Jenova Chen: online gamers arent jerks, game designers made them this way.

richymcdermott

Jenova chen creator of the game journey and flower has come out and spoke to eurogamer about how online gamers arent jerks , its the game designers that made us this way.
He goes on saying how we spend our days killing each other everyday online , do these companies expect us to be civil bout it and how we dont grow up to be jerks but its planted on us.
I think he has a good point , also should be pointed out people feel safe in thier homes and feel they can say whatever crap they want cause nothing can happen to them , but they would not think twice smack talking if they were right beside another person

http://playstationlifestyle.net/2012/04/03/jenova-chen-online-gamers-arent-naturally-jerks-it’s-the-game-designer-that-made-them-an-asshole/#more-163605

What ye guys think , does he have a point ...

LH Pathe

Given that he's responsible for a hippy game where you can only coo at your partner in wanting to compulsively aid them anyhow - gets kinda lonely otherwise right.. I don't see how a pair of veritable jehovah's witnesses could be at odds with each other. Maybe he's cussing you for falling off that bridge but you just can't hear it?!

I doubt lad in question is any less a knob just because he is playing Journey. I did enjoy it, but then checked the scores.. That things overrated

Retr0gamer

The guy obviously never played a co-op game of left 4 dead on a public server.

However I do think that taking the microphone away from the player is a good idea as shown by the excellent Dark Souls community.

Scavenger XIII

Bull.

Game design can not make you an asshole, it can only give you an outlet to show off how big of an asshole you already are.

Gamers are not becoming worse people, it's that worse people are becoming gamers.

johnny_ultimate

Bit of column A, column B: game design needs to grow up, and the people playing them need to grow up. They're not mutually exclusive factors, but someone doesn't suddenly become an asshole by playing an FPS online. If there's one factor that's the big problem, it's the anonymity of the internet: allowing every gob****e the opportunity to air their views, no matter how idiotic / sexist / homophobic / obnoxious / racist / all of the above it may be. How many of them act that way IRL?

Although Jenova Chen is entitled to any opinion he damn well wants at the moment. Journey / Flower are the most forward-thinking games of the last half decade or so. Sure, many won't like them, and the hyperbole machine is always a problem, but I got more out of my two hours with Journey than I have out of hundreds of hours of countless (in many cases excellent) AAA blockbusters. It's the type of atmospheric, thoughtful, beautiful game we get not nearly enough of. It's as if cinema was just Michael Bay films, with the odd Christopher Nolan film, and then suddenly you get Three Colours trilogy or Ran: a shock to the system, the sudden realisation that gaming isn't all about headshots, fetch quests, dialogue boxes and large haired protagonists.

Although as great as Journey is, I'm not convinced it would turn Hitler pacifist

Retr0gamer

Flower was a pretty game with **** controls, not exactly forward thinking. It was trying too hard to be pretentious and ended up a bit vapid other than the visuals.

Sabre0001

I'm pretty sure people were always abusive, but now have the means to communicate it to the world. For example, when left unmonitored in a competitive game I could make sailors blush at times...but I don't go on mic or if I do (to friends), I can just laugh about things. Same with any "reaction cam" stuff that I do for YouTube (though I should find the middle ground for this).

On the other hand, it's a smart move to remove arms so that people can't hit each other. Removes the possibility that people will dick around.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Flower was a pretty game with **** controls, not exactly forward thinking. It was trying too hard to be pretentious and ended up a bit vapid other than the visuals.

Completely disagree. These aren't games about 'winning', over-written narratives or any of that jazz. They are about atmosphere, about the experience of playing it and about conjuring up an emotional response other than just adrenaline that is hard to quantify. Flower is a better written game than 99% of games too: in fact, it understands the confines and possibilities of the storytelling medium far more than the usual posterboys for 'good writing' in games (many of which tend to be not very well written at all). Journey is better again.

I'm pretty sure you don't 'try' to be pretentious. You either are or you aren't. It's disappointing that thatgamecompany are labelled as such, because there games are hugely affecting ones that succeed in creating completely different sensory responses than the vast majority of game developers. We should applaud them rather than dismiss them.

And Flower is one of only two or three games I've ever played that has genuinely benefited from motion controls.

Retr0gamer

For a relaxing game I found myself wrestling with the motion controls to turn around sharply than actually being relaxed. As for what the game was trying to say, it was pretty much the world is beautiful and don't spoil so the message wasn't much further from the average episode of Captain Planet and rang a bit hollow considering I was playing it on a 600 dollar power sucking Behemoth.

And yes there is such a thing as trying to be pretentious. I don't mind when someone tries to send a message through nothing but visuals but if the message is vapis then no matter how much you gloss it up with pretty visuals to give an air of pretention the original message is still vapid underneath it all. Case in point, Limbo.

As for the atmosphere, I suppose it's supposed to be a game where you relax and take in the visuals but it just didn't work for me when I was getting frustrated with the awful controls.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And yes there is such a thing as trying to be pretentious. I don't mind when someone tries to send a message through nothing but visuals but if the message is vapis then no matter how much you gloss it up with pretty visuals to give an air of pretention the original message is still vapid underneath it all. Case in point, Limbo.

Limbo had a message?

Sure, the ending was open to interpretation but I see no evidence of either a message it was trying to convey or any sign of pretentiousness.

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

Limbo had a message?

Sure, the ending was open to interpretation but I see no evidence of either a message it was trying to convey or any sign of pretentiousness.

Exactly what I'm saying. Why have the open to interpretation ending when there's nothing to interpret other than trying to make your game seem deeper than it isn't.

Otacon

While I personally think many gamers are pr!cks before they ever get a controller in their hands, I agree that game developers do nothing to curtail this behaviour [which they could if they wanted to].

I was listening to a podcast interview with Jenova Ghen where he explains this far better than in the article above. Basically, during the development of the game, he was looking into ways of making the multiplayer work. He gave the characters the ability to touch off of the other players [this was to help with puzzle-solving]. However, during playtesting, the testers basically griefed each other.

He went to a child psychologist.who basically said that when introduced to a new environment [in this case, a game world], people, no matter the age, will instinctly try out the limits of it. When others are introduced to it, they will try to experiment with each other [not in THAT way] which invariably leads to griefing as there are no real consequences.

So in his opinion, game developers can control how people play together online more, but they simply choose not to.

Dyr

I used to fly WW2 flight sims online and maybe it was because the age profile was older or that it actually took putting some time into learning the skills but the general attitude was way better than your average fps.

You would congratulate the guy who just blew you out of the sky because it often took some skill on his part to do so, and the you'd do the same if you shot someone down after they gave you a good hard dogfight.

Most online games tend to lend themselves to a wham bam thank you ma'am approach and it shows in attitudes.

ChubbyHubby

Otacon wrote: »

So in his opinion, game developers can control how people play together online more, but they simply choose not to.

Choose not to or don't see a problem? I get the feeling a lot of game developers have similar attitudes and sensibilities as your average gamers. It'd never occur to them to encourage players to play nice with each other by limiting verbal interaction because they'd think it's cool/essential to the (fps) multiplayer gaming experience. It's also not their job to teach immature gamers how to behave in a respectful manner. Take the microphone away and gamers will bitch and moan about the game. Gamers sense of entitlement is pretty rediculous these days, just take a look at the ME3 petition to change the ending. :P

Otacon

ChubbyHubby wrote: »

Choose not to or don't see a problem? I get the feeling a lot of game developers have similar attitudes and sensibilities as your average gamers. It'd never occur to them to encourage players to play nice with each other by limiting verbal interaction because they'd think it's cool/essential to the (fps) multiplayer gaming experience. It's also not their job to teach immature gamers how to behave in a respectful manner.

It may not be their responsibility to make gamers behave, but it can also be stated that not acting is losing them an audience. I rented the last MW3 and just played the SP campaign. I didn't touch the MP as I knew what awaited me.

ChubbyHubby wrote: »

Take the microphone away and gamers will bitch and moan about the game. Gamers sense of entitlement is pretty rediculous these days, just take a look at the ME3 petition to change the ending. :P

I agree users would complain if that was removed now but I have not seen similar outrage with Journey, or Dark Souls?

ChubbyHubby

Otacon wrote: »

It may not be their responsibility to make gamers behave, but it can also be stated that not acting is losing them an audience. I rented the last MW3 and just played the SP campaign. I didn't touch the MP as I knew what awaited me.

Yeah but they'll probably loose more audience if they removed voice communication. It's also pretty essential for competitive play when you need to co-ordinate with other team mates. Not so much in public games but as long as you can mute then it's not a problem to me.

I agree users would complain if that was removed now but I have not seen similar outrage with Journey, or Dark Souls?

Different audiences. More knob-heads playing fps :P

Retr0gamer

It's human nature to be a bellend for most people. There's no changing that. Your boss is probably an asshole and being a dick probably got him in that position in the first place.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

For a relaxing game I found myself wrestling with the motion controls to turn around sharply than actually being relaxed. As for what the game was trying to say, it was pretty much the world is beautiful and don't spoil so the message wasn't much further from the average episode of Captain Planet and rang a bit hollow considering I was playing it on a 600 dollar power sucking Behemoth.

And yes there is such a thing as trying to be pretentious. I don't mind when someone tries to send a message through nothing but visuals but if the message is vapis then no matter how much you gloss it up with pretty visuals to give an air of pretention the original message is still vapid underneath it all. Case in point, Limbo.

As for the atmosphere, I suppose it's supposed to be a game where you relax and take in the visuals but it just didn't work for me when I was getting frustrated with the awful controls.

I think you're slightly misinterpreting what I mean by storytelling. It doesn't need to be the most original or insightful message - what's important is the delivery. These are wordless games, the 'narrative' told entirely through your discoveries and experiences (I'd put Dark Souls as a similar type of storytelling albeit very different style). That to me is extremely forward thinking - the game crafting experiences that would be impossible in any other medium. That I'd take over an interesting but overwrought RPG story any day of the week, even if the message is 'nature = great'. Simple message, superb delivery. Control complaints? Fair enough. But I didnt really care as I swooped through glorious vistas.

Play Journey though. It's a game that defies cynicism: it sucked me into it's world like nothing I've ever played.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Exactly what I'm saying. Why have the open to interpretation ending when there's nothing to interpret other than trying to make your game seem deeper than it isn't.

Because not everything needs a succinct ending? There was plenty of ways to interpret the ending of Limbo for instance. The fact that the girl didn't turn around when you approached her, the presence of the ladder beside her, the fact that said ladder was partially rotted, the presence of additional flies in the scene etc... Does it really matter which one is right though or even if any of those things are relevant? No, the game, by its very nature, deserved such an open ending and had Playdead done something obvious like, I don't know, had the boy and girl float up in to the air on a large beam of light, I think it would have been poorer for it.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Play Journey though. It's a game that defies cynicism: it sucked me into it's world like nothing I've ever played.

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case. As I said in the other thread, I've already seen people complain about the length of the game given the price, ask what the actual point of the game was and even say it's over rated. Never mind the folk who have called it hipsterish, pretentious and scoffed at the idea that it could evoke different emotions in the player.

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

Because not everything needs a succinct ending? There was plenty of ways to interpret the ending of Limbo for instance. The fact that the girl didn't turn around when you approached her, the presence of the ladder beside her, the fact that said ladder was partially rotted, the presence of additional flies in the scene etc... Does it really matter which one is right though or even if any of those things are relevant? No, the game, by its very nature, deserved such an open ending and had Playdead done something obvious like, I don't know, had the boy and girl float up in to the air on a large beam of light, I think it would have been poorer for it.

And all of that implied what exactly?

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And all of that implied what exactly?

Who knows, they were just seen as the key elements of the scene by people and were used to formulate different interpretations of the ending. All we actually know is that the boy finally found his sister. If people want to read more into it to discover whether either of them were actually dead, why they were there in the first place or what they did afterwards then let them.

Retr0gamer

I don't mind an ambiguous ending but to me that ending was thrown in there to make the game seem deeper and more pretentious than it really was which is my problem with it and a lot of other indie games.

ScumLord

I would say a lot of people are jerks in the heat of the sporting moment. Rugby players give each other horrid abuse on the pitch and then praise each other off the pitch.

Anonymity is a major factor though, even in a big city personal relationships can be fleeting people treat others like dirt.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't mind an ambiguous ending but to me that ending was thrown in there to make the game seem deeper and more pretentious than it really was which is my problem with it and a lot of other indie games.

Totally agree on the general indie point at least. It's pretty much why I posted this in the Gaming Humour thread.

As for Limbo, we shall have to agree to disagree. I feel it explained all it needed to and as such, doesn't deserve to be described as pretentious for offering a few possible clues as to what actually happened. Had the boy not encountered his sister in the final scene then I'd happily agree.

As for the topic at hand, I too disagree with Chen and instead point to the always relevant...