Well his article could also be seen as derivative of stealth trolling posts in gaming forums.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
“I don’t think I like Prestige Games”
- Thread starter Proven
- Start date
- Status
It was a blog post I made because I wanted to stay awake for a couple hours. I wanted to figure out just what kind of game was bothering me and look into why. Ultimately, I think there's a kind of game that imitates the texture of Important TV like Breaking Bad or The Sopranos--we call this Prestige TV--but introduces a lot of mechanics which are fundamentally unnecessary. I think that stuff gets praised way too much and the really good stuff, the stuff that's doing mechanically and narratively interesting/innovative stuff, gets ignore/thrown out the window in favor.
Further from that, I think people who characterize me as "hates all Sony games" because I mentioned I didn't like Naughty Dog's games (despite writing more on Days Gone and why I loved it and thought it was brilliant on the very same blog a few months ago) are people who basically go: "i like sony. i justify this because sony games are critically acclaimed." So when they see me going "I don't like [the critically acclaimed games]," they go "he hates the critically acclaimed games, so even though he hates non-sony games too, he must explicitly hate sony, and by hating sony, he must also hate me." They see the Premiere Flagship Games as being Representative of Sony. So there's this whole big personal investment, this insane desire to keep certain games on a pedestal because it makes them feel good, a desire to remain ignorant about good storytelling because that would bring the house of cards crashing down, this weird need to call me a clown... because how else do you keep believing that a billion dollar corporation makes art?
Obviously, they have to ignore that I love a ton of Sony games to make this work. I just... happen to love the Sony games that AREN'T critically acclaimed. A lot of that acclaim comes from a format I don't like--high budget games that throw in mechanics with very little consideration for how they can be used to tell good stories.
I think it's bad for Sony for people to think that Naughty Dog and one God of War game are representative of all of sony when there are so many great games like Until Dawn and Days Gone that deserve way more attention, sales, and praise imo. But the angry fanboys are just gonna keep saying "hating naughty dog means you hate sony." I don't hate sony, I just don't like how naughty dog makes games.
Also, they could have just said "who is this clown" because of that joke that saying "who is this clown" implies someone is both a clown and not very good at being a clown" but they missed the boat. Guess i'm a famous clown now
i was using it like 'prestige tv' and could have made that more clear
I thoroughly disagree with the article, and finding out who the author is after I got done reading it explained so much about how diametrically opposed I was to this strangely familiar sounding writer. He's certainly welcome to his opinions, but I seldom agree with him.
I guess a big disconnect or ideological clash here is that you and others view certain kinds of gameplay as "filler".
Prestige TV exists because of the Television Academy. Prestige movies exist because of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts. Games have no critical equivalent, certainly not to the degree studios will make stuff at a loss to win them over.
Just giving my opinion on where a lot of similar games are failing in their design in a thread about that very thing. Don't really care if other people enjoy them despite their issues. I'm not them, and I want games to get better rather than continue to make the same mistakes that put me off them.
Stuff like the bolded reminds me of the same people you call out in your blog (the Nolan fans, etc), though. You're essentially looking down on people for liking a thing while being upset that people don't like a thing as much as you, the way those people uphold Nolan and Naughty Dog and look down on other things.
It's not about the kind of gameplay, but about how thoughtfully specific gameplay sections are implemented. If a shootout at an arena has no narrative or mechanical reason to be there other than to help the game reach the 10-15 hour quota, does it need to be there at all?
The writer had put out a lot of good pieces on say Halo level design and shooter design but his obsessive hatred of modern Naughty Dog games or other "cinematic" games borders on the moronic. Like he is incapable of seeing any value to them beyond his bizarre, narrow viewpoint.
And I don't even like the Uncharted games that much! They are still worthy of recognition on how they implemented their own signature style of cinematic, game design. They're not failures by any means.
You're still doing the same thing. What you consider to be "mistakes" are strengths to millions of people. Why would ND change their approach because of a few outliers, when their current one has brought them massive success, both commercially and critically?
I feel like it kinda depends.
Some games I really want to replay all the time while others it's kinda ok if there's an endgame save that allows me to see most of the content.
Anything GaaS is pretty much the epitome of what I avoid these days, I kinda burned out on them so if a game is GaaS I usually don't even bother looking it up.
And that extends to games that could barely be considered GaaS like Splatoon or SSBU.
And you're right with the amount of content out there, I feel like it's a better use of my time to just focus on what I find interesting than sprawl on everything and anything and burn out of the medium because most of what I would play would be utterly boring to me.
I confused you with someone else.
My bad.
I wonder why The Witcher 3 isn't getting lumped in with all this.
On its face, it meets all the criteria. It's sort of a Sad Dad game, it's mainly praised for its writing and having graphics and production values that were at the time unsurpassed for an RPG, but its core combat and RPG elements are in many ways just passable. You could make the same arguments against Witcher 3 as an RPG that I've made against God of War 2018, yet Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games.
Personally I feel like the difference is Witcher 3's writing remains a step above pretty much everything mentioned in this thread so far, and the game overall manages to remain quite unique in the overall feel of its story and the progression of its quests. Mechanically what you do in these quests isn't actually all that special, but the narrative twists and turns in these quests feel constantly refreshing in ways other RPG quests are not. Witcher 3 totally did away with FedEx quests as well. Generally, there is a sense that the writers took some level of care in every little event of the game.
Maybe I just bought into Witcher 3's setting and story more than I did that of God of War or Horizon or Spider-Man or Red Dead 2.
On its face, it meets all the criteria. It's sort of a Sad Dad game, it's mainly praised for its writing and having graphics and production values that were at the time unsurpassed for an RPG, but its core combat and RPG elements are in many ways just passable. You could make the same arguments against Witcher 3 as an RPG that I've made against God of War 2018, yet Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games.
Personally I feel like the difference is Witcher 3's writing remains a step above pretty much everything mentioned in this thread so far, and the game overall manages to remain quite unique in the overall feel of its story and the progression of its quests. Mechanically what you do in these quests isn't actually all that special, but the narrative twists and turns in these quests feel constantly refreshing in ways other RPG quests are not. Witcher 3 totally did away with FedEx quests as well. Generally, there is a sense that the writers took some level of care in every little event of the game.
Maybe I just bought into Witcher 3's setting and story more than I did that of God of War or Horizon or Spider-Man or Red Dead 2.
Even the opening of the post has me going, "So what if The Last of Us is doing something that another piece of media called The Road did. I've never even heard of that.".
The entirety of this seems to posit and assume that my consumption of media should be all encompassing so I don't fall behind on certain tropes. Even those in gaming. Sad dad games? I've not played too many of those so the ones I do play stand out.
If it's new to me and all that.
The entirety of this seems to posit and assume that my consumption of media should be all encompassing so I don't fall behind on certain tropes. Even those in gaming. Sad dad games? I've not played too many of those so the ones I do play stand out.
If it's new to me and all that.
Yeah, i definitely enjoy some of his articles but most of what is said here falls completely on the subjective side of things, which, per se, isn't a bad thing, but his crusade against Naughty Dog and other cinematic games is... weird, to say the least. Especially when he uses Gears 5 has an example of a narrative that has you emotional by the end which, uh, ok? If that is his definition of using mechanics to drive narrative or using the medium to it's full potential for narrative on games, especially after all he says on the text about cinematic flair... It just doesn't make any sense.
I haven't read it yet but does the writer ever mention games having or not having "heart," lacking "magic" or being "soulless"?
Thats a clear sign that someone is an idiot and needs to be disregarded.
Thats a clear sign that someone is an idiot and needs to be disregarded.
"A desire to remain ignorant about good storytelling" lol what? Can you really not understand that there's no objective metric to attribute to art, including video games? Because it seems you have difficulty with that.
See... I don't really get this attitude. You assume that it's circular logic and that people don't actually enjoy these games thoroughly, when the fact is that a large majority of people who have played them do.
I don't play naughty dog game's because some critic tells me to. I play them because I find them mechanically satisfying and accessible while having incredibly good character writing and dialogue. Yes their premises are often basic, but plot structure alone does not good writing make. It's about the details of the characters and relationships.
That's what makes their games special, the character writing and accessibility of the mechanics.
What you are doing seems a little gate keeperish. Obtuse mechanical depth isn't always compelling nor does it always mean it's fun.
I'm not saying your opinion is invalid, so much as, I think you aren't giving those who enjoy these games and give them critical praise enough credit that they do truly enjoy them.
Also, totally this. Team Ico and similar styles of games are totally "prestige" games.
The sooner you move past needing to categorize games in this fashion the happier you'll be, trust me.
I really hope the mentality of "films arent the same as movies, they're better" that assholes like to spread around doesn't reach video games.
Yeah honestly, just to be clear, I'm not in favor of this either. Just more of a pattern of what type of games often get classified as "games as art" in the critical sphere.
Fuck what puts you off. You got a problem with games of that style? Ok then go look among the hundreds other games on the market for something else that's best suited for you. That's the beauty of video games today rather than many years ago, we all have options. None of us are allowed to feel shit about any studios not crafting their games to our every liking. If its not for you, move onto something that is.
Agreed.
I really enjoy your writing style, DocSeuss.
Insightful write-up that explores creativity and execution, and how poor implementation of either can come off as artificial regardless of game budget.
I always did find in interesting how production value can proportionally make some turn a blind eye to cliched game design. Whether it be uninspired copy/paste mechanics or derivative storytelling. Just slap some gorgeous visuals on it and many will look past any potholes in the road.
Which isn't really a bad thing in and of itself. Lots of people dig Summer Blockbuster movies where they can just go and enjoy themselves. Turn their brain off and have a good time.
Producing and enjoying Prestige Games isn't some kind of evil worthy of scorn. But I don't really see it pushing the medium forward either. There is an element of brainwashing what with all the accolades and hills people die on defending what amounts to empty calorie gaming. But I've kinda come to expect that in the AAA space, where risk-taking is fewer and farther between.
All good either way. There's so many experiences out there. So much variety. It does feel like there genuinely is something for everyone. I'm not gonna hate just 'cause I'm not into this or that. Why would I when there's plenty to enjoy at my own personal cruising altitude?
I think it will, eventually. I'm not worried about it, though. It'll just be obnoxious LOL. I can deal with obnoxious.
Maybe take your own advice and go enjoy what you enjoy and criticize what you don't enjoy as I'm doing.
I like the article and while I don't agree with everything in it, I find it weird how many people in this thread are just saying the author is trash, an idiot, etc. This is an opinion piece, it is labelled so right in the title ("I THINK"), so it seems weird to have so much hate and animosity over someone's expressed opinion. The author is not declaring their opinion as law. If you don't like the opinion, write an article (or post) yourself on why you disagree with it. Plenty of people in this thread have done so without just attacking the author.
People are reacting that way because the author is crazy condescending and petty in the article and his posts in this thread.
But his opinion is "anyone who likes a certain type of game is an uncultured idiot." He's casting judgement over other people's taste.
At that point it stops being just an opinion.
Given how many strange tangents and petty asides the author adds into the post, it's hard to parse any kind of meaningful discussion, honestly.
The whole article is like this and "gee whiz" tweets about this being an exploration of why he dislikes Prestige games and how its just an opinion ring hollow.
I really loved this take even though I don't dislike the game that are mentioned but because I also think about them in the same way. However, I think that becuase they are interactive you get another feel for the story and its characters. I didn't watch The Last of Us or Uncharted, I experienced them, I had some sort of agency because I could move around in the world. I think that makes a huge difference in how someone might feel about theese games.
The criticism is valid and it was a very interesting read, thank you.
The criticism is valid and it was a very interesting read, thank you.
No, I don't fanboy any company or consumer product, your just pretentious and this post is a good example, you just wrote a small op ed when you could have just said you think anyone who doesn't agree is a Sony fanboy, because for all the flowery words that's all you said.
I have gone through the author's post history in this thread and disagree on the characterization you just made, but I can see how someone would see it as such.
I think if you criticize anything, which is the intent of the article, you are inherently criticizing other people's taste if there is an audience that likes that thing. If you think the author is being condescending/an asshole in doing so that is ok, but casting judgement on other people's taste is perfectly acceptable. Trying to declare your opinion as fact and that is should be accepted by all as objective truth is another thing, which I do not think this piece tries to do.
I realize a lot of people are calling you a fanboy and insulting you (and a lot of it is out of line/unfair), but do you really not see how condescending this sounds? I promise you there are plenty of people who have seen/read/played most of the things you think The Last of Us (for example) is derivative of who still like The Last of Us. Not because they're ignorant about good storytelling, but because....... they just have different taste from you. You would ruffle a lot less feathers if you could explain why you don't like certain games or genres without insulting the people who do.
I am not disagreeing with you, but just so I know what we are talking about, what portion(s) of the article do you see as attacking people's intelligence?
i find that's an accurate description of a subset of movie and game fans, and i don't think there's anything wrong with pointing that out.
e. the rick and morty fandom is maybe the most perfect example of this.
He mentioned prestige games he felt actually earned that distinction instead of being full of copy and pasting movies hot air like Last of Us.
Idk man you come across as a real smug asshole so you pretty much deserve a the flack you get
You get what you give, and if your post wasn't so absolutely steeped in condescension, maybe people wouldn't be calling you a clown 🤡
You are so strange though, I think the clown comments come from you criticizing games like God of War, Uncharted and Last of Us as soul-less cash cows that shouldn't be deemed as art. While saying you cried because Gears 5 ended and how emotionally resounding that game is to you. How does that not stink of bias?
I think the article could have definitely done a better job of explaining why Gears 5 should be viewed as going beyond the "prestige game."
- Status