The Apparent Anti-Intellectualism of Gamer Culture

[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.

 

[SpiralLegacy]

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.

I can see that you really are hung up on the word pollute. Is the word taint more suitable for you?

 

[Silvanus]

I can see that you really are hung up on the word pollute. Is the word taint more suitable for you?

I'm really not interested in getting you to change what word you used, as if that would address the underlying attitude. I'm criticising the spite shown towards people who hold a different point of view than you.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

snip

I don't think that "gamer culture" (whatever that is) is anti-intellectual per se. I think that the consumers of games are highly fragmented. Some look to analyze games as potential works of art. Others see games purely as an entertainment product.

The latter look to reviews to tell them how well the game plays and whether or not it is fun; to them, analyzing the narrative/themes on any deeper level is a superfluous waste of time. They're the ones who post (arguably anti-intellectual) comments like the ones you included in your OP.

It's just different paradigms. Those who want to analyze games through the lenses of critical theory that are applied to books, movies, visual arts, etc, and those who just want consumer reporting reviews of entertainment products.

I'm not sure which one dominates the "gamer culture" though, because, as I mentioned before, that culture is so fragmented. It's hard to say.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

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?

At this point the thread is 8 pages long and I can't be arsed to read it. My thoughts on it are as follows: a review should be ultimately a recommendation and an overview, not an analysis. A review should give the customer a general sense of whether or not the game is worth buying while focusing on things like gameplay, overall functionality and mechanics. Mentioning the narrative, and whether or not the writer personally finds it appealing, can be a part of the review, but IMO it shouldn't go into deeper analysis. If every review did that we'd still be swimming in analysis over the plot holes in FFXIII. You can just say that the narrative framework of The Division is morally questionable, and even say the player should acknowledge it, but don't make it the main point of the article. If you want to write an article about the suspect politics of The Division's narrative, go for it, but don't label it as a review.

 

[Hair Jordan]

At the most, it's just annoyance that some people think they can review one component of a product, and then claim they reviewed the product.

All I'm saying is that, it isn't anti-intellectualism to complain about a review neglecting to actually review key-components of a product.

As said before, I'd be annoyed too, if someone "reviewed" a Porsche 911, and really only reviewed the ethical concerns of leather manufacturing.

Your car analogy, while helping to illustrate your point of view, doesn't bolster an argument as to why game reviews should follow any particular template.

"Reviews" in other media, aren't commonly known to have such qualitative restrictions placed upon them. Here are two film reviews, picked for no other reason than they tend to focus on the sociopolitical content of the work in question.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10632304/the-hateful-eight-movie-review-quentin-tarantino

http://nativeappropriations.com/2013/07/i-saw-the-lone-ranger-so-you-dont-have-to.html

I'm making no statement as to the quality of these reviews, just that it's tough to support an argument that they don't, at the very least, get a seat at the table in the vast pantheon of film review. In other words, it's not obvious why they should reflexively be considered "bad reviews" due to the type of content they contain. Indeed, in the world of film, television, music, literature,and even fine art, reviews commonly come from ideological points of view.

The Lone Ranger review, above, is coming from the point of view of a Native American reacting to the racial elements displayed in the film. The review is about as blatantly ideological as you can you get, paying very little attention to concerns unrelated to the Native American elements. Again, it's difficult to form an argument as why we should automatically consider this a bad review, and, presumably, discourage people from writing reviews filtered through their minority status.

This is a nuanced argument mind you - I'm not saying that all "minorities" are to be treated seriously, or anything along those lines, just that having a focused, ideological point of view is a questionable rationalization for automatically lowering the quality of a review, in indifference to the actual content of the review.

The Hateful 8 review, above, scarcely delves into the quality of the acting, outside of oblique references. It devotes multiple paragraphs to discussions of sexism and racism. But, again, it's difficult to argue that this, in and of itself, makes it a bad review, because it doesn't prioritize what many consider a fundamental component of film quality.

If these practices are justifiable for other forms of published media, it's unclear as to why they shouldn't be for games, as well. Any arguments rationalizing around a game's ontological existence as a "consumer product", can certainly be said about film, music, and literature, as well.

You'd have to make some argument as to why games, uniquely among artistic media, should be treated less like works of art, and more like consumer products. You could, perhaps, make the argument that this is because the "culture" of gamers has a different set of overriding expectations, but I find this a difficult argument to defend, without a lot of generalization and a general, troubling, appeal to "practicality" for a realm of criticism (which opens up a very large can of worms concerning so called "anti-intellectualism" - limiting discourse based on practical appeals is a hallmark of those that share this agenda).

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Is it always 'anti-intellectualism'? I really don't think that the term would apply in every case. Sometimes it's just a matter of prioritizing mechanical functionality or general fun factor over the "why" of what you're currently doing, and there's not really anything wrong with that. But I also don't think that you're explicitly wrong to call it anti-intellectual.

Having read the article in question, I would say that it's fairly well-written as an critical analysis of The Division's plot elements, but I don't feel like it fits as a complete review of the game. It feels more like an article that could be an addendum of sorts to the regular review, adding the weighty discussion of political context for those interested.

Does that mean no reviews should be written like this? Fuck no. Write (and rate) what you want. If it's good or eye-catching in some way you'll generally find an audience, however minor, to read it.

And using terms like 'pollution' and 'taint' to describe the effects of people writing reviews that prioritize different things from a hypothetical reader? Fucking ridiculous.

 

[maninahat]

I think what really causes this problem is the fact that the article is labeled as a review. There really isn't anything about the game that is reviewed here, instead it is a deep and fairly decent analysis of the setting and motives of the themes within the game and not actually the game itself. Honestly if they had tagged this article "Opinion" instead of review then those people commenting probably wouldn't be bitching.

EDIT: I do want to point out, that this entire website's reviews seem to be long drawn out fluff articles by people who don't seem to register with games or how to review them at all.

The website specifically says that its reviews are not interested in looking at things like graphic or gameplay, but in cultural value. It also says that there are a billion other reviewers out there who can review games on the former criteria, if you really need one.

Here is the problem with that. If I find the article based on a google search looking for game reviews, I will never see this "Disclaimer". And really it doesn't matter. They can "review" or "critique" games in anyway they want to approach it. But they know damn well that they aren't actually reviewing the games. Te only reason they call these articles reviews is so that they DO appear on a google search, and get extra hits to articles that normally would only ever get a very specific audience.

Maybe then you shouldn't have such a narrow perception of what a review can be? In every other medium, no one gets this pedantic about how a review is "supposed" to look.

Look I don't have a problem with these articles, and I've said this. I do have a problem that they are classified as reviews. I have a problem that these reviews effect metacritic. At the end of the day, these are label as reviews to get those website clicks. Period.

Why does it matter if they effect metacritic? Metacritic doesn't mean shit. People give this ridiculous amount of authority to review aggregator sites, and then complain when reviewers don't match some kind of generated consensus. The job of a reviewer is not to conform to a format, or to reiterate what the crowd thinks. Their job is to give their opinion in a way they think is appropriate.

 

[Fappy]

Maybe then you shouldn't have such a narrow perception of what a review can be? In every other medium, no one gets this pedantic about how a review is "supposed" to look.

Look I don't have a problem with these articles, and I've said this. I do have a problem that they are classified as reviews. I have a problem that these reviews effect metacritic. At the end of the day, these are label as reviews to get those website clicks. Period.

Why does it matter if they effect metacritic? Metacritic doesn't mean shit. People give this ridiculous amount of authority to review aggregator sites, and then complain when reviewers don't match some kind of generated consensus. The job of a reviewer is not to conform to a format, or to reiterate what the crowd thinks. Their job is to give their opinion in a way they think is appropriate.

I tend to agree. I've never understood the desire for all game reviews to be nothing but by-the-numbers product reviews. If you want that there are plenty of sites that offer them. What's so wrong with a few oddballs critiquing it from niche perspectives?

And I agree that review aggregators are given way more attention than they deserve. They can offer a decent summary as to how well a game was generally received from critics, but that's about it. Who seriously bases their buyer habits on aggregated video game review scores? Likely very few. If you're posting on gaming forums you're probably fairly well informed about the games you buy.

Review scores mostly just exist to ignite flame wars between fan boys and haters. In most cases I've witnessed, people just want their opinions validated.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

snip

My main reason for treating games as a "consumer product" as you call it (personally I'd call it user-dependant art, but that's a whole other issue), is because all other types of art are passive. You merely observe, you aren't a part of it.

Now, I'm one of the nutters who think a sportscar can be art (something like the BAC Mono for example, which has no mundane purpose at all), but I still maintain that for any actual artistic appreciation to happen, the thing has to work as intended. Hell, I'd go so far and say that the actual handling of the game could be a part of the art, so the gameplay itself would be a massively important part of the artistic appreciation (and therefore, if you want to argue about the artistic vision of the game, you absolutely have to include a discussion about the gameplay, since that is one of the "senses" you are experiencing the art through).

 

[Dizchu]

My main reason for treating games as a "consumer product" as you call it (personally I'd call it user-dependant art, but that's a whole other issue), is because all other types of art are passive. You merely observe, you aren't a part of it.

Interesting, I see where you're coming from but I still disagree. A video game is a mixture of active and passive elements, depending on the genre one aspect may dominate another. On one extreme you have sandbox games like Minecraft and on the other you have games like The Walking Dead (where active elements and passive elements dominate, respectively). I'd also argue that all art is user-dependent "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" But yes, video games are unique in that they generally require active participation.

I am very hesitant to call video games purely "consumer products" though. Technically even passive media like albums and films are "products" too, there's important technical aspects that go into them like engineering, photography, mixing, special effects, mastering and so on. An album could have terrific songwriting but have atrocious mixing, a film could have amazing cinematography but terrible acting. Purely as "products", the terribly-mixed masterpiece is perhaps a "poor" product while the well-photographed trainwreck of a film may be a "good" product. But all three of these mediums have an artistic aspect in addition to their purely functional aspects.

I think it's perfectly fine to write game reviews that have a similar sort of tone to film or album reviews. I mean the same criticisms actually often get thrown at those reviews, "I just want to know if the film/album is any good, not all this political stuff". Personally I like a middle-ground between functional reviews and more in-depth ones, but I appreciate a variety of perspectives.

Why does it matter if they effect metacritic? Metacritic doesn't mean shit. People give this ridiculous amount of authority to review aggregator sites, and then complain when reviewers don't match some kind of generated consensus. The job of a reviewer is not to conform to a format, or to reiterate what the crowd thinks. Their job is to give their opinion in a way they think is appropriate.

The funny thing is, the more varied the points of view are with the reviews compiled for Metacritic, the more accurate the score is.

 

[The Raw Shark]

The problem with the article is that the idiot read so deeply in to a shallow game with no intrigue at all. I mean the comments are still dumb since they don't really expand on much else.
Just say it's a boring-ass game and get it over with so that Ubisoft can get hit hard and learn its lesson.

 

[MrFalconfly]

My main reason for treating games as a "consumer product" as you call it (personally I'd call it user-dependant art, but that's a whole other issue), is because all other types of art are passive. You merely observe, you aren't a part of it.

Interesting, I see where you're coming from but I still disagree. A video game is a mixture of active and passive elements, depending on the genre one aspect may dominate another. On one extreme you have sandbox games like Minecraft and on the other you have games like The Walking Dead (where active elements and passive elements dominate, respectively). I'd also argue that all art is user-dependent "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" But yes, video games are unique in that they generally require active participation.

I am very hesitant to call video games purely "consumer products" though. Technically even passive media like albums and films are "products" too, there's important technical aspects that go into them like engineering, photography, mixing, special effects, mastering and so on. An album could have terrific songwriting but have atrocious mixing, a film could have amazing cinematography but terrible acting. Purely as "products", the terribly-mixed masterpiece is perhaps a "poor" product while the well-photographed trainwreck of a film may be a "good" product. But all three of these mediums have an artistic aspect in addition to their purely functional aspects.

I think it's perfectly fine to write game reviews that have a similar sort of tone to film or album reviews. I mean the same criticisms actually often get thrown at those reviews, "I just want to know if the film/album is any good, not all this political stuff". Personally I like a middle-ground between functional reviews and more in-depth ones, but I appreciate a variety of perspectives.

I'd also be fine with middle-ground reviews.

I however find that when it comes to games, and the stories they contain, I'd much rather have the mechanics reviewed and then experience the story myself.

 

[Silvanus]

I'd also be fine with middle-ground reviews.

I however find that when it comes to games, and the stories they contain, I'd much rather have the mechanics reviewed and then experience the story myself.

Out of interest, d'you feel generally the same way about reviews for all kinds of game?

I ask because I can fully understand this with games like The Division. I agree with Jack O'Ripper above: the reviewer is reading far too deeply into it. Much like in Battlefield, the narrative is a very minor consideration, behind tight gunplay and stuff.

But I feel totally different about, for example, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, or a host of other RPGs. Narrative will be one of my main motivations for playing the game and enjoying it there.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I'd also be fine with middle-ground reviews.

I however find that when it comes to games, and the stories they contain, I'd much rather have the mechanics reviewed and then experience the story myself.

Out of interest, d'you feel generally the same way about reviews for all kinds of game?

I ask because I can fully understand this with games like The Division. I agree with Jack O'Ripper above: the reviewer is reading far too deeply into it. Much like in Battlefield, the narrative is a very minor consideration, behind tight gunplay and stuff.

But I feel totally different about, for example, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, or a host of other RPGs. Narrative will be one of my main motivations for playing the game and enjoying it there.

I'd feel the same for most games.

However, games like the before mentioned Telltale RPG's, I feel can only really stand on their narrative.

I've never gotten into games like Final Fantasy, or Mass Effect, because I didn't like the gameplay (my little-sister finds this endlessly annoying because she loves Mass Effect). I grant that the writing may be excellent in Final Fantasy or Mass Effect, but I just don't like playing them because of what I perceive as "lackluster game mechanics" (whether it's the turn-based "Pokemon" battles of FF, or the RPG'ized gunplay of Mass Effect).

 

[Silvanus]

I'd feel the same for most games.

However, games like the before mentioned Telltale RPG's, I feel can only really stand on their narrative.

I've never gotten into games like Final Fantasy, or Mass Effect, because I didn't like the gameplay (my little-sister finds this endlessly annoying because she loves Mass Effect). I grant that the writing may be excellent in Final Fantasy or Mass Effect, but I just don't like playing them because of what I perceive as "lackluster game mechanics" (whether it's the turn-based "Pokemon" battles of FF, or the RPG'ized gunplay of Mass Effect).

Fair enough. Final Fantasy definitely isn't for everyone. But y'reckon it's fair for a review to spend time on the narrative/themes, would you say? (As long as it's not the sole focus, of course).