Poll: Conservative and Liberal Gamers
- Thread starter zehydra
- Start date
Recommended Videos
According to those definitions I guess I'm a moderate but that wasn't an option so I picked "Liberal" since the most important thing about gaming to me is that it pushes technology foward and Science as well sometimes. (The game fold it for instance.)
You do realize that politically Laissez Faire is an economic philosophy right? Now I'm totally confused. That's like if I said that the gamer "tea party" is the equivalent of die hard use nothing else PC folk. What??CM156 said:
I don't know why "Does not mind DRM" is included under your Liberal Gamer definition. That really sounds out of place to me. I think there are very conservative and liberal arguments both for and against DRM, it really shouldn't be a defining characteristic of either "side".
That said, I identify very much as a liberal gamer - I love my indie games and aren't too impressed with most AAA titles. I don't care for motion control but I love seeing games try new and different things, even if it doesn't always work out. However, I vehemently despise DRM and think it is a pustulent boil on the arse of the gaming industry.
That said, I identify very much as a liberal gamer - I love my indie games and aren't too impressed with most AAA titles. I don't care for motion control but I love seeing games try new and different things, even if it doesn't always work out. However, I vehemently despise DRM and think it is a pustulent boil on the arse of the gaming industry.
I'm going to join in on the kicking off the choice shackles, and bring in the write in vote for being Libertarian gamer.CM156 said:
It rather fits with my political stance, I almost voted for the Libertarian candidate in 2008, though I was so fearful that that Obama would get in that I decided to vote McCain, which I considered the much lesser of two evils, having only a handful of sickening growth ideas coming from him while Obama was falling over and couldn't move with how many he was sporting. Now we all know how that turned out, and how awful things are now because of it.
But as a gamer, I'm more on the middle of the road Libertarian. I've played and enjoyed games in pretty much all game types. I own a normal system, a motion system, a touch system, and the lower end older PC games that don't make my PC cough up its graphics card. I like achievements and motion controls, and if I had the money I would buy a new Xbox 360 Kinect system to replace my Elite.
But I don't like the accusations from companies that awesome mechanics of yesteryear that made games fun, just won't work in this day and age(Looking at you Gearbox, which had plenty of time to make DNF like DN3D but looking like a game of today, without removing the things that made DN3D a great game in its day[and it isn't just the immaturity and sexual theme, its being able to have all the weapons on me at all times, which is possible for a console controller]). I'm glad I didn't get it because I saw the turd-ball before it was flung out of Gearbox's hand, heck from what I saw of it in the Escapist review, the actually let the player metaphorically play that out. What I am lamenting is something that easily could of been, but since they knew it was somehow going to rake in enough pre-order dough, they decided not to actually do any work on it to change it to the old style for the better.
On the change for the new and better spectrum, I herald in Dragon Age 2 as a great example of change done right, but as it swoops in with its shiny new medieval equivalent of bionic awesomeness, it stumbles and falls once, because of its termite infested wooden peg-leg(the somewhat repeat dungeons, which is really the only problem in the game). So it gets my fantastic game gold star of lenience, for being a phenomenal game that suffers in the category of everybody makes at least one mistake, especially when EA is cracking the rush to release whip.
well i geuss i'm a hybrid being a liberal that hits a wall whenever a game just has really really old graphics.
sorry it's DOOM and up
sorry it's DOOM and up
Well, it's not only economicmikev7.0 said:
My point is that his points on what is Liberal and Conservative is poorly defined, and I state that if he's going to use those, Libertarians must fit in somewhare. And then, using his terms, I'm trying to define what a gaming libertarian is.
Glerken said:
CM156 said:
I didn't want to quote everyone, but I'm going to have to agree with the guys who say the political scope here is much too narrow.
Freedom certainly has a place in this context.
Two words: Open-Source.
By definition it fundamentally breaks everything the OP wrote in his definitions.
I don't have time to make my own because, frankly, I don't give a shit.
Open-source is nothing but freedom and innovation, which you would think would fit with anti-DRM and indie development. But the OP's definitions are just all over the place.
They're broken.
The DRM hating, indie hating, only play the triple-A titles guys who hate on "gimmicks" are just the OP trying to vent.
This thread failed.
No hard feelings though, big guy.zehydra said:
I don't know what ideologies don't play video games. Heck I even know a Tea Bagger who loves their sports games and shooters as long as they're just shooters. Anything more esoteric than SOCOM and they aren't happy but those are still games.Kevin7557 said:
Dragon Age 2Glerken said:
The only time developers have complete control over the game they're making is when they're a little indie dev team making what they want to. As soon as they're beholden to a big name publisher it definitely is the suits calling the shots.
Man, I am ludicrously split along your taxonomy.
1. I'm fine with new controller schemas, but overall I think that the tried and true works best. For example, I thought The Path would have been about a million times better with more conventional controls. Overall: Liberal, barely!
2. Dislike 3D gaming. It's a gimmick. Conservative!
3. Looooove the Indie gaming circuit. Hate the 'five flavors of shooter' issue we have right now... and think games need to get back to their roots, with more experimentation of form and variety. So, liberal, more or less.
4. DESPISE DRM WITH A BURNY FLAMEY PASSION. So, conservative
5. Graphics mean squat. You can do beauty with minimal design. Liberal.
So that's two conservative votes, two liberal votes, and one barely liberal vote.
Meeeeeh. I don't know if I like your taxonomy. In particular, the DRM thing strikes me as off the scale of the others.
1. I'm fine with new controller schemas, but overall I think that the tried and true works best. For example, I thought The Path would have been about a million times better with more conventional controls. Overall: Liberal, barely!
2. Dislike 3D gaming. It's a gimmick. Conservative!
3. Looooove the Indie gaming circuit. Hate the 'five flavors of shooter' issue we have right now... and think games need to get back to their roots, with more experimentation of form and variety. So, liberal, more or less.
4. DESPISE DRM WITH A BURNY FLAMEY PASSION. So, conservative
5. Graphics mean squat. You can do beauty with minimal design. Liberal.
So that's two conservative votes, two liberal votes, and one barely liberal vote.
Meeeeeh. I don't know if I like your taxonomy. In particular, the DRM thing strikes me as off the scale of the others.
(After reviewing this...it's just a wee bit of a rant. You have been warned.)
I am neither "liberal" nor "conservative". I am an independent mind. I think DRM is fine but only to a certain degree, as in when it's easier to go pirate a game than buy it, it's time to back away and stop before your company spontaneously crashes to the ground. I like 3D and motion controls provided they're done WELL. For example I like the principle of the 3DS solely because I see it as a stepping stone to a better tomorrow, as it is right now I won't pay the money for it.
Though graphics whores can go die in a fire. You know what games I spent all day playing? Chrono Trigger and Majora's Mask...a game from 1995 (and one from the origami age of 3D rendering) is better able to hold my attention than most of the flashy "OOH! LOOKIT ME!!1!" games of today, and for less than one third of the cost. You know WHY that is? Because it's god damned fun! You remember that word, "fun"? When the main selling point to your game is that's it's slightly shinier than the other you need to be stabbed...with a spoon...on fire. But I recognize that a game can be fun while it's main focus is graphics, for example a recent title "From Dust" is fun and without today's graphics technology wouldn't be possible.
That point brings us to indie titles, as many of you know Minecraft and Terraria are two very successful recent indie titles. They were made on the principle of being fun, not in any distinct shape or form, just fun in general. They were made to be the game you'd spend pocket money on, download, and then ask why it's the same time as it was when you started playing and why you suddenly need to call in to work to fake an illness. In fact most of my games now are indie titles. I doubt Steam will ever die out as long as they support indie titles, what they are doing is good for the future of gaming. I can easily see a good amount of these indie creators blooming into something beautiful that will still be around a decade from now.
As you can tell I'm obviously a PC gamer (and small time nintendo nerd). I'm fine with console controllers, but I'd rather pay a bit more for a PC and get modding, freedom, and indie titles in return. I believe that each primary control scheme has it's advantages and flaws, a mouse is more precise by miles, but a stick is more flexible and better for controlling movement. Go play Super Meat Boy or any other game with precision platforming with both control sets and tell me which you'd prefer. Anything that requires precision actions on the other hand will agree more with a mouse.
I am neither "liberal" nor "conservative". I am an independent mind. I think DRM is fine but only to a certain degree, as in when it's easier to go pirate a game than buy it, it's time to back away and stop before your company spontaneously crashes to the ground. I like 3D and motion controls provided they're done WELL. For example I like the principle of the 3DS solely because I see it as a stepping stone to a better tomorrow, as it is right now I won't pay the money for it.
Though graphics whores can go die in a fire. You know what games I spent all day playing? Chrono Trigger and Majora's Mask...a game from 1995 (and one from the origami age of 3D rendering) is better able to hold my attention than most of the flashy "OOH! LOOKIT ME!!1!" games of today, and for less than one third of the cost. You know WHY that is? Because it's god damned fun! You remember that word, "fun"? When the main selling point to your game is that's it's slightly shinier than the other you need to be stabbed...with a spoon...on fire. But I recognize that a game can be fun while it's main focus is graphics, for example a recent title "From Dust" is fun and without today's graphics technology wouldn't be possible.
That point brings us to indie titles, as many of you know Minecraft and Terraria are two very successful recent indie titles. They were made on the principle of being fun, not in any distinct shape or form, just fun in general. They were made to be the game you'd spend pocket money on, download, and then ask why it's the same time as it was when you started playing and why you suddenly need to call in to work to fake an illness. In fact most of my games now are indie titles. I doubt Steam will ever die out as long as they support indie titles, what they are doing is good for the future of gaming. I can easily see a good amount of these indie creators blooming into something beautiful that will still be around a decade from now.
As you can tell I'm obviously a PC gamer (and small time nintendo nerd). I'm fine with console controllers, but I'd rather pay a bit more for a PC and get modding, freedom, and indie titles in return. I believe that each primary control scheme has it's advantages and flaws, a mouse is more precise by miles, but a stick is more flexible and better for controlling movement. Go play Super Meat Boy or any other game with precision platforming with both control sets and tell me which you'd prefer. Anything that requires precision actions on the other hand will agree more with a mouse.
A combination of both, I'd have to say.
Me:
-Hates annoying DRM
-Likes both AAA and independent games
-Thinks 3D and motion controls are gimmicky
-Would like a real Virtual Reality game
-Loves great graphics, but they're not everything, aesthetics are a lot more important
I think that's pretty 50-50 right there.
Me:
-Hates annoying DRM
-Likes both AAA and independent games
-Thinks 3D and motion controls are gimmicky
-Would like a real Virtual Reality game
-Loves great graphics, but they're not everything, aesthetics are a lot more important
I think that's pretty 50-50 right there.
I'm pretty much a Conservative gamer. Even if I don't mind low-res graphics as long as the gameplay makes up for it. I'm also open to any change that moves the medium forward. Expect for motion controls and 3D. I consider those extremely gimmicky.
I think a lot of people are confused. OP, do you mean Conservative/Liberal when it comes to the subject of gaming, or do you mean someone who happens to be a gamer and also happens to be Conservative/Liberal when it comes to the subject of politics?
I guess that I'm a moderate gamer then. While I absolutely love good change (e.g. innovative game design, genre-defying games, etc.) I have almost equal disdain for bad change (e.g. drm, motion controls, cloud gaming, etc.).
It's kinda stupid to make the distinction between those who like change and those who dislike change without taking into account the quality of change. Only a complete idiot would like all change or dislike all change.
It's kinda stupid to make the distinction between those who like change and those who dislike change without taking into account the quality of change. Only a complete idiot would like all change or dislike all change.