The Apparent Anti-Intellectualism of Gamer Culture

[MrFalconfly]

I wouldn't trust a non-petrolhead to review a sportscar, and neither would I think a political commentator should review a game.

This "review" basically amounts to reviewing a Porsche 911, and then proceeding to complain about the fact that it's got leather interior, and how that's terrible because it involves killing cows to get the leather.

 

[shrekfan246]

Snip

Well, since you already pointed out that the position people take against so-accused SJWs tends to be a strawman, I don't have much to say about this whole part.

One salient example is the recent situation where a contest winner had to have his limerick changed in Pillars of Eternity because it was accused of, among other things, homophobia.

Quick correction based on what I saw, though: Transphobia, not homophobia. It's arguable that it could've been both, but the complaints I saw were mostly focused on that.

It was supposed to be a tongue in cheek joke about a man who committed suicide because the woman he slept with was not actually one. The ruckus eventually had the limerick changed to something supposedly less offensive. The progressive stance was that the original lines were indicative of a culture of hate that has permeated gaming. The not-progressive stance was that it was just a joke and that there was no offense intended.

So, I'm of the belief that no subject should be off-limits for comedy. However, "it's just a joke" is not an actual defense of something that's harmful, either actively or passively. Joking about how a woman (who we presume is taken as a woman within the context of the limerick because it's never hinted as otherwise) isn't actually a woman because she has a penis (or for whatever other reasons you want to come up with; I'll admit I don't remember the exact lines used in this particular case) is demonstrably harmful and is, in fact, something bigoted people do on a daily basis. And there's no reason for it other than to deny somebody their sense of self because they don't conform to your narrow viewpoint of the world (not you specifically).

Racist jokes are, from my understanding, generally considered taboo these days. I'm not really up-to-date on the current comedians who are really big, but even eight years ago when I sort of was the best you could typically get away with were self-deprecating jokes that used the teller as the punchline. Sexist jokes seem to flip-flop between being acceptable and not, and gay people are still used as punchlines, often in ways that perpetuate negative stereotypes and contribute to a culture that urges straight men to have an irrational fear of being alone with gay men. Transphobia is barely even being recognized as a problem, because there are still so many people who refuse to even acknowledge that trans men and women exist.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that jazz.

Other cases such as complaints that box art was too suggestive or Tecmo deciding that some of their games can stay on their side of the Pacific only strengthen the premise that this is pretty much a foot in the door style of persuasion. Win enough minor victories and major victories become much easier. For the less conspiratorially minded few of these suggestions actually improve the game in any significant manner except to pander to someone's ideological beliefs or to assuage some sort of outrage that seems to puzzle developers every time it flares up. Thus it is looked at as tilting at windmills.

I'll be honest, I see far more outrage at what people perceive to be "outrage" than any actual outrage about games. Maybe I just don't spend enough time trawling through Twitter, but the people I see getting actually upset about things are upset about things that are just as trivial as the people they accuse of being upset.

God, that was a bad sentence.

"This games offends me and needs to change!" is hardly a rational argument and pertinent to the original topic of this thread.

On the flip side, "this person's offense offends me, don't change anything!!!" is also possibly the least-helpful things somebody could say in response to somebody asking a developer/publisher to be more mindful of certain things. And yet, it seems to be the only reaction I ever see; I never see someone who is able to explain why said product shouldn't be altered, other than perhaps some limp-wristed excuse of "artistic vision" (where was that when by and large most of the same people who think games shouldn't be changed were clamoring for the changing of Mass Effect 3?).

 

[Mechamorph]

Quick correction based on what I saw, though: Transphobia, not homophobia. It's arguable that it could've been both, but the complaints I saw were mostly focused on that.



So, I'm of the belief that no subject should be off-limits for comedy. However, "it's just a joke" is not an actual defense of something that's harmful, either actively or passively. Joking about how a woman (who we presume is taken as a woman within the context of the limerick because it's never hinted as otherwise) isn't actually a woman because she has a penis (or for whatever other reasons you want to come up with; I'll admit I don't remember the exact lines used in this particular case) is demonstrably harmful and is, in fact, something bigoted people do on a daily basis. And there's no reason for it other than to deny somebody their sense of self because they don't conform to your narrow viewpoint of the world (not you specifically).

Racist jokes are, from my understanding, generally considered taboo these days. I'm not really up-to-date on the current comedians who are really big, but even eight years ago when I sort of was the best you could typically get away with were self-deprecating jokes that used the teller as the punchline. Sexist jokes seem to flip-flop between being acceptable and not, and gay people are still used as punchlines, often in ways that perpetuate negative stereotypes and contribute to a culture that urges straight men to have an irrational fear of being alone with gay men. Transphobia is barely even being recognized as a problem, because there are still so many people who refuse to even acknowledge that trans men and women exist.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that jazz.

Other cases such as complaints that box art was too suggestive or Tecmo deciding that some of their games can stay on their side of the Pacific only strengthen the premise that this is pretty much a foot in the door style of persuasion. Win enough minor victories and major victories become much easier. For the less conspiratorially minded few of these suggestions actually improve the game in any significant manner except to pander to someone's ideological beliefs or to assuage some sort of outrage that seems to puzzle developers every time it flares up. Thus it is looked at as tilting at windmills.

I'll be honest, I see far more outrage at what people perceive to be "outrage" than any actual outrage about games. Maybe I just don't spend enough time trawling through Twitter, but the people I see getting actually upset about things are upset about things that are just as trivial as the people they accuse of being upset.

God, that was a bad sentence.

"This games offends me and needs to change!" is hardly a rational argument and pertinent to the original topic of this thread.

On the flip side, "this person's offense offends me, don't change anything!!!" is also possibly the least-helpful things somebody could say in response to somebody asking a developer/publisher to be more mindful of certain things. And yet, it seems to be the only reaction I ever see; I never see someone who is able to explain why said product shouldn't be altered, other than perhaps some limp-wristed excuse of "artistic vision" (where was that when by and large most of the same people who think games shouldn't be changed were clamoring for the changing of Mass Effect 3?).

I stand corrected, indeed it was transphobia that was the main accusation. The limerick itself was too short and simple to tell which particular "phobia" it was; the offending line was "the woman he bedded turned out to be a man and crying in shame, off a cliff he ran". Was it a transwoman, a homosexual man who disguised himself as a woman or a rather effeminate homosexual that the subject of the limerick mistook for a woman in a drunken stupor? In any case, the butt of the joke is the man who ran off the cliff. That was what one of the main arguments I saw in defense of the limerick, it is too vague to define anything except that the man felt humiliated and choose to commit suicide due to his one night stand. Yes humor can be offensive sometimes. I have served in the military and trust me when I say that a soldier's humor is crude and offensive like few things in civilian life. However there is a certain degree of intent I would imagine. If a joke is not meant to denigrate someone and its meant in good fun then one should let it slide. Deciding when that is true, now that is the difficult part.

As for the rest, I think by now we have all witnessed that the actions of one internet hate mob often creates another internet hate mob. Sometimes one bigger and louder than the original. If mob A says "change" and mob B says "keep" then I would imagine that the developers would now have a choice to make. Due to the sheer noise that results, I can imagine that some people would rather the subject not even come up. Personally, I think Outrage Culture is getting out of hand; Person A is outraged, Person B is outraged that Person A is outraged, Person C is outraged that persons A and B are outraged, so on and so forth. To paraphrase the Bard, I think this quote sums it up best: "It is a tale told by Internet Hate Mobs; full of sound and fury, (often) signifying nothing".

 

[Johnlives]

It depends on the history of the publication.

For instance, when watching a film, if I'm in the mood for some good old fashioned nonsense and explosions, I'll check a source that thinks, for example, Fast and Furious is a good use of my time. But then I wouldn't trust them at all if I was looking to discuss the latest Shane Carruth movie.

I've never read Killscreen before. By the name I guess they have some interest in Killscreens? Maybe not? But if they do, and they suddenly decide the latest run around shooting people game is terrible because the game doesn't care enough that you're running around killing people, I would be put off, seeing as I go to them for my running around and killing people advice.

When you add in this game is another Tom Clancy inspired one, which I understand are mostly about running around killing people, this just exacerbates the problem.

Enjoying nonsense and explosions and running around and killing people doesn't make people anti intellectual, it's just another way that people relax.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I wouldn't say gaming has an anti-intellectual streak. It's more that most of the "intellectuals" looking at games pretty much either have no idea what the hell they're talking about half the time, or are trying to find deeper meaning where there is none. I'd LOVE for gaming to have it's own answer to Roger Ebert, but all we've really got are the equivalent of people who think Horton Hears a Who is about abortion, with this particular nitwit being a prime example of the issue.

Also, on the subject of games being art, while I do admit that they are indeed art, I'm actually loathe to admit it. Whenever I see that train of thought brought up, people basically end up saying gaming needs to be more like movies and books and paintings. That it needs to copy other mediums in order to actually be art. This keeps missing the fact that games are very much their own medium, with an all new way of doing things that books, movies, and paintings can't. Games are interactive and have various ways of letting you interact with them.

Sadly, it's quite rare to actually see games that actually take full advantage of that fact. The last one that really did was Undertale, where choosing violence or nonviolent methods of dealing with enemies was actually an integral part of how the game turned out.

It also doesn't help matters that most games one would call "artistic" are actually just pretentious walking simulators that think they have deep stories.

(Seriously, you want a story that' ACTUALLY deep go play Planescape: Torment. Gone Home cries itself to sleep knowing it'll never be as thought provoking as a PC game made back in the 90's.)

 

[Netscape]

If people wanted to read about the author's personal politics, they would read their political blog. I don't see why you would need to bring your personal politics into a game review.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I wouldn't trust a non-petrolhead to review a sportscar, and neither would I think a political commentator should review a game.

This "review" basically amounts to reviewing a Porsche 911, and then proceeding to complain about the fact that it's got leather interior, and how that's terrible because it involves killing cows to get the leather.

Actually, I'm just fine with that kind of "review". But it shouldn't be allowed to affect the Consumer Report ratings for vehicles.

Point being, why is that "review" called a review of the car (or game), when really, it's a review of the Engineers (developers) political opinions.

Sure, debate leather, and animal abuse if that's applicable (although, as I understand it, the cattle used for leather actually live rather pleasant lives, since abusive environments would result in lower quality leather), but don't use the pretence of reviewing a car, to just soapbox about the ethics of leather manufacturing.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Snip.

Death threats? On the internet?! Say it isn't so!

The Division is driven by it's loot. You have loot, do missions based on the loot, have cut scenes that lead you to loot, and for this reason if you criticize the game the wrong way, you are reviewing the game wrong.

Are we supposed to be reviewing a game or a Skinner box?

People can simply not read these reviews for whatever reasons, so why don't they? In these particular cases I become deeply annoyed when people try to politicize my hobbies. It's triggering for me.

So? It's an opinion held by a site on the Internet. If there isn't a market for it, it'll go away. If there is a market for it then it won't. It's okay if people have a differing opinion of things than you.

I cannot definitively say what is a narratively driven game, but it's probably not a game where you can skip all the cutscenes and follow your waypoint to the next tier of enemies, and more importantly loot.

So, you can only review the narrative of a narratively driven game, else you're doing reviews wrong, but you can't find an example of a narratively driven game? That's a really convenient way for any criticisms about a story to be dismissed out of hand.

 

[4ged]

short answer: no
long answer: reviewing a game as art is the same as reviewing art as art, or music as art, its about who its for or what the artist, or creator was trying to portray or their goals with the product. If its a gray brown shooter in a sea of gray brown shooters I would review it as such and not hold it up to games like bastion much like I wouldn't criticize a child's finger-painting like I would an Andy Warhol piece, and it seems to be a case of reading into something that's not there or using criticism meant for something trying to be art on something that's desperately trying to be a product with mass appeal for a specific fan demographic to make a maximum yearly profit margin, and I think that's where there is the disconnect. Not all games need to be masterpieces to be fun and should be criticized on the context of its purpose. other then that I don't think there is any anti-intellectualism as much as there are a lot of people picking up on the apples to orange comparisons or reading to far into things that are not there or are simple window dressing for the game, a war/conflict in a game can be a focus for political opinion and core message for the game or simply a mechanism to have battle in game with some kind of cohesion and reason, some games you are interested in why people fight, others not so much.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

snip

What would be interesting to know is how the author of the article managed to miss this entirely. If he genuinely missed it I would find that amusing. If he's lying to himself and us so that he can go on the tangent he desired to go on, well... That's shitty.

I do believe I learned a lot more about the author than I did about the game from reading that. What do you think, Elijin/Nexus?

Given how complete the omission is (he refers to the game having 3 factions, completely ignoring the Last Man Battalion, a PMC who has taken over significant portions of the island and declared themselves the martial rulers), I wouldnt find it hard to believe he played it for 2-3 hours, decided he knew it all and stormed on ahead.
In the early game, you do come swooping as the super agent, here to set the city straight. Its only as the game progresses (or if you are super into collecting various audio diaries) that you start to see the ideas really expand, and the darker notions rear their head. In fact having replayed the missions because, ugh repetition on hard mode rpg/mmo, Im actually finding more and more of the early dialogue hints that people have no faith in your agency. Because you're the second wave, the remains of the first wave having already fallen to corruption and being at the head of the current obstacles.

But essentially this guy is either intentionally manipulating the narrative for his own gains, or a lazy lazy critic who browsed the first chapters and wrote a scathing expose, only to look a bit silly when the completed story provides the context to tell a very different tale.

Either way I feel the reviewer put the concept of them having a tasty little political dissection in their portfolio well ahead of accuracy in reviewing on this one.

In short: It's shoddy work, based on (possibly wilful) misunderstanding of the material and really more about the authors politics than the games?

I don't know how to address the wider question really, I imagine anything I could pull-out would be a guess at best. What I would say is that I'd pick a less shit "in-depth" examination as a jumping on point for this conversation. A well-conceived and fair (mounds of potential subjectivity here, I realise) piece of work might actually have me interested in some kind of gauging of the reception.

Consider quality first, and be careful with the "we smart, they dumb" sentiments.

 

[wizzy555]

No, there is a difference between intellectualism and activism and some people don't seem able to separate the two.

If you oscillate between subjectivism and objectivism based on what your argument is this week, if you can't stand people discussing ludo-narrative dissonance, if you spend more time calling people stupid on twitter than making rational argument, then you aren't an intellectual, you're an activist.

 

[Silvanus]

No, there is a difference between intellectualism and activism and some people don't seem able to separate the two.

If you oscillate between subjectivism and objectivism based on what your argument is this week, if you can't stand people discussing ludo-narrative dissonance, if you spend more time calling people stupid on twitter than making rational argument, then you aren't an intellectual, you're an activist.

That's not really what "activism" is; it usually refers to taking a more proactive role in protest (going on marches, organising events, writing letters, etcetera).

 

[Bocaj2000]

I wouldn't trust a non-petrolhead to review a sportscar, and neither would I think a political commentator should review a game.

This "review" basically amounts to reviewing a Porsche 911, and then proceeding to complain about the fact that it's got leather interior, and how that's terrible because it involves killing cows to get the leather.

That was actually one of the most comprehensive arguments in this thread. Bonus points for brevity.

 

[eberhart]

No, there is a difference between intellectualism and activism and some people don't seem able to separate the two.

If you oscillate between subjectivism and objectivism based on what your argument is this week, if you can't stand people discussing ludo-narrative dissonance, if you spend more time calling people stupid on twitter than making rational argument, then you aren't an intellectual, you're an activist.

That's not really what "activism" is; it usually refers to taking a more proactive role in protest (going on marches, organising events, writing letters, etcetera).

Agreed - but this is what we get. I think "slacktivism" exists to decribe this particular subset more accurately.

There's a comparable distance between "what we get" and "what some people would expect" when we are talking about intellectual value of many pieces produced by "game critics". When I encounter some attempt (and it's often a very generous description) like the one related to Division I can only think what would other type of "anti-intellectual" reaction look like. Movie fans, for example. Imagine someone, who can boast following plot of Transformers, but insisting they have something to say about Third Man. Then it turns out it is something on the level of "Soviet music in Tetris" or "medieval Poland so POC", basically causing everyone with a clue to go "wat". Oh, sure, this kind of keyboard utilization has every right to exist - but imagine what movie fans would treat it like if it both posed and was presented as the "intellectual" wing of movie critique.

It's nothing surprising people have a soft spot for writers/youtubers with "gameplay, tech and genre requirements first" approach. Some of them can do it on a familiar enthusiast level, while for some it's also the most they can do anyway. There are certain problems when enthusiasts attempt to say something deeper - but their inevitable failures can be easily overshadowed by otherwise solid analysis of the elements above. The issues start to mount when their attempt to climb to "intellectual" tier is accompanied by shallow, erroneous or non-existant basics. When they fail on "low brow" level it's about time to ask what their credentials on "high brow" are ... and this is where we usually learn how laughable.

This is why I would treat "Witcher 3 and demographics of medieval Europe" from a published historian as "intellectual", while I'll be laughing at Moosa. In the same way I will choose something about Soviet art from a specialist rather than from Ben Kuchera. When gamers are able to point out failures both in gaming basics and in "deep" topics, their disdain has little to do with anti-intellectualism, because there's little intellectualism to be found in the first place. It's called having actual standards and it doesn't really matter whether they are confined to "gaming basics".

When (and it's when, not if) people who have actual accomplishments in their field will offer their insight into games, it will be worth reading - until that "but it's all we got atm" is not going to fly. I suppose we are at the point where some academics, who deem worthy to write about games are still choosing the laziest route, aka "let's write about globalization in economy, then in art, then in clothing, then in sex, then in toothpaste then in any random bullshit I can write about, including gaming" scheme. Which is what "failed English majors" are copying, throwing their memorized words at the subject, hoping some will stick.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I wouldn't trust a non-petrolhead to review a sportscar, and neither would I think a political commentator should review a game.

This "review" basically amounts to reviewing a Porsche 911, and then proceeding to complain about the fact that it's got leather interior, and how that's terrible because it involves killing cows to get the leather.

I can totally get behind the idea of making some sort of "Eco review" of a sports car, where the review is focused on things like sustainability, use of ecological and non-animalistic materials etc.. If nothing else it is a valid take on a sports car that some people might find interesting and is often overlooked in regular car reviews. I wouldn't expect such a review to be anything but niche however.

The problem with the Kill Screen review of the Division is not that it focuses on the ideological markers in the Division. The problem is that it is a very selective reading of said markers and everything that doesn't fit the reviewers narrative is simply not mentioned. From the fact that the big bad is another Division agent and that his Dragon is a PMC to the way the game consistently addresses the Division's unsupervised power by presenting both positive and negative opinions of it from NPCs and collectibles. The reviewer simply doesn't address these things, because doing so would render the reviewers position invalid. It is a bad review not because it addresses politics and ideology, but because it does so in a dishonest and highly biased way.

 

[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.

I will say though, I did read the article because of this thread and it's very apparent that the author thinks he's a lot smarter then he actually is. He's kind of grasping for straws to make his preconceived notions work. That's kind of what this article reeks of to me, someone who had a preconceived idea and looked for evidence that supports his thesis. Seems kind of anti-intellectual to me, going about it that way. But that might just be me.

 

[Silvanus]

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).

 

[Dizchu]

I've stumbled into this thread a bit too late but I'll give my two cents.

Game culture isn't so much "anti-intellectual" as it is old-fashioned (which is weird seeing as it is such a young medium). People want to regard games as products, where the value comes from how many hours of gameplay they can provide or how many different things you can do as opposed to the game as a complete work. But when people suggest that games are more than just toys, there's usually a huge backlash.

Yeah, the main aspect of a game that should be addressed are its mechanics. But those mechanics don't operate in a vacuum, every single game has context. Doom doesn't have a brilliant story but it appropriately lays out the setting in which the game takes place, it doesn't bite off more than it can chew. You are a space marine killing demons with a double-barreled shotgun. Awesome.

Bioshock Infinite has a much more elaborate story but the gameplay does it a disservice and makes it a slog to experience. This detracts from the overall game.

Skyrim has a perfectly decent set of mechanics but its story is a bit flaccid and doesn't integrate well with the gameplay. It's still a great game and lots of fun, but the weak storytelling detracts from the game. The Mass Effect series has a much more limited set of mechanics but the story is handled much better, in my opinion it is the superior product even if Skyrim is more fun to play. In the same way I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a better film than Guardians of the Galaxy, but I'm more likely to watch the latter if I'm bored.

People that think that the story and themes of a game should be examined separately from its gameplay really don't have as much respect for the medium as they think they do. What makes a game engaging is the context in which its gameplay operates, not the gameplay on its own. And anyone that has a hissy fit about this fact is holding the medium back, sorry.