5 ms·

I'm sorry but I play games to forget my troubles, not to take on yours.

danso 8y ago
The author is arguing that death is a fertile and mostly unexplored field to be explored by video game devs/writers, not that people should stop creating and playing fun fantasy games. His conclusion explicitly states this: > I honestly believe that there’s room for everything within games. I’ve not hung up my assault rifle just yet. But I found genuine catharsis in making and playing videogames that deviate from safe themes to examine challenging subjects. Something as messy and complex as death has begun to make a least a little more sense.
ceejayoz 8y ago
I suspect the writer of this piece would be fine with that. You play games for certain reasons. The writer builds games for certain reasons. They're not demanding you buy them.
dragontamer 8y ago
This is exceptionally callous way of looking at things. Video games are certainly a medium for discussion: "Papers Please" is a discussion point on legal immigration for example. (Its not true across the board: "Prison Architect", is NOT a discussion point on prisons). I'm not one to play "political" games, but IMO, they are no different than political or personal movies, poems, or letters. Video games are just one more medium of which society can use to connect and communicate with other people. Have you played the "This is fine" flash game? Its actually a deeply personal + political discussion point as well. https://namsang.itch.io/thisisfine https://namsang.itch.io/thisisfine These games aren't necessarily designed for maximum enjoyment, they're optimized for maximum discussion and community connections.
- reificator 8y ago
  > (Its not true across the board: "Prison Architect", is NOT a discussion point on prisons). I mean... to a degree it is. Certainly not to the same degree as Papers Please, but that's a high bar. Or maybe I just read my own assumptions into the game...
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    It is a discussion just by its setting. Into it you can read clues on how the author or the community perceive some stuff. But it is not meant in any specific way to communicate a point, or to be a critique or prisons, or even to just make you think. It does not make you feel bad when you slaughter inmates, it does not try to portray them as people; not even as dehumanized people, this kind of analysis is just not in the game. (Disclaimer: I played it a while back, maybe it changed from the last time I saw it)
    - reificator 8y ago
      > it does not try to portray them as people; not even as dehumanized people It was an explicit goal of theirs to do that, including giving every prisoner a backstory. Whether they accomplished their goal of portraying them as people is a different story, but they did try.
- developer2 8y ago
  The argument is that the article has nothing to do with gaming. The author just happens to be a game developer, and so this is their outlet to deal with their grief and/or guilt. The text itself talks about games, but that's not really the topic being discussed; they're just advocating for others to pay attention to their cause. ^ Also an exceptionally callous way of looking at things.
developer2 8y ago
I'm cynical enough to have gotten a similar vibe from the article. People tend to go through life never giving a second thought to others' misfortunes and suffering: disabilities, cancer, suicide, etc. Then someone they love is affected, and suddenly it becomes their lifelong "cause"; every waking moment is spent trying to make others pay attention to a topic they themselves turned a blind eye to for years because it never affected them directly. A new charity fundraising event every other week (and repeatedly harassing family/friends/coworkers for donations); or becoming a speaker who travels to "share their wisdom" - but nobody is listening because, just like the speaker's own past self, their audience won't care until they are themselves touched by the same tragic event. tldr; Advocating to get others to give a damn about something that will be experienced by a minority of people falls on deaf ears, because people really don't - and won't - care about something until it affects them personally.

The author is arguing that death is a fertile and mostly unexplored field to be explored by video game devs/writers, not that people should stop creating and playing fun fantasy games. His conclusion explicitly states this: > I honestly believe that there’s room for everything within games. I’ve not hung up my assault rifle just yet. But I found genuine catharsis in making and playing videogames that deviate from safe themes to examine challenging subjects. Something as messy and complex as death has begun to make a least a little more sense.

ceejayoz 8y ago

I suspect the writer of this piece would be fine with that. You play games for certain reasons. The writer builds games for certain reasons. They're not demanding you buy them.

dragontamer 8y ago

This is exceptionally callous way of looking at things. Video games are certainly a medium for discussion: "Papers Please" is a discussion point on legal immigration for example. (Its not true across the board: "Prison Architect", is NOT a discussion point on prisons). I'm not one to play "political" games, but IMO, they are no different than political or personal movies, poems, or letters. Video games are just one more medium of which society can use to connect and communicate with other people. Have you played the "This is fine" flash game? Its actually a deeply personal + political discussion point as well. https://namsang.itch.io/thisisfine https://namsang.itch.io/thisisfine These games aren't necessarily designed for maximum enjoyment, they're optimized for maximum discussion and community connections.

reificator 8y ago
> (Its not true across the board: "Prison Architect", is NOT a discussion point on prisons). I mean... to a degree it is. Certainly not to the same degree as Papers Please, but that's a high bar. Or maybe I just read my own assumptions into the game...
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  It is a discussion just by its setting. Into it you can read clues on how the author or the community perceive some stuff. But it is not meant in any specific way to communicate a point, or to be a critique or prisons, or even to just make you think. It does not make you feel bad when you slaughter inmates, it does not try to portray them as people; not even as dehumanized people, this kind of analysis is just not in the game. (Disclaimer: I played it a while back, maybe it changed from the last time I saw it)
  - reificator 8y ago
    > it does not try to portray them as people; not even as dehumanized people It was an explicit goal of theirs to do that, including giving every prisoner a backstory. Whether they accomplished their goal of portraying them as people is a different story, but they did try.
developer2 8y ago
The argument is that the article has nothing to do with gaming. The author just happens to be a game developer, and so this is their outlet to deal with their grief and/or guilt. The text itself talks about games, but that's not really the topic being discussed; they're just advocating for others to pay attention to their cause. ^ Also an exceptionally callous way of looking at things.

developer2 8y ago

I'm cynical enough to have gotten a similar vibe from the article. People tend to go through life never giving a second thought to others' misfortunes and suffering: disabilities, cancer, suicide, etc. Then someone they love is affected, and suddenly it becomes their lifelong "cause"; every waking moment is spent trying to make others pay attention to a topic they themselves turned a blind eye to for years because it never affected them directly. A new charity fundraising event every other week (and repeatedly harassing family/friends/coworkers for donations); or becoming a speaker who travels to "share their wisdom" - but nobody is listening because, just like the speaker's own past self, their audience won't care until they are themselves touched by the same tragic event. tldr; Advocating to get others to give a damn about something that will be experienced by a minority of people falls on deaf ears, because people really don't - and won't - care about something until it affects them personally.