Waypoints in games are such a simple idea but create a very large side effect. I noticed this throughout my playthrough in GTA V. I've put a silly amount of hours into that game. Well over 100 hours. But even after all this time of gameplay, I still can't really traverse the map with ease. I have a general idea of where things are, but it's difficult to return to locations I've seen. On the other hand, I know the map to GTA Vice City pretty damn well and can probably find a location based off another picture of the surrounding areas. GTA V has 100 collectibles in the form of spaceship parts and letter scraps. I found none on my initial playthrough. Meanwhile, I found about 60 of the 100 hidden packages on my own playing Vice City however long ago. Now, yes, comparing the map size of Vice City to V's is pretty silly, as the game made 11 years after is obviously going to be bigger and more dense. That's not the point I'm going for.
Sandbox games getting bigger are a natural development. GTA 3 was an early big sandbox game with three islands. Each island would take like a minute to traverse. 13 years later, games like The Crew are being released to simulate an open world racing game that would take at least a couple hours to traverse. Sandbox games are getting bigger. It only makes sense. The point I'm getting at is the consequences of the waypoint.
Nobody wants to figure out routes on their own with such a big map. That would be frustrating and annoying and people generally don't have time for that. Solution? Create a trail for them to follow! It's simple, easy, and solves the problem! But creates a world based on a minimap. People become more focused on how to get to their destination than the trip it takes to get there. Now, one may argue that in a game like GTA where you're driving through the same city over and over that the trip isn't that important. If that's the case then you're not enjoying the drive. Take a taxi everywhere, which I ultimately ended up doing. The issue that arises is, even with this massive environment with plenty to look at, people are taken away from enjoying it past the first couple hours. Because of how tedious it becomes to get across this massive playground, it becomes boring to traverse, even with a waypoint directing you where to go.
The fast travel is another thing that could lumped in as an issue of huge environments. Why go through the woods and explore when you can just bypass that trash to get to our destination super fast? It's the video game equivalent of taking a nap on a plane. Yeah, you might see some interesting stuff, but the longer it goes, the less interesting stuff becomes. You start to see everything, nothing's new. I imagine that likewise, people begin to dread longer flights and search for anything to do in the meantime.
So what's the solution? People want sandbox games to get bigger and better. Sandbox games like Minecraft are never ending. Games like Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky are taking people into space for exploration.
I guess in the end, it comes down to what people want in a game. Do people want a sandbox they can familiarize themselves with? How are they going to traverse it? Or does it not matter? It was surely convenient to know how to get between any two locations without a map in Vice City without needing a waypoint, but I guess the population is pushing towards a different sandbox. With more and more games, it becomes less about becoming comfortable with specific areas and just general ideas. Or, games like Assassin's Creed IV where exploration is a big point. You're not expected to get comfortable with the Caribbean sea, and it doesn't matter. If it's fun to explore the game world, then you're set. If it gets boring, however, make travel exciting. Or incentivize an exciting way to travel that people can work towards.
Game maps like Vice City are gone. Video games have moved to a much grander scale, where you can get lost easier and spend hours combing through the environment. Maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe sandbox games are going through a paradigm shift. And maybe in the future, I'll interact with game environments in a manner that I enjoy more so than simply being comfortable with a familiar setting.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Bloodborne Afterthoughts
I recently beat Bloodborne, and by recently, I mean like a month ago, but after sitting on it for some time, I have enough thoughts about it for a review.
I'll begin by describing my relationship with the From Software's Souls series in general, as even if Bloodborne isn't directly connected to Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, it's format is almost identical, in the sense that you're tossed into a big world with little knowledge where scary monsters take turns beating your existence into a pulp. That is, until you get a grasp on how to play the game, or as other people have described, until one "gits gud." Now, the only one I've played is Dark Souls, and that was just last year. I quite liked it. If you watched my year-end favorite games list of 2014 with my friend, you'll see the it was my #6 favorite game of the year. I spent an insane amount of time in that game and still did not manage to beat it. It took me a long time to "git gud."But, I did eventually git gud, or at least good enough to beat Ornstein and Smough, a pair of bosses that some would declare to be the hardest in the game. I would agree. It took me 70+ attempts, and I took a 9 month break between it all, but I still did it! But no, I never beat it.
I did beat Bloodborne though.
Bloodborne, though similar, is different enough to be seen as a complete game on its own. And it was different enough that I beat it, so gimme credit there. The game takes place in the dying gothic city of Yharnam, which I find to be a wonderful setting. The environments look wonderful, allowing you to see to incredible stretches of the city, places that you will likely go to later on in the game. You're dropped in this city and sent to dispatch people, monsters, and bosses until the game tells you to stop, or until you smash the controller in half against your knees. Occasionally, you'll reach a boss that's harder then the tension building up between your clenched teeth from how many times you've died, and they'll destroy you many times over, but if you're persistent and willing to adapt, you'll overcome them and feel an amazing sense of accomplishment. Or at least I did. Aaaand you'll likely continue on until you've completed the game.
Okay, it's a little bit more than that. The combat feels very tight, and the game shoots to be played at a faster pace than Dark Souls. Dark Souls was a lot of circle strafing or hiding behind a shield, while this one is quickly getting attacks in. The game includes a mechanic where you can regain recently lost health by quickly attacking an enemy. Instead of a shield, you're given a firearm to stagger your enemies. A well-placed shot leaves the enemy open for visceral attacks, which will deal massive damage and grant some health. And you'll need all the health you can get. Healing comes from blood vials, items usually dropped by enemies or found, which you slap against yourself to regain a bit of health. The only other way to get health is returning to the Hunter's Dream from checkpoints, but one shouldn't be relying on that.
Checkpoints in the game are few and far in between. Rather than a linear progression that drops a checkpoint for sufficient progress, the design of the environment is created with checkpoints in mind. Often, after making a decent amount of progress through the environment, you won't find another checkpoint. Instead, you'll open up a shortcut to that last checkpoint. The game does a wonderful job at feeling like a twisted, intertwined pathway. Sure, the level design may make little sense in the scope of an actual city that people actually live in, but as a video game, it works wonderfully. And again, throughout the entire game, the world does look wonderful, this is one of the best looking games out there. It does what it wants to, big enormous environments and enemies ranging from simple spooky to downright unsettling, and it does all of the incredibly well.
You may remember some paragraphs ago saying that you'll play "until the game tells you to stop." While being a silly joke, it's also kinda true depending on how involved with the story you are. The plot of game is largely hidden from the player. If the player wants to go searching for answers, they can, and depending on how hard they look, it can leave them all sorts of lost and confused. While some might dislike this method of storytelling, it works greatly in Bloodborne. It creates a sense of question to what you'll uncover next in the scope of the city while paralleling the sense of both dread and intrigue in wondering what the next big enemy will be. The director of the game says the story is purposely left up to interpretation to the players, and it's incredible how deep one can get into the lore with what they're given. It's because the game doesn't give players exposition, it gives players facts. If I were to present this review in the style of the game, it would probably only talk about when I got the game, how I ended the game, and a picture of my tear-drenched, calloused thumbs. With only the flavor-text of the items, the short conversations with the NPCs, and the various notes scattered about, many people can come up with all sorts of theories and ideas, and it's up to you to decide which one's the most correct. Fun fact: I thought Bloodborne was a kinda silly name that sounds a bit weird, but it makes waaaay more sense as the title now that I think I understand the story of the game. Maybe people knew that and I'm just dense, who knows.
But involvement in the story is ultimately up to you, the player, if you care. If you don't, you can run through slashing people, leveling up, and just playing for the reward in accomplishment alone.
If you couldn't tell, I quite liked Bloodborne, but I wouldn't quite call it a perfect game. The game has chalice dungeons which are easily the worst part of the game. They're tight underground environments with little variation and they make the game boring. I know, right? How can a game where you stab a tentacle beasts with a sword the size of your torso boring? Put it in the same uninspired environment for hours on end. Granted, the dungeons are entirely optional, but some things are locked off to be just in the dungeons, including the best attachments for your weapons. It makes the game kind of grindy.
Speaking of grind, blood vials are not a good idea. The esthus flask from Dark souls worked fine. Limited uses, refills at bonfires on death. Blood vials work fine if you're in an area where enemies drop them frequently enough. But anywhere like, say, a chalice dungeon, or after multiple deaths against the same boss, causes the player to run out and have to go elsewhere for some time to get some more. I don't know anyone who thought that was better than the esthus flask.
Finally, a minor gripe is the co-op and pvp. The way to play with a friend or against other players requires use of certain items at the same time in the same place along with, presumably, a palm reading, an aligning of stars, and couple of coin tosses because in seems to be incredibly finicky the few times I've been asked to co op with a friend. Likewise, players only battle each other when one is trying to co-op with a buddy, usually. It's a drag on people who want to co-op with their buddies for fun as well as for the people that enjoy the challenge of fighting other players. Ultimately, though, these are just minor gripes as this game for me was a wonderful experience solo. I didn't really want to play with friends, and I didn't really want to play against other people. I liked the isolated experience.
Bloodborne was a truly wonderful game that I thoroughly enjoyed playing to completion. Yes, there are the minor issues, but that didn't come close to outweighing how much I enjoyed playing the game. I'm sure there are things I neglected, but I like to think I got all the important stuff across. Play it if it sounds or looks appealing to you. If it doesn't, I absolutely understand. This isn't a game for everybody, but the was very much a game for me.
I'll begin by describing my relationship with the From Software's Souls series in general, as even if Bloodborne isn't directly connected to Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, it's format is almost identical, in the sense that you're tossed into a big world with little knowledge where scary monsters take turns beating your existence into a pulp. That is, until you get a grasp on how to play the game, or as other people have described, until one "gits gud." Now, the only one I've played is Dark Souls, and that was just last year. I quite liked it. If you watched my year-end favorite games list of 2014 with my friend, you'll see the it was my #6 favorite game of the year. I spent an insane amount of time in that game and still did not manage to beat it. It took me a long time to "git gud."But, I did eventually git gud, or at least good enough to beat Ornstein and Smough, a pair of bosses that some would declare to be the hardest in the game. I would agree. It took me 70+ attempts, and I took a 9 month break between it all, but I still did it! But no, I never beat it.
I did beat Bloodborne though.
Bloodborne, though similar, is different enough to be seen as a complete game on its own. And it was different enough that I beat it, so gimme credit there. The game takes place in the dying gothic city of Yharnam, which I find to be a wonderful setting. The environments look wonderful, allowing you to see to incredible stretches of the city, places that you will likely go to later on in the game. You're dropped in this city and sent to dispatch people, monsters, and bosses until the game tells you to stop, or until you smash the controller in half against your knees. Occasionally, you'll reach a boss that's harder then the tension building up between your clenched teeth from how many times you've died, and they'll destroy you many times over, but if you're persistent and willing to adapt, you'll overcome them and feel an amazing sense of accomplishment. Or at least I did. Aaaand you'll likely continue on until you've completed the game.
Okay, it's a little bit more than that. The combat feels very tight, and the game shoots to be played at a faster pace than Dark Souls. Dark Souls was a lot of circle strafing or hiding behind a shield, while this one is quickly getting attacks in. The game includes a mechanic where you can regain recently lost health by quickly attacking an enemy. Instead of a shield, you're given a firearm to stagger your enemies. A well-placed shot leaves the enemy open for visceral attacks, which will deal massive damage and grant some health. And you'll need all the health you can get. Healing comes from blood vials, items usually dropped by enemies or found, which you slap against yourself to regain a bit of health. The only other way to get health is returning to the Hunter's Dream from checkpoints, but one shouldn't be relying on that.
Checkpoints in the game are few and far in between. Rather than a linear progression that drops a checkpoint for sufficient progress, the design of the environment is created with checkpoints in mind. Often, after making a decent amount of progress through the environment, you won't find another checkpoint. Instead, you'll open up a shortcut to that last checkpoint. The game does a wonderful job at feeling like a twisted, intertwined pathway. Sure, the level design may make little sense in the scope of an actual city that people actually live in, but as a video game, it works wonderfully. And again, throughout the entire game, the world does look wonderful, this is one of the best looking games out there. It does what it wants to, big enormous environments and enemies ranging from simple spooky to downright unsettling, and it does all of the incredibly well.
You may remember some paragraphs ago saying that you'll play "until the game tells you to stop." While being a silly joke, it's also kinda true depending on how involved with the story you are. The plot of game is largely hidden from the player. If the player wants to go searching for answers, they can, and depending on how hard they look, it can leave them all sorts of lost and confused. While some might dislike this method of storytelling, it works greatly in Bloodborne. It creates a sense of question to what you'll uncover next in the scope of the city while paralleling the sense of both dread and intrigue in wondering what the next big enemy will be. The director of the game says the story is purposely left up to interpretation to the players, and it's incredible how deep one can get into the lore with what they're given. It's because the game doesn't give players exposition, it gives players facts. If I were to present this review in the style of the game, it would probably only talk about when I got the game, how I ended the game, and a picture of my tear-drenched, calloused thumbs. With only the flavor-text of the items, the short conversations with the NPCs, and the various notes scattered about, many people can come up with all sorts of theories and ideas, and it's up to you to decide which one's the most correct. Fun fact: I thought Bloodborne was a kinda silly name that sounds a bit weird, but it makes waaaay more sense as the title now that I think I understand the story of the game. Maybe people knew that and I'm just dense, who knows.
But involvement in the story is ultimately up to you, the player, if you care. If you don't, you can run through slashing people, leveling up, and just playing for the reward in accomplishment alone.
If you couldn't tell, I quite liked Bloodborne, but I wouldn't quite call it a perfect game. The game has chalice dungeons which are easily the worst part of the game. They're tight underground environments with little variation and they make the game boring. I know, right? How can a game where you stab a tentacle beasts with a sword the size of your torso boring? Put it in the same uninspired environment for hours on end. Granted, the dungeons are entirely optional, but some things are locked off to be just in the dungeons, including the best attachments for your weapons. It makes the game kind of grindy.
Speaking of grind, blood vials are not a good idea. The esthus flask from Dark souls worked fine. Limited uses, refills at bonfires on death. Blood vials work fine if you're in an area where enemies drop them frequently enough. But anywhere like, say, a chalice dungeon, or after multiple deaths against the same boss, causes the player to run out and have to go elsewhere for some time to get some more. I don't know anyone who thought that was better than the esthus flask.
Finally, a minor gripe is the co-op and pvp. The way to play with a friend or against other players requires use of certain items at the same time in the same place along with, presumably, a palm reading, an aligning of stars, and couple of coin tosses because in seems to be incredibly finicky the few times I've been asked to co op with a friend. Likewise, players only battle each other when one is trying to co-op with a buddy, usually. It's a drag on people who want to co-op with their buddies for fun as well as for the people that enjoy the challenge of fighting other players. Ultimately, though, these are just minor gripes as this game for me was a wonderful experience solo. I didn't really want to play with friends, and I didn't really want to play against other people. I liked the isolated experience.
Bloodborne was a truly wonderful game that I thoroughly enjoyed playing to completion. Yes, there are the minor issues, but that didn't come close to outweighing how much I enjoyed playing the game. I'm sure there are things I neglected, but I like to think I got all the important stuff across. Play it if it sounds or looks appealing to you. If it doesn't, I absolutely understand. This isn't a game for everybody, but the was very much a game for me.
Friday, January 30, 2015
GTA V Afterthoughts
So I finally finished Grand Theft Auto V. And when I say finished, I mean FINISHED. I'm sitting at 100% game completion and have a level 67 GTA Online character. Actually, I take that back. I'm not quite done, still need to pick some more trophies here and there. BUT, I feel that I can give a comprehensive overview of what I thought about it. So what did I think about it?
I finally understand the hype.
A little background on the relation between me and GTA Vee. I initially picked it up for 360 about a month after it released. I played with it with a some friends online enduring through the many, many faults of GTAO. I played through a handful of the story, but once I got to Trevor, I just lost interest. I wasn't connecting with any of the characters, and the game was strangely frustrating in some points. I eventually just dropped it, only picking it up for recording sessions of GTA Online Aftermath.
A month ago, I picked it up again on the Playstation 4. The addition of persistent first person camera option made the game instantly fresh, and in some rights, way easier to control. Rockstar games have always felt pretty floaty, with the exception of Max Payne 3, but playing in first person alleviates a good chunk of the annoying. At least for shooting. It's not perfect. But, I started playing it again, and really started enjoying it. All of it.
Maybe I should actually talk about the game, for the 4 of you who don't know what it is. Grand Theft Auto V is the latest entry in the open world, sandbox series Grand Theft Auto. This latest iteration features three main protagonists, Franklin, Michael, and Trevor that can be switched between at almost any point, unless the plot dictates otherwise.
The gameplay consists of driving places, flying places, shooting people, and... Well, that's about it. But it's the quality of it all. Driving feels pretty solid. Being a person who's not big into driving games, the driving is entertaining. Especially in first person, which is about as difficult as driving from the backseat. But fun!
The story follows the three protagonists through their plights of crime. The plot is actually pretty complex, but in short, there was a heist that went tits up in 2004 with Michael, Trevor, and another one. Ten years later, Michael and Franklin become acquaintances, and Trevor joins along after thinking Michael's been dead for ten years. As they try to figure everything out and clean off their records for good, the three commit all sorts of crimes together encountering a plethora of interesting characters and conflict.
And I comment that the main characters are unlikable, terrible people. And they are. Franklin is always getting into things he doesn't want to, then just gives up on it. There doesn't really seem to be an arc of development. He just keeps getting into bigger and bigger shit, saying he always wants to get outta the hood, and he does so by committing more illegal crimes. And he's just kinda boring. Michael and his family are all assholes with short fuses and awful tempers. Trevor is arguably the most likable because his moral compass weirdly particular. He's okay with stomping people's faces in, but being called a "motherfucker" is over the line. What separates him from the rest is you get the sense that he's enjoying himself, rather than doing everything out of obligation. And, well, throughout the game, each character certainly gets their moments, and by the end, I found myself enjoying them all.
So what changed? Why did I enjoy it so much this time as opposed to last time? I'm honestly not too sure. Maybe I just wasn't in the mindset to enjoy it before, maybe I had other games I wanted to get to, but this time? This past week, playing GTA V is all I wanted to do. It was strangely compelling. The story had me hooked, but I wasn't necessarily blazing through that either. Doing some side missions were fun, even the collectibles, though annoying, were satisfying to get. Why?
I'd have to pin it to the world being so fun. There's no other way I could see it. I really enjoyed just driving around and doing whatever. When I wasn't compelled by plot, I was compelled by something else, a tangible goal, or just having fun. And the constant first person adds another layer of entertainment. Fun fact, there's a trophy for spending 15 hours in first person that I got without knowing that it was a thing. First person is fun and challenging!
As for GTA Online... I don't really have much to say about it. I feel like that could be its own video. And, well, hopefully it will be. I'll describe it shortly here: it's structured poorly to incentivize lower leveled players to purchase things with real money, as higher leveled players stomp them into the dirt. Missions are boring, tired, formulaic, and frustrating. There's no story, which shouldn't come as a surprise, but there is progression. The world is annoyingly limited, in the terms of "private match" selections, but after all of that, there is fun to be had. It's certainly easier when you're higher leveled and/or don't have to worry about money, but you kinda gotta work for it and push through the annoying slog. This is all if you have friends. I don't really see prolonged enjoyment by oneself.
So that's all I had to say about GTA V. Or at least that's what I think I have, no doubt I'm forgetting stuff, but hey, what can I do. Do I recommend the game? Well, yeah. But understand two things. 1. I did have troubles really getting into the story at first and becoming attached to these unlikeable characters. 2. GTA Online is incredibly restricted and is not what you want it to be. But for all its flaws, there was plenty of enjoyment had with it.
I finally understand the hype.
A little background on the relation between me and GTA Vee. I initially picked it up for 360 about a month after it released. I played with it with a some friends online enduring through the many, many faults of GTAO. I played through a handful of the story, but once I got to Trevor, I just lost interest. I wasn't connecting with any of the characters, and the game was strangely frustrating in some points. I eventually just dropped it, only picking it up for recording sessions of GTA Online Aftermath.
A month ago, I picked it up again on the Playstation 4. The addition of persistent first person camera option made the game instantly fresh, and in some rights, way easier to control. Rockstar games have always felt pretty floaty, with the exception of Max Payne 3, but playing in first person alleviates a good chunk of the annoying. At least for shooting. It's not perfect. But, I started playing it again, and really started enjoying it. All of it.
Maybe I should actually talk about the game, for the 4 of you who don't know what it is. Grand Theft Auto V is the latest entry in the open world, sandbox series Grand Theft Auto. This latest iteration features three main protagonists, Franklin, Michael, and Trevor that can be switched between at almost any point, unless the plot dictates otherwise.
The gameplay consists of driving places, flying places, shooting people, and... Well, that's about it. But it's the quality of it all. Driving feels pretty solid. Being a person who's not big into driving games, the driving is entertaining. Especially in first person, which is about as difficult as driving from the backseat. But fun!
The story follows the three protagonists through their plights of crime. The plot is actually pretty complex, but in short, there was a heist that went tits up in 2004 with Michael, Trevor, and another one. Ten years later, Michael and Franklin become acquaintances, and Trevor joins along after thinking Michael's been dead for ten years. As they try to figure everything out and clean off their records for good, the three commit all sorts of crimes together encountering a plethora of interesting characters and conflict.
And I comment that the main characters are unlikable, terrible people. And they are. Franklin is always getting into things he doesn't want to, then just gives up on it. There doesn't really seem to be an arc of development. He just keeps getting into bigger and bigger shit, saying he always wants to get outta the hood, and he does so by committing more illegal crimes. And he's just kinda boring. Michael and his family are all assholes with short fuses and awful tempers. Trevor is arguably the most likable because his moral compass weirdly particular. He's okay with stomping people's faces in, but being called a "motherfucker" is over the line. What separates him from the rest is you get the sense that he's enjoying himself, rather than doing everything out of obligation. And, well, throughout the game, each character certainly gets their moments, and by the end, I found myself enjoying them all.
So what changed? Why did I enjoy it so much this time as opposed to last time? I'm honestly not too sure. Maybe I just wasn't in the mindset to enjoy it before, maybe I had other games I wanted to get to, but this time? This past week, playing GTA V is all I wanted to do. It was strangely compelling. The story had me hooked, but I wasn't necessarily blazing through that either. Doing some side missions were fun, even the collectibles, though annoying, were satisfying to get. Why?
I'd have to pin it to the world being so fun. There's no other way I could see it. I really enjoyed just driving around and doing whatever. When I wasn't compelled by plot, I was compelled by something else, a tangible goal, or just having fun. And the constant first person adds another layer of entertainment. Fun fact, there's a trophy for spending 15 hours in first person that I got without knowing that it was a thing. First person is fun and challenging!
As for GTA Online... I don't really have much to say about it. I feel like that could be its own video. And, well, hopefully it will be. I'll describe it shortly here: it's structured poorly to incentivize lower leveled players to purchase things with real money, as higher leveled players stomp them into the dirt. Missions are boring, tired, formulaic, and frustrating. There's no story, which shouldn't come as a surprise, but there is progression. The world is annoyingly limited, in the terms of "private match" selections, but after all of that, there is fun to be had. It's certainly easier when you're higher leveled and/or don't have to worry about money, but you kinda gotta work for it and push through the annoying slog. This is all if you have friends. I don't really see prolonged enjoyment by oneself.
So that's all I had to say about GTA V. Or at least that's what I think I have, no doubt I'm forgetting stuff, but hey, what can I do. Do I recommend the game? Well, yeah. But understand two things. 1. I did have troubles really getting into the story at first and becoming attached to these unlikeable characters. 2. GTA Online is incredibly restricted and is not what you want it to be. But for all its flaws, there was plenty of enjoyment had with it.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Internet Elitism
i'm sick and fucking tired of people on the internet. mostly people i don't know, mostly in areas i shouldn't be looking for any sense of a discussion, anything with structure, purpose. youtube comments, social media reposts, large internet forums... the internet has created this culture where people like to appear better than other people. i don't know if it's self-esteem, or cause it looks cool, or because they're immature, or what, but god damn it's annoying.
and yeah, okay. let's all listen to the guy talking down to people on the internet by talking on the internet and trying to look better than other people. yeah. i see the paradox here. but the difference is, i'm willing to talk about it sensibly. i'd argue about this, about the nature of this. this isn't a knee-jerk reaction about how people like things i don't. i like to think i'm better than that, which isn't saying much.
but that really is the root of it, right? people like things that others don't, and that makes people upset. example, bioshock infinite. no, you don't have to love it, or even like it. but to say that it's the WORST game ever with a terrible story that makes no sense and boring mechanics(which i've seen been done) ? like, sure it's fine to have your own opinion and everything but you have to know that using absolutes as hyperboles makes you come off as a small angry person about things that are not important. but really, this is not really anything new, humans have been doing shit like this forever. the thing about being online is that people are anonymous, people don't have to take any flack for being a shitty person who says shitty things on the internet. you share the popular opinion or you get shit on. or, you share the "i hate the popular opinion" opinion, in which flocks of people who didn't think that x was as good as people say it is agree that logically it is the worst thing since different x.
go right now to any popular music song on youtube and look at the comments. how many root comments can you see that aren't just terrible, terrible things? go to popular rap or pop music. how many times do you see people comment about how "it's not real music" and/or how "music from y years ago was so much better?" how many people are in the age range targeted by this music? how many people say music from before their date of birth was better?
kids are getting on the internet, there's no stopping that. kids are gonna wanna look cool to impress other people, people they don't know, people older than them. really no getting around that either. but jesus fucking christ, somebody needs to tell them that the people they're trying to impress don't care. kids are validating their opinions in internet points: how many ups they're getting from random people.
and i'll admit. i tend to do it too. video of mine gets a larger amount of views? i feel great. comment somewhere gets upvoted/favorited/liked? it's a bit of an ego boost. but at least i can come to terms with at the end of the day, i still have integrity. i'm aware of some of the things that i do. i don't stoop to posting cliche things that people will agree with. i don't pander to people. i try to do what i want, what i like.
so what can we do about all of this? where's the solution? how do we fix it? i don't really know. maybe try to see things how i do. maybe make it known that it's all stupid and people shouldn't try so hard to look cool to anonymous people on the internet. avoid knee-jerk statements, doing things to incite anger, and instead, do things that you actually feel are necessary, things that are meaningful. or express your own opinion on it if it's different than mine in a way that's more than just shouting. get people talking, get people thinking.
will this happen? of course not, this is the internet.
and yeah, okay. let's all listen to the guy talking down to people on the internet by talking on the internet and trying to look better than other people. yeah. i see the paradox here. but the difference is, i'm willing to talk about it sensibly. i'd argue about this, about the nature of this. this isn't a knee-jerk reaction about how people like things i don't. i like to think i'm better than that, which isn't saying much.
but that really is the root of it, right? people like things that others don't, and that makes people upset. example, bioshock infinite. no, you don't have to love it, or even like it. but to say that it's the WORST game ever with a terrible story that makes no sense and boring mechanics(which i've seen been done) ? like, sure it's fine to have your own opinion and everything but you have to know that using absolutes as hyperboles makes you come off as a small angry person about things that are not important. but really, this is not really anything new, humans have been doing shit like this forever. the thing about being online is that people are anonymous, people don't have to take any flack for being a shitty person who says shitty things on the internet. you share the popular opinion or you get shit on. or, you share the "i hate the popular opinion" opinion, in which flocks of people who didn't think that x was as good as people say it is agree that logically it is the worst thing since different x.
go right now to any popular music song on youtube and look at the comments. how many root comments can you see that aren't just terrible, terrible things? go to popular rap or pop music. how many times do you see people comment about how "it's not real music" and/or how "music from y years ago was so much better?" how many people are in the age range targeted by this music? how many people say music from before their date of birth was better?
kids are getting on the internet, there's no stopping that. kids are gonna wanna look cool to impress other people, people they don't know, people older than them. really no getting around that either. but jesus fucking christ, somebody needs to tell them that the people they're trying to impress don't care. kids are validating their opinions in internet points: how many ups they're getting from random people.
and i'll admit. i tend to do it too. video of mine gets a larger amount of views? i feel great. comment somewhere gets upvoted/favorited/liked? it's a bit of an ego boost. but at least i can come to terms with at the end of the day, i still have integrity. i'm aware of some of the things that i do. i don't stoop to posting cliche things that people will agree with. i don't pander to people. i try to do what i want, what i like.
so what can we do about all of this? where's the solution? how do we fix it? i don't really know. maybe try to see things how i do. maybe make it known that it's all stupid and people shouldn't try so hard to look cool to anonymous people on the internet. avoid knee-jerk statements, doing things to incite anger, and instead, do things that you actually feel are necessary, things that are meaningful. or express your own opinion on it if it's different than mine in a way that's more than just shouting. get people talking, get people thinking.
will this happen? of course not, this is the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)