|
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Oct 4, 2007 7:14:21 GMT -5
I don't think that sentence fits in with the general atmosphere of hg101 as I perceive it. I thought this was a site that celebrates obscure games and attempts to give them a little exposure, not some kind of hardcore gaming club where we all sit back and pat each other on the backs for being into obscure games while cursing the normals for being sheep and not having the intelligence to appreciate our video games. But then again whoever was in charge of editing the article didn't feel it was out of place, so there you go. Yeah.. the problem with that ideology is that SotC isn't obscure.. it was one of the more talked about games of 2005. That's like saying you're a film snob because you like the Usual Suspects or the Big Lebowski. Not exactly the most "underground" things out there. You know, not to pass the buck or anything, but the Senko no Ronde article has an entire half-page devoted entirely to providing counter-arguments for most of the game's criticism, and there's even a few slightly condescending statements that generalize certain large groups of gamers like "Western gamers" and "Fighting game fans". In so many words, the author pretty much says the same thing I'm saying in that some people "just don't get it". And that's a fact, pure and simple. I don't recall anyone complaining about it, and I think the Senko no Ronde article is probably one of the best articles on this entire site due to that boldness.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Oct 4, 2007 7:57:19 GMT -5
I'd initially balked at the same line for similar reasons, but after it was explained, I decided to leave it in. I don't really disagree with the underlying sentiment, but on thinking it over more, the way it's worded could still be perceived as a bit inflammatory. Perhaps it could be reworded?
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Oct 4, 2007 15:10:02 GMT -5
Since I write a shitload of things for this site, I feel the need to defend this sentence. I don't think that sentence fits in with the general atmosphere of hg101 as I perceive it. Why not? If this site is about showcasing games that aren't as well represented on the internet then doesn't it just make sense for it to also be about showcasing perspectives and viewpoints that aren't as well represented on the internet? What cause is there for a site like this to exist if people can get the exact same kind of thing from countless other sites that praise every game the exact same way? I really hope we are not going to start seeing alterations to people's writing because people complain about it. That can only lead to worse writing by making people hesitate to say anything interesting out of fear that it will be removed. the Senko no Ronde article is probably one of the best articles on this entire site due to that boldness. This says it perfectly. There is no cause to hesitate to say something that might give the piece its own identity and make this site as a whole that much more interesting for it. There is no video game site that seems less like its content was all pasted from elsewhere than HG101. So why not allow the writing to reflect that? I hope we start seeing more genuinely different, or even "out there", writing for the site, and I plan on writing those kinds of pieces myself. It is reasonable to assume that most of what is written here is strongly disagreed with by somebody, but most people just don't say anything about it out of respect for opinions that might strongly differ from their own, and because it really isn't a big deal what somebody on the internet says about anything, let alone video games, of all things. HG101 is arguably the most daring site dedicated to video games, content-wise, and if its writing is just as daring then that could only raise its credibility in people's minds, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Oct 4, 2007 15:27:56 GMT -5
I'd neglected to revise most of this after it was resubmitted and probably should've gone over it again.
Practically everything written for this site has been in edited in some ways from its original form. A lot of it is grammar/writing issues, but it's also edited for tone. Sometimes I even go back to my older articles and realize it's either subpar, or think "wow, I was really being a dick when I wrote this", so I'll go back and revise it.
After thinking it over, I think it sounds harsher because the phrase directly uses the second person pronoun, whereas Senko and other articles uses a similar argument in more general terms, and also spends more time arguing individual points. I guess it's one thing to say that someone doesn't "get" it and then explain and point out any misconceptions in an attempt to educate someone who's dismissed it. It's another thing to not really offer an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Oct 4, 2007 17:32:29 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with that line, honestly - I didn't exactly "get" SotC, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not smart enough to understand it - it just means that I just don't really have much patience for "poetry" in this case.
(Oddly enough, I don't have much patience for real poetry, either.)
|
|
|
Post by aganar on Oct 4, 2007 19:58:42 GMT -5
My problem is that the way the sentence is worded, you're essentially making the claim that it is because of one's inability to comprehend the game's point that makes them dislike the game, not that they may just dislike it. At its worst it comes across in the same way that adamant Matrix defenders tried to defend their movies: "You only disliked it because you didn't get i" (No, there were plenty of us who "got it," who understood what it meant and what it was trying to do, probably more thoroughly than some of its blind defenders, and still think it sucks). I have a feeling that wasn't your intent, but surely you can see why that might be seen as inflammatory, at the very least an either-or fallacy.
Obviously you're free to keep it any way you like, as I doubt many people will care, but it's something you might simply want to consider. The purpose of this site, as I have always seen it, has been to try to convince people to play these (what we perceive to be) wonderful games, not only for people who have never heard of them but as well for people who have heard of them, tried them, disliked them, and are now checking these articles to see "what's so great" about them. Hence, the line, which seems to imply that only those who "get" the game can enjoy it, is likely to put them on the defensive.
It's also, in that case, untrue: I have friends who are otherwise fond of artistic games (Rez, Killer7, Okami, etc.) but simply don't like ICO because they consider the game itself a failure.
|
|
|
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Oct 5, 2007 7:17:31 GMT -5
It's also, in that case, untrue: I have friends who are otherwise fond of artistic games (Rez, Killer7, Okami, etc.) but simply don't like ICO because they consider the game itself a failure. Rez, Killer7, and Okami are not artistic games. They have stylized and artistic visual design, but they play like other games. If you like rail shooters, chances are you'll like Rez. If you like games like Resident Evil, chances are you'll like Killer7. If you like Zelda, chances are you'll like Okami. ICO isn't just visually artistic, it attempts to be artistic in all facets of its design. All those above mentioned games have plenty of games they can be directly compared to. It's no big mystery that Okami is just Zelda with a wolf instead of a little kid in green pajamas. You can't really say that about ICO or SotC. The only game that plays even remotely like ICO is Prince of Persia, and there's absolutely nothing else out there that even resembles SotC. The games are so far detatched from standard, to-formula game designs that people dismiss them because they have pre-conceived notions about how a game should be, that there should be canon-fodder enemies to kill in between bosses, that you should have a bunch of cool special moves, that your character should learn abilities and grow statistically, that there should be tons of backstory and dialog, etc. I broke this shit down fairly clearly in my conclusion and in various statements throughout the article, so don't say I didn't provide an argument or explanation. Hell, I pretty much explained who I was talking to BEFORE I even said the fucking line. Right out of the bull pin, Shadow of the Colossus separates its critics and its admirers. The critics, see the story as something under-developed, unexplored, lacking in dialog, and having virtually no structure. The admirers see the genius of what Ueda is trying to accomplish with this story. He manages to say more with only about 12 lines of gibberish fictional dialog than 90% of all the games in the world have said with 60+ hours of text-box scrolling. Where other games are novels, Shadow of the Colossus is a poem. Its ideas and expressions aren't spelled out for you. They're subtle. And like any good poem, not getting it says a lot more about you than it does about the poem.If you read that paragraph as "You're a moron if you don't like Shadow of the Colossus", then you ARE a moron. First of all, I'm talking about something very specific here; the game's story. I'm not talking about the game in general, I'm talking about the story and how it's executed. You can like a game's story and not like the game, and visa versa. I think it's pretty obvious that I'm saying that people who think a wonderful story requires a prologue, narrative, and lots of dialog are not getting what this game is trying to accomplish. These are the people I'm speaking to with that statement, and if you're one of those people, yes, indeed, you just don't get it. It's not about attacking people for their personal taste or about making certain people feel superior to others. It's about narrowmindedness and being stubborn. I'm not even saying you should like the game's story. But if you don't like it JUST because of the way its told or because it's different, then that is a pretty poor outlook. And if someone like that takes offense to that statement, I'm glad. Who the fuck says games should be X, Y and Z? It's that kind of thinking that has turned the industry into one big dick-measuring competition to see who can make the best clone of an aging game. Now, if you want to move the conclusion to appear after that line, or if you want to move that line toward the conclusion, that's fine. Or if you want to change "you" to "the person reading it". Hell, if you want to remove it entirely and edit the article more, that's fine too. I'm just giving you my explanation. I know what I wrote, and that's enough to satisfy me. I'm not using this site as a launch platform for my ego, so I'm not going to be hurt if you cut it. But I think it would be bad editing, and a cop-out.
|
|
|
Post by dooz on Oct 5, 2007 10:40:39 GMT -5
I just have to say the Shadow of the Colossus was the most beautiful game I've ever played. Visually and story-wise. And what was so great about both of those things is how much they contrast. Visually, you have a massive, gorgous, environment with gigantic beings. Meanwhile, the story is a lesson in minimalism. It tells you almost nothing, but you know exactly what is going on. And it's tragic, too!
There was not one thing that I didn't like about this game. Not one.
... Okay, I lied. The camera could use some work, but other than that; perfection!
|
|
|
Post by megatronbison on Oct 5, 2007 11:30:44 GMT -5
Well, I am not a huge fan of Ico, however I did restart Shadow of the Colossus last night for the third time after reading this...thanks Mr.Author!
|
|
|
Post by aganar on Oct 5, 2007 13:30:25 GMT -5
Alright, I'm not going to get into a swearing contest over this, so whatever.
|
|
|
Post by dai jou bu on Oct 5, 2007 13:35:40 GMT -5
The writing of this article was sort of the style I was aiming for with Senko no Ronde when it came down to describing the game metaphorically to something else, except I had to rewrite the first page about three times while trying to get everything else online, so that had to take a back seat in order to finish it as quickly as possible to formally respond against all of the flak the game was taking from Western critics. It seems to have worked: people are rather wary of giving the game anything lower than a 7 now, and GameFAQs is now pretty silent since most of the time the questions asked were related to what an English translation of the game's title would mean and how in the world they're supposed to be play this game. Anyway, this is a good article considering that it uses even less pictures than I did when it came to describing everything. Time for me to take some notes.
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Oct 5, 2007 15:48:48 GMT -5
if someone like that takes offense to that statement, I'm glad. What is everybody's opinion about the following: YES or NO to more provocative writing at HG101? I agree with these sentiments. Who are we worried about offending?
|
|
|
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Oct 5, 2007 18:25:37 GMT -5
Anyway, this is a good article considering that it uses even less pictures than I did when it came to describing everything. Time for me to take some notes. Take notes from me? Your Senko no Ronde article is way better than anything I've ever done. Thanks for all the compliments, dooz, bison, zzz, etc.
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Oct 5, 2007 18:30:58 GMT -5
I was actually just defending your choice to say what you said. I never said anything about the piece itself, or even the games for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by morzas on Oct 6, 2007 11:13:23 GMT -5
Just like to say that this article convinced me to buy SotC and Ico. Ico should be coming in the mail later, but I've got SotC right now and I love it.
|
|