I dunno. Math asks me to just accept it's normal to have 60 watermelons and is trying move bulk orders of melons on a regular car. The goal is to figure out the problem and not accept that the person who is a wholesale watermelon dealer in denial is commiting tax evasion.
Or to discover that the melon seller has a regular job in ag and gets a bunch of melons on the side from the field and sells the harvest at cost to make up the part of their paycheck that was paid in perishable food.
Should we shame the seller for breaking the law or sympathize for being forced into that situation? People don't have the energy to care; they just came for a maths question.
but... this is not the math you see at STEM, this is the math you see at high school at best. There's no deeper meaning in actual STEM math problems, they are way too abstract or specific. There's no watermelons, it's just some a, b, n1, nk... maybe some physics formulas that apply to velocity, mass... I read 0 problems in my uni math and physics courses where they used real world examples.
I see your point but that's for high schoolers, not STEM students or alumnus.
It's weird. I credit my scientific education with waking me up to questioning stuff. Like when you learn about how we know stuff, the limits of proof (e.g. can't prove empiricism is "true" it just works extremely well for certain things), how hard it is to wrangle stuff into scientific questions and so on the elephant in the room is how fucking impossible most questions are.
Then you get thinking about how untested most of society is, how many different ways there are to interpret things, how unknowable the "goodness" of your preferences is and so on.
Yet, in the same cohort as me there were a lot of people coming out extremely certain of their own worldview and blindly faithful in technocrats and the mystical power of throwing data at stuff to solve enormous problems. Like we are anywhere near being able to calculate out a human society.
So idk, I think it's less stem vs not stem and education quality and kinds of people/where they're at in life. You could probably go through a lit crit course and come out blinkered too, being able to do lit crit doesn't guarantee you'd have good opinions.
This is what bothered me in the original discussion, making it seem like being in STEM somehow doesn't prepare you at all for critical thinking in general. On the contrary, I believe too there are people who develop it in part because of the S in there. It's not necessary, but it's an important tool.
Hopefully people don't need a college degree in literature to understand basic subtext. We ask kindergarteners to do that with Dr Seuss.
Now compare that narrative experience the Super Mario Bros.
Im sure it's been done, but i would love to see interpretations of a First Time User Experience of OG mario if it came out today.
I cant tell you how many games ive just noped out of because i just want to actually play the game and not read or listen to either dialogue or forced tutorial railroading for 20+minutes (even 5 minutes of NOT being in control of what im doing is annoying) when you start a new game.
Even character creation can impede just wanting to get started. Let me come back later, or engage with that as i PLAY the game. Injecting extensive dialogue or forced interactive tutorial should be a reward or a much appreciated rest from the action, not a burden i must bare.
Not every game needs to be story rich to be fun, thank you vampire survivors
That part’s wild to me, when people are like “This villain in your story seems to have said and done bad things? So that means you agree with them, yes?” No! Of course not! It’s the literal villain in the story, man!
But there is no utilitarian point of art. It exists to express ideas and to tell truth. I think maybe a lot of people get upset because from their point of view, they are paying money, and they have this relationship where it’s like “If it’s not giving me what I wanted out of this transaction, then it’s bad.”
To be honest, “If it’s not giving me what I wanted out of this transaction, then it’s bad.” is a heuristic that works well for most things we buy. If I buy candy and it doesn't taste good, it's bad. If I buy a car and it breaks down, it's bad.
I think the real problem is that some people see games as a product and others see it as an art piece. Some games fail at being either, some succeed at both.
A thread of the problem is likely the publisher/developer conflict of interest. When the two can't come to an agreement, the end result usually fails horribly in both aspects.
People watch star trek and listen to fortunate son and miss the message in both of those pieces of art so I’m pretty sure someone would miss the political message in just about anything.
Does anyone really listen to RATM anymore? Tom Morello is a multimillionaire who hordes money instead of giving charity. Hes a hypocrite and a sell-out.
Music and film don't demand that you engage with them in the same way as video games. There are some games where you literally cannot play them without engaging with their narrative and message. Spec Ops: The Line is a good example of this. It actively pushes back against the player's natural inclination to play it like a modern military shooter and not absorb the message.
It's actually very possible to miss the message of Bioshock. Andrew Ryan built the perfect city and Atlas ruined it. Andrew Ryan cast him out, but Atlas brought the player character as his final ultimate weapon. You eventually rebel, saving the capitalist Utopia.
I have seen people who abided by this interpretation. Any art with any level of subtlety can be misinterpreted. It's inherently subjective and depends on the viewer's personal biases.
Are you unfamiliar with capitalism as a theory? Or Ayn Rand? Yes, capitalist utopia. That's the entire libertarian ethos. Libertarianism is a political framework for governance, pure capitalism is its economic policy.
Don't get me wrong, the only Libertarianism I've ever known is intertwined with Capitalism. But they aren't the same thing, and I always read BioShock as being a take on Libertarianism specifically.
I dunno how you could miss it in Spec Ops, that game is extremely blatant with messaging. I recently patient gamered it and was rather unimpressed. Bioshock still holds up though.
IMO it was a mistake to patient gamer Spec Ops. The whole point was that it was a pushback against the rhetoric of the US military and simultaneously a critique of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (and knockoffs thereof), which had just exploded in popularity. By not playing it when the things it was critiquing were in the zeitgeist, you don't really get the same experience. Plus, the marketing for the game deliberately hid the fact that it was intended as a critique; it was marketed as yet another modern military shooter.
I think you can patient gamer it but it only works if you're heavily familiar with that time.
I was really into COD4 and grew up during the Bush administration so I knew exactly what Spec Ops was critiquing. If you don't have that experience though I agree it does not land.
What I didn’t like was the blunt messaging. I was expecting something a little deeper or more subtle than what I got. As a game, the clunky movement/cover system, simple enemy AI, and guns that just didn’t feel great hampered the experience. It’s very linear and there are forced choices (eg white phosphorus) that give you control but no choice
but to be evil. The graphics are lackluster compared to its contemporaries, but I did enjoy the soundtrack at times. I really got into it with a few of those songs. Unfortunately that only happened a few times during the weekend I beat it in. It was okay, but I was expecting a lot more based on what people said about it.
Appropriately for the thread, the WP scene had a choice: walk away. It kept telling Walker to walk away. The player could have shut the game off.
That's the pivot point: if you're just playing a game about Walker, then having a choice doesn't matter, you're just being told a story about a lunatic. But, if Walker is a stand-in for you, and you're playing the game "because you wanted to be something you're not - a hero", then not only is playing on a choice, choosing to play war porn in the first place is a choice.
I was expecting something a little deeper or more subtle than what I got.
That's the problem when these things gain reputations. The reputation builds it up to be more than the piece of art can deliver.
Now imagine playing it when it was new and you weren't "expecting" anything but a military shooter. It would still be just as blunt, but it landed back then far more effectively than when you go in knowing the reputation the game has built in the many years that followed.
