The Apparent Anti-Intellectualism of Gamer Culture

[Dragonbums]

Exactly. For all his quirks, there are reasons behind Totalbiscuit's popularity and mostly consistent performance analysis that other reviewers have glossed over or not given as thoroughly is one of them.

Sure, but how many gamers outside of PC gamers genuinely care about the ins and outs of computer specs and how a game will run/not run on them?
I mean he's wildly popular but to act like this is what the whole gaming public wants is full of garbage. Some people like that stuff. Others want to know if Final Fantasy has a good fucking story to justify them going through 80 hour odysseys in them.

 

[Silvanus]

For the purposes of countering your argument, he speaks for me. there, 2vs1, you lose

Or just refer to the most popular reviewers. Clearly this guy, and the people who are his audience, are a small minority.

There are a dozen reasons that could be. The site linked in the OP is a relatively obscure one; I could just as easily link an unknown reviewer who just reviews gameplay, as evidence that gamers don't want that. Or it could be his style; his articles do not carry the banner for all narrative/thematic discussion.

That doesn't indicate that "gamers" as a group only want reviewers to focus on mechanics alone.

Hell, half the people in this very thread are saying they're fine with narrative/thematic discussion. Honestly, it seems bizarre to arbitrarily exclude a part of the product from discourse surrounding that product.

 

[the7k]

I'm also fine with a narrative/thematic discussion, but to use that as the basis for a review for a shooter? That's insanity. Story in a game like this is vestigial at best.

Again, if this was a Telltale game or Dragon Age or something else where story is the primary reason for purchase, then so be it.

Do I speak for every gamer? Of course not, but I do possess something that other reviewers sorely lack, and that is empathy. The ability to put myself in someone else's shoes. Do I give a crap about The Division? No, hell I don't give a crap about shooters in general. However, I do know what people who do enjoy them value, or at least have a rough idea of what that is and can attempt to answer the questions they might have when preparing to throw sixty dollars in the wind.

I've looked at some of their other reviews and it seems like they do this sort of thing regularly with their reviews. That's fine, if they want to analyse some of the overlooked parts of games that great, but to call them reviews is disingenuous.

There are expectations. When we read a film review, we expect things like lighting, composition, timing, dialogue, character motivations, actor chemistry and the writing to be discussed if they are particularly good or bad. If you want to discuss the image a film like Transformers 4 paints of American society and spent 99% of your article talking about it, that's fine. Heck, it might even be amusing. Calling that article a review, though, would be a bit like filling a piece of chocolate with toothpaste.

 

[Davroth]

Who? Is Killscreen a website I should know about? It looks kind of obscure to me. So basically some blog writes a review and people scoff at it in the comments. That's it? Proof that anti-intellectuallism is running rampant? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Agreed that it's not the most compelling evidence.

That said, we wouldn't need to look to obscure sites to find fair support for the idea that narrative/thematic considerations shouldn't be in reviews, and that reviews should focus on gameplay alone. A good deal of people on this very site seem to believe that.

(Not that I believe that indicates anti-intellectualism, mind).

Reviews are struggling for relevancy anyway. I honestly have trouble mustering any strong feelings about someone putting their personal politics into their reviews. It's always so painfully transparent, it's not swaying anybody. Nobody paid off that person for that review, that's what's important.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

snip

Both of you touch on "reviewing the ecological aspects of the car".

I'm fine with that. Just not exclusively. If the review is a review of the car, then please review the car. Don't use the car as a vehicle for soapboxing. A "review" like this basically forgets that it is a car (or game) it is reviewing, and apparently thinks it's the leather-industry (or political communication). If I see "Porsche 911 reviewed", I expect to read at least something about how it drives in normal conditions, how it feels when you take it on a track, how spacious it is, and what materials are used, and maybe about the fuel-consumption. What I don't expect is three pages worth of "the leather industry is terrible, oh and we looked at a Porsche 911 once"

Also, "This is a false comparison. A non-petrolhead wouldn't be suitable to review a sportscar because I'm guessing they wouldn't have the technical expertise to give any decent insight." (from Dizchu).

You don't have to have a degree in engineering, or hell even know how a diff works to review a car.

All you need to know, in order to review a car, would be how to drive, and then to qualify as a petrolhead, you'd need to find driving fun (and preferably have some track experience).

Just like, you don't need to know how the underlying coding of a game works, but you do need to understand how game mechanics work, and most importantly, you need to think games are fun.

 

[Cati]

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.

1. No, it's not at all. That most people don't want to be preached at by pseudo-intellectual hypocrites doesn't mean they or our culture is anti-intellectual.

2. How about this for an explanation: gamers read reviews to get an idea of whether a game is worth buying. Most want to know if it's fun and/or interesting to play, whether there's any major bugs or other issues at time of release, what you actually get for the price, how long it is, how well it runs on the platform and if they'll need to upgrade their system etc.
They're expecting reviews to give them the facts about the game, with some reviewer opinion if the reviewer is trusted.

They're not getting this from opinion pieces dressed up as reviews. They're being duped into reading opinion pieces and blog posts that usually serve as little more than signalling to the "right team", and they're rightly annoyed by that.

Most do not want these pieces to not exist, they just don't want to be deliberately mislead into reading them, and then subsequently preached to or insulted by the author.
And for those that still use review scores to aid their purchasing decisions, they don't want these scores being based on purely subjective factors.

If sites clearly marked opinion pieces as such *and* didn't keep trying to blur the line between opinion and review, if they even had maybe two types of scoring system so readers could easily get the info they needed out of the piece, you'd see far fewer complaints about pieces like this*.

Eta. That article started out good tbf. It was reading like a good review of what it's like to be in the game from a story perspective, and it looks like that's the sort of thing one should expect from a review over at killscreen based on their About Us page. It's unfortunate that this article and site are caught in the crossfire between the general purpose games websites, and their consumer audience.

Eta2. * and by "this" I mean opinion pieces purporting to be reviews of the type consumers/gamers understand reviews to be. Not the article in question, particularly.
I would say wrt the article in OP, a negative reaction to the author throwing political signalling into an otherwise interesting intellectual analysis of the game, is still not indicative of our culture being anti-intellectual.

 

[The Enquirer]

I think it may have something to do with the "gameplay over story" culture that's propagated itself in our culture. That's something I certainly agree with as we play games to be engaged. Some of the games and game modes I have played most have no story. I feel like it was setup as a review rather than an in depth commentary on the game's story and lore and hold the author at fault for that as he didn't review much of the actual gameplay itself, granted there isn't much to review as it's a standard cover shooter with grinding elements.

That said, I actually really enjoy those types of pieces. Even if I don't agree with a piece it's almost always interesting (though sometimes infuriating) hearing other's analysis's on these types of things. After reading through a few dozen or more so of those comments and several hot showers I feel like a lot of people would have praised the article for being "intellectual" and "different" if they agreed with it, as is the hypocritical nature of the internet. Most people seemed to have an issue with the fact that it was given a negative review.

 

[Dizchu]

All you need to know, in order to review a car, would be how to drive, and then to qualify as a petrolhead, you'd need to find driving fun (and preferably have some track experience).

Just like, you don't need to know how the underlying coding of a game works, but you do need to understand how game mechanics work, and most importantly, you need to think games are fun.

Okay perhaps I worded it improperly. What I mean is that someone reviewing cars would need to be able to say more than "it's shiny and goes fast". Just like a music critic would need to know the basics of music theory and a film critic would need to know certain terminology. Unless they're doing in-depth essays they wouldn't need to be experienced at the craft, but if you're reviewing a game and you have no idea what you're talking about, it's gonna result in the kind of user comments you see on Metacritic and not a professional review.

But gamers can't be that into the clear cut mold can they? Like there are still games that are cutscense/gameplay. Mass Effect is a huge example of that. All the talking and plot happens AFTER you shoot everyone's brains out. (or try not to.) and yet fans universally panned ME3 BECAUSE the story was absolute dog shit. But it was also something that was heavily advertised as important regardless of how it was implemented.
Unless games of today revert back to Doom and Mario levels of story relevant than I honestly think it's more dishonest to just not bring it up.

That's where things get confusing, people obviously do care about the storytelling that these games provide but if you go too in-depth about the thematic and political aspects of a game they'll demand more "objectivity" (what???)

I don't think gamers are anti-intellectual, I just think they're conflicted. Gaming is not as established as other forms of media that welcome such thematic scrutiny and people have a lot of personal investment in the medium. They're likely to take political commentary as a personal attack.

Of course I'm making generalisations but I'm referring to the kind of gamer that has a knee-jerk reaction to content like this. "Keep politics out of video games!" is one of the most infantile and anti-gaming sentiments I've heard in a while and implies that video games should be a "safe space" from criticism and discussion.

But to me I genuinely wonder what is there to get defensive about? I mean, sure if your super invested in the story and you think someone is talking out of their ass about it (which according to some people who did care about the story, it kind of was.), if all you care about is the gameplay than a reviewer saying some bad shit about the narrative element shouldn't give a fuck.
It's not like that really hindered the sales of any game.

Me too, honestly. You brought up Mass Effect and that series is essentially all about space politics, of which there are many parallels to the real world. I think closing off political discussion of that franchise would be a great loss.

But I had a think about it and I did realise that it's not just a problem with gamers. Many people got upset when critics brought up the politics of American Sniper in their reviews, demanding that film criticism should be "impartial". I think if you have a problem with the political discussion in a review it's likely because you disagree with the critic's politics, not because you don't want politics in your game/film/music. I wish people would realise this and instead of have a knee-jerk reaction, respond to these criticisms.

Because whenever someone says "keep politics out of my video games" it suggests that they're ashamed of the games they play.

 

[maninahat]

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.

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.

The website specifically says that its reviews are not interested in looking at things like graphic or gameplay, but in cultural value. It also says that there are a billion other reviewers out there who can review games on the former criteria, if you really need one.

They shouldn't use a score then, nor should they submit their review, with its score, to metacritic. If you feel your review should be included and affect that score, then when people see that your review is counter to what they expect from scored reviews, you've no defense to such a criticism via that line of thought.

They can have a scoring system if they like. Also they have specifically said they don't care about metacritic (you don't submit a score to metacritic, they take it from your website). And really, why should they? They don't have an obligation to try and tow the line with other reviewers.

 

[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.

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.

The website specifically says that its reviews are not interested in looking at things like graphic or gameplay, but in cultural value. It also says that there are a billion other reviewers out there who can review games on the former criteria, if you really need one.

Here is the problem with that. If I find the article based on a google search looking for game reviews, I will never see this "Disclaimer". And really it doesn't matter. They can "review" or "critique" games in anyway they want to approach it. But they know damn well that they aren't actually reviewing the games. Te only reason they call these articles reviews is so that they DO appear on a google search, and get extra hits to articles that normally would only ever get a very specific audience.

Even then, this review "policy" doesn't even apply towards all of their reviews. So they aren't even consistent with the tone in which the site is supposed to present. Go read the Truck Simulator review, that article is written by someone who hates to drive, as if they purposefully give the games to the worst possible people to review them. Which explains why the Division review is so off the rails.

In fact you know what? This site reads like a group of writers really really wanted to writer for The New Yorker, or maybe Time magazine, but nobody would hire them. So instead they write for a gaming site because that's the work that they can get. They don't like games, but they are determined to write high brow articles about them.

Look I don't have a problem with these articles, and I've said this. I do have a problem that they are classified as reviews. I have a problem that these reviews effect metacritic. At the end of the day, these are label as reviews to get those website clicks. Period.

 

[Floppertje]

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.

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.

The website specifically says that its reviews are not interested in looking at things like graphic or gameplay, but in cultural value. It also says that there are a billion other reviewers out there who can review games on the former criteria, if you really need one.

Here is the problem with that. If I find the article based on a google search looking for game reviews, I will never see this "Disclaimer". And really it doesn't matter. They can "review" or "critique" games in anyway they want to approach it. But they know damn well that they aren't actually reviewing the games. Te only reason they call these articles reviews is so that they DO appear on a google search, and get extra hits to articles that normally would only ever get a very specific audience.

Even then, this review "policy" doesn't even apply towards all of their reviews. So they aren't even consistent with the tone in which the site is supposed to present. Go read the Truck Simulator review, that article is written by someone who hates to drive, as if they purposefully give the games to the worst possible people to review them. Which explains why the Division review is so off the rails.

In fact you know what? This site reads like a group of writers really really wanted to writer for The New Yorker, or maybe Time magazine, but nobody would hire them. So instead they write for a gaming site because that's the work that they can get. They don't like games, but they are determined to write high brow articles about them.

Look I don't have a problem with these articles, and I've said this. I do have a problem that they are classified as reviews. I have a problem that these reviews effect metacritic. At the end of the day, these are label as reviews to get those website clicks. Period.

So? Why would it matter that when you find a thing on google it must exactly be what you meant when you searched for it? You don't come across as stupid so I'm fairly sure you're smart enough to figure out what kind of website it is you're reading. If you read an article in a tabloid you wouldn't expect it to be the same as in a proper newspaper, would you?
Besides that, I disagree that what they do is not a review. Games are not made in a vacuum and story and themes DO matter. If you were to play a ww2 shooter from the point of view of a German soldier it would be a very different experience, would it not? Or take something like spec ops: the line. That was all about the story and metaphors.
So when a website chooses to focus their reviews on those aspects of the games they review, they're perfectly entitled to still call them reviews. If you don't like it, you can just remember the name of that website and avoid it's articles in the future and read more technical reviews.

 

[MrFalconfly]

All you need to know, in order to review a car, would be how to drive, and then to qualify as a petrolhead, you'd need to find driving fun (and preferably have some track experience).

Just like, you don't need to know how the underlying coding of a game works, but you do need to understand how game mechanics work, and most importantly, you need to think games are fun.

Okay perhaps I worded it improperly. What I mean is that someone reviewing cars would need to be able to say more than "it's shiny and goes fast". Just like a music critic would need to know the basics of music theory and a film critic would need to know certain terminology. Unless they're doing in-depth essays they wouldn't need to be experienced at the craft, but if you're reviewing a game and you have no idea what you're talking about, it's gonna result in the kind of user comments you see on Metacritic and not a professional review.

Agreed.

That was also what I meant about "understanding how game mechanics work".

My point, about why I find this kind of "reviews" useless, is because it only analyses one component (in the case of The Division, the political ideas being showcased), as if it exists in a vacuum, and doesn't even touch on any of the components that might make the product attractive to buyers (gameplay, control-feedback, platform requirements, difficulty, aesthetics, graphics).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't label what's clearly a political essay, as a product review. Sure you can touch on the political angle, but if you neglect everything else, then by definition it isn't a review (at least not a review of the product. It may be a review of the political message, but the product is more than the political message it carries).

 

[Dizchu]

My point, about why I find this kind of "reviews" useless, is because it only analyses one component (in the case of The Division, the political ideas being showcased), as if it exists in a vacuum, and doesn't even touch on any of the components that might make the product attractive to buyers (gameplay, control-feedback, platform requirements, difficulty, aesthetics, graphics).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't label what's clearly a political essay, as a product review. Sure you can touch on the political angle, but if you neglect everything else, then by definition it isn't a review (at least not a review of the product. It may be a review of the political message, but the product is more than the political message it carries).

I finally decided to have a look at the review and the site on which it was published. There was a link to this page: https://killscreen.com/articles/note-about-our-reviews-policy/

It doesn't try to mislead readers and they are up-front about their approach. This isn't like a Kotaku article going off the deep end into self-righteousness, the site seems honest. Actually after reading their FAQ they seem like a pretty interesting bunch offering something few other outlets offer.

If you're gonna claim that their scores will influence Metacritic ratings, well... the whole point of Metacritic is to compile a variety of reviews to determine the critical consensus, and that'll inevitably include less-than-stellar reviews that look deeper than the superficial aspects. That said Metacritic isn't great at determining a game's quality.

 

[MrFalconfly]

My point, about why I find this kind of "reviews" useless, is because it only analyses one component (in the case of The Division, the political ideas being showcased), as if it exists in a vacuum, and doesn't even touch on any of the components that might make the product attractive to buyers (gameplay, control-feedback, platform requirements, difficulty, aesthetics, graphics).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't label what's clearly a political essay, as a product review. Sure you can touch on the political angle, but if you neglect everything else, then by definition it isn't a review (at least not a review of the product. It may be a review of the political message, but the product is more than the political message it carries).

I finally decided to have a look at the review and the site on which it was published. There was a link to this page: https://killscreen.com/articles/note-about-our-reviews-policy/

It doesn't try to mislead readers and they are up-front about their approach. This isn't like a Kotaku article going off the deep end into self-righteousness, the site seems honest. Actually after reading their FAQ they seem like a pretty interesting bunch offering something few other outlets offer.

If you're gonna claim that their scores will influence Metacritic ratings, well... the whole point of Metacritic is to compile a variety of reviews to determine the critical consensus, and that'll inevitably include less-than-stellar reviews that look deeper than the superficial aspects. That said Metacritic isn't great at determining a game's quality.

At the most, it's just annoyance that some people think they can review one component of a product, and then claim they reviewed the product.

All I'm saying is that, it isn't anti-intellectualism to complain about a review neglecting to actually review key-components of a product.

As said before, I'd be annoyed too, if someone "reviewed" a Porsche 911, and really only reviewed the ethical concerns of leather manufacturing.

 

[MCerberus]

I think it's a symptom of tribalism more than anti-intellectualism at the current time. Gaming more than most media is super tribal due to history and its relative youth. First console wars, then stigma against gamers, and recently PC mustard race and a whole bunch of rather unfortunate ravings. As a result gamers become enraged by pretty basic critiques like looking at the use of violence in Bioshock or the ever present feminist context review.

It just looks looks anti-intellectual, but if that were the case why are the most vocal gamers RABID for novelty?

As for the review itself, it seems to miss, intentionally or not, a ton of stuff. First, as mentioned the LMB is super fascist. Every rich person left is pretty much a raging asshole. All the heroes are working class. Even the various factions all have clear lines leading them off the cliff. Looters are at a 'if I don't steal, I starve and die' point, the Cleaners were driven to act for "the greater good" (the greater good!) out of fear and grief. Even the Rikers have a moment, where a captured cop is begging for them to see him as a human being and not a uniform.

 

[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.

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.

The website specifically says that its reviews are not interested in looking at things like graphic or gameplay, but in cultural value. It also says that there are a billion other reviewers out there who can review games on the former criteria, if you really need one.

Here is the problem with that. If I find the article based on a google search looking for game reviews, I will never see this "Disclaimer". And really it doesn't matter. They can "review" or "critique" games in anyway they want to approach it. But they know damn well that they aren't actually reviewing the games. Te only reason they call these articles reviews is so that they DO appear on a google search, and get extra hits to articles that normally would only ever get a very specific audience.

Even then, this review "policy" doesn't even apply towards all of their reviews. So they aren't even consistent with the tone in which the site is supposed to present. Go read the Truck Simulator review, that article is written by someone who hates to drive, as if they purposefully give the games to the worst possible people to review them. Which explains why the Division review is so off the rails.

In fact you know what? This site reads like a group of writers really really wanted to writer for The New Yorker, or maybe Time magazine, but nobody would hire them. So instead they write for a gaming site because that's the work that they can get. They don't like games, but they are determined to write high brow articles about them.

Look I don't have a problem with these articles, and I've said this. I do have a problem that they are classified as reviews. I have a problem that these reviews effect metacritic. At the end of the day, these are label as reviews to get those website clicks. Period.

So? Why would it matter that when you find a thing on google it must exactly be what you meant when you searched for it? You don't come across as stupid so I'm fairly sure you're smart enough to figure out what kind of website it is you're reading. If you read an article in a tabloid you wouldn't expect it to be the same as in a proper newspaper, would you?
Besides that, I disagree that what they do is not a review. Games are not made in a vacuum and story and themes DO matter. If you were to play a ww2 shooter from the point of view of a German soldier it would be a very different experience, would it not? Or take something like spec ops: the line. That was all about the story and metaphors.
So when a website chooses to focus their reviews on those aspects of the games they review, they're perfectly entitled to still call them reviews. If you don't like it, you can just remember the name of that website and avoid it's articles in the future and read more technical reviews.

Okay I will tell you why it matters. Because of the whole reason the OT began this thread in the first place. This thread was based on the assumption that gamers are anti intellectualism, which we've all agreed that such a statement is false. But it was brought up because of comments on the very reviews on this site, and people were going "WTF where is the review here?" You say that is not the sites fault, but isn't it? They label these articles this way for a reason. They know that by using certain words, their articles are more likely to come up in search engines.

And even then, if they want to critique the story of a game like this that's fine. But why can't you talk about the story and the gameplay? Break the article up into sections like many people do with their video reviews. Simply segment the article into story portion, gameplay, and performance, or whatever other categories you want. That way you can still release this article as it is, but also include some review merit.

It has been said before, but reviewing just the story of the game and giving the entire game a score is like reviewing a book based on the plot summary on the back. Or a movie based on the credits. It is only one aspect of the project and therefore isn't a representation of that project as a whole and thus the project cannot be judged as such.

This is what the comments on the review represent. A frustration of someone looking for a game review and merely getting a partial review. The comments that call the article out on this fact are not the best reflection of opinion, but they make valid points. It isn't anti-intellectualism, it's just people whole ordered a review wondering where the fuck their review is. It is not a valid question to ask? The word review on a game comes with certain expectations, and while it is a valid style to not give people what they expect, you CAN expect to be asked why?

For example if you go to a McDonald's and order a burger, but get a grilled cheese, would you now ask the clerk where your burger is? Now they can tell you, "Oh we only do Grilled cheese burgers here, no meat only cheese." And the restaurant has every right to do that, but wouldn't you be wondering why the fuck they are a McDonald's then? Call the restaurant "McCheeses" or something. Anything to change the expectations of the customers wandering in.

The same premise applies to these articles. Call them ANYTHING else. But if you call them reviews, expect some people to question it. That's all I'm saying.

I don't understand why this has been such a debate.