I'm doing a little analysis and I wanted to get your thoughts on this.
How do you guys describe the relationship between the intentions and actions of and between the player and character in videogames?
I'm mostly interested in games with stories, but I'm open to any interesting thoughts on those in other genres.
Bump
Ludonarrative dissonance
I think Drakengard and Automata do this the best out of any of Taro’s games. In Drakengard, you’re faced with hundreds of enemies attacking you, so you naturally fight back. As you play it more, you kill more and more as you play without thinking about it. The character goals and player goals are essentially one in the same.
In Automata, the character’s goals are to investigate Earth and the machines. The player is going to want to explore and is going to kill any enemies that attack.
All of Taro’s games do this well though.
That's not it you retarded tripfag.
Ludonarrative dissonance is when the narrative goes against the game mechanics.
Roguelikes have an almost 1 to 1 correspondence between what you want to do and what happens.
See when you play a roguelike, what you want to do is die due to random events.
>game mechanics
More like player intentions, whatever it is it answers OP stupid fucking question.
doesn't exist. real philosophy isn't accessible through passive media.
>More like player intentions
No you fucking inbred retard, and it has nothing to do with what that faggot OP is asking.
Ludonarrative difference is incoherence between what the narrative and what gameplay elements establish, timeless example for drooling retards like you is "hurr why couldn't they resurrect Aeris with a Phoenix Down", or why you could take a literal nuke to the face during a battle but have the same character killed by a bullet in a cutscene, this is what Ludonarrative dissonance is.
Which is what OP is asking for.
And player intentions, because this also includes games like GTA4 where Nico repeatedly says he wants no trouble as he runs over millions of passerby with his car, or postal 2 where you the player can decide to be a murderous faggot or take the non violent route.
How are games passive media
udo Narritive dissonance is omething I've looked into a while but not exactly what I'm asking here.
It's a start though
Then I suggest you stop typing like a mentally ill child and do a better job explaining what you're asking for.
Subject-System Coherence.
An out-there example of such Coherence being a core concept that evolves over the course of the game: Lester the Unlikely.
In the beginning of the game, the subject, Lester is weak, timid, and will sometimes wrest control away from the player due to his fears making him run away. Even if the player intends for Lester to progress, the game systems deliberately denies it... at first.
However, after Lester and the player brave a few stages, Lester gets a kiss from a girl and gains confidence, Lester becomes more daring, gets new abilities, and the Player gains full control of his behavior.
Alternatively, System Cognizance - the game accounting for the player going off the rails. Lots of games will track what you've done and at some point call you out for it, western RPGs especially. Metal Gear does it in every game, multiple times, even if it is simple as "You enjoy all the killing, that's why." You're going out of your way to do something that the game allows but doesn't condone, as it isn't really how Snake operates. When Liquid calls out Snake for being a mass killer in Shadow Moses, it's actually calling YOU out for going against the way Snake would behave.
Nier is a sort of different case, as you're expected to be killing all the shades/machines as you go along. The game is tailored to elicit a specific behavior so it can call Nier (not you) out on doing what you are supposed to be doing.
Not the guy you were arguing with, but that's something I was kinda hoping I'd get from this thread.
Just wanted to probe a bit and see user's thoughts on the matter.
The way I understand things now is that the player has their intentions and expectations going into a game, but their expression is limited by the game's rules and mechanics.
The avatar is the result of this combination of the player's intentions and the limited use of the game's systems.
But in game's with stories this becomes a bit more complex because now you have the player's intentions, the system's limitations and then the narrative role of an avatar.
>Alternatively, System Cognizance
So the way you explain it makes it seem like it's simply when the game acknowledges ludonarritive dissonance.
>Which is what OP is asking for.
It isn't, turns out you're the mentally ill child.
>it's simply when the game acknowledges ludonarritive dissonance.
Ludonarrative dissonance isn't that, if anything all that is exactly the opposite of ludonarrative dissonance because it entwines both gameplay and narrative perfectly as to voluntarily create a conflict of morality in the player.
Ludonarrative dissonance is an accident, not something intended, and again, it is when what happens mechanically in the game isn't logically followed by what happens in the narrative, like again, a lvl 100 warrior that can kill dragons with a fart during battles getting killed by an arrow to the back in a cutscene.
>expecting an actuall vidia discussion
You wish OP
I get what your saying but could you list games where this isn't the case? I'm having a hard time coming up with a few examples.
I think BioShock is often brought up as an example of character goal clashing with player goal but even then you're both exploring rapture.
horror games like Alien isolation are great at this because fear is conveyed to the player and they can react to it appropriately.
Fighers and sports games also work the same way.
But it becomes a more complex issue when the game features a more complete and stronger emphasis on story
No I meant games where the player's goal and the character's goal clash.
I guess most open world games a can fall under this since the player is given a bit of freedom.
Halo did this a lot actually depending on how you played, but it also accounted for it at times.
Like if the player wanted they could go on an all out rampage but the UNSC would subdue them after a while.
>I meant games where the player's goal and the character's goal clash.
Any game has that potential though.
You're mistaking player and game's goals for the morality set that the game writer uses as a foundation and forces the player to go against, playing on the player's feelings afterwards, which is pretty hypocritical too since you can't accuse anyone of being immoral when they simply don't have a choice to begin with.
fuck off brainlet
I guess so, I can see that being a thing in open world games where the urgency of the main quest is shoved aside because the player wants to do 20 hours of side questing.
I wasn't referring to morality or guilting the player neccesarily. The person I was responding to listed NieR and Drakengard as good examples of the player's goals aligning with the character's and I was having a hard time coming up with examples of games where this wasn't the case.
no u
I think it's best to give the results of your actions in game (without stupid call outs and hurr durr you is bad cause kill) by simply showing you the results and letting you as the player interpret them.
If you slaughter a whole mansion of people you didnt really need to kill show their children as beggars back in the starting town later on asking you for scraps of what you took from their family.
This allows the intentions of the player and character to become one as the player plays the role of interpreter not monologue listener.
>I wasn't referring to morality or guilting the player neccesarily.
Then you must understand that your problem about player and game's goal clashing is an inherent problem of all of the media.
Some people prefer Bowser to Mario even though Mario is the protagonist, some people sympathize more with a villain than the protagonist while others don't, some people do not agree with either the protagonist or the antagonist, that is simply a human thing, not something inherent to a certain kind of writing, we're all different and we've all got different values, hence why role playing often includes alignments as a way to give something to everyone.
I get what you mean but then what makes Drakengard a standout example if all games can desync the character and the player?
>what makes Drakengard a standout example if all games can desync the character and the player?
It's simple.
As I said before, the difference between something like Drakengard(And all of Taro's games) and something like, say, Gothic 2, is that Drakengard explicitly plays on the fact that the player doesn't have a choice in what it does mechanically.
You can't make Caim go full pacifist even if you agree with Taro telling that Caim and (You) by extension are inhuman for mass slaughter, you simply do not have an option because the game doesn't mechanically allow you to finish stages in any other way but killing the shit out of anything, which is where the hypocrisy on the writer's side I mentioned earlier comes from.
In a more standard RPG environment you would have been given multiple choices on how to solve problems, all of which would also come with their own repercussions and moral implications(Hopefully, that actually only rarely happens), in that case guilting the player is actually legitimate because you gave the player a choice and they have to live with it and take responsibility.
in Drakengard that doesn't happen by design because there is no choice, so it is, in a way, more impactful, but at the same time is tremendously hypocritical and shallow to anyone that isn't a child who gets the feelerinos for every little thing.
And then there's games like Metal Gear Solid where you're called a monster who enjoys killing even if you went out of your way to kill as few enemies as possible.
Yep, that too.
It's really, really cheap, though most people don't really realize it.
I wouldn't say there's any hypocrisy in the writing of the Taro games. The message of the original NieR wasn't
>You're evil because you killed all these things, shame on you!
It's
>When you go to great lengths to get what you're after, fucked up things happen as a result.
That's where I'd say the tact of the writing comes in, neither you nor Nier are necessarily being blamed for what happens.
It's just a result of the actions you feel the need to take, and if the game succeeded at combining the motives of Nier and the player (which is the desire to save Yonah) then the writing that comes from combination of the character's and the player's actions become surprisingly poignant.
Taro's games are just an abnormally strong example. There isn't generally that much ludi narratibe dissonance so much as there is ludonarrative meh.
For example, take the first Assassin's Creed, compared to the second. For all it's flaws, the first AC does a great job of ludonarrative... synchronization? Harmony?
Anyway, you don't have health, you have the sync bar or whatever. Altair never got hit, so if you get hit you desync, and you'll resynch if you get back in track (just waiting). You also lose this by doing stuff he wouldn't do, like attacking innocents.
Meanwhile AC2 throws this to the wayside, suddenly you're carrying huge weapons not visable on your person, you can buy magic health potions in what's supposed to be a historical game, buildigs are erected instantly, etc. It's not really dissonance but it does show a lack of giving a fuck compared to the first game.
DoD2 I think is an example of ludo narrative dissonance, where Nowe slaughters thousands and thousands of his former allies who are only trying to protect the world from destruction--a job he used to have--but is never treated as anything more than a spunky teenage boy
Nobody blames the player in drakengard though, the only interaction the player has with the character is the control you have over him in game, caim is the one enjoying the killing, the player in drakengard is suffering every second of the terrible gameplay
I would like to point out at this juncture that no shade between the starting village and the first time you meet Weiss will attack you unless you attack them first
You can progress the game up to that point without violence (except the intro) but every single person who played that game chose not to
>When you go to great lengths to get what you're after, fucked up things happen as a result.
With all due respect, if you find that poignant or deep you must either be very young or very inexperienced in the ways of the world in general.
>It's just a result of the actions you feel the need to take
Maybe that's somewhat true for Nier and some parts of Automata, like Pascal's case, but that isn't really any more impressive than any other choice in terms of coming up to terms with what you did, other than being full of gratuitous drama due to the setting of course.
>the player in drakengard is suffering every second of the terrible gameplay
Got a chuckle out of me.
>ludonarrative... synchronization? Harmony?
It's harmony/consistency
>if you find that poignant or deep you must either be very young or very inexperienced in the ways of the world in general.
It's not the theme itself that's anything new or interesting, it's the way it is handled.
Experiencing this theme/message together with Nier inherently (to me at least) makes it more impactful it's why I said that the combination is what is poignant. It's a degree of immersion that (when executed correctly) is unheard of in other mediums of storytelling. That is what transforms this fairly standard theme/message into something unique.
This is further reinforced by how additional information is provided through route B. The understandable nature of a video game re-using content allows for a new way of showing alternative perspectives to already established scenes by only adding lines of dialogue to the shades.
Obviously this could theoretically be done in say a TV show as well but it would be a bit of a shitshow for a series to repeat episodes but with a couple extra lines of dialogue.
Are there any old school/turn based jrpgs that do ludonarritive stuff like this through their gameplay?
I realize that a lot of the games mentioned itt came out in the 7th gen or after.
What about older titles?
>Experiencing this theme/message together with Nier inherently (to me at least) makes it more impactful it's why I said that the combination is what is poignant. It's a degree of immersion that (when executed correctly) is unheard of in other mediums of storytelling.
Not even remotely true, expand your horizon.
SaGa games I guess, though the writing tends to go over most people's head.
They tend to integrate ludonarrative perfectly and is a major point of the writing of not telling you things but just showing them, often through actual gameplay mechanics.
In SaGa Frontier for instance, Red, one of the protagonists, is a tokusatsu hero that can henshin into his hero form during battles, but if there are any characters other than mechs he won't be able to transform easily since he has to protect his secret identity, but if the human/monster/mystic characters are unconscious/KO'd or blind/asleep he can use his unique Henshin mechanic, a lot of the main story parts are also built around this so when you get to certain boss battles Red will have to fight solo as to protect his secret identity from the rest of his party.
>Not even remotely true, expand your horizon.
What? How are games not the most immersive medium?
It's because of their immersive nature that games can get away with such absurd concepts that would normally shatter suspension of disbelief.
>bideeogaymes r art
just read a fucking book idiot
not what this thread is about.
I'm more interested in how games tell stories with their mechanics
Why not both
>Not even remotely true, expand your horizon
Not that guy but I cinsider myself mildly well read
Literally name one work in any other medium that ties the viewer/reader/etc. to the events of the story like Nier does
Name me one book that actually requires the reader to sacrifice something to gain a result or allows them to make a choice (even knowing full well what the choice will be)
Is Nier enough of a deep and insightful work to be shelved next to the books that inspired parts of it? No, but that doesn't mean it doesn't excel in areas where they do not. Trying to claim otherwise is foolish because other mediums don't really play with these things; no philosophy text is a choose-your-own-adventure. Claiming otherwise is like trying to pretend that just because it's a more complex look at some similar ideas, The Myth of Sisyphus has better music than Automata. It's almost a category error.
>I'm more interested in how games tell stories with their mechanics
>tell stories
the absolute state of yokofags
kill yourself you stupid aspie
is this ACfag? Please leave the thread, you're cramping our style.
???
Thanks for wording my thoughts better than I did.
I'm not the guy who was posting about yoko.
Just the OP.
And you ignored the other half of the post.
If I was considered about how games told stories without emphasizing the use of mechanics then this would be a thread about gone home.
I'm interested in how gameplay can convey ideas, enhance a game's story, themes, etc.
>How are games not the most immersive medium?
How are they the most immersive medium?
What is music? What are paintings? How about books, which exist and persist since thousands of years? Dance?
Immersion is the result of a resonance between a piece of work and the beholder, I trust you know about the old tale of the Lumiere Brothers' movie causing people to run away from the cinemas thinking that they would get killed by the train coming at them when they saw the projection.
Then you have practical arts, like dancing, or simply the act of creation of the active artist, videogames are an impressive medium, but at the end of the day, they're still a passive medium, less so than others, but that doesn't make them any more immersive or particularly effective than others.
You seem like a genuine enthusiast, which is good, but you should be careful of what you're saying because you're not only overestimating what videogames can do and severely underestimate what other pieces of work can do.
That means that you either lack knowledge in other fields or worse yet, you actually lack sensibility.
(cont)
conversely I'm also interested in how the mechanics of a game can be used to create a story.
Not him, but as far as I know games are the only medium that allow for the player to interact directly with the world.
Although the level of interactivity is limited to a certain degree there is still a difference in consumption because now you give the option of choice to players which moves them from the position of a viewer to a participant.
As technology advances I believe this interaction will only become more immersive.
i think the key to cohesion between intention and action in video games is a series of delineated, learnable rules that have consistency across game objects.
take spelunky for example, you can pick up any object in the game, which even extends to enemies and humanoids when theyre stunned. this consistency of interaction removes uncertainty as to what the player CAN do, without prescribing what they MUST do in a situation.
this lets the player fully "become" the character, and align their intentions and actions accordingly.
when there is uncertainty, or rules cannot be learned and generalized, the player will grasp at whatever provides that certainty, and will probably play the game in a shitty way (dark souls' II's inconsistency in what attacks can be parried forces less experienced players to rely on over-shielding and playing defensively instead of gracefully)
another very good example of this is in how when i plow OPs mom and im doing that shit where i hit her backwalls she gets loud as hell boyeeeeeee
Not him but I absolutely disagree with this. You're only thinking in absolutes or comparing specific works in different mediums. Games are more immersive than nearly any other medium. VR in particular. When you're on a high ledge in VR, many people experience vertigo. Yes, this also happens to people viewing a film or even reading a book, but nothing communicates this feeling as well as actually causing the viewer to experience it. No one is saying other mediums can not be very immersive, but by involving the actions of the player, video games have a huge step up in this department.
You can watch a film or read a book about a man building a house, but it will never come with the sense of pride and accomplishment that accompanies actually building a house. Games get much, much closer to that sort of thing; when I look over my shitty little town in Deagon Quest Builders, I feel accomplishment. When larts get torn down, I have a sense of loss I don't get from reading about a village being destroyed, and that's just with a little minecraft ripoff game that's not trying to do anything. Games ABSOLUTELY excell in this category.
Eh, Postal 2 kinda does this? The actual "goals" of most of the levels are pretty mundane and the main character never really seems to want anything more than get them done and be left alone but the player will inevitably end up causing a lot of mayhem and trouble because of impatience with doing things the proper way. Arguably that's still in sync with the character however; he is kind of an asshole and its not like he particularly cares if violence is the answer.
games excel in this category because the only people who look for this category are incel
>as far as I know games are the only medium that allow for the player to interact directly with the world.
Something as simple as architecture, dance or music prove you wrong, not only because those are things that happen and exist in the real world, but also because they do require more physical inputs even.
>now you give the option of choice to players which moves them from the position of a viewer to a participant.
That is a common logical fallacy.
You are not a participant, you are simply given the illusion that you are a participant, in truth you're simply progressing through a script which might or might not give you an array of options to achieve a set goal which are ultimately limited and hardly involve anything creative most of the time, the best you can do is rearrange a set of given option in an unexpected manner as to achieve that goal.
You seem to believe that having a large amount of stimuli of different natures equates to better immersion, that is true in theory, but not in practice.
>Obviously this could theoretically be done in say a TV show as well but it would be a bit of a shitshow for a series to repeat episodes but with a couple extra lines of dialogue.
KYON-KUN DENWA!
I suppose I should've specified the larger storytelling mediums like music and film.
I do think all artforms can be emotionally evocative but on a fundamental level I think we have different views on what constitutes as immersion and where its value comes from.
The way immersion applies to a painting or music is a lot more abstract to me, the resonance and emotional connection is still there but I feel it's a differing sensation to the resonance of the storytelling of a film, book or video game.
Suspension of disbelief is rarely a term I hear be brought up within music discussion since the medium doesn't ask the viewer/listener to suspend anything, they want to convey feeling, talent and emotion for example.
Not only that but also what said about the interactivity that video games provide adds a new layer to how stories can be told through the various mediums. Personally I believe that games haven't reached the peak of their storytelling potential because enough aren't trying to explore that area.
>You seem like a genuine enthusiast, which is good, but you should be careful of what you're saying because you're not only overestimating what videogames can do and severely underestimate what other pieces of work can do.
That means that you either lack knowledge in other fields or worse yet, you actually lack sensibility.
I'll concede this though, while I don't think I overestimate games I do want to better myself by experiencing more things.
Not really sure how that's relevant and they're obviously not but cool shitpost m8 way to improve the quality of the board
Who is this and why is he cosplaying undertale
The player/viewer, not the game designer/architect/performer
There's none. Which is why protagonists in video games work better as blank slates for the player to project into, at least then you can turn the experience into something more personal.
If anything, I guess you could say player characters are the means in which the players express and interact with the game mechanics, so the closest you could get to describing the relationship without making up a pretentious word would be "a tool for agency".
Though this discussion is stupid regardless, real philosophy is, ironically, focused on rationalizing and explaining the entirety of human experience, and to that degree it more often than not values the concept of reality and all that surrounds it far more than anything else, especially products. Philosophy by design tells us media consumption is inherently worthless, especially shit like videogames that make no relevant impact on anyone's life and are, more often than not, just entirely worthless wastes of time created to appeal to the inherent, animalistic desire to overcome basic challenges. "Videogame philosophy" is a dumb term.
>philosophy by design
What kind of dumbass statement is that, philosophy is not a singular collection of thoughts. Do you think Africa is a country too?
>Philosophy by design tells us media consumption is inherently worthless,
Spoken like someone who took PHIL 101 and considered themselves educated
There are philosophical viewpoints that argue that all media consumption is just materialistic but don't act like this applies to some kind of inherent philosophical creed.
There's plenty of philosophy that argues the value of the creative expression found in various artforms.
Look at this fucking pseud and laugh
>I think we have different views on what constitutes as immersion and where its value comes from.
Immersion depends on your sensibility, the more you have the more you can relate to various things and art forms, though of course, depending on your own experiences you inevitably develop your own sensibility which makes you more or less sensible to certain things.
Ultimately, immersion is not a matter of output quality, intensity or variety, it is a matter of being able to connect with ideas, that is again, more dependent on how(and how much) sensible the receiver is than what the sender is trying to achieve through a specific choice of media, interpretation is of course, another bridge to cross and the burden here is still mostly on the receiver.
At the end of the day, you're still a passive receiver when you consume videogames, and there isn't really a lot of difference between those and other forms of media, it's actually a lot worse for videogames too since games handle simply too many stimuli channels to properly focus on either of them like other forms of arts do, which makes them dispersive at large.
What you seem to call immersion is simply the ability to "feel" or "relate" to characters or situations, that isn't really any different than what happens with music, books, pictures, an Opera and much more, to make another point, I'm pretty sure you don't really relate to a lot of stuff that happens in videogames or simply to most videogames either, things that other people instead might relate to.
Another thing you might want to consider is that not all videogames even make use of most of the channels they use, nobody would talk about the impressive dramatic breadth of something like Gaiares for instance, despite being a videogame exactly like MGS3.
Things are a lot more complex than you think and you're really, really overthinking it just because some games gave you some easy feelerinos.
No need to be an architect to enjoy St. Peter.
I love Aqua! I want to marry Aqua!
Or in other words - being able to play as a character makes us relate to them. Especially one like Aqua, who if she appeared only in cutscenes would be annoying, and hated. But since we play AS her and have to go from being weak as tissue paper to being a god of death and destruction along with her, we relate to her.
>No need to be an architect to enjoy St. Peter
You've missed my point. There is a significant physical, inventive and interactive element to architechture but only for the architecht, and in that way it is different from no other medium.
Games are different in that there is some level of interaction not strictly related to viewing on the part of the viewer.
>But since we play AS her and have to go from being weak as tissue paper to being a god of death and destruction along with her, we relate to her.
Not really, I don't relate to either Aqua, Ven or Terra at all despite playing as all of them, because they're boring characters to me, boring characters in a terrible game I didn't enjoy.
>but only for the architecht
Not true, you don't need to be an architect to enjoy some fine stairway, though it is true that if you are indeed an architect you might also enjoy other things that non architect cannot enjoy.
And this by the way, applies to all forms of art, the differences between what people like Kandinskj called the Active Artist and the Passive Artist is that, if you do make games yourself and dabble with stuff like coding, 3D sculpting/sprite art, designing levels and gameplay and so on you're able to enjoy videogames on a totally different aspect, just as much as you would enjoy a painting in a different way if you do took up the actual practical part of painting stuff yourself.
>Games are different in that there is some level of interaction not strictly related to viewing on the part of the viewer.
So are any other forms of media, as I explained above.
You are either ESL or you are intentionally ignoring my point
You have no point I can ignore to begin with, buddy.
I don't see why telling a story in a way that is unique to its medium can't be something commendable just because other mediums can evoke different things.
Chalking it up to "really, really overthinking it just because some games gave you easy feelerinos" is a bit childish and sells everything short.
Keep on pseuding, champ
>Philosophy by design tells us media consumption is inherently worthless
Ever heard of a philosophical discipline called aesthetics? Ever read the Critique of Judgment? Ever read the World as Will and Representation? Ever read Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics? Or if you are simply interested in the pragmatic use of narrativity, ever read Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity?
My vidjya philosophy:
Good controls
Interesting levels
Colorful
Stylish characters
Humor
Gameplay focused
Fuck story shit
Minimal dialogue
Skippable dialogue boxes
Skippable cutscenes
Trying to make games more like movies/tv dramas is one of the biggest mistakes the industry has made.
>bing bing wahoo
that's not philosophy you retard those are just concepts
What about GTA?
It has great story missions, but is notorious for letting people fuck around and go full rampage on people.
BASED
Don't be difficult, he's saying his philosophy of what a good game is is a combination of those concepts.
I disagree with him though
thats still not a philosophy
>a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
How is it not?
woopow
woopow
muffled ahhhhh
I'm I agree with you but it's still a pretty shitty post
it's a list of qualities, unless they link together to form one coherent theory it's not a philosophy
just delete this fucking thread and raise the collective IQ of the board please
Agreed.
They're a collection of principles that he values as an absolute ideal.
It's his philosophy on what constitutes a good game.
>just because other mediums can evoke different things.
What different things? Ideas and feelings are universal.
You can relate the same way to characters or situations in other media like movies or books, just as much as you can also not relate to them.
Music works universally too and videogame music especially owes a lot to classic Opera in terms of use, structure and functions.
Visually speaking, there's no need to highlight how much other visual arts shaped videogames.
The only unique element is then, gameplay, but most people simply do not care about gameplay at all, not to mention that in most games gameplay is not even integrated well with the general narrative, which is the same problem that goes for other media using their own specific channels.
And if you want to say that the sum of the parts is more significant than each of those taken separately, that's true, but this is not something unique to videogames either.
>Chalking it up to "really, really overthinking it just because some games gave you easy feelerinos" is a bit childish and sells everything short.
How is it selling anything short when I specifically said in that very period that things are a lot more complex than they seem?
If anything you're the one selling things short, but it's not like it matters since people are already calling each other pseud for the sake of it, as usual you can't have a proper discussion in here.
What do you mean philosophy is especially based on products? Furthermore how is consuming media worthless? How are you supposed tyo learn anything if you don't consume anything, you do realize books, ie what philosophy is usually stored in, is a form of media.
You'd take out a couple of posturing morons but I'd rather have this than more wojack/HE KILLED MILLIONS/Sup Forumsshit/etc.
At least the couple of idiots in here value intellectualism enough to pretend to be part of it
Well for what it's worth I've enjoyed our discussion even though I still disagree with some of your points.
Bit too tired to keep dragging this out though.
and like I said, a collection of principles is not a philosophy unless they tie together to form a theory
If I wanted to see retards pretending to be intelligent I'd visit any other board on the internet
>How are you supposed tyo learn anything if you don't consume anything
someone unironically wrote this
ITT: idiots over analyzing things
Seriously, the relationship between a player and a controllable avatar is the same as if the same player watched a movie or read a book. There is no relation. The avatar is a vehicle to experience the game.
Within gameplay, the avatar has no will, and is an extension of the player. In scenes, the avatar ia scripted and does whatever the story calls for. Thats it.
Anything "deeper" than that is just narrative fuckery. Like how you get called out for killing in MGS games, weather you killed a ton of folks or not. Its all bullshit, and if you read too much into it, you are a confirmed moron.
> no jokes allowed on an internet comedy forum
>I don't like thinking about something therefore it doesn't exist
No that's wrong
>can't take criticism or debate user
really makes me think
seriously fuck off to reddit for that shit
yeah I was debating actually, assuming that because you don't want to think about something then it must not exist is a fallacy and therefore you are wrong
> status quo endorsing reactionary moron
youre the exact same kind of retard that screams at his TV when football players kneel during the national anthem you know that right
pure consumerism. disgusting. i bet you like it when investor boards force game companies under their umbrella to build games that are optimized for duration of play instead of letting them build an interesting or unique experience
Why should I bother with someone like that? He's clearly not even eager to discuss when he starts the post by calling everyone an idiot who over analyzes things, and then goes on to make a blanket statement by saying it's all bullshit and everyone is a moron.