Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=daVftrhHyTM
youtube.com/watch?v=9yYp8ZeQ-I8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Forbes

It would make more sense if the headline included the word "comprehension"

>Gaming skill matters to gaming in the same way reading comprehension is necessary to understand literature

that said, I think that's generally true but where is he going with it..

Indifferent

100% correct.

And?

They're right.

It is a scientific fact.
Games are not like movies where you can just sit there like a vegetable to appreciate it.

You need skills to have fun.

well yeah he's right

>where is he going with it..
polygon playing doom and being terrible and giving a bad score because of it

how does gaming requires skill
you're literally just pressing buttons

>I think that's generally true but where is he going with it
He's going to shit on Polygon for being retards that can't play games whilst being game journalists.

how does playing piano require skill
you're literally just pressing keys

How so? Can you say you fully experienced a movie if you spent no time trying to understand it? Not thinking about a movie is similar to not advancing in a video game. While you technically experience what the movie offers, you never fully understand it. Just like you could experience a book just by looking at the letters, even if you don't know what they mean. You can have plenty of fun doing nothing but running around in circles in a starting area.

There's going to be a Twitter shit storm from this

I think what he means to say is that video games are an active hobby, not something like TV and even literature when you can just passively soak up the entertainment.

In video games, you have to interact with the medium.

Of course skill is a part of it, like any other active hobby, you can and should try to become better at it, this isn't different to say Snowboarding.

Do you not play video games or something

Isn't this headline just "Water is wet"?

>you need to be able to cook to understand food

IT IS?!

>comparing piano with video games

"gamers" just need to kill themselves t bh
bunch of manchildren that didn't grow up

I think it's an interesting concept that other forms of media don't require some active engagement.

When it comes to movies that have depth, I think you should be actively processing it and thinking about it.. especially when it comes to books.

but when its about the recent superhero movies and fluff action pieces of shit that most people talk about, yeah, that requires no thought to consume. and it asks nothing of the viewer.

That's true.

>being a game developer matters to gaming in the same way being a writer is necessary to understand literature
>food metaphors

True if you're casual flith

great retort buddy

Reading and close reading are different things.

Language analysis is another.

To find the real contexts and discourses of a text you have to be able to read well, just like vidya

define gaming skills

a more effective headline might be:

> Developing Skill is to Gaming is the same as Reading Comprehension is to Understanding Literature

>you need to be able to make a burger to understand if a burger is good or not

lel, dumb gamergate cissys

>literature when you can just passively soak up the entertainment.
Reading is a really active thing in most cases. The amount of memorization and thought just to fix the novel in your mind takes more work than most games.

both of them you are just 'pressing buttons'

obviously to be a master pianist takes considerably more time but you're kinda dumb if you understand things only in extremes, like that I could only mean they are equal. they're not equal but trying to say that gaming requires no skill at all is just false.

>READING COMPREHENSION

Without the ability to read, you can't make it through a book.
Without some button pressing skills, you won't be able to play through a game.

Its not saying critics should make games tho

/lit/ pls go. It takes nowhere near as much brain power to read something than to play a video game. I can literally show you CT scans of brains that prove it.

you need to pay attention to the movie in order to enjoy it

he might be allowing his bias to dictate his wording but the first part of this point is true

Didn't realize video game reviewers actually made the games they review!

You learn something new everyday!

Not if you have an older brother who does the hard parts for you.

You can fully understand all there is to a book by having someone read it for you, even if you are illiterate.

How do you understand literature if you can't read it? Someone reads you it? Then that would be akin to watching people play videogames and not playing them themselves

>You need skills to have fun.
That's ultimately dependent on a game-to-game basis.

I'd argue that water is moist.

>You need to have taste buds to understand food

The article isn't demanding reviewers to be computer programmers and artists.

Would you deny that someone who knows how to cook understands food more than you?

>inb4 validity of food analogy
You bring up a good point with regards to gaming skill and their ability to adequately critique a game.

Would you trust someone who doesn't cook to tell you what to eat with the same authority as someone who does? Likewise, would you trust someone who doesn't know how to play to tell you what is good with the same authority as someone who is more skilled?

>suck at games
>play 'hard' game
>suck at it
>complain it's bad

>be good at games
>play 'hard' game
>have fun

Seems fine to me.

>all these dumbasses with zero reading comprehension

People weren't kidding when they said Sup Forums is full of underaged little shits.

There's been a lot of articles shitting on hardcore gamers. Are they just salty?

>reading
>habit
>gaming
>skill

Why do they always say a video game with skill involved is the same as reading a book?

>read book
>get story
>play game
>match only ends with whomever are better than each other or use strategy
>skill and strategy skills don't change reading skills
>OH I GET THAT METAPHOR
>OH I GET THAT EUPHANISM

kill yourselves lit fags.
You actually have to have twitch skills and reaction speeds to be good at fucking video games.
Just give up, we'll always be more skilled then you boat whales who sit and read and go like, "oh i sit for hours reading and I'm better than you nerds who actually interact with your medium"

I'm LMAOing at your lives right now.

I don't think I've ever been aroused by the difficulty of a game.

>CT scans
you sound like someone who believes theyre being reasonable but you aren't.

I'm not defending /lit/ and i don't post there but cmon just because a scan shows that there are many active regions in the brain does not mean that someone isn't thinking harder, say, more acutely and focused when reading a book.


when was the last time you read a book, user?

cause it definitely feels mentally much more exhausting, despite whatever CT scans you have to 'prove' your point.

if you wanna go by brain activity why dont you go take some LSD that really makes your brain active. but is that a good thing and does it mean what you want it to mean?

>That's ultimately dependent on a game-to-game basis.

No it isn't

If you know how to play a game, you aren't going to die in a game, if you don't die you keep progressing and have fun

If you're a retard, you're going to die in a game and get stuck until you understand what the hell you're doing wrong.

I'm assuming he's talking about the casual "storytelling" modes in AAA games? As in, someone who plays Bioshock on Easy has the same experience as someone who plays on Hard? And that it's in no way a bad thing to play on the easiest setting?

'Reading' doesn't make any sense. Does he mean comprehension or speed? Because without reading comprehension, you are objectively getting less out of the reading experience. A middle schooler might sound out the words but they wouldn't understand it.

Wait, what did they do?

FOOD
O
O
D

ANALOGIES

Well duh it's fucking common sense. Frustrating things are not fun, a board game missing its rules won't be much fun.

Reviewers have hidden behind the "duuurrrrrr have to carelessly rush through games cause we need to provide timely content" excuse for too long.

Combo based fighting games always came off to me as two pianists furiously playing music at each other, while changing the notes they play in response to the other pianists actions

i swear mozart has nothing on 1 frame links

>just because a scan shows that there are many active regions in the brain does not mean that someone isn't thinking harder

That's EXACTLY what this means. Most video games have a story too, listening to NPC dialogue and understanding the story in a game takes about as much as reading a book, but then a video game has other things to do.

Cool food analogy, but it would take some experience cooking and food tasting to understand why something tastes good or why it doesn't. The OP article implicates that reading comprehension is necessary for understanding literature, so it's safe to assume that you'd understand cooking much easier if you're better at cooking.

YES, a lot of critics are vastly opinionated or dominated by century old ideals, but would you rather hear an opinion from someone who just eats barbecue all day or someone who spends years perfecting their grilling techniques and spice rubs?

...

Not if its a really easy game. Or a game that isn't dependent on living and dying or winning and losing. Like Harvest Moon or something.

(You)

No wonder I usually only feel apathetic or anxious while playing games

> mentally exhausting

nigga everyone on here is reading regularly on a daily basis - reading is not mentally exhausting unless maybe youre studying at which point you need to be able to examine and then demonstrate your ability to comprehend what your read which is even more taxing on the mind that "just reading"

>monkey press buttons fast!!!

""""skill"""

It doesn't take so much of mechanical skill to figure out a movie plot. A lot of it is just character prediction and a basic understanding of what actually happened.. and at most linguistic callback to catch how the lines actually gave away the plot previously or whatever. But "movie skill", whatever the definition, isn't required at all to enjoy the movie. So, that's an awful example and so is..

>Just like you could experience a book just by looking at the letters, even if you don't know what they mean.

Like.. is this a joke? The most fun I ever had where I couldn't read was the wonderment. That's it.

So, fuck this post.

>i swear mozart has nothing on 1 frame links

Fucking please.

youtube.com/watch?v=daVftrhHyTM

You just explained let's plays and streaming in general.

Be amazed: youtube.com/watch?v=9yYp8ZeQ-I8

also in response the usual kotaku/polygon pieces saying dark souls 3 should have an easy mode and uncharted should have cinematic mode - same shit different day

A bit. I would say appreciate more than understand.

Thats a real fine bait, real fine bait.

But honestly understanding the plot is nothing to literative analysis, and it is not as simple as identifying literary techniques, but moreso how the application of those techniques enhances or in some cases diminishes the themes of the story. But you know this, user.

Should get some bhuddism in your life. Not all arousal is sexual. Arousal is just the coming up of something.. energy or "arousing" a state of mind.

>neuron activity is how hard someone is thinking
Top kek. It's good to know that people are only at their prime during seizures.

To see why that argument is bullshit, think about how computers work. Just because the GPU is idling doesn't mean your computer isn't maxed out doing some other kind of computation. Hopefully it just means the GPU is useless for those computations.

see

Filthy casual.

yea but let's play watchers dont generate the skills required to play the game well

all they get is the story and a feeling of belonging with the player

They should never have removed analogies from the SATs.

>But you know this, user.

I doubt it, he probably is that stupid

I love how we can have OPs like this one, which arguably makes a really good point, which anywhere else might involve civilized discussion, but here we literally get nothing but shitposting

No, not quite.

Do you actually go to graduate school for this kind of thing because while it does show activity it does not necessarily reflect physiological duress.


Say for example you have person A playing a game using lots of their brain, but not really stressing it very much.

Person B is reading a book, they may not be using AS many parts of their brain.. but the parts they are using they are using very very much, therefore they are thinking harder in that context.

Do you get what im saying? Quality vs quantity almost.

brains are activated a lot by video games because they are designed (like the skinner box) to excite you.

books aren't necessarily designed to excite you in the same way, but that doesn't mean they require less brain effort.

Reading a book is like turning on a very bright light
Playing a game is more like turning on all the lights, but they are dimmer.
Still don't understand what I mean?

I'm not an expert but I think this is a fair analogy.

Dude, he means that if you don't even know your ABC's, you cannot review books. Same as how if you can't play games, you can't review them. He's making your point you dumb ass.

Trusting Polygon for game reviews at this point is now like trusting Bubba to review 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea.

See what?

/thread

I don't think you need to be able to do a no-death run on dante must die mode or some shit in order to review video games but if you can't beat a game on at least normal, preferably hard (if it's something like a platinum game where it actually changes things and isn't just "more health on enemies/less damage from you"), then you shouldn't discuss it as a reviewer.

Forbes is truly based and the only written vidya media that matters.

>reading is not mentally exhausting
I do get tired after reading for a few hours, though that might have something to do with the lack of movement and my armchair being too comfy.

>if you can't make a complicated burger you shouldn't review burgers

okay

I don't know about you but when I read a book I get tired in 20 minutes.

I can read on the internet all day.

Something is different though I can't tell you what.

If someone reads you a book you dont instantly learn to read either, you just get the story

What I meant by that is that some games require more or less skill to "have fun" in them, and in very specific scenarios, some games become less fun the more skill you have in them (specifically, the fun is found in being terrible at them)

Like Kirby and Dark Souls for games requiring less or more skill, respectively.
Even though it's a meme game, Octodad is a game that loses whatever little charm it has when you eventually become competent at controlling the character.

>Ordinarily 3 buttons at most in any combat vs. 88 keys
It's also not required to "read combat" like sheet music. You just press the buttons as you need them. But this also defers back to the whole learning 88 keys, and up to 10 simultaneously and intermittently. Plus a pedal and crescendos/diminuendos.

What an awful analogy.

i disagree only on the part of your idea that reading is more mind taxing than videogaming

examine this diagram

a very small part of the brain is used to interpret written and spoken language

now compare that to the other parts that would be utilized for playing any game PLUS the same part used to interpret written and spoken language

i hope this is enough to reconsider your stance

I think genuinely decent literature is entertaining on the face of it, maybe with a little effort, to genuinely intelligent/empathetic folks who can get it. Honestly, folks struggling to understand every line, are less likely to enjoy e.g. Faulkner, than folks who push through it, trusting it will come together to some extent, eventually.

Maybe there's some analogue with games, where just playing and improving naturally provides more satisfaction than a struggle, but I'm not sure. I struggled, and studied, and followed the meta in SC2 for awhile, before getting somewhat good.

I did appreciate the hell out of it after that, though.

read the article, when he said that reading necessary to understand literature he really meant it
>"Overlooking the obvious fact that if you are writing about or even making games for a living then having at least a competent level of gaming skill is necessary, much in the same way being able to read is important if you want to comprehend literature."
but he means it more in the way that you need it to create something of that medium, like you need to be a skilled gamer in order to create them in the same way that you need to be able to read in order to write a book

the whole article is based around that doom demo where one of the staff couldn't even play the game properly
that this is a result of publishers who think that you don't need to be a skilled gamer in order to fully enjoy a game because they themselves can't play games
and in a way i think he's right

>I write about video games and pop culture from Japan
opinion discarded.

You can enjoy a game, even if you only play the most casual of modes.
You can enjoy reading books, even if you only read picture books.
You can enjoy eating, even if you can only cook ramen.


However this changes when you are expected to reviewing a product, your opinions only carry as much weight as your credibility. When reviewing a game, its important that you have the ability to play games competently. Not everyone can pick up a game and immediately adjust to it, however with enough experience, you should be able to adjust to most games quickly. If you are a video game reviewer/blogger/journalist, what ever you want to call yourself, you should already this ability.


These journalists/bloggers/reviewers are often is such competition with each other to get the first look out, that they will often play on the easiest mode or use in game cheat items to progress through the game. Look at TPP first batch of reviews, almost everyone played with the chicken mask to get to the end of the story quickly.

I actually imagine that these guys don't like playing video games that much more and keep doing so as a job, so they allow themselves to get rusty and there basic skills as a gamer regress.

More like if you only choose to eat shitty McDonald's burgers you shouldn't be reviewing burgers from 5 star chefs

>They're
it's a hosted blog post.

Creating something is not the same as ingesting something.

If you're gonna do a food analogy it'd be more accurate to say that if you're the kind of idiot that will shovel a full burger in your mouth at once, start choking or gagging, and then blame the burger for the dumb thing you did, you shouldn't be a food critic.

depends on your definition of "effective"
remember, clicks equals dollars, therefore most of the time clickbait is more effective.

Any pleb can finish Generic Cinematic Action "Game" #2323 game

Not everyone can read and comprehend literature

So, no. Fucking shit comparison, and you're shit for agreeing with it

and they're always right, iirc a lot of the forbes posts were right about the mass effect 3 debacle, most of them are not afraid to post the truth

>if you can't taste the difference between a 5 star chef burger and a mcdonalds burger you should never review burgers ever

okay

>you can only make food analogies that I AGREE WITH! reeeee

okay