ZEELLO'S PROFILE

I was wondering something along those lines. If something is popular enough then a company having absolute control over it may prevent that property from being continually refined and tailored. (Think free marketplace of ideas, but limited to a single property). I used to defer to the notion of a company knowing what's best for their property ("their" being used loosely in some cases- many companies had no part in the creation of a property they own) but I think I was more afraid of fans having ideas that I don't agree with. It's part of evolution, the best ideas are the ones that catch on. One company shouldn't have a monopoly on guiding a property's vision, because then it's just a vision, not necessarily the objectively definitive one as guided by collective human taste. This is still just kind of a theory though and I still think people who create a property deserve to have control over it, although once they sign off on that property to the company they work for and then later leave the company then it becomes kind of moot.

You make a good argument. Alright, you've persuaded me. Playing games is stupid and we should all just watch Lets Plays in order to be more factual.

But uhh... who will make the Lets Plays?

author=NeverSilent
Telling people they can't watch Let's Plays or read additional material on a game is a rather simplistic and one-sided approach. That's like telling people they're having fun the wrong way.

I think perhaps where I differ from others is after a certain point I've placed the expectation on the game to be fun. Trying to sidestep the game means that either the game is not fun or you do not find games fun.

It's a simple fact that different people have different tastes and different skills. So watching someone else play a certain game you want to see in action but wouldn't enjoy tackling yourself is an absolutely legitimate way of experiencing it, too.

Personally if a dev excluded you out of their game, I say do not consume their game, because why would you wish to encourage that.
We have different subcultures as a consequence of differing tastes and standards, and the like. I say let people stick to their own camps. Outsiders who digest a game without playing it is a form of deception in a way, like wearing a disguise.

Plus, the added "cultural context" can also be a good thing for some games, as it can be a lot of fun to see games through other people's eyes.

For critical purposes, people who've played the same game should discuss their experiences with each other, yes.

Not to mention that sometimes, Let's Players can share observations and insights on the workings of a game that you normally wouldn't have noticed yourself even when playing the game on your own.

If before playing a game you do something that alters your experience then the integrity of your playthrough has been compromised. You're just piggybacking on someone else's playthrough and made yourself meaningless. Actually you're worse than meaningless, because now you've become a meme carrier, one in a horde of potentially thousands of "youtuber x's playthrough" players that elevate one youtuber's experience with a game to be disproportionately more normative.
It's the same reason why if you do a survey, you're not supposed to tell the participant the results before hearing their answers.

If you really care about learning more about games as a medium, I think the most important part is to find a reasonable balance between personal, subjective experience and external, more or less factual knowledge.

Except... the game IS the external. That's kind of what makes media compelling, it empirically exists, but the subjective experience is unlocked by consuming it in a vacuum. This rule fails however when you defer to cultural concoctions representing the game in place of the actual game. At that point you've basically made up your mind before you even started, so you might as well not even bother.

Anything other than the game that you could possibly appeal to as external or objective is someone ELSE'S playthrough of said game. But if your playthrough is imaginary and arbitrary, then technically, so is his or hers... >_>

author=turkeyDawg
I think there was another patent regarding button configuration that affected fighting games. Can't remember exactly what, I think it was something about configuration during loading screens or on the character select screen, or smth, I can't find it atm. Ultra David (fighting game commentator) used to like to bring it up during button checks.

That sounds like a pretty basic thing to patent. Anyone know more about this?

Any time there's payment involved there's a conflict of interest. BUT if you're making the game by yourself, then choosing to sell it shouldn't affect the game, right? I mean you still have full control of the project and it's still a labor of love. The paycheck theory only applies if you're employed by someone else.