/lit/ - Literature

>>13482312
the only problem is that this presumes some kind pure relativistic subjectivity, but some things are objectively good and other things objectively shit. reading being the former, video games being the latter. no amount of sophistry will circumvent this elementary fact

>>13482327
But the poster isn't comparing value anon. They're comparing amount of pleasure derived and how comfy each medium can make you and how they are as escapism tools. The answer is that it's subjective. Some faggots can't play games, some can't read.

>>13482312
Escapism is bad no matter what medium. Use art to affirm your life, not escape it.

>>13482407
affirming life is just a way of avoiding escapism

>>13482407
All affirming did for me was affirm that I and my life have been various shades of shit :""""')
Escapism ftw get out of my town.

Video games are vulgar entertainments, that's why they aren't romanticized. They're easy, popular, and addictive. All ingredients for a perfect plebian escapism.

>>13482435
imageboards are the patrician way of wasting and fucking up your life

>>13482438
Especially when nobody posts any actual images

>>13482312
what if I can do the things I enjoy without having to post on the internet an essay to get other people to do things I do

>>13482312
He's right.

>>13482393
Not really. Sure, the video game player gets enjoyment, as does the reader, but the quality of that enjoyment, the source of that enjoyment, and all other other outcomes of the behavior are different. Even a good video game still requires the player to take many repetitive and mundane actions; Fable, for example, involved hours and hours of walking, talking to unimportant characters, messing up, deliberating over items, etc. The enjoyment comes from the satisfaction of deciding between illusory choices. What's particularly interesting is that with a video game, each physical action is varied--you press different sequences of buttons, move the mouse or control stick differently, are constantly have to react to new situations, and yet the result is, when boiled down, always the same. There are only two essential video game types--screen calibration (you control objects to try and make them align properly amid changing object locations), controller calibration (you try to match the timing of an input on the controller to the timing of a stimulus on the screen). If it doesn't involve at least one of those actions, then it has no reason to be a video game, and the digital media is used only out of convenience of delivery. Every other apparent difference in game play is a matter of style. Any story that would be told in a video game can be told without the game, and there is no story which is made more meaningful by adding in the calibration of digital hardware. In contrast, every book is operated the same way; the action never changes, and it is never a test of physical skill. Because the behavior is so rote, it disappears from the activity entirely, and all that remains is the experience of the content. The vicarious nature of each medium makes them appear similar, except with a reading, the vicarious experience is the sole function and remains uninterupted, while a video game only functions if the mechanical interaction shares at least some of the purpose, which itself interrupts and weakens whatever other function it might have. Video games are no different than pinball. Games themselves, of course, can be very enjoyable ways of passing the time. But the one thing that makes video games comparable to reading is the very thing which makes them weaker than traditional games--the story. Games are worthwhile because they directly engage the strategic processing of our brain in an abstract enough way that it improves our strategic sense in the rest of our life also, not only the game. A sport does this less, but at least contributes to physical fitness also. The graphics and story of a video game are superfluous to the one element that is redeeming. Video games, objectively, are an inferior medium. They offer less strategy and less meaningful experience for the time spent. Maybe people take enjoyment out of it, but it is inferior and without any other benefit. Video games offer negative value over replacement.

>>13482637
Thanks for killing the thread

>>13482895
If you can't handle a block of copy like that, you don't deserve to have a thread.

>>13482312
Neither books nor video games serve any purpose. They are measuring misdirecting from what's the main point in life. That is reproduction. If you don't blow a load in a females vagina or neovagina you failed at life. Game over.

>>13482637
Ever thought about the physical actions of reading, moron?

>>13482964
Pretty sure I addressed that. Perhaps you should try reading it.

>>13482327
God what an embarrassing argument.
>my conclusion is correct because it’s a conclusion
How dare you invoke “sophistry” when failing to make a substantial argument in any form.

>>13482989
Anon, you're quoting an assertion. It's usually how a dialogue begins. One person makes a claim, suggesting the direction the argument will take. A second person than offers a counter. From there, they take turns developing their own arguments and attacking each other's.

>>13482933
So all the niggers in Africa, still living in mudhuts, have won in life because they know how to fuck?

>can’t we romanticize a good shit post the same way we romanticize books
>wasting time writing shit posts all day?
>imagine curling up
>dimming the lights
>candles
>aromatic candles
>smells like burnt pine needles, rotten hay, old concrete
>feet dipped in warm basin of water
>head rested back against waifu pilllow
>totally naked
>boot up computer
>warm light glows
>heavy key strokes begin to write
>”must be a lot of niggers in this neighborhood”
>”sweet dreams are made of this”

>>13482637
Good points, but could you not say the same of books - namely, that any message or point they can enunerate can be communicated through nonfiction, and that the aesthetic appeal may as well come from painting or sculpture?

>>13482984
No you didn't, you said that it is almost unnoticed. Which is a lie. It's a tedious experience.

>>13483013
Eventually when the last non person of color is gone then yes.

I love video games as much as I love books, simple as.

Play Rain World

>>13482933
Okay. Blew a load in a real woman's vagina. Now what?

>>13482312
Video games are toys, not art. That's why they aren't romanticised the same way. But then again the kind of fag who says faux comfy "wholesome" shit like 'curl up with a book' is probably reading Harry Potter.
Also, reminder:
>140+ IQ: reads on a podium/stand
>120-140 IQ: reads standing up
>100-120 IQ: reads sitting a chair
>80-100 IQ: reads laying in a couch
>50-80 IQ: reads in bed with a blankie
>0-50 IQ: can't read

>>13482327
based big brain post

>>13482435
If you don't really play video games and say, pick up an old console and spend a rainy afternoon inside playing games from your childhood, that can be definitely romanticized. As it is, the industry is so commercialized that that's almost impossible

>>13483138
Where are beanbags on this?

>>13482411
Yeah, no shit. What's your point?

videogames are the most important art form right now. It's a medium in its infancy. Games are the institution of arbitrary rules within a given reality. Game designers sort of play God in this way, constructing settings and combining them with rulesets. These combinations can be endless, and it takes the most skilled/insightful designers to craft meaningful ones. As technology advances, we will be able to produce more and more realistic games, and games that give us more freedom. It's one thing to read a story, it's another to live it and manipulate us.

Human beings are often the victims of consequences, brought up in environments we can't control, and we are often given restrictions in life based on our genetics/context. Videogames allow us to enter these situations and empathize and understand on unprecedented levels.

It's about what you get out of it, not the act itself. Sure, the average person is more likely to get something valuable out of books compared to video games, but that's a statistical matter.

>>13483101
That's absurd. I doubt you have to put any kind of attention towards reading a word. The letters automatically appear as a complete thing, which is instantly taken into your brain. I'm quite certain there have been plenty of times in your life were you have been mechanically reading for many lines, only to realize that your eyes took in the words without you actually paying attention. It is less than tedious.

>>13483188
Really excited to see where video games go in the future. Sucks that something as basic as, say, the Last of Us is considered among the best, but I hae hope for the medium

>>13483188
You have to be 18 to post here.

>>13483207
exactly

>>13483138
200+ iq /fitlit/: reads on an elliptical

>>13483026
lol

>>13483138
>>13483219
Based.

>>13483188
It's not a medium. The screen is a medium. The console is an interface. Video games are the cinematic equivalent of coloring books.

>>13483188
jordan peepeeson video memer

>>13483203
based midwit doesn't want to show he realizes that different people have different experiences by acting like he can accidentally fully deeply understand 4-5 sentences.
Shit bait
Here is your "How's your Dr. Seuss reading coming along, brainlet"

>>13482637
I feel like you're generalizing video games here. Your section about tedium seems to mostly apply to RPGs. What about something like, say, a 2D platformer? or a shoot 'em up? A city builder game?

>>13483243
I don't think you took my meaning at all. You tried to make a comparison between the mechanical act of playing a video game with the mechanical act of reading. My point is that reading is so rote that the mechanical act becomes instinctual. It completely evaporates as a noticeable task. I wasn't suggesting that you could take in the meaning without paying attention, but rather the opposite; it is easy for anyone who can read to accidentally read without paying attention so that none of its content is taken in and the passage has to be re-read. The mechanical act of reading is barely present in the actual process we recognize as reading. This is exactly what I wrote in my original post.

>>13483260
There wasn't a section about tedium.

Because people that play video games are virgins

>>13482327
>reading Harry Potter is objectively better than playing an RTS which makes you think tactically
Sorry to break it to you son, but you’ve got brainlet syndrome

>>13483298
The whole post was a section about tedium because of the lack of line breaks
>Even a good video game still requires the player to take many repetitive and mundane actions; Fable, for example, involved hours and hours of walking, talking to unimportant characters, messing up, deliberating over items, etc.
What would you call this?

>>13483136
Win? Then get the next one. Are you actually referring to me?

>>13483312
Strategy is learned in better ways than RTS, and at this point, most RTS are actually bad for teaching strategy because they primarily involve obvious decisions buried in operative complexity. If learning strategy in a meaningful way is actually your goal, why play an RTS over watching live sports analysis? Harry Potter at least has the advantage of delivering well on its stated purpose.

>>13482312
I bet you he watched this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14

>>13483327
The whole thing follows in a relatively clear order. Each sentence builds on what comes before it and leads into what comes next. The very next sentence is:
>The enjoyment comes from the satisfaction of deciding between illusory choices.
Combined with the observation of video games variation of inputs, it leads to identification of the two fundamental kinds of video games. What I was pointing out was the lack of utility or value in these actions. It's time spent, and time enjoyed, but still time wasted.

>>13483203
You are just another abelist on 4chan. A privileged white guy who has it all and is so out of touch with his reality that he can't even think of people who lack the physical capabilities required for reading. There are people who can't even hold the line with their eyes or fit together the sequence of characters. You didn't consider that while composing your "reasonable" post, huh? Your such a privileged prick that you have the audacity of making a hierarchy putting reading on top and video games on bottom, even though, games in general are more accessible to people with disabilities than books. Now fuck my pussy, asshole.

>>13483376
To be honest I found it very hard to read because of the lack of line breaks. Consider using them

>>13483280
Not me

>>13483339
"Strategy" is not a domain- and context-independent skill.

>>13482312
guarantee this person is a failure and slave.

>>13482327
>some things are objectively good
According to what metric?

>>13483493
The one that happens to align with his own views, conveniently. :^)

>>13482637
>The vicarious nature of each medium makes them appear similar, except with a reading, the vicarious experience is the sole function and remains uninterupted, while a video game only functions if the mechanical interaction shares at least some of the purpose, which itself interrupts and weakens whatever other function it might have.
No it doesn’t. That’s like stating the physical activity required in football takes away from the tactical side of the game. Both sides of football are essential in the game and continuous in nature, becuase without either side of the game it would cease to be football and be something else. The physical aspects bleed into the tactical aspects and vice versa, and so it is the same with video games. The interaction required in a video game makes it no less effective of a storytelling medium, BECAUSE the storytelling is just as important in the game as the inputs are. The stories, crafted with the inputs in mind, are made to suit the medium and ideally the story would become as seamless as reading.

Also, you are overlooking one physical interaction in reading which breaks the seamless nature of the content as well: flipping the page. If you hold it that controller calibration, as you call it, counts as interaction which, in turn, makes the story experience cheaper, then would not the stimulus of being at the bottom of a page and the consequent turning of the page become controller calibration? By your reasoning, movies would be the ultimate storytelling experience.

>>13483238
a coloring book is a type of videogame.

>>13483339
I don’t know what kind of RTS games you’ve been playing, but there are many which still offer trying tactical challenges and aren’t diluted by great amounts of resource management or other features. And a live sports analysis is a sure way to do it, but RTS games serve the purpose just as well. Just like playing chess or reading military history are also fine ways to do it. However, an RTS serves a specific function in tactics: thinking on your feet, which others cannot provide

>>13482637
the stupidity of people here astounds me. Both the smartest and dumbest people on 4chan meet up on this very board.
>Even a good video game still requires the player to take many repetitive and mundane actions; Fable, for example, involved hours and hours of walking
this is like saying "even a good book still requires you to read the word 'nigger', take for example huckleberry fin".
>What's particularly interesting is that with a video game, each physical action is varied--you press different sequences of buttons, move the mouse or control stick differently, are constantly have to react to new situations, and yet the result is, when boiled down, always the same.
no it isn't "always the same" lol. Might as well say moving our leg and moving are arm are "always the same" since both are "body calibrations". In fact, using your reasoning, everything is the same because every change is just "universe calibrations" lol. BTFO
>There are only two essential video game types--screen calibration (you control objects to try and make them align properly amid changing object locations), controller calibration (you try to match the timing of an input on the controller to the timing of a stimulus on the screen).
"there is only one essential type of book: those with symbols in them".
>If it doesn't involve at least one of those actions, then it has no reason to be a video game
to who? You? Someone who can't even parse the most basic things about gaming?
>except with a reading, the vicarious experience is the sole function and remains uninterupted, while a video game only functions if the mechanical interaction shares at least some of the purpose, which itself interrupts and weakens whatever other function it might have
Yet videogames have cutscenes. Also: this is equivalent to saying life would be more immersive if we couldn't interact with it, and if we could it would "weaken" the "experience".
>Video games, objectively, are an inferior medium. They offer less strategy and less meaningful experience for the time spent
a medium that offers interaction and "illusory choice" is less strategic than one that offers no interaction besides turning pages...

Pure retardation. Could barely get to the end without falling off my chair out of laughter.

>>13483676
>this is like saying "even a good book still requires you to read the word 'nigger', take for example huckleberry fin".
Are you worried your eyes will fall out of their sockets if you read the words nigger, faggot, and kike one too many times?

The reason no one talks about video games like that is because the people playing video games aren't women.

To anybody reading this thread, please note how >>13483538, >>13483564, and >>13483676 jump at strategy, while demonstrating absolutely horrendous logic and conversational strategy. They seem completely unable to follow the meaning of a paragraph as anything more than a collection of sentences, and don't seem to have any real capacity for comparison. It's not surprising when you consider how video games operate; in all games, a sequence or combination of buttons and stick movements produces a particular action as defined by the game, but which has little to no relation to the physical movement performed; to be more clear, while with a controller you do pull a trigger to shoot, you press a button to bring up sights, and use a joystick to look. Yes, this is an obvious observation, but the point is what this means for establishing a sense of reality which is necessary for live strategy, comparison, and evaluation. In a game, action is abstracted almost to obliteration; you will even hear gamers talk about how smooth or seamless the controls are. In the best case scenario, complex actions are performed by thought alone. In order for this to work, the game provides significant amounts of data on screen which are never provided in real life. The gamer feels as though they are learning strategy, but in fact only learn the particular tactics of the machine complex they are interacting with. This again returns to the pinball comparison. The longer you play, the better you will know that particular table; if you play a lot you will improve your baseline of flipper skills, but will still be affected by each individual table; beyond pinball, however, you have not improved any skill or understanding. The gamer becomes so mechanically minded that they cannot even perceive life outside of this input/output perspective.

>>13483804
nah all are great words when used aesthetically in a certain context e.g. 4chan. Just drawing a parallel by making an equally retarded argument to the person I was responding to (all good books contain the word "nigger" because this one good book contains the word "nigger").

>>13483819
>says something retarded
>surprised people call him retarded
>say people have horrendous logic while containing basic syllogistic errors
also your "pinball" analogy fails when you consider chess can be a videogame, checkers can be a videogame, sudoku can be a videogame etc. etc. The only conception of videogames you have are action videogames. Do you even know what turn-based means?

>>13483819
"Strategy" is not a domain- and context-independent skill.

Most games have very little substance or meaning or anything to them. They are not very creative, they're just brain candy. That's okay. Fun for fun's sake is fine, but it's empty calories.

>>13483893
In time the best games will be elevated above the rest. Right now, we are just neck deep in shitty videogames IMO.

>>13483886
Yes it is. Obviously, expressions of strategy are context dependent, but thinking strategically is not.

>>13483819
1) critique my post directly >>13483538

2) >The gamer feels as though they are learning strategy, but in fact only learn the particular tactics of the machine complex they are interacting with. This again returns to the pinball comparison. The longer you play, the better you will know that particular table; if you play a lot you will improve your baseline of flipper skills, but will still be affected by each individual table; beyond pinball, however, you have not improved any skill or understanding.
This could be applied to any line of activities outside video games. Chess, for example, becomes, at a certain point, just reading theory and practicing pre-determined moves. The strategy is gone and the player relies on a compendium of moves which he has memorized, making him no better at strategy in the real world. Everything in the world can be said to become this way at a certain point where strategy for strategy’s sake becomes memorizing for strategy’s sake. Similarly, Risk, or any other strategic board game for that matter, eventually becomes a science after enough games and no longer has any strategy involved. Essentially, your point is moot because any game becomes derived of its strategy after enough time. And before you argue that at least regular games have strategy in themselves whereas video games never had them, I would like to ask you to extrapolate on what strategy even is, and how that the nature of a video game, involving virtual inputs, is so inapplicable to its practice.

I also do not agree with your point that screened data is explicitly bad. If the screened data is essential to the game then why does that make it any less valuable than the queen in chess?

>>13482312
Curling up with a book is not fun though, it can be boring and reading is a waste of time also.

>>13483893
The same is true of the majority of books. You intentionally expose yourself only to high-quality books and likely do not dedicate time to seeking out high-quality games with the same quality control measures. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that you would only prefer books due to inattentive blindness regarding the overall quality of the medium. Keep in mind that for every Call of Duty, there are a few dozen Twilights.

>>13483885
If a change in the medium causes no change in the game, you cannot call it either a video game or a table top game. Just because you play an abstract game on the screen, does not render the game itself dependent on the screen. Also, you clearly don't know what syllogistic means.

>>13483952
2)
>The gamer feels as though they are learning strategy, but in fact only learn the particular tactics of the machine complex they are interacting with. This again returns to the pinball comparison. The longer you play, the better you will know that particular table; if you play a lot you will improve your baseline of flipper skills, but will still be affected by each individual table; beyond pinball, however, you have not improved any skill or understanding.

This could be applied to any line of activities outside video games. Chess, for example, becomes, at a certain point, just reading theory and practicing pre-determined moves. The strategy is gone and the player relies on a compendium of moves which he has memorized, making him no better at strategy in the real world. Everything in the world can be said to become this way at a certain point where strategy for strategy’s sake becomes memorizing for strategy’s sake. Similarly, Risk, or any other strategic board game for that matter, eventually becomes a science after enough games and no longer has any strategy involved. Essentially, your point is moot because any game becomes derived of its strategy after enough time. And before you argue that at least regular games have strategy in themselves whereas video games never had them, I would like to ask you to extrapolate on what strategy even is, and how that the nature of a video game, involving virtual inputs, is so inapplicable to its practice.

I also do not agree with your point that screened data is explicitly bad. If the screened data is essential to the game then why does that make it any less valuable than the queen in chess?

>>13483848
You did it wrong. An appropriate analogy would've been the cetology chapters in Moby Dick, or the ship catalogue in the Iliad.

>>13483970
Yeah I get that perspective but I'd say that there are far fewer interesting games, and even fewer interesting games that have literary/artistic merit. There are no games that I'm aware of that can even come close to touching great forms of literature, music, movies, etc.

It's a young art form and there just hasn't been that much interest in seriously making games that are just there to say something instead of just being financially successful.

There's a lot of cool space to explore it's just not there yet. Right now most "artistic" games are like the movie Black Swan. Super duper thuper deep if you're, like, twelve I guess

>>13484022
Poor bait.

>>13484029
Okay mister "Call of Duty is art" goof poster with your big boy weewee and your big boy cummies that go in your very absorbent ABUdiapers under your fursuit lmao

>>13482407
+1

>>13484042
Damn...
Yararetazo...

>>13484022
Wait, Black Swan was supposed to be deep? I thought it was simply like a drama or something.

>>13484062
If you're, like, twelve, I guess

>>13484062
>didn't watch perfect blue

>>13483952
I didn't respond directly because you were making the same errors, and it was the most tedious. Your comparisons are really bad, and your expectations of my counter arguments are absurd, which suggests that you really don't understand what I'm saying. You still seem to be confusing strategy for tactics. A tactic is a particular strategic action, a strategy if full of many tactics. Increasing the number of possible tactics does not necessarily increase the level of strategy. For example, Rock Paper Scissors is more strategic that Rock Paper Scissors Gun Lizzard Wizzard Bat Whip Whistle Dog Etc. Increasing the possible tactics decreases the strategic difference between them. Returning to chess, the tactics are relatively simple compared to something like Dota, but the strategy is deeper. For one, in chess you need to maintain a greater number of meaningful alternative strategies. Much of the interaction in games like Dota and Starcraft actually takes place in sub games; because of the physical skill component, it gets extremely difficult to play, but a significant portion of the game is repeated rounds of simpler games, with then the bulk of the strategy resting on how to win enough of those sub-games; that meta-strategy, although offering more choices than chess, is not actually as complex as chess. What's more, to the last point, in video games, much of these decisions are aided by significant amounts of data. You can crank the numbers to figure out which item beats which other item, which character has the advantage and how, so on and so forth. In chess, there's not much meaningful statistical analysis brought to bear on a give match; you're not deciding moves based on probability, but on pure rational analysis. Because so much of the game is invariable, there is almost no gambling involved. The large amount of variables and player performance in video games requires gambling. But the remaining rigidity of the computer interface makes this less transferable to the real world which is without significant amounts of information, and for which there are no guardrails. Interestingly, the best example of video games proving useful are flight and driving simulators, and to demonstrate my point, they are most useful because they actually mimic the physical world not only in visual image, but most importantly in physical input; when you're using a wheel that operates like the one you will be using, in a chair that simulates the force you will feel, then the simulated image becomes extremely useful for risk-free practice. But playing a racing game with a joy stick offers no benefit to an aspiring driver.

>>13484120
>watched perfect blue

>>13484068
>>13484120
???

>>13484200
>doesn't understand the masterful handcraft of Satoshi Kon

>>13482312
i hate video games but he's right

>>13483466
cry some more

>>13482312
If you spend thousands of hours reading books you gain world knowledge, culture, new languages, insight into other people, etc etc etc. If you spend thousands of hours playing games, most likely the same games over and over again you don't gain anything, it's a time waster. To compare it to books and say they're the same is a lie.

>>13484291
Thats primarily non fiction tho. Games are a fictional medium, and as such will not provide the same sorts of benefits as nonfiction books. However, if you compare games and novels, you will see that they both offer some benefits, but are ultimately entertainment. To the average joe, reading fiction isnt going to be too beneficial, and the same is true for games.

>>13482312
>except you get to be part of the story

Why mention this? Suddenly the "let's be fair to video games" message turns into "video games are superior". No wonder people don't listen to these arrogant nerds.

>>13482637
>Because the behavior is so rote, it disappears from the activity entirely

Poor argument. This is what 'immersion' is ultimately whether it's a book or a video game. Immersion for games is not thinking about button presses and almost intuitively engaging with the video game without any sense of exteriority to your experience and the game itself. With books the words efface themselves before fully present speech which is really just as much a mechanical illusion as pressing buttons. There's a history of how writing effaces itself before speech that we assume is just a natural part of being human but programming, inputs, sequencing, etc. is relatively new at first look.

>Games are worthwhile because they directly engage the strategic processing of our brain in an abstract enough way that it improves our strategic sense in the rest of our life also, not only the game.
>Video games, objectively, are an inferior medium. They offer less strategy and less meaningful experience for the time spent.

These are contradictory points.

>>13484162
>but on pure rational analysis.

Chess is a two-player game.

Welcome to /lit: that place where everyone dislike genre and fiction narrative, but also get pissed of if somebody say that genre videogame are notoriously poor in writing for the sale of their own possibility.

>>13482427
that's called repression. once you accept your shit life, all those problems you can't get under control will go away. your diet, sleep, mood will all be better. You'll stop being so randomly cunty, you might even feel some motivation and passion instead of just milking your utter all day

>>13482435
they used to say the same thing about books

>>13483972
>If a change in the medium causes no change in the game, you cannot call it either a video game or a table top game.
Even though you are completely wrong (because then, following your logic of a change in medium, no paintings would be paintings because they would also be illustrations, no sculptures would be sculptures because they would also be architecture etc.) his has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. The fact that a "turn based strategy" genre of videogaming exists destroys your whole argument that is predicated on claiming videogames are only tactical because of your narrow understanding of art and genre.
if i move a piece in chess, I am enacting a change on the game
>Also, you clearly don't know what syllogistic means.
in your first post you made a basic syllogistic error with your fable analogy and analysis of repetition in games.

>>13484869
I don't even have to actually play it, there is literally no reason I could do that because the game is already in place when i make the move, this is the logic of a game you are so blindingly ignorant of. you are so totally fucking naive with your logic that you can't even make the point that your entire argument is predicated on this very narrow understanding of art and genre.

>>13484162
irrelivent, because in a videogame I can hypothetically simulate a 20 player variant of 4D chess not possible to play on a table.

>>13482637

>>13484874
>I don't even have to actually play it, there is literally no reason I could do that because the game is already in place when i make the move
what the fuck are you talking about?The game is already in place when you make the move? The game is always "in place". What does it mean for a game not to be "in place"? What do you mean you don't need to play it? Because it is turn-based? You realize nearly every modern game has a pause button? You don't need to play anything if you don't want to.

>>13483026
I read it as
>can’t we romanticize a good shit the same way we romanticize books

>>13484874
jesus christ man get your shit together. You are so seething you are starting to sound like a woman.

>>13484874
>there is literally no reason I could do that
what about winning?

>>13482407
>Escapism is bad no matter what medium. Use art to affirm your life, not escape it.

but my life is shit and escapism is the only way to escape the perpetual, choking stress in my downtime

>>13482637
>Not really. Sure, the video game player gets enjoyment, as does the reader, but the quality of that enjoyment, the source of that enjoyment, and all other other outcomes of the behavior are different. Even a good video game still requires the player to take many repetitive and mundane actions; Fable, for example, involved hours and hours of walking, talking to unimportant characters, messing up, deliberating over items, etc. The enjoyment comes from the satisfaction of deciding between illusory choices. What's particularly interesting is that with a video game, each physical action is varied--you press different sequences of buttons, move the mouse or control stick differently, are constantly have to react to new situations, and yet the result is, when boiled down, always the same. There are only two essential video game types--screen calibration (you control objects to try and make them align properly amid changing object locations), controller calibration (you try to match the timing of an input on the controller to the timing of a stimulus on the screen). If it doesn't involve at least one of those actions, then it has no reason to be a video game, and the digital media is used only out of convenience of delivery. Every other apparent difference in game play is a matter of style. Any story that would be told in a video game can be told without the game, and there is no story which is made more meaningful by adding in the calibration of digital hardware. In contrast, every book is operated the same way; the action never changes, and it is never a test of physical skill. Because the behavior is so rote, it disappears from the activity entirely, and all that remains is the experience of the content. The vicarious nature of each medium makes them appear similar, except with a reading, the vicarious experience is the sole function and remains uninterupted, while a video game only functions if the mechanical interaction shares at least some of the purpose, which itself interrupts and weakens whatever other function it might have. Video games are no different than pinball. Games themselves, of course, can be very enjoyable ways of passing the time. But the one thing that makes video games comparable to reading is the very thing which makes them weaker than traditional games--the story. Games are worthwhile because they directly engage the strategic processing of our brain in an abstract enough way that it improves our strategic sense in the rest of our life also, not only the game. A sport does this less, but at least contributes to physical fitness also. The graphics and story of a video game are superfluous to the one element that is redeeming. Video games, objectively, are an inferior medium. They offer less strategy and less meaningful experience for the time spent. Maybe people take enjoyment out of it, but it is inferior and without any other benefit. Video games offer negative value over replacement.
ok

>>13484946
its very obvious and obvious. not only is your game not real art (because the only thing truly real is your own mind controlling the mechanics), your logic is predicated upon a mindset where a "real" human can't possibly understand what they are creating with the only thing truly real to art is what we as human are capable of. that is what you are calling for in art and that's what defines it? not something that is being told to people because they enjoy it in a fictional world but something that is being taught from a place of power in order to teach us how to be the world we want to be? that is art? you are pushing an agenda that has everything to do with this genre and everything to do with the idea of what art is being taught? a genre based on that, your art isn't art? why is this art? your game is fucking abject. do you want to start arguing about who makes what right now? the fact that IM right clearly bugs you faggots LMAO.
the only thing it achieves is bringing you to believe your entire existence is dependent on another people fucking with one of the first artists. and that's just completely retarded. why do i even need to even bother? the game never really had to make the decision of who was considered part of a group, and by calling people artists, you make it harder to accept that fact. not only that, its so fucked up to put these guys in the position of using art as a weapon. ok if you're trying to defend your argument, just stop. im getting fucking tired of your fucking idiocy.

>>13483112
if the average player wasn't a literal knuckle scraping moron Rain World would have set a new standard of quality in the indie scene.

>>13483138
250+ read squatting

>>13482637
I spend most of my day reading, but you can't expect me to read that.

>>13482312
Because I've never once heard someone say, "He's so smart becaseu he plays so many video games."

>>13482637

>>13484964
what the fuck are you talking about? Did you respond to the wrong person? Is English not your first language? I didn't know it was possible to seethe this hard.

>>13482312
Video games and books are, in essence, the same: simulations. Games have a wider spectrum, with the one extreme maximizing mindless flow, pure reflex...the other extreme, a mindful flow, with a more cognitive immersion.

either way, is it controversial to say the richness of the book simulation is > video game simulation? Sure there's some overlap, but on the whole, books own the category of imaginative wealth.

could the impact reaction of the wisdom and heart of Dostoyevsky, the inimitable style of Joyce ever be replicated in video games?

>>13484957
If this is the kind of mentality it takes to sympathize with the op, then I don't want to

>>13485025
kek

>>13483819
>Morpheus.jpg
>What if I told you that you can read books in some videogames.
Check mate, bro

>>13482312
You cannot call yourself an intellectual if you have never experienced pic related for yourself.

>>13482435
>easy
get better taste in videogames.
The best videogames are difficult, with the fun of it coming from becoming better and getting ever so closer to mastering the mechanics.

>>13482637
Interestingly enough, TF2 or in fact many multiplayer shooters break your assumptions about what core elements make up the gameplay.
Not only does TF2 require "screen calibration" and "controller calibration", but it also requires map knowledge/spacial reasoning, bluffing, meta knowledge, prediction of the movement of human opponents, communication, awareness and surveillance of your in-game surroundings, etc. Now you may be able to argue that these each fall into one of your two categories, but then your entire argument falls apart as you are essentially implying that because these complex and varied skills can be grouped into just two categories they are trivial and not worth exercising.
>there is no story which is made more meaningful by adding in the calibration of digital hardware.
hello yes where is broofs xDDDDD???

>>13482327
>the only problem is that this presumes some kind pure relativistic subjectivity, but some things are objectively good and other things objectively shit. reading being the former, video games being the latter. no amount of sophistry will circumvent this elementary fact
>Bok goonb
>Vido gam BAD!!! >:(((
>My back hurts and my diaper is full, can you please change it for me, anon?

>>13483138
>Video games are toys, not art.
Seems like video games could fulfill all the requirements for being art. Art is a work that conveys something from the author/artist and generally produces an emotional response, although definitions vary. Most definitions just say that art is a creation that showcases creativity, insight, or technical prowess.

>>13484162
So every videogame is strategically less complex than chess? How could you possibly prove this let alone properly quantify and rank strategic difficulty/complexity.
For one, chess is a videogame, but assuming anything that starts to look remotely like a board game or a book is no longer considered a videogame:

First you say that in chess you need to maintain more alternate strategies than in Dota. Where's the proof, and why would this generalize? Is it more strategically complex than every videogame ever?

Second, you say that meaningful gameplay in "games like Dota and Starcraft" takes place in "minigames" and because the metastrategy is simply about to win the most of these, Chess is more complex. Again, stated without proof; and I don't play either of these games but how the fuck would this generalize at all? Are all videogames repeated minigames?

Third, you essentially say that statistics can be used to trivialize gameplay, and that numbers can be crunched to find a superior item or likewise. But if you think of chess pieces as characters or items, they have rules associated with them and you have knowledge of those rules (hopefully). Does knowing the situations in which a rook beats a pawn and their relative strengths and weaknesses trivialize chess? No? Then why would it trivialize every game that works similarly or more complexly but happens to be played on a computer.

Fourth you say that chess is deterministic. Many if not most videogames are as well, not sure how this helps your point.

Finally when it comes to usefulness you could honestly just find studies showing improved cognition/reflexes etc due to videogames, there are plenty of studies. Not sure books win out here, after all they only train reading, not sure how "transferrable" that skill is ;)

>UUUUU I WILL GET COMFWEEE UNDER MWUY BWANKEE WITH A BOOKIE OR BIDO GAM WHIWE FWIPPING COCOO

I fucking hate millennials.

>>13486481
>improved cognition/reflexes
You sure as hell need this when fapping to animu and stuffing yourself with processed foods

>>13482312
>rainy day
>my neighbours cant hear me shout nigger at the swedish guy in csgo

>>13486708
>I fucking hate millennials.
You either are a millennial, or worse, a zoomer.

>>13486708
Don't try so hard, ledditor.

>>13486325
I don't think he was saying easy as in the difficulty is easy. He meant (I think) that they are cheap.

>>13486159
If we're arguing for intellectual merit you'd want the sequel anon.

ITT /v/irgins ruining this board

>>13482637

>>13486159
too smart for star wars
too dumb if you´re compare with anything but star wars

>>13483280
>it's too hard for me to internalize complicated control schemes such as moving my thumb in the direction i want to move without consciously thinking about it
>i assume the same is true for other people. they are incapable of adapting to slight variations of generally similar control schemes and must constantly be paying partial attention to the inputs instead of the corresponding actions on the screen
sounds like a personal problem that isn't inherent to video games. it's true that most games choose to focus on improving at tasks as opposed to completely on story but that doesn't actually imply consciousness is being expended on interfacing with the world of the game

this is actually getting into the realm of cognitive science. does the fact that you're not consciously aware of the process of determining symbols, translating them into concepts/images, arranging those concepts/images together, etc actually mean it impedes your conscious experience less than making physical movement to affect a world that you get visual information about for free? is this quantification of conscious experience even a good or meaningful metric? does the value of media vary proportionately to the amount of conscious experience you're having? these things are less obvious than was assumed.

>>13482312
i love calling in sick on a bad-weather day and playing dark souls all day long with a monster and these special socks that prevent blood from pooling in my feet.

>>13487247
Could you just say what you mean instead of hiding behind short adjectives that have like fifty meanings? No hate, but I'm never gonna figure out what you're trying to say unless you be more explicit.

>>13483147
Commercialization is the biggest reason why most games will never be as artistic as they could be. Most beautiful art we know was created by one person. As soon as more than one person works on something, they need to communicate their ideas and the consequence of this is that the beauty of the art detoriorates. That's why movies or games will never be as artistic as classical mediums and that's the reason why indie games can be so appealing.

>>13482637
So you be saying Victoria 2 ain't a video game? And could be replicated in a book?

>>13483339
the comparison is bad because doing something actively like deciding on a strategy to use in a video game and doing something passively like watching a live sports analysis without deciding things yourself works differently on neuroscientific level

>>13489544
>neuroscientific
Wow you sound so fucking smart

>>13489544
>works differently on neuroscientific level
what do you mean? just different regions light up? do the different regions correspond to something testable like performance on some task?

>>13489497
Western art for most of its history was made in workshops with multiple people working on it, and those workshops were businesses

>>13489721
neuroscientific or psychological, whatever

>>13489726
your brain engages differently when actively thinking or passively listening. in the former case you actually produce original thoughts while in the latter you do not necessarily.

here's an analogy: you will never be able to write a novel without real practice. reading novels will help you and you probably need to do it in order to get an idea of what a novel is made up of, but without practicing writing one you will never be able to write one.

it works the same for learning new information: recalling (active) works way better than simply taking in the information (passive), for this see http://psychnet.wustl.edu/memory/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Karpicke-Roediger-2008_Sci.pdf
not the best example as memory is a different kind of ability but this is the best example I had a paper in mind for.

tl;dr: the best way to train an ability is to actually use that ability and not the inverse of it (e.g. taking information in instead of recalling)

Silent Hill 2, Hotline Miami, Journey and Shadow of the Colossus are /lit/, as well as the final level of Braid