A problem with elitist nerds

[ManInRed]

First, I want to thank you for using my universal response to disappointment in humanity:

I want to punch them in the face.

I'm not sure if elitist nerd the best label for what sounds like a snob, hater, or Comic Book Guy. Since the Nerds are watching, I'll probably get in trouble trying to define them, but in an attempt to clear up all the various meanings the term has gained, let me try to. A nerd is someone learns useless information. A geek is someone who learns to do useless things. A fanboy is someone with a strong bias opinion about something useless. It's possible to be all three for any given useless subject matter.

Still, I am not disputing semantics with you; rather bring up an important point: elitist nerds should not act like this. They should know better. And what better forum to remind them of the importance of their behavior than this?

Years ago this topic was brought up by wise history professor I meet who disguises himself as Guy Fawkes and whose true identity is not known by anyone. No, really I'm not making him up; he's the same guy in charge of Revolution of Evangelion site. Anyways, as you might very well expect, he show me a clip of a dubbed samurai movie to explain the situation elitist nerds and geeks faced.

In the clip an aged man stands up in front of a quorum of old samurai and discusses the behavior of young samurai. Young Samurai are brutish, rude, lack understanding, act disrespectful to others, and generally matching the behavior of the individuals you originally described. But, the man added, this is the fault of the old samurai. Old samurai are arrogant, and act as if young samurai are not worthy becoming as they are, which allows the young samurai to continue to be ignorant of the old samurai's wisdom and teaches the young samurai to behave the way they do. The quorum of old samurai did not like what they heard and stated the man sounded like he was a young samurai.

The jerks you describe are not elitist nerds, they are young nerds, but the reason they act this way and believe that this is the way an elitist nerd should act is because of the behavior of the old nerds. The real elitist nerds out there, who have wasted their time gaining vast pools of useless information in various subjects, need to be aware of the effect their behavior has on noob nerds, otherwise they will continue to create these jerks and in turn soil the reputation the title "elitist" or "nerd" should have among the circles of people they care about.

It's okay to strive to be the best, and you're free to have the confidence to believe you know more about a topic than others because of the effort you put into making it your business to know more. But don't think you're better than others just because you know something they do not. And do not hide knowledge from would-be elitist nerds to ensure your supremacy over them. Your goal should always be to inspire others to be interested in the topic you dedicated yourself in and educate them to be as well informed as you are on the facts, while respecting their current opinion.

Do this and maybe we will have less of the elitist nerds describe here in the world. And that's something I think we can all agree on wanting.

 

[SimuLord]

Nerds in general are horribly insufferable to me---between the lack of social skills and the single-minded dedication to their own nerdy pursuits at the expense of knowing ANYTHING of value about something that isn't games, comic books, anime, or whatever, I find nerds by and large to be companions of no merit and prefer not to hang out with them except on those occasions where I feel a desire to talk about/engage in my own nerdy pursuits. But I don't invite nerds to my Celtics or Red Sox parties because "I hate sports, some jock shoved me in a locker when I was 14, call the waaambulance."

Nerds, on the whole, are more idiot savant than genius. But they think they're the smartest gods-damned people on the green Earth.

 

[Astoria]

Hmm so if the definition of an elistist nerd is someone who hates popular and mainstream things does that mean that 'emos' are elistist nerds? By emo I don't mean scene, I'm meaning those emos that go around saying that Green Day are crap because they are popular and *insert unknown band name here* are awesome because noone knows about them but me and my group.

 

[Deef]

To me, they're just asshats because the world any everything in it isn't to their expectations. Fanboys aren't quite the same but shit me also, like Halo fanboys:
"Z0MG ITS SO AW3S0M3 AND BESTEST AND FIRST FPS GAEM EVAR!"

One, there are plenty other FPS games out there that are probably better.
Two, Goldeneye was the real game to set a standard for FPS games.

Goldeneye set the standard for console FPS games.
PC had great FPSes long before Goldeneye came around.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

To me, they're just asshats because the world any everything in it isn't to their expectations. Fanboys aren't quite the same but shit me also, like Halo fanboys:
"Z0MG ITS SO AW3S0M3 AND BESTEST AND FIRST FPS GAEM EVAR!"

One, there are plenty other FPS games out there that are probably better.
Two, Goldeneye was the real game to set a standard for FPS games.

Goldeneye set the standard for console FPS games.
PC had great FPSes long before Goldeneye came around.

You know what I mean.

To me, they're just asshats because the world any everything in it isn't to their expectations. Fanboys aren't quite the same but shit me also, like Halo fanboys:
"Z0MG ITS SO AW3S0M3 AND BESTEST AND FIRST FPS GAEM EVAR!"

One, there are plenty other FPS games out there that are probably better.
Two, Goldeneye was the real game to set a standard for FPS games.

Hey, what do you know, you even found one of said "elitist nerds" in this very topic! Ain't that just lovely?

If you ment the Golden-Eye comment, that wasnt Elitism, that was just a peice of simplistic history.

 

[fozzy360]

Let me guess, you think these games that involve action packed gameplay is "stupid"?

No, you'd be wrong. I love Saint's Row 2. It is easily one of my favorite games of this generation. The open world was just that--open. Lots of side quests with multiple tiers with lots of unlockables, a simple story that played to its own ridiculous strengths, great controls...and I found it immersing. Why? Because every bit of it worked well and created it's own ridiculous world to get lost in. It knew what it was and played out accordingly so. I was immersed because each of its elements worked together to create one awesome package. I love action games...if I get into them. Just Cause 2 was fun for a while, but didn't have that lasting appeal that Saint's Row 2 had. It felt a bit more shallow, which is why I didn't get as into it, which is why I don't play it often (despite my liking it).

And what do you mean "action packed gameplay?" Doesn't that describe most every game out there? Because Red Dead Redemption is incredibly action packed and was completely immersive.

There is a difference between a bad game in general (like modern warfare 2) and a game that has bad depth but focuses on gameplay (e.g. Just Cause 2)

If a game has bad or no depth, then that makes it a pretty boring game if you ask me. It may not be horrible, but it won't have that lasting appeal. I don't mean just story when I talk about depth and immersion. There's nothing wrong with a simple action game (Saint's Row 2) so as long as the game can get you lost in it's own world.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

No, the problem with modern warfare 2 is that the gameplay was terrible, they tried to stuff too much of it in and ended up fucking it up in hopes of making the same success Modern Warfare did.

Sooo, you're trying to prove a person wrong for not liking games that are not deep by bringing up not-deep games that you like? Okay then.

So, Modern Warfare 2 had different gameplay from Modern Warfare 1? And what was that difference exactly?

Please, tell me. Because I don't see any, really, and I really like Modern Warfare. Therefore you are wrong, it's not a bad game.

I can do that, too, you see. It's not hard. In fact, my argument is probably more valid than yours, in that case.

 

[VanityGirl]

I dunno. I think your talking more about assholes. And believe me there are plenty of dim witted assholes everywhere. So the fact that you find assholes that are nerds is not surprising. Specially since the internet can breed some hateful and ignorant asshole nerds.

I would consider myself and old school jack of all nerds kinda nerd. I dabble in all things nerd, and I know some stuff that other people don't. But I don't ever belittle people for their opinions or thoughts, or get into nonsensical arguments with people.

I also think its a problem that its the "cool" thing to do these days with teens. Forgive me for generalizing here, but a lot of them are haters and snobs because I guess that's in right now.

O well, As my momma always said "Don't go near or step in dog shit, or you will start smelling like it".

I would just say they're assholes, but you know what? I'd rather just meet some guy who's an asshole for no reason than a gamer who tries to throw his "gaming superiority" over me. Like I said earlier, the best example was my quick little Halo story.
A guy who laughed at me for purchasing Halo:Reach and saying "You need to learn how to play real games". Really now? I know Halo:Reach isn't the most in depth, story driven story game in the world, but as a gamer, shouldn't you just be proud to see someone outside of the gaming demographic, a female of age 20 (and smoking hot /ego), buying a game? Survey says yes. At least, I would never degrade a gamer in the store for getting a game. If someone asks me for an opinion, I'll tell them what I think.

And the rest of what you said I agree with. I think the hate everything attitude may be the popular thing to do. Ironic, though, that a nerd would try to confirm.

You have a keyboard in your avatar. I bet it's some $5 rubber-dome piece of crap from China. Real computer users use IBM Model M keyboards. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard] Buckling-spring is just better.

Thank you for proving my point.

Sorry, OP, but what you are referring to are hipsters, they are the kind to only like the obscure and consider society to be sheep to the mainstream slaughter, and I agree that they are incredibly annoying.

Elitists do not care about what are popular or not, all they care about is that they are better than you. An example of an elitist nerd would be the leader of a raiding guild on WoW that only accepts players with the highest stats and follows orders to the syllable, and god forbid you get out of line. A more real-life example would be the Universities that only accept straight-A students from a wealthy family.

Bottom line is, annoying people are annoying.

Am I? I know hipsters don't like conforming to the man, but I haven't know a hipster to be a total asshat to someone. Hipsters are effortlessly cool and shouldn't hate you if you are cool or if play a game that's not "super in depth".
Unless the definition's changed, no, I am not talking about a hipster. My hipster friends will warn me about being a conformist, but will never be an asshole about anything, they're too laid back.

Nerds in general are horribly insufferable to me---between the lack of social skills and the single-minded dedication to their own nerdy pursuits at the expense of knowing ANYTHING of value about something that isn't games, comic books, anime, or whatever, I find nerds by and large to be companions of no merit and prefer not to hang out with them except on those occasions where I feel a desire to talk about/engage in my own nerdy pursuits. But I don't invite nerds to my Celtics or Red Sox parties because "I hate sports, some jock shoved me in a locker when I was 14, call the waaambulance."

Nerds, on the whole, are more idiot savant than genius. But they think they're the smartest gods-damned people on the green Earth.

You make the a wonderful point. A true nerd should be wonderfully intellegent, yet social inept (by a definition standard). However, some self proclaimed nerds say ridiculous things. Some are not people I would call smart by any means. Allow me to elaborate, a kid in my high school was a super gamer. Him and I would talk about games and gaming in class before the teacher came in the room. This kid didn't make great grades and was about as deep as a spoonful of water. Good gamer, but not very socialable with nongamers. This guy was also not the brightest bulb in the box.

Can we think of a term for these people? Gamers is a general term and I'm afraid the word nerd is also becoming one.
Also, "But I don't invite nerds to my Celtics or Red Sox parties because "I hate sports, some jock shoved me in a locker when I was 14, call the waaambulance." That made me actually laugh out loud

 

[Bat Vader]

I never understood why some people start to hate things they like just because the things they like became popular with the mainstream media. Something someone likes becoming popular is a good thing in most cases. The only bad thing I can think of is that it might get criticized more.

I was never very popular in school. That was mainly due to the fact that I never really cared about being popular. I never saw a reason why I would want to be popular.

 

[The Rockerfly]

No, you'd be wrong. I love Saint's Row 2. It is easily one of my favorite games of this generation. The open world was just that--open. Lots of side quests with multiple tiers with lots of unlockables, a simple story that played to its own ridiculous strengths, great controls...and I found it immersing. Why? Because every bit of it worked well and created it's own ridiculous world to get lost in. It knew what it was and played out accordingly so. I was immersed because each of its elements worked together to create one awesome package. I love action games...if I get into them. Just Cause 2 was fun for a while, but didn't have that lasting appeal that Saint's Row 2 had. It felt a bit more shallow, which is why I didn't get as into it, which is why I don't play it often (despite my liking it).

And what do you mean "action packed gameplay?" Doesn't that describe most every game out there? Because Red Dead Redemption is incredibly action packed and was completely immersive.

It depends how you define immersion. If you mean that bull crap "I can spend hours on and not get bored" that's not immersion, that's just fun with a different name. Immersion is when you truly feel like the character dictated in the game

Immersion does not equal fun. If you you think it does then why don't you call immersion, fun? Less characters and has less syllables so it's quicker to say

I found Red Deads Immersion to be poor at best. I just felt ridiculous shooting people even though I am supposed to be a family man seeking redemption. Along with that, the uselessness of doing anything in the world (why play cards, for more money? I already have millions), it was far far too easy and just dull. As a result of these things I never felt like a Cowboy but some God who can can shoot anything, not give a crap and then sometimes over do my slowing down time power too much so it stops time and the game itself.

Immersion is so easy to fake as well. Look at all these addictive causal games, want to know why people play them? Because they fake immersion so gamers lose track of time. Immersion isn't a hard thing to do, most of the time it's really based on a users luck of the game engine (red dead crashed on me several times) and it's really not a good sign of a good game
You don't need to get into a game to enjoy it in fact I think immersion is a completely bullshit term that gamers throw around.
I remember in the ps1 era immersion didn't exist and was a lot easier to find a game fun. While games now try so desperately hard to get everything right, unintentionally bad writing, poor voice acting and realism that just isn't there.

Of course not every game can be described as action packed for example look at; puzzle games, music games, RPG games etc. Maybe that wasn't the best choice of words, how about cinematic?

If a game has bad or no depth, then that makes it a pretty boring game if you ask me. It may not be horrible, but it won't have that lasting appeal. I don't mean just story when I talk about depth and immersion. There's nothing wrong with a simple action game (Saint's Row 2) so as long as the game can get you lost in it's own world.

You play a game for the purpose of fun. Why do you as a gamer need motivation to do anything? If you aren't enjoying the process of playing a game maybe you don't find games fun.
Look at multiplayer of the Call Of Duty games. There is no story, there are loads of realistic faults and generally it is the lest constructive and there just isn't that much immersion. It is still a lot of fun
I honestly can say I have never been properly immersed in a game, I've had fun but I've never felt "I am said character"

TL;DR?

Immersion doesn't equal fun
Immersion is a bullshit word used by reviewers and marketing men to disguise people having fun. Manipulating what people want, fun being too childish and stupid while immersion is more mature. Same way these people say that a product is an experience

 

[RheynbowDash]

From your definition of "elitist nerd", it sounds to me like a "hipster" more than a nerd.

 

[Funkysandwich]

People who constantly ***** about elitist nerds and "hipsters" annoy me almost as much as the elitists themselves.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Sooo, you're trying to prove a person wrong for not liking games that are not deep by bringing up not-deep games that you like? Okay then.

It's not hard for a marketing man to manipulate what people want but I will bite. What is a deep game? One with more story? Better atmosphere? Better writing? I can prove each one wrong
Story - JRPGs. A good portion of JRPGs actually have a good story yet most of the western audience hates them

Atmosphere- Halo for this. Has the best maps, worlds and atmosphere yet many people criticise the games and overall series

Writing- Dragon Age is easy. Brilliant writing but overall a dull game

Honestly until I can feel the temperature on my face, feel the things the character touches and smell the blood of my enemies I will never be immersed in a game. Besides I don't play games for immersion, I play games for gameplay

So, Modern Warfare 2 had different gameplay from Modern Warfare 1? And what was that difference exactly?

Please, tell me. Because I don't see any, really, and I really like Modern Warfare. Therefore you are wrong, it's not a bad game.

Seriously? You honestly can't see any difference with gameplay between the two? That makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall. There are loads of differences, first obvious one is the weapons and equipment, kill streaks, death streak, the overall balancing, the badly made maps.
If you honestly cannot see the difference between the two then you haven't played the two games.

I can do that, too, you see. It's not hard. In fact, my argument is probably more valid than yours, in that case.

These arguments are all subjective, unless facts are brought in we are all wrong. I brought in facts

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

It's not hard for a marketing man to manipulate what people want but I will bite. What is a deep game? One with more story? Better atmosphere? Better writing? I can prove each one wrong
Story - JRPGs. A good portion of JRPGs actually have a good story yet most of the western audience hates them

Atmosphere- Halo for this. Has the best maps, worlds and atmosphere yet many people criticise the games and overall series

Writing- Dragon Age is easy. Brilliant writing but overall a dull game

Honestly until I can feel the temperature on my face, feel the things the character touches and smell the blood of my enemies I will never be immersed in a game. Besides I don't play games for immersion, I play games for gameplay

Actually that's not that... Really. A "deep" game is a game with "deep mechanics". A game the mechanics of which you can explore, which you can play many different ways, which you can get really good at not through reflexes and getting used to the controls, but through finding out it's little ins and outs.

In other words, the exact opposite of a "shallow" game.

Seriously? You honestly can't see any difference with gameplay between the two? That makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall. There are loads of differences, first obvious one is the weapons and equipment, kill streaks, death streak, the overall balancing, the badly made maps.
If you honestly cannot see the difference between the two then you haven't played the two games.

Ah, you mean the multiplayer.

My apologies, I haven't even taken that into consideration. My post related to the single-player part only.

The MP is very different and far too bloated far my taste.

These arguments are all subjective, unless facts are brought in we are all wrong. I brought in facts

I don't know, man, I really don't see "that one is bad, but that one is good" as facts.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Actually that's not that... Really. A "deep" game is a game with "deep mechanics". A game the mechanics of which you can explore, which you can play many different ways, which you can get really good at not through reflexes and getting used to the controls, but through finding out it's little ins and outs.

In other words, the exact opposite of a "shallow" game.

If you mean the sort of game you can pick up and do but with practice you can become godly at then yes I agree, that is truly a deep game because it adds depth to the gameplay. I can think of lots of examples with that (my favourite being guitar hero) but the batman AA fighting was really good at this. You could survive easily but once you truly mastered the controls, you felt like a God

Ah, you mean the multiplayer.

My apologies, I haven't even taken that into consideration. My post related to the single-player part only.

The MP is very different and far too bloated far my taste.

Agreed, too many idiots in one place, too frustrating as well. Still the single player is different MW2 had no stealth sections but had vehicles, control over weapons (e.g. being able to control missiles)and slow motion sections.

I don't know, man, I really don't see "that one is bad, but that one is good" as facts.

For example glitches we can both agree on. That is an example of bad gameplay design, most other things are subjective to the audience that it appeals to

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Agreed, too many idiots in one place, too frustrating as well. Still the single player is different MW2 had no stealth sections but had vehicles, control over weapons (e.g. being able to control missiles)and slow motion sections.

No stealth sections?

There were three I can think of off the top of my head, not counting any of the spec ops stuff.

And vehicles and weapons, and the slow motion breaching are all just set pieces. I wouldn't call them integral parts of the game.

For example glitches we can both agree on. That is an example of bad gameplay design, most other things are subjective to the audience that it appeals to

Never encountered them in MW2. Not even the Care Package one.

A ton of hackers, yes, but no glitches.

Weird.