Ginormo Sword

Uh... Anyone up for Scholomance?

but this article is so awful it makes me want to defend it.

There's no meta-commentary in this game. It just seems bad to me, commentary doesn't come across at all. If it was intended, then I'm afraid it's at the level of a 12 year shouting 'Look at me! I'm World of Warcraft and I'm bad!'.

I went as far as the sandworm, and abandoned there. That really was a waste of time.

Only things I like are worthwhile and good. Everything else is sad and pathetic.

I couldn't work out how to get an upgrade? I is fail? I should L2P?

Anyway, relative to the idea of 'message is in the mechanic' these dopamine drip games could have a message in them - but they just don't. It's all just drip. Or to draw a music analogy, it's like a beat supports a song, but there is no song here, just beat, beat, beat.

The commentary comes from the gameplay itself; take note of how inconsequential death is, the inclusion of rarer enemy drops (the dudes with alternate sprite colors), and other hints towards MMO game design. The structure of the game itself mirrors MMO's by being overly simplified and difficult only through it's tedium. If you complete this game there is something wrong with you.

My writing was in the same vein; heavy-handed and overtly satirical, btw.

EDIT:

Callan: "dopamine drip games could have a message in them - but they just don't. It's all just drip."
Irony much?

I as well wonder where you're getting this meta-commentary kick in the game from. Certainly there are a lot of indie games coming out now that use the interaction systems as commentary but isn't there a certain responsibility on the critic to establish that there's a precedent for this in the artist's work? I don't think you need to play this whole game in order to critique it (which is strange since I suppose one must read a whole Joyce novel in order to critique that) but your article has shown you didn't go even beyond the bare essentials. You seem to have played two screens and then read your own agenda into this work.

Just a brief look around at the other games on this site show much in the same vein -- generally mouse controlled, lo-fi pixel games that provide somewhat refined throwbacks to the brutal grindfests and action-based memorization masochism of yore. I am not certain that it's all the same artist as I don't read Japanese but these other games still provide a context for the work that you seem to ignore.

Perhaps you didn't want to play the other games? Fair enough. Maybe you should have at least googled the game to see whether anyone talks about how it progresses to see if your assumptions were correct? If you had you might have seen that it quickly introduces a variety of attack patterns for the enemies and several other mechanics that disrupt your view of the game as "meta-commentary". If anything it soon becomes obvious it is far more concerned with adding early RPG grinding to an essentially R-type style shooter gameplay (minus the scrolling). If it is not sincere it is at least insincere about something other than what you've read into it.

Whether or not MMORPGs are the great evil entities you decry them as I'll leave well enough alone. To me though it seems that you're trying to take the first 50 pages of a Jane Austen novel and claim it's a critique Virginia Woolf. It's something you could probably argue, but unless you remove it from contextual evidence it's ultimately ludicrous.

Agreed with CorrieCravie. This review is about as insightful as this one... :P

I seriously hope you do not make any money off of writing these "articles".

First off, you are ripping into something that you have literally never even played or otherwise experienced, and have openly admitted so.

Secondly you flat out explain your ludicrous analogy: strip out story, gameplay, game balance, variety in classes/playstyles, PvP, boss encounters that are not "tank and spank" and of course the ENTIRE social aspect of WoW, and you get this game?

You know, after you strip all those things out of WoW, then I suppose you get this game. But the fact remains that this isn't what WoW is, no matter how much you would love to think so.

Similarly, you could draw the same analogy about your writing and all journalism: just strip out objectiveness, background research, and throw in a heaping pile of sensationalism and you get your article.

Just throw in something about the sexual objectivity of the female characters in WoW and then you can maybe hit the level of Kevin McCullough. You can do it, I have faith in you.

If wow is 10% story, gameplay, game balance (that's a fun thing in itself these days?), class variety, etc, and 90% this game, then yes, this game is wow. Or atleast this game is 90% wow.

And frankly from my perspective, all those elements from above are spread out, like butter spread too thinly on bread (to paraphrase a certain hobbit), to about 10% of actual possible play time.

It's probably quite possible to objectively measure that, but we'll never get there if people only ever nit pick the other guys approach, and never feel confident enough to actually check if maybe they are wrong, by some objective standard.

There are quite a few factual errors in this review. I don't think you played the game for more than 30 seconds.

Corriecave: "You seem to have played two screens and then read your own agenda into this work."

Three and a half screens actually, which took roughly 45 minutes. This alone is the longest I've spent on a sole Flash game in a single sitting, and every second of it played exactly the same. The comparison between mediums is bullshit on multiple levels. For one, I don't have the time or patience to slog through the same monotonous gameplay; I don't have to play for a couple dozen more hours to see that the base mechanics don't change in the slightest. Ginormo Sword isn't exactly high art either; this is more akin to a Sherlock Holmes pastiche if anything.

"Maybe you should have at least googled the game to see whether anyone talks about how it progresses to see if your assumptions were correct? If you had you might have seen that it quickly introduces a variety of attack patterns for the enemies and several other mechanics that disrupt your view of the game as "meta-commentary". If anything it soon becomes obvious it is far more concerned with adding early RPG grinding to an essentially R-type style shooter gameplay (minus the scrolling). If it is not sincere it is at least insincere about something other than what you've read into it."

I googled walkthroughs for the game and read the jayisgames article on it before the write-up, and from what I read the progression and mechanics you cite are mere window dressing on the play-solely-through-mouse combat system - they don't change the fact that the game mechanics suck.

I question if you have played the game yourself. Ginormo is by no means an R-type shooter, as this game requires no skill or any semblance of strategy. As I stated in my article, as a game qua game this is no different than an MMO. Nevermind the fantasy premise and real-time combat - you wander around a static environment, kill mobs, get cash, buy loot, repeat. While this game doesn't have the frills of those cash cows, it does share their underlying mechanics. There is no compelling narrative to speak of, and there exists neither any trace of challenge or compelling gameplay. The sole driving force of the game is it's upgrade system, which is earned entirely through time investment; if the title of the game isn't enough of a hint, grinding through a half hour of the game's mobs makes this readily apparent. The only additions I think would incorporate to this more explicit is having to pick up your corpse - while Ginormo makes death as meaningless in an MMO, the added time sink of corpse grabbing would reinforce the time investment motif. That and an option to paypal the designer a buck for X amount of in-game gold; bypassing Chinese farmers but instilling the same business model of charging people for playtime and artificially prolonging the game.

The only problem I see is that I should have made this above paragraph explicit in my article.

Starwed: Glad you found the article to your liking. =p

James Doyle: if you checked my purpoted admittance, you would have read that I played an MMO for twenty hours (Runescape or something to that effect.) This twenty hours of playtime could equate to me beating both Super Mario World and Shadows of the Collossus; something I did just last weekend. Again, just because I haven't spent literal weeks of gametime in these shitty systems doesn't mean I do not comphrend them and their inner workings. Over the years my WoW friend has relayed the healer tank and DPS triumvirate, the grinding process to lvl 80, the so called intricacies of PVP, etc. Only a fucking idiot would have a problem playing this game; character creation is only simple min/max optimization, boss fights consist of a few simple steps that could be read on a readily available FAQ, and gameplay is nothing more than spamming keybinded abilities. As I said to Corriecave: Ginormo Sword as a game qua game is no different than your WoW.

I myself play beer-and-pretzel games and the occasional tabletop RPG, so I can understand playing a game for social reasons. Since my village is so isolated and small, my friend found it hard to find people to discuss Jungian psychology and mathcore, so it's natural he looked for a social outlet. However, this does not excuse Blizzard from providing a chat function in lieu of a good game.

Callan: Exactly. It's all about that carrot on a stick, but it happens that the stick is, if you excuse my french, Ginormo. I read your blog a while back and completetly agree with your assertions on MMO's.

I don't really claim that it's high art. If anything my reference to Joyce was a pot shot at myself for having double standards. I really don't expect you to play the game fully but I still hold your conclusions are absurd given the evidence. I am not arguing Ginormo Sword is a good game, but merely not what you say it is.

Again in your second response to me I think you misunderstand me as defending the gameplay mechanics. I still don't mean to do this. If anything my point is more that sometimes a bad game (or a game with a system you dislike) is just that and no sort of commentary at all. My point about where I see it falling genre comes from two places primarly: other games on the website that control similarly and reveal interesting points about what Ginormo sword might be doing and my recent experience playing through Blastworks which has much of the attack pattern memorization you run into in Ginormo Sword.

You say "there exists neither any trace of challenge or compelling gameplay". I would very much disagree with you in challenge as you might find in the later levels. Despite you believing I've done nothing of the sort I have played fairly far into the game and challenge certainly exists. Of course it is always a test of endurance and you could brute force upgrade your way past much of it but that is not a necessity. I still don't argue that this is a good game, but it is not a game that makes sense as a distillation of the MMORPG genre. Hence, I present it as more a fusing of genres and one that is likely sincere considering the other works on the website.

Tedious repetition is certainly not solely the property of the MMORPG and that would seem to be the main point your case rests on. It may be one of the few genres that still retain it in videogames today but in a game that clearly intends to present itself at the least nostalgically if not anachronistically I don't know that that's enough to support your interpretation. I ask you, what makes a critique of MMORPGs instead of the RPG in general? In fact, what makes this a critique in the way you describe? Can't it, like hikikomori RPG, be perhaps winking at its audience while genuinely offering its self-admittedly broken gameplay as something that still oddly gives joy? It certainly kids, but it kids because it loves.

I take no issue with you being against the MMORPG genre and I have done so often myself. I would ask that you attempt a less ham-handed critique of it but if you would like to write poorly and ineffectively that's your choice. My main point is that you've misinterpreted Ginormo Sword and it is a poor soap-box to stand on while you shout out about the great offences of World of Warcraft.

Edit: I wonder how many games you can find where death isn't fairly meaningless? Death with a restart is a common enough way in many games to learn an encounter. If anything death has traditionally been quite meaningful in MMORPGs and your own experiences you detailed with the genre prove this.

I think if it doesn't contain a commentary, Dustin is reading it charitably that it does - ie, he's trying to find a redeeming feature. Which is nicer than not trying to find anything good about it.

Really if Dustin reviewed a doodle on a napkin, I wouldn't expect him to review it with as much intensity as a painting. When you review a doodle, the review either is just a short sketch itself, or it gets filled out with talking about other stuff. Seen that in magazines as well.

And more cynically, like you can get addicted to coffee & cigarettes, I think some people are a little sensitive about their addiction, as if it deserves a more complicated review when it's really simple addiction.

I am guessing you to have never played WoW?

You say everything I listed was irrelevant because it only added up to a combined 10% of the game. How do you figure that? Or more likely, you just pulled it out of thin air to sound like you know what you are talking about. Before I get further into the fallacy of that statement, I want to comment on the snide remark of "game balance (that's a fun thing in itself these days?)". Yes game balance adds to the fun. If you can stomp your way through everything with no effort or challenge due to certain mechanics being overpowered, or being completely inneffective due to your mechanics being underpowered, you will get bored quickly. This is especially true in PvP.

Now back to your 10% statement. I myself only play a total 8 hours a week most weeks. And when I am online, I am raiding with a bunch of friends. Now if I'm at my computer and not in WoW, I am normally in our Ventrilo server still. Why? Because I enjoy the company of these people, and when I play WoW, I am logging in to play with them. You are going to trivialize that to 10%. I know for a fact that a large portion of the players are in much the same boat as me. If the social aspect of the game wasn't there, they would not be playing. In fact, some of my guildmates have quit the game due to various reasons, but they still join us in Ventrilo, and I still stopped by and visited on my last roadtrip. How many articles and such have you seen about people meeting in person after playing these social heavy games? And you, like the author are ignorant in regards to the game, but will still make wild and inaccurate statements about it because "one of my friends is addicted to it, and is spending less time with me now".

Because clearly anyone who would dare challenge this articles shoddy composition and analogy must be "addicted" to the game, and has no clue what they are talking about and thus should be summarily dismissed. Well at least according to you.

Yes I read your "purported admittance" I also read the whole article, where you specifically name wow, and directly compare the two. In fact, let me redirect you to your opening sentence of the article:

"Did you lose your job, spouse and home due to your WoW addiction?"

Nope, that's not a loaded gun at all. The point still stands that your article is a load of ignorance, with your responses further backing up people who are calling you out.

"character creation is only simple min/max optimization"

Really? Damn, I must have missed the part where there was statistical customization during the character creation. How did a loser addict like me turn out to be such a "noob"?

"I accidentally stumbled into a PVP area, got killed quickly, lost my gear, and then got called by some pimply 13 year old a "n00b"."

Again, this is how it works in runescape. WoW has disabled cross faction conversation, so the idiot kids taunting you are pretty much limited to /laugh. Also there is no PvP looting. You played runescape for a total of 20 hours, and are making the statement that all games in that genre must be exactly like it. Before you dispute that; "Again, just because I haven't spent literal weeks of gametime in these shitty systems doesn't mean I do not comphrend them and their inner workings." Yes it does. And no, "Over the years my WoW friend has relayed the healer tank and DPS triumvirate" does not mean you know what you are talking about.

"boss fights consist of a few simple steps that could be read on a readily available FAQ"

Really? Then why isnt every guild clearing Yogg-saron, or Algalon? Why don't you log on to your friends account and do it while recording it, just to prove your point to us. Reading about it, and doing it are not the same. Please don't insult our intelligence further by pretending you honestly do not know that.

"However, this does not excuse Blizzard from providing a chat function in lieu of a good game."

Again, in your response you prove your arrogance and ignorance. It is much more than a "chat function", you are playing together as a team, helping each other. Have you even asked to sit in on one of your friends raids even as a spectator? Next time you are going to rip into a game that you "don't want to waste my time on", maybe you should at least observe it first?

LARPing seems really silly to me, but I've gone and watched sessions twice. I would never participate in it, since it does not appeal to me, but I at least saw WHAT it was, and why people do enjoy it. Some of them do not actually even play, but they enjoy making the costumes and other props for them to use. One such guy was a tinsmith by trade, so in his spare time he made custom weapons and such for them. He said it was fun because it was a change from just working on heating ducts and other construction things.

I started to ramble there, but I'm not even a writer doing a piece and know better than to tear something apart without at least SEEING it, even if I refuse to participate in it. Hence my first post stating that I hoped you actually don't make money from this. This is shoddy at best, considering there is a free 2 week trial available, a friend who has an account with at least 1 level 80 at your disposal.

It depends on what you mean by 'play', James. I'd say your guessing wrong - I had a 70 druid night elf and 70 warlock human (and some lower alts). Ah, Tallwillow, I still like to imagine you wander about that world - not that discussion about wow ever seems to be about imagining anything other than DPS.

Your also putting words into my mouth, then dismissing me for the words you put in. I said IF it's 10%. Then I said, let's figure a way to objectively measure that. If you feel confident story, for one thing, is such an integral part of gameplay, perhaps you could offer an objective way of measuring that. Same with the other elements. I'm thinking a stopwatch started when when story is part of game and stopped when it isn't, and another stop watch to record a play session length. It wouldn't be hard to get a percentage from that. Your confident that story and the other elements are part of it, do you have an objective measure you'd like to suggest?

"Because clearly anyone who would dare challenge this articles shoddy composition and analogy must be "addicted" to the game, and has no clue what they are talking about and thus should be summarily dismissed. Well at least according to you."
Well, when they again put words in my mouth, replacing 'some people' with 'anyone', yes, it starts to make me think addiction is clouding their approach. Or something.

This seems to be the 'proving' logic that if someone says the emporer is naked, and you can poke holes through all their hypothesis and analogies, then that proves the emporer has clothes on. No, it just dismisses that persons hypothesis - that doesn't prove the emporer has clothes on. If you want to poke holes in Dustins article, it stil doesn't prove wow is all about the story, etc. You'll need to pull out some objective measures - more objective than telling us how you feel on the matter.

Also in terms of tabletop, if you think it's relevant, there are various articles on the forge concerning groups who go through hours of boring play, but a week latter, after mentally editing events, they call it awesome.

This game concept is still awesome, no matter what you guys say.

For what it's worth, there is more substance in there than TheDustin reached. There's probably nothing that he'd like any better than what he saw, though. (For example, both the player and the enemies acquire attack spells, and past a certain point, elemental damage and resistance become much more important.)

I remain unconvinced that the game was intended as meta-commentary, at least in the way described here. It reminds me more of the "Videlectrix" games at homestarrunner.com.