The Apparent Anti-Intellectualism of Gamer Culture

[Dizchu]

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.

Where's the outrage about TotalBiscuit focusing on the technical aspects of a game instead of its artistic aspects? Different critics have different areas of expertise. Additionally not all reviews are meant to convince readers to buy or avoid a product, reviews themselves are a form of writing that can be entertaining, informative and educational.

For example most of the reviews I've read of Interstellar highly encouraged viewers to watch it, but where nevertheless highly critical of how it delivered its themes. If the whole point was to convince someone to watch the film or not, why elaborate like that? The fact is art criticism is a highly complex and important thing. If what you want is to know if a game is fun just watch an Angry Joe review, it's quite obvious from the title of this Division review of where its area of analysis will be.

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.

Oh I agree with that, I wouldn't call it anti-intellectualism at all. As for your Porsche comparison, well... a Porsche is a product and not a piece of entertainment.

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.

A review is a critical response to a product, piece of art or entertainment. It doesn't necessarily need a certain format or a score or an explicit approval rating.

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.

Why would not enjoying driving mean that someone wouldn't enjoy a Truck Simulator? I don't like guns but I think Doom is the greatest video game of all time. I think if the person writing it specifically hated simulation games then that'd be a bad decision, but that's a different consideration.

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.

So wait a minute, who are the true elitists here? The people writing articles on a website or the people insisting that they "don't actually like games"? I dunno, that doesn't sound like very good logic to me. I hate football but it'd be ridiculous if I suddenly decided that reporting on football was the career for me.

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

Question:
Is this the only review of the game on the website or is it just a bonus feature and there's a separate review as well?

If this is the only review, the hate is justified because people want to know about the game part of the game, they want to know if the game is worth buying/playing, they don't want a lecture on philosophy and morality.
It's not a game that is story driven. there is a story there but the focus is the gameplay.

If it's just a bonus feature (kind of like "Extra Punctuation" on the Escapist), the hate is misguided.

 

[Silvanus]

You could, but it wouldn't prove your point. What you should do is post the most popular reviewer who does things similarly to the obscure one, and expound upon how his impact on the aggregate is significant.

This assumes what I want is similar to what this Kilscreen reviewer does. It's not. I don't want a review to ignore gameplay considerations; I just don't want them to ignore narrative/thematic considerations, either.

Honestly, classifying reviewers as representing one or the other approach is a dead-end approach.

It would indicate what "the gaming public" would want. Much like what "the american public" wants doesn't necessarily line up with every single American, or group of Americans. Just the greater majority of them.

It proves nothing of the sort. Firstly, there's the high probability that most gamers don't even read reviews; we, sitting here discussing them online, are a pretty small core. Secondly, ranking individual examples will not illustrate anything about an entire style of review: it's endlessly debatable the extent to which these examples even represent that style. As I've already said, this Kilscreen reviewer's style is not what I want.

Finding it fine and finding it useful from a game review when determining if a game is worth spending $60+ to acquire are two different things.

Also finding the discussion of such things fine does not mean that you appreciate that being the sole topic of discussion, again, when you're trying to figure out whether or not the only game you can get this month is going to be said game.

Who said "sole topic of discussion"? That's a position nobody here is taking.

Anywho, there are people here saying that narrative/thematic considerations have an impact on whether a game should be purchased. It's pretty important to me if I'm picking up the new Final Fantasy to know whether the world is well-realised, and whether the story holds up; they're major selling points in that franchise.

Don't speak for the "gaming public". Speak for yourself.

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.

I doubt it's intended to sway anybody politically; only as to whether the game is worth a purchase. Presumably, they're assuming they're talking to the like-minded, like ChristCentredGamer.

 

[CritialGaming]

So wait a minute, who are the true elitists here? The people writing articles on a website or the people insisting that they "don't actually like games"? I dunno, that doesn't sound like very good logic to me. I hate football but it'd be ridiculous if I suddenly decided that reporting on football was the career for me.

You are right, maybe they do like games. But the evidence suggests they probably aren't much fans. My basis for this is that if the review was a fan of gaming at all, or took his job to review the game seriously, there would be mention of the game.

Even if that section of the article was only actually a short little blurb.

Here let me just fix the article, let's assume that the reviewer enjoyed the gameplay of The Division and actually didn't have much to say about it.

"The Division plays like a solid cover-based third person shooter with loot elements similar to those found in other games like Diablo, Borderlands, or perhaps more accurately Destiny. Although perspective in The Division is a bit different than Destiny, many of it's systems feel the same. You run around New York, doing missions, killing bad guys, and looting bodies. It's a fun gameplay loop if you can handle the repetitive nature. For me it becomes a sort of mindless shooter game that I can come home and disconnect my brain and simply play the game. For all of it's repetitive gameplay, The Division can be quite fun, especially with friends, the elements are all functional and solid.

The real problem for me came with the game's overall story and themes.......(And onto the rest of the article.)"

Bam problem solved. The reader now knows a bit about the gameplay. They know that the writer, enjoyed the gameplay, they know that the shooting and looting is solid but repetitive, and they know that the writer was able to relax and enjoy what amounts to a little grinding. They can then continue reading the rest of the article and read how the setting, story, and world made the writer feel, thus warranting the review having a score.

 

[MrFalconfly]

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.

Oh I agree with that, I wouldn't call it anti-intellectualism at all. As for your Porsche comparison, well... a Porsche is a product and not a piece of entertainment.

Agree to disagree on the part I left out of the quote?

Because Totalbiscuit focusing on the technical aspects of a game instead of its artistic aspects, to me sounds much more relevant to the average buyer. The reason I say that is because to me, the artistic aspects of a game only makes up the last 15-20% (they're a luxury).

Also, I don't like comparing videogames to movies or novels, mainly because movies or novels can only really stand on their artistic merit, while a game (like a sportscar) has many more aspects.

Also, personally, I find that any artistic merit a game may have, kinda falls to the earth if the surrounding product is broken (that is, unintentional graphical glitches, crashes, the like), and as such, I find that one must first review the surrounding product before one can actually analyse the artistry behind (mainly because, it is the surrounding product that dictates whether the possible buyer can actually experience the art).

As for the Porsche not being a "piece of entertainment".

Watch this.

I'd say that this is meant purely for entertainment. Because for roadtrips, or shopping, or just general transportation, it's horrifying (extremely harsh suspension, no rear-seats, no trunk). It's road-legal, but that's just a technicality.

Or if you really want an extreme showcase of a car that's purely designed as a "piece of entertainment", try and search BAC Mono.

EDIT:
I agree completely with CriticalGaming btw.

If that was how they did it I wouldn't have any criticisms.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

As many said, that isn't even a proper review. It should be an opinion piece or some article after the review. Yahtzee does something similar with his Extra Punctuation. He has a review with Zero Punctuation and then he writes something related to the game or something that the game inspired him to write and it's often things that aren't just gameplay.

And it's not like expressing your opinion about the story and setting isn't okay. I believe that the gameplay is the most important part, but everything else is also important. While story is, for me, the least important aspect of a game, that doesn't mean it can't improve my experience. However there is a problem when the in depth "analysis" (I can't put it without quotation marks, the article is just bullshit and people have proven it to be false) of the author's political stance takes up the whole damn thing. Another problem is with the fact that their review affects the game's score on Metacritics and therefore can actual cost a good developer some bonus. But that's not the case with Ubishit games.

Gameplay was, is and will always be the central part of the game. If you write a review about a game but don't touch the gameplay, you didn't write a review. You wrote something, congratulation. But you failed the test by missing the topic completely. F, see me in the office.

 

[Davroth]

I doubt it's intended to sway anybody politically; only as to whether the game is worth a purchase. Presumably, they're assuming they're talking to the like-minded, like ChristCentredGamer.

That makes it even worse.. If it's targeted primarily at likeminded people, it becomes even more redundant.

 

[Silvanus]

That makes it even worse.. If it's targeted primarily at likeminded people, it becomes even more redundant.

Not really, if the intention is for people to find out whether a purchase is worth their money.

Most of the time, when reviewers talk about narrative and thematic stuff, they're hardly saying anything terribly controversial or upsetting.

[...] why are we letting them pollute video games.

You do know how this sounds, right? It sounds genuinely scary.

 

[SpiralLegacy]

You do know how this sounds, right? It sounds genuinely scary.

Please elaborate on how it sounds scary? Because it sounds elitist and esoteric?

 

[Silvanus]

Please elaborate on how it sounds scary? Because it sounds elitist and esoteric?

Well, because it sounds almost downright threatening. People are polluting our culture? Come on.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, because it sounds almost downright threatening. People are polluting our culture? Come on.

I'd also tack on the issue of "letting them" pollute "our" culture.

 

[Dizchu]

Agree to disagree on the part I left out of the quote?

Because Totalbiscuit focusing on the technical aspects of a game instead of its artistic aspects, to me sounds much more relevant to the average buyer. The reason I say that is because to me, the artistic aspects of a game only makes up the last 15-20% (they're a luxury).

Well I think you're downplaying the artistic aspect of video games (and I don't mean "high art", I mean stuff like aesthetics, tone, themes, etc.) Buuut I will say that different aspects of video games appeal to different people. I'm all about how the whole package comes together, which is why my favourite games tend to have quite tight mechanics and strong aesthetics. There are also plenty of games that are technically sound that I find really dull, so it's really a subjective thing.

Also, personally, I find that any artistic merit a game may have, kinda falls to the earth if the surrounding product is broken (that is, unintentional graphical glitches, crashes, the like), and as such, I find that one must first review the surrounding product before one can actually analyse the artistry behind (mainly because, it is the surrounding product that dictates whether the possible buyer can actually experience the art).

So why not read multiple reviews? I am fully aware that no critic can completely do a game justice in a review, so having multiple opinions would give me a better impression.

I'd say that this is meant purely for entertainment. Because for roadtrips, or shopping, or just general transportation, it's horrifying (extremely harsh suspension, no rear-seats, no trunk). It's road-legal, but that's just a technicality.

Err, I get what you're saying but that's not what I meant. You can argue that a Porsche is meant for entertainment but I'd say that it's "meant for entertainment" in the same way a Playstation 4 is, not the same way Star Wars, Dark Side of the Moon or Super Mario World is. Yes the PS4 is a device meant for entertainment, but it is not the entertainment itself.

Uhh, how do I explain this... it's like how a football as an object is distinct from the game "football".

"The Division plays like a solid cover-based third person shooter with loot elements similar to those found in other games like Diablo, Borderlands, or perhaps more accurately Destiny. Although perspective in The Division is a bit different than Destiny, many of it's systems feel the same. You run around New York, doing missions, killing bad guys, and looting bodies. It's a fun gameplay loop if you can handle the repetitive nature. For me it becomes a sort of mindless shooter game that I can come home and disconnect my brain and simply play the game. For all of it's repetitive gameplay, The Division can be quite fun, especially with friends, the elements are all functional and solid.

The real problem for me came with the game's overall story and themes.......(And onto the rest of the article.)"

See, that's not a bad idea at all. It might have even improved the review... buuuut I wouldn't say that it's an absolute necessity. To be fair though, it wouldn't detract from the overall thrust of the article and would provide some sort of context. I just think that with reviews and gameplay videos being so readily available, there might have been an assumption that the reader already has some idea of how the game plays. Therefore it wishes to present a different point of view.

I'm not saying it's the best or most useful approach to reviewing, but variety's the spice of life ya know?

Please elaborate on how it sounds scary? Because it sounds elitist and esoteric?

Well, because it sounds almost downright threatening. People are polluting our culture? Come on.

I hate to be the one that invokes Godwin's Law yet again, but this is why it's scary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

 

[SpiralLegacy]

Please elaborate on how it sounds scary? Because it sounds elitist and esoteric?

Well, because it sounds almost downright threatening. People are polluting our culture? Come on.

Whatever connotation you interpret with the word polluting is yours to make, but the point of statement stands.

 

[SpiralLegacy]

Well, because it sounds almost downright threatening. People are polluting our culture? Come on.

I'd also tack on the issue of "letting them" pollute "our" culture.

I never used the word "our" in my original post. I take no ownership of a culture but can easily see when there are those in it who do not care enough for it to do their jobs with a degree professionalism.

 

[SpiralLegacy]

I hate to be the one that invokes Godwin's Law yet again, but this is why it's scary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

I'm sorry, but I fail to see a connection here.

 

[Silvanus]

Whatever connotation you interpret with the word polluting is yours to make, but the point of statement stands.

I imagine you know full well what implications it has. It's intensely hostile. I don't think it can realistically be interpreted in any other way.

 

[SecondPrize]

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?

Critical theory is deconstructionism and deconstructionism is not criticism. If you want to deconstruct a game, that's fine, but if you present it as a review you're going to get push back. If metacritic wasn't a thing, nobody would care but this is a world where a critic's review can affect bonuses or future contracts a developer signs. You can't be surprised that someone pisses people off when he injects his own ideology into a review score and fucks a developer people may like.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If a Developer or Publisher can be fucked by a Metacritic score, the responsibility for the fucking relies entirely on their shoulders.

Reviewers should not, and ethically cannot, take into account how their review may financially impact what their reviewing if they want to give their honest assessment.

 

[Something Amyss]

I take no ownership of a culture but can easily see when there are those in it who do not care enough for it to do their jobs with a degree professionalism.

I'm not sure what definition of professionalism you're using. Can you clarify? Because this sort of critique seems culturally and professionally valid, it's just that some people seem to not personally like it.

Also, you didn't say "our," but you did say "we." And you didn't ask why "we" were condoning unprofessional conduct, either. You cast these "pseudo-intellectuals" as the other, asked where they were coming from, and asked why we were letting them "pollute" gaming.

Even bringing up professionalism seems like plea-bargaining.

 

[Dizchu]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see a connection here.

Because you're complaining about how some group you disapprove of has "polluted" your safe space "culture" with *gasp* different opinions that you don't even have to listen to in order to maintain some sort of "purity".