Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Ez a téma zárolásra került 
E téma közzétevője a kérdése válaszának jelölt egy hozzászólást.
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
You brought up an example that didn't disprove mine so you've not really got a point here. The fact is that in context. "Death Stranding" works as a noun. Just like in context the DA thing works. It's not really that hard to understand is it?
When it comes to storytelling and use of language all forms of media work pretty much the same so I don't see the problem with bringing up media. Again, gaming doesn't just exist in a vacuum.
And you fail to bring up any evidence that suggests that it cant be used. Again, in the games context it works. "Death Stranding" is the name given to the disaster event in that universe. If you want a real life example all those "-gate" names that crop up for a certain controversy like "GamerGate". Again, in universe "Death Stranding" was a term coined to name that event as I've explained already.
If I can continuously repeat my argument without having change my wording, while you have to. Kind of shows who has the stronger argument here.
It quite clearly isn't a mistake. The game's writing has nothing to do with your main complaints, you're bringing up things that aren't relevant. I've never seen anyone say it was atrocious. Flawed maybe, but the game's story is pretty well done. Even if it falls into Kojima's usual exposition for an overly complicated plot. Video game writing generally isn't good? Some of the highest rated games out there have some really good story writing. FFVII, The Witcher Series, All of Valves SP titles, Dark Souls despite it's obscure lore and the list goes on.
I mean this still sounds like a bit of personal preference kind of deal. There's nothing here that has any truth behind it as it's all just an opinion. You're pretty much stating your opinions as facts here unless you've got anything to back up the fact that all eastern writers are amateurs.
Again, there is also an element of different cultures when it comes to these things. Just look at all the media that comes from the east compared to the west. It's a night and day difference. Different tropes, clichés, trends and all that which all factor into their final products and yes, this does apply to gaming.
Yeah, it doesn't suddenly not exist. But if it's a problem that only you have, it kind of raises the question of "Is it actually a legitimate issue?" because if no one else is having an issue then I really don't see why you're making it out to be a bigger issue than it really is.
There's also a lot of skeptical people out there and I imagine that numbers slowly increasing given all the shady BS that's going on in the AAA industry. It's quite hard to take things at face value any more when games often don't look or act the same way they do during developer presentations at stuff like E3, TGS and Gamescom and especially when game trailers are often somewhat disingenuous. In a sort of twisting the truth kind of deal. Just look at how TLOU 2 changed some of the scenes in their trailers to have Joel in places he wasnt (Because of the whole golf ordeal) and completely skipped the whole thing where you play as abby for half of the game.
At this point if you're not looking more into the games you find, you're doing yourself a disservice. Look above as to why you should do a little more research into the games you're interested in. The marketing is often disingenuous and will always dress even the weakest parts as being great. You should never just go off what the marketing tells you, it's always worth your time to do a quick little bit of research.
I do make an argument, you're choosing not to listen to it. In universe, the term "Death Stranding" was coined to refer to that disaster event as I've said. Again, the game doesn't expect you to know what "Death Stranding" means other than "It's that event that broke the world." because, again, it's something that the game explains through it's plot. Hell, even Sam starts out not really knowing all of these things so there's an excuse for this stuff to be explained to the player through Sam's character.
Again, not that hard to understand. It's one of the types of story telling, have a character that's just as clueless as the player
I could say the same to you, crying ad hominem as if it'll disprove my point. It goes both ways my dude so don't go crying when it gets twisted back on to you. You tried and it backfired unfortunately.
Nah my man. Cherry picking is when only select evidence is shown to argue a point while missing or leaving out a significant portion that may say otherwise which is exactly what you did. You were claiming that the FF series as a whole was a mess yet you only showed me 1 example from two games which from a series that is a massive as FF is, is a little disingenuous as the series is far, far bigger than just those two games. You were the one that brought up Dark Souls 2 and I explained that Dark Souls 2 was the exception to the hitbox issue you brought up.
I mean, I kind of did answer your argument but you continue to ignore them and push your own opinions as facts. But do go on.
Except Death Stranding doesn't expect to be "Officially Accepted" it's a term made solely for the game. It's not expecting the term to go world wide and to be accepted into dictionaries as a new word is it. Is a thing that's entirely localised to that game. So again, there's no problem with it. And because I know you'll bring it up again, it doesn't expect the consumer to know it's complete meaning as it's explained in the game. You're literally supposed to go in knowing nothing about the death stranding. It teaches you everything about it like BT's, timefall, voidouts, EE's and so on. As long as you're localising new phrases to your piece of media then it's completely fine to make ♥♥♥♥ up. You're acting as if Kojima's expecting Death Stranding to be something that everyone knows and that he's expecting it to become a new word that everyone is using when that's not the case. What's so hard to understand that the term is localised entirely within the game. Are you going to get mad that Dark Souls doesn't explain what the Dark Souls is? Or that Warframe is a completely made up term for the Player Characters?
I mean there's pretty mixed views on it's pretentiousness as a whole and in this thread. It's not a clear cut "Yeah it's pretentious" or "No it ain't".
The steam tags are user generated. The steam store page is pretty much the same as the PS4 store page is. If there was such a massive problem wouldn't you think that they would change things? It seems like it's not doing that bad of a job since it's selling copies decently.
I mean, pretentious is more often than not used to criticise something so I think you can see why I'm holding that view. Yes some pretentious stuff like LiS can be seen as pretty good, but I believe that's more of an exception because surprisingly people can look past certain flaws like that. Just look at Deadly Premonition. That game has some REALLY questionable design choices, production values and is very technically flawed. Yet it's got a massive cult following.
You don't say. But having them on YT is still a passive form of marketing. It's just like those reddit posts you see where it contains a heavy reference to a certain brand in some way while not outwardly acting like an advert. Having them up on youtube means you'll have people people sharing them all across social media, it's basically free advertising at this point.
Big name streamers often have deals with publishers to go and play their game. Just look at Valorant for example. All the big streamers were playing it and were given drops so that viewers who were watching them play the game had a chance at getting a code for the closed beta. It was THE most viewed game on twitch during all of this and now it's dropped a fair bit now that it's out. That is an example of advertising. You have to realise that these big name streamers can pull in millions of viewers. If they play a new game then they're exposing that game and their (Often positive) thoughts and opinions so a very impressionable viewerbase. It's a pretty good form of advertising tbh. I'd imagine it's relatively cheap and can each millions of players that would be interested in your game if you make deals with the right people.
Again, they're not just "Putting it out there" they're picking the right people for the job. I'm not really that much into twitch so I cant really name names. But They'll be picking big names like (From the top of my head) Dr Disrespect and xqc.
I mean I cant prove it because there's no real proof either way unless I spent hours and days trawling the internet and doing a big data collection project. But common sense would dictate that there's a large overlap between people who enjoy films and people who enjoy games.
Voice actors are very replaceable because you're not really seeing the voice behind the character. When you're playing a game you're not really listening to a voice and thinking of the actor, unless they've got a very recognisable voice (Like troy baker who pretty much sounds the same in every role he has) or you already know who it is going into the game. Given voice actors can pull a wide variety of voices for their roles it's easy to just not think about the actor behind the character. But in a (Live action) movie (Animated tends to have the same problem as before) you're seeing the actors because they are the character. When you're watching Iron Man you're seeing RDJ as Stark and Keanu Reeves as John Wick. That makes them much more memorable for their performances than their voice acting counterparts. At least that's my take on it. If you didn't know who Troy Baker was and you just saw a picture of him you probably wouldn't think "Oh that's the guy who voiced, Joel, Ocelot, Higgs, Sam Drake." but you can look at Keanu and think of all his roles even if you're not familiar with the man himself. You can still go "Oh it's the dude who played, John Wick and Neo."
The exception would be characters that you don't see the actor of (Masked characters/animated characters/Narrators and the like). Like V from V for Vendetta. You probably wouldn't know it was Hugo Weaving until you look at the cast list.
Except Kojima isn't trying to redefine the dictionary. He's not trying to create a new noun. Again. It's a term localised entirely in the game. Why are you acting as if he's trying to rewrite language? The term "Death Stranding" only has meaning within the game and that's how it's intended to be. He's not exactly expecting it to suddenly take off as a new word. Yeah it's the title of the game, but again it's just a title. Are you going to complain that "Metal Gear" cant refer to the robots because it means something else. Are you going to complain that "Half Life" cant refer to the game because it has an established meaning about radioactive decay. What about "Penumbra" when that word refers to shadows. What about "Alone in the Dark" when you're clearly not alone because there's monsters everywhere.
Just like how Half life isn't trying to add stuff like "Vortigaunt" and "Shu'ulathoi" into the dictionaries.
Or how Prey is trying to add "Typhon" to the dictionary.
It is possible to create nouns by mashing words together in the same vein as "Death Stranding" and for them to be valid because people aren't that stupid in that they'll think it's entirely new word. People can understand that "Death Stranding" has a meaning that is entirely within the game's context. Just like how people can understand that Half Life can refer to both the game and the amount of time it takes for a radioactive substance to decay to half it's mass (Which is what the game gets it's name from anyway)
Yes.
I'll split the royalties 50/50 with the other dude if he wants.
I had shown how using in game nouns can be done. Death Stranding however does it poorly. You keep repeating that it works as a noun, but you provided no evidence or argumentation of how it does while you ignored my examples at how those things are done properly by pushing your own statement of how this game does everything right, being deaf to what I was saying.
You make such basic mistakes. You are poor writer, I think I won't be collaborating with you on this book.
https://youtu.be/yJNMkroM8zQ
First, you do not know what argument is. You might want to check on that. Secondly, you make mistake of thinking that you say more than you actually do. I did that mistake in a past also. Thirdly, my argument is not that it CANT be used. Only that is badly used. Or in a case of store front page description, pretentious.
You are right, I'm not complaining about this game writing, only how Death Stranding was used in description of this game. And no, game writing is generally quite poor compared to books. Game writers make so many rookie mistakes or are forced to compromise that it is not even funny. It is also hilarious that you brought Final Fantasy as an example of a good writing when in reality it has horrible writing.
https://youtu.be/KG1ziCvLkJ0
You are right here. Writing and art is ultimately subjective. A professor might tell you what your art is attrocious, but if you find an audience and become successful, obviously it has some merit which some people might enjoy.
Though, I would not use games which are polarising as an examples of them doing something great. A great game would be perceived by everyone as great. Look at Dark Souls. A flawed game with some good elements will be polarising.
It is such a small, insignificant thing that it does not matter. I'm not critiquing game or how well it is written. My critique is about store front page and how it is a bad practice to use your made up noun as a proper noun without giving any prior context to a person. I can't create any relationship and meaning in my head when I see Death Stranding used without any context prior. I consider that to be a bad description, but it is so utterly minor complaint that nobody besides you or me cares.
I do agree. Though I would argue that success of AAA games with their huge marketing budgets and bland, formula based, samey gameplay is a proof that more people just buy what it is advertised to them rather than doing their own research. Otherwise, people would not get constantly burn by terrible, broken releases.
Well, the only right thing to do in my eyes is not even follow new releases if it is not something which fits your niche. There is sooo many great games already that there is no point in playing new ones. I never get burn by a video game, because I usually buy GOTY edition on deep sale years after its release with all the patches, expansions and additional content with a lot of reviews on Steam already.
But yeah, people who do not do research can only themselves to blame for being burnt.
Again, it does not matter what you coined your noun to be within a game. I'm not within a game. I'm not introduced to a context. This is game description page and using your made up nouns as proper nouns simply does not work and gives me no idea of what you mean. Writer could say: Apocalypse named Death Stranding had happened and it would already clear things up for a reader, but it does not do that. This is the problem. I had shown how Dragon Age Inquisition made its own description. It has plenty of in game nouns, but none of them were in the description. Yet, it had managed to introduce itself to me a lot better than few lines given to me by Death Stranding.
To be perfectly fair, you did called me stupid and being unable to understand what you were saying when replying to my quote. Then I had said that you have nothing to say and just insulted me. If you doubt me, please check out original quote to what I was replying and to what you were replying. In that moment you were pretty damn rude to me.
Alright, here is what I did and what you did.
I had said that Final Fantasy has a poor writing and had shown few recent cases where it was a case.
What you did:
You had provided evidence of when games has poor store front, none ultra wide screen support, using made up nouns. You had drawn your examples not from specific popular series. Not from gaming industry as a whole, but from entire media. Books, movies, games, music, etc. To you they all the same. You literally picked few examples out of thousands upon thousands of works of art to prove your point.
From recent games, I maybe had shown 30-60% of cases where my argument is true. You had picked 3 cases out of thousands. I think that you did a lot more of cherry picking than I did in this thread. Furthermore, when you said that problem was only with Dark Souls 2, I had agreed with you that I was wrong. I had accepted your counter argument. Yet when it comes to Final Fantasy, we have only my case of where writing was considered poor by other people and we have no evidence to a contrary that other games are any different. In this case you should prove that my examples were flukes, lemons and other games are different. Otherwise, it is my proof of something being done badly in some game against your baseless statement that everything is fine. I naturally win, because I have some evidence against no evidence to the contrary, just your word.
The difference is that Death Stranding had used itself as a noun in game description. It kinda expects player to already know what Death Stranding is, otherwise it would not be there as a proper noun. This is partly why I consider this game to be pretentious. I do not care how it is in game. It can be perfectly well explained, but the store page is not for people who had bought and played the game. It is for people like me who have no idea what game is and want to check it out. To me Death Stranding has no references, no connections. It is just non existent noun which as well could be replaced with BLANK and very little meaning would be gone.
I do agree, but people who claim that it is pretentious tends to make stronger case for it while people who claim it is not act themselves as pretentious or arrogant. Claiming that it is not game for brain dead Fortnite kids, etc. That is not really opinion which you would want to count.
It still does not help new person to figure out what this game is about. This is why I consider it to be broken. This game is an open world masterpiece where you manage your inventory? Seriously, if THESE are good tags then I do not know what you would consider as bad tags.
There is always something bad with any game, but some critique might be so harmless that it would not matter to some. For example, for a long time, especially as a kid I could not care less about voice acting and sound. Does that mean that someone critiquing game about its attrocious sound makes it any worse for me? No, I don't care about that critique as players who enjoy Death Stranding or Life Is Strange about pretentiousness of that game. All what matters in the end is ability to move copies and if people are buying, they are generally liking that game. And it doesn't matter that some old school gamer like me critiquing game for falling to live up to very high expectations. It is like game critics forever complaining that new games do not innovate while masses are quite happy to play just more of a same.
In the end, I liked games which are quite poorly received and disliked very well received games. Only thing that bothers me with reviews and critique is when it is not fairly given or half assed.
I never disagreed with you, but said that your definition is very broad. A true marketing campaign is about far different things and nobody creates an expensive CGI trailer for it just to sit on steam store page.
Yup, but there is usually money behind big streamers. Publishers pay them to play their games. Only smaller sites and players get free, early copies of their game which is a small bribe in itself. But either way, they do not leave their game somewhere on youtube, hoping that people will start covering it. Publishers and marketing department actively seek out new people to market their games. You probably seen it from your favorite youtubers covering various ♥♥♥♥♥♥ games like Raid Shadow Legends. It is not that they saw it on the youtube and decided to cover. It is because company found them, reached out and offered bag of money if they would promote their game. It is very different than just putting your product out there and expecting it to get traction.
In my experience newer generation of people fail entirely to name movie stars. You can only hope that people would know the biggest names out there. Most people recognise famous faces, but relatively few remember their names. As for even newer generation, they definitely do not know any of the actors. In modern age of netflix, binge watching entire seasons, having entertainment overlord and very niche tastes, people are far more likely to recognise icons of their nice than big movie stars. I bet that gamers would recognise Naruto, Gordon Freeman, Alex, Tracer and other super famous fictional game characters over any actor or actress.
Because it is used in game description as an actual noun to a person completely unfamiliar with that game. I do not care how it is in game.
Also, I'm not complaining about game title. I'm complaining about that one sentence in game description who used Death Stranding as an actual noun.
It's almost as if I have given an argument and you keep missing the point of everything.
I forgot a single youtube video was the authority on how video games are written, my bad dude.
And my argument is that you're wrong on that stance and I've given my reasons why. Yet again you seem to be unable to understand what context is and how people can understand that "Death Stranding" has a meaning in the context of the game and the game alone. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that. This really is a you problem.
Death Stranding is polarising because it's doing something relatively new. It's foregoing heavy action which is common in AAA games like that and it's taking a different approach with it's heavy emphasis on hiking around everywhere and planning your journey. This polarising element is seen mostly as a good thing because it's a bit of a breath of fresh air in an industry filled with games that have been done to death. Everything else about the game is handled pretty well.
To me the storefront is fine enough. Yeah it doesn't beat you over the head and spoon feed you with all the details but it gives you enough of an idea about the plot and then the trailers fill in the rest. You dont need to be extremely verbose about your product.
Again given the description of the game you can infer that the "Death Stranding" was a disaster event and then the game gives it more context. Again, it's something that the games plot slowly explains giving you more details when they're relevant. If you can't figure that out while the majority of other people can, it's a you problem. Not the game's problem. It's an extremely stupid complaint.
And that's why it's important for people to not fall into the trappings of advertising. This is exactly my point as to why people should start doing their own research.
I don't get burned on games either. Because I only buy if I'm confident enough that even if flawed, I'll enjoy the game. If I'm unsure I'll go and do some research, usually looking at steam user reviews and a bit of gameplay footage. That and having a massive library helps.
Yes it does, because y'know, people aren't THAT stupid. They can understand the fact that it's only got that particular meaning in that particular game.
You're not. But that doesn't matter. If you play the game it all becomes clear. Which is the whole point.
It clearly does work. Again, noone else is complaining. This is a stupid argument.
I mean I don't know about you. But after watching the trailers and reading that. It's pretty clear that the "Death Stranding" has caused some ♥♥♥♥ to go down.
You only pointed out "Sovereignty" afaik which wasn't used as a noun and it went by the definition of that word afaik. Again, this is a you problem. If you cant infer things then I don't really know what to say.
You brought up 1 complaint each about 2 games in a series that spans 15 mainline games and quite a fair amount of spin off titles. Those two examples barely scratched the surface and is just as bad as what I did.
It's not really much different to what you did, really. Like I said, you barely scratched the surface of the FF series and I did the same. So here, both our points are moot
Not even that. The FF series is far bigger than two games and examples you brought up. One example for each of those two games isn't even enough to back an argument for those two games alone. I mean you used Yahtzee for one of them and I'm pretty sure his whole schtick is being very overly critical of games for comedic purposes. The only game I believe he ever gave a glowing review of was SH2.
Again, you picked 2 cases out of a series that spans well over 15 games. That's a little disingenuous don't you think? You don't judge something based on a minority do you? XIII is more or less the Dark Souls 2 of the FF series. The exception to an otherwise good franchise and as far as I'm aware. FFXV is generally considered to be rather good. If not flawed due to DLC's that were intended to give more to the base game's story being cancelled.
Note the audience scores. I'm going off mass scores rather than individual examples as I believe that's a little more reliable. Also I'd say audience scores generally reflect games quality a little more than journos. Simply because journo's tend to receive review copies for free which skews their reviews a little, not for bribery but that it's just lacking that whole value aspect.
https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation/final-fantasy-vii
https://www.metacritic.com/game/game-boy-advance/final-fantasy-vi-advance (This is a port. Make of that what you will.)
https://www.metacritic.com/game/ds/final-fantasy-iii (Same with this one.)
https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/final-fantasy-x
https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/final-fantasy-xii-the-zodiac-age
Them are the ones I could find on MC that are considered good (8+ score). The older games (6 backwards) dont have MC reviews unless there's ports of them.
I've explained this many times and yet you never seem to understand it. It doesn't expect you to understand it beyond knowing the fact that ruined the world. Again. That's something you can infer. Again play the game and it explains it all. Again. That's the point. Again. You problem.
You don't say. It's almost as if noone else has a problem in understanding that the Death Stranding is what ♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥ up and that to get a better understanding they'd have to play the game.
It's really simple when you think about it. I dont get how you don't understand it.
Couple that with the trailers and you should get the idea. If you cant then it's a you problem. Again, no one else is complaining.
Yes, that's generally how made up names for stuff work. They could have called it "Sad Dead Time" or "No Afterlife and Danger Rain!" or "Spooky Boy Time" or even "The event where the dead are left stranded on the world, caused the rain to speed up time on things it touches and a whole bunch of other stuff" but those wouldn't have the same ring to it would it?
Again, just use your brain. Inference is a fun thing.
I mean I'm seeing people just say "Yeah it's pretentious" and "No it's not" in this thread and it's pretty much the same elsewhere.
I guess that pretty much every game with a unique premise is out the window then. What a silly response. So, nobody is allowed to use any new proper nouns to describe different things in an in game world? Lets just give up naming things altogether; no new names are allowed.
Don't be silly. Everyone who isn't living under a rock knows who Norman Reedus and Mads Mikkelsen is: They're solid celebs. Lea Seydoux has been in multiple big budget films and is pretty well known too. Troy Baker is pretty famous among gamers in respect of his wide variety of voice acting roles.
You know what would fix all this? A large influx of bees!
On topic I don't think anyone has a problem with creating new words to describe things but Death Stranding doesn't exactly take its time to flush out its ideas in a way that doesn't make the game sound pretentious and hacky. This is the real problem of Deatho Strando, it lacks any real context and comes across as weird for the sake of being weird because weird is interesting and cool. Its like reading Van Gogh cut off his ear and you responded with "well he was an auteur genius so if I cut of my nose and lips then I'll be just as interesting". The entire thing just comes off as disingenuous with a heavy scoop of lack of awareness.
But I do like the fact you brought up these well known actors and celebrities because they are well known and people do know who they are. This is a time when I really wish I had some sort of alternate dimension transporter so I can go to a universe where Kojima and these people are nobodies but still created this game and see if the reception was any different. Because I'm of the opinion if Kojima or Reedus had not been attached to this project it wouldn't have even gathered a fraction of the interest it did.
People have a lot of cognitive bias when it comes to the things they like that often effects how they view something. If someone they like is attached to the project they are more accepting of the flaws for example. People who hyped the game up can suffer from confirmation biases, the game could be crap but they have been so attached to the idea for months or even years they just will not yield to the idea it may not be very good. The same type of bias can happen by just spending the money, a lot of people are incapable of admitting they spent there money on something they don't like so they convince themselves its great. I think its called the sunken costs fallacy, but I could be wrong.
I just remember a time when a ♥♥♥♥ game was ♥♥♥♥ and celebrity and hype culture was on the back burner compared to the actual quality of the product. When a game was ass it meant financial ruin for a company and marketing wasn't the end all be all of a products success.
Really bait title? - CHECK
Obviously troll Steam account - CHECK
People falling for the obvious bait? - CHECK
Good to see Steam never changes.
The end of the game is the most painful part because it's boring, badly designed, and sooooooooooo loooooooooooooooong even the ending of mgs4 looked like it had more interesting things in it.
This is the result of having a pretentious mastermind creating a barebone game were no one can say no to him or implement other ideas because he is the boss.