The Apparent Anti-Intellectualism of Gamer Culture

[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".

 

[CritialGaming]

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?

I have a problem with this. Because there are a ton of games that I looked up reviews to find out exactly WHAT and HOw a game plays. Examples of this include, Senran Kenki (something something, the most recent anime boobie brawler game that came out on PS4), Dragon Quest Heroes, Salt and Sanctuary, various random JRPG's. I look at reviews to find out about gameplay a lot before I buy a game. I wanna know how a game plays and if they gameplay is any good. That is why I go to reviews.

Now I know I might be in the minority of that. Reading reviews BEFORE getting a game is strange to a lot of people who seem to use reviews as validation on purchases they've already made. I don't though, because I know that reviews are a buyer's tool. And it is important to find a handful of review sources that you usually agree with in order to get a basis of how you will like a product in turn.

I, for example, rely on TotalBiscuit's reviews and port reports as I am a PC gamer primarily. Then I go to Angry Joe, Pro Jared, and Jim Sterlin. I only go to Escapist, and Destructiod when the Youtubers haven't gotten to review a game I'm interested in yet.

Only after I get a good idea on if I will like a game or not, do I buy it. And even then, sometimes I still find myself not liking a game.

But you know what makes all those reviews consistent? They review the gameplay, mechanics, design, story, and performance. They tend to talk about every aspect of the game, not just a single piece and call it a day.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I am coming to hate the word culture.

It is fine to review a game based on any aspect you want but if all you care about is the political side of a game then I will just ignore your review because the gameplay is the most important part of a game and if you don't want to review that, then your review has zero value for me.

 

[Dizchu]

Now I know I might be in the minority of that. Reading reviews BEFORE getting a game is strange to a lot of people who seem to use reviews as validation on purchases they've already made. I don't though, because I know that reviews are a buyer's tool. And it is important to find a handful of review sources that you usually agree with in order to get a basis of how you will like a product in turn.

Well I think reviews serve multiple purposes. I wouldn't say that people who read reviews after they've watched a film or played a game are "validating" their purchase but rather that they want to know how someone else feels about the thing they've experienced. Maybe it'll give them a different perspective, a greater appreciation of something or an understanding of why it might not have hit the mark.

Plenty of reviews these days have spoiler alerts because they go into detail about plot points and surely you wouldn't read or watch a review like that before watching/playing the thing being reviewed. I love Red Letter Media's reviews but I never watch them if I a) haven't seen the film and b) have any intention of watching it.

 

[SpiralLegacy]

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.

It can be interpreted as any way you want. I used the word because it's definition was suitable. Whatever intense hostility you infer from that is once again, your analysis to make.

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.

I was going to actually write a legitimate response to this but I realized half way that this is essentially just semantics. It would have been a pointless exercise and I've done it too many times on the internet to know it doesn't lead anywhere.

 

[Silvanus]

It can be interpreted as any way you want. I used the word because it's definition was suitable. Whatever intense hostility you infer from that is once again, your analysis to make.

The definition of "pollution" fits? Its definition concerns something pure becoming impure; being corrupted, or degenerated, or devolved by the presence of something else. That's what the word means. And if that's the attitude you have towards someone expressing an alternative opinion, then that's a frankly bizarre degree of intolerance of opposing viewpoints.