/v/ - Video Game BOXES

Remember that when arguing with a normalfag you will never change their mind. Never take it to private chats unless they seem sincere and truly want more information. You goal is to learn your rhetoric and debate them in public so that others can see you as an authority, and only then will you change their minds.

Thus, it is useful to examine what tactics and arguments they use, understand how to defeat them in several ways depending on the view point you want to push.

Examples:

>Nobody is forcing you to buy it

>I want to support a good developer / developer I like

>It's just a game, don't take it so seriously

>X isn't pay to win, because…

>etc

Those are for the cases where they defend a game against criticism. You must also learn how to defend your choice games and find a balance between elitism and converting them to your side (nobody wants their favorite series fucked by normalfags but at the same time, you should correct them if say, they find your titty monsters triggering)

>>14142085

tl;dr learn how to shitpost in real life and look cool doing it and people will flock to you like lemmings and leave the fags

>>14142085

>>14142219

All of this.

It's fucking late, so I'm not typing anything clever. Make people give a shit about what you say and spread influence related to it.

>>14142085

>>I want to support a good developer / developer I like

If you consider those normalfags words, you're clearly misled somewhere. They don't give the first shit about developers.

All above.

Also: never forget that entertainers were SLAVES and never merchants. The whole deal of the entertainment is that it became a INDUSTRY, so they use the emotional attachments and/or addictions of normalfags to keep them reeled and exploit them with microtransactions.

The goal of all anons must be to bring back to normalfags the mindset that sees entertainers (developers/publishers/artists/everyone) as nothing more than starving servants, and not the greedy (((merchants))) rolling in money that they want to be.

To simplify my statement above: games must be made by people that want to make good games and NEVER be too much compensated for their works.

Either they create for passion or as a part of a larger curriculum. And as soon as big corporations end, and only small groups that produce locally with distribution done by fans themselves or other small groups, the better it will be for Gamers.

The whole problem lies in the corporate mindset, with shareholders, marketing teams and human resource teams. All cancers that want to make a fortune quick and leave, without any care about the product or the consumers.

>>14143859

I was referring to having companies run the market, and it being a market itself. Games, and entertainment as a whole, must always be small and passionate projects with little to no compensation for ALL involved (even CEOs and other executives), while catering ONLY to those that already like the hobby, and no one else. As soon as entertainment (a past time for having fun) became a business, it started to become predatory and lead to the shit that we have today. Entertainment should get rid of companies and corporations altogether, and be only small groups of hobbyists doing what they like, for people that also like it.

>>14143978

I don't disagree with your entire post, but I don't agree that games should stay small and should purely be made by hobbyists who get little compensation for their product. Yes, money does ruin things, but it also enables creators to focus on their craft. I do think it's very important to see money simply as a means to keep working though, not as the goal.

But how you'd enforce that mindset in such a large system is another question.

>>14144845

By taking the whole industry down and rebuilding from scratch, as a start. Mass boycotts of even the remotely jewish practices, without giving space for excuses.

Or various other means of harming sales to the point that the industry itself does not have revenue and shrinks.

Also, i don't condemn money. The thing is: entertainment are for those that want to have fun. When you pt that mindset into a market, it attracts primarily the exploitative parasites that want to bait people who want fun and attach them to predatory systems created to exploit them. The emotional attachment of normalfags is what facilitate this whole situation, and an activity based on "having fun" is easy to corrupt and transform into addiction by those parasites. Creating means to keep it always small and non profitable ensures that the fn, the only part that matters, is kept intact, and that everything is made to be fun, by those that want it and like it, and not by parasites that want to ship whatever product, take profit and run away.

>>14145462

And it will still be good enough for a while. Better than tolerate the way things are now. The transition time itself would be great for a while. And don't forget that things only "started to become bad again" because of lack of information. We now have archives and real time information everywhere. The lies and corruption from before can't even last 1 day in the current situation. It would be impossible to raise another industrial empire as it was done before with games when the current one crashes. Every little lie or distrust would be exposed and spread all over the planet for Gamers and normalfags to see. Marketing companies today can't even make their lies last for a couple of days. A industry crash will ensure that any future parasite would not be able to start the bad practices again, with all the vigilance that would be upon them.

Also, having good games while the majority is shit is not a good thing. It would be better to have a majority of good games, and the garbage be so little that it would be abandoned.

As for games being something else, even if there is another definition, games are to be played, and thus, are entertainment first and foremost. And even art is entertainment to a degree. Classic artists made great works not by being part of a large scale industry but by sheer will or pressured (even oppressed) to do so. Compensation for artists was unheard of for a long time, and that was better for the overall public, at the expense of the artist, which is a good thing to me.

>>14142636

No, they are the misled ones.

They see an older game they heard was good show up on Humble Bundle, they buy it and throw their money at charity. Even if it goes to "the developers" it's more just going to the publisher of a shell company. They don't know man.

>>14143859

>image

>implying good, fast and cheap isn't possible

Games regularly had dev cycles below twelve months before PS2. Each Crash game was only made in a few months, for example.

Doom was made in about a year on a budget of only $200,000.

Don't believe industry bullshit, anon.

I think you're forgetting about the random loot box factor of micro-transactions. You don't get specifically what you want by paying for it. You could get extremely lucky or get really crap items all because of rng. But the most egregious thing about these poorly implemented micro-transactions is that they already taint the base game because it needs to be done that way for micro-transactions to work or make it financially appealing.

Like putting in obvious grinding segments for free players to reach the conclusion like Middle-Earth: Shadows of War, having it tied to progression that it becomes pay-to-win like Star Wars: Battlefront II did before its removal, or shoving it into a game just to make extra money like Need for Speed: Payback. Micro-transactions shouldn't be randomized, give an advantage or take away from the base game alone. If it was done in free-to-play games I can kind of understand. Still a terrible practice but you don't have the $60 investment that you do for AAA games that are also asking for more money on top of that.

Also, if you can't make a profit on a game selling it for $60 at launch, I think that isn't much of an excuse for the implementation of micro-transactions. That is just poor marketing, advertising, mismanagement or whatever taking into the account on the cost of the game and the expectations of how much it will sell. You can't punish the players for your gross miscalculation on profits earned. Make the base game great first. Then think about reasonable micro-transactions later.

>>14148417

This.

If anything, cheap and fast IS the right way to make a good game.

>>14148568

All microtransactions are unreasonable. The goal is to end them all.

>>14148568

>Also, if you can't make a profit on a game selling it for $60 at launch, I think that isn't much of an excuse for the implementation of micro-transactions.

EA makes a huge profit out of their $60 games before adding microtransactions or DLC season passes. The idea that anyone has to sell microtransactions in order to be profitable is just a lie they tell the goys.

>>14150393

Cheap, fast and with a single vision.

>>14145670

>Compensation for artists was unheard of for a long time

It wasn't, they were commissioned by nobles to paint portraits and such. The church also had artists who made works for them.

>>14148417

If your studio functions like a well oiled machine, you can sometimes get away with shorter dev cycles, smaller budgets and still come out with something decent. But assuming that's the standard is asking for a catastrophe, especially in the current year. Your examples are from a time when A and AA were the standard. You have to factor in team experience and synchronization, which are both non existent in AAA simply due to the sheer size of people working on a project.

Also, not even to mention all the shovelware that was made back then, which was mostly due to extremely tight deadlines. The games based on movies had to be made quickly to line up with the movie's release date, and save for The Matrix and one of the LOTR games, most of them were really bad.

Also, $200,000 is a decent budget considering the size of team that worked on Doom and the time it was made in. It's pretty comparable to the budgets small studios have these days.

>>14150393

>>14150538

Cheap and fast on a smaller scale works fine, that's how small studios work these days. You try to shit out as many prototypes and see what sticks and go with the best one. Big productions can't afford to do that.

>>14150618

Bt they WERE unheard of for a long time.

Most of classic artists were oppressed or found themselves in hot spots and THEN created beautifl art. Going even far behind, there were the times were artists would get killed after completing a great work of art, so that work could not be replicated. This scenario of artists struggling and creating for the sake of it is perfect and must become the norm again.

As for the big productions not being able to aford cheap and fast, the soltion is even simpler and desirable: end big productions and big corporations. Let only small projects exist.

>>14142016

If you don't pay the $60, where are the EA executives going to find the money for the coke parties?

>>14153144

Enjoy your untextured wireframe models, faggot.

>>14151506

Yes, and?

Want your art to be great and well received and remembered? Die for it, as great artists did in the past. And of course, i am not an artist and want that for the sole reason that it would benefit me (by having great art and good products derived from that) without having to sacrifice anything myself.

And that is ok.

Bring back systems that stop artists and merchants to grow too much. Keep it all small and in some ways, miserable. Only those that really want to create a good product and/or art for entertainment will ever want to do it in those conditions. And that would be great for all of us, at their expense, which is ok.

>>14156885

either that or the struggle causes mental instability which is then sharted out on canvas as a mess, sometimes literally.

>>14157438

Modern artist dont suffer tho, unless you call being asspained by some irrelevant shit suffering in the same sense as artist who lived in much shittier conditions, went / experienced war, famines or even plagues.

>>14156706

>>14157216

You're assuming that the life of every creator these days has been peachy and that it doesn't require a lot of sacrifice, even if it's just time. Go ask anyone in /agdg/ why they're creating and you'll find out that the fewest of them are in it for the money.

Struggle does build character but trying to make shit harder on creators is the most retarded thing I've read all day.

>>14156803

(((Renaissance))) was headed by deformed kikes and was precisely where everything started to become a prototype for industry. The whole styles that it created were the typical deformed kike subversion ,trying to impose that art should not be beautiful or definitive form, when in fact, art MUST have beauty and form.

Life is struggle. Passing through great struggles is what enabled great artists to have the mindset for their creations.

It only blocks the lesser minds. A struggle can be a personal one, or a large scale one, but without some misery and struggle, the art itself is diminished. The good (not great) works from the post-middle ages' artists pails in comparisson to the great works of those that came before them and struggled in life. The struggle itself, the misery itself, propels a whole mindset that enables great art.

>>14156885

AND the artists only listen because of the promise of fortune and fame. Do yo think that this is not the main factor? Anyone listening to the idiot subversion to the deformed kikes know that they are talking shit to make ugliness be accepted. But they pay fortunes for it and the young artists accept to do it, even when they don't agree. Get rid of all compensation whatsoever, and no subersive race will be able to create a similar system. Then, only those that truly want to create good works will stay, as there is no reason to do so besides "i want to do it".

>>14157498

This. Making the artists life miserable creates a need for escapism and thus, develops the attention to detail and carving for beauty that is needed for true art to be created. The more miserable, the greater the artist.

>>14157797

If you think that this is retarded, then you yourself is the kind of incompetent that only thinks that will become an artist. And never will.

Ruining the life of a person ensures that said person, when trying to create something, will leave a great impression in it's creation.

The situations that you cited are not struggle. They are whines.

An artist is not struggling until it is AT LEAST literally starving and/or being physically abused, or having a mental breakdown because an enormous pressure or oppression. Being hated is nothing. Being abused for being hated is a good start.

As soon as entertainment and art became industries, overall quality declined. Bring back the slave artists that suffer until death, and you will have great art and entertainment again.

>>14157216

>meme spacing

THEY ARE CALLED PARAGRAPHS YOU UNEDUCATED FUCK.

>>14158830

>(((Renaissance))) was headed by deformed kikes and was precisely where everything started to become a prototype for industry. The whole styles that it created were the typical deformed kike subversion ,trying to impose that art should not be beautiful or definitive form, when in fact, art MUST have beauty and form.

Are you sure you aren't confusing the Renaissance with something else?

>As soon as entertainment and art became industries, overall quality declined.

Movies and TV dramas (both live action and animated), video games and recorded music didn't even exist in the pre-industrial era, and creating them requires in almost all cases anywhere from several to hundreds of people, and a lot of money.

You think you know about art but your mentality is damaging to art. Art has to be made by a single person and it can only be art when the artist has had a shitty life (or claims to have had one). This is just making a mockery of art.

>>14158924

There are games made by one single person and are fully functional. You have already shown that you believe in the lies of the corporate suits when you affimr that it MUST take a lot of money and people to create one.

The industry is the problem. It always was.

Keep things small and keep the ones working on projects always bellow, without compensation. Only good works will come of it in this situation. Art IS a part of entertainment as a whole, and thus, any compensation breed the mindset of creating for profit, which declines the overall quality. Be it a product or an artistic work, the creator must ALWAYS be held down and not compensated for him to create good works. When we have slave entertainers and slave artists again, both will improve their works.

>>14159719

Amen to that.

>>14159896

A single person can make a game but there are limits to what a single person can do.

>Art IS a part of entertainment as a whole, and thus, any compensation breed the mindset of creating for profit, which declines the overall quality.

This is a problem but not a universal one, and when you have hundreds of thousands or millions at your disposal you are able to make things that are impossible for a single person.

>e it a product or an artistic work, the creator must ALWAYS be held down and not compensated for him to create good works.

This is proven empirically false every day.

All this art talk strengthings my belief that everyone on this board is raging autist. Everone is shitflinging their non-arguments and pejoratives at each other, only reinforcing their own beliefs and biases. These conversations are little more than temper tantrums.

>>14162605

>All this art talk strengthings my belief that everyone on this board is raging autist

Where the fuck do you think you are right now, moron?

>>14162702

More like t. someone who would like an answer to OP's fucking question

>>14162713

No links, huh?

>>14162725

Calm down, the two people trolling in this thread won't ever affect your life anyway.

For OP, the most I find are articles with the usual general marketing vs. programming splits. Modern Warfare 2 was $50M to make and $200M to distribute/market.

https://archive.is/0eZj

Someone at fucking Polygon of all places tried to write up a list of general videogame creation cost vs. marketing cost. Despite its source, the article actually provides sources for their information, so it's decent info.

https://archive.is/EKPeG

>>14162756

Whoops, it was Kotaku, not Polygon. All those shit sites blend together, either way it's archived.

>>14162831

Calm down.

>>14162667

Give millions to artists and creators, and see how well that goes. You have Mr. Shitface, Conman Inafundme, Phuck Fish, Cliff Blazinsky, and many others as examples.

>>14160039

Then, your definition of "good" is pieces of shit. Exposed again.

Great works comes only from those living in misery. What we have are so-so cash grabs and "just ok" works. My example above is to illustrate that yes, well compensated entertainers/artists/creator start to stagnate and become lazy, out of control or simply greedy. Keep them in slavery and you will have great works.

>>14142016

just kill them tbh

>>14162842

Kill yourself, kike.