The Subjective Importance of Game Discussion

[WhiteShark]

Inspired by a conversation in IRC with @wndrbr.

<WhiteShark> curious to see the numbers on people who wait for games to be truly finished before buying them
...
<wunderbar> i don't usually wait. if i wait, then i didn't really have hype for that game in the first place
<wunderbar> playing a buggy unfinished game and complaining about it on the forum is part of the experience.
...
<WhiteShark> now I will say that its being harder to discuss with others is a bit of a drawback to my approach
<WhiteShark> but that was always just a peripheral activity, not the main thing

How do others feel?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I feel that this isn't just a phenomena exclusive to early access games. Live service games like MMOs have been patching and altering their experience long before early access happened, so that people who started playing the game at different points in time do not share the same experience. You literally could not experience Vanilla WoW after Vanilla on official servers. Warframe had slow, tactical gameplay where there were relatively few enemies but they were threatening, you couldn't move fast and the maps were smaller. But then patches happened and the game became a horde shooter where you bullet jump through huge maps in seconds and press a button and everything around you dies. Overwatch used to be a 6vs6 game but then became 5v5. Etc.

If you are selling people something, people can criticize it. It doesn't matter if you try to claim that it's a beta or an alpha or a whatever. If you don't want people to critique it then don't put it out there. That's the nature of art.

As for discussion, if often find it just as enjoyable as playing the game. Sometimes moreso, sadly. There are a lot of games that I like the idea of, namely the art and story, but don't find the actual gameplay to be very enjoyable. So alt+tabbing out to browse discussions is like procrastination for me. There are some games however where I find them so enjoyable that I would rather just play nonstop and am too busy to spend a lot of time talking or reading threads about it.

[WhiteShark]

Live service games like MMOs have been patching and altering their experience long before early access happened, so that people who started playing the game at different points in time do not share the same experience.

This just makes me want to play such even less. Either the game I like will be destroyed, which would make me sad, or it will eventually turn into something I do like. Either way, I'm better off waiting.

[wndrbr]

Humans are social creatures, every activity is more fun if you get to discuss it with someone else and share your thoughts.

[NotAI]

I would agree with two of the options:

"I enjoy discussion just as much as the game"

"Discussing the game is part of the experience"

One more aside: Discussion of games is the most common discussion of complex systems. Well, that's always fun; and part of the experience of using complex systems is discussing them, because there is exponentially more to discuss.

"Humans are social creatures, every activity is more fun if you get to discuss it with someone else and share your thoughts." True.

[methoxetamine]

I'm pretty much on the fence of options 3 and 4. Playing a game on launch for example and shitposting on /v/ while playing it tends to make a game more fun and memorable for me, especially since those are **** near the only decent threads anymore. Even better the rare cases where one of my friends plays it at the same time but that's not as common. It's not totally essential though to the point of dictating what I play, most of the games I've played this year aren't recent at all

Also every time I finish an older game I at least look online for threads and read others discourse about it a little even if I'm not involved in the discussion at that point

[WhiteShark]

Humans are social creatures, every activity is more fun if you get to discuss it with someone else and share your thoughts.

Agreed, but it seems to me to be a matter of degree. Some people won't even play a game that doesn't have lively discussion, whereas it's just a bonus to me if I can find even one person willing to chat about whatever old/obscure/foreign game I'm playing. I don't feel my experience is diminished without discussion, just slightly augmented with it.

I would agree with two of the options:

"I enjoy discussion just as much as the game"

"Discussing the game is part of the experience"

The options were meant to be a natural language description of the importance in descending order. I considered going with percentages, but I felt this way would be easier. You can safely assume that the former includes the latter.

[WhiteShark]

Playing a game on launch for example and shitposting on /v/ while playing it tends to make a game more fun and memorable for me, especially since those are **** near the only decent threads anymore. Even better the rare cases where one of my friends plays it at the same time but that's not as common.

I can imagine this being fun in its own way, though I don't think I've ever done anything similar, but I'm averse to spoilers and have a strong desire to figure things out for myself, which makes me stay away from discussion for games I haven't finished. In RPGs especially much of the fun comes from solving the puzzles of builds and tactics, and seeing someone else's solution robs me of that.

Also every time I finish an older game I at least look online for threads and read others discourse about it a little even if I'm not involved in the discussion at that point

I admit I do exactly this, though. It's a way to extend the afterglow of a good game.

[Tweed]

The best part about RPGs isn't playing the games, it's telling everyone online how much they suck!

[rusty_shackleford]

I enjoy critiquing game design, and RPGs are the ultimate form of games.

[Vaako]

I rarely discuss the content of games. Maybe recommend a good one tho. Only get enjoyment from ******** on bad/woke games, so more ****** activist devs lose their jobs.

[Oyster Sauce]

[NotAI]

Humans are social creatures, every activity is more fun if you get to discuss it with someone else and share your thoughts.

Agreed, but it seems to me to be a matter of degree. Some people won't even play a game that doesn't have lively discussion.

This is surprisingly important. Here's a provocative thesis.

Mainstream player only means having played fewer games so far and being a "conformist".

Conformists can "quietly like something", that's their deal. According to their own personal preferences, they might like something, but they will not buy it and will not mention it themselves, unless they also actually see or strongly expect a lot more other people buying and discussing that thing than some internal threshold. They as if have preferences that also depend on the preferences they think other people in their age group have.

This is one key reason why marketing works, is important, and is not only about delivering information to prospects.

Paradoxically, game discussion is actually most important for those people, to "mainstream" (conformist) players, who don't discuss most games and usually don't discuss games at all, not to "core" (contrarian) players, as might be expected, who do participate in most discussions of games. The "mainstream" audience might not quite enjoy discussing games. Why? This usually means arguing about games. Having the conforming taste, they are brittle in such discussions.

All the same, they must see a lot of discussion happening all around them, and be able to participate in it at any moment. Like the Monty Python joke from the Life of Brian about the man who strongly wants the official legal right to give birth but can't actually give birth.

Contrarian or "core" players discuss games and like discussing games. But they don't care much about how many other people are currently playing that game or currently discussing it or whether any of those other people like the game. They just like what they like and act accordingly.

Being able to discuss games, or at least "safely mention" games in their social group, is a nonnegligible part of the experience of playing games and makes it better for anybody, but, courtesy of the complexity of human behavior, it is also integral and overwhelmingly important precisely to that one subset of the gaming audience that cares about games the least.

This why firms like to focus on "mainstream" players. They buy at around the same time as a large wave, based mostly on what they are persuaded other people happen to like, then almost nothing, while the "core" players buy all at different times. The former case has a much larger chance of leading to a "mainstream" feedback loop of a player count tidal wave, besides the fact with that this pattern is easier to finance. Several big wins and many small losses are easier to finance than a few big losses and many small wins, among different products over time or a single product over time. Risk is lack of control; because there is less focus on the quality of the game itself, which is hit or miss, and more on public perception of the popularity of the game, which can be controlled more easily and smoothed out by marketing, this is less risky to investors, who are not the developers and have less control over what developers actually accomplish in a time limit.

► Show Spoiler

Longer Version.

This is actually very important. Why?

Most players are "mainstream", yes. However, "mainstream" doesn't mean liking specifically bad games. It doesn't mean liking easy or simplistic games. It only means having played fewer games so far and being a "conformist".

It means (a) merely having played fewer games so far and (b) being a "conformist".

Conformists can "quietly like something", according to their own personal preferences. However, they will not buy it and will not mention it themselves, unless they actually see or strongly expect a lot more other people buying and discussing that thing than some internal threshold. They carry multiple preferences that can be inconsistent, unlike contrarians. They as if have preferences that also depend on the preferences they think other people in their age group have. Many more of their payoffs and not just their decisions are arrived at strategically, and seeing other people discussing a game or discussing a game is a mandatory part of the experience. It makes them think that, yes, plenty of other people also like this.

This is one key reason why marketing works and is important.

Contrarians meanwhile simply follow their own strict preferences. They don't have so many such meta-preferences that dominate their other preferences, when the two conflict. They don't have preferences that take as a variable the preferences of other people, strategically defined preferences, hence partially undefined preferences. They don't have multiple preferences for or multiple orderings of the same thing.

This is how BG3 was a mainstream success "despite" being a turn-based borderline imm sim. BG3 was a mainstream success also "because" it was a turn-based borderline imm sim.

Most people actually do personally like thee types of games. Games with a lot of player freedom.

More often, game developers are usually the ones who "want their story told", don't want players to mess with it, even in the details. Who don't trust their players.

However, just because most people like imm sims, real rpgs, etc, doesn't mean most people will play them, buy them, or talk about them. Why not? Most people are also conformist players. Mainstream.

They see which games are currently popular enough and get enough discussion, and select which ones they like out of those and only those games.

So they will play games that have a brand and a big marketing budget, if actually good games, but not games of the same exact types without it. They will also play games they dislike, rather than nothing, when they want to play something, but games they can casually mention without risk of standing out or disapproval. Why? They prefer something to nothing. However, their own specific preferences get overruled by their other stronger preferences for social approval, which might always contradict in the context of any specific thing. Conformists carry multiple preferences at once that must align for them to take actions. Contrarians have many fewer preferences functions. Usually just one, in fact.

This is why mainstream players ignore older games or niche games they will ignore completely, as they suspect not enough preawareness and discussion around. Remember, they will play popular indie games or games with low graphical fidelity like Minecraft.

As soon as the discussions about a game wane, "mainstream" players will avoid playing that game or mentioning they like it like the plague, and play something else they might like less, and say they "love" that instead. This penalizes older games, because they might have fewer people currently discussing them; notice that older games that, for any reason, have many people discussing them, such as Bloodbourne, will do well with the "mainstream" audience. The "mainstream" players like what they like, but often don't act accordingly. Why? They have a sometimes conflicting dominant preference for social activity or social approval.

Paradoxically, game discussion is actually most important for those people, to "mainstream" (conformist) players, who don't discuss most games and usually don't discuss games at all, and not to "core" (contrarian) players, as might be expected, who do participate in most discussions of games.

[WhiteShark]

On a similar note, one of my cousins once opined to me that games are meant to be multiplayer and that playing a game by oneself must stem from some sort of derangement. Said cousin later changed his mind after somehow stumbling upon a couple solo games he really liked, though he never evolved into a full gamer. On the contrary, I argued that if one can't enjoy a game by oneself and for its own sake, he must be deficient in some way and certainly cannot be a gamer.

[AmericanMonarchist]

On a similar note, one of my cousins once opined to me that games are meant to be multiplayer and that playing a game by oneself must stem from some sort of derangement. Said cousin later changed his mind after somehow stumbling upon a couple solo games he really liked, though he never evolved into a full gamer. On the contrary, I argued that if one can't enjoy a game by oneself and for its own sake, he must be deficient in some way and certainly cannot be a gamer.

What are your cousin's thoughts on Sudoku, Freecell, or crossword puzzles? Are these also symptoms of derangement, or is the digital medium of video games the key factor?

[WhiteShark]

On a similar note, one of my cousins once opined to me that games are meant to be multiplayer and that playing a game by oneself must stem from some sort of derangement. Said cousin later changed his mind after somehow stumbling upon a couple solo games he really liked, though he never evolved into a full gamer. On the contrary, I argued that if one can't enjoy a game by oneself and for its own sake, he must be deficient in some way and certainly cannot be a gamer.

What are your cousin's thoughts on Sudoku, Freecell, or crossword puzzles? Are these also symptoms of derangement, or is the digital medium of video games the key factor?

I'll be sure to ask him what he might have thought when next we chat. To hazard a guess, I suspect he would not have taken issue with those on the grounds that they present some intellectual challenge and under the mistaken assumption that video games don't. I do distinctly recall his strongly asserting that turn-based video games (e.g. of the JRPG variety) are 'demented', by which I assume he meant brainless. In fairness, plenty of them are.

[WhiteShark]

Conformists can "quietly like something", that's their deal. According to their own personal preferences, they might like something, but they will not buy it and will not mention it themselves, unless they also actually see or strongly expect a lot more other people buying and discussing that thing than some internal threshold.

I suppose this is one factor behind the avalanche of remakes. By "remaking" a game, no matter how poorly, they give people something to talk about, and thus draw in those who would play the originals but for lack of discussion.

[UltraFan123]

I voted for "Discussing the game is part of the experience," but there are also games that I will always enjoy, but don't feel like discussing about them.

Most of these games that I don't mind never discussing about are the games I originally played as a kid before I had access to modern internet; Super Mario World, Mega Man X, Kirby Dreamland, Gen I-III Pokémon, classic Donkey Kong, etc.

Nostalgia alone is more than enough to make me replay those games even to this day.

[Meaty Clackers]

Humans are social creatures, every activity is more fun if you get to discuss it with someone else and share your thoughts.

Agreed, but it seems to me to be a matter of degree. Some people won't even play a game that doesn't have lively discussion.

This is surprisingly important. Here's a provocative thesis.

Mainstream player only means having played fewer games so far and being a "conformist".

Conformists can "quietly like something", that's their deal. According to their own personal preferences, they might like something, but they will not buy it and will not mention it themselves, unless they also actually see or strongly expect a lot more other people buying and discussing that thing than some internal threshold. They as if have preferences that also depend on the preferences they think other people in their age group have.

This is one key reason why marketing works, is important, and is not only about delivering information to prospects.

Paradoxically, game discussion is actually most important for those people, to "mainstream" (conformist) players, who don't discuss most games and usually don't discuss games at all, not to "core" (contrarian) players, as might be expected, who do participate in most discussions of games. The "mainstream" audience might not quite enjoy discussing games. Why? This usually means arguing about games. Having the conforming taste, they are brittle in such discussions.

All the same, they must see a lot of discussion happening all around them, and be able to participate in it at any moment. Like the Monty Python joke from the Life of Brian about the man who strongly wants the official legal right to give birth but can't actually give birth.

Contrarian or "core" players discuss games and like discussing games. But they don't care much about how many other people are currently playing that game or currently discussing it or whether any of those other people like the game. They just like what they like and act accordingly.

Being able to discuss games, or at least "safely mention" games in their social group, is a nonnegligible part of the experience of playing games and makes it better for anybody, but, courtesy of the complexity of human behavior, it is also integral and overwhelmingly important precisely to that one subset of the gaming audience that cares about games the least.

This why firms like to focus on "mainstream" players. They buy at around the same time as a large wave, based mostly on what they are persuaded other people happen to like, then almost nothing, while the "core" players buy all at different times. The former case has a much larger chance of leading to a "mainstream" feedback loop of a player count tidal wave, besides the fact with that this pattern is easier to finance. Several big wins and many small losses are easier to finance than a few big losses and many small wins, among different products over time or a single product over time. Risk is lack of control; because there is less focus on the quality of the game itself, which is hit or miss, and more on public perception of the popularity of the game, which can be controlled more easily and smoothed out by marketing, this is less risky to investors, who are not the developers and have less control over what developers actually accomplish in a time limit.

► Show Spoiler

Longer Version.

This is actually very important. Why?

Most players are "mainstream", yes. However, "mainstream" doesn't mean liking specifically bad games. It doesn't mean liking easy or simplistic games. It only means having played fewer games so far and being a "conformist".

It means (a) merely having played fewer games so far and (b) being a "conformist".

Conformists can "quietly like something", according to their own personal preferences. However, they will not buy it and will not mention it themselves, unless they actually see or strongly expect a lot more other people buying and discussing that thing than some internal threshold. They carry multiple preferences that can be inconsistent, unlike contrarians. They as if have preferences that also depend on the preferences they think other people in their age group have. Many more of their payoffs and not just their decisions are arrived at strategically, and seeing other people discussing a game or discussing a game is a mandatory part of the experience. It makes them think that, yes, plenty of other people also like this.

This is one key reason why marketing works and is important.

Contrarians meanwhile simply follow their own strict preferences. They don't have so many such meta-preferences that dominate their other preferences, when the two conflict. They don't have preferences that take as a variable the preferences of other people, strategically defined preferences, hence partially undefined preferences. They don't have multiple preferences for or multiple orderings of the same thing.

This is how BG3 was a mainstream success "despite" being a turn-based borderline imm sim. BG3 was a mainstream success also "because" it was a turn-based borderline imm sim.

Most people actually do personally like thee types of games. Games with a lot of player freedom.

More often, game developers are usually the ones who "want their story told", don't want players to mess with it, even in the details. Who don't trust their players.

However, just because most people like imm sims, real rpgs, etc, doesn't mean most people will play them, buy them, or talk about them. Why not? Most people are also conformist players. Mainstream.

They see which games are currently popular enough and get enough discussion, and select which ones they like out of those and only those games.

So they will play games that have a brand and a big marketing budget, if actually good games, but not games of the same exact types without it. They will also play games they dislike, rather than nothing, when they want to play something, but games they can casually mention without risk of standing out or disapproval. Why? They prefer something to nothing. However, their own specific preferences get overruled by their other stronger preferences for social approval, which might always contradict in the context of any specific thing. Conformists carry multiple preferences at once that must align for them to take actions. Contrarians have many fewer preferences functions. Usually just one, in fact.

This is why mainstream players ignore older games or niche games they will ignore completely, as they suspect not enough preawareness and discussion around. Remember, they will play popular indie games or games with low graphical fidelity like Minecraft.

As soon as the discussions about a game wane, "mainstream" players will avoid playing that game or mentioning they like it like the plague, and play something else they might like less, and say they "love" that instead. This penalizes older games, because they might have fewer people currently discussing them; notice that older games that, for any reason, have many people discussing them, such as Bloodbourne, will do well with the "mainstream" audience. The "mainstream" players like what they like, but often don't act accordingly. Why? They have a sometimes conflicting dominant preference for social activity or social approval.

Paradoxically, game discussion is actually most important for those people, to "mainstream" (conformist) players, who don't discuss most games and usually don't discuss games at all, and not to "core" (contrarian) players, as might be expected, who do participate in most discussions of games.

I'm not going to accuse you of being a Slav but I am going to accuse you of thinking like one.

[TKVNC]

PC gaming is the truest reflection of 'gaming', by virtue of the fact that it's not purely gameplay.

The discussion is either part of the experience, or experience-adjacent.

[Norfleet]

What are your cousin's thoughts on Sudoku, Freecell, or crossword puzzles? Are these also symptoms of derangement, or is the digital medium of video games the key factor?

Sudoku is normally committed as a penance for a shamefur dispray.

[methoxetamine]

Relax buddy, I come here to get away from /v/, not to have it stare me in the face

[Tweed]

Relax buddy, I come here to get away from /v/, not to have it stare me in the face

What did he mean by this?

[orinEsque]

Literally lurked my whole life before I came to this forum to remove ******* from my game.

[Vlajdimir Ermenović]

I care about good game discussion in the sense that it fosters an environment where good games can find an audience, but it doesn't affect the experience of playing the game itself. It's secondary.

[ThulsaDoomer]

Discussion in general fosters understanding of what you experience and how to process that information, either by finding missing context or having your thoughts confirmed, among other benefits. Games as an interactive medium has more power than many give it credit, influencing peoples views and perceptions of the world via the themes and concepts explored. For example, the illusion of choice is always paraded as just that, an illusion, but I believe there is a failure to acknowledge that is how ideas are best introduced to the unaware mind. By the idea of you, the player, having made that choice and not the developers by use of the illusion, you are exposed to all of its implications or desires. Whether it has any effect depends on the individual and their acknowledgement of this silent manipulation. While it's not always malicious, discussion can help identify these moments or messages and better inform people of what they're consuming.

It's not subjective, discussion fosters intelligence, it forces you to explain yourself and your beliefs instead of expecting people to magically align to your wavelength or "vibes". This used to be paramount to our society and expected of most White men. The anti-intellectual movement has contributed greatly to discussion being censored or labelled "problematic" unless approved by ****** moderators in other spaces.

[asf]

sure i just play games to discuss them, what world is this

[Solaire]

I never cared about discussing games, but abstaining from discussion means forfeiting the field to gay race communists. This ****** explains it best:

edit: how the **** do i embed vault media

[nepbnhurj]

It is probably miserable playing games only to talk about them! To guess, most executives in the gaming industry would probably fall under that answer if they were being honest, and also if they played games at all. Sad!

[Tweed]

And this is why people come to RPGHQ, to discuss RPGs politics and religion. You could close the game section and only ten people would notice.