3 ms·

I am the only one here who gave up reading this? There's something up with the writing that I can't put my finger on?

• trinsic2 3y ago
  Nope. To me it felt like a mess of the most overrated bullshit that mattered only to people who where on the outside of this movement.
• JKCalhoun 3y ago
  I think I dislike the assumption that more-real game equals better game. But I am not sure that is coming from the author or from the portrait he paints of an industry that seems almost wholly obsessed with this one end-goal.
• StrictDabbler 3y ago
  This has been a problem people have with every filfre post lately. The Digital Antiquarian is a blog but realistically it's actually a very long book. The first entry was published in 2011. It treats the entire history of interactive gaming. Dropping in on chapter 217, or whatever this is, is a little confusing. Maher has spent a decade establishing a detailed context for discussing the nature of interactive experiences. Part of the story is about the sad years from about 1995-2002 when interactivity was decreasing even as rendering technology improved. Maher is in the middle of that sad story right now and people are put off by the matter-of-fact way he discusses the flaws of these iconic games and by the pace of his narrative. It is such a sad story that people think Maher "dislikes" or "mocks" these games. He does not. It was a real nadir for the industry. Interactivity picked up again sometime around the release of Morrowind. I love the blog. I would strongly recommend starting at the beginning and seeing if you don't love it a few entries in.
  • pipes 3y ago
    It's not that, it's the prose is somehow awkward. Well that's the best way I can describe it. I'll try it again. Interesting topic.