/lit/ - Literature

I'm thinking about replaying Skyrim.

>>19027140
On what platform anon

>>19027140
Why would you ever re-play such a shit game? Every dungeon is the same, you can anticipate everything in the game even if it's your first time playing within a few hours of seeing what the game has to offer because everything is so generic, dialogue and quest complexity are cut down to what Todd Howard's college roommates, I mean the voice actors, are willing to read for. Do you really want to solve 600,000 draugr Fisher Price block puzzles again?

The few well-written quests are there practically by accident and even those are marred by the simplicity of the mechanics. Compare Morrowind's guild quests to becoming the arch-mage in Skyrim. MMO starting area quests have more complexity.

You have limited time on this earth. Don't spend it on mediocrity.

>>19027144
i have a ps3 in storage somewhere
>>19027149
i think i might be a dark elf this time

i only do the quests necessary to unlock the build house feature, after that i build my house and go around the world mining for stone and collecting books

>>19027137
Movies and Videogames cost a lot of money to make so the have to be medium-IQ to attract enough customers. Books are cheap to make, same goes for Manga.

>mindless dopamine box

>>19027176
Some games cost a lot of money and aim at the widest possible target, but there's enormous amounts of independent low and mid-budget games. Commercial games in the past were also higher IQ than today.

And of course it's the same for movies, to a lesser degree.

>>19027280
Everything, absolutely everything is lower IQ nowadays. People are stupid, and the more dumbed down you make your product the wider the audience is going to be.

>>19027137
Because it lead to more enjoyment for me.

>>19027137
video games and movies are for children. Books can be too but not necessarily.

>>19027137
Because I enjoy it. I also enjoy games. Motion picture is drek, however.

>>19027308
Neither of those are for children. If you are opposed to something but have to lie about it because you can't think of any arguments against it, you're a moron.

I do consume a lot of video games and movies. I spend a lot of my time on other types of media too. But overall, books are the most rewarding in the end. I can't get the same feeling I get when I finish a great book anywhere else.

>>19027310
>these pictures are moving
>i don't care for this at all

>>19027316
They are, children in grown up bodies are still children. It's all about the rush. Now older movies were for adults, but apart from a select few exceptions they haven't been in a long time. I'm sorry if that makes you upset.

>>19027320
>I do consume
>Consoooom

>>19027322
Yeah. What of it?

>>19027323
Actually try to think about this: if you are against X but can't think of any reasons, then why are you against it?

>>19027330
I'm not against videogames or movies, nothing wrong with children indulging in them every now and then. Like I said, some older movies are excellent still. You're free to consume videogames and movies, just remember it's no different than playing with toy cars and dolls.

It's fun to play.

>>19027337
Obviously you're attacking them by lying that they're for children. The question is, why are you against them if you have to lie and have no real arguments?

>>19027360
I'm not lying, I'm just stating obvious facts. I don't hate videogames or movies, I'm not against them, they're just made for children or adults with child brains.
I don't know what your problem is, you seem undable to understand simple sentences. Perhaps then movies and videogames are perfect for you, but you can't post here if you're underage.

>>19027364
Are you unwilling to say the real reason you're against them, or do you have no reason?

>>19027376
Are you unwilling or unable to understand what I'm saying? I'm not against them, you're free to consume them if you feel like it. It just means you like children's entertainment. You do you.

>>19027381
If you're unwilling, then it must mean the real reason is something so unconvincing that even you don't believe in it enough to say it out loud. If you have no reason, then that indicates a serious thought disorder.

>>19027391
>I don't understand simple sentences
>Therefore you are mentally ill
Alright then. OP asked why I prefer books over these other media. I answered. You somehow think I'm lying. I really don't see what you're so worked up about. Are you so offended by what I said that you're having a tantrum about it?

>>19027402
It's indicative of some kind of mental disorder to have literally no reason to hate something, and then just invent nonsensical reasons you don't believe in.

But just to humor whatever agenda or condition you have, can you explain how this for example indicates something aimed at an audience of children:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFIsGJ3nYUc

>>19027415
My dear retard, I don't hate videogames or movies. I don't understand why you assume this. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Even children usually grasp concepts more quickly than you. It's not nonsensical, both are designed for people with very short attention spans and a constant need for rush. If that's you, great, have at it.
>it's dark and edgy therefore it's not for kids
You miss the point entirely. It has nothing to do with the subject matter but with the nature of the medium.

>>19027424
>I don't understand why you assume this.
Because you lie and claim they're for children, which would only be done as an attack.

>it's dark and edgy therefore it's not for kids
It's a period accurate neo-noir set in post-war LA. The story consists of the present events controlled by the player, events occuring elsewhere and involving other characters, and flashbacks to the Pacific campaign. All three story threads eventually connect together. The story is ultimately about a conspiracy to defraud the federal government through insurance fraud and eminent domain. It's also a character study of the protagonist, Cole Phelps.

In what way is this supposed to be for children? Explain in detail.

>>19027453
>Because you lie and claim they're for children, which would only be done as an attack.
I don't lie, they are for children, by nature of the medium. What do you fail to understand about this? Secondly, it wasn't meant as an attack, you just feel it is. I could have said "I prefer cars over tricycles because the latter are for kids" in the same manner. I can't help that you are so easily offended if people don't agree with your views. Throwing tantrums is not going to convince me.
>>19027453
>In what way is this supposed to be for children? Explain in detail.
Re-read my previous post. It has nothing to do with the subject matter. That can be very dark and edgy and still be designed for children's brains through the nature of the medium.

>>19027478
There is no rational, defensible reason to classify either of them as being for children. You are simply lying.

>Re-read my previous post. It has nothing to do with the subject matter. That can be very dark and edgy and still be designed for children's brains through the nature of the medium.
Why would game developers spend enormous amounts of money and years of time to make a game for children that's rated M and involves a very complicated, adult storyline, fairly graphic content, and gameplay where you mostly interview suspects/witnesses and comb crime scenes for evidence, which you then have to know how to deploy during interrogations to prove a suspect is lying? On what planet is any of this supposed to make any fucking sense whatsoever? Do you think there's a single TV network that would air an LA Noire TV series as a saturday morning show for kids?

>>19027137
i'll do whichever takes my fancy at the time

>>19027507
>There is no rational, defensible reason to classify either of them as being for children. You are simply lying.
>I lack the mental capacity to understand your point therefore you must be lying.
Look at the nature of the medium. The point you seem to miss is that the majority of modern adults function as children, which is probably why you don't understand. Again, I am not lying. I do not hate either medium, I just appreciate them for what they are.
>Why would game developers spend enormous amounts of money and years of time to make a game for children
Continuing with my previous point, because people like you like to feel vindicated that you've found a "mature" version of a children's medium so you don't have to feel bad about yourself for consuming children's entertainment. You can then point at it being dark and edgy and claim "look! It's not for children!" while forgetting that children attended gladiatoral games in Roman times for example.
In short, it's all very clever marketing. They make you feel good about yourself and you are more than willing to spend your money on their product so you can consume it.
If that makes you happy, more power to you. But don't deny reality.

>>19027535
You have no point.

>Why would game developers spend enormous amounts of money and years of time to make a game for children
That's not what I said. The fact that you have to change what I said and respond to a strawman proves that you have no argument. You cannot explain why video games in general or something like L.A. Noire in particular would be for children. You have no argument. Only lies.

>You can then point at it being dark and edgy and claim "look! It's not for children!"
It's not dark and edgy, it's just realistic and mature and dealing with serious topics.

>while forgetting that children attended gladiatoral games in Roman times for example
Children read books. Children go to swimming pools. Children eat food. Children wear shoes. What about it?

>>19027137
Why not all?

>>19027564
>You have no point.
I do, you are just either unwilling or unable to understand it. I hope it's the latter.
>You cannot explain why video games in general or something like L.A. Noire in particular would be for children. You have no argument. Only lies.
I have explained it in that post and previous posts. The subject matter is irrelevant to my argument. It's the nature of the medium of video games (and movies). Your game is no different than Mario at the basis.
>It's not dark and edgy, it's just realistic and mature and dealing with serious topics.
Yes that's what I said, dark and edgy. The marketing seems to work wonders on people like you.
>Children read books. Children go to swimming pools. Children eat food. Children wear shoes. What about it?
For the first part, see my first post. Swimming pools are also designed for children, usually the only adults you see there are the ones taking their children there. For the rest, there are obviously activities for humans as a whole. Video games and movies are not those, just like playing with toy cars and crayons.

>>19027137
Mulitplayer Games lead to time wasted due to a false sense of accomplishmnet, while any Western Media produced in the last 40 years has propagandized messages that attempt to devalue anything that your family has taught you growing up.

>What do you do?
>I Read.

I think I might replay Red Dead Redemption 2.

>>19027596
You have explained nothing about this "nature."

>Your game is no different than Mario at the basis.
Mario is an early 2D sidescroller platformer intended for all ages. L.A. Noire is a photorealistic 3D open world narrative-driven game where you solve crimes as a detective in 1940s Los Angeles.

This is Mario:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qirrV8w5SQ

This is L.A. Noire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lj3XTfOzSM

Yes, please go ahead and tell us how these are the same. And be specific.

And subject matter is not irrelevant to this argument. There are clear differences in what kind of content is considered suitable for children vs. adults, legally or socially. The game industry has a rating system for a reason just like the movie industry does.

>Yes that's what I said, dark and edgy.
It is not dark and edgy. It's realistic and mature and deals with serious topics. The fact that you can't tell the difference suggests that you can't be very old.

>For the rest, there are obviously activities for humans as a whole.
Such as video games and movies.

>>19027137
Infinite customization & very high limit for cognition speed.
What is a mediocre (cut)scene in another medium can become purest sublime Kino in one's imagination.

>>19027682
>You have explained nothing about this "nature."
I have, in my first response to you even. I'm sorry you are unable to process complex information.
>Mario is a video game. LA Noire is a video game.
Yes, that's what I said.
>Yes, please go ahead and tell us how these are the same. And be specific.
They're videogames. Designed to fire up your dopamine receptors and make you feel good about yourself, bonus points if it convinces you you're mature for playing the dark and edgy variants.
>And subject matter is not irrelevant to this argument. There are clear differences in what kind of content is considered suitable for children vs. adults, legally or socially. The game industry has a rating system for a reason just like the movie industry does.
Arbitrarily defined. Why were Roman children taken to gladiator games then? What is considered suitable is fancy to the whims of the marketeers.
>It is not dark and edgy. It's realistic and mature and deals with serious topics. The fact that you can't tell the difference suggests that you can't be very old.
Those are the same, the latter is just marketeer speech to sell dark and edgy to people like you.
>No it's actually you who's not old
Very impressive.
>Such as video games and movies.
No, those are designed for children's brains.

>>19027708
Ok show me where you explained it.

>Yes, that's what I said.
And? Was someone arguing that one of them isn't a video game?

>They're videogames.
By the same logic, any two books are the same. The Republic and Fifty Shades are both books and both the same, no difference. In fact any two books are more similar to each other than different video games are similar to each other.

>Designed to fire up your dopamine receptors and make you feel good about yourself
Psychobabble about "dopamine receptors" is midwit nonsense sourced from midwit websites. And you still cannot explain what makes Mario and L.A. Noire the same.

>bonus points if it convinces you you're mature for playing the dark and edgy variants.
You have to be a teenager.

>Arbitrarily defined. Why were Roman children taken to gladiator games then? What is considered suitable is fancy to the whims of the marketeers.
If it's all arbitrary then how are you able to authoritatively declare what is and isn't for children, and what does it even matter?

>Those are the same, the latter is just marketeer speech to sell dark and edgy to people like you.
You're the only one obsessing over marketing here. I actually played L.A. Noire. It is not dark and edgy. If you want to keep arguing about this then I expected a detailed explanation of why it is dark and edgy rather than just mature and realistic.

>No, those are designed for children's brains.
A claim--or rather a lie--which you are unable to prove in any capacity.

Video games are mostly toys, I agree with the Anon saying they are for children, also that movies and culture on the whole have been progressively dumbed down and infantilized compared to older films. I think the industry has gotten too large, it's stupidly expensive to produce and creativity has gone way down because no one wants to take risks. People often say look at indies for creativity and quality, but never say which titles specifically.

>>19027722
Agree with him based on what? He has not provided any explanation. But I'm sure you'll come to his rescue and definitively prove his lie, right? You can start by explaining what makes L.A. Noire a children's game.

>>19027725
L.A. Noire is just ripping off of film noir tropes, there's nothing of substance, no individual artistic vision, it's just a typical hard boiled detective story simulator competently done. It's a product meant to be consumed.

>>19027758
Yes it's based on existing noir, but I never argued that it's highly unoriginal, and being or not being original has no bearing on whether or not it's intended for children.

There is substance in the story such as Phelps' character.

>no individual artistic vision
Brendan McNamara directed and wrote it, and despite Rockstar getting involved later in development I don't think Rockstar could have ever written it.

>it's just a typical hard boiled detective story simulator competently done
It's not a hard-boiled detective story.

>It's a product meant to be consumed.
You have never even played it.

And all of this is irrelevant anyway. You couldn't do anything to argue that it's for children so you pivoted to a completely different argument. Pathetic.

>>19027772
*that it's highly original

>>19027721
>Arbitrarily defined. Why were Roman children taken to gladiator games then? What is considered suitable is fancy to the whims of the marketeers.

>If it's all arbitrary then how are you able to authoritatively declare what is and isn't for children, and what does it even matter?

This kinda btfos anon's entire argument. Who or what determines the suitability of an activity for adults or children? I don't think the discussion can fruitfully progress until this is dealt with.

>>19027137
Max Payne 3 is my favourite videogame and I am no longer afraid to say it

Thank you James Mckaffery

>>19027140
I do it every once in a while, maybe once every 2 years. I don’t really play games otherwise anymore. What usually happens is I install a bunch of mods to make it fit a certain aesthetic that’s driving me to play again and then I inevitably get pretty bored since it’s the same story and gameplay I’ve played multiple times. I downloaded The Witcher recently and I got pretty bored with that right away too. I just don’t have the patience for RPGs anymore even though I used to play a lot of them. The last game I actually enjoyed and didn’t get bored with was the most recent Zelda.

>>19027149
Skyrim was probably the comfiest game ever made.

>>19027722
There are exceptions. RDR 1 & 2 could rival most films and television series in sheer story telling ability in my opinion.

You can go from reading the Black Mountain Poets one hour, to playing Psychonauts the next hour. Neither is qualitatively better than the other because ultimately both are a distraction from the inevitability of death. People can enjoy many things. I spend my free time working out, reading, fishing, and playing vidya.

>>19027758
>film noir tropes
And film noir is just ripping off detective novel tropes, you retard

>>19027140
have you ever played Morrowind?

>>19028171
That's the synthwave game, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR-K2rUP86M

>>19027137
The only movies to make me feel how a book like All Quiet on the Western Front did were Taxi Driver and Children of Men. Video games make me feel nothing but anger when I die playing Hunt Showdown

>>19028171
Morrowind is like Skyrim in that it’s remembered fondly and asserted as a great game by people who played it when it was first released, but are really just seeing it through nostalgia goggles.

>>19027721
>>19027832
You, again, miss the point. What is considered suitable for children (gore, sex etc) -again, the subject matter- is dependent upon the standards of said society. Romans had different standards of what subject matter compared to us. There goes the entire point about his LA video game being dark and edgy, therefore mature.
My point was about the nature of the design of the medium. Video games and (modern) movies are designed to do specific things, including entertaining you at a whim with flashy images, the subject matter is irrelevant in that regard. Mario is no different from your dark and edgy "mature" video game. The entire nature of convincing yourself you're engaging in an adult activity this way is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get you to spend money and feel good about yourself so you'll do it again in the future. It's really not hard to understand.

>>19028338
If it's all arbitrary then how are you able to authoritatively declare what is and isn't for children, and what does it even matter?

>there goes the entire point about his LA video game being dark and edgy, therefore mature.
I asked you for a detailed explanation regarding this, and you have none. You therefore concede defeat.

>Video games and (modern) movies are designed to do specific things, including entertaining you at a whim with flashy images, the subject matter is irrelevant in that regard.
L.A. Noire doesn't have "flashy images," and neither does Mario. What "flashy images" are you supposed to be talking about?

The subject matter is not irrelevant, which is why there is a great deal of focus on the narratives and settings of games.

>Mario is no different from your dark and edgy "mature" video game.
You have no explanation for this claim.

>muh marketing ploy
You just keep mindlessly repeating this for no reason. You have not provided any breakdown of L.A. Noire's marketing and how it's at odds with the actual game. You haven't explained anything. You just repeat a few words and phrases over and over again and never explain anything, because you're a liar and just make shit up on the fly.

>>19028338
What is "an adult activity" and how is it determined to be such?

>>19028217
Absolutely untrue. Morrowind's writing holds up marvellously and unlike later TES games actually offers a meaningful narrative. It's true that the gameplay itself is quite dated though. I say all this as a newfag who played it for the first time in 2015.

>>19027137
You wouldn't, do what you are supposed to be doing.

>>19028377
>If it's all arbitrary then how are you able to authoritatively declare what is and isn't for children, and what does it even matter?
It's not all arbitrary. You really lack reading comprehension and I understand why you are so offended about people telling you your favourite pastime is designed to entertain children. I am not the authority on this. Just ask the people who design games. The mechanics behind the medium is what I'm talking about. Read McLuhan.
>I asked you for a detailed explanation regarding this, and you have none. You therefore concede defeat.
I've given it multiple times, it's not my fault if you are either unwilling or unable to understand it. "Serious and mature" is the exact same as "dark and edgy" except packaged in a consumer friendly way.
>L.A. Noire doesn't have "flashy images," and neither does Mario. What "flashy images" are you supposed to be talking about?
Are you blind? How do you even play games if you are blind?
>The subject matter is not irrelevant, which is why there is a great deal of focus on the narratives and settings of games.
Yes, so people like you can feel "mature" for playing "advanced" levels of children's entertainment. It's very similar to YA in that regard. "But is has very serious themes!!" The medium is still designed to entertain children.
>You have no explanation for this claim.
I have given it multiple times, you just don't like it because it hurts your feeling of self-importance.
>You just keep mindlessly repeating this for no reason.
Not mindlessly and not for no reason. You project. It is very relevant, you just either are unable or unwilling to understand it. Video games are not about "soul", it's about selling copies.
>You have not provided any breakdown of L.A. Noire's marketing and how it's at odds with the actual game. You haven't explained anything.
That's because it's a video game. It's no different from any other video game because of the nature of its medium. You fail to grasp this concept. The subject matter is irrelevant.
>You just repeat a few words and phrases over and over again and never explain anything, because you're a liar and just make shit up on the fly.
My points are very coherent, I'm sorry you lack the reading comprehension to understand them. I'll do a final attempt to dumb it down to your level.
1. Video games (and modern movies) are designed for people with short attention spans, with multiple different incentives to keep you hooked. Overall there is hardly any depth byt he nature of the medium.
2. For next-level consumers who potentially see through this, products with the same design mechanics (not game mechanics) are invented that do the exact same, albeit with a dark and edgy ("serious and mature" if that makes you feel better) subject matter, so said people do not move on to something else.
3. This is a marketing ploy (as is anything in consumer culture - video games, movies, music, many books-) to give the consumer a feeling of self-importance.

>>19028421
Anything that is beyond the capability of children's minds to understand. So some genres of books, literature, a handful of older movies, would qualify.
>but children can't appreciate this dark and edgy video game
You watched horror movies when you were a kid. You played games that dealt with subjects you were not familiar with. Yet although you might not have grasped all the intricacies and nuances, you did just fine and understood enough to want to consume more.
Now there's nothing inherently wrong with children's entertainment, or even with indulging in it as an adult, just don't delude yourself that it's something it's not.

>>19028457
>Anything that is beyond the capability of children's minds to understand
Midwit. Stopped reading right there.

>>19027137
>these two retards trolling back and forth and shitting up the bait thread
Thank you for your service containing imbecility, OP.

>>19028472
Good for you, maybe play another video game instead.

>>19028437
>It's not all arbitrary.
You said:
>Arbitrarily defined. Why were Roman children taken to gladiator games then? What is considered suitable is fancy to the whims of the marketeers.

>Just ask the people who design games.
They are not going to tell you that they make games for children.

>The mechanics behind the medium is what I'm talking about. Read McLuhan.
Don't act like you've read McLuhan or like you have any arguments or that any of this is going anywhere. You have no explanations for anything and you're just randomly pulling shit out of your ass.

>I've given it multiple times, it's not my fault if you are either unwilling or unable to understand it.
You are full of shit. There was no explanation.

>"Serious and mature" is the exact same as "dark and edgy" except packaged in a consumer friendly way.
Those are not the same thing at all and you can't offer any arguments as to why they would be.

>Are you blind? How do you even play games if you are blind?
So you admit you can't explain what "flashy images" you're talking about. Ok.

>Yes, so people like you can feel "mature" for playing "advanced" levels of children's entertainment.
You have done absolutely nothing to prove that video games are for children, and people are interested in the narrative of games for the same reasons they're interested in the narrative of novels, plays and movies. "Narrative" does not even mean any particular level of maturity or any particular target audience.

>I have given it multiple times
No, this is just a stock phrase that you throw around when you haven't explained something and can't ever explain it.

>Video games are not about "soul", it's about selling copies.
Books are about selling copies. Now what?

>That's because it's a video game.
It's because you don't know anything about it and hadn't even heard of it until I brought it up. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just aimlessly flailing around like a retard.

>It's no different from any other video game because of the nature of its medium.
A claim you have absolutely no explanation for. This is particularly stupid because video games are extremely different from each other in a way that's not possible for other mediums. Civilization, Mario and Doom all function very differently.

>I'm sorry you lack the reading comprehension to understand them
Another bullshit stock phrase of yours that you throw around like confetti for no real reason.

>1. Video games (and modern movies) are designed for people with short attention spans, with multiple different incentives to keep you hooked. Overall there is hardly any depth byt he nature of the medium.
How much of an attention span is required for a game and how much depth a game has depends on the game. All you seem to know about video games is some midwit pop psychology about muh dopamine receptors or some shit. You've never even heard of strategy or puzzle games.

>dark and edgy
>3. This is a marketing ploy
Blah blah blah.

>>19027137
You don't have to choose

>>19028457
Just because you watch something as a child doesn't mean it was meant for you or that you understood it. A child is never going to comprehend L.A. Noire. Even an adult may not understand the story.

>Now there's nothing inherently wrong with children's entertainment
Of course there is. That's the entire basis of your lie. That it's bad because it's for children.

>>19028457
>Anything that is beyond the capability of children's minds to understand.
Children have varying levels of intellectual capability. Which children shall be used to establish this metric?

itt: /vg/ subhumans seething

>>19028546
Yeah right. You've been getting completely demolished in this thread.

>>19028495
Nope. You’re a pleb with shit taste. I’ll continue reading Darío while you get BTFO with your meaningless platitudes.

>>19028499
>Arbitrarily defined.
Which was regarding the subject matter. My point is regarding the form of the content. How dense are you?
>They are not going to tell you that they make games for children.
Perhaps not you then, but it's what they do, and those at the top know it.
>Don't act like you've read McLuhan or like you have any arguments or that any of this is going anywhere. You have no explanations for anything and you're just randomly pulling shit out of your ass.
I have, we're not all like you. You seem to project your own insecurities about this onto me, I'm not sure why. Why are you so fragile about this subject?
>You are full of shit. There was no explanation.
You llack reading comprehension, we've established this multiple times now.
>Those are not the same thing at all and you can't offer any arguments as to why they would be.
I have. How are they different? They describe the exact same thing, yet one pair is more consumer friendly and the other more condescending. They both mean the same.
>So you admit you can't explain what "flashy images" you're talking about. Ok.
The flashy images that are on your screen whenever you turn it on. "but it's all dark and edgy and grim" no difference.
>You have done absolutely nothing to prove that video games are for children, and people are interested in the narrative of games for the same reasons they're interested in the narrative of novels, plays and movies.
Thanks for proving my point. Novels with narratives as focus are also children's entertainment. Is that bad? Not at all.
>No, this is just a stock phrase that you throw around when you haven't explained something and can't ever explain it.
You can keep pretending I haven't explained it when your issue is that you think my explanations don't suffice because you want to hear your own thoughts from me.
>Books are about selling copies. Now what?
Most of them are yes, which aligns with my point that even the majority of books are children's entertainment as well. Not necessarily though. Some forms of books are not meant to sell copies and cannot be understood by children (including adults who want dark and edgy subject matter). You can think of more than enough examples.
>You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just aimlessly flailing around like a retard.
Pot, meet kettle. My argument goes for any video game regardless of content, which is my entire point which you fail to grasp.
>A claim you have absolutely no explanation for.
We've been over this. Again and again. It's like talking to a brick wall.
>This is particularly stupid because video games are extremely different from each other in a way that's not possible for other mediums.
No, they function exactly the same. Different game mechanics are irrelevant.
>You've never even heard of strategy or puzzle games.
I've played many games in many genres in my youth.
>Blah blah blah.
You don't like the reality if being a consumer. I accept your concession.

>>19028551
It was my first post on this thread
Anyway here's the usual:
>go outside
>touch grass
>have sex

>>19028516
Yes, the game is very dark and edgy and for very serious and mature people, you've hammered it home now.
>Of course there is. That's the entire basis of your lie. That it's bad because it's for children.
It's not a lie, and I never claimed it was bad. You can refer to where you think I made this claim.
>>19028517
This is a pomo take. Yes children have varying levels of intellectual capability, but the thing they have in common is that they are not fully developed yet. Some people may move beyond children's activities at an earlier age than others, some (such as some people in this thread) may never outgrow them. That's fine.

>>19028569
You misspelled "playing Mario" but do whatever makes you feel good, that's what this is all about.

>>19028569
See >>19028546

>>19027596
>It's the nature of the medium of video games (and movies). Your game is no different than Mario at the basis.
Couldn't I use this same argument to say a renaissance painting is no different than a child's scribbles at its basis?

>>19028573
You're just dancing around and pretending to be stupid because you played yourself and as usual can't explain anything.

>Perhaps not you then, but it's what they do, and those at the top know it.
You don't play video games. You don't know anything about the game industry. You are making this all up as you go.

>I have, we're not all like you. You seem to project your own insecurities about this onto me, I'm not sure why. Why are you so fragile about this subject?
Psychobabble deflection.

>You llack reading comprehension, we've established this multiple times now.
A meaningless catchphrase that you repeat over and over again because you can't explain anything.

>I have. How are they different?
The burden of proof is on you to explain what makes them the same.

>The flashy images that are on your screen whenever you turn it on. "but it's all dark and edgy and grim" no difference.
So you are complaining about computer displays and televisions displaying images. Is that correct?

>Thanks for proving my point. Novels with narratives as focus are also children's entertainment. Is that bad? Not at all.
You just pulled this out of your ass. You previously defended books, now you're throwing them under the bus because it's suddenly convenient.

>You can keep pretending I haven't explained it when your issue is that you think my explanations don't suffice because you want to hear your own thoughts from me.
You have no explanations.

>Most of them are yes, which aligns with my point that even the majority of books are children's entertainment as well.
Again throwing books under the bus because suddenly it's convenient.

>Some forms of books are not meant to sell copies and cannot be understood by children
Some games cannot be understood by children, and there are games that are non-commercial.

>We've been over this. Again and again. It's like talking to a brick wall.
Yes, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

>No, they function exactly the same. Different game mechanics are irrelevant.
Explain IN DETAIL how Doom functions the same as Civilization.

>I've played many games in many genres in my youth.
No you have not.

>You don't like the reality if being a consumer. I accept your concession.
Nothing was said about being a consumer, and there was no concession. Why are you lying?

>>19028605
>Y-y-ou m-missp-p-pelled "p-p-playing Mar-r-r-rio" but do what-t-tever makes you feel-l-l go-o-ood, that's what t-t-this is al-l-l abo-o-out

>>19028217
Nah, I played it for the first time a couple years ago and think it's a genuinely great rpg.

>>19028607
>>19028546

>>19028616
No, because a child could not produce a renaissance painting, nor understand why people value it. Painting in itself as a medium is not comparable to video games since the latter is meant purely to enterain.

>>19028596
Ah so you're a leftist. No wonder you're completely incapable of arguing your idiotic agenda.

>>19028600
It's not dark and edgy and you've done nothing to demonstrate that it is. You have zero evidence for this claim. All you have is lies, lies and more lies.

>>19028457
There are a lot of games that a child is incapable of playing. Grand strategy genres for one.

>>19028635
A child could not produce a video game in any meaningful way or understand video games in the way that adults understand them. People have been creating art for entertainment for thousands of years.

>>19028620
>You're just dancing around and pretending to be stupid because you played yourself and as usual can't explain anything.
Pot, meet kettle.
>You don't play video games. You don't know anything about the game industry. You are making this all up as you go.
I have played many video games and my brother in law has designed games for many major gaming companies.
>Psychobabble deflection.
Pot, meet kettle.
>A meaningless catchphrase that you repeat over and over again because you can't explain anything.
It's not meaningless when it describes you. You keep showing that you do not understand the very simple argument I'm making and misinterpreting what I've said.
>The burden of proof is on you to explain what makes them the same.
I just did. They describe the same qualities, yet one pair is consumer friendly and the other is not.
>So you are complaining about computer displays and televisions displaying images. Is that correct?
No, not necessarily. You could display a static painting on a digital screen and it would not qualify in that manner. It's to do with the attention span.
>You just pulled this out of your ass. You previously defended books, now you're throwing them under the bus because it's suddenly convenient.
No, I've held this position since my first clarification of my first point. Again proving you lack reading comprehension.
>You have no explanations.
Pot, meet kettle.
>Again throwing books under the bus because suddenly it's convenient.
Again, I've held this position since my first clarification of my first point. You can scroll up to confirm it.
>Some games cannot be understood by children, and there are games that are non-commercial.
see >>19028457
As for the second point, fair enough, but they are still limited by the constraints of the medium and do not transcend it.
>Yes, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
Pot, meet kettle.
>Explain IN DETAIL how Doom functions the same as Civilization.
Detail is not necessary, I've explained this multiple times. This proves my assertion that you keep moving goalposts and will not accept any explanation that doesn't fit your standards. They are the same because of their media, their content is irrelevant.
>No you have not.
I have. I owned Playstations and Gameboys. I've played platformers, shooters, RPGs, strategy games, sports games, puzzle games. I'm not sure what you're achieving by asserting this nonsense.
>Nothing was said about being a consumer, and there was no concession. Why are you lying?
I'm not lying, you keep claiming this but it's only because I say things you dislike. That's not lying. You're lying by claiming I've never played games.
You are, by being so emotionally invested in the hobby of playing videogames, a consumer.
Your concession was due to not engaging in the consumer/marketing aspect of the medium. You have still conceded.

>>19028650
what is a "child"

I never played it, but that game Unturned was made by a 16 year old. Of course, that's a teenager, and he's now like 24 and has been building on it as an adult.

>>19028600
>Yes children have varying levels of intellectual capability, but the thing they have in common is that they are not fully developed yet.
The current neuroscientific consensus seems to be that the human brain becomes fully developed around the age 25. Does this mean you define people under the age of 25 as children?

>Some people may move beyond children's activities at an earlier age than other
You still haven't clearly established your method of differentiating between adult's and children's activities.

You posted earlier:
>Anything that is beyond the capability of children's minds to understand.
Now you are defining children as individuals who are not fully developed (I am assuming you mean the brain since this is a discussion about intellectual capabilities), therefore would not everything done by a 25 year old an younger be considered a children's activity?

>>19028637
We've been over this. Serious and mature is marketingspeak for dark and edgy. They describe the exact same qualities. Lies are falsehoods, these are just assertions you don't like the implications of.
>>19028646
No, they could, barring some details perhaps. If they'd enjoy it is another matter of course. Any human being who is not mentally retarded is capable of playing videogames in theory. The exception might be those for which you need physical agility and coordination, which tends to be better in childhood and youth, proving my point again that these media are designed for children.
>>19028650
>People have been creating art for entertainment for thousands of years.
Not for pure entertainment, that's a more recent phenomenon. But yes adults with childlike minds have always existed, although they are probably more common now.

>>19028706
Michelangelo painting this at 13

>>19028717
For the sake of the argument I guess you could, although it's not purely biological, there's also the part of cultural development that is sorely lacking in many individuals. Children are wholly incapable of understanding metaphysics for example, not only because of the development of their brains, but also because they lack the necessary experiences that can grant them particular insights. Now this goes for many adults as well of course.

>>19028718
A child literally couldn't, they could click around, but they couldn't understand it. Although I will extend that teenagers can and if you're adding them to your definition of child, I'll relent in that case.
>The exception might be those for which you need physical agility and coordination, which tends to be better in childhood and youth, proving my point again that these media are designed for children.
Oddly enough, I find my reflexes are much faster at 27 than they were at 16. I do much better in competitive matches online.

>>19028687
No. This is just another thing that you're saying for no real reason.

>I have played many video games and my brother in law has designed games for many major gaming companies.
Complete fucking bullshit. You just keep pulling this stuff out of thin air as needed. You're a pathological liar and severely disturbed.

>Pot, meet kettle.
This doesn't even make sense. It's a non-sequitur.

>It's not meaningless when it describes you. You keep showing that you do not understand the very simple argument I'm making and misinterpreting what I've said.
You. Have. No. Explanations. For. Anything.

>I just did.
No, you didn't.

>No, not necessarily. You could display a static painting on a digital screen and it would not qualify in that manner. It's to do with the attention span.
The attention span required by a game depends on the game. It's also common for people to play a game for hours non-stop, even an entire day.

>Pot, meet kettle.
You really are just randomly deploying these canned responses.

>see >>19028457
I already dismantled that post.

>they are still limited by the constraints of the medium and do not transcend it.
As opposed to what? Paintings that stop being paintings? Books that stop being books?

>Pot, meet kettle.
Holy fucking SHIT.

>Detail is not necessary, I've explained this multiple times.
You haven't explained a goddamn thing, but every time you're informed of this fact you just reply "nah don't worry bro I explained it already."

>They are the same because of their media, their content is irrelevant.
You have no explanation for this claim, and anyone who actually knows video games would laugh your claim out of the room. Doom and Civilization play nothing alike. Since you don't know what either of them either are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFnOLFd_ByQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE3t_WuoSwE

>I have. I owned Playstations and Gameboys. I've played platformers, shooters, RPGs, strategy games, sports games, puzzle games. I'm not sure what you're achieving by asserting this nonsense.
Bullshit. You haven't played anything. Any gamer can immediately detect that.

>You're lying by claiming I've never played games.
Your own posts prove you've never played any and barely even know what a video game is.

>You are, by being so emotionally invested in the hobby of playing videogames, a consumer.
Yeah and I'm sure you're a nomad living off-grid in the woods with only self-made tools, clothing and food, and only use the internet at the library. Get the fuck out of here. You're a consumer.

>Your concession was due to not engaging in the consumer/marketing aspect of the medium.
You don't know anything about the marketing of L.A. Noire. I asked you point blank to break down its marketing and how it supposedly is not representative of the game and you completely dodged it, just like you dodge anything. There was no concession you liar.

>>19028718
>We've been over this. Serious and mature is marketingspeak for dark and edgy.
No, it's my description of L.A. Noire. You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the game's marketing or the game itself. You have done nothing to establish that "serious and mature" and "dark and edgy" are synonymous.

>>19028744
Yes perhaps part of the confusion is people getting hung up on the part of "children", but yes I'd include teenagers of course.
>Oddly enough, I find my reflexes are much faster at 27 than they were at 16. I do much better in competitive matches online.
It's not exact science, but I'd wager that if you'd started honing those skills from a very young age you'd have been better at 16 than now. But that's speculation on my part.

>video games are for children
>I only engage in real, serious art like literature
>What do you mean Rimbaud solved poetry at 16 years old?
>You got a HECKING source for that claim cause literature is for serious adults like me who don’t engage in childish games like VIDEO GAMES

>>19028747
>Bullshit. You haven't played anything. Any gamer can immediately detect that.
I'm sorry, I'm done with you. My favourite games were Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Fifa, Pokemon, Final Fantasy and Red Alert (among others). I'm willing to engage in relatively fruitless debates with you if you do it in good faith but you're clearly acting in bad faith and I refuse. Have a nice day consuming your media.

>>19028769
Anyone can list random video games. It doesn't mean anything.

>you're clearly acting in bad faith
What a fucking, goddamn farce. You're the one who's been lying from the start. You're the one who consistently refuses to explain anything and then lies some more by claiming that akshually you explained it already, even though you didn't.

>>19028757
Then yeah, I agree about every video is accessible to children if teenagers are a part of it. Although I do also feel a teenager can understand the value of art, and a few are capable of producing art themselves, though they would be more in the gifted category.
>I'd wager that if you'd started honing those skills from a very young age you'd have been better at 16 than now
It's difficult to say. I actually haven't played online competitively for over a decade, since I moved as a teenager to a rural area without fast internet for online play. I've only recently been able to get online again. That being said, I've still played games most of my life so I'm sure that has helped.
Nonetheless, I don't necessarily disagree with any of your opinions. I'm indifferent about them. I don't feel as though video games are high-form of art, just enjoyable media that tickles a reflexive challenge itch for me.

>>19027310
based
>>19027322
Books and games both have appreciable levels of agency. Books often require visualization and the reader determines the pace. Games require at least some form of engagement, and they can expand on the narrative role of the player. Movies/television require no engagement from the viewer other than starting them. This isn't to say that movies cannot be engaged in, but they have minimal expectations from their audience.

>>19028736
I completely agree. I was just trying to get you to acknowledge that there is no clear delineation between childish activities and adult activities. (barring sexual reproduction of course, lol)

>>19027364
Why do you play western garbage then?
Play some real games. With depth and story.

>>19028807
>Although I do also feel a teenager can understand the value of art, and a few are capable of producing art themselves, though they would be more in the gifted category.
Yes everything I said was very generalizing of course, there's a grey area and there's always exceptions.
>Nonetheless, I don't necessarily disagree with any of your opinions. I'm indifferent about them. I don't feel as though video games are high-form of art, just enjoyable media that tickles a reflexive challenge itch for me.
Fair enough. That's exactly wha they are, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some of the other people here seemed to think I thought video games were bad, but I don't. I just responded to the OP why I prefer books over games and movies. I still play a couch split screen game with my friends every now and then. I just don't make it part of my identity.

>>19028838
Yes agreed, it's not a definite cut-off point, there's a grey area of course. But you have to generalize somewhat on these kinds of topics, can't make disclaimers with every remark I make.

i prefer the medium
i set the pace of my ingestion
i think it is a better medium for expressing things that interest me, which are largely "internal" or "subtle"

>>19027137
Blue light keeps you awake, and visuals look bad with warm light.
Books are intended to be read in spurts, and are far simpler.
It’s a much more intimate experience as well, I find.
Anyone can read or write a book.

>videogame deep narrative
>dark mature storytelling
>noir
>LA detective
>videogames are a valid artform
>I'm not a manchild
>b-but books are also entertainment!

>>19029015
You have no arguments against anything I said.

>>19029022
dial 8

>>19029027
You're a tranny and you're projecting, and you have no arguments against anything I said.

>>19028837
>but they have minimal expectations from their audience
maybe try watching something other than the imdb top 250

Reading is comfy and video games are fun Movies are fucking gay unless it's an old western

>>19027137
Because it's more beneficial to your cognitive abilities.

>>19030377
Then why are all video game playing nerds weak and pathetic little retards or acne ridden whales unable to walk without feeling joint pain

I literally cannot bring myself to play video games anymore. Or even use my PC at all.
I keep telling myself “ok today I will go do something on the computer, like write a python script or play a game”
But the day just goes by and I find it impossible to justify it to myself because time spent on the computer is time spent not reading

>>19027137
Watching movies it's a chore for me. And I'm not really into playing vidya.
I'm more likely to start a book than the other two.

>>19027424
Playing a video game and reading a book for enjoyment are no different.

Bloodborne

>>19030488
Yes, but a book can do more than that while a video game can't

Once you age you'll have less tolerance for what you allow yourself to tolerate.

>>19030514
I would agree, but only for nonfiction. You could argue that reading fiction helps you exercise a sense of beauty or appreciation for art, but the very same chemical reactions within the brain would be happening to the dude who basedfaces over le epic graphics and raytracing. It’s all the same at the end of the day. Nothing wrong with that.

>>19030526
Phone autocorrects basedfaces to basedfaces? Curious. I spend too much time phoneposting. Sigh

>>19030533
Holy shit it did it again. BASEDFACES. What the hell man

>>19030537
test
basedfaces

>>19030537
I swear on my life that I saw with my own two eyes that I typed basedfaces. It’s literally changing after I post it. What is this trickery

>>19030540
HOW

>>19030548
LMAO this is so fucking weird

>>19030548
Wtf is going on
Onions onions onions onions onions basedface basedface I am writing onions

>>19030533
>>19030537
>>19030540
>>19030544
>>19030548
>>19030549
>>19030554
>Roody-poo's first word filter.
Sure smells like summer in here.

>>19030549
anon wtf

>>19030557
I have been on here for a while and have never heard of this. Wat is it? Also, basedfaces

newfags i swear to god

>>19030570
The S-0-y word filter was implemented a couple years ago. Big S-0-y didn't want 4chan spreading memes that would effect their bottom line so they greased gook moot's palms to add the filter.

>>19030602
>>19030601
Ah I see. ALL HAIL THE OLDFAGS, SUPREME KNOWERS OF ALL THINGS.

>>19027137
It really just depends what tickles your fancy. If you are really into certain subjects, or ideas, then you are more likely to find those in books than others forms of entertainment

Why would you read a book over playing cards or watching a circus show?

>>19030526
You aren't as smart as you think you are if you believe nonfiction can deliver deeper ideas than fiction, and also if you believe that you are gaining anything useful from reading nonfiction. Whatever you do, it's always for the chemicals :)

>>19028217
this, everyone else just cant take off their rose tinted glasses. the onlything good about it is its text (how the story is communicated, literally a bunch of word blurbs. A 3rd rate author who has an undergrad and took a semester in vedic studies could and do the same online in pastebins.) which can easily be disassociated from the game. the game itself is pretty dated. Yh, there are charms and things to like, but buy and large its jank as fuck.

Its just that it has a decent cyoa write up stappled to a janky subpar easrly rpg syste,

>>19030668
Just because it isn't repayable doesn't mean it wasn't a lot of fun at the time that you played it. Though perhaps youth is a factor in that as well.

>>19030652
Based playing card circus lover elitist.

>>19030666
Checked. I do believe there is definitely value to be gained from fiction too (I mostly read fiction personally), but with fiction whatever there is to be gained is often up for interpretation and has to be gleaned off by the reader. This is opposed to nonfiction which is direct and has a clear goal (if the writer is good) of providing the reader with tangible skills or knowledge that the capable reader can immediately translate into something. You wouldn’t read a work of fiction to learn math or how an electrical circuit works, just as most wouldn’t read a math textbook to experience beauty, as an above average understanding of math is typically a prerequisite to feel beauty towards math, something most don’t have. For some reason readers of fiction feel their hobby is somehow invalidated or lessened unless some great realization is attained through reading, since this would justify their sinking time into what would otherwise be merely entertainment, not unlike watching a movie or playing vidya. I think the experience of simply enjoying the beauty in a writers story is more than sufficient of a justification for spending hours of ones time reading fiction.

>>19028111
Red dead Redemption 2 is fun for the open world, but after a while it become boring. Also, it missed the mark at being great once it reached the guarma part of the game. It was stupid, and shoudn't have been included in the game. The one that i would agree rivals some tv shows and movies is God of War 4.

>>19031683
the better the environment becomes, the more claustrophobic it gets. it's like spacial uncanny valley