Written by Zap on 05.09.2018 at 01:13


I honestly have no clue how much space games usually take up, but that seems like a ridiculous amount. And, judging by what I have heard and read about the Destiny series, it doesn't sound like it justifies it in (worthwhile) content.

Then again, I have never played Destiny, so it might as well be the biggest bestest thing ever made.

It is beyond massive. Not sure how much of what is what on my PS4 as I have disks for both Fallout 4 and Witcher III, but downloaded all their various DLC's and they are at 48gb and 68gb, respectively. Dragon Age Spanish Inquisition is 56gb and FIFA18 is 46gb.

Star Wars Battlefront II also clocks in at like 100gb for everything. So big, huge pretty games that include online gameplay seem to take a bunch more. Even if it's the same shit over and again.

Guess the rising desire for 4K has ramped up the texture sizes for modern AAA games now. It's funny that Two Point Hospital is only 5gb to install on PC.

Been replaying Bloodborne from scratch to finally do the DLC (properly this time.) I honestly like it even more than the first time around and that time I was pretty convinced it would become one of my favorite games of all time. Now I think it just is my favorite game of all time. Very little to complain about. It's much easier than I remember though, or maybe I finally got gud. On the final boss now and haven't had any trouble with any of the other bosses. I only now realized I never actually completed the main game though I wanted to do the DLC before facing Gherman (Gehrman? Gerhman?) and stopped before the final boss of the DLC. Two uncompleted final bosses...

Written by Zap on 05.09.2018 at 17:31

Been replaying Bloodborne from scratch to finally do the DLC (properly this time.) I honestly like it even more than the first time around and that time I was pretty convinced it would become one of my favorite games of all time. Now I think it just is my favorite game of all time. Very little to complain about. It's much easier than I remember though, or maybe I finally got gud. On the final boss now and haven't had any trouble with any of the other bosses. I only now realized I never actually completed the main game though I wanted to do the DLC before facing Gherman (Gehrman? Gerhman?) and stopped before the final boss of the DLC. Two uncompleted final bosses...

I'd say it's the easiest tbh. You just have so much agency to move around and hit quickly. The only bits that gave me trouble on my second playthrough were Micolash with him spamming A Call Beyond, and the pretty hefty difficulty spike in the castle bit of Nightmare of Mensis.

Best game ever? Yeah, it probably is.

Written by Mercurial on 05.09.2018 at 22:55

I'd say it's the easiest tbh. You just have so much agency to move around and hit quickly. The only bits that gave me trouble on my second playthrough were Micolash with him spamming A Call Beyond, and the pretty hefty difficulty spike in the castle bit of Nightmare of Mensis.

Best game ever? Yeah, it probably is.

Don't know. I think --comparing first playthroughs only-- I think it was Dark Souls 1 that was the easiest for me. I think after this I'm going to replay DS2 (which was hardest in my memory) and then see how cheap I can find DS3.
As far as Micolash goes... I guess I must have gotten lucky since he never used A Call Beyond once and I beat him on the first try both playthroughs. I was actually about to mention him as the easiest boss.
And what do you mean by the castle bit? The part with those giant-headed eye-y fuckers on the bridge that can grab you and cause frenzy?

Written by Zap on 06.09.2018 at 00:55

Don't know. I think --comparing first playthroughs only-- I think it was Dark Souls 1 that was the easiest for me. I think after this I'm going to replay DS2 (which was hardest in my memory) and then see how cheap I can find DS3.
As far as Micolash goes... I guess I must have gotten lucky since he never used A Call Beyond once and I beat him on the first try both playthroughs. I was actually about to mention him as the easiest boss.
And what do you mean by the castle bit? The part with those giant-headed eye-y fuckers on the bridge that can grab you and cause frenzy?

The bit where all the spiders drop from the ceiling, just after the Brain of Mensis part that causes frenzy and you have to hide behind stuff. Just felt like at that point enemies began hitting ultra hard, like 2 hit kill hard (and I always put a bunch into HP). The frenzy chaps are a nuisance too. After that area it becomes easy again. Oh yeah, the snowy bit right at the start of Cainhurst Castle was challenging too. The Bloodlicker's are a pain.

Yeah, Micolash could either be the hardest or easiest boss really, depending on how he plays out.

I find DS1 hard still mainly owing to the less refined controls and no omni-directional rolling.

Written by Mercurial on 06.09.2018 at 01:06

The bit where all the spiders drop from the ceiling, just after the Brain of Mensis part that causes frenzy and you have to hide behind stuff. Just felt like at that point enemies began hitting ultra hard, like 2 hit kill hard (and I always put a bunch into HP). The frenzy chaps are a nuisance too. After that area it becomes easy again. Oh yeah, the snowy bit right at the start of Cainhurst Castle was challenging too. The Bloodlicker's are a pain.

Yeah, Micolash could either be the hardest or easiest boss really, depending on how he plays out.

I find DS1 hard still mainly owing to the less refined controls and no omni-directional rolling.

Ah yes, I remember the start of Cainhurst being quite hard the first time around. From my first playthrough I recall the hunter encounters to be the most challenging, usually more so than the bosses. And Ludwig. Fuck that guy.

Written by Zap on 06.09.2018 at 01:12

Ah yes, I remember the start of Cainhurst being quite hard the first time around. From my first playthrough I recall the hunter encounters to be the most challenging, usually more so than the bosses. And Ludwig. Fuck that guy.

Yeah, the hunters acted like really good online players. Bloody Crow of Cainhurst would easily be the game's toughest fight, as long as you don't cheese him with the Beast Cutter, which apparently his AI wasn't cut out to deal with.

Ludwig I managed to beat despite basically every single one of this attacks hitting me. Most unsatisfying victory ever. That being said Laurence took me two goes so he gets the coveted hardest DLC boss prize.

Written by Mercurial on 06.09.2018 at 01:16

Yeah, the hunters acted like really good online players. Bloody Crow of Cainhurst would easily be the game's toughest fight, as long as you don't cheese him with the Beast Cutter, which apparently his AI wasn't cut out to deal with.

Gonna have to disagree here. I wish they acted as really good online players, but their infinite ammo and insane health pool really turned the battles in their favor in a negative way if you ask me. As someone on the internet said, if they had had access to the same (amount of) resources as the player it would have been a fun battle with a cool back-and-forth (because of them being able to heal more than once.) They are probably my least favourite aspect of the main game (not counting the chalice dungeons lol)

Written by Zap on 06.09.2018 at 01:25

Gonna have to disagree here. I wish they acted as really good online players, but their infinite ammo and insane health pool really turned the battles in their favor in a negative way if you ask me. As someone on the internet said, if they had had access to the same (amount of) resources as the player it would have been a fun battle with a cool back-and-forth (because of them being able to heal more than once.) They are probably my least favourite aspect of the main game (not counting the chalice dungeons lol)

Can't really disagree with that, I just meant more the way they play, which seems faily lifelike. The unlimited bullets and mega-vitality is kinda bullshit. I didn't seem to have too much trouble second time through though.

Written by Mercurial on 06.09.2018 at 01:31

Can't really disagree with that, I just meant more the way they play, which seems faily lifelike. The unlimited bullets and mega-vitality is kinda bullshit. I didn't seem to have too much trouble second time through though.

Well yeah, the way they fight and move around and stuff is indeed very lifelike, which is cool. Their stats are just a bit fucked.
And I didn't have too much trouble the second time around either, but the first playthrough I got annihilated by them at times haha.

Written by Zap on 06.09.2018 at 01:36

Well yeah, the way they fight and move around and stuff is indeed very lifelike, which is cool. Their stats are just a bit fucked.
And I didn't have too much trouble the second time around either, but the first playthrough I got annihilated by them at times haha.

Same, first time round I couldn't believe the fight with the two hunters, one of which has the Tonitrus. I just couldn't see how they could be ever beaten. Debilitating and disheartening times.

Written by Mercurial on 06.09.2018 at 01:40

Same, first time round I couldn't believe the fight with the two hunters, one of which has the Tonitrus. I just couldn't see how they could be ever beaten. Debilitating and disheartening times.

I guess we've just become madly skilled hunters then.

Written by Zap on 06.09.2018 at 01:42

I guess we've just become madly skilled hunters then.

It feels good to be a badass now.

All this just makes me sad I don't own a console (except my dusty PS2 which I just watch DVDs with). Bloodborne and Persona 5 are the only reason to get one, but they're a damn alluring reason. :/

In other news, D:OS2 is so much fun. I started with classic difficulty, and by the end of Act I it's becoming fairly easy though. But I also read that Tactician means whittling down enemy Armor and Magic Armor for a few extra rounds, which doesn't sound fun. I just wish the encounters were a bit more challenging (more, better positioned enemies) and the AI better. Or more CC specific immunities, maybe.

I am not following any guide or shit like that, but I did read quite a bit about build and gameplay theory, so I think my party is fairly optimized. My main is maxing Hydro or Aero and planning to get 3-5 Geo and 5 Poly (main Lohse), to get access to enough spells but still do top damage with one school. Also have a melee Pyro for great AoE damage (Red Prince), Warfare/Geo sword&board (Fane) to deal phys damage and CC and also apply Geo CC when Prince breaks their MArmor, and finally a dedicated archer (Ifan) to dish single-target damage. I am not yet sure if I'll turn him hybrid after I max Warfare (Scoundrel and weapon swapping, or Summoner?) or if I just raise Ranged instead. It's a bit of a hassle juggling both damage types until I get better mobility - buuut it seems very efficient to have both damage types in both melee and ranged, especially since usually you want to break MArmor from enemy tanks (Prince) and focus physical on their mages and archers (Ifan).

Persona 5 is good, but like all of them I'm probably not gonna complete it. I burned out at about the 85 hour mark (roughly the same as with Persona 3 actually). This time round they nailed combat, and the dungeons were pretty good, but the story moves far too slowly, and in my opinion doesn't expand into newer terrorities enough for me, so you end up getting characters endlessly reiterating the same things and conforming to a very predictable narrative structure, and although it's well written, just becomes difficult to keep an interest in.

You must be damn good at D:OS2 then, unless they made classic a bit easier in the definitive edition. I struggled until midway through Act 2 where I respec'd all my characters to only deal armour damage.

Written by Mercurial on 06.09.2018 at 12:46

Persona 5 is good, but like all of them I'm probably not gonna complete it.

I actually started P4 in the week waiting for the DOS2 update, and I suspect that will be its fate. It seems fun - although the first dungeon at least is boring even by JRPG standards and the combat is just passable - but I've really grown to lose interest in games that don't respect your time. I am a busy man, and if I could read 5-10 books in the time it takes me to complete a game, it needs to be pretty good. It seems to be especially a flaw with RPGs. It's silly, because some of the best RPGs (PS:T, Fallout, Mask of the Betrayer, VTM: Bloodlines) are quite short and the better for it. I want to play more Wizardry, Legends of Grimrock, Lords of Xulima, basically all Spiderweb Software games - but fuck if I have a thousand hours to spare.

Age of Decadence was a wonderful recent exception: under 15 hours for my first playthrough. Only, there are several possible, completely different ways to finish the story that make it worth replaying. I need to get back to it one of these days. If you like old-school RPGs where choice matters (and don't mind that combat doesn't play a big part), I really recommend it. Along with (the sadly overlong) Underrail, it's the best indie RPG in recent years.

As for being good at DOS2, I guess it remains to be seen if the difficulty ramps up. It's not super easy or anything, but I've never actually come close to party wipe or had to resort to consumables like elemental arrows. And I haven't really mastered environment effect combos yet (not once used steam clouds for tactical cover, for instance, which I guess would be pretty useful). In games like these, I love tinkering with the builds almost more than actually playing them, so it's just a bit of a shame that I don't have to push them to their limit.

Written by IronAngel on 06.09.2018 at 10:50

All this just makes me sad I don't own a console (except my dusty PS2 which I just watch DVDs with).

conversely i am sad i no longer have DARK HELMET, my old Frankenstein pc built into a big, black server shell (hence the name) ... PS4 is my gaming console and youtube/netflix/spotify on tv box to entertain me while I live abroad. easily replaceable when time to move, easy to pick up a new one upon arriving wherever i end up next.

Written by IronAngel on 06.09.2018 at 10:50

All this just makes me sad I don't own a console (except my dusty PS2 which I just watch DVDs with). Bloodborne and Persona 5 are the only reason to get one, but they're a damn alluring reason. :/

Yeah, Bloodborne was the only reason I ever bought a PS4. Since then I've bought three other games just because I have the console anyways, but I would have probably never bothered playing those if I didn't already have a PS4. Horizon: Zero Dawn was pretty good though. Never completed it, but apparently that's a thing I do.

Written by IronAngel on 06.09.2018 at 10:50

In other news, D:OS2 is so much fun.

Can't wait for the moment D:OS2 is really cheap so my cheap friends and I can buy it We modded the first game to play it with 3 instead of 2 and I'm so glad the new one features 4 player co-op so we don't have to go through the hassle of modding.

Jumped back into D:OS2 again. Yeah, it's much easier when you're know what you're doing and know what skills to focus on. Having everyone with Restoration, Fortify and Armour of Frost is a Godsend. Also much easier second time round to cherry pick EXP to gain valuable levels before tackling harder fights (and knowing what NPCs to murder for extra EXP). Running an all-physical build: fighter for tanking, knockdowns and additional amour boosts for the party, and bouncing shield just gets more OP the further into the game you get, shadowblade for backstab DPS and stealing hideous amounts of items and gold, an archer (originally a wayfarer for the pet pal skill), which seems dangerously broken with the amount of damage you can put out, and a witch / conjurer hybrid for physical magic damage and handy summons, kitted out with weak bow skills instead of using wands. Made Fane this so he can keep his HP up so have to worry less about not having dedicated healing magic for him (i.e. some kind of poison spell). Various magic and support skills for the characters but they're all for supplementary buffing and healing. It's a bit cheap and doesn't require much in the way of planning and strategy, but very easy to focus on wiping out enemies quickly while keeping your armour topped up.

I need to remember to make use of teleport more to send enemies far away and make them waste their combat points in movement.

One thing I've noticed in the definitive edition is that when you steal you can no longer transfer items to another character to avoid the check after, and worse still now completely different characters will "know you commited a crime" when searching you, even if they're in a totally different location. It's a bit Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, but at least you can just scarper after stealing and get away with it.

I love the Persona games! Why anyone would give up on them is beyond me. Especially 5. It's now being considered as one of the best RPG's of all time.

I'm a minor modding girl so I like playing with older games and making them spectacular in my free time, as well as tweaking other mods to my liking. (Weapons, gore, player, and value improvements, etc) Everything from player sprites to shotgun spread. I mod the everloving s#$+ out of Doom things. <3 ( The GAME not the genre.

Written by [user id=190094] on 27.09.2018 at 14:59

I love the Persona games! Why anyone would give up on them is beyond me. Especially 5. It's now being considered as one of the best RPG's of all time.

I didn't want to, but after 85 hours with a very slow sense of progress and a lot of character repetition it becomes somewhat exhausting and the characters gradually end up feeling less life-like, especially when you complete their social links (which can be done quite early on with many of them). Repetition is probably the biggest killer in an RPG for me; it's a constant and ever increasing reminder that you're playing a video game, and not experiencing a new living world. I think the structure of Persona games is also a weak point at times. In other RPGs you have a sense of adventure through the exploration of different places, and a story which can play out in ways that you can't predict. While the way Persona games work can be good for exploring social links and such, the routine you're forced into can become a bit dull as you know exactly how the game's structure will work: School: discovery of antagonist: antagonist's dungeon; back to school again, and repeat. This happens many times over the game's 90+ hour journey, and only really shifts up after about 80 or so hours.

The other thing is that while the Persona games are fairly mature by JRPG standards, I don't think they get gritty and real enough to sustain a game of its length. There's really only so much you can do with characters in a story that will only explore social problems to a certain degree.

Persona 5 would have benefited from being a fair amount shorter I'd say. It could have told the exact same story with a better sense of urgency. I would agree it's probably one of the best JRPGs in recent years, but I would also say that the quality of JRPGs has plummeted a lot since their PS1 golden-era so I'd say it's easier to get that crown these days. The Persona games are still high quality, but some of the SMT games speak to me a lot more.

Played a bit of The Last Guardian. It looks cool, but I wish Team Ico could make a game with good controls.

Also played a bit of Pyre and if I had known it was gonna be that kind of game I wouldn't have bothered. Guess I deserve this after blindly buying the game because I liked Transistor and Bastion so much. I'll give it a chance though, maybe it will grow on me.

Written by Mercurial on 27.09.2018 at 15:24

Written by [user id=190094] on 27.09.2018 at 14:59

I love the Persona games! Why anyone would give up on them is beyond me. Especially 5. It's now being considered as one of the best RPG's of all time.

I didn't want to, but after 85 hours with a very slow sense of progress and a lot of character repetition it becomes somewhat exhausting and the characters gradually end up feeling less life-like, especially when you complete their social links (which can be done quite early on with many of them). Repetition is probably the biggest killer in an RPG for me; it's a constant and ever increasing reminder that you're playing a video game, and not experiencing a new living world. I think the structure of Persona games is also a weak point at times. In other RPGs you have a sense of adventure through the exploration of different places, and a story which can play out in ways that you can't predict. While the way Persona games work can be good for exploring social links and such, the routine you're forced into can become a bit dull as you know exactly how the game's structure will work: School: discovery of antagonist: antagonist's dungeon; back to school again, and repeat. This happens many times over the game's 90+ hour journey, and only really shifts up after about 80 or so hours.

The other thing is that while the Persona games are fairly mature by JRPG standards, I don't think they get gritty and real enough to sustain a game of its length. There's really only so much you can do with characters in a story that will only explore social problems to a certain degree.

Persona 5 would have benefited from being a fair amount shorter I'd say. It could have told the exact same story with a better sense of urgency. I would agree it's probably one of the best JRPGs in recent years, but I would also say that the quality of JRPGs has plummeted a lot since their PS1 golden-era so I'd say it's easier to get that crown these days. The Persona games are still high quality, but some of the SMT games speak to me a lot more.

I have to disagree. Are you sure we're playing the same games? How many of the Persona games have you really played? I started with P2: Innocent Sin ( thanks to a friend in Japan ) and played every one since.

The Persona games have some of the deepest character development and one of the strongest and most provocative philosophical themes of anything I've ever touched in a console game.

Either you were highly distracted when playing, or you're not really interested in the message of these games and thinking about it.

Anyone who finds provocative philosophical themes in a video game needs to put down the controller and pick up a book instead, imho. That's not to say a cool theme isn't a nice bonus, but it's never going to compare to a decent essay, let alone an academic monograph, in terms of insight. The same goes for character development: if I really want to understand a person's pyschology, I'll read George Eliot, Proust, Joyce or some good (auto)biography. Or even good TV, like Mad Men or Heimat or whatever. A JRPG would be the last place to go.

The point is that vague appeal to deep themes seems pretty impotent against criticism that is actually specific and related to the medium of video games, like Mercurial's above. Based on these comments alone, of the two of you, I would be inclined to think that he has played and thought about the games more.

Written by [user id=190094] on 29.09.2018 at 21:03


I have to disagree. Are you sure we're playing the same games? How many of the Persona games have you really played? I started with P2: Innocent Sin ( thanks to a friend in Japan ) and played every one since.

The Persona games have some of the deepest character development and one of the strongest and most provocative philosophical themes of anything I've ever touched in a console game.

Either you were highly distracted when playing, or you're not really interested in the message of these games and thinking about it.

I don't think this is a case of agree / disagree. The fact is that the game did not sustain me through its duration. The characterisation is fine for its limitations, well written and engaging to a degree, but given its length I don't think it was expansive enough. Another thing is that I'm fairly old, I've played JRPGs since the very early 90s (and perhaps more importantly watched a fair amount of anime) , so I feel like I've experienced a fair amount it has to offer, and while Persona 5 is a good solid game it doesn't really expand much beyond the well written, fairly standard anime trope. I'm fairly sure I've played at least one of the early Persona games on the PS1, I acquired foreign games through an importer at an exorbitant price, though it's been decades since I've played them so I can't recall them too well. However given my age at the time I'm sure I found them far more engaging and new and I seem to recall that they were less social sim-like and less watered down in terms of the prevailing concepts, and closer to SMT games. I'd like to play them again but mechanically I think they're too dated now for me. Persona 3 and 4 also felt less trite in its thematic presentation and characters, but again, I can't stand the idea of trawling through the Tartarus etc. again. I don't think it's just me. Despite the positive reception of 5 I've seen a few comments here and there of people who thought it was a let down plot / character-wise.

I don't find any of the recent Persona games especially philosophical. I think SMT Nocturne did a far better job at existential subject matter. I'd rate Xenogears, Nier Automata and others above them as well. Persona 5 is far more invested in solving social / mental problems in somewhat clear cut and idealised fashion that leaves little required afterthought, because every character is magically cured within the game's time frame. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, it works in a fantasy video game setting, but perhaps you can understand where my issue of predictability comes from, and a desire for something a bit more mature. I enjoy a grey fantasy setting where not everything is wrapped up in a neat little package and pain, turmoil and crime is something that can be the victor. I can't take much away from a saccharine ending for every character, and I don't think you can truly tackle some of the themes in Persona with black and white mindsets. I'm far more willing to suspend my disbelief in super happy endings with more pure fantasy games, Final Fantasy games etc. I think fairy tale narratives shine with that setting, but I think Persona games could go a step further regarding maturity and realism.

You can be dismissive if you like, but I was paying attention, I just feel like I've experienced it before in other media without the laborious length, which is my primary criticism. A good game can be marred by overlong length in which character exploration and story are diminished, which is precisely my issue with the game. That being said I'm not calling it a bad game, when it's good it's good. I just don't think it's quite the be all and end all of RPGs you think it is. This is a game with a near-silent protagonist who can romance any of the female characters with virtually no negative fallout. That's about as lazy as can be when it comes to writing good characters and highlights the limitations of the writing, which for me is about the lack of nuance and unwillingness to allow for resolutions that aren't idealised, romanticised and ultimately unrealistic, even when tackling themes like rape, murder etc.

Written by IronAngel on 29.09.2018 at 22:01

Anyone who finds provocative philosophical themes in a video game needs to put down the controller and pick up a book instead, imho. That's not to say a cool theme isn't a nice bonus, but it's never going to compare to a decent essay, let alone an academic monograph, in terms of insight. The same goes for character development: if I really want to understand a person's pyschology, I'll read George Eliot, Proust, Joyce or some good (auto)biography. Or even good TV, like Mad Men or Heimat or whatever. A JRPG would be the last place to go.

So, finding provocative philosophical themes in a game is inferior to finding it in another medium?

While I haven't played any games that have made me reconsider my place in the universe (well, aside from Pong, obviously) I don't see why it can't be possible. I'm convinced something like that is out there, or if not, that it will be at some point.

Books and movies and such have been around much longer and have had far more time to "mature" so of course it will be easier to find deeper meaning there, but there is enough schlock available as well. Gaming is still in its infancy, comparably. Not to mention the medium is still constantly evolving or changing, whereas the way we experience books has changed very little over the last few hundred years.

Wow, I really I need to find a place with people on my level. That is, well, entirely my fault. I apologize for joining here.
I originally joined because I wanted to find other musicians, but there's no one here anyway. Account deleted.

Enjoy your community. I'll happily go where I fit in a bit better and find people who it will be a mutual benefit all around to interact with..

Written by Zap on 30.09.2018 at 05:33

So, finding provocative philosophical themes in a game is inferior to finding it in another medium?

While I haven't played any games that have made me reconsider my place in the universe (well, aside from Pong, obviously) I don't see why it can't be possible. I'm convinced something like that is out there, or if not, that it will be at some point.

Books and movies and such have been around much longer and have had far more time to "mature" so of course it will be easier to find deeper meaning there, but there is enough schlock available as well. Gaming is still in its infancy, comparably. Not to mention the medium is still constantly evolving or changing, whereas the way we experience books has changed very little over the last few hundred years.

Well, finding new philosophy in a game would be inferior in the sense that it's not there, and if you thought it was, it probably only showed you didn't have a good grasp on what's out there in writing. The point I'm making is not that games are inferior per se, or indeed that "deep thoughts" are better than shallow ones. It's that you should consider mediums and genres on their own merits.

I don't buy the maturation argument at all. How mature were philosophical dialogues as a genre when Plato wrote? Besides, experimentation and evolution in games has been (in keeping with cultural and technological change in general) so fast that it's already caught up the first few thousand years of literature (so to speak). Maybe we're still waiting for the great modernists of gaming, I dunno, but game development reflects the same cultural context as literature and cinema right now: free experimentation, splintered subcultures, no great consensus, a divide between the mainstream market and what the aficionados are consuming, etc.

The fact is, mediums have their strengths and weaknesses. Thought (at least in this stage of our species' evolution, cultural and biological) is closely married to language. Literature is the most effective medium for manipulating language and constructing arguments. Multisensory experiences like TV and video games (which have the added bonus of agency) are generally better at evoking somatic and (possibly) emotional responses. A game can give something like the issue of eco-catastrophe or free will a sense of urgency and emotional resonance, so I guess that's good for engaging people in issues. But it's never going to be as efficient or transparent as an essay in laying out the arguments, weighing the alternatives and coming to a reasoned conclusion. If anything, too personal and emotional an experience with an issue (if only through a game) may just distort your view because you've only considered one side of the issue and it was "the best game ever!"

Deliberate, exceptional experiments aside, I don't think this is ever going to change. It's not impossible to make a game with actual, new philosophical substance. I guess you could have an interactive Socratic dialogue or a courtroom drama about some hitherto-unsolved ethical problem. Maybe there's something like that out there, already. But it's not very likely and, more important, it's not really what games are about. I would not disvalue a game for its lack of "philosophical themes" any more than I'd scoff at a novel for not being interactive! (Even though Julio Cortázar's Hopscotch is a cool experiment with that, just like literary game would be an interesting novelty.)

Take NieR: Automata, lauded for its "deep themes": "What is the meaning of life? What makes a person? Can a machine be alive? Is there an eternal return?" These are not novel philosophical insights. The meaning of life is the topic of the earliest surviving documents of our species, and the rights and consciousness of machines have been explored at least since mid-1900s sci-fi. Longer, if you consider the debate on a mechanistic view of the human body.

The game brings these ideas alive in a cool, classy way that adds flavor and gravitas to the experience. I do think it's nice when games evoke a contemplative atmosphere. It is aesthetically pleasing. But that someone had never considered these questions before, and N:A opened new conceptual ground for them? "Whaaaaat, machines might be capable of emotion!!!??" That's what I mean when I suggest picking up a book. If it's the ideas you actually care about (and not just appealing to them to make your favorite game seem deep and better than the rest), you'll get much, much more out of books on the topic.

Ultimately, though, I'm not very invested in this issue. Mostly I was just irritated at Ashe's holier-than-thou dismissal of an opinion that was, in the end, much more thoroughly articulated than hers.

Written by IronAngel on 30.09.2018 at 10:31

Ultimately, though, I'm not very invested in this issue. Mostly I was just irritated at Ashe's holier-than-thou dismissal of an opinion that was, in the end, much more thoroughly articulated than hers.

Well, in that case I will try to keep this short. I just want to clarify a few things though.

One is that I wasn't necessarily talking about novel philosophical insights. I agree that finding grand new ideas presented in a game that haven't been touched upon anywhere else is highly unlikely, but I do think that, if an idea is presented well (and I'm not saying it has been before, I don't play nearly as many games as most people here) in a game it doesn't matter to the person that they gained this insight from a game or a book. Even if the game took it from a book.

As for the maturation thing, I meant gaming as a medium has had much less time to deliver something like this, and the focus of game developers isn't on doing that at all (which is fine by me, I agree that mediums are different and gaming doesn't lend itself easily to this kind of thing whereas writing obviously does. As you said, it's not what gaming is about.)

Quote:
It's not impossible to make a game with actual, new philosophical substance. I guess you could have an interactive Socratic dialogue or a courtroom drama about some hitherto-unsolved ethical problem. Maybe there's something like that out there, already. But it's not very likely and, more important, it's not really what games are about. I would not disvalue a game for its lack of "philosophical themes"

I definitely agree. The main thing I'm trying to say is that it isn't impossible, and while you think it's never goind to happen, I think it might. Sorry if I didn't do a great job at communicating that the first time, I actually wasn't really following the debate about Persona that closely, so I responded to your comment out of context.

Also, did she just delete her account because someone had a different experience with a video game than her?