On Philosophy and Pretentiousness

[Spirit_Of_The_Wolf]

Ok, so I am not here to complain about the game's controls or difficulty. Instead, I am here to try and reasonably explain a particular aspect of "Getting Over It" that I feel people have tried to to breech before, but were unable to adequately express their intent and were thus met with hostility and childish name calling. While I do not claim to speak for them, I will attempt to piece together what I view as a few of aspects of the issue to be presently discussed.



To be frank, I don't own the game and have played very little while watching quite a bit so to make stern assumptions on controls would be unfair of me; though I do think that the physics (especially in regards to friction) in the game seem somewhat inconsistent. Though perhaps, the inconsistency is a penchant of the rage game genre. Rather, I think the game alone is interesting and presents a unique challenge for the average rage game junkie.

However, what I do take some issue with, is the philosophic meanderings of our dear Bennett. I do not take issue with the fact that he attempted to add depth to a game such as this. Nor do I see him sharing his thoughts on the matters addressed as snobbish though I can see where they may be coming from.

What does displease me though, is how he tones his mental wanderings as fact or solid philosophy whilst "backing" them with quotes removed from context. It's sly, but demeaning to any real philosophy or ideological discussion. Furthermore, his mutterings do not follow a cohesive line of thought; instead dancing about without proofs or logic and instead taking a closer form to a stream of consciousness. While there isn't anything inherently wrong with that, he presents his half-formed ideas as cohesive ideologies or worldly truths. It seems like a bright child, who is terribly proud of his drawing of a tree, trying to explain how the tree works; yet all the while the child is mesmerized by his own drawing and can only draw conclusions about real trees from the very tree he himself drew.

In short, Bennett's arguments are entirely reliant on his game being the answer to the questions he presents. At this point, is where he seems arrogant and pretentious.

This I think, is where a large majority of people become disillusioned or disdainful of the game. Not because of the game itself, but rather what Bennett is displaying himself as, whether intentionally or not. I think that this is what many other people have tried to articulate, but have been unable to commit to text appropriately. To put it simply; it is terribly annoying to be in a room with someone who believes himself to be of superior thought or intelligence. It is worse then, when it seems said person has little evidence of it yet continues to "generously" attempt to enlighten you as though from a higher mind. It makes a person feel like they are being looked down upon by a person who has no business doing so. It doesn't help that Bennett invokes less than subtle jabs at both the player and those that may be watching.

What further frustrates me, and presumably those who have posted similar topics prior to mine, is the fact that part of the nature of Bennett's proclamations, is that he both directly and indirectly defends his game unnecessarily. Such as his early mention of how it was his failure as a player, rather than a game designer that prevented him from alighting the mountain he created. He is directly stating that he felt his own game was fair and that if a player couldn't ascend, it was his or her own fault. Regardless of right or wrong, by defending the game prematurely, it feels like there is in fact something wrong with the game that needs defending.

There are further examples of similar statements within his speech, but I will instead move onto another peeve of many that likely caused displeasure for many people. Specifically, his method of equating the difficulty of his game to the value of difficulty present in the old or classic games. Essentially, he is putting himself up on the same pedestal of great games of yore, pointing to them, and saying, "See how these games were super hard? Well mine is too! Only games like this are truly worth overcoming. The harder the challenge the more it's worth right?"

Well, aside from once again making himself appear terribly arrogant by elevating himself to the level of classics (again, whether intentionally or not), his core argument here is objectively flawed. While challenge is certainly part of what makes something worth overcoming, it is merely a part; not a whole of the value. Furthermore challenge doesn't have to be unreasonable to be enjoyable. Look at Dark Souls, Ninja Gaiden, Splunky, and many others. Games that were far from easy, but incredibly fun.

That breaches another topic. Fun. A game, after-all is intended to be enjoyed; so if it is not enjoyable, regardless of how great the challenge is, any victory is merely bitter-sweet. Not to say that rage games can't be fun; but by seeking meaning only from unreasonable difficulty, you immediately fall beyond the range of a "game" as defined from its original purpose.

Besides, by pointing to the difficulty of many older games as proof of the value of difficulty, something is overlooked. Namely, the point of technology and history. To be frank, old games were limited in what designers could do to increase replayability and play time. Aside from that, there were few precedents with many initial games leading to each step forward in game development being a shaky, exploratory one.

Thus, the easiest way to ensure longer play time was to make the game more difficult to beat in the first place. For many games, this was the ONLY option at the time. Game designers did the best they could with what they had. This is respectable, but is hardly a reason for imitation in a modern world where we have technology and an expansive history of game design experience at our finger-tips that out predecessors never had. All that to say, old games are respected for the mark they have on gaming history, not for their imitative value which, in the modern gaming world, is quite low.

To conclude, the "philosophy" in the game is painfully subjective and half formed; thrown together seemingly willy-nilly in a manner unconducive to discussion or reason. It is the cheap philosophy that subsequently cheapens the game's experience. I think that this is what frustrates people most of all. The game itself could have done the talking and a more cohesive message could have grown from it even without the verbal brow-beating. There is lost potential here.

I don't think that what Bennett did was "wrong" but I do think it was unwise; and I believe it is the mistake that will cost him whatever message he hoped to eventually communicate in the future.

Thoughts?

Thank you for reading, and have a pleasent day,

The Spirit of The Wolf

[Spirit_Of_The_Wolf]

Originally posted by Doobie Keebler:

Your long winded rant could only come from someone who hasn't actually tried to understand what he's saying. From the beginning, he is talking about the original Sexy Hiking being an example of a "B-game" which he says is a game which is built upon layers of "trash". This game itself is about the player climbing this mountain of trash that has been created by him. The quotes that he offers are ALSO trash, as he states that this is what the post-internet world has become: billions of people filtering through 10-second clips and soundbites for gems, only to forget them immediately as something new comes along. That our entire identity as humans is built on snippets taken out of context, and that even our media has been built on this. He even says that doing such a thing is building "B-movies" or "B-philosophy". However, at no point does he seem to dismiss this as being something we should avoid, it's just an observation of the fact that as we consume more and more information, it is impossible that anything truly be new.

Basically, the musings of the developer within the game are also long-winded, and just regurgitating the belief that there are no new ideas. Even the game we are discussing is not a new idea.

I certainly attempted to understand what he was saying. I posted that quite clearly in fact. What you discuss here, is merely one aspect of his musings. A topic mind you, that I did not touch upon. Why? There wasn't anything I felt was wrong or counter intuitive with THAT part of his thoughts. The other parts that I touched on are the parts I felt had fault in them. As such, while your thoughts are interesting and I thank you for posting, I would appreciate it if you looked again at what I was saying, before you make an assumption on the effort I put forth to understand Bennett.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

[Spirit_Of_The_Wolf]

Originally posted by Pondera:

I had ventured a thread on this topic a short while ago, asking what kind of person Bennett really is, but he didn't grace me with a response. However, I do think I know the truth. AFAIK, he has created two games: QWOP and this. QWOP is a game with control so awful, so counter-intuitive, and flying in the face of all common sense that one has to assume that he made it as a joke, an insult to the internet disguised as what a game should be. It wasn't fun, it wasn't even amusing for more than the first few seconds where the player is graced with nothing but failure.

GOI is muchly a similar game. Every aspect of it is carefully designed to set the player up for failure over and over again, be it from counter-intuitive controls, jump scares, that awful snake, or any of a laundry list of "because screw you" design decisions. Are we starting to see a similar pattern here?

So, for all his high brow talk, I think we can fill in the answer here. What kind of person is Bennet Foddy? Certainly not a very nice one. He enjoys his players' suffering, deliberately goes out of his way to build frustration, and would gladly mock you as you fail over and over again trying desperately to reach the carrot he dangles before your eyes. Basically, he is a troll, and he has just played the most epic of pranks on the entire world. We have filled this cauldron with our tears, and he has drunk deep.

That was beautiful. Thanks for posting.

[LarryWF]

I really didn't care for the narration. It's just an old man shaking his fist at internet culture because he completely misunderstands how it works.

[Chiptune]

If everybody knew it was a troll game, everybody would stop buying it. I know I'd never buy it.

[Spirit_Of_The_Wolf]

Originally posted by LarryWF:

I really didn't care for the narration. It's just an old man shaking his fist at internet culture because he completely misunderstands how it works.

Thanks for posting.

[Spirit_Of_The_Wolf]

Originally posted by Chiptune:

If everybody knew it was a troll game, everybody would stop buying it. I know I'd never buy it.

Thanks for posting.

[cheep crybabby hatter]

Originally posted by Chiptune:

If everybody knew it was a troll game, everybody would stop buying it. I know I'd never buy it.

I'm pretty sure everyone does know it's a troll game. It almost explicitly says, right at the top of the store page description, that it's designed to trigger people.

[Wanderer]

Hey, successful trigger. Not purchased due to trigger. Also, you earned a "not interested" from me. You won. Well done, Sir. Now, let me find a game by a dev who isn't sadistic, lazy, and pretentious.

[Spirit_Of_The_Wolf]

Originally posted by cheep crybabby hatter:

Originally posted by Chiptune:

If everybody knew it was a troll game, everybody would stop buying it. I know I'd never buy it.

I'm pretty sure everyone does know it's a troll game. It almost explicitly says, right at the top of the store page description, that it's designed to trigger people.

This is the guy who designed qwop i suppose. Thanks for posting.

[Spirit_Of_The_Wolf]

Originally posted by Mighty Joe:

Hey, successful trigger. Not purchased due to trigger. You won. Well done, Sir. Now, let me find a game by a dev who isn't sadistic, lazy, and pretentious. :DLskull:

Good luck. Thanks for posting.

[Names]

The main monologue is well thought through and is self explanatory if you actually play the game till the end and listen carefully. Try playing the game yourself to really feel what he is saying. Watching a YouTube video is not the same.

As far as the comments, quotes and music activated by failure go, they are by far the best thing that ever happened in my ~25 years of hardcore gaming experience. (yes i actually played those hard games he was talking about and know exactly what he means when he talks about the lack of difficulty these days)

All in all this is a beautiful relationship curve between player and the designer that i haven't seen before in any game. From seemingly arrogant, pretentious, sadistic person who just wants to manipulate and hurt you, to the most empathetic, caring and loving person who starts to appreciate you only after you surpass the biggest hurdles of the game (and that's not a coincidence).

To achieve that impressive relationship curve you have to start from down low, and since you didn't actually beat the game yourself, you probably didn't get to actually enjoy the peak. (pun intended)

[Spirit_Of_The_Wolf]

Originally posted by Brother Vladimir:

The main monologue is well thought through and is self explanatory if you actually play the game till the end and listen carefully. Try playing the game yourself to really feel what he is saying. Watching a YouTube video is not the same.

As far as the comments, quotes and music activated by failure go, they are by far the best thing that ever happened in my ~25 years of hardcore gaming experience. (yes i actually played those hard games he was talking about and know exactly what he means when he talks about the lack of difficulty these days)

All in all this is a beautiful relationship curve between player and the designer that i haven't seen before in any game. From seemingly arrogant, pretentious, sadistic person who just wants to manipulate and hurt you, to the most empathetic, caring and loving person who starts to appreciate you only after you surpass the biggest hurdles of the game (and that's not a coincidence).

To achieve that impressive relationship curve you have to start from down low, and since you didn't actually beat the game yourself, you probably didn't get to actually enjoy the peak. (pun intended)

That's an interesting outlook, and I can see where it comes from, but I will have to respectfully point out that my issue comes from the clear and present ideas presented and discussed above. While the relationship curve is interesting, it doesn't really have relevance to the philosophy of the game; nor do I believe that physically playing it would change my outlook towards the game as my complaint stems from the ideas presented and the method under which they are stated. Furthermore, I did listen till the end, but my above statements still stand. It is not from a lack of comprehension, but from a lack of satisfactory thoughtfulness on Bennett's part, from which my frustrations stem.

Thanks so much for posting and contributing! Have a great day.

[Isz]

It's odd to see a non-creator browbeating a creator for not living up to some made up idea of what is and isn't valid philosophy. You call him out for using subjectivity in a realm that has no objectivity. You take a meandering of ideas and boldly declare it as the philosophy being pushed by the creator. If you are taking this in a more serious way than the creator, that's really on you and your disappointment should be with yourself for demanding seriousness where it isn't.

You remend me of the kind of guy that would try to get all serious with a few stoners shooting the philisophical ♥♥♥♥.

There are plenty of venues for the type of discussion you'd like to have, but seem to have gone for the low hanging fruit i.e. the philisophical merit of a trollgame on the Steam forums.

[Pondera the Radio Angel]

Originally posted by Isz:

It's odd to see a non-creator browbeating a creator for not living up to some made up idea of what is and isn't valid philosophy.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, creator or not. Just as you are able to express yours, I am free to decide if it sucks or doesn't. Personal credentials and achievements don't enter into it. To think otherwise is to engage in ad hominem, a logical fallacy meaning you argue against the person, not the points they are stating.

[Isz]

Originally posted by Pondera:

Originally posted by Isz:

It's odd to see a non-creator browbeating a creator for not living up to some made up idea of what is and isn't valid philosophy.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, creator or not. Just as you are able to express yours, I am free to decide if it sucks or doesn't. Personal credentials and achievements don't enter into it. To think otherwise is to engage in ad hominem, a logical fallacy meaning you argue against the person, not the points they are stating.

I said it's odd, and it is. Everything else is your own inference.

Also, captain nitpick, to think otherwise is NOT to engage in ad hominem, engaging in ad hominem is engaging in ad hominem. It requires action on my part, which I didn't engage in. Logical fallacies are great, when they apply. Like how you engaged in a strawman by disregarding the meat of my post in favor of the part you felt you could argue best.