I sympathize with the modern games critic. There are many of them out there doing great, thoughtful work. They've got things to say. And the broad response from gamers, at best, is "we don't care." Or at worst, "shut the fuck up." Of course there are people who like their work, but my feeling is that is a tiny niche.
https://twitter.com/yacobg42/status/1684236237316534278
Games can be thematically meaningless, politically abhorrent, fundamentally not cohere as a story, and yet fans who have conflated their own sense of self-worth with the product they like will break their own spine to defend it.
Anyway, my question is, are they at fault? Not with the things they say, but their tack. Their approach to talking about games as a whole.
I view games largely as a functional art. I recognize I may be on an extreme end of this spectrum, but for me, the systems are the juice, the aesthetics are the rind. My assumption is that the same is true for developers. The conversations they are having with each other are not ones of theme, but of genre. Not of political systems, but mechanical ones.
Of course, there is value in pointing out developers' deficiencies in this regard. They make all kinds of assumptions about life and politics as they fill their world with bad guys and goals. Why does Mario collect the coins? But the answer to most of these observations, for the game, is "it doesn't matter".
But of course, it matters to the critic! But therein lies the dilemma: the game is a jumping off point for conversation, rather than the target. Because gamers don't care, and developers don't care. If the themes and politics of games are reflections of the culture they're created in, then the ultimate target of "thoughtful critique" is at culture itself. Which is why it doesn't land with the target audience. They are enthusiasts; they don't want to read about why they shouldn't enjoy something, gamers just want to have fun.
What do you think? Do you think there are flaws in the approaches of some games critics? Do you think the conversations we have about games are flawed? Do you approach the narrative of games with a critical eye? Do you think you should? I could keep asking more questions, but I think you get it. This isn't super well thought out, so I welcome "you're wrong, dummy!"
Yes, I agree! Personally, I think the line between entertainment and manipulation is far blurrier than anyone cares to admit or wants to talk about. You only really hear about them in regards to pay-to-win games, microtransactions, lootboxes, or gambling. But of course, those systems can exist without the obvious money incentive - does that change things enough? Is it possible for a completely free to play game to be "evil" in that way?
Yeah, in gamedev, there's the concept of "juiciness", which essentially means throwing in animations and sounds which aren't necessary to make the gameplay work, but rather just to make the game feel right.
As humans, we enjoy sensory feedback when we've completed a task. So, in some games, that juice just tries to mimic the sensory feedback from reality. And because our reality is much more tactile, rather pronounced animations+sounds may still be perfectly in line with that goal.
But of course, nothing stops you from going beyond that and reaching for splashy animations+sounds. It's free ~~real estate~~ endorphins and players do play games for the endorphins.
If you go all the way, you can make the player feel like they're moving mountains for finding a simple match of three items. That's when it's obviously addictive to moms all around the world.
But yeah, there's no cut-off line, where it suddenly starts to be manipulative. Players generally want to be manipulated.
Although there is obviously also the folks who love their Dark Souls, dry puzzle games and whatnot, where the endorphins have to be earned.