The Apparent Anti-Intellectualism of Gamer Culture

[Maze1125]

That's a misrepresentation of that position. There's no resistance to better games, what there is is resistance to narrow-band regressive American politics being labelled 'progressive' and thus, best for all. There's no one-size fits all view of pregressive, so OF COURSE people are going to disagree with the leftist 'problematic narrative' take.

Well, aye, but we're not talking about those who merely disagree with the criticism. There've been calls for narrative/ thematic criticism to be removed from reviews entirely.

Exactly. It's one thing to say "I completely disagree with what you say and the political implications of this." and another to say "IT'S GAME, WHY YOU TALK ABOUT POLITICS!?!"

 

[shrekfan246]

is our culture anti-intellectual?

Short, non-snarky answer: Yes.

Longer, possibly more snarky answer? A lot of gamers (I'm glad Chrome has seemed to decide that that's not a word) get really uncomfortable when they're confronted by anything that challenges their preconceived notions and world views. And then they get really mad, because they feel like the person challenging said opinions is directly insulting them as a person for it, because if they like something it can't possibly be bad or have any worrying parts, right? And if there's something wrong with it but they like it, then something must be wrong with them, surely!

(Of course, that's not how things actually work and it's entirely possible to love something that sucks or has troubling views towards certain subjects.)

That's why we see things like "SJW" get thrown around so often, intended as an insult of all things. The general idea seems to be that people "crusading" for the betterment of narratives are tilting at windmills, because there's nothing wrong with representation in video games because I like it and I'm not racist or sexist or homophobic, so how could these video games be? There also seems to be a fear that calling out troubling aspects will somehow result in a complete overhaul of the gaming industry as a whole and subsequently the only games that will see release any longer are ones like Dear Esther and Gone Home, because... reasons, I guess. (Here let me say that, as someone who gets accused of being an "SJW" and "white knight", I like violent games and games with sexy times in them just as much as anyone else does. That doesn't flipping mean they can't be done better.)

The saddest part to me is this hyper-reactionary element that's seemed to take over practically every video game-centric forum in the past few years. I can't look at any forum or comment section for more than five minutes without seeing somebody tossing around the words "progressive" or "SJW" like they're slurs, all because some of us actually think games and the dialogue surrounding them can be more interesting than "you go into a place and shoot a few guys to pick up incrementally better equipment".

 

[inmunitas]

"Interactive media" and "video game" are not the same thing, interactive media is a broad category of which video games only intersect a tiny section of,

Yes, well done, you noticed my point.
Games are only a small subset of interactive media. By calling something a "game" we juvenilize it, it becomes okay to ignore the setting because "it's only a game". By calling it interactive media we can consider these fantastic works that people put years of their lives into as more than just "games" but, equally, it means we need to recognise that the design choices that are made are worth discussing, not just the gameplay ones.

But, hey, you can keep calling them games if you want and keep ignoring everything except the gameplay. No-one is stopping you from doing that.
Live and let live. If people want to play games on a base level, let them do that; equally if people want to consider interactive media as something more important than "just a game", let them do that too.

By calling something a "game" we are hopefully acknowledging that said thing is indeed a game, I'm not sure where you get this idea that some how "juvenilizes it", perhaps you are confused with the word "toy"? Even so, it's a silly reason to not call something for what it is. Further more video games are not a subset of interactive media, they "intersect" with interactive media, they predominantly fall under the realm of games, because that's what they are, obviously.

I've never claimed that everything except gameplay should be ignored, nor have I seen anyone else make such a statement either, so who you are exactly addressing with that statement is unknown to me. What my initial point was is that a story is not a game, and thus if all a reviewer is doing is focusing on the story then they are not writing a game review (may I add, a point which you have yet to even address). You would wouldn't write a film review and only focus on the audio, would you? It seems rather preposterous that one would put so much emphasise on what is merely an add-on to that which is being reviewed.

 

[Siege_TF]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Maze1125]

Further more video games are not a subset of interactive media,

Okay, name me one single video game which is not a form of interactive media.

I've never claimed that everything except gameplay should be ignored, nor have I seen anyone else make such a statement either, so who you are exactly addressing with that statement is unknown to me. What my initial point was is that a story is not a game, and thus if all a reviewer is doing is focusing on the story then they are not writing a game review (may I add, a point which you have yet to even address). You would wouldn't write a film review and only focus on the audio, would you? It seems rather preposterous that one would put so much emphasise on what is merely an add-on to that which is being reviewed.

Have you even read the article? Because it doesn't call itself a review anywhere in there.
There absolutely have been articles written about the audio of a movie, so why can't there be an article about the implications of a game's setting?

 

[inmunitas]

Further more video games are not a subset of interactive media,

Okay, name me one single video game which is not a form of interactive media.

I've never claimed that everything except gameplay should be ignored, nor have I seen anyone else make such a statement either, so who you are exactly addressing with that statement is unknown to me. What my initial point was is that a story is not a game, and thus if all a reviewer is doing is focusing on the story then they are not writing a game review (may I add, a point which you have yet to even address). You would wouldn't write a film review and only focus on the audio, would you? It seems rather preposterous that one would put so much emphasise on what is merely an add-on to that which is being reviewed.

Have you even read the article? Because it doesn't call itself a review anywhere in there.
There absolutely have been articles written about the audio of a movie, so why can't there be an article about the implications of a game's setting?

I don't see the point of continuing to respond to you when you don't even read what I've posted.

 

[9tailedflame]

I think it's unfair to say it's anti-intellectual. I actually read the article and while i haven't played the game, it seemed fine, if not very limited in scope, which i think is more or less what people are taking issue with it, it would be my issue with it, since it really did only cover the story, with no comment on the gameplay. This sort of constricted review is pretty common, and it's a bit of a kneejerk reaction to condemn such a review for many people, myself included, though perhaps not be as prominent or hostile, but i do kinda roll my eyes at a review when it's clearly coming from someone with a political axe to grind.

I do think a lot of "progressives" and "intellectuals" more or less just create sacred topics for themselves that are free from criticism, which i think largely invalidates those self-appointed labels. If they can't criticize a game because it has a non-straight white cis male protagonist, than they don't get to call themselves intellectual.

I guess the point is that it's not anti-intellectualism, partly it's a defense of dumb games that there's no problem if they're dumb. It's also parly a defense of games who don't ground their appeal in political pandering, and i do mean pandering. You won't find many people harping on bioshock 1 for being preachy, even if a huge amount of the dialogue was pure political ideology by a severely political man, and i think there's at least 2 big reasons for that. Firstly, it was the game's own world, nor was is an overt representation of something in the real world, like the movie avatar was, just to provide an example. It explored general concepts, and it didn't point to real-world things. Secondly, it never really claimed the explored political philosophy was right or wrong. Rapture may have failed in the end, but it accomplished crazy things in that time. It can't be said to be purely wrong or right, purely good or evil, it had it's merit and it's flaws, and this is largely what made it so popular, but it didn't skimp on the game play to accomplish that, nor would a review of bioshock be complete without a nod to, what is in my opinion, a creative and viscerally fun take on the shooter with it's plasmids and variety of weapons and viable tactics.

It sort of feels like game reviewers are flocking more and more towards games with writing akin to a 5th-grade creative writing class, where the child author writes about how a character strikingly similar to themselves, with one character change in the name of their own name as the hero's name. they're a hero and the best person ever, and a villain is a classmate they dislike, and they're evil and disgusting and dumb. That's not intellectualism, and replacing the child with a political opinion being the hero doesn't make it any better. Simply including politics in something does not make it intellectual, nor above criticism, or even casual scorn. If these games don't even have gameplay to fall back on, (and don't get me wrong, i think a game can stand with just story and no real gameplay, but ONLY if that story is strong) then those reviewers that like it may be largely just giving it good reviews because it agrees with their political opinions, regardless of actual quality of story or gameplay, and i think lots of people, myself included, have gotten somewhat irritated at this practice over the years.

 

[9tailedflame]

I do think a lot of "progressives" and "intellectuals" more or less just create sacred topics for themselves that are free from criticism, which i think largely invalidates those self-appointed labels. If they can't criticize a game because it has a non-straight white cis male protagonist, than they don't get to call themselves intellectual.

Look at all of the people you just tossed together in a pile, few of whom would probably agree on much except that they don't like being pigeonholed by the likes of you, right? If you can't bother to put together more than one paragraph without generalizing whole groups of people and what you think they think, what do you think you're sowing?

I said a lot of, not all, or even most. All i'm trying to say is circles that do this exist, and sometimes make game reviews, and some people get annoyed by them.

 

[9tailedflame]

I do think a lot of "progressives" and "intellectuals" more or less just create sacred topics for themselves that are free from criticism, which i think largely invalidates those self-appointed labels. If they can't criticize a game because it has a non-straight white cis male protagonist, than they don't get to call themselves intellectual.

Look at all of the people you just tossed together in a pile, few of whom would probably agree on much except that they don't like being pigeonholed by the likes of you, right? If you can't bother to put together more than one paragraph without generalizing whole groups of people and what you think they think, what do you think you're sowing?

I said a lot of, not all, or even most. All i'm trying to say is circles that do this exist, and sometimes make game reviews, and some people get annoyed by them.

You're going to argue the semantics of how many people you tossed in the pile? That's what you're going for?

So what, you want to pretend that nobody like that exist? I'm not sure what you want from me exactly, to not refer to groups of people, or not describe a set of qualities as opposed to trying to find every individual person who does this? I'm not exactly sure what you expect from me here.

 

[9tailedflame]

I do think a lot of "progressives" and "intellectuals" more or less just create sacred topics for themselves that are free from criticism, which i think largely invalidates those self-appointed labels. If they can't criticize a game because it has a non-straight white cis male protagonist, than they don't get to call themselves intellectual.

Look at all of the people you just tossed together in a pile, few of whom would probably agree on much except that they don't like being pigeonholed by the likes of you, right? If you can't bother to put together more than one paragraph without generalizing whole groups of people and what you think they think, what do you think you're sowing?

I said a lot of, not all, or even most. All i'm trying to say is circles that do this exist, and sometimes make game reviews, and some people get annoyed by them.

You're going to argue the semantics of how many people you tossed in the pile? That's what you're going for?

So what, you want to pretend that nobody like that exist? I'm not sure what you want from me exactly, to not refer to groups of people, or not describe a set of qualities as opposed to trying to find every individual person who does this? I'm not exactly sure what you expect from me here.

I don't want anything from you, except maybe that you think about what you say and how it's inevitably going to be taken by the people you're ostensibly trying to reach. Acting across purposes between one paragraph in the next seemed like it needed a pointing out. I don't see how moving the goalpost from "lots" to "you're saying no one like exists" does anything to help matters either.

So i'm allowed to say some people exist, but not lots of people exist? Lots and some more or less mean the same thing, i don't see how it's really moving any goalposts. Neither is a solid value, and i don't claim to have any solid values, so i'm stuck with these kinds of vague words representing a multitude of people.

 

[Maze1125]

Further more video games are not a subset of interactive media,

Okay, name me one single video game which is not a form of interactive media.

I've never claimed that everything except gameplay should be ignored, nor have I seen anyone else make such a statement either, so who you are exactly addressing with that statement is unknown to me. What my initial point was is that a story is not a game, and thus if all a reviewer is doing is focusing on the story then they are not writing a game review (may I add, a point which you have yet to even address). You would wouldn't write a film review and only focus on the audio, would you? It seems rather preposterous that one would put so much emphasise on what is merely an add-on to that which is being reviewed.

Have you even read the article? Because it doesn't call itself a review anywhere in there.
There absolutely have been articles written about the audio of a movie, so why can't there be an article about the implications of a game's setting?

I don't see the point of continuing to respond to you when you don't even read what I've posted.

That's incredibly rude.
I am reading what you say, if you think I am misunderstanding something then it could be because I lack the intelligence to understand it or it could be because you're explaining yourself poorly. Neither of us is unbiased enough to say which.

Either way the correct response is to state that you believe I am misunderstanding and try to explain better, not to storm out of the room and insult the other party.

 

[Mechamorph]

is our culture anti-intellectual?

That's why we see things like "SJW" get thrown around so often, intended as an insult of all things. The general idea seems to be that people "crusading" for the betterment of narratives are tilting at windmills, because there's nothing wrong with representation in video games because I like it and I'm not racist or sexist or homophobic, so how could these video games be? There also seems to be a fear that calling out troubling aspects will somehow result in a complete overhaul of the gaming industry as a whole and subsequently the only games that will see release any longer are ones like Dear Esther and Gone Home, because... reasons, I guess. (Here let me say that, as someone who gets accused of being an "SJW" and "white knight", I like violent games and games with sexy times in them just as much as anyone else does. That doesn't flipping mean they can't be done better.)

The saddest part to me is this hyper-reactionary element that's seemed to take over practically every video game-centric forum in the past few years. I can't look at any forum or comment section for more than five minutes without seeing somebody tossing around the words "progressive" or "SJW" like they're slurs, all because some of us actually think games and the dialogue surrounding them can be more interesting than "you go into a place and shoot a few guys to pick up incrementally better equipment".

I do agree that every social group has its radical fringe and its own vocal minority. Frankly the behaviour of people on the internet in general can be deplorable and gamers are no different. If one were to tune into a match of League of Legends, one would hear the kind of profanity one would expect from a military Jody Call.

However I disagree on your assessment on why "progressive" and "SJW" are used as slurs. From the more germane and urbane comments I have seen, I believe it is more of a sense that these individuals are perceived as wanting to impose their notions of morality and values onto games. Effectively they are seen as people who want to censor anything they find objectionable in video gaming as if they are some sort of thought police. Every time there is hue and cry about the content of a video game, especially of a long standing series, it crystallizes the notion that the "SJWs" want games to follow their ideals instead of remaining what they are. This view is not necessarily accurate, indeed I would posit that it is pretty much a strawman but it does seem to be the most common complaint. The scenarios you have listed, such as an overhaul of the game industry, seem to be an extrapolation of existing requests and petitions that have been made.

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. 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. 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. "This games offends me and needs to change!" is hardly a rational argument and pertinent to the original topic of this thread. Personally I am tired of hearing lines very much like the line above, especially when the incident in question is relatively small. Final Fantasy VII making a joke about Cloud being somewhat perturbed by a bunch of pixellated men in speedos is one thing. EA publishing Racial Holy War: The Video Game is quite another. In the latter case the publisher might be giants but the game itself is definitely no innocuous windmill.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

More or less, but I don't think anti-intellectualism is the term I'd use. Culture in general has a problem with reactionaries, you know, the sort of people who call others "Social Justice Warriors." They don't like it when anyone analyses media through a progressive lens.