- Sep 15, 2011
I'm definitely not saying that one piece of game criticism is going to start a revolution either -- I'm just saying that, like books, films, music, etc., beginning a dialogue is extremely important for helping to move things forward. If anyone putting forth any kind of critical questions has to worry about catering to "easily influential idiots" then criticism will always stay in a stasis and the medium won't move forward.Haakong said:I also doubt that your article will bring forth a gaming revolution, but as I write: It HELPS splitting the community. You can spew out as much exagerated critisism of a fictional problem you want and think its for the good of gaming, but theres too many easily influential idiots out there thats just waiting to get their claws on "proof" like this. One article isnt gonna cause hysteria. 10 articles? Maybe. 100? Now people are really opening their eyes! Then every gamer gotta take a stand: The wannabe intellectuals that shun this kinda fun, or the raging jocks who just wanna blow off some nuts.Reid McCarter said:I'm a firm believer that, rather than disservice gaming as a medium/culture, criticism actually helps to promote growth and is more a labour of love than hate. Whether you disagree with my article or not is fine but I really don't believe that a piece like this should be able to "split the community completely". How else are we supposed to get more out of games if we can't talk about what they're doing right or wrong? Every fully formed artistic medium has evolved because of criticism and games shouldn't be any different.Haakong said:Couldn't agree more. There are just as many tongue-in-cheek-humor games as there is dick-joke games.BloodRed Pixel said:Sorry, this article does NOT serve gaming culture.
This is single sided propaganda on FOX NEWS level: Pulling out some nasties and totally overlooking the BIG AMOUNT of games featuring the finer shades of humour.
And if one is not mature enough to take a dick joke for what it is then he/she is the REAL immature.
Did it ever occure to some morality preachers writing articles to check the semantics of the verb "gaming"? I guess not.
by only focusing on the bad, and just slightly mention the few most well known "correct" humor games, makes the whole article seem like nerdrage-bait. Hadnt it been published on escapist and written by a gamer, raging wouldve been ensured.
What about the "tales"-games? Sitcom and slapstick humor.
what about hilarious discussion that we hear in L4D and Dragon Age?
Completely forgotten the old FF games? Laughed more than I was sad/angry in those.
And the list goes on. All in all, articles like this just fuel the "gamers are generally immature" bonfire, and makes those gamers that dont wanna be asociated with that crowd act even more like hipster douchebags. One step closer to splitting the gamer community completely... Good job!
EDIT: Saying DNF is bad has become the new "George Lucas is destroying Star Wars!"....
My point is, youre fueling the fire. If we keep spewing out about how immature/violent/sexist our hobby is (when its nothing close to the immaturity of certain music genres and films), people will start believing it. In the worst case, many gamers will stop playing games since they grow tired of the ridicule and weird looks.
All here share a hobby, and love it so much were willing to spend hours of our time debating around it! Just stop trying to demonize it. Claiming gaming humor is immature in general is rage-bait.
There's nothing wrong with immaturity in games (or any form of art/entertainment) but the point of the article was to look at how "immature" humour (and I realize that humour is very subjective and tried to maintain objectivity in the article for just that purpose) has typified some of the blockbuster games in the short history of videogames. Sure, that requires some level of generalization but nowhere does the article "demonize" games on a whole. It only points out that games are a medium in their infancy and that we owe it to the medium to maybe want its humour to "grow up" in a sense.
When setting out to write this I really thought hard (and had discussions with an editor) about how to approach this subject without it coming off as "trolling" or "baiting". It's unfortunate if you think that that's what the bottom line of the article is when there actually was some careful thought behind how to present a subject like this without unnecessarily provoking readers.
I also wish that I had asked for a 500 word extension to write solely about early adventure games and how important they've been for setting out a blueprint for successful videogame comedies. I'll still stand behind the fact that they are far less "generally" influential than louder, dumber examples of game humour though -- I think the non-gaming public are more likely to know what Doom or Mortal Kombat are than Day of the Tentacle or Monkey Island.