@spankingaddict: We're not going to talk about it at all. Ever.
Alex's forum posts
@dezztroy: Dude, No Russian got a TON of media backlash. Some of it was certainly apoplectic and divorced from the reality of what the mission actually entailed, but it definitely caused backlash.
@marokai: I think you missed my point. My point wasn't that those things actually definitely justify the kind of violence those games portray. My point was that without that context, people have a much easier time looking at the violence and going, "gross."
My point was that context does make a difference, but whether that difference is enough to justify it is something I very much don't know.
@rangers517: I would implore you to look a little deeper than what you've just said. Think long and hard whether or not the kinds of critiques and pieces you're talking about actually pose any real threat to gaming. Whether the "main audience" of those sites is somehow negatively impacted by viewpoints that exist outside of their current comfort zone. Whether or not wondering "why you should care" is really where you should be stopping yourself in this conversation. Maybe the reason these perspectives are starting to flourish in greater volume is because some of us out there think they're worth hearing. Maybe in the end, this isn't about erasing your own perspective so much as it is about expanding beyond what's already been there. I promise you, there will always be sites that write about games the way you want to hear about them. Getting annoyed that others are coming in and taking the conversation in new directions maybe shouldn't be your default response. It doesn't have to be a threat. It can just be change.
@leejunfan83: I would say there is absolutely nothing barring anyone from critiquing criticism. That is also something that happens all the time, in a wide variety of disciplines.
@leejunfan83: But that's the point. It's supposed to be. A formula for exact, flawless criticism does not exist, and it never will. You don't go to criticism to look for a singular answer. You look to criticism for new viewpoints, for fresh perspectives, for expansion of understanding. You don't have to agree with it. You're not meant to agree with all criticism. That's not how it works. You find the critical voices that resonate with you. And when you do, those voices should help expand your understanding of whatever work it is they're criticizing. That's what it's meant to do.
@conmulligan: I'm a pessimist at heart, so hopefully you'll forgive me if I remain somewhat unconvinced anything I might have to say here would convince someone entrenched in this movement to rethink their stance. But if there's even a chance of that, then I suppose it would be terrible of me to not say anything.
@leejunfan83: People do it all the time. Film, literature, theater, sculpture, painting, whatever you can think of. There are criticisms of all forms of art, and those criticisms are manifold in tone, in focus, in whatever you can think of. How do you judge art is frankly a bizarre question because people have been judging art since art was a concept anyone understood to exist.