"Forbes is the new Spot for Pro-Gamer Reporting" - That didn't last long.

[Krantos]

So, Yeah:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/05/23/dear-gamers-stop-being-such-snobs/

Forbes has officially labeled "core-gamers" as snobs. *headdesk*

Now, I honestly am not opposed to any of the guy's points. In fact I agree with most of them. The problem is the way it's presented. This argument could have been made without insulting people. This is just a guaranteed way to generate controversy and a comment-storm.

Now, you can say "That's just the way Games journalism is," but that's the point. It's not the way Forbes was. That's the sole reason I've been reading Forbes lately. They've provided games journalism that didn't feel like "Games Journalism." I liked the fact that I could go there for real reporting on the industry, etc.

Lately, however, some articles have left bad tastes in my mouth, but this one is the clincher. Apparently, Forbes couldn't maintain their upsurge in readers and have resorted to more "traditional" Methods.

*sigh*

Not really sure what the discussion value here is. Why does game's journalism suck, perhaps?

 

[GiantRaven]

I came in here expecting something terrible and found an article I agreed with 100%. Gamers really do need to stop being so uppity about the type of games they like.

 

[Zhukov]

Actually, I'd say that guy is right on the money.

"Hardcore" gamers do tend to be miserable snobs.

 

[Krantos]

Apparently you all missed my point.

I, too, agree with the article. I do not however like the way it was presented. The point could have been made without the term "snobs" being thrown around.

Forbes didn't used to do this. This article looks like it could be on any other gaming website. That's not what I go to Forbes for. I go there to get away from articles like this.

Apparently that's just me though....

 

[Frozen Fox]

I came in here expecting something terrible and found an article I agreed with 100%. Gamers really do need to stop being so uppity about the type of games they like.

Should we start liking bad ones? Ones with no immersion? Giant time sinks? Because games like angry birds are the second two options. Angry birds to me is the new Tetris which is to say it is a fantastic game but as for any serious debate about it it will just die of fairly quick, it simply has to few mechanics and is to simple.

Again that is not to say it is bad it is just to say it is hard to say it is in any way fantastic or revolutionary no matter how much money it makes or how popular it gets.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Should we start liking bad ones?

"Bad" is a completely subjective term. A good game is a game you enjoy. Full stop.

Apparently you all missed my point.

Nobody missed your point, Confucius, it's not like you were speaking in riddles. We just didn't agree with you. The word "snob" fits perfectly in this case. He's not reporting on events, this is an opinion piece, how neutral do you think the language needs to be?

Frankly, I would have gone farther. Hardcore gamers aren't just snobs. Much of the time they're desperately insecure, hateful snobs. And I am the very definition of a 'hardcore gamer'. I cut my teeth on Intellivision and the Commodore 64 for heavens sake. People wax nostalgic about the Playstation 2 or NES on this site, that shit feels relatively new to me. But man oh man am I sick to the teeth of this No True Scotsman shit that hardcore gamers pull every time the dreaded casuals are encroaching on their territory. Ironically, these are often the same people that then turn around and moan that no one respects gamers, completely overlooking that it's not the "gamer" part of the equation that's to blame, it's the "asshole" part.

 

[Frozen Fox]

Should we start liking bad ones?

"Bad" is a completely subjective term. A good game is a game you enjoy. Full stop.

No i am sorry but this kind of shit pisses me off. Murder is not good if you enjoy it games are not good if you enjoy them. Games are good if they are well executed or are artistic and unique.

 

[MammothBlade]

I resent the scaled down, dumbed-down social games that have cropped up over the past few years. It's an insult to discerning gamers' intelligence to mention them in the same breath as more complex, comprehensive games.

But iOS and social games are the future of gaming.

If that's the future of gaming, then KILL ME RIGHT NOW. No current "social" or iOS game could compare to the depth of something such as Fallout New Vegas.

Furthermore, he contradicts himself:

There?s room for everyone. Angry Birds isn?t going to kill Grand Theft Auto. New genres are unfamiliar, scary territory. Curling up in a ball and yelling ?go away!? is a perfectly natural response. But we can be better than this.

Well, I can't help but see them as a threat when people go around saying that IOS and social games are the future, whilst subtly dismissing more sophisticated games as outmoded - which shows you know nothing about gaming.

at 99 cents I?ve played Tiny Wings probably 10 times longer than I could stand The Witcher 2.

Why am I not surprised that this sort of admission would pop up somewhere.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No i am sorry but this kind of shit pisses me off. Murder is not good if you enjoy it games are not good if you enjoy them. Games are good if they are well executed or are artistic and unique.

ROFL at your murder = games analogue. I'll let you figure out why that's ridiculous. You can consider it a fun exercise in not coming up with facile analogies.

The problem with trying to objectively summarize whether a game is "good" or "bad" is that games have many disparate working parts, and one's enjoyment of those parts is often a subjective question. I might really love a particular art style and hate another. I might adore one mechanic and hate another. One person might love a deep, complex game with a dense rule set, another might find that game tedious in the extreme, and prefer a classic game with simple, intuitive rules.

At the end of the day though, gaming is both recreation and art form, and is best measured by the pleasure it delivers. If you found something to love about a game, then there was something to love in that game. For you, that's a good game.

The only people who hand wring and obsess over whether something is objectively viewed as good or bad are people who are insecure about the things they love and need a constant stream of validation for their choices, or desire a pulpit upon which they can stand and fling derision at the choices of others.

 

[ZtH]

I'm confused as to why he included the infinity blade comment. Most of the others spoke of being close minded or hateful towards mobile games yet that one merely compares a game to another on the same platform that they find better. It's a little overstated sure but I don't see how it fits with the other comments listed.

 

[Something Amyss]

I came in here expecting something terrible and found an article I agreed with 100%. Gamers really do need to stop being so uppity about the type of games they like.

Likewise. I thought this was going to be them attacking us as entitled assholes or something.

It's just saying Core Gamers are snobs. And they kinda are.

 

[WindKnight]

I resent the scaled down, dumbed-down social games that have cropped up over the past few years. It's an insult to discerning gamers' intelligence to mention them in the same breath as more complex, comprehensive games.

Way to make the articles point there buddy. You don't like them? fine, don't play them. They are games, and the people playing them are gamers. Nobody is forcing you to play them, and there is no need to be dismissive of them or the people playing them.

 

[Something Amyss]

No i am sorry but this kind of shit pisses me off. Murder is not good if you enjoy it games are not good if you enjoy them. Games are good if they are well executed or are artistic and unique.

Murder is a game?

 

[MammothBlade]

I resent the scaled down, dumbed-down social games that have cropped up over the past few years. It's an insult to discerning gamers' intelligence to mention them in the same breath as more complex, comprehensive games.

Way to make the articles point there buddy. You don't like them? fine, don't play them. They are games, and the people playing them are gamers. Nobody is forcing you to play them, and there is no need to be dismissive of them or the people playing them.

They're very shallow gamers, sharing very little in terms of gaming habits with someone who actually inputs considerable thought and dedication into a game. The subtle implications that such represents the "future" of gaming is what irks me the most. I can't help but see them with some emnity if they're playing such tosh as Angry Birds and FarmShit by the tens of millions whilst shunning or ignoring more sophisticated games.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

They're very shallow gamers, sharing very little in terms of gaming habits with someone who actually inputs some time and dedication into a game. The subtle implications that such gaming represents the "future" of gaming is what irks me the most. I can't help but see them with some emnity if they're playing such tosh as Angry Birds and FarmShit by the tens of millions whilst shunning or ignoring more sophisticated games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You do realize that article in the OP is specifically about this very thing you're doing, right? Self-examination costs nothing, you know.

Murder is a game?

It's the most dangerous game!

 

[Fappy]

I agree with him for the most part, but I don't think people who critique shovel-ware are snobs. He generalizes a bit too much. In any event Forbes still seems to be pretty decent at what it has been doing since the ME3 controversy.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I agree with him for the most part, but I don't think people who critique shovel-ware are snobs. He generalizes a bit too much. In any event Forbes still seems to be pretty decent at what it has been doing since the ME3 controversy.

I don't think he's arguing you can't critique it. I think he's saying there's a line between critiquing something and attacking its proponents.

"I think Demon Lords of South Brazil is shovelware. It's poorly put together for reasons X, Y and Z, and Super Pendejo Lands is an example of the same thing done much better" is fair game.

"I think Demon Lords of South Brazil is shovelware. It's a stupid game for stupid people, and if you enjoyed playing it you're a blight on gaming and should get punched right in the throat" is what you're more likely to hear, and is the problem Forbes is attempting to address.