The Apparent Anti-Intellectualism of Gamer Culture

[The Jovian]

Originally I had a much longer rant written about this but since brevity is the soul of wit I'll keep this s#!t short.

Why is it that Kilscreen.com can write a review critiquing The Division's problematic narrative ( https://killscreen.com/articles/the-perverse-ideology-of-the-division/ ) and the resulting reaction is 80% s#!t like this (and yes those are all real comments):

So your score is reflective of nothing that has to do with the game play... Solid review, sad that you think that games and gaming industry need to make some sort of moral statement. Go back to reading books.

This review was nothing more than a way to state your political and moral views. Has nothing to do with the game. It's just a game and nothing more. Made for entertainment. This article is ridiculous.

Can we please have real gamers review games, versus failed english majors.

Can you actually review the gameplay and not comment on it as a philosophical piece? This is article is extremely articulate and direly misplaced. Rate the gameplay, not the ideology, after all, ideology =/= game mechanics or fun.

That last one is especially confounding in its idiocy given that the title of the Review is "The Perverse Ideology of The Division".

Which brings me to my point, is our culture anti-intellectual? I mean that's the only explanation I can think of for why the reaction to a review like this even exists. It's the kind of hypocrisy in which gamers say that games are art so that they're not exempt from anti-censorship laws but scoff at the notion of anyone treating them like art. Sure it's still escapism and entertainment but by their logic Lewis "Linkara" Lovhaug shouldn't have bothered to look for deeper themes in meaning in this Power Rangers retrospective ( http://atopthefourthwall.com/category/hopr/ ), or Jaymes "Captain Logan" Logan shouldn't have bothered to give the superhero movie genre any in-depth analysis ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5yiowFDpQ&list=PLE6AD3F273B4DA8DE ), because like The Division they're entertainment and nothing more, and don't give me that stupid "they're not professional journalists" excuse, they're still critics and they're still doing this professionally as their job, the only difference is that Killscreen does its analysis in text form rather than video form. Is there another reason and if so I'd like to hear it since I can't think of anything else.

And now I have to ask: why is it that video game reviews aren't allowed to talk mostly about narrative and or provide in-depth analysis of the work and it's themes? Why does this stigma against anything but the most clinical, bare-bones, just-the-facts, gameplay-only reviews even exists?

I don't know, and that's what has me worried about the maturity of the people that make our culture, the ones that are dismissive of any sort of intellectual analysis of games and their place as an art form.

So what if Killscreen is only talking about narrative and themes? They've got so many other outlets that specialize in just-gameplay reviews and yet they keep insisting that all media outlets must review games the same way, and that its reviews should not be on Metacritic simply because they said so.

Even if you disagree with the points made by the review can you really say that the points shouldn't have been made just because The Division was a game?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I don't think it is anti-intellectualism as much as it is anti-progressivism. There's a vocal minority of gamers that do not want their hobby to change, especially not in a way that would suggest that "SJWs" have had a say in how games are designed or perceived. Attacking someone for analyzing the ideological underpinnings of a game is not dissimilar from attacking someone for analyzing the content of a game from a feminist perspective. Some of the people attacking these takes on game criticism are (or at least like to consider themselves) quite intellectual, but they are opposed to anything they consider "politicization" of games, especially if it is in the name of progressivism.

 

[Fappy]

Which brings me to my point, is our culture anti-intellectual?

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: this isn't specific to gamer culture, but western culture on the whole. We have a consistent habit of celebrating ignorance and stigmatizing intelligence.

Gamer culture has its own spin on this, of course. Much of it likely stems from games being more product-oriented than other forms of media.

Most of the time the kinds of people who make comments like that can be stereotyped as "fanboys". If the article was analyzing the thematic elements of the game in a positive light those same posters would probably change their tune.

 

[God'sFist]

Now now we don't want be painting with that broad a brush do we?

Eh as far as this goes there are some people who want games to just be games and there those who want games to be more than that. The people commenting that you've shown here are most likely the former. We gamers are a pretty divisive lot aren't we? As much as we may not like it games are still young and so people sometimes have a hard time grasping the idea that games are an artistic medium and some people end up with a misconception that if its an artistic medium fun games won't be made anymore or what makes games fun will be ignored for cheap snobbery.

Remember the common man is dumb as shit and he likes to stay that way.

 

[kiri3tsubasa]

Huh, looking through the article, no mention of the Last Man Brigade faction. Not surprising since that goes counter to his narrative. What else was omitted to make his point?

The Division is a game so eager to criminalize the poor, so eager to play into clich?s of class war. Yet it staunchly refuses to take responsibility for its representations, for its politics. If we want that to change, we have to make it, and its creators, responsible.

Holding the creators of video games responsible for what? Unless they are doing something illegal I can not see what they need to be held responsible for. That ending really feels like some Jack Thompson level of logic right their.

*oh yeah, now I recognize this site. It is the same one that shit all over Prison Architect because it didn't push the authors view about prisons. Now I remember why I had this site up their with Salon.

 

[DefunctTheory]

While there is a vocal minority of people who get upset about this sort of thing, I think really, what it comes down to most times, is that there seems to be a growing critic movement to judge games on criteria other then gameplay. Several of the examples provided say as much - They just want to know if the game is fun.

Sometimes fans feel pinched - On one side, you have IGN like reviewers, who can barely be trusted to make an honest review, as they at least appear to be compromised by the very companies their judging, and the 'cultural' reviewers, that often treat games like many cinema critics treat movies, where 'substance' counts for 70% of the score given. It's an unpleasant place to be.

Aside from that... in the US at least, yes, there's a bit of an anti-intellectual culture, gamer or otherwise.

It's weird.

 

[Barbas]

Brevity isn't the soul of wit, intelligence is. Allow me to demonstrate: pelican shit. Not terrible, but could have been much better.

I think you're looking too far into this. People who are anti-intellectual have a distrust of intellect, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. They don't try so hard to ape all three while being unable to hold a conversation or even string a coherent sentence together. I think the overall problem would be more accurately described as partly pseudo-intellectualism and partly just plain ignorance. People want the respect and they want the admiration, but they don't want to study the material or have the difficult conversations to get there.

Up to several million of these people might be formulating their views and opinions on complex issues from one video, author or commentator. As depressing as it sounds, what kind of meaningful conversation can you reasonably expect to come out of that? Your best bet is probably in talking to the person who wrote the article or made the video in the first place.

These people don't know what they want. I think that's a reasonable assessment to make when they can't explain it, or what they stand for.

 

[CritialGaming]

I think what really causes this problem is the fact that the article is labeled as a review. There really isn't anything about the game that is reviewed here, instead it is a deep and fairly decent analysis of the setting and motives of the themes within the game and not actually the game itself. Honestly if they had tagged this article "Opinion" instead of review then those people commenting probably wouldn't be bitching.

But when they click an article that is supposed to be a review and read this high-brow analytical piece about theme and setting, it just comes off as pretentious and confuses people. Think about it this way, read that article and ask "Is this a good game? Why or Why not according to this author?" Really you can't. You can take away that the setting upset them, and made their actions, purpose, and role within the world of the game feel horrible. But can you honestly take any information from that article about the game's mechanics, how the loot works, how players gear, or progress, or even move through the game's story? Can you tell if the game runs well? Or if it has any major bugs?

No, no you can't.

Again I don't think there is anything wrong with the piece, but I don't believe that those comments are wrong to point out that this "Review" isn't really a review. At least it isn't a review of the game itself. If I was looking around the internet for a game review and came across this, I would have no information about how the game is...as a game.

And none of this would even be a problem if that article wasn't labeled as a "Review". "Opinion", "Fluff", whatever you want to call it, and it those people wouldn't have anything to say about it. But when the reader goes in expecting a certain level of information, it makes sense that when they do not get that information, they would be questioning it.

Imagine if you had a test about The Division, and your only study guide was that article. What could you tell me about the game?


EDIT: I do want to point out, that this entire website's reviews seem to be long drawn out fluff articles by people who don't seem to register with games or how to review them at all.

I present the following example: https://killscreen.com/articles/american-truck-simulator-is-here-for-the-long-haul/

There are entire paragraphs talking about how the author grew up to resent driving in rife life. Whole sections about the panic of getting their first ticket and an incredible majority of the article has fucking nothing to do with the game. In fact you would wonder why they would make someone who doesn't drive in real life, and hates driving in general, to review a fucking driving simulator game!

Look the general attitude on the internet is to call people out on bullshit. And reading a couple more of the articles will show you how much this site doesn't give a fuck about gaming reviews.

I can sum up that entire Truck Sim article in one sentence. "I hate driving, and this game is pretty accurate driving I guess. 73/100"

I mean, seriously?

 

[Fox12]

Unfortunately. There's a pretty strong regressive culture in games. Parts of it can be seen in backwards cultural movements like GG, but it goes much further then that. Some people just don't want to think. That's why you can have a discussion about the deep philosophy of dark souls, and then you've always got that one guy who insists it doesn't mean anything, and it's just about the gameplay. They get annoyed at the very idea of a game asking you to think, or, worse, seeking to challenge you in a way that doesn't involve a health bar.

 

[Zenja]

I think what really causes this problem is the fact that the article is labeled as a review. There really isn't anything about the game that is reviewed here, instead it is a deep and fairly decent analysis of the setting and motives of the themes within the game and not actually the game itself. Honestly if they had tagged this article "Opinion" instead of review then those people commenting probably wouldn't be bitching.

This should be /thread. You shouldn't discuss the subjective political views or plot to a game and then rate how "good the game is". If you are ranking the plot or subject material in an opinion article, fine. If you are evaluating the game design, no. If you want to discuss political views and such, why not discuss the ones in reality where your voice plays a part instead of whatever McGuffin some game designer came up with this month?

 

[Saelune]

I think its that people as a whole are stupid, and the internet gives a lot of stupid people a voice. I don't think it is specifically gamers, just that its the idiots of gaming cause its a review of a game. Books, movies, and everything else have their loud idiots too.

Personally, I think gaming as a whole is actually pro-intellectual. Ive experienced far more varied and well thought out ideas through gaming than anything else. Whether its racism through fantasy games, ethics of war in certain shooters, anti-authoritarianism/tyranny in well, most games, etc.

Sure books are fine and may help you spell out words better, but games let you experience new ideas firsthand and I think that's far stronger than reading or watching.

 

[CritialGaming]

I think what really causes this problem is the fact that the article is labeled as a review. There really isn't anything about the game that is reviewed here, instead it is a deep and fairly decent analysis of the setting and motives of the themes within the game and not actually the game itself. Honestly if they had tagged this article "Opinion" instead of review then those people commenting probably wouldn't be bitching.

This should be /thread. You shouldn't discuss the subjective political views or plot to a game and then rate how "good the game is". If you are ranking the plot or subject material in an opinion article, fine. If you are evaluating the game design, no. If you want to discuss political views and such, why not discuss the ones in reality where your voice plays a part instead of whatever McGuffin some game designer came up with this month?

To add icing to the overall point of this entire thread.

Are gamers anti-intellectual? No.

But you better believe we will call you out on your bullshit.

 

[Redd the Sock]

While yes, I don't think this makes a case for it. A video game is a larger package that shouldn't be critiqued based on a single element of it, any more than I'd want a review of a TV show based on the opening credits. They may be awful, but there's 95% of the product left to cover. Moreover as gameplay is still a dominant time focus and least able to be learned about and judged by reading the box, it stand that a review should be focused on that. Story analysis is fine, but a time and place for everything.

Beyond that, at the risk of drawing attention: bitching about the politics of a work is surprisingly anti-intellectual. I'm sure the politics of the Division are everything every says they are, but people act like the game has less a right to make such a political point than something that affirms their values. Instead of looking at it to ask if the work made the point well, or even as a lens to see how people of a different political stripe view people or an issue, it's basically sticking one's fingers in your ears and going "la la, you're evil, la la, not listening".

 

[meiam]

Game are by definition define by there gameplay, making a review where you don't talk about it at all is kinda counter productive. I'd be like reviewing a music album and never talking about what kind of music it is and if its even good. Of course people are gonna point out how weak this review is.

And anti-intellectualism is such a weird idea in itself, whose to say what's intellectual and what's not? Is the discussion about how good and/or accurate the bullet physic inherently inferior to the discussion about the political statement one can read in a game? You can make hugely detailed analysis of the effect of changing the drop rate percentage of certain object and the impact it will have on the player and progression of the game. I think, like in every society or groups, there's just snobbism where people see the subject they like as sophisticated and worthy of discussion and everything else as pointless, and this hold for both side in this case.

 

[omega 616]

Given the context of the review, the comments you cherry picked are stupid. However, I think in the context of a game review, they are spot on.

If I read a review (something I haven't done in years) I want to know what the shooting feels like, how the combat works, what are the "cool" things, what are the graphics like, any bugs, how the game works blah blah blah. What I don't want is, an in depth analysis of the political direction of the game.

It's perfectly ok to dissect a game that way and can make for an interesting conversation but if you're on the fence about whether to buy it or avoid it, then talking about how right wing the story is, is pointless.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

I would say that there is an anti-intellectual element in gaming culture, just that this is not a good example, for reasons already stated.

The anti-intellectual sentiments in gaming I notice are people who like the medium, but deny it's status as art. I read comments from people who stated games could not cause violence or sexism because they are just games, just toys to play around with, and cannot change or influence you in any way. This from people who liked playing games, mind you. Such an audience is unique to gaming as a medium, as far as I believe. Are there any fans of books, movies or music out there who think their hobby is not an art and cannot have a positive influence on you life?

The sad thing is that those people get support because of the trench war mentality that exists in gaming: Another anti-intellectual influence, when you think about it. Intellect is sharpened by meaningful conversation with people you agree and disagree with, not staying in your favorite trench with the people in the same uniform as you, occasionally throwing a grenade towards the trench which uniforms you like the least and duck and cover when they do the same. In this mindset, people forget that you shouldn't be in the same trench as the "games are not art" - guy. Heck, you shouldn't even be on the same battlefield.

 

[K12]

You get a pretty decent number of "urgh stop overthinking everything and just enjoy it you smug wanker!" whenever you criticise or praise an aspect of something that is abstract or subtle and I don't think I see more of this in games than other media.

Stupid and ignorant people don't like it when they're given a glimpse of the deeper intellectual world that they're missing out on... that is the smuggest sentence I've ever written.

 

[Xeorm]

I would say this most reminds me of groups of people mocking "Modern art" for being, well, stupid and the elite lavishing praise on it.

No, gaming doesn't have an anti-intellectual problem. At least, not that I've seen, especially from this example of an article and its response.