Roni
Member
"X is trash..."
"X is a bomba"
"X was a disappointment."
"This game is nothing like advertised!"
"X is a stinking pile of shit."
"I'm a longtime fan of this series and as a most original fan of X I can say I was thoroughly offended by this utter piece of garbage."
We've all read, and sometimes written, takes like these. Every year the major releases always get the most attention, but lately that attention has been synonym with a monsoon of hate. People don't like things, sure, but every single living being seeks to distance itself from unpleasant stimuli. Why don't humans, of all fucking creatures, display that behavior?
Now, before you scroll down to write down what you're feeling like writing right now, take a moment to breathe and keep on reading. I know discussion is more interesting with disagreement and this is an internet forum. So the goal is discussion, yeah. But discussion can have a very broad meaning: you can spend an entire afternoon suffering through a conversation about your cancer and how you're going to die soon while someone else spends that same afternoon feverishly arguing about the ideas behind their favorite movie. Those two situations can both be called discussions, though one is clearly more pleasant than the other.
But let's give it an honest shot, shall we? Let's not talk about the hate itself for now and rather focus on what is the perceived warranted reason for the hate: games are, allegedly, not meeting expectations.
In terms of Game Design, Art Direction or something else based on taste, well, sorry, can't help you with an answer here. You don't like a painting, don't look at it. Just don't automatically think about fucking burning it...
In terms of technical shortcomings, there's usually a very simple reason: the underlying problem is that IT is often not in charge of the project. This is insane from the perspective of anyone working on a project who is actually interested in being there and doing the best work possible. This means the people actually making any thing don't usually actually estimate how long it will take to get said thing ready. It's someone else doing the estimation.
Someone's responsible right? Yeah, you're right. And it's usually Sales & Marketing.
Let's take Cyberpunk 2077, it's a fresh enough iteration of the phenomenon I'm talking about. Let's take the driving, for example. Playing the game after release leaves it pretty clear the final product was never meant to be used for procedural chases in this game: the streets are too narrow and turns are too sharp. Not to mention the fact cars can't even change lanes... The technology isn't there, it wasn't built. Yet Marketing thought it was a good idea to advertise that as ambiguosly as possible to you. After all, driving IS in the game, amirite? And now the IT people are being ridiculed because they couldn't make it work.
When things like the Mantis Blades climbing is showed to us only to be removed later, you can bet that video was recorded and handed over begrudgingly by any person that actually cares within that team. It might be packaged well and have nice graphics next to it because Marketing them handed over that video to some professional video editor and promised everyone that would be in the game, even though the level designers and programmers weren't even sure it could be used for the game in the state it was.
What we should want is more transparent communication with the people actually making what we are playing, without so much smoke and mirrors. Then we would get a more grounded and realistic takes on what is trying to be done and what we actually get. Now, sure, one can turn around and say: well, they should've been advised/directed/ordered differently.
I don't agree...
You see, sure, they could've used the money spent to manifest Cyberpunk 1.31 (soon to be 1.5) into reality differently. But the game was made by CDPR, an institution celebrated by how they pushed boundaries with each new installment in the Witcher franchise. What did you want, them to design and build this game conservatively? They're hailed for pushing boundaries and are now grilled for it?
The game wouldn't be a CDPR game if it wasn't made with the same values the institution was recognized for before. Not to mention it wouldn't have been enjoyed by those who loved it just the way it is. CDPR wanted to use the Cyberpunk IP to produce a cinematic RPG that pushed boundaries.
Whatever way you want to cut into the game, it features a variety of weapons and levels that enable one to roleplay not only a plethora of different combat styles, but you can also use the dialog to craft very nuanced personalities for V depending on how you act towards different characters in the game when in different situations. Not to mention it has enough breadth that you can play it at least 4 times over (and I know there's stuff I haven't done so there's some more) with completely different endings, journeys and personalities for your different characters.
Yeah the game's missing shit Marketing told you about: well, boo fucking hoo, that only tells me you haven't been long in this Earth or you haven't been paying attention. Marketing has always been allowed to lie to you. It's your job to see through the lies and understand what it is you're being hyped into buying. Because money ain't gonna move itself into different hands if the government uses its guns to keep corporations honest about the snake oil they want you to spend your hard earned cash on.
At least that's what most powerful people think... And no, any similarities with Cyberpunk's universe is NOT a coincidence, but part of Pondsmith's message.
Speaking of the creator of the source material, the game's based on a tabletop roleplaying game. Have you watched how those are played?
Tabletop RPG's are all about imagination and creativity, though you'd be excused for feeling you don't have any: it's exorcised out of most kids in school. Have you noticed how public education systems never focus on teaching people how to grow their own food, build their own shelter or survive independently as well? You're not being educated to be free, you're being educated to be a consumer-worker, someone fully dependent on the corporations and the system of specialization.
Their biggest fear? You somehow get access to education that teaches you how to think, feel and act for yourself and, consequently, realize this set of rules we're living under is just one possibility out of many others. But their solution is rather smart... A system this size takes a lot of time and effort to keep in place, and they know we can't figure this shit out while we're busy competing with each other out of hate rather than cooperating out of love.
Now, to come full circle and actually tie all of this shit not only with the original title of the thread but also with the forum we're in: if we're living in a non-sustainable way, then of course the check will come eventually. When it does, what do you think that will look like?
Resident Evil? The Last of Us? Maybe Horizon: Zero Dawn? Fallout, perhaps? I'm afraid nothing quite that spectacular... The crash, the apocalypse or the end of times people fear will most likely be famine, disease and anarchy brought about by us reaching a tipping point: there's now so little resources left, we can't share it with everyone. A lot of people will die fighting over whatever resources are left, though some will be able to afford bunkers with self-sufficient electricity and water in the middle of fucking nowhere. Will you?
Well, if you won't, don't despair yet! Maybe you can make some money by selling something to someone at a profit? Though, with such a saturated marketplace where people can connect individually, you need a way to cut through the chaff and stand out. Given the market's purchasing power is finite, meaning most people actually run out of money, and there's too much stuff to buy then you need to affect people's opinions so they favor your product over someone else's and also spread the message that the other product is trash. Which automatically means yours is better.
Here's an idea: whenever someone dislikes something from the competition, let's amplify it! Give it a platform, make it a trend or find another bullshit way of pushing it onto the culture. That's how we arrive in a situation like the one we have here: it's completely normal to dislike something, what is not normal is having an entity that may be a Turing test passing machine or a human being amplifying that feeling for you whenever you actually feel it. But given your hate for said thing is profitable to someone, it is of someone's interest that you stick to it as much as possible. After all, it's their livelihood on the line...
Now, if you've made it this far, then you probably think I hate capitalism and social media, which I don't. Markets have a place in figuring out efficiency, but they don't have a place dictating how we should live our lives and that question is too important for someone else to answer it for us or affect our judgment on it through indoctrination. As for social media, well, it can spread news fast and is definitely one of the tools at our disposal to communicate and figure out our future...
Here's the conclusion to this whole mess: as a species, we have the means to design our futures today. And I, being someone openly prolix, lack the words to even begin to express how rare and precious that is. We can either seize this moment or maintain the status quo. It's a choice. But I think that if one makes that choice, then it must be accompanied by the choice to not waste one's time with useless interactions: overly negative discourse and people being negative for the sake of negativity.
We've been trying that and there doesn't seem to be that much in it for us.
"X is a bomba"
"X was a disappointment."
"This game is nothing like advertised!"
"X is a stinking pile of shit."
"I'm a longtime fan of this series and as a most original fan of X I can say I was thoroughly offended by this utter piece of garbage."
We've all read, and sometimes written, takes like these. Every year the major releases always get the most attention, but lately that attention has been synonym with a monsoon of hate. People don't like things, sure, but every single living being seeks to distance itself from unpleasant stimuli. Why don't humans, of all fucking creatures, display that behavior?
Now, before you scroll down to write down what you're feeling like writing right now, take a moment to breathe and keep on reading. I know discussion is more interesting with disagreement and this is an internet forum. So the goal is discussion, yeah. But discussion can have a very broad meaning: you can spend an entire afternoon suffering through a conversation about your cancer and how you're going to die soon while someone else spends that same afternoon feverishly arguing about the ideas behind their favorite movie. Those two situations can both be called discussions, though one is clearly more pleasant than the other.
But let's give it an honest shot, shall we? Let's not talk about the hate itself for now and rather focus on what is the perceived warranted reason for the hate: games are, allegedly, not meeting expectations.
In terms of Game Design, Art Direction or something else based on taste, well, sorry, can't help you with an answer here. You don't like a painting, don't look at it. Just don't automatically think about fucking burning it...
In terms of technical shortcomings, there's usually a very simple reason: the underlying problem is that IT is often not in charge of the project. This is insane from the perspective of anyone working on a project who is actually interested in being there and doing the best work possible. This means the people actually making any thing don't usually actually estimate how long it will take to get said thing ready. It's someone else doing the estimation.
Someone's responsible right? Yeah, you're right. And it's usually Sales & Marketing.
Let's take Cyberpunk 2077, it's a fresh enough iteration of the phenomenon I'm talking about. Let's take the driving, for example. Playing the game after release leaves it pretty clear the final product was never meant to be used for procedural chases in this game: the streets are too narrow and turns are too sharp. Not to mention the fact cars can't even change lanes... The technology isn't there, it wasn't built. Yet Marketing thought it was a good idea to advertise that as ambiguosly as possible to you. After all, driving IS in the game, amirite? And now the IT people are being ridiculed because they couldn't make it work.
When things like the Mantis Blades climbing is showed to us only to be removed later, you can bet that video was recorded and handed over begrudgingly by any person that actually cares within that team. It might be packaged well and have nice graphics next to it because Marketing them handed over that video to some professional video editor and promised everyone that would be in the game, even though the level designers and programmers weren't even sure it could be used for the game in the state it was.
What we should want is more transparent communication with the people actually making what we are playing, without so much smoke and mirrors. Then we would get a more grounded and realistic takes on what is trying to be done and what we actually get. Now, sure, one can turn around and say: well, they should've been advised/directed/ordered differently.
I don't agree...
You see, sure, they could've used the money spent to manifest Cyberpunk 1.31 (soon to be 1.5) into reality differently. But the game was made by CDPR, an institution celebrated by how they pushed boundaries with each new installment in the Witcher franchise. What did you want, them to design and build this game conservatively? They're hailed for pushing boundaries and are now grilled for it?
The game wouldn't be a CDPR game if it wasn't made with the same values the institution was recognized for before. Not to mention it wouldn't have been enjoyed by those who loved it just the way it is. CDPR wanted to use the Cyberpunk IP to produce a cinematic RPG that pushed boundaries.
Whatever way you want to cut into the game, it features a variety of weapons and levels that enable one to roleplay not only a plethora of different combat styles, but you can also use the dialog to craft very nuanced personalities for V depending on how you act towards different characters in the game when in different situations. Not to mention it has enough breadth that you can play it at least 4 times over (and I know there's stuff I haven't done so there's some more) with completely different endings, journeys and personalities for your different characters.
Yeah the game's missing shit Marketing told you about: well, boo fucking hoo, that only tells me you haven't been long in this Earth or you haven't been paying attention. Marketing has always been allowed to lie to you. It's your job to see through the lies and understand what it is you're being hyped into buying. Because money ain't gonna move itself into different hands if the government uses its guns to keep corporations honest about the snake oil they want you to spend your hard earned cash on.
At least that's what most powerful people think... And no, any similarities with Cyberpunk's universe is NOT a coincidence, but part of Pondsmith's message.
Speaking of the creator of the source material, the game's based on a tabletop roleplaying game. Have you watched how those are played?
Tabletop RPG's are all about imagination and creativity, though you'd be excused for feeling you don't have any: it's exorcised out of most kids in school. Have you noticed how public education systems never focus on teaching people how to grow their own food, build their own shelter or survive independently as well? You're not being educated to be free, you're being educated to be a consumer-worker, someone fully dependent on the corporations and the system of specialization.
Their biggest fear? You somehow get access to education that teaches you how to think, feel and act for yourself and, consequently, realize this set of rules we're living under is just one possibility out of many others. But their solution is rather smart... A system this size takes a lot of time and effort to keep in place, and they know we can't figure this shit out while we're busy competing with each other out of hate rather than cooperating out of love.
Now, to come full circle and actually tie all of this shit not only with the original title of the thread but also with the forum we're in: if we're living in a non-sustainable way, then of course the check will come eventually. When it does, what do you think that will look like?
Resident Evil? The Last of Us? Maybe Horizon: Zero Dawn? Fallout, perhaps? I'm afraid nothing quite that spectacular... The crash, the apocalypse or the end of times people fear will most likely be famine, disease and anarchy brought about by us reaching a tipping point: there's now so little resources left, we can't share it with everyone. A lot of people will die fighting over whatever resources are left, though some will be able to afford bunkers with self-sufficient electricity and water in the middle of fucking nowhere. Will you?
Well, if you won't, don't despair yet! Maybe you can make some money by selling something to someone at a profit? Though, with such a saturated marketplace where people can connect individually, you need a way to cut through the chaff and stand out. Given the market's purchasing power is finite, meaning most people actually run out of money, and there's too much stuff to buy then you need to affect people's opinions so they favor your product over someone else's and also spread the message that the other product is trash. Which automatically means yours is better.
Here's an idea: whenever someone dislikes something from the competition, let's amplify it! Give it a platform, make it a trend or find another bullshit way of pushing it onto the culture. That's how we arrive in a situation like the one we have here: it's completely normal to dislike something, what is not normal is having an entity that may be a Turing test passing machine or a human being amplifying that feeling for you whenever you actually feel it. But given your hate for said thing is profitable to someone, it is of someone's interest that you stick to it as much as possible. After all, it's their livelihood on the line...
Now, if you've made it this far, then you probably think I hate capitalism and social media, which I don't. Markets have a place in figuring out efficiency, but they don't have a place dictating how we should live our lives and that question is too important for someone else to answer it for us or affect our judgment on it through indoctrination. As for social media, well, it can spread news fast and is definitely one of the tools at our disposal to communicate and figure out our future...
Here's the conclusion to this whole mess: as a species, we have the means to design our futures today. And I, being someone openly prolix, lack the words to even begin to express how rare and precious that is. We can either seize this moment or maintain the status quo. It's a choice. But I think that if one makes that choice, then it must be accompanied by the choice to not waste one's time with useless interactions: overly negative discourse and people being negative for the sake of negativity.
We've been trying that and there doesn't seem to be that much in it for us.
Last edited:
bro. How about... how about you'll create threads about exactly that and discuss what you really want to discuss with "like minded peeps"? I know it may sounds crazy, but you never know until you try!
