You took away the catharsis of punctuating Yahtzee's final point with the music cue, and broke it up with an ad.

that was definitely one of the better extra punctuation. I like when Yahtzee goes deeper into the theory.

@titanslayer492

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, this is one of his vids that actually gave me pause and forced me to listen close, rather than letting it slip into the background

@smileybones9172

Жыл бұрын

I like how he mentioned videos games are meant to explore the furthest reaches of experience, and I went "okay, yahtzee is a cenobite, got it." And he immediately called attention to it, as if he was reading my mind lol.

@sketchedprints7229

Жыл бұрын

I too enjoy a nice deep Yahtzee

@michelangelangelo7091

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but you need to admit we love him when he just goes to town on a game

Artists everywhere, please, PLEASE apply this to all mediums. I'm a musician and the parallels are incredibly frightening

@lifesymbiont5769

Жыл бұрын

Deal

@LL-yd8zz

Жыл бұрын

Im not a musician but I am a big music fan, could you elaborate how does this apply to music please? How would this work across different genres?

@lifesymbiont5769

Жыл бұрын

@@LL-yd8zz He means that artists in general should do more creative and unique art instead of doing art that is " made to sell " which ends up of it looking all the same, think of the ever same pixar / disney artstyle or how almost every AAA game wants to look realistic.

@emmamorris6577

Жыл бұрын

​@@LL-yd8zz the vast majority of pop music that charts well use the same or similar song structure, lyric narrative and production techniques to build catharsis and release it in a nice little climax in around 3 or 4 minutes every now and again, grassroots music scenes will revolutionise music in some way (examples include punk for song structure, hip hop for lyric narrative, EDM for production techniques) and the cathartic elements of these will be subsumed into the music industry's chart-topping machine, stripping these musical styles of their context (usually sociopolitical) to incorperate just their core cathartic ingredients into the next ubiquitous commercial radio (or streaming these days) style

@aelechko

Жыл бұрын

​​@@emmamorris6577 also most pop songs are written to a tempo (around 120) that synchs up perfectly to the human heartbeat, so even if the songs lyrics and themes are absolute tripe your body still feels good and wants to dance. It's gross what money grubbing people use science for.

"Rewarding to experience fear, sadness and anger" Oh, so thats why I still play For Honor from time to time.

@Mick0Mania

Жыл бұрын

So, how's the "new" hero stitched together from existing animations?

@LoliconSamalik

Жыл бұрын

An emotional rollercoaster can be fun too. Also a self humanizing experience while I'm at it.

The problem with catharsis for me is that even well done it's the easiest to get bored with. A solid feeling hit with fancy effects can feel cool at first but you get diminishing returns until you barely notice it anymore. It's kinda like how by the time you get to the bottom of a bag of chips they don't taste good anymore.

@aurevoirdog479

Жыл бұрын

I agree. I like and seek out "Catharsis" heavy games - provided they also come with the other two chair legs. Hotline Miami is extremely cathartic - blood, gore, music, and the lizard-brained point climb are all major reasons I enjoy it, but also the catharsis is earned because it's actually Challenging as well. Live service games might be Cathartic but the Catharsis isn't legitimate because the challenge and context aspects are weak.

@Nickulator

Жыл бұрын

Wouldn't Vampire Survivors, the highest rated Steam game of the year, be the ultimate catharsis game? Sure it has some context and challenge, but it's very much pure catharsis, very addictive, very entertaining and enjoyable. There's nothing wrong with that type of game so long as it isn't predatory and exploits weak minded gamers for their money, like most live service games.

@aurevoirdog479

Жыл бұрын

@@Nickulator I haven't played it so I can't really comment on it specifically, but maybe it's because it doesn't have pretensions of robust challenge and context, while the AAA versions do?

@Nickulator

Жыл бұрын

@@aurevoirdog479 Perhaps. It's a very honest, cheap and simple game, although it has a lot of mechanical depth which adds a bit of challenge. No story or narrative, but does have context in the form of its aesthetic. Gameplay is only moving around, no other inputs required (aside from picking upgrades) and it has no monetization aside from buying the game (which only costs like $5). It's arguably the best form of a pure catharsis game.

@rajakzz4341

Жыл бұрын

I think that's fine though, no art can or should be experienced repeatedly forever. The Shawshank redemption is great but if you watched it 4 times a week it would get boring. Gameplay loops and catharsis just has to be fun and deep enough to get the player through the game and then some. They can come back later, and experience the catharsis again if they want after some time away.

I'm surprised Cruelty Squad wasn't brought up in some capacity considering practically every element of it's design is made to be abrasive and confusing. For me the most important thing about a video game is what it's trying to make you feel, whether that be a whirlwind of different emotions in Undertale, or like an all-seeing all-knowing deity in Hyper Demon, and Cruelty Squad, at least in my experience playing it, is all about the sheer apathetic numbness that comes from living in the modern gig economy, and it works precisely because of that abrasive design.

@carzdroid

Жыл бұрын

idk, i think cruelty squad is fun

@Raum2901

Жыл бұрын

@@carzdroid Its basically a better game at making feel uncorfotable than scorn

@RapsCalorie

Жыл бұрын

I think I have Cruelty Squad but never tried it. Guess I'll haveta.

@moomby3572

Жыл бұрын

Nah the gameplay in cruelty squad fucking slaps

@dryued6874

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for letting me know about Hyper Demon. (It's Devil Daggers, but on shitload of acid)

Unfortunately videogames seem to suffer from the same illness that plagues the big movie industry: there's a lot of potential in them, lots of stuff that you could experiment with, but sadly they keep rehashing the same tried and tested formulas because experiments are risky and big profits aren't guaranteed.

@BaranZenon

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, that is why my favorite games of 2022 are TUNIC and Metal:Hellsinger. Like with Hellsinger not that many people like this kind of music or rhythmic games, but I am all over that stuff, so Metal is super fun to me (almost like a needle that goes through my skull and injects "fun juice" direct into my brain). On the other hand I really like TUNIC, becouse, with its nice graphics, calming music and really fun combat, it made me to use my brain with solving puzzles, looking for clues and decrypting that weird rune writing (which, spoiler alert, is phonetic english). Now try to find people who would like to fund a AAA game with music that not everyone likes, requiring rhythm sense, which not everyone has, or where you actually need to think about stuff, becouse game will not hold your hand and tell you anything.

@InsufficientGravitas

Жыл бұрын

Not even that, its that the big companies in both industries are focused on making a product with the most possible mass market appeal that any interesting facets of it get sanded down to create a bland outcome.

@LoliconSamalik

Жыл бұрын

Maybe the AAA studios need to start making smaller games and market the hell out of them. So Ballooning budgets stop becoming a risk.

@DarthRadical

Жыл бұрын

Which is understandable. If I'm an investor and going to be spending $100m+ on a game, I'd rather a consistent small profit return than risk making a total stinker and losing the bulk of the $100m. I DO think that the AAA studios should have associate indie studios - and when they hit an awesome idea the AAA studio can give the premise the AAA treatment for mass appeal.

@UnchainedEruption

Жыл бұрын

The problem with that is not the supply but the demand. Look at gaming's biggest juggernaut, Call of Duty. They did the bare minimum different with a different setting, i.e. set in space. Infinite Warfare's trailer became one of KZread's most disliked videos ever. Meanwhile, a remake of a game from 2007 that still looks great and doesn't need a remaster sold more copies and was better received. Activision learned all they needed to know about Call of Duty fans right there. It's the same story in Hollywood the past 10 years. Unfortunately, it's the morons who keep buying these remakes and demanding them that are to blame.

I find drama and deep meanings fun. It doesn't have to be happy go lucky or shoot them up to be fun. Disco Elysium was fun, that game was emotionally hard hitting

@utisti4976

Жыл бұрын

That's my exact thoughts as well, but it also needs to have engaging gameplay to go along with it. Disco Elysium didn't have very good gameplay. It's more of an interactive book than anything. Witcher 3 had the exact same problem as well, the combat was outright terrible. Yakuza 0 and Sekiro are perfect for this.

@Silverman160Zero

Жыл бұрын

Disco Elysium was a slog to get through for me. Load time was the biggest issue for me here. But that world, its story, and even its music, made the journey fun, looking back now.

@limabarreto911

Жыл бұрын

Precisely, what a game should never be is boring. As in, "I'd rather do the dishes" boring.

@connorcook6813

Жыл бұрын

For me the 'fun' from those games comes a lot from thinking and talking about it later. During the game I'm scared or engaged in the story or what have you, but the fun comes when I sit down after and talk to other people about my theories or experience.

@GTCvDeimos

Жыл бұрын

Forgive my skepticism, because there's many great things to be said about Disco El... but I have a hard time calling it "fun" in any capacity. It's engrossing, compelling, thoughtful and complex... but fun? Disco El is a game that goes out of it's way to completely shit all over you within the opening hour by informing you that you will often times be screwed and that you'll have to deal with it. That's not a negative, because that's the kind of experience it's going for, and that's a big part of what makes the game so compelling. But... fun...? I can't accept that idea.

I can't believe managed Yahtzee to make an entire video on if games have to be fun without ever mentioning Pathologic

@benl2140

Жыл бұрын

Has he ever reviewed or even mentioned it before? He might have never heard of it.

@TCO_404

Жыл бұрын

@@benl2140 He previously refused to review Pathologic 2 and said it wasn't engaging to him.

@drakegeer-timmins1430

Жыл бұрын

hbomb in shambles

@tmsplltrs

Жыл бұрын

Last week I was wondering if Yahtzee would ever talk about Pathologic. I saw this and thought it would for sure be the moment

@hoagielamp6543

Жыл бұрын

@@tmsplltrs He's said he found it dreary and inscrutable on a review of some game that came out around the same time.

I think a blind spot for a lot of reviewers/people in the games industry is that the majority of gamers play after work or school where their brain is already fried from the day and they dont have the energy to be engaged as they otherwise would be. And obviously a professional critic is aware of this concept but I think they lose the connection to the feeling of the zombified brain you get after 8 hours flipping burgers or drafting spreadsheets. I love a good single player game story but I can really only engage with it on the weekends when my brain has more "energy" to process and connect with the material. but after a long day of work I cant be arsed to parse through disco elysium dialogue sometimes

@charliericker274

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but he also clearly admits that he enjoys that sort of thing too. While kinda looking down on it, but still.

@orbbb24

Жыл бұрын

This is why CoD is as popular as it is I believe. Easier enough to jump into, no expectation to perform on the highest of levels, and challenge if you want push yourself. After a long day at work, I can either play an hour of an engaging story that I genuinely don't have the brain power to care about, or I can play a few rounds of CoD and just run around shooting people in the face. I know which one I prefer. Weekends are for playing games with interesting mechanics and meaningful stories. Weekdays are for unwinding mindless enjoyment.

@crackedemerald4930

Жыл бұрын

Maybe that's not a good thing.

@foldionepapyrus3441

Жыл бұрын

@@charliericker274 I think looking down on it is perhaps harsh, clearly putting in a reason to 'interact' with such things. It seems like its more that it is not a 'game' really - it feels like it needs a new definition to separate the super shallow experiences that just occupy your hands from the more 'real' games.

@darkmantlestudios

Жыл бұрын

@@foldionepapyrus3441 what I look down on is the agreesive monetization strategies if these games more than anything

These extra punctuation essays always really impress me. They're consistently the deepest theoretical analysis of games I'm able to come across.

Pathologic definitely deserves a shoutout here. It isn't just "unfun", its disempowering. It makes you feel every second tick by as time marches forwards, and events happen out of your control as you attempt to outrun several modes of death at slow, normal human pace. But MAN if it doesn't make me feel things. It makes small victories feel like big ones, and big victories like tremendous ones. It amplifies every tragedy, and makes me feel the same anger and frustration of the player character as the world makes every move it can against them. Definitely check out Hbomberguy's essay on it if any of you haven't, it's a very interesting game especially as far as this particular topic goes.

@MailmanSSB

Жыл бұрын

Lol as soon as I saw this video I was hoping to see a comment on Pathologic, perfect example of an unfun game being amazing

@gormanls

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I'm starving so much in the game

@TCO_404

Жыл бұрын

Glad I'm not the only one who instantly thought about Pathologic.

@zant1566

Жыл бұрын

@@gormanls Get ready to sell your gun and ammo because 2 loafs or bread are more valuable

@Khunkurisu

Жыл бұрын

@@zant1566 why waste money on bread when you have delicious EGG right there

fun fact: you actually CAN blame the dealer here.

@_xeere

Жыл бұрын

You actually can't. In order to blame the dealer, you first have to assume there is a problem to blame them for. If they want to sell something and someone wants to buy it, I don't see the issue. The only reason not to give people what they want is to default to the "they want bad things argument", when really you mean "they want something that I don't".

@DullEyes100

Жыл бұрын

@@_xeere It's also against freedom to advertise cigarettes to children. you're using your agency as an individual to hand wave the different ways, direct and indirect, that you're influenced to make the decisions you make.

@MetalJoshi156

Жыл бұрын

@@_xeere There's also a saying. Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*. The dealer knows fully well that they're selling a product that's highly addictive and potentially life destroying, for the person buying it, their friends and family. It could go as far as get them or other people killed as a result and the dealer directly profits off the addict's desperation and potential ramifications for said desperation. This effectively makes it blood money, even if indirectly. So yes, I'm in agreement that the dealer can indeed be blamed.

@diegov1743

Жыл бұрын

You can always blame the dealer.

@xXEGPXx

Жыл бұрын

Companies exist to make money and nothing else, these games make them lots and lots of money. They are doing the thing they are designed to do and committing no crimes

Another fun adjective we could throw into the mix would be "compelling". Horrible, unpleasant horror games aren't fun, but they are definitely compelling. Cheap grindathon content spew games don't seem to be engaging, but a lot of people do seem to find them compelling to play. Covers both of the bases I think.

@nopenoperson8964

Жыл бұрын

I would say that’s basically a synonym for “engaging” in this context. It’s a result of the three C’s working together, not a thing by itself.

@Nickulator

Жыл бұрын

Isn't "Compelling" closely related to "Engaging" like a synonym, which is the word he used in the video. I'm not a native speaker so I could be wrong, but I often use them interchangeably.

@kingsleycy3450

Жыл бұрын

Playing as Arthur Morgan after the TB diagnosis was my least fun gaming memory, but it was compelling drama. His struggles wouldn’t have been felt as hard if we didn’t feel it in the gameplay.

@mythologymaniac500

Жыл бұрын

Kind of like finding a villain protagonist compelling. You don't agree with his actions and may not even want him to succeed, but you want to see where the story goes.

@FatAlbert1020

Жыл бұрын

Well, anything that you do repeatedly, whether its fun or not, natural compelled you to do so. Heroin is compelling. You’ve just described Yahtzee’s final point.

Lately I've been very tired so I've been playing mindless games while listening to stuff, but I recently started playing "real" games again and rediscovered how fun it is to actually have a challenge and a good story.

@MoonShadowWolfe

Жыл бұрын

Isn't it such a weird feeling to make that shift? It's like going from having chattering goofy podcasts to listening to audiobooks.

@ShmilS

Жыл бұрын

@@MoonShadowWolfe Yeah, it takes some effort but I used to play games all the time when I was younger so it's more like going back to that.

@ampharos6420

Жыл бұрын

​@@MoonShadowWolfe That I think is precisely the issue games have as a medium. Don't get me wrong, I really wanted to be the games-are-art snob, it's just that next to more established mediums like literature, they ALL tend to be a bit, well, wheatbran. We've all seen the context cliches, perhaps were even initially engaged by them - they may have benefited from the sense of newness derived from a relatively unfamiliar culture, in the case of Japanese games, they may even have tried to use the unique-ish narrative options of the medium. But once you've seen a few surprise heartstring-tugging character deaths and quirky/sticky/memory card/console closing control gimmicks and it dawns on you you're most of the time even still just stuck killing/jumping on things, you may start to question the actual artistic limits of the medium and whether even a game that focuses on story beats is just a somewhat more advanced-seeming version of the kind of cheap button pressing that is a do the thing X times grindfest. Partly it's that games can be limited by genre, but also there's one really simple reason there's still literature that is also genre fiction and that's that the writing quality is exponentially better and that games would barely even have space for that even if the average gamers' experience with 'poetry' was more extensive than Child of Light. Games may evoke emotion but the complexity/layers of potential emotion and ideas, at this point, imo, is looking limited by the medium. It doesn't really help hearing 'games' like Journey held up as the kind of emotional journey that exemplify what the medium is uniquely capable of. Besides bored, possibly unintentionally, think I felt, um, fairly frustrated/upset, clearly intentionally? And that was fine and worked fine, but that was about the extent of it. If gamers talk about, even on that base level of emotion, how a game made them feel, vs. people who appreciate lit talking about the same thing? Scared, grossed out, is indeed still on the more novel end of the gaming emotional spectrum, and is still so absolutely banal that it would sound frankly stupid as the sum total response to most works of literature. Gamers, despite endless anti-war messages in games where the main mechanic is fighting, still seem to find 'fighting bad' messages novel, glaring hard at Undertale and willing to fight to the death on the hill of it not even being an especially good implementation of it, here. I'm currently reading Le sursis and while I do not even know how to feel, it's also almost besides the point. Art isn't, anyway, just about what it makes the audience feel and how it engages them. I can enjoy games but that feeling of wondering why I'm doing this is there. And Ok, also wondering why someone who wants what Yahtzee seems to would keep trying to choke down the weatbran, albeit the artisanal speciality kind, over spending the same time reading a good, with good being key, book.

An analogy for games that has always stuck with me comes from Egorapter's first Sequelitis video comparing Castlevania 1 and 2 made way back in 2011. At the end he says some games are like a fancy dessert at a nice restaurant, there isn't much of it and it's high quality so it's best to take your time and really savor each part of it as much as you can. And some games are like a big bag of snacks, there's a lot of them and each individual one is simple and tasty. There isn't much depth, but it can be satisfying to just munch down on a lot of them at once. I also hate the idea that all games need to fall under this nebulous "fun" category. To me I think of some games as "snack food" games: simple, easy fun that you can just chew on. Multiplayer games, grindathons, and otherwise kind of repetitive games I mentally put there. When a game is more mentally taxing I put it under the "fine dining" section of my brain, because I have to slow down and take it a little more seriously. Games that are harder, more complicated, or otherwise more challenging go here. And both kinds of games are valid, some days I want an enriching fine dining experience, and some days I want to munch down on an easy snack food game.

@matheusbarbosa999

Жыл бұрын

Your right, Gamers should work on their "diet" and know when you need a good snack or a very fine dish, It's all a thing of making a diet where you can "eat" properly.

@flavertex658

Жыл бұрын

This is an excellent analogy, I see "gaming diet" as having legs enough to be really good pedagogy for this sort of look at games through a theoretical lens. One could easily extend this to "move diet," "TV diet," even "book diet." Broadly, we could think of a general "content diet" with a spectrum between "entertainment" which is snack food and "art " which is fine dining. Really good legs on this analogy.

@matheusbarbosa999

Жыл бұрын

@@flavertex658 Every gamer needs to "eat" properly, soo the analogy is just what I needed to hear.

@BLZ231

Жыл бұрын

While I mostly agree, I don’t think Egoraptor really chose good examples. It was a good video, but his final point was rather dubious. It’s clear he preferred the classic linear Castlevania games and disliked the shift to the Metroidvania style pioneered by Symphony of the Night. It seems like he thinks everyone who likes the Metroidvania games are stupid, but didn’t want to outright say that, and instead came up with an incredibly shallow reason for why he thinks people like the Metroidvania games and utterly disregarded the valid reasons why people enjoy Metroidvania. But his opinions on games should always be taken with a grain of salt. He talked about Megaman X like it was the second coming, but when I got around to playing it it was just okay. Not bad but not great either, and it had a number of flaws that he either ignored or was too nostalgia blinded to notice. And the less said about his garbage video on Ocarina of Time the better.

@ihappy1

Жыл бұрын

For sure, I also don't agree with some of the opinions brought up in those videos, especially when it felt like they were being touted as fact instead of just his personal preferences. But I do have to give him credit for the good ideas that were in them, from the "gaming diet" analogy, to the idea of a game using gameplay to teach without getting in the players way.

If anything I see it as an experience of emotions. Not do much fun as a unique experience that kinda sticks with me at the end. Its why I became disillusioned with triple A a long ago cause I wasn’t getting a satisfying experience. The only emotions I was getting was “well thats that.”

@TomBombadil515

Жыл бұрын

This. An experience of emotions is exactly the way I gauge the level of quality in a video game. It's why I listen to critics like Yahtzee -- they all view video games as an art form with varying levels of depth, interpretation, and emotional connection. It's the difference between saying "This video game is good because X" like it's a mechanically based mindset vs. " I like this video game because it makes me feel X" like a piece of art with layers.

Engaging is probably the best word for what games should be, though I feel games need to also take steps to get you to engage in the "intended" way. It's hard to explain but it's sort of like laughing at all the wrong parts of a comedy special. You had a good time and laughed which is probably what the special wanted to you to experience but you might not have really engaged with it. For games it's like the difference between a good soulslike a shitty one, there comes a point where "A hard challenging journey" can turn into "A tedious slog", and of course on the player side they can think it's become a tedious slog because of failure to engage on their part, but sometimes games just don't put enough effort on getting you on the right mindset.

Damn. Um. Okay. That was an incredibly well written metaphor to close this. And more importantly, I think what you've got there is a perfectly workable three-leg theory for a _lot_ of mediums, maybe all of them. I already like to tell people that reading a book and playing a video game both ask some input from your audience, be it what they imagine as visuals or what actions they choose to take, allowing them more freedom than some other forms of entertainment to project their own context, and that's one of your ideas, too. These pure catharsis generators don't allow much in the way of different choices in terms of actions: sure, you could grind up your level in the slower way, but there's a Right Way, and you'll fall too far behind if you don't do that. And why wouldn't you, when actions are not the choice you _want_ to make? The choices you make in a Gotham Knights, your input, amounts only to which superhero you look at while you play, precisely which set of particle effects and sounds will entertain you. The personal piece of the relationship between customer and publisher there is like fine-tuning the heroin to suit each customer's body, so that they don't throw up as much and they'll keep coming back. Maybe that makes it feel like it's your special heroin, but you still end up lying around. Sure, I play mindless nothings while listening to video essays, too, but to resent someone else for taking more active interest in the flowers when they 'could' do nothing _but_ use the heroin, that strikes me as addict insecurity. Sorry to bring up addiction, but it is relevant to the concept raised here of a pure catharsis aimed game. Those are also exactly the kind that breed actual, literal addiction to games. Not exclusively, of course, but most commonly.

I think Yahtzee's conflicting definition of videogames when compared to the general public is a similar sentiment to what music critics or movie critics feel when talking about how popular music/movies tend to be boring/forsake meaningful themes and messages for the sake of broad appeal. A lot of people just view music as background noise. Something they are either dancing to on the club, or have on the background while they're on the bus or doing homework. The general public isn't listening to Ariana Grande expecting insane chord progressions or poly-rhythmic experimentation. They just want a catchy tune to dance to or to vibe. Same for movies, sure there are a lot of movie snobs but most of the general public just enjoys putting on a movie as background noise and doing other stuff to it. Maybe going to the movie theater more for the experience and the engagement with a community (in the specific case of Marvel) than for the movie itself. And this drives critics up walls, naturally, because they engage with the media on a deeper level. Music critics scoff at simple bubblegum pop, because it doesn't have what they personally enjoy in music. Movie critics scoff at Marvel movies for the same reason. And when it comes to videogames... yeah, I believe the comparison is made clear now. Critics and people who really care about videogames look for things the general public tend to not care much about because the general public just wants something to do with their hands when they're bored, as Yahtzee put it.

@danielfischer4252

Жыл бұрын

Perfect analogy, and does make me want to be a bit more forgiving of my friends that play them.

I like the breakdown of the three Cs cause it really highlights the reason why the triple A industry seems to be honing down on Catharsis alone. Both Context or Challenge are heavily subjective. Context is by it's artistic nature, not appealing to everyone. Some people like quieter things, some people like more balls to the wall action, same as some people might like a more linear narrative while other enjoy crafting their own stories more. Challenge faces the same thing, where some like tougher games while some people like easier games. Some people enjoy more brainy challenges while other want to test their reaction times. Both these Cs are essential if you want to create an exceptional game, but they don't open it up for broad appeal. Catharsis, compared to the other two, is more intrinsic to the human biology. We like pretty colors. We like bright lights. We like numbers going up. We like a good explosion, especially if it's a head popping. That is true to the human being in general, not a specific subsection of us. Honing down on that is important to the triple A industry because it broadens appeal. You don't have to exclude some subgroup of consumers, you can just make something satisfying to play and appeal to the general masses. No need to have a creative vision, just appeal to our monkey brains.

I feel the live service grindathons are mostly catered to people with jobs and families who spend all day working a 9-5 and then spend time with with their family before putting their kids to bed and only have like an hour or two before they have to go to bed themselves. So it's not enough time to get invested in a story-focused game with long-term payoffs but it is enough time to jump on a live service game, do daily challenges for the xp/dopamine boost and quit.

@RobertStoll

Жыл бұрын

It's a mindset born of overwork. They literally drop what they do for a living to go home and do the same kind of activity only in fantasy land on their own time.

@Cillranchello

Жыл бұрын

As a recently abducted step-dad has changed my entire relationship with games. If the game isn't good with me getting up every 20 minutes because the toddler hit her brother with a Minnie Mouse vacuum, I can't play it. Elden Ring is great because I can hop on for the one or two hours I have after the little bastards are asleep, knock out 2 or 3 things and feel like I got something done with my time.

@ampharos6420

Жыл бұрын

Many story-focused games are easily playable in short chunks and almost always have been, though - I have a disability that affects my hands, among other issues, and when having to put down the JRPGs/derivatives that are among the kind of game I tend to most go for, the main problem I have is just forgetting how the inevitable convoluted mechanics/gimmicks work. These days most games tend to have save points and may permit saving at any time, and the structure of a service grindfest game may not be that distinct from a story focused one, such as dungeon type areas. I don't feel liveservice games are necc that compatible with being squeezed in, life tends to get in the way and may cause missing events. Niche artsy games are often short enough to be completed within

"At the risk of sounding like a f*ckin cenobite" is just such a perfect line...

I've always felt that the ultimate point of "game design" is to make people feel something specific through a direct engagement. Similar to how other mediums make people feel, just with agency. It's why I still feel like the final bosses in each route of Undertale are some of the best examples of raw game design at work I can think of. Each one has a specific rollercoaster of emotion it's going for that it hits just right using basically every tool available, from gameplay to audio to writing to visuals.

@aelechko

Жыл бұрын

Ideally. Looks good on paper. But people like money. And they're lazy. Why spend the time money and effort on a dream when you can just make a guaranteed quick buck? And we all let it happen.

Was it fun witnessing the horrors of war in Spec Ops: The Line? Not really. Was it still an amazing game? Heck yes.

@TBrius88

Жыл бұрын

I'd say it was fun to be part of the story and be intrigued by what happens next. Also it was fun to have gameplay or story choices in various parts of the campaign. As the video starts - depends on what the word "fun" means to you...

@Nickulator

Жыл бұрын

Enjoyable and entertaining are the right words. I found it both, just like how I find survival horror games or depressing narratives (if told right) enjoyable.

@Ireallylikeeggs

Жыл бұрын

Hell yeah bruv

@AlexiconPrime

Жыл бұрын

To use Yahtzee's example that was 'Context' pulling a lot of weight. The shooting was challenging-ish but not overly so. The style was cathartic but not especially... but the context made it. If you were like me (or indeed Yahtzee), and enjoyed war shooters going into the game, the 'Context' of what happened absolutely changed the experience like a suckerpunch to the gut. The gameplay was still fun enough, shooting dudes and clicking on heads is fun all told, but the context is what makes it one of the best games I've ever played. So was it fun? I'd say yeah.

@JimRFF

Жыл бұрын

Spec Ops: The Line is one of my favorite games I've ever played, specifically because it did such a good job at making me feel bad while still driving me forward to play it through despite my feelings of confusion, disgust, or depression... one of my favorite moments was when, apropos of nothing, one of the loading screens informed me "Cognitive Dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two conflicting ideas simultaneously." and I just looked at it and thought "Oh, you mean like my desire to keep playing this game and my desire to stop playing this game?"

The garden analogy was perfect.

I really like the point about the definitions changing between groups of players, where one group is viewing games as experiences while another group sees games more as "just a thing to do".

Gaming is so vast that not all games need to be the same way or another. I play some games to unwind, and some to explore someone else's artistry. Recently God of War restarted the conversation that the Sony branded AAA games prioritize stories over deep gameplay loops. While I agree with the argument to some extent, sometime I like to enjoy a blockbuster story in my video games.

I am APPALLED that the pipe vanishes after the next hand movement in 4:10 . This was the *perfect* setup to reference the "why are there two pipes?" joke from Monkey Island 2. Even the pose after is perfect!

The game I remember not being fun was I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream. It was something that made me feel like I needed a shower after playing it. Yet the story stuck to me over the years and made me revisit it from time to time. I mean, I like fun but I love dark and depressing stories too from time to time.

@bjorngerlach7829

Жыл бұрын

Never played the game, but I read the short story years ago and found it uniquely disturbing. I still get “flashbacks” of it sometimes…

Games a service are the best with some buddies at the end of the day because of exactly what Yahtzee said. It's more about hanging out with friends and the game is something more so in the background to just puts around on.

In which: Yahtzee desperately appeals to you to stop eating only fast food.

"Games as Drugs" sounds pretty perfect to me.

When thinking on examples of games where not being fun is a feature (rather than a bug), the first game I always think back to is Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. It was a game that would often time devolve into tedium, and according to the post-credits doc, this was a deliberate design decision. Seeing as Hellblade was a "psychosis" simulator first (not a common word seen in american psychology... I think... We don't like the word "psycho"), this was supposedly simulating a common element of that mental state. Specifically, fixating on seemingly insignificant symbols and patterns, and being unable to escape from that feedback loop. I gravitate towards games that I find "fun" (that's a loaded description, I know), which is not how I'd describe Hellblade. But it is a case where I think deliberately steering into a tedious experience worked for the game as a whole, not against it.

The word I would go for is 'fulfilling': Is the time the game is asking from you worth spending on it? It's a calculus of how much time you spend against what the game makes you feel and how long it can stick with you afterwards. Silent Hill 2 is not a 'fun' game, and while the actual qualitative experience is strong, I think what makes it so beloved is the way the themes and ideas stick with you afterwards.

The 3 C's are absolutely brilliant! They all make sense when you think about it and every game is unique in their own way of combining them.

This is probably the most insightful episode of Extra Punctuation yet. Everything said just makes so much sense. Excellent analysis, Yahtzee. The games industry could learn a lot from you.

"Fun" no, entertaining (attention keeping, engaging as Yahtzee puts it) in at least *some* way, yes. For Scorn in particular, most people simply *aren't* entertained/engaged by it after the newness of the art/environment wears out its welcome.

@TonyTynebridge

Жыл бұрын

Scorn is just a bad game

@imjustsomeguy5048

Жыл бұрын

Scorn's only positive is that it's an H.R. Ginger virtual gallery and that's it. Combat is hard, clunky and often takes place in tight corridors, where you can't dodge the enemies like in a resident evil game. Puzzles are easy to understand, but a chore to complete. There's not even much lore or any characters to tie the world building together, no wonder people didn't like it.

@The_Viktor_Reznov

Жыл бұрын

To be a *good* game (or any activity, in-game activities like mindlessly grinding drops in Dying Light 1 included), in my opinion, it has to be engaging. It has to make you actively want to play for the sake of playing it (be it for catharsis, context or challenge) instead of doing other things, and not for the sake of passing time (because the alternative might be things like reading a book or sleeping or popping bubble wrap). If the game makes you not want to continue to engage with it because you find alternatives better, then it's a bad game (addiction causing elements like gambling put aside). Fun =/= funny. It doesn't have to make you laugh or even feel positive. It has to make you feel taken, absorbed, whether by what it tells and shows or by what it requires from you. "Fun" means "more of this please" rather than "holy shit just end already". Frustration can be fun or can be bad. Halo 1 wad frustratingly bad in certain places, Sekiro was frustratingly fun in certain places.

@jerrodshack7610

Жыл бұрын

I think Scorn was not the best example. It is just... sort of mediocre. The reference to other survival horror games like early RE and Silent Hill make much more sense. By modern standards, those games are not "fun". They play like shit, but the way that they play is in service of the feelings of dread and helplessness that they instill in you, which is a valuable and worthwhile experience if you're into a piece of media making you experience that.

@ich3730

Жыл бұрын

@@imjustsomeguy5048 thats what i was thinking. scorn's combat isnt so ass because the developers wanted it to be xD its ass because they did a bad job.

This is so perfectly articulated that I feel genuine relief that I have a video to send whenever I bring this up, and of course it was Yahtzee who does it.

I'd love to hear you talk about the function of games as "games," along the lines of Monopoly or basketball. A friendly, competitive diversion that derives its pleasure from the interactions with people and developing skill. I'd put Fortnite, CoD, Smash Bros, etc. into that category. Not really concerned with story or art so much, it's just a game qua game. That might inform some of how we answer this question.

@wisesquirrel4986

Жыл бұрын

In a collaborative (be it cooperative or competitive) or multiplayer setting, I'd argue that the other players themselves become part of the game. So the game isn't just Monopoly, the game is Monopoly with all of my friends. Nobody plays the same game since the game is the sum of the ruleset AND the specific players themselves. And by extension, every player in the same session is also playing a completely different game. e.g. Bob vs Carl. Bob and Carl are playing completely different games (completely different opponents, despite using the same ruleset). You could easily see Basketball being a singleplayer game if you were to consider the other players as "Non-Player Characters" and the reality of the real world as a "VR" platform. If you see it from only Bob's perspective, multiplayer is singleplayer. But you could also talk about how games strengthen or hurt social bonds (different topic).

Your scripts for these videos are bloody perfect. I've had every one of these thoughts yet never manage to adequately summate them in a digestible, engaging form. How this stuff isn't common sense is feckin' scary.

@aelechko

Жыл бұрын

It is common sense but not every person with money has common sense. And generally people without common sense are they loudest so they're all you hear

I've come to look forward to extra punctuation videos more than anything else you guys put out. We'll done, keep it up.

This series never ceases to amaze me. Yahtzee just pinpoints and explains all the incoherent trains of thought I have had floating around in my head for years. Sometimes I wonder if I really enjoy games anymore and then one pops up that just gets me hooked again, but I still often feel like I'm getting old or just bored with gaming in general. Lucky for me, videos like these always arrive at exactly the right time to point out the shortcomings of the gaming industry and the potential of indie games and I feel whole again

This is a fantastic write up. The three C's provide a good framework for discussing the different ways we value and engage with games. It's important to have this kind of framework because the trend I've noticed in the social media-fueled conversation about gaming is that many gamers are unable to differentiate between artistic critique and consumerist critique. I frequently see players react to dialogue about the context or challenge of a game as if though it's invalid because the catharsis was enough to justify the money and time for them. Honestly, it goes both ways too.

Thanks Yahtzee. That was an awesome video with some very well made points spoken at a refreshingly slower pace so it all went in. I would love more of these game culture/design analysis videos. I find your mighty mind is wasted a little on relentless reviews of mediocre games when you have so much more to say about the gaming industry and the patterns and observations such an experienced gamer / journalist / analyst / philosopher has to pose.

Really good video and a great example of what EP can bring to the Yahtzee brand, haha

Tabletop gamers have been aware of this concept for a while - they call it "The Tyranny of Fun," a phrase used to criticize games that chase after shallow, immediate gratification at the expense of other, potentially just as satisfying kinds of enjoyment (such as challenge, exploration, planning, or even logistics).

Yeah, it seems like some people have convinced themselves they love raisin bran and that raisin bran is the best cereal there is and nothing could ever top it so they don’t even try coco puffs, or they don’t even pay attention to a cereal box unless it’s sporting a smugly grinning sun on it. Maybe on some level they realize that if they tried the chocolatey goodness of coco puffs it would revolutionize their taste buds and they would never again be able to settle for the blandness of raisin bran, and since coco puffs aren’t as readily available as raisin bran, they’d spend long years chasing that coco puff high in vain. I may be over-thinking this metaphor.

God, he knocked it out of the park with this one!

I needed Yahtzee to dry heave over the Raycon segment

Another great extra punctuation video. I really appreciate the way you articulate the metrics for what we consider worthwhile about games, and shared definitions. Nailing down the catharsis and the callousness about it is something I’ve been struggling to put into words for awhile now. Thank you for that. In a different world, we’d probably be hearing discussion about changing what “video games” are called. Back to “interactive digital experiences?” Would love to hear what retro gaming podcasts you recommend.

Easily the best episode yet. He clearly has spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff, and made a lot of interesting points. It feels like he had much more to say, on the topic itself and each idea. I'd love a part two.

Doesn't have to be fun, but I think it has to be entertaining in one way or another. Seeing as it's entertainment.

This is spot on. The industry has been so focused on churning out the biggest money makers that it's left us with a stool that is perched on a single leg. I hadn't even realized it until this video, but this is probably a big part of why I have just been losing interest in video games generally, and why I've felt so positive about games that go beyond that single paradigm, even when they have other very obvious issues. I engaged incredibly deeply with the context aspect of CP77 to the point that despite it being essentially a looter shooter (a genre I generally find no engagement with) with some massive issues on release, I still consider it to be an excellent game. And then there are those who have basically allowed the industry to convince them that only their "insert another quarter to continue" games are the only "fun" option (through careful abuse of behavioral science), who hated CP77 and didn't even realize just how deeply the story explored some rather important concepts for where humanity is quickly headed. I mean, I'm sure I was more cognizant of this because transhumanism and the connection between the evolution of humanity and the evolution of technology are things I am directly interested in. But I don't feel like the story was exactly subtle about any of this, lol. As an industry, gaming NEEDS all three legs to stand on, otherwise we end up with a stool that's just going to fall over and be good for nothing (like our parents always said it is).

Great video. I think Guardians of the Galaxy definitely has context though myself, the emotional core of the game is why I enjoy it so much.

I'm very happy that there's someone out there with the right combination of understanding, glibness, and spine to distill our vague awareness of a problem into a concise and pointed explanation like this. Thanks Yahtz.

I still like the way TB put it; games dont have to be fun but they have to be compelling (as an alternative)

One of the best extra punctuation videos

For me, the look and feel of the gameplay is paramount. I like the game when it's intellectually and aesthetically pleasing soup of decision-making. Story is optional. As a software developer, I look at games from an engineering perspective as well. It's really cool to see game mechanics in action. A fun way to appreciate how powerful computers are.

@basione

Жыл бұрын

Okay, I don't want to emphasise the "intellectually pleasing" bit here. I mean, I love Peggle :P

This video put into (very eloquent and humorous) words something I've been feeling for a long time.

Brilliant. Here we dabbling game theorists wrack our brains about how to make something "fun," but Yahtz is taking the bull by the horns by not only framing a definition but asking if it's really required. Indeed, the love of money (some would say the root of all evil) has placed priority on the wrong things in games and all other artforms. Also, 7:30 "Your mind is like a gene pool: without a range of experiences it goes stagnant and imbred" should be written large as a societal expectation.

I read the written version of this extra punctuation topic a while ago, and it's been one of my favorites ever since. Glad to have a video version now. The written version is still great though, I like the part explaining why dead rising doesn't work well when it focused solely on the catharsis aspect.

I've been replaying AC4 for the Challenge and Catharsis legs. Challenge wise I love going out in my cool ship and looking for loot whether it's in treasure chests or other ships I can send into my fleet while the Catharsis of it all is when I can upgrade my ship and customize it with the sails, wheel, and figurehead so that it feels more like my personal vessel. I'm willing to go through the various treasure hunts and naval contracts because that's how you find all the coolest stuff to deck your ship out and it leads to the feeling of being an actual pirate, despite there being the AC stuff interjecting itself and disrupting my fun.

You are doing important work. Never doubt that. I appreciate your voice more than ever nowadays. Thanks for everything, keep it up.

For me, i enjoy games like Destiny 2, because i like making a build from things that work well in tandem. I also enjoy ARPGs for the same reason. I do sometimes play story based games, but even with games like Elden Ring where there is good story, i like to understand how the gameplay mechanics work, then i break them over my knee and make cool shapes with the pieces until they tick like a swiss watch. (Bleed builds anyone?) Through this process of finding stuff that works, i usually find something really op, which usually makes me a bit lazy in thinking of new stuff, so thats when i move on the next game in the sea of roguelikes and action games. As an aside, Tiny Rougues is pretty fun.

I think the worst part about it isn't just the artistic value of gaming being torn down, but really: For seventy dollars, you could get possibly a lifetime of bubble wrap... or the cheapest edition of the newest Call of Duty.

LOLed at the "garden" bit near the end of the video! XD

I remember back in...I think it was your Animal Crossing New Leaf ZP, you said "gaming is an eternal quest for petty victories," and this video feels like an excellent expansion on that thesis statement.

I didn't finish Scorn. I felt that the game put all it's points into the world. there's nothing else too it. Just a bunch of amazing set pieces that would work just as well and probably better in a book format with art from the game locations as it would a game. You know the big books of HR Geiger artworks and such.

@bdo7765

Жыл бұрын

You should finish it, if for no other reason than to see how immensely disappointing and confusing the end is, lol. It made me angry and sad... in other words, it was the perfect ending.

I think my main problem here isn't the point Yahtzee's making. Being engaging in one way or another can happily substitute being fun. My only gripe is that... well Scorn isn't very engaging. It's like if you stretched the colour grey out into a feature length game and then dropped something dead and rotting on it. Being gross isn't engaging, because as Yahtzee's happily pointed out in the past, that sort of shit gets old really quickly. You go to 11 and stay there, and it just sets itself in as the new 1. I'ma expand on the idea here and say that you've gotta have substance which then leads to engagement to make something worthwhile. Scorn severely lacks substance, it's an HR Giger artbook but animated in a 3D environment, filled with vaguely disturbing imagery to give the illusion of depth. It's using other people's ideas to play at being creative and artistically fulfilling by jumping to the visual results of having substance, of having depth, without actually putting any effort into its own depth or meaning. If you were to nail down what Scorn's themes were, you'd draw a blank, because the idea going in was seemingly just "let's take these weird drawings and make them into a game". Which is fine as a start, but there's no narrative there, there's no draw or idea, it's just an aesthetic without anything to back it up, and it seems like that's as far they ever got creatively. That's my two cents on the matter anyway. It rubs me the wrong way that Scorn gets a free pass from people because because it makes them feel ill and has the appearance of something that took thought and creativity. Being gross and using other people's aesthetics without the backing of what made those aesthetics is easy, it doesn't mean you have anything worthwhile to say, or that you should be credited for it.

On the topic of catharsis: thank goodness you included the outro music after the sponsered segment, my lizard brain really needed that.

I've formulated an opinion that Scorn's biggest issue is that it can't decide what genre it wants to be, jumping between them as elegantly as an anvil in a ballerina gown. Judging it with the 3 Cs metric... it gives very little context (since nothing is ever explained on top of it constantly switching things up) and also very little carthasis (since it's designed to make you feel small and afraid). Which leaves challenge... and sure, it has tough puzzles and hard combat encounters, but people generally want one or the other, not both, right...?

This is one of my favorite internet arguments. It can really spiral out of control before all parties actually define their terms. I think what's usually argued is whether or not a game's tone should be happy. Critical thinking is fun. Emotion isn't necessarily a factor in that. Exploring emotion from a safe distance is also fun. It can make us wiser. It's why true horror stories (not horror-action or horror-comedy mockeries of the genre) are fun.

Games have to be an experience. Some games, that's fun. Some, a story. Some might just conjure a feeling.

I think another leg that a lot of the industry has also emphasized is challenge in many competitive titles. Valorant, DOTA, CSGO and League of Legends are all about the challenge for its engagement and the satisfaction of overcoming a challenge

@lumirairazbyte9697

Жыл бұрын

The problem is that in order to overcome this challenge you must to deal against those who neither have fairness or respect. Look at the Smurfers, they already experienced the satisfaction of success but they want more. The same we talk about cheaters who likes to skip, cause they can’t handle the challenge. The more is the lifetime of a competitive game, the more higher and complex will be the learning curve for newer players to experience that satisfaction, and more chances those would quit to play something else.

The koi-pond-metaphor is brilliant. Well said.

I think Pathologic 2 is the perfect answer to this question. It's a game that isn't designed to be fun, but it offers bucketloads of all three C's.

@zant1566

Жыл бұрын

Pathologic 2 is a genuine masterpiece. The designers are actual geniuses, these design choices that hinder all of your fun and are downright unfair is what makes the world feel so real. I still can't believe the important NPCs have their own agenda and flatout lie on your face, and even sabotage you if you give them info on your interests that go against theirs, and you don't even know this unless you do some real digging

I want Yahtzee podcast recommendations, suddenly.

I think it’s a question of categorizing things. There are many kind of game: “Toys” that you’re intended to enjoy moment go moment… …”Art” that are intended to give a player an emotional response… …”Sports” that use challenge to delay and enhance the ‘fun’ based on skill. … not all games should be the same, including necessarily being fun, but the problem is that marketing too often tries to rope everybody in rather than appealing to the specific audience it was designed for.

I haven't played world of warcraft in years but the minute you played that level up sound effect i experienced something that I'm pretty sure is akin to addiction cravings

Here's where the division between 'professional game critic' and 'consumer' really shows up. You value gardening much more than I value the fruit. That's part of the reasons that Yahtzee became a game reviewer, to enjoy and describe the rich tapestry of gaming. But you know, sometimes I just want to sit down and engage with a cathartic and challenging game experience (my drug of choice is LoL). Although I don't really believe yahtzee when he says that he doesn't 'there isn't anything wrong with enjoining live service games' and then proceeds to compare it with smack.

@stevenglowacki8576

Жыл бұрын

There really isn't anything wrong with using drugs as long as you do so responsibly. The obvious problem is that hard drugs have a tendency to take over people's lives. If you like the catharsis-only game play, that's fine. If you absolutely must log in every day to secure your reward, and neglect other aspects of your life, then maybe it's taken over your life too much.

@Fedacking

9 ай бұрын

​@@stevenglowacki8576 there are drugs that cannot be used responsibly due to the damage they cause to the brain

This is why FF14 is my favorite MMO. Strong story providing meaningful context in a rich world, the constant increases in power as my character levels up provide catharsis (as is the other grindable activities), and the end-game raids have plenty of challenge. It's just a shame that "challenge" is (while not entirely) mostly absent unless you opt-in to the raids at the very end of the game, which is a significant time investment.

Here's a fun observation this made me think of: I really enjoyed borderlands (and 2, but never bothered with 3.) I enjoyed the narrative, I enjoyed the moment-to-moment feel of the combat, and found it /very challenging/ until I realized I'd been playing it wrong. The game expected me to keep looting new weapons and changing them up for higher-level ones. I was considerably far into the game before I realized weapons HAD levels (and -why- the enemies were getting so spongy). It never occurred to me that the loot-aspect was anything more than a cosmetic afterthought. But virtually all of the online discourse (message boards, back then, rather than what is probably Reddit by now) is about grinding out particular loot drops from boss raids etc. I didn't realize it was even possible to replay a boss, until i read it online, because I'd never bothered to try. And that was well after I'd finished BL2. I played it more like a Zelda game (or similar) treating different areas like dungeons that there'd be no point to return to, as the narrative progressed. But where I'm going with this is to say that, for reasons I can't get my head around, people en masse seemed to -want- the grindey-looty-level-machine and actively sought that aspect out in a game that had those two other pillars to stand on. So, I do understand where publishers are coming from. If people will play a loot drop game and ignore the story, why even bother adding the other aspects? They're more difficult to create and seem not to be popular enough to bother with. (At least within a market-niche.) Anyway, insightful and erudite content as always. Thank you!

This reminds me of when I talked about what is high art and what makes art/literature/movies/TV shows considered "good" to be art where by definition something that's art doesn't have to be good, but if you want people to enjoy or connect with it, it should engage you

My general opinion on this is that a game doesn't have to be FUN, but it does have to be ENGAGING on some level.

@RaxusXeronos

Жыл бұрын

I imagine it has to be Enjoyable on some level too....otherwise people aren't going to WANT to engage in it

@zjzr08

Жыл бұрын

@@RaxusXeronos I dunno, some want to be discomforted, want to challenge their tolerance I guess, although I personally think it should have enough comfort.

Live service stuff is only fun because it's been scientifically formulated to be as addictive/engaging in the most insidious way possible

@techsmechs2485

Жыл бұрын

So well said. I'm surprised Yahtzee didn't bring up Skinner box methods this time, or go harder with the heroin comparison. But if he wasn't pulling his punches, he probably could have said this himself.

@aelechko

Жыл бұрын

Replace fun with popular and you're bang on. But they aren't fun. I snapped out of it recently when I realized I hadn't had any fun playing these games in years. It was just what I was used to doing. It was a job without compensation. They appear fun at first but even that is false it's just new so exciting because we haven't had it before. If you can only be enjoying something when you win it's not a good design. Go outside and play hockey or football with some friends. Doesn't matter who wins. I doubt any of us have never had anyone leave mid game because they weren't winning. I've done it too, we've all done it. Imagine watching an NFL game and the chiefs have up a TD on the opening drive, so Patrick Mahomes tells his whole team they're garbage and they should kill themselves, then throws his helmet and leaves. Now why the fuck is that acceptable in gaming ? It's disgusting childish behaviour. And it's rampant. It exists because nobody is actually having fun.

@aelechko

Жыл бұрын

​@@techsmechs2485 he's already said it in several other videos.

I appreciate this series so much

That has got to be one of the longest way to say, “yes,”

Drakengard certainly wasn't fun, but I had a hell of a time with it, since there was a solid story behind it. So long as it keeps you engaged to see what happens next, I think most creative mediums have done their primary job

Totally understand the frustration here. But I do wonder how much of this has to deal with age or demographics along with the proliferation of internet streaming. When I was younger, I enjoyed more of the catharsis but now in my 30s, I'd rather play something with more challenge or context. But part of that change was because I started branching into new things. With streaming, it seems like theres more of a deluge of the same type of stuff, so I wonder how often people get to see other things being played. Also, the world is on fire and a lot of people would rather just have fun with mindless stuff than work through something heavier.

@SolaScientia

Жыл бұрын

I have to have a solid mix of various games; partly from how my brain works and partly from just needed variety. Some days I need to zone out with Unpacking or Tetris. Sometimes I want an emotional investment without as much of the challenge, so I might pick up Spiritfarer or BioShock Infinite. BioShock Infinite as well for when I just want to shoot enemies instead of going all in with the melee. It's usually a FromSoftware game I go for when I want all 3 C's in my game.

@wisesquirrel4986

Жыл бұрын

I think it boils down to the business feasibility. Garbage does not affect quality significantly, they can exist in parallel. Shallow AAA games don't harm quality games, they are just a symptom of the actual obstacle. Quality requires life experience (from which to build the game from), much higher production costs (experimentation vs tried and true), and a big enough demographic to profit from. I believe that creating quality (diversity) simply requires more costs than it generates. The more different the game is from the norm, the more niche the audience becomes, and the more negative the net profit becomes as a result of losing purchases. This is exactly the reason why games necessitate heavy doses of Catharsis, they need enough purchases to fund development. But adding new types of Context is too expensive (which is why every game plays like the most shallow piece of writing you could ever expect to encounter). Challenge for the sake of it exists. We have Dark Souls and Starcraft 2 after all.

i was thinking before you said it "its about engagement!" ... "oh" ... but under what falls a satisfying game-loop? thats what i crave most in games. probably catharsis?

My experience as a game designer and talking to other game designers has given me another reason so many games lean hard on the catharsis side of that triangle - it's just much easier to design for, and there's a lot less risk that your ideas are terrible. So many meetings throughout the development process, when we're deciding where resources should be invested, end up being - "well, let's recreate that loot system that we used previously, since it did a good job of keeping people playing". And to be honest it's hard to argue against it; you would really have to be stubborn to suggest making a brand new experience narratively or through encounter design instead. Why try and capture lightning in a bottle, when store-bought is good enough!

I love how you boiled down the question "do games have to be fun?" to "Do people have to want to play a game for a lot of people to play them?"

I yelped with delight when Yahtzee announced the Three C's. I was an avid enjoyer of the concept when he first proposed it.

I felt that, when the image for the rare trifecta of challenge/context/catharsis was a successful parry in Dark Souls.

Excellent points and delivery as always. Full marks.

I’m 25 and my dad bought me a PS2 for my birthday, along with some old games we used to play together back then. They just don’t make games like they used to. Rich storytelling with edgy humor and challenging but rewarding gameplay is just so rare nowadays

I think that you put it basically perfectly. There's a certain frustration that so much of the AAA space is specifically designed around this bubble-wrap lizard brain aspect of gameplay while ignoring the rest.

I dont remember what s the actual definition but there is also some classification for "immersion". How immersive is a game. There are 3 levels for games, I found out searching the topic on college: 1. Repetitiveness immersion. Yes, this can be just smashing buttons and see a colorful feedback pop up on screen. 2. Strategic: Yo are not just pushing buttons, you have clear objectives to achieve. Maybe you have music and some animations here and there, but everything is just... shallow 3. Complex immersion: your strategic smashing of buttons gets feedback in the form of multimedia and new mechanics. This is contained in a virtual context or, let me speak french, it has a story and characters. I would say that grindathons are the 3rd option but with a whole lot of 1rt and 2nd option in it. Like the 3rd option is just the hook (10%) and 1rt (70%) and 2nd (20%) option are the rest.

I find myself needing 2 things in a game most of all: high challange, and a reason to go on. While the later is very broad, if find that a lot of games lack that element for me, they feel like having content for the sake of having it instead of reaching something