Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by Ediros, Oct 8, 2018.
Spoiler: What I wanted
Spoiler: What I got
I have lost a lot of confidence and trust in people who review games, be it paid journalists or even most Youtubers. Honesty and integrity seem to be rather lost and though I understand that people's tastes differ I get a lot of the impression that if I do not like what they like that my taste and interests are inferior.
This is the case with games, movies, television etc.
So now I am even wondering if it is worth asking anyone outside the circle of people you know what their opinions on something are.
There are only a few exceptions I make such as the reviewers of Doom wads because if you don't like any of the products they like and vouch for it at least does not cost you a lot of money, only time to download the mods.
I have noticed that a lot of the people who make content on Youtube especially if its stuff like reviews are narcissists. I think its a symptom of nerd culture or the larger culture in general where everything is about siding with your team and making the other team feel bad. So everything is either some kind of amazing masterpiece or the worst thing ever to exist depending on what your "team" is.
No Mutants Allowed had a tendency to do this to Bethesda fans too so I think its a symptom with the larger culture of everything.
Not going to deny that one. The people on NMA could be pretty nasty sometimes but the opposite side has not been any better either.
Even some of the better ones who tried to hold an olive branch were often like "We know you do not like this new direction of Fallout and we understand, but this is how Fallout is going to be now and it will bring in more fans." (fans who couldn't care about Fallout in the first place)
Sorry, I shouldn't react like that but as I have had to move on from several franchises that I once hold very dear that were so radically changed to appeal to a fandom that did not care earlier I at some stopped having patience and tolerance.
We all feel you there. Watching youtubers treat Fallout like a "SUPER DUPER FUN WORLD TO EXPLORE WITH YOUR FRIENDS" kills me inside, not knowing or out right shit talking the games that game before it, without a care in the world if the lore changes make no sense or the gameplay is awful. If they can get views then they'll keep playing it.
Yes, me and many others say Fallout 3 is terrible because we just think it's the "worst thing ever". We don't have well founded arguments, based on ingame evidence. We just say stuff out of thin air, with no evidence.
Me and many others don't give shit people like Fallout 3 and 4. Some people here like Fallout 3 and 4. The problem is these people come here, tell us "we are a toxic community" and we "don't like change". And others try to argue and say we are wrong about a lot of things, things that were discussed to ad nauseam. The hilarity of saying we are attacking them when we just say we don't like or care for their games, trying to somehow change our mind when they shouldn't care we don't like their games and then whine we are a toxic community.
Humans do this in general though. If we can't find common ground, we have to find common enemies. We like to know we have a side and to think our side is better whether it's games, politics, territory, religious beliefs, etc. Think about anyone you've befriended and think into what was the initial cause? Think of a posse of friends. They all either like something a lot together, or they all hate some other thing. Usually both are applicable.
'Tribalism is the state of being organized by, or advocating for, tribes or tribal lifestyles. Human evolution has primarily occurred in small groups, as opposed to mass societies, and humans naturally maintain a social network. In popular culture, tribalism may also refer to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are loyal to their social group above all else, or, derogatorily, a type of discrimination or animosity based upon group differences. '
Just pulled it from Wiki.
That's a double edged sword line of thinking however. We all think our arguments are "well founded with evidence" which is what I think HouseAlwaysWins is getting at. What somebody thinks is a good argument will look like trash to another. I know I'm bringing him up yet again, but Tagaziel is a good example. I still enjoy his arguments in favor of the games though I know you have no love for him and that's alright. An example of two big viewpoints clashing with their own strengths nobody wants to agree with and weaknesses everyone wants to grab on to.
I see it like this
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Has a fair amount of glitches but the game still remains to be fun to play and have a well written story
Fallout 76: Has a large amount of glitches that make the gun a drag to play through with a story barely worth paying attention to I.E lack off but still has one???
Except all the criticism we have the game is derived from ingame examples and not bullshit, self-interpreted, headcannons Tagz has. Ingame examples, cited directly from the game, not bullshit out of thin air.
And last, Tagz can go fuck himself. As soon he went into gaming, he "saw" a new light. Yeah, he saw the possibility of getting a job, so of course he has to suddenly shill Bethesda's bullshit. Can't talk shit of the industry you are in if you want a job.
Yeah, 76 has a bad story compared to S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but if somebody has fun with 76 because they enjoy exploring the unknown and finding stuff, then who's to say they're wrong for saying they thought it was a good experience of them? That's the great thing with us humans, even with shitty stuff we can still enjoy something and say our piece.
Nah see, that's what I'm talking about. Differing viewpoints resulting in dismissive actions. Tagz frequently cites stuff from the game directly all the time, complete with links. Yeah, he headcannons too, but we do that ourselves, We theorized why the Courier can't return to the Sierra Madre despite being able to return to the other three DLC areas. Is it they can't find their way back? To dangerous? They took the "let it go" morale too literally? Theories. We come up with ideas how something could happen when something isn't outright stated. I'm not calling you out mind you, we ALL do this everyday, with all sorts of situations.
Some arguments are, and some arguments aren't. Not all are equal. Opinions can be wrong. Art is not some 100% subjective, ineffable mystery. No professor for any art class or program will tell their students to just wing spaghetti at the wall until something sticks. There is good game design, and there is bad game design. Just the same as there's good storytelling and bad storytelling. It's not random. It's not arbitrary. It's art.
If you're bringing this up as to what I said, then thank you. I'm saying we still think and behave in these ways despite being a part of mass society now.
Fair. I enjoy bad art and media sometimes. Like I've always said, you can enjoy the new Fallouts all you'd like but don't try to tell me they're better than the ones I think are better. I have friends on both sides and in between when it comes to Fallout. We talk about the series VERY differently, we talk about games in general very differently too. They look for certain things based on their tastes.
I agree and disagree in so many ways, but I feel like I won't articulate it well enough without writing too long of a comment here. I view objectivity in a strange way. Yes there is good game design but I've seen people despise what I consider good game design. Same with stories.
Fair enough. I would try to separate qualia from quality though. Poorly designed games can be fun. Qualia wise they are enjoyable, in the same manner as B-movies. Both of which are not always unintentionally bad (e.g Surgeon Simulator). Their quality is another matter.
I don't disagree that aesthetics has objective components, but it isn't obvious what they are, nor is it the case that everyone agrees with everyone else. Switching to a different axiological matter, ethics, there are a number of people that would assert that there is an objective ethical truth, however, they would both disagree with each other on what that truth is.
Not to mention that game criticism can be framed in terms in which interactivity is the essential unit of criticism - meaning that narrative criticism and consistency need not matter as strongly, if at all. A system that says that PacMan is an objectively good game may not, at all, care about the lore and meaning of Fallout games; nor even strongly value the interactive component of the narrative, depending upon what the primary form of interactivity is supposed to be (the interactive nature of Dark Soul's item descriptions as providing narrative need not necessarily focus on the narrative they tell, nor on the player's interaction with that narrative, so much as the mounting of curiosity, investigative interaction, and framing; none of which need to root themselves in familiar notions of narrative value).
Putting it all together: Not everyone agrees that there are objective axiological truths, in general; among those that might, not all of them would accept that objective aesthetic truths exist; among those that do, there is no monolithic theory asserted as true, but a number of competing theories that do not agree with each other; among those theories that apply to games, this area of criticism is in its infancy, it need not rely on the usual critical currency, and not all would agree that games can be analyzed as art. That makes your claim of an objective truth about - far more, really - as contentious as asserting dark matter is explained by WIMPs or, perhaps more on the nose, that something like CH is true because Godel wrote a paper about L, it is covered in Jech, and realists exist.
I'm not saying that Fallout 4, or 76, or whatever, is a good game; nor even a game I care about - Fallout is not something of great importance to me, but with Tolkien and Star Trek, I totally get how Bethesda's take on things feels like an attack (and, I agree, I personally believe that their ideas are mostly rubbish). However, nothing you're saying supports a claim that any of the games are objectively bad - they may be objectively bad, even, nonetheless; but claiming that some brands of philosophy assert an objective aesthetic truth exists does not support the claim you are making, it doesn't even establish that such an objective truth surely exists - you have to make a tremendous amount of contentious assumptions to get from point A to point B.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to present arguments to go along with saying, "This is not a good game" - and I would agree, taste can be supported, even if purely subjective, and it can be persuasive - but, a glib claim that implicitly asserts a number of strong philosophical positions doesn't make the case that such arguments support an objectively true claim.
Art is more than aesthetic, especially with regards to storytelling and game design.
'People don't agree on what is true'
You're extrapolating very widely here. I don't think this has much relevance, but nonetheless : what people believe is irrelevant to the matter of what is true. The salient thing is what is demonstrably true, because that's all we can actually access. So it's not really a matter of discussion. It's just a matter of facts. Which is where science usually comes in, but empiricism is also still its own thing.
In any event, I never said it was a matter of objectivity. I see it as cultural patterns tied to human nature. So it comes down to the messy hardware of the brain, and its software which is influenced by 'the times'. People will never be as excited to play Pong as they were when it first released. Tetris stands the test of time for a reason.
We don't need to know in some hard deterministic sense why. There is plenty of good science that examines human behavior/culture, and patterns thereof. At minimum that would apply currently. However, I'm not even trying to go there. All I'm really saying is that it's not a complete mystery. We can find patterns, and through a holistic (or emergent) assessment determine quality through the aggregate of such reviews. The results aren't scientific of course, but they'd be plenty reliable.
Your next bit is about perspective, specifically that some people are narrow-minded. That's a flaw of the reviewer. I guess this is the most appropriate time to mention that you read a lot into my comment that wasn't there.
So, I've been a MATN fan since he was under 5000 subs. I'm also British. He was, for a very long time, my favourite YouTuber.
It's not really hard to see what's happened with him. It happens with every YouTuber. As they get bigger, their views change. The videos change. It changes them too.
I've worked in Marketing my whole life. This seems like it's irrelevant, but it's not. At the size of MATN, you are part of Marketing.
When I worked for one company, that was genuinely my favourite thing. I believed it to be superior, and, that helped me market it.
Now I work for a competitor. And I think the competitor is better. Nothing's really changed on their end, it's mine. My daily experience is being constantly shown and told how great the thing I sell is, so I think it is, I come to believe it.
I'm that sort of person. That's why I'm good at what I do.
Jon used to do what I do. I imagine he's similar.
So, now he gets regular contact and positive reinforcement from CA, Bethesda and Paradox, he can't help but think of them as great companies.
And as he gets positive responses to his Bethesda content, he can't help but have a good opinion about Fallout 3 and 4.
And, when you really believe in something, you get cognitively dissonant. The human mind is designed to constantly reassure us we are making good choices. Jon has been won over by the corporate machine.
"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother"
George Orwell, 1984
It's a damn shame he has shilled out to Bethesda and higher views instead of having any integrity. I used to actually like his content and he even was my favorite you tuber for a while but the quality of his chanell's content has reduced significantly over the past year or so. On top of that adding blind appraisal of fallout 76 just killed his channel for me. I cannot remember if he ever made any legitimate criticism about fallout 4 or 76 whilst speaking negatively about other games without ever finishing them. Ah well money before everything else i guess.