Author Topic: #gamergate megathread  (Read 119998 times)

Depression quest is a stuffty rpg, I made a better game in a game dev class for a final once. I am by no means a leet hacker script kiddy, or the next big indie dev, nor would I call myself a programmer. But I have played a ton of a games, and Depression quest can barely qualify to call itself a game.

It's like math game for school, but for an English class combining with a lucas arts point and click
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 12:56:37 AM by Harm94 »

i liked it /shrug
it's a matter of opinion
i've never had depression of any form so i guess i didn't really connect to it like i was supposed to but there were some interesting parts

To point out; I might have been wrong in not saying that the objective and subjective points are indeed themselves subjective, and that a lot of my arguments are my opinion. Nonetheless, I feel as though, from what I've read, they are in the same area as most people who've played Depression Quest.

#1 and #3 are what you make of them. if you for some reason consider being the most depressed person alive at the end of the game winning, that's your goal.
There's a difference between player narrative/goals and the actual goals of the game.

objective definitions for art are stupid because art as a concept is subjective.
I'd argue about games being considered art, but nonetheless; art still has things that define it. You can't just call a sign on the street "art" until you've rationalised it.

the entire game is based around #5, lol. you engage with the game by guiding your "character" through their troubles. the game is about emotional turmoil (or not, if you steer the story in that direction)
How can you engage with the content if it doesn't give you cognitive flow? You press a few links and read paragraphs of poorly written story. I'm having difficulty understanding why Depression Quest should be considered in the same tier as something like Bastion, Fez, Spelunky etc. Yes, they're not about a big significant health issue affecting significant amounts of people, but what's the point of making a statement if you don't word it correctly? By that extension, why waste the effort to make a game about a message, when you message is lost due to the poor construction of the game?

You can't just call a sign on the street "art" until you've rationalised it.
if you created the sign, yes you can. I don't even know what you mean by rationalized

To point out; I might have been wrong in not saying that the objective and subjective points are indeed themselves subjective, and that a lot of my arguments are my opinion. Nonetheless, I feel as though, from what I've read, they are in the same area as most people who've played Depression Quest.
that's fair. i'd argue that all of this is opinion. art is inherently ambiguous so i say just let DQ be a game because enough people consider it one
There's a difference between player narrative/goals and the actual goals of the game.
not in DQ; the point is that the goals are what you make of them. that's the point of the game
I'd argue about games being considered art, but nonetheless; art still has things that define it. You can't just call a sign on the street "art" until you've rationalised it.
art is simply expression of ideas. again, it's super vague, but that's what happens. you can argue that stuff like performance art (a la yono oko) isn't art, but a number of people think it is, and it's expression of some idea, so...
How can you engage with the content if it doesn't give you cognitive flow? You press a few links and read paragraphs of poorly written story. I'm having difficulty understanding why Depression Quest should be considered in the same tier as something like Bastion, Fez, Spelunky etc. Yes, they're not about a big significant health issue affecting significant amounts of people, but what's the point of making a statement if you don't word it correctly? By that extension, why waste the effort to make a game about a message, when you message is lost due to the poor construction of the game?
uh, there is cognitive flow. i think this is a problem on the personal level, because i had no issues navigating the game. it shouldn't be put on the same tier as bastion, fez, and spelunky because they're 2D/2.5D games of a much faster pace than DQ. DQ is in a whole different genre of games.
see now we're getting to the core of the issue here - the idea that DQ is a waste is simply based on the opinion that it's not constructed well. i happen to think that it was constructed just fine. you see what i mean?

if you created the sign, yes you can. I don't even know what you mean by rationalized
But if you didn't create the sign, then you can't without some kind of list of properties so that you can identify something as being art.

Rationalised as in brown townysing a piece, learning all you can about it and ultimately solving "Is this art?" and "If so, what meaning does it have and what questions does it provoke?" You then you the 6 technical perspectives to break down a piece until you come to your ultimate conclusion.

At least, that's the long and boring way to do it.

see now we're getting to the core of the issue here - the idea that DQ is a waste is simply based on the opinion that it's not constructed well. i happen to think that it was constructed just fine. you see what i mean?
My problem is that it goes against every single thing I've learnt in my game design course, and is the complete antithesis of what I want to achieve. I want to make games that teach people while also being engaging/fun (fun not as in funny). I want to make games that give players lessons they can take into the real world so they aren't stuck in these game worlds. That's why I haven't released jack-squat; none of my games are at that level yet.

If you enjoyed it, then I guess that's all and well, but for me personally, I find it a disgusting waste of potential. She forgot one of the core tenants; "show, don't tell". That annoys me deeply, because I feel as though people would have rushed straight passed the message and focused on the mechanics, just as I did.

If she had spent the same amount of time with a visual designer who had suffered depression and therefore could actually visually showcase what it's like, I bet I probably would have held DQ as one of my favourite games. I'm not  upset at the lack of graphics, but that the text she ultimately used to convey her message wasn't strong enough to carry it forth past the mechanics, if you catch my drift.

That's probably WAY too much writing on it, but this something I've been really heavily obsessed with, and I'm now playing a lot more games so I can continue to judge what were some good and bad things that have been done to teach players.

art doesn't depend on the viewer, it's an expression of the creators' thoughts or ideas regardless of if anyone even sees it

the thing about game design is that it's rapidly evolving and can't really be tied down and defined and brown townyzed anymore. i could make tons of cases for DQ having real-life messages, in both overt and subtle ways. the point of the game is showing THROUGH telling. DQ is whatever you make of it, which could potentially be nothing

if you don't like the format of the game, you won't like the game - it's as simple as that. i hate many classic games because i don't enjoy the style and format in which they were created, which is just a personal issue and it sucks but oh well. for instance i can't play the classic 3D legend of zelda games because i think the camera controls are god-awful but my friends have no problem with them.

it's times like this where I remind myself that I'm a big pile of poop and so is everyone else, and anyone who takes themselves seriously is even worse.

I'm not going to, because InternetAristocrat and a few others already had linked to them.
Just saying that InternetAristocrat's videos are terribly researched convoluted messes and he's full of stuff.

Just saying that InternetAristocrat's videos are terribly researched convoluted messes and he's full of stuff.

I seriously mean no disrespect, but do you have evidence to back up your claims?

Or is this just an opinion?

@Daedalus I don't want to respond to your post yet since it deserves a well thought out reply, but I haven't really got the time or patience at the moment to give that to you. I do appreciate you being quite calm about it (calmer than I've been).



And now for something completely different.


My problem is that it goes against every single thing I've learnt in my game design course, and is the complete antithesis of what I want to achieve. I want to make games that teach people while also being engaging/fun (fun not as in funny). I want to make games that give players lessons they can take into the real world so they aren't stuck in these game worlds. That's why I haven't released jack-squat; none of my games are at that level yet.
Lol your class is really bad, it's not getting you anywhere except designing yet another boring fps because you're too afraid to experiment because your class told you what a video game is.

Btw, your class says Blockland isn't a video game, so why aren't you angry about that
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 08:34:57 AM by Marcem »

Lol your class is really bad, it's not getting you anywhere except designing yet another boring fps because you're too afraid to experiment because your class told you what a video game is.
FPS games are the very last type of game I want to make, and absolutely not what I've been taught in class.

My teacher and I were earlier this year beginning to prototype a serious game for mobile. I'd have to find the design documents to give out more info, but we ultimately had to push it back because it was far too grand a project for a 6 month timespan. I've also designed a number of abstract platformers that use mechanics to teach the story, and I've created a few weird puzzle games.

My teacher has suggested quite a few positions for my mandatory internship, including a few narrative design jobs and also working at an education game (for kids) place.

I can plan a game and a story damn well, but my execution is absolute stuffe, so I'm hoping to get better at it.

Btw, your class says Blockland isn't a video game, so why aren't you angry about that
You can stop trolling, mate.

Blockland is a game. The one thing that's questionable is the goals, but there are few game-modes within that have predefined rules, so therefore I believe you can judge that as satisfying all criteria.

Sorry for the triple post, but this is something important to me I want to share.

If Depression Quest was called an "interactive experience" or something like that, I wouldn't have a problem.

There seems to be a contingent of people who forget the "game" part of the game. Video games are just the same as board games, card games, sport etc, but they make the use of digital technology. We've begun to incorporate elements into these games such as story and audio, but at the end of the day, they still share the same properties as the games we play in the physical world.

I think the real problem with a lot of things like DQ is that they get awkwardly thrown into this category of a "game" because no other categories exist. Even simulators have now been reduced and made "playable". It's that classification which I'm the most upset with, and that needs to eventually be addressed.