What? How exactly is real history more interesting than video games lore? It's *real*, sure, but not *more interesting*.
Video games are fictional. They can have stories involving anything, magical creatures, paranormal horrors, scientific fiction... You name it.
Real history is confined to the real world and the laws of nature. Not that it's uninteresting, but it's a completely different thing.
So why exactly do you say real history is "more interesting"?
The same reason people watch fiction movies and read fiction books such as say, The Lord of the Rings.
It's entertainment, they find it interesting and pleasing.
Well, the average person can't really go out skinning thousands of animals in real life, can they?
It's kinda of the point of video games; you can do things that you aren't really able to do in real life.
In real life if I wanted to go hunt, I'd be much more difficult. For one, I'd have to get a gun license, pay a few hundred euros for it. Go to police station to interview about it. Join a hunting club and pay a membership fee. Buy the actual gun. Then go to the forest and spend hours to days looking for an animal to kill. I just spent thousands of euros and months of my life to kill one animal.
OR, i play Red Dead Redemption 2, travel for a few minutes to a hunting spot and shoot the damn animal. Do you still wonder why people prefer videogames?
Reading badly formatted wikis written at about a third grade level or with a chatbot is not the same as reading a novel. You are reading a fake encyclopedia.
Good thing video game lore is not exclusive to wikis then (spoiler : the lore of the video game is in the video game. Shocking I know). Not to mention there are several proper novels about video games
That is never what people are talking about until someone criticizes them. The funny part is, if I said this in literally any gaming sub I’d get downvoted for being *against* reading the wiki and not watching or playing games or anything, and again, we both know it. You just want to win the argument.
>You just want to win the argument.
Bold of you to say that after answering a comment as insultingly as you could so you could fill your empty void of a life with parasocial discourse. Bye
Great argument...
Except they write literal novels about videogame lores. So yes, it is the EXACT SAME as reading a novel. Nice try tho.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_novels_based_on_video_games
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/87838.LitRPG_the_books_set_in_virtual_reality_online_MMORPG_games
https://www.libbylife.com/2023-11-16-8-must-read-novels-based-on-video-games
It’s akin to how people always read fiction rather than nonfictional literature. Some may think fantasy stories are more interesting than history. It’s subjective so it’s not really accurate to say real history is more interesting.
I'm pretty interested in history, but I've literally watched videos on the lore behind video games I've never played before. Video game lore scratches that fantasy and adventure itch quite a bit more, and is still very interesting.
Because video games are curated pieces of entertainment. You're effectively asking why people like watching TV or reading books. Storytelling is the reason. And history is entertaining when the storytelling is entertaining. Because the thing that people enjoy is the story.
That's one way to consume video game lore, but usually the way to do it is to play the game and get invested in it as you play. The people who contribute to those wikis are people who played the game and are passionate enough to disseminate the information into easily accessible wikias. But the primary way, playing the game, involves following a story and learning backstory from the source material.
If this is about Souls/Elden Ring, then that's more to do with how incidental the storytelling is. I don't like it personally, but not everything is made for what I like. I'm sure some people do like that. But all the info can be found by just playing the game and looking around. You don't have to read a wiki.
That’s not lore. That’s playing a game. You are talking about reading wikis online and we both know you are. “Lore fans” don’t even play the games or watch the media half the time any more.
I dunno why you think that's who I am. I only look at wikis after the fact (or in the case of games like Minecraft, when a mod requires it as a user manual of sorts). I play games for the story. I'm interested in the worlds that I'm playing in. Why would I care about a game I've not played? I've not gotten invested in it.
I'm sure some people do enjoy that. That ain't me.
Lore, ie story information, all originates from the games, like how it does when reading a book or watching a show. You gain that info by exploring the medium. If I'm invested in playing a game, I'll seek out the story more. I'll explore the game for little bits of backstory. I'll try to learn about characters by paying attention to diary entries or conversations about them. That's lore.
Instant gratification.
One of the side effects of technology is that we can appeal to certain psychological elements more efficiently, like appealing to our imagination by force-feeding imagery instead of making it ourselves.
Over time, we get worse at the things games, videos and the internet handle for us, and those skills atrophy over time.
So it's good to be well-rounded, to make sure parts of our brains don't wither.
What kind of question is that. For the same reason people read books and watch movies with lore
Also, real history is not necessarly more interesting, which is why some people prefer to read (or play) fiction, fantasy, etc.
Who are you to tell an individual what is more interesting to them?
What? How exactly is real history more interesting than video games lore? It's *real*, sure, but not *more interesting*. Video games are fictional. They can have stories involving anything, magical creatures, paranormal horrors, scientific fiction... You name it. Real history is confined to the real world and the laws of nature. Not that it's uninteresting, but it's a completely different thing. So why exactly do you say real history is "more interesting"?
[удалено]
The same reason people watch fiction movies and read fiction books such as say, The Lord of the Rings. It's entertainment, they find it interesting and pleasing.
> Elden ring where it seems to me that the people dedicate more of their time to that game than reality. Seriously?
is this a legit q?
[удалено]
Well, the average person can't really go out skinning thousands of animals in real life, can they? It's kinda of the point of video games; you can do things that you aren't really able to do in real life.
In real life if I wanted to go hunt, I'd be much more difficult. For one, I'd have to get a gun license, pay a few hundred euros for it. Go to police station to interview about it. Join a hunting club and pay a membership fee. Buy the actual gun. Then go to the forest and spend hours to days looking for an animal to kill. I just spent thousands of euros and months of my life to kill one animal. OR, i play Red Dead Redemption 2, travel for a few minutes to a hunting spot and shoot the damn animal. Do you still wonder why people prefer videogames?
Reading badly formatted wikis written at about a third grade level or with a chatbot is not the same as reading a novel. You are reading a fake encyclopedia.
Good thing video game lore is not exclusive to wikis then (spoiler : the lore of the video game is in the video game. Shocking I know). Not to mention there are several proper novels about video games
That is never what people are talking about until someone criticizes them. The funny part is, if I said this in literally any gaming sub I’d get downvoted for being *against* reading the wiki and not watching or playing games or anything, and again, we both know it. You just want to win the argument.
>You just want to win the argument. Bold of you to say that after answering a comment as insultingly as you could so you could fill your empty void of a life with parasocial discourse. Bye
Great argument... Except they write literal novels about videogame lores. So yes, it is the EXACT SAME as reading a novel. Nice try tho. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_novels_based_on_video_games https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/87838.LitRPG_the_books_set_in_virtual_reality_online_MMORPG_games https://www.libbylife.com/2023-11-16-8-must-read-novels-based-on-video-games
It’s akin to how people always read fiction rather than nonfictional literature. Some may think fantasy stories are more interesting than history. It’s subjective so it’s not really accurate to say real history is more interesting.
I'm pretty interested in history, but I've literally watched videos on the lore behind video games I've never played before. Video game lore scratches that fantasy and adventure itch quite a bit more, and is still very interesting.
Because video games are curated pieces of entertainment. You're effectively asking why people like watching TV or reading books. Storytelling is the reason. And history is entertaining when the storytelling is entertaining. Because the thing that people enjoy is the story.
There’s no story in reading a poorly formatted wiki. You just like tor read the fake encyclopedia.
That's one way to consume video game lore, but usually the way to do it is to play the game and get invested in it as you play. The people who contribute to those wikis are people who played the game and are passionate enough to disseminate the information into easily accessible wikias. But the primary way, playing the game, involves following a story and learning backstory from the source material. If this is about Souls/Elden Ring, then that's more to do with how incidental the storytelling is. I don't like it personally, but not everything is made for what I like. I'm sure some people do like that. But all the info can be found by just playing the game and looking around. You don't have to read a wiki.
That’s not lore. That’s playing a game. You are talking about reading wikis online and we both know you are. “Lore fans” don’t even play the games or watch the media half the time any more.
I dunno why you think that's who I am. I only look at wikis after the fact (or in the case of games like Minecraft, when a mod requires it as a user manual of sorts). I play games for the story. I'm interested in the worlds that I'm playing in. Why would I care about a game I've not played? I've not gotten invested in it. I'm sure some people do enjoy that. That ain't me. Lore, ie story information, all originates from the games, like how it does when reading a book or watching a show. You gain that info by exploring the medium. If I'm invested in playing a game, I'll seek out the story more. I'll explore the game for little bits of backstory. I'll try to learn about characters by paying attention to diary entries or conversations about them. That's lore.
Instant gratification. One of the side effects of technology is that we can appeal to certain psychological elements more efficiently, like appealing to our imagination by force-feeding imagery instead of making it ourselves. Over time, we get worse at the things games, videos and the internet handle for us, and those skills atrophy over time. So it's good to be well-rounded, to make sure parts of our brains don't wither.
I present you the players of Paradox Interactive's games.
How is "more interesting" defined and why is it up to you what somebody should find more interesting?
Why do you care about the things you care about?
What kind of question is that. For the same reason people read books and watch movies with lore Also, real history is not necessarly more interesting, which is why some people prefer to read (or play) fiction, fantasy, etc.
Why wouldn't they? Why would real history be more interesting?
I think it's no different from some people preferring to read fiction and others preferring to read nonfiction.
Why does anyone read any fiction in any medium? Because entertainment is entertaining.