Grilled Cheesus said:
Against gaming tats. If I am gonna mark my body its gonna be with something personal to me. Sure gaming tats may be a step above the generic skulls or butterflies but still kinda meh.
In other and totally hypocritical news, I wants a 40k sergeants honours tattoo...
Fair enough - Thanks for being honest and providing your reason against.
I have a question for you though, if gaming is not something you'd consider a personal trait of yours - is it merely a recreational past-time for you?
Have you never, ever felt personally attached to a game or its characters?
Have you never empathised with a storyline or a protagonist?
Have you never looked at a landscape in a game and thought 'this is somewhere I wish was real', or at least fantasised of living such an adventure?
How is gaming different from any other medium - be it art, story, movie, music, etc? Why is it that you cannot perceive a game to hold the same weight as any other form of expression or perception of immersion?
For me, my first gaming tatt was Boo, holding an NES Zapper. The zapper was released in 1984 (my birth year) and it was also the first gaming peripheral I had on a console (short of a controller obviously). These 2 reasons, as well as the fact that Boo was and still is one of my most cherished gaming enemy memories holds so much more importance for me than any other medium I can think of. I grew up with Games, I enjoyed games over many years and I know I will continue to do so in the future.
So if you could, please enlighten me as to what you would consider to be more personal than these types of experiences? Why should video games take a backseat to any other personal experience when they're at the forefront of mine and many other peoples lives. I would say that video game tatts are WELL above the region of cookie-cutter designs such as tribals and butterflies - even more so if you make it your own, for reasons personal to you.