Gaming

parent

[+] Zarobi@aussie.zone -6 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

And you said

Not much

You're still being vague. I assume you're implying that the existence of games like Final Fantasy 7 (1997) having a good story for it's time, means that no other game from then on can have a story that's revolutionary for it's time? It's nonsensical. Technology improves, storywriting gets better, game mechanics get woven into the narrative.

Good stories in games back then were the exception, not the norm. Listing a few exceptions doesn't counter anything.

parent

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

you said not much, and this is a conversation not a contract negotiation in a court of law

parent

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone -3 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

As a reminder, my original comment was explaining the context of this game to somebody and why they would want to play it or not. You're the one that turned it into a debate with your list of "counter examples". Don't try and turn this shit around on me.

parent

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 point 11 hours ago* (1 child)

I mean it politely, but your explanation was, in my opinion, factually and culturally inaccurate. There were plenty of well-written stories with good voice acting in video games prior to The Last of Us.

Then you said you didn't understand the relevance of my comment. And then you said you didn't understand how my examples of earlier games contradicted your point about the Last of Us being the first good story-based game and suggested, inaccurately, that I had said "not much" - which I hadn't.

Then you said that because I had given counterexamples that doesn't mean that you were wrong because you had used uncountable modifiers on your adjectives - which, while technically true, is why I chose to say this isn't a court of law and while there are a bunch of modifiers in your post, whether you intended to or not, regardless of how granular you want to get over sentence composition, clearly reads that your original opinion was that you consider 2013 to be the time when game makers started making games about story instead of your choice of similie about pornography. I did and still do disagree.

But I do mean all of the above politely.

parent

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone -3 points 10 hours ago

I wasn't saying that no games with good story existed before then; and I absolutely, definitively, didn't say TLOU was the first good story game, you're just making shit up now. I said it was uncommon, which it was.

You're allowed to disagree, but the fact your most recent "counterpoint example" was 16 whole years before TLOU kind of proves my point. You only have to look at the 5 years of gaming post-TLOU (2014–2019), and compare the average narrative quality to 2008–2013, to see the difference.

I dunno what an uncountably modified adjective is, so I'm just going to ignore that. I assume you're trying to save face by looking smart via thesaurus instead of admitting you made a big deal out of nothing.

Your "evidence" mostly amounts to deliberately framing my comments in the worst possible way, or maliciously misunderstanding them, and then attacking them. I believe they used to call that a "straw man", but I've been told I'm not allowed to use that phrase anymore, and I don't remember what the correct new term was.

Also, politely, on one hand, you say it's not a court of law, we're just having a conversation; then on the other hand have the audacity to pick over my exact word choices and sentence structure with a fine tooth comb. Is it only just a conversation when we're talking about your comments, and my comments are a legal document, then? I have no patience for Reddit brand pedantry today. Politely.