Superman 64 Discussion Thread

[Hobo]

Roger Ebert gave it nine stars after Warhol gave him a hand job.

It was the sequel to Warhol's Blowjob!

[Skummy]

Depression Quest is a piece of interactive software that puts you in the lead role, and presents you with choices which allow you to determine the outcome. On some level or another, that is a working definition of "video game".

One of my many, many problems with GamerGate is that they want to control the narrative. They talk about "discussion" and "engaging", when want they want is complete control of the discourse. They don't want to lose their definition of gaming so - and this is an attitude that pre-dates GamerGate, admittedly - they define gaming on their terms. They create distinctions between "gamers" and people who just play games. They decide some games "don't count" as games, because they don't fit their definition, or that some games are "casual games", and that if you play them, you're not a "real gamer".

Hammy brings up a valid point, too. Almost anyone attached to GamerGate, when pushed, would say that they want video games to be treated as art. But the moment someone creates a game which, arguably, could be considered art, they're the most likely to reject it as "not a real game". The moment someone criticises a game, or gaming as a whole, in the manner that any other art form is criticised, they see it as a personal attack, and try and shut it down. They want to be seen as "art" because they think being "art" means having a carte blanche not to be criticised when, in fact, it means almost the exact opposite.

For the record, I entirely agree with pretty much everything Hammy said about indie gaming and smaller scale development, too, and I'm happy someone else is drawing comparisons to the "golden age" of British home computing, because that tends to be my reference point for this kind of thing too.

[Colly]

God those 'public domain' disks you used to get every so often with Amiga mags. Did anyone ever play Parachute Joust?

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Oh man my Amiga 1200 is in the cupboard under the TV. I'm gonna have to get it out and play now. I've got numerous Public Domain discs from mags and some had some really smart games.

[=BK=]

This reminds me, I've been meaning to see if I can set up my SNES with this flat-screen TV ever since I moved into this house.

[Lint]

This reminds me, I've been meaning to see if I can set up my SNES with this flat-screen TV ever since I moved into this house.

Depends on the TV. some of them you can put the yellow composite cable in the green component jack. some have the composite red/white/yellow jacks. some you need t buy a converter

[DMN in the House]

Depression Quest is a piece of interactive software that puts you in the lead role, and presents you with choices which allow you to determine the outcome. On some level or another, that is a working definition of "video game".

One of my many, many problems with GamerGate is that they want to control the narrative. They talk about "discussion" and "engaging", when want they want is complete control of the discourse. They don't want to lose their definition of gaming so - and this is an attitude that pre-dates GamerGame, admittedly - they define gaming on their terms. They create distinctions between "gamers" and people who just play games. They decide some games "don't count" as games, because they don't fit their definition, or that some games are "casual games", and that if you play them, you're not a "real gamer".

Hammy brings up a valid point, too. Almost anyone attached to GamerGate, when pushed, would say that they want video games to be treated as art. But the moment someone creates a game which, arguably, could be considered art, they're the most likely to reject it as "not a real game". The moment someone criticises a game, or gaming as a whole, in the manner that any other art form is criticised, they see it as a personal attack, and try and shut it down. They want to be seen as "art" because they think being "art" means having a carte blanche not to be criticised when, in fact, it means almost the exact opposite.

For the record, I entirely agree with pretty much everything Hammy said about indie gaming and smaller scale development, too, and I'm happy someone else is drawing comparisons to the "golden age" of British home computing, because that tends to be my reference point for this kind of thing too.

It's no accident, since they basically follow the same 'guidelines' as StormFront espouses to try and control debate. That's no coincidence, as, in many places on the internet, there is significant crossover between the groups.

Which, of course, should made it obvious that they're simply trolls, or worse, despite claims to a greater 'cause'.

[Skummy]

Practically every interaction I've had with GamerGate has involved them accusing either me personally, or their critics in general, of being pro-censorship, but overwhelmingly the GamerGate movement - in my experience - is far more in favour of censorship than the opposition.

[Lint]

Depression Quest is a piece of interactive software that puts you in the lead role, and presents you with choices which allow you to determine the outcome. On some level or another, that is a working definition of "video game".

One of my many, many problems with GamerGate is that they want to control the narrative. They talk about "discussion" and "engaging", when want they want is complete control of the discourse. They don't want to lose their definition of gaming so - and this is an attitude that pre-dates GamerGame, admittedly - they define gaming on their terms. They create distinctions between "gamers" and people who just play games. They decide some games "don't count" as games, because they don't fit their definition, or that some games are "casual games", and that if you play them, you're not a "real gamer".

Hammy brings up a valid point, too. Almost anyone attached to GamerGate, when pushed, would say that they want video games to be treated as art. But the moment someone creates a game which, arguably, could be considered art, they're the most likely to reject it as "not a real game". The moment someone criticises a game, or gaming as a whole, in the manner that any other art form is criticised, they see it as a personal attack, and try and shut it down. They want to be seen as "art" because they think being "art" means having a carte blanche not to be criticised when, in fact, it means almost the exact opposite.

For the record, I entirely agree with pretty much everything Hammy said about indie gaming and smaller scale development, too, and I'm happy someone else is drawing comparisons to the "golden age" of British home computing, because that tends to be my reference point for this kind of thing too.

It's no accident, since they basically follow the same 'guidelines' as StormFront espouses to try and control debate. That's no coincidence, as, in many places on the internet, there is significant crossover between the groups.

Which, of course, should made it obvious that they're simply trolls, or worse, despite claims to a greater 'cause'.

[Troy Maskell]

One of my many, many problems with GamerGate is that they want to control the narrative. They talk about "discussion" and "engaging", when want they want is complete control of the discourse. They don't want to lose their definition of gaming so - and this is an attitude that pre-dates GamerGame, admittedly - they define gaming on their terms. They create distinctions between "gamers" and people who just play games. They decide some games "don't count" as games, because they don't fit their definition, or that some games are "casual games", and that if you play them, you're not a "real gamer".

I will congratulate on this good sir, I've never heard a funnier joke in my life

[Skummy]

Oh really? Care to comment on the remainder of the post, or are you just happy to read the bits you can pretend support your argument?

[FestiveJack]

Well at least he's not claiming confirmation bias...

[Quom]

Depression Quest is a piece of interactive software that puts you in the lead role, and presents you with choices which allow you to determine the outcome. On some level or another, that is a working definition of "video game".

One of my many, many problems with GamerGate is that they want to control the narrative. They talk about "discussion" and "engaging", when want they want is complete control of the discourse. They don't want to lose their definition of gaming so - and this is an attitude that pre-dates GamerGame, admittedly - they define gaming on their terms. They create distinctions between "gamers" and people who just play games. They decide some games "don't count" as games, because they don't fit their definition, or that some games are "casual games", and that if you play them, you're not a "real gamer".

Hammy brings up a valid point, too. Almost anyone attached to GamerGate, when pushed, would say that they want video games to be treated as art. But the moment someone creates a game which, arguably, could be considered art, they're the most likely to reject it as "not a real game". The moment someone criticises a game, or gaming as a whole, in the manner that any other art form is criticised, they see it as a personal attack, and try and shut it down. They want to be seen as "art" because they think being "art" means having a carte blanche not to be criticised when, in fact, it means almost the exact opposite.

For the record, I entirely agree with pretty much everything Hammy said about indie gaming and smaller scale development, too, and I'm happy someone else is drawing comparisons to the "golden age" of British home computing, because that tends to be my reference point for this kind of thing too.

The games as games thing is an entirely different argument and one that has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn or her game. It's where the tag 'walking simulator' originally comes from. The idea is that any game by definition requires a failure state to be a game. It's not a particularly important thing to me. I just lump the 'art exhibit' type games as their own genre, much in the same way simple jump scare games don't interest me, the arty walking around games to find the next part of the narrative don't interest me.

I have no idea if Depression Quest falls into this I haven't played it. Little bores me more than people's first hand accounts of their depression. I'd much prefer a game that instead of focussing on describing the symptoms did something to actually help people suffering through pointing out effective ways to accept and deal with the issues. I always thought the issue with the game had little to do with the game and more to do with the way it was promoted moreso than other games that were tackling similar issues which was blamed on her being friends with prominent people in the industry?

I don't really get the whole 'if GG had their way there would be no indie games'. I have no idea what that point's based upon.

I think there is a distinction between people who play games like Candy Crush Saga on their phone and people who play more detailed games. I don't look down upon them (hell my most played game last year was probably Marvel Puzzle Quest which is at its core a match three game) but there are plenty of people who play games on FB who are resistant to playing more complex games. I don't think pointing this out is a shitty act, it just seems honest. What isn't honest is gaming press acting as if there isn't a distinction then publishing solely articles that are aimed at non-casual players. I don't remember seeing much/any content on Kotaku that was aimed at middle aged women.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

But does it really MATTER whether people are playing GTAV on a PS4 or Candy Crush on an outdated iphone?

In the hipstery board game community I'm a part of we have similar problems. "Hey, my friends played CRANIUM! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?! I'd rather punch my nan in the face than play CRANIUM with her!"

A guy I know is a professor who works and writes in the field of games and "play". His papers and presentations are really interesting. (As an aside, one on trophification of games is very interesting with regards to how it affects children). I agree with him basically when he says that we should just encourage play, shared experiences and other hippy leftie notions.

[Quom]

But does it really MATTER whether people are playing GTAV on a PS4 or Candy Crush on an outdated iphone?

In the hipstery board game community I'm a part of we have similar problems. "Hey, my friends played CRANIUM! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?! I'd rather punch my nan in the face than play CRANIUM with her!"

A guy I know is a professor who works and writes in the field of games and "play". His papers and presentations are really interesting. (As an aside, one on trophification of games is very interesting with regards to how it affects children). I agree with him basically when he says that we should just encourage play, shared experiences and other hippy leftie notions.

I don't know, like I said I haven't been following gaming media since the 'death of the gamer' stuff. But what you're discussing was brought up by them, not by 'gamers' (as in the non-casual ones or GG). The whole idea was 'your identity no longer exists, your demographic is dying, now we all play games'.

Which like I said is a fair point, my 50+ female coworker who had never picked up a controller is hooked on Candy Crush and sends me incessant demands for more lives. But it's a bit disingenuous when the media making that point isn't inclusive, their articles and advertisements are pretty much solely aimed at the group they are saying no longer exist as their key demographic.

[Skummy]

Depression Quest is a piece of interactive software that puts you in the lead role, and presents you with choices which allow you to determine the outcome. On some level or another, that is a working definition of "video game".

One of my many, many problems with GamerGate is that they want to control the narrative. They talk about "discussion" and "engaging", when want they want is complete control of the discourse. They don't want to lose their definition of gaming so - and this is an attitude that pre-dates GamerGame, admittedly - they define gaming on their terms. They create distinctions between "gamers" and people who just play games. They decide some games "don't count" as games, because they don't fit their definition, or that some games are "casual games", and that if you play them, you're not a "real gamer".

Hammy brings up a valid point, too. Almost anyone attached to GamerGate, when pushed, would say that they want video games to be treated as art. But the moment someone creates a game which, arguably, could be considered art, they're the most likely to reject it as "not a real game". The moment someone criticises a game, or gaming as a whole, in the manner that any other art form is criticised, they see it as a personal attack, and try and shut it down. They want to be seen as "art" because they think being "art" means having a carte blanche not to be criticised when, in fact, it means almost the exact opposite.

For the record, I entirely agree with pretty much everything Hammy said about indie gaming and smaller scale development, too, and I'm happy someone else is drawing comparisons to the "golden age" of British home computing, because that tends to be my reference point for this kind of thing too.

The games as games thing is an entirely different argument and one that has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn or her game. It's where the tag 'walking simulator' originally comes from. The idea is that any game by definition requires a failure state to be a game. It's not a particularly important thing to me. I just lump the 'art exhibit' type games as their own genre, much in the same way simple jump scare games don't interest me, the arty walking around games to find the next part of the narrative don't interest me.

I have no idea if Depression Quest falls into this I haven't played it. Little bores me more than people's first hand accounts of their depression. I'd much prefer a game that instead of focussing on describing the symptoms did something to actually help people suffering through pointing out effective ways to accept and deal with the issues. I always thought the issue with the game had little to do with the game and more to do with the way it was promoted moreso than other games that were tackling similar issues which was blamed on her being friends with prominent people in the industry?

Much of the criticism was to do with the nature of the game itself - whether that was the core issue or not I can't say, but in plenty of my experience of GamerGate they've criticised the game just as much as the perceived ethics breach. Sometimes as an aside to the ethics argument - "the game isn't even a game, it only got good reviews because..." or "the game is shit, it only got good reviews because..." for example - sometimes as a completely separate argument.

As an aside on the Zoe Quinn issue - if it were ever really about "ethics in journalism", why was it overwhelmingly the female developer targeted and not the male journalist?

I think there is a distinction between people who play games like Candy Crush Saga on their phone and people who play more detailed games. I don't look down upon them (hell my most played game last year was probably Marvel Puzzle Quest which is at its core a match three game) but there are plenty of people who play games on FB who are resistant to playing more complex games. I don't think pointing this out is a shitty act, it just seems honest. What isn't honest is gaming press acting as if there isn't a distinction then publishing solely articles that are aimed at non-casual players. I don't remember seeing much/any content on Kotaku that was aimed at middle aged women.

I don't think there is a real distinction at all. Anyone who plays any video game is as much a "gamer" as anyone who plays any other video game. I can't speak for Kotaku, because it's not a site I'm familiar with or particularly care to become familiar with, but any distinction that does exist is purely artificial.

My point regarding GamerGate wishing to control the narrative in this regard is that they tend - and again, I'll admit this long pre-dates GamerGate but has played into it (I see GamerGate largely as the culmination of a lot of ugliness in gaming culture) - to claim to speak on behalf of "gamers", and to care about games and gamers. Yet they manage this by using their definition of the word gamer, in my experience. This is most pertinent when it comes to the furore over the "the gamer is dead" article, as they effectively try and cling to their ownership of "video games" as a cultural signifier by wilfully ignoring that the nature of video games has changed.

They can mark it out as their territory if they get to define what we mean by "video games" - part of their anti-feminist, anti-criticism spiel quite often comes down to "we're the core audience, games shouldn't be changed to suit a minority", but that only carries weight if you stick to their definition of video games. If you open up the definition to include mobile games, to include casual games, to include any and all video games - and why wouldn't you? - that argument completely falls apart.

[Troy Maskell]

Oh really? Care to comment on the remainder of the post, or are you just happy to read the bits you can pretend support your argument?

If you really want me to.

Should video games be art? Well yes, there are plenty of clichés and I welcome new ideas. Saying Depression Quest is a "game" though is an insult to those true indie developers you speak of that actually put effort into their art form. Depression Quest is a Choose Your Own Adventure book that was made on Twine. I can do that, Twine is not a difficult program to use. That still doesn't make it a game though, it's still a choose your own adventure book.

To say we try and control the narrative is disingenuous because even if we were trying to do that we're not exactly doing a good job of it are we? The only thing we hear all the time is "You're Gamergate. You're a hate group" and the same confirmation bias over and over and over until your head feels like it's going to explode, to say that WE define what a "Gamer" is so laughable it barely deserves a response, who are we to say what is a gamer and what isn't? We who support Gamergate are not the fucking Borg collective, we each have different ideas on what constitutes a "gamer" You know what MY definition of "Gamer" is? A person who plays video games, that's it, you don't need a fancy card or to be "one of us" to qualify for your "Gamer" card. You enjoy playing video games? Congratulations! you're a Gamer! Just like me. Does that mean I have ideas of what "Games" are compared to what you might believe? Of course it does. But I'm not going to exclude you just because you play a game I may see as "casual". The only way I would not call you a "Gamer" is if literally the ONLY game you ever played was Depression Quest, because I don't believe that's a game. Your mileage may vary.

As saying we don't support indie developers and indie games or females in the industry. Why then are Gamergaters one of the biggest providers to the IndieGoGo of The Fine Young Capitalists? An FEMINIST group who gives scholarships to women who have ideas for games and provides them with the tools to get their idea presented right and then has fans vote on which game they'd actually play? Hey you know who hacked their indiegogo page and tried to get them banned from the site? People associated with Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn! Why? For the sin of "You took money from Gamergate, you must hate women and are just weaponizing charity"

However much you want to try and paint us as such, we are not the monster in the closet. We just want what we believe is fair, some disclosure and control and what we see and read, so we know we can trust games journalism again. But as we've seen time and time again, that won't ever happen, because all we hear everywhere is "You're a hate group". "Why don't you change the argument if you truly believe stuff?" "You'll never change" blah, blah, blah. Then you get upset when we try and get out of the corner you're backing us into.

Like I said earlier, I'm tired of arguing, you believe one thing. I believe another. But don't try and tell me we're trying to control the narrative, we lost control of this argument long ago.

[Quom]

But video games haven't changed. The gaming media hasn't changed. AAA studios haven't changed. If 14-35 year old men aren't still the key demographic to them then why on earth are all of those places still (almost) solely pandering to them?

Surely if we are basing it on business it would make the most financial sense to make all inclusive AAA titles. Yet they aren't being developed. These are publicly traded publishers, if it made sense fiscally then it would be done.

Saying it's GG stopping it from happening makes no sense. If groups had that much control then RAW would look like NXT. The fact is you can't say the only thing stopping this from happening is a group of really shitty men's rights activists when every gaming website, nearly ever AAA title etc. etc. is aimed at this demographic that is supposedly dying out and unimportant.

[FestiveJack]

As saying we don't support indie developers and indie games or females in the industry. Why then are Gamergaters one of the biggest providers to the IndieGoGo of The Fine Young Capitalists?

Because TFYC had a dispute with Zoe Quinn, and to give yourselves the equivalent of the 'some of my best friends are black' routine.

[Skummy]

Oh really? Care to comment on the remainder of the post, or are you just happy to read the bits you can pretend support your argument?

If you really want me to.

Should video games be art? Well yes, there are plenty of clichés and I welcome new ideas. Saying Depression Quest is a "game" though is an insult to those true indie developers you speak of that actually put effort into their art form. Depression Quest is a Choose Your Own Adventure book that was made on Twine. I can do that, Twine is not a difficult program to use. That still doesn't make it a game though, it's still a choose your own adventure book.

To say we try and control the narrative is disingenuous because even if we were trying to do that we're not exactly doing a good job of it are we? The only thing we hear all the time is "You're Gamergate. You're a hate group" and the same confirmation bias over and over and over until your head feels like it's going to explode, to say that WE define what a "Gamer" is so laughable it barely deserves a response, who are we to say what is a gamer and what isn't? We who support Gamergate are not the fucking Borg collective, we each have different ideas on what constitutes a "gamer" You know what MY definition of "Gamer" is? A person who plays video games, that's it, you don't need a fancy card or to be "one of us" to qualify for your "Gamer" card. You enjoy playing video games? Congratulations! you're a Gamer! Just like me. Does that mean I have ideas of what "Games" are compared to what you might believe? Of course it does. But I'm not going to exclude you just because you play a game I may see as "casual". The only way I would not call you a "Gamer" is if literally the ONLY game you ever played was Depression Quest, because I don't believe that's a game. Your mileage may vary.

As saying we don't support indie developers and indie games or females in the industry. Why then are Gamergaters one of the biggest providers to the IndieGoGo of The Fine Young Capitalists? An FEMINIST group who gives scholarships to women who have ideas for games and provides them with the tools to get their idea presented right and then has fans vote on which game they'd actually play? Hey you know who hacked their indiegogo page and tried to get them banned from the site? People associated with Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn! Why? For the sin of "You took money from Gamergate, you must hate women and are just weaponizing charity"

However much you want to try and paint us as such, we are not the monster in the closet. We just want what we believe is fair, some disclosure and control and what we see and read, so we know we can trust games journalism again. But as we've seen time and time again, that won't ever happen, because all we hear everywhere is "You're a hate group". "Why don't you change the argument if you truly believe stuff?" "You'll never change" blah, blah, blah. Then you get upset when we try and get out of the corner you're backing us into.

Like I said earlier, I'm tired of arguing, you believe one thing. I believe another. But don't try and tell me we're trying to control the narrative, we lost control of this argument long ago.

So your argument is "anyone who plays video games is a gamer, but Depression Quest isn't a video game, because I don't define it as one"? You do realise that's exactly what I just criticised GamerGate for?

And nobody is "backing you into a corner". GamerGate backed themselves into a corner through their actions a long, long time ago. The argument that it's about "ethics in video game journalism" and that it has nothing to do with harassment of women have been debunked time and time again in this thread, let alone elsewhere, but you've gone on parroting the exact same responses.

And if you think that what was specifically a calculated effort to donate to a "safe" feminist group to save face when accused of misogyny is proof that GamerGate support women in the industry, then I don't know what to say. "Support" hardly counts when it's done out of spite, no matter what the outcome.

And, again, if you want to make this about "ethics in video game journalism", and throw in the "GamerGate support women in the industry" gambit at the same time, why did GamerGate target Zoe Quinn rather than Nathan Grayson? Surely, as the journalist in this situation, he should be more open to criticism for having behaved unethically? Why target Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu who have made no journalistic breach of ethics, but just committed the cardinal sin of being women who disagree with you? Overwhelmingly, GamerGate has targeted independent developers - particularly female ones - to a far greater degree than video games journalists, or AAA developers - anyone, that is, who might actually be able to make a difference when it comes to "ethics in video games journalism".

But video games haven't changed. The gaming media hasn't changed. AAA studios haven't changed. If 14-35 year old men aren't still the key demographic to them then why on earth are all of those places still (almost) solely pandering to them?

Surely if we are basing it on business it would make the most financial sense to make all inclusive AAA titles. Yet they aren't being developed. These are publicly traded publishers, if it made sense fiscally then it would be done.

Saying it's GG stopping it from happening makes no sense. If groups had that much control then RAW would look like NXT. The fact is you can't say the only thing stopping this from happening is a group of really shitty men's rights activists when every gaming website, nearly ever AAA title etc. etc. is aimed at this demographic that is supposedly dying out and unimportant.

Gaming has changed, though. The highest earning games are Facebook games, mobile apps, and so on. More "traditional" gaming - i.e. console gaming, and the "AAA" titles - still panders to the same target audience, for the most part, but that's not all gaming is.

I'm not saying GamerGate is stopping change from happening - the games industry itself is problematic without GamerGate, and has been since well before - I'm just voicing my opinions of GamerGate's take on the whole situation.