• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

A song that will make the PC master race happy

CrimsonCavalier

Fuzzy Pickles
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Location
United States
Gender
XY
And what I have to say to that is this:

People who define the value of any media based on entertainment are why so many of these games are stagnant even to them. Don't spend time complaining about every movie being the same summer blockbuster or that skyward sword is a poor Zelda if you believe entertainment is the highest calling a game can have. People who do as you say will constantly be content and complacent. People who do as I say will constantly demand better and more. I tend to think seeing entertainment as the standard is a bit infantile or rather promoting of infancy. People should grow out of it.

Still, you are correct we disagree on the criteria.

Well this is where I take issue.

Gaming is a form of entertainment, first and foremost. It isn't an art. It's entertainment. That doesn't mean that entertainment can't be art, but it isn't art inherently. It's entertainment. Entertainment exists solely to entertain. By that definition, the most important thing is fun. An entertaining game will provide fun. A highly artistic game could very well not provide any fun at all.

How fun is achieved in gaming is different than how fun is achieved in other forms of entertainment (i.e., movies, books, board games, etc.). However, in the end it is enjoyment in the form of fun that defines a game as a successful one or not. Thus, Splatoon is a successful game. It is a fun game, flaws and all. Yes, there are flaws, some of which you included in your list in an earlier post. Yet those things do not take away from the game. The game still excels at what it does. Matchmaking issues, for example, do not harm the gameplay in game.

What is important to remember is that what is fun can change. Sometimes the core gameplay can remain the same and remain fun for years and years. Sometimes, the formula becomes stale, and the series needs to evolve or change in order to remain fun. However, fun is most definitely subjective, and it varies from person to person.
 

Misty

Ronin
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Location
The Sea
Gaming is a form of entertainment, first and foremost. It isn't an art. It's entertainment.

This is where we most obviously disagree. I do not see Art and Entertainment as mutually exclusive. Nor do I see them as even slightly exclusive. I would argue that they are like salt and pepper even. High art does not lack entertainment except to those blind to its charms. Entertainment is not devoid of high art except to those too blind to see the technique on display. I admit, some entertainment is devoid of any art, but I would argue this is what makes it so insufferable to most people. (Not that this stops them from being entertained if they can switch that feeling off.)

By that definition, the most important thing is fun.
Not at all. To be entertained, we must be diverted. That does not mean we must be having a joyful romp. We must simply not be having a poor time. People go for entertainment because it diverts them from whatever the rest of their life is made up of. (Although, in our media soaked age in which entertainment has become our lives, that produces several interesting questions.)

The most important thing is that you be diverted. That can be achieved by fun and I admit is usually the way artists go about it. But something can be quite entertaining without being fun. Anyone who has ever watched their parents bitterly fight or stared at a car crash knows this.
An entertaining game will provide fun

Not necessarily. An entertaining game will provide diversion. People choose to have fun with that diversion.

A highly artistic game could very well not provide any fun at all.
Assuming one is not entertained by highly artistic content, that's true. But assuming one is not entertained by run of the mill diversion aimed at fun, one also could not be having fun. For example, I no longer have "fun" or am "diverted" by playing Pokemon as it has very little to challenge me or feed the mind.

This is why I think taste must be done away with, because taste is focused on something subjective - fun or enjoyment. I think focusing on the more artistic and technical aspects is far easier to talk about and quantify. I think people should be caring more for the latter and less for the former. I realize many people don't do this because caring about fun is way more seductive and very much the default position.

How fun is achieved in gaming is different than how fun is achieved in other forms of entertainment (i.e., movies, books, board games, etc.).

We disagree here as well. But please, tell me how it is different.

However, in the end it is enjoyment in the form of fun that defines a game as a successful one or not.

I disagree. I think that is how you and many others define a successful game. But I think your definition needs an update. I mean that in the best way possible.

Thus, Splatoon is a successful game. It is a fun game, flaws and all. Yes, there are flaws, some of which you included in your list in an earlier post. Yet those things do not take away from the game. The game still excels at what it does. Matchmaking issues, for example, do not harm the gameplay in game.

They harm the gameplay before the gameplay has even begun. I do not think the success of anything has very much to do with the object itself if I am being honest. I think the success has very much to do with the people involved. I think the people who play Splatoon by and large are not at all resistant and want to be swept up in a wave of gooey good time. I think the game could be even worse than the whelming it is at and many of them would adore it. We as a species seem to wish to be entertained and more than that we wish to be happy and have fun. And we'll stretch ourselves just about any way so that we can feel it.

I'm arguing that the games should be doing much more of the stretching, essentially. You shouldn't be loving a game because you love yourself in love with a game. You shouldn't think a game amazing because you are amazed by yourself being amazed. The thing should be it and you should be appreciating what it is.

I agree, largely, that the issue is with the audience. I would say the audience is being silly and conned, but perhaps that is too much.

Edit: I should also probably say that pretending everything you said were true just this minute, I would say that this is a dismal state of entertainment responsible for corroding human potential and entertainment itself down to a little, awful nub.

I would say we should immediately seek to correct this were it in fact fact and that to do otherwise by accepting it would be detrimental to us all.
 
Last edited:

Ronin

There you are! You monsters!
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Location
Alrest
Oh yeah, Splat Platoon is definitely a game I take issue with. The gyro controls weren't at all to my liking, and forcing me to use the GamePad over a Pro Controller undermined my trust in its development, among other things. But surprisingly, probably the biggest thing I take issue with is the whole theme of freshness itself. The beginning shows you kicked out of the shops just because you aren't "fresh enough" until you squid levels up some. In multiplayer, if your team loses, they're shown throwing a fit while the other team celebrates. I enjoyed hooking my squid up with some flashy duds and experiment with the various builds, but even so the subliminal message of "git gud" hindered my enjoyment.
 

TGM

Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Actually yes considering that OSX has been renamed to Mac OS - verysimilar to what the classic Mac OS was called.

All Macintosh computers are PCs as well just letting you know.

Yes, OS X was renamed to macOS, and I'm running the macOS Sierra Developer Preview right now!

In my opinion,

PC refers to Windows computers (and sometimes Linux, even though it is not as popular as Windows and macOS)

It stands for personal computer (while Mac computers are so much more...)

It's all about the kernel, and the architecture of the OS.

Windows is not as architecturally sound and secure as macOS and Linux's Darwin.

But, if you use a PC, nothin' wrong with that.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
Yes, OS X was renamed to macOS, and I'm running the macOS Sierra Developer Preview right now!

In my opinion,

PC refers to Windows computers (and sometimes Linux, even though it is not as popular as Windows and macOS)

It stands for personal computer (while Mac computers are so much more...)

It's all about the kernel, and the architecture of the OS.

Windows is not as architecturally sound and secure as macOS and Linux's Darwin.

But, if you use a PC, nothin' wrong with that.
A personal computer (PC) is a general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sale price make it useful for individuals, and is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computers.

That's a nice definition of a PC. It clearly puts many of the devices we use like decktops, notebooks, tablets, iPhones, etc etc as PCs. This however is only the case when you can activate the smart device can activate itself the air, without requiring another computer to do so.
That is different to an IBM X86 compatable PC or whatever that definition of a PC is.

I don't use the dev preview versions of MacOS becaise I honestly have no need to try them, so I just wait for the stable release of whatever version of MacOS it is and download that to my iMac.
 

TGM

Joined
Jul 3, 2016
A personal computer (PC) is a general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sale price make it useful for individuals, and is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computers.

That's a nice definition of a PC. It clearly puts many of the devices we use like decktops, notebooks, tablets, iPhones, etc etc as PCs. This however is only the case when you can activate the smart device can activate itself the air, without requiring another computer to do so.
That is different to an IBM X86 compatable PC or whatever that definition of a PC is.

I don't use the dev preview versions of MacOS becaise I honestly have no need to try them, so I just wait for the stable release of whatever version of MacOS it is and download that to my iMac.
Yes, you are correct, but when most people say PC, they are referring to a computer that runs Windows.
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
I thought PC originally referred to a "brand" name of computers invented by IBM in the 1980s.
 

CrimsonCavalier

Fuzzy Pickles
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Location
United States
Gender
XY
Thoroughly enjoying this conversation, by the way.

This is where we most obviously disagree. I do not see Art and Entertainment as mutually exclusive. Nor do I see them as even slightly exclusive. I would argue that they are like salt and pepper even. High art does not lack entertainment except to those blind to its charms. Entertainment is not devoid of high art except to those too blind to see the technique on display. I admit, some entertainment is devoid of any art, but I would argue this is what makes it so insufferable to most people. (Not that this stops them from being entertained if they can switch that feeling off.)

I don't think art and entertainment are mutually exclusive, and I even said so. Art can entertain. Entertainment can be art. But they are not the same thing. Essentially, this first point is where we disagree, and therefore, disagree on all subsequent points. This is the crux of the argument.

Not at all. To be entertained, we must be diverted. That does not mean we must be having a joyful romp. We must simply not be having a poor time. People go for entertainment because it diverts them from whatever the rest of their life is made up of. (Although, in our media soaked age in which entertainment has become our lives, that produces several interesting questions.)

Simple diversion ≠ entertainment. Again, our definitions of "entertainment", "diversion", and "fun" are different, so the outcome we reach will be different. Entertainment diverts, but diversion is not necessarily entertainment. They aren't synonyms. They are not the same word. They are not the same concept. They are not the same at all. One can fit into the other category, but the other category does not necessarily fit into the first.

Dogs are mammals. Mammals are not dogs. Some mammals are other things, like cats. Thus, all entertainment diverts. But not all diversion is entertainment.

The most important thing is that you be diverted. That can be achieved by fun and I admit is usually the way artists go about it. But something can be quite entertaining without being fun. Anyone who has ever watched their parents bitterly fight or stared at a car crash knows this.

I can't say I've ever been entertained by a car crash. I have been engrossed or maybe even entranced, but never entertained. You're using the word wrong.

Not necessarily. An entertaining game will provide diversion. People choose to have fun with that diversion.

Alright, I agree here. But the diversion is a by-product of the entertainment. I play a game, it entertains me, and I have fun with it. Because of that, I am diverted from my everyday life, and am solely focused on the game. It is the entertainment, by way of fun, that offers the diversion, not the diversion in and of itself.

Assuming one is not entertained by highly artistic content, that's true. But assuming one is not entertained by run of the mill diversion aimed at fun, one also could not be having fun. For example, I no longer have "fun" or am "diverted" by playing Pokemon as it has very little to challenge me or feed the mind.

Depending on what form of entertainment one seeks, the mode of the diversion can differ. Maybe today I'm feeling particularly banal and I want to play Saints Row and crash my car into other cars, or drive a semi truck into a crowd of rival gang members. That's what a game like that is for. It isn't art. It isn't particularly feeding the mind nor challenging me. But it is entertaining, and it does provide me with hours and hours of pointless diversion. But maybe today I'm feeling like I need a challenge, so I'll pick up Super Metroid and try to beat my best time. Or maybe I want to think and follow a great story, so I'll play Mass Effect and try to choose different dialogue options to get different results.

It's all based on my mood at the time, what form of entertainment I want, and whether I want simple diversion, or to be engaged. And it really does come down to the word you say you hate in the next quote: taste.

This is why I think taste must be done away with, because taste is focused on something subjective - fun or enjoyment. I think focusing on the more artistic and technical aspects is far easier to talk about and quantify. I think people should be caring more for the latter and less for the former. I realize many people don't do this because caring about fun is way more seductive and very much the default position.

One thousands times no. It's all about the subjective. Art in inherently subjective. You can appreciate something for being objectively good, but not enjoy it or get anything out of it. Art is something that has to speak to the individual. That's why a woman menstruating on a canvas and calling it art does nothing for me (except want to punch her). It's art. It's art because she said it is. I mean, it isn't art, but that's not my call to make.

Menstrual blood on a canvas does not speak to me, it doesn't take me on a journey through the artist's mind. On the other hand, going to the Dali museum here in St. Petersburg, Florida, does. Dali's paintings, though weird, always tell a story. They're not for everyone, though. However, everyone can agree that the technique is flawless. That doesn't mean that Dali's paintings are for you. They're not your cup of tea. They don't speak to you like they speak to me. Perhaps you're more of a pointillism kind of guy or gal and Seurat is more your thing. Or perhaps you like dark imagery with incredibly realistic detail, and so Caravaggio is more your style (personally my favorite painter of all time, by the way).

But no matter what, I can appreciate them all for their incredible talent and technique. It's just that some speak to me more than others. You can't force the art on someone. You can beat someone over the head with a painter's palette until she gets her technique perfect, and you can make her a good painter, but you can't make her a good artist.

We disagree here as well. But please, tell me how it is different.

The input is different, so the content creator has to deliver in the correct way. Let's just take a book version of a story versus the movie version of a story.

In the book, the author has to describe the scene. Imagery is important in writing. You can write:

"The two men met in the tavern to discuss their plans. One was a thief and the other a warrior of some renown. The thief walked over the warrior, who was already waiting for him, and appeared to be in a bad mood. They knew that with their combined talents, they would be able to pull off the heist of the century."

OR... you can write:

"The thief, dressed in his black hooded robe walked into the tavern. It was dark and dank, like all taverns in this part of town. Wooden tables and chairs lined the walls. An old barkeep with one eye wiped the counter with a disgustingly old rag. He looked up at the thief with his one good eye and grunted at him. In the back, the thief saw his contact, the one they called "the warrior". He sat with his back against the wall, with his huge muscular arms crossed, and a sour look on his face."

They both tell more or less the same tale, but one has a lot more detail. It paints a more complete story. In a book, things like that are necessary to make the world feel more alive. This is because you are picturing it in your head. You create the picture as you see it. When you read a description of a character, you make up a face for them.

In a movie, that is done for you. You don't imagine what the tavern looks like: the director does. You don't imagine what the black robe looked like, the director does. You don't imagine what the characters look like, they look like the people playing them. You take in what is shown, and you have less time to take it in, so movies and shows are less detailed. You don't need three pages to describe the tavern. It may be important in the book, but in the movie, there isn't time to notice that the tables were oak and the chairs were old and splintered.

In video games, you have to take the extra consideration that you're [to a certain degree] allowing the player to tell the story him/herself. Watching a movie and playing a game aren't the same. Again, the input is different; despite that they're both done with the eyes, video games have the extra stimulus of using your hands to manipulate the world and characters.

I disagree. I think that is how you and many others define a successful game. But I think your definition needs an update. I mean that in the best way possible.

Well, in the end, since our definition of fun, entertainment, and diversion are different, we'll ultimately never agree on this point.

I play games to have fun. I never play games to only be diverted. I can be diverted by counting the tiles in my kitchen, but that is neither entertaining nor fun. Yes, I play games to escape reality as well, but that is just a by-product of the game. If I'm not having fun, I'm not being diverted. If I play a game that isn't fun, all I think of is "this is not a fun game", and thus the diversion is gone/missing.

The perfect game is a game that entertains you, one in which you have fun, and one, therefore, that diverts you. You can enjoy it for it's technical qualities as well, and it may even be artistic. But those are not necessary for a game to be fun or diverting.

I can sit on top of a mountain while I play Oblivion, and be wowed at how pretty the world is. The draw distance, the sun shafts, the cloud animations, everything in that world is pretty. It's artistic. It's technically very well made. But guess what, if the game was boring, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. It would be a diversion, looking at the landscape, but it wouldn't be fun.

They harm the gameplay before the gameplay has even begun.

If you're saying the game could have been better, yes. I think the game could have been better. Matchmaking could be improved. Voice chat could have been included (although that has to do with the matchmaking, in that you would only be able to use v/c if you were playing with people who spoke the same language). And while both of those things could have improved the game, the lack of those things does not make the game worse.

The controls work with our without voice chat. The gameplay itself is fun with or without voice chat. The visuals are pleasing to the eye with or without voice chat. Etc..

I do not think the success of anything has very much to do with the object itself if I am being honest. I think the success has very much to do with the people involved. I think the people who play Splatoon by and large are not at all resistant and want to be swept up in a wave of gooey good time. I think the game could be even worse than the whelming it is at and many of them would adore it. We as a species seem to wish to be entertained and more than that we wish to be happy and have fun. And we'll stretch ourselves just about any way so that we can feel it.

If you're saying that the people who are being entertained by, and are having fun with, Splatoon are doing so because they are forcing themselves to enjoy a game that they shouldn't be enjoying, I'm going to have to call some serious b.s.. I think there is such an incredible amount of distraction in our modern world—literally millions of ways to spend your free time—that to say that people would pick up a game that wasn't good, and fool themselves into liking it is beyond unreasonable. If they didn't like it, truly, they would do something else. They would play a different game, or play a different console, or read a book, or watch tv, or go online, or go outside, or watch a movie, or watch Netflix, or take a nap, or cook a meal, or play with their hamster, or text their friends, or play on their phone, or any other thing except play a game that they didn't like.

People play, and are entertained by, and are satisfied with, Splatoon because it is a good game. It is well made, entertaining, and fun. There is no stretch.

Now, if you're saying that people are shallow, and that they prefer to be entertained with banalities instead of thinking and truly engaging in whatever form of entertainment that they're using, I agree. That is why Call of Duty and FIFA are so popular. They require no thinking, and each iteration is the same as the last, so they're easy to get into, while a game like Bayonetta (the first one, on PS3 and 360) was a commercial "meh". Because the game took time and skill and dedication to "git gud" at. And why bother picking up a game that takes work when you can pick up a game that a 4 year old can pick up and play?

I'm arguing that the games should be doing much more of the stretching, essentially. You shouldn't be loving a game because you love yourself in love with a game. You shouldn't think a game amazing because you are amazed by yourself being amazed. The thing should be it and you should be appreciating what it is.

I don't disagree. I think Splatoon is a good game, and I appreciate it for what it is. I can also appreciate that it could be better, but that doesn't make it bad. Simply because something can be improved upon does not make it bad. I can write an essay answer on a test and get a 100% on the answer, but that doesn't mean I couldn't have improved on it. Maybe if I had more time, I could have added another case to site. It could have been improved in maybe 3-4 different ways, but it was still a great answer that got me 100% score. Almost everything can be improved. Some of things are bad, and need improvement. Some of those things are good, and could use improvement.

I agree, largely, that the issue is with the audience. I would say the audience is being silly and conned, but perhaps that is too much.

People are shallow and lazy. Of that there is no question. But I think you take it too far by saying people are conned into liking something. People are simply shallow. No one is being fooled into liking something that they really don't like, but are too stupid to realize. No one is being forced to play a game.

Edit: I should also probably say that pretending everything you said were true just this minute, I would say that this is a dismal state of entertainment responsible for corroding human potential and entertainment itself down to a little, awful nub.

I would say we should immediately seek to correct this were it in fact fact and that to do otherwise by accepting it would be detrimental to us all.

I've been accused of being a luddite in the past, and though I enjoy some of the modern conveniences that technology has brought us, I think it has done more harm than good. In general. But if I were to point the finger at a single culprit, it wouldn't be at entertainment in general, but at social media specifically.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Location
Milwaukee WI
Gender
half centaur
Only if you are a crack whizz at older OS emualation.

Anything that was released on:
  • DOS
  • Classic Mac OS
  • Mac OS 10.0 to 10.6
  • A non intel Mac
  • Apple Newton
  • Very old versions of Windows
  • And others
All need their OS emulated to play the games on movern computers.
Meaning you can still play them...... I never said it was always easy, but typically it is.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
Meaning you can still play them...... I never said it was always easy, but typically it is.
No different to saying your Playstation 1 or N64 games or whatever old console you like can be played forever if you keep your old console hardware and an old television that can hook to an N64.

Basically you have to keep the old hardware required or digitally recreate it (through emulation).
I will agree for anyone with some tech and gaming knowledge, you can emulate most consoels and older OS's easily enough. The N64 is one exception, emulating that well is still very tough.

So technically anything can still be played today if you have the required bits for them to do so.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom