it's obvious that it frames the Seth character as being in the wrong it doesn’t really frame Ellie as being entirely right either.  She's short-tempered, confrontational, and has a dismissive attitude especially towards Joel and later Seth when he is trying to apologize.  It presents itself from a certain perspective, in this case, an LBGTQ+ positive one but lets you make your own judgment about these characters handle the situation.  Which in my opinion the 100% right way to do it.

Exactly, someone gets it. It presents a plausible situation, and lets the audience pass judgement on it.  It's kind of a precursor to the whole theme of the game. First it's Seth who is presented as a jerk, and the next morning it is Ellie who is presented as being a jerk. 

[Heatman]

Personally, I'm really interested in how I can easily link up any game that I played towards reality and once one goes far off it, it's definitely a turn off for me. 

[Head_Hunter]

When the trailer is bad, and the reviews falls too negative , that's enough reasons that will make you not to consider a video game for purchase in order to play it. 

[Heatman]

10 hours ago, Head_Hunter said:

When the trailer is bad, and the reviews falls too negative , that's enough reasons that will make you not to consider a video game for purchase in order to play it. 

To some extent, I don't really judge a game from its trailer because there are some games that are made bad in trailer but very good in gameplay. 

[Justin11]

If the game lacks story mode, poor gameplay, poor background and image etc, this kind of factors simply keep me away from loving such video game in the sense of buying it. 

[Head_Hunter]

The trailer alone will tell me all I needed to know around the video game not not, If I will go on and purchase it or not. 

[Heatman]

6 hours ago, Head_Hunter said:

The trailer alone will tell me all I needed to know around the video game not not, If I will go on and purchase it or not. 

Some trailers are very misleading with some companies strategy is only focused on selling their games even it's based on lies.