What do you think of this term I coined?
" @Ragdrazi said:Are the 90's often referred to as a time of great innovation? Yes. Are modern designers often accused of playing to the lowest common denominator in order to make money? Yes." Nothing can be without its flaws. To point to cracks in the Mona Lisa and call it trash would be idiotic. Not saying it's a comparable situation, but you get my point. "The flaws of the 90s are the same flaws of today: there are some truly great and inspiring games and ideas, and there's also a glut of product that is simply out to make money. "
Will there be flaws in both systems? Yes. Will there be great and inspiring ideas in both systems? Yes.
Does that change the truth of the previous two statements?
No.
I think the term sucks.
Glamers?
" Are the 90's often referred to as a time of great innovation? Yes. Are modern designers often accused of playing to the lowest common denominator in order to make money? Yes. Will there be flaws in both systems? Yes. Will there be great and inspiring ideas in both systems? Yes. Does that change the truth of the previous two statements? No. "I'm not disagreeing with you on any of that. What I'm taking exception with (and it's more the OP rather than you) is the blinkered opinion that the reverse of the first two statements isn't true. It boils down to this: since the start of gaming, people have been coming up with new shit, and people have been ripping it off and dumbing it down to make some coin. From Manic Miner clones to Call of Duty wannabes, it's always happened and no doubt it'll continue to happen for generations to come.
The 90s were great, but even the 16-bit era was iterating on what came before. 3D was a major step, but there are only a handful of truly seminal titles that stand head and shoulders above the rest.
" I think the term sucks. "
I never had a decent computer to actually run any games in the 90's but I do remember Diablo 1, Starcraft 1, Age of Empires 1, and Diablo 2. I was really young at the time, as I'm 18 now. I was quite innocent and young during the 90's and had a very narrow minded interpretation of video games. I was confined to Nintendo consoles during my youth and only had the priveledge of watching my dad play some games on the PC. I really enjoyed watching him play Quake, DOom, STarcraft and half-life although I had no idea what was going on. And he even let me play Diablo and STarcraft after a couple years ^^
Console games were my favorite games during the 90's and early 2000's. SPecifically Donkey Kong COuntry, Goldeneye 007, and The legend of Zelda Games (which in retrospect, were some of the most played and mainstream titles) However, I wouldnt be able to go back and play many of these titles nowadays because 1: THe graphics from the 90's burn my eyes after playing so many modern games. 2: If I loved the games enough that I wouldnt mind the graphics, I wouldnt play it, I would just look at my older game files, play a couple levels and listen to the old music in the game, because I can't handle playing over the entire game again ( mental block doesn't allow to play such awesome old games again) 3: IF there were no mental block and I would start playing the game again, I would quickly realize after a couple levels that the games were no longer diffcult to me because I had played them so much back in the day. And without the challenge, my "completionist whore" nature would lose interest and I would return to more modern day games.
Also, just because someone continues to play "mainstream" games does not mean that they suck and should be given a distinct, condescending title such as "streamers" (even if that sounded remotely like an insult), it means that genre of game hasn't worn off on them yet, but in later years, they won't be able to return to that genre bacause its lost it touch.
Whoa, long Post, imma go have supper :P
" I think you should separate yourself from us. We lowest common denominator folk do not deserve to have our dumb lowest common denominator minds in the presence of your superior intellect. Our mass of console kiddie sheeple is causing trouble for you real gamers. We should not be wasting your time forcing you to yell at us, because we are being so dumb and lowest common denominator that you must attempt to reach us through condescending insults. Lowest common denominator.I concur.
And if you act like this elsewhere, well, you'll isolate yourself soon enough.
"Lowest common denominator
" @Ragdrazi said:The 90's are referred to as a time of great innovation. Currently designers are accused of turning towards the lowest common denominator. Both these statements can be argued against, certainly." Are the 90's often referred to as a time of great innovation? Yes. Are modern designers often accused of playing to the lowest common denominator in order to make money? Yes. Will there be flaws in both systems? Yes. Will there be great and inspiring ideas in both systems? Yes. Does that change the truth of the previous two statements? No. "I'm not disagreeing with you on any of that. What I'm taking exception with (and it's more the OP rather than you) is the blinkered opinion that the reverse of the first two statements isn't true. It boils down to this: since the start of gaming, people have been coming up with new shit, and people have been ripping it off and dumbing it down to make some coin. From Manic Miner clones to Call of Duty wannabes, it's always happened and no doubt it'll continue to happen for generations to come. The 90s were great, but even the 16-bit era was iterating on what came before. 3D was a major step, but there are only a handful of truly seminal titles that stand head and shoulders above the rest. "
But so can any statement of truth, including the following "I am not a chat bot." And your disagreement with the statement commonly made about the 90's, the statement commonly made about today, or with my statement about not being a chat bot honestly matters very little.
You may not agree with the statements of that allow someone to make a term. It does not change the fact that there are statements that allow one to make a term.
Guys can we just let this thread die now?
no matter what point you make, using games as an example he'll just reply with "lowest common denominator" and then talk about all the games hes played from the 90s which are "better".
The OP is clearly just trying to stir up a shit storm and as already been destroyed by many many people.
Just let this die now and dont pay attention to him anymore.
" @pretender15 said:Dude, do you know what a hipster is?It sounds too nice. Streamers are great at parties. I prefer "zombies". Actually, truth is I prefer "video game hipsters." "" @Ragdrazi said:
" @pretender15 said:main"stream" "" "streamers"To refer to all of the mainstream people who are obsessed with Modern Warfare 2 and think that video games are better now than they were in the 90s. You know, people who don't realize that companies purposely make games for the lowest common denominator. And other people who are strictly into mainstream stuff, and don't care about innovation, sub-culture, or niches. Oh and of course, they are all graphics whores. "Sure. Ok. But why "Streamers"? "
In this case the OP is the video game hipster.
Zombies is closer to the shitty derogatory term the OP was going for
Streamers? Even the term is lazy.
" @beej said:You could go read the argument I wrote earlier and appreciate what I'm trying to say, or you could just respond to a one sentence statement some more." @Ragdrazi: Create a derogatory term based off of what is mainly subjective. "Every term humanity has ever created is entirely subjective. "
Sounds like somebody is tired of losing in MW2...
Hipster trash.
" @Ragdrazi said:Yes, I know the definition of hipster. I've met many, lived with many. I stand by my term." @pretender15 said:Dude, do you know what a hipster is? In this case the OP is the video game hipster. Zombies is closer to the shitty derogatory term the OP was going for "It sounds too nice. Streamers are great at parties. I prefer "zombies". Actually, truth is I prefer "video game hipsters." "" @Ragdrazi said:
" @pretender15 said:main"stream" "" "streamers"To refer to all of the mainstream people who are obsessed with Modern Warfare 2 and think that video games are better now than they were in the 90s. You know, people who don't realize that companies purposely make games for the lowest common denominator. And other people who are strictly into mainstream stuff, and don't care about innovation, sub-culture, or niches. Oh and of course, they are all graphics whores. "Sure. Ok. But why "Streamers"? "
" @Ragdrazi said:I think you should express yourself in a more calm and composed manner." @beej said:You could go read the argument I wrote earlier and appreciate what I'm trying to say, or you could just respond to a one sentence statement some more. "" @Ragdrazi: Create a derogatory term based off of what is mainly subjective. "Every term humanity has ever created is entirely subjective. "
" Video games are better now than they were in the 90s. In my opinion, if you think otherwise, it's just nostalgia speaking. Yes, there are a lot of "me too" games out there, but there is also a lot growth and innovation as well. I don't really have a problem with mainstream gamers, so long as they don't profess to know everything about video games simply because they've played Madden, Halo, and Call of Duty. Or, worse, attack smaller, niche games just because they haven't heard of them. The way I see it, I enjoy big, blockbuster movies, and I don't want some film buff turning his nose at me just because I haven't seen the newest indie flick. Just let people enjoy what they enjoy, so long as they don't talk out of their asses or give you shit for enjoying what you enjoy. Mainstream gamers aren't killing the industry, they're making it bigger and bigger which means more games and more chances for innovation. With the development of distribution platforms like Indie Marketplace on Live, it's easier than ever for indie developers to get their games into players' hands, and it's the business from the mainstream that has allowed those frameworks to be built. "Can - can I give you a hug?
" @beej said:Not sure what makes you think I'm upset. I'm actually in a good mood, finals are over, and I'm about to watch a quick look while tucking in to some ramen and gyoza. My whole point is that we can discuss the merits of my one sentence, but that has no real meaning here since I'm trying to paraphrase my overall argument. The problems facing derogatory terms in general isn't of concern. I'm trying to say why this one is incorrect. Thus my suggestion that you go back and read that original argument." @Ragdrazi said:I think you should express yourself in a more calm and composed manner. "" @beej said:You could go read the argument I wrote earlier and appreciate what I'm trying to say, or you could just respond to a one sentence statement some more. "" @Ragdrazi: Create a derogatory term based off of what is mainly subjective. "Every term humanity has ever created is entirely subjective. "
" The 90's are referred to as a time of great innovation. Currently designers are accused of turning towards the lowest common denominator. Both these statements can be argued against, certainly. But so can any statement of truth, including the following "I am not a chat bot." And your disagreement with the statement commonly made about the 90's, the statement commonly made about today, or with my statement about not being a chat bot honestly matters very little. You may not agree with the statements of that allow someone to make a term. It does not change the fact that there are statements that allow one to make a term. "Okay, now you're just arguing about arguing. I think we've officially fizzled out with this one, yeah?
" @Ragdrazi said:Have I been impolite to you? No. So perhaps you could express yourself in the same way. I've no intention of looking through this whole thread for your argument. If you don't want to paraphrase it again for me that's completely understandable." @beej said:Not sure what makes you think I'm upset. I'm actually in a good mood, finals are over, and I'm about to watch a quick look while tucking in to some ramen and gyoza. My whole point is that we can discuss the merits of my one sentence, but that has no real meaning here since I'm trying to paraphrase my overall argument. The problems facing derogatory terms in general isn't of concern. I'm trying to say why this one is incorrect. Thus my suggestion that you go back and read that original argument. "" @Ragdrazi said:I think you should express yourself in a more calm and composed manner. "" @beej said:You could go read the argument I wrote earlier and appreciate what I'm trying to say, or you could just respond to a one sentence statement some more. "" @Ragdrazi: Create a derogatory term based off of what is mainly subjective. "Every term humanity has ever created is entirely subjective. "
But try not to miss the truth in my response. There is NO term that is not subjective. Not "ramen", not "finals", not "upset." A term can only be examined on what it references.
Are the 90's often referred to as a time of great innovation. Yes. Are modern devolopers accused of turning their backs on innovation. Yes. And there you are. Perfectly valid utterly subjective statement.
" @FoolishChaos said:Lets take a look at Urban Dictionary. Here we go, hipster:" @Ragdrazi said:Yes, I know the definition of hipster. I've met many, lived with many. I stand by my term. "" @pretender15 said:Dude, do you know what a hipster is? In this case the OP is the video game hipster. Zombies is closer to the shitty derogatory term the OP was going for "It sounds too nice. Streamers are great at parties. I prefer "zombies". Actually, truth is I prefer "video game hipsters." "" @Ragdrazi said:
" @pretender15 said:main"stream" "" "streamers"To refer to all of the mainstream people who are obsessed with Modern Warfare 2 and think that video games are better now than they were in the 90s. You know, people who don't realize that companies purposely make games for the lowest common denominator. And other people who are strictly into mainstream stuff, and don't care about innovation, sub-culture, or niches. Oh and of course, they are all graphics whores. "Sure. Ok. But why "Streamers"? "
" Hipsters are a subculture of men and women typically in their 20's and 30's that value independent thinking, counter-culture"
OP, do you value independent thinking? I already know you are counter-culture, yours posts prove that. Now would someone who plays mainstream games be defined as independent thinkers? They could be, but their mainstream gaming wouldn't be a product of it. And they can't be counter-culture if they participate in the mainstream.
" @Ragdrazi said:also it appears you are to an extent arguing incorrectly about arguing. If buzz-clik actually made a relevant response to a statement trying to prove why it is that the statement (and thus the term it is founded on is incorrect) then the fact that there are responses is relevant and does matter. Sure arguments against something don't disprove it, but then again if the only real basis for the term isn't proven well either then we shouldn't accept it as true." The 90's are referred to as a time of great innovation. Currently designers are accused of turning towards the lowest common denominator. Both these statements can be argued against, certainly. But so can any statement of truth, including the following "I am not a chat bot." And your disagreement with the statement commonly made about the 90's, the statement commonly made about today, or with my statement about not being a chat bot honestly matters very little. You may not agree with the statements of that allow someone to make a term. It does not change the fact that there are statements that allow one to make a term. "Okay, now you're just arguing about arguing. I think we've officially fizzled out with this one, yeah? "
" @Ragdrazi said:As long as you are capable of living with your disagreement with Pretender's term not invalidating their right to make a term, we're fine." The 90's are referred to as a time of great innovation. Currently designers are accused of turning towards the lowest common denominator. Both these statements can be argued against, certainly. But so can any statement of truth, including the following "I am not a chat bot." And your disagreement with the statement commonly made about the 90's, the statement commonly made about today, or with my statement about not being a chat bot honestly matters very little. You may not agree with the statements of that allow someone to make a term. It does not change the fact that there are statements that allow one to make a term. "Okay, now you're just arguing about arguing. I think we've officially fizzled out with this one, yeah? "
" @Ragdrazi said:I don't agree with that definition of hipster. Hipsters do not value independent thinking one wit." @FoolishChaos said:Lets take a look at Urban Dictionary. Here we go, hipster: " Hipsters are a subculture of men and women typically in their 20's and 30's that value independent thinking, counter-culture" OP, do you value independent thinking? I already know you are counter-culture, yours posts prove that. Now would someone who plays mainstream games be defined as independent thinkers? They could be, but their mainstream gaming wouldn't be a product of it. And they can't be counter-culture if they participate in the mainstream. "" @Ragdrazi said:Yes, I know the definition of hipster. I've met many, lived with many. I stand by my term. "" @pretender15 said:Dude, do you know what a hipster is? In this case the OP is the video game hipster. Zombies is closer to the shitty derogatory term the OP was going for "It sounds too nice. Streamers are great at parties. I prefer "zombies". Actually, truth is I prefer "video game hipsters." "" @Ragdrazi said:
" @pretender15 said:main"stream" "" "streamers"To refer to all of the mainstream people who are obsessed with Modern Warfare 2 and think that video games are better now than they were in the 90s. You know, people who don't realize that companies purposely make games for the lowest common denominator. And other people who are strictly into mainstream stuff, and don't care about innovation, sub-culture, or niches. Oh and of course, they are all graphics whores. "Sure. Ok. But why "Streamers"? "
" @buzz_clik said:I'm sorry, is this meant to be in response to me?" @Ragdrazi said:also it appears you are to an extent arguing incorrectly about arguing. If buzz-clik actually made a relevant response to a statement trying to prove why it is that the statement (and thus the term it is founded on is incorrect) then the fact that there are responses is relevant and does matter. Sure arguments against something don't disprove it, but then again if the only real basis for the term isn't proven well either then we shouldn't accept it as true. "" The 90's are referred to as a time of great innovation. Currently designers are accused of turning towards the lowest common denominator. Both these statements can be argued against, certainly. But so can any statement of truth, including the following "I am not a chat bot." And your disagreement with the statement commonly made about the 90's, the statement commonly made about today, or with my statement about not being a chat bot honestly matters very little. You may not agree with the statements of that allow someone to make a term. It does not change the fact that there are statements that allow one to make a term. "Okay, now you're just arguing about arguing. I think we've officially fizzled out with this one, yeah? "
" @FoolishChaos said:You need to get your derogatory subculture terms right man. You can't call someone a hipster if he is actually a douche!" @Ragdrazi said:I don't agree with that definition of hipster. Hipsters do not value independent thinking one wit. "" @FoolishChaos said:Lets take a look at Urban Dictionary. Here we go, hipster: " Hipsters are a subculture of men and women typically in their 20's and 30's that value independent thinking, counter-culture" OP, do you value independent thinking? I already know you are counter-culture, yours posts prove that. Now would someone who plays mainstream games be defined as independent thinkers? They could be, but their mainstream gaming wouldn't be a product of it. And they can't be counter-culture if they participate in the mainstream. "" @Ragdrazi said:Yes, I know the definition of hipster. I've met many, lived with many. I stand by my term. "" @pretender15 said:Dude, do you know what a hipster is? In this case the OP is the video game hipster. Zombies is closer to the shitty derogatory term the OP was going for "It sounds too nice. Streamers are great at parties. I prefer "zombies". Actually, truth is I prefer "video game hipsters." "" @Ragdrazi said:
" @pretender15 said:main"stream" "" "streamers"To refer to all of the mainstream people who are obsessed with Modern Warfare 2 and think that video games are better now than they were in the 90s. You know, people who don't realize that companies purposely make games for the lowest common denominator. And other people who are strictly into mainstream stuff, and don't care about innovation, sub-culture, or niches. Oh and of course, they are all graphics whores. "Sure. Ok. But why "Streamers"? "
" @beej said:Have I been impolite to you either? I'm kind of confused as to where you're getting that from. I could argue that you were being rude when you presumed that I was getting upset because there was some element of "truth" to what he said, rather than actually reading what I wrote." @Ragdrazi said:Have I been impolite to you? No. So perhaps you could express yourself in the same way. I've no intention of looking through this whole thread for your argument. If you don't want to paraphrase it again for me that's completely understandable. But try not to miss the truth in my response. There is NO term that is not subjective. Not "ramen", not "finals", not "upset." A term can only be examined on what it references. Are the 90's often referred to as a time of great innovation. Yes. Are modern devolopers accused of turning their backs on innovation. Yes. And there you are. Perfectly valid utterly subjective statement. "" @beej said:Not sure what makes you think I'm upset. I'm actually in a good mood, finals are over, and I'm about to watch a quick look while tucking in to some ramen and gyoza. My whole point is that we can discuss the merits of my one sentence, but that has no real meaning here since I'm trying to paraphrase my overall argument. The problems facing derogatory terms in general isn't of concern. I'm trying to say why this one is incorrect. Thus my suggestion that you go back and read that original argument. "" @Ragdrazi said:I think you should express yourself in a more calm and composed manner. "" @beej said:You could go read the argument I wrote earlier and appreciate what I'm trying to say, or you could just respond to a one sentence statement some more. "" @Ragdrazi: Create a derogatory term based off of what is mainly subjective. "Every term humanity has ever created is entirely subjective. "
Actually meaning is arguably objective, it's only subjective if you're some cartesian if I'm not mistaken. Also my response was 3 pages back, I could copy and paste it or you could hit 7. Let me know which one you want.
More importantly is that we can discuss the ability to have objective or subjective terms that are correct, or we can talk about the applicability/truth in this term. Which is what I was arguing.
" @Ragdrazi said:Sarcastically telling me what I "can" do is impolite, and nothing I have done has been comparable." @beej said:Have I been impolite to you either? I'm kind of confused as to where you're getting that from. I could argue that you were being rude when you presumed that I was getting upset because there was some element of "truth" to what he said, rather than actually reading what I wrote. Actually meaning is arguably objective, it's only subjective if you're some cartesian if I'm not mistaken. Also my response was 3 pages back, I could copy and paste it or you could hit 7. Let me know which one you want. More importantly is that we can discuss the ability to have objective or subjective terms that are correct, or we can talk about the applicability/truth in this term. Which is what I was arguing. "" @Ragdrazi said:Have I been impolite to you? No. So perhaps you could express yourself in the same way. I've no intention of looking through this whole thread for your argument. If you don't want to paraphrase it again for me that's completely understandable. But try not to miss the truth in my response. There is NO term that is not subjective. Not "ramen", not "finals", not "upset." A term can only be examined on what it references. Are the 90's often referred to as a time of great innovation. Yes. Are modern devolopers accused of turning their backs on innovation. Yes. And there you are. Perfectly valid utterly subjective statement. "" @beej said:Not sure what makes you think I'm upset. I'm actually in a good mood, finals are over, and I'm about to watch a quick look while tucking in to some ramen and gyoza. My whole point is that we can discuss the merits of my one sentence, but that has no real meaning here since I'm trying to paraphrase my overall argument. The problems facing derogatory terms in general isn't of concern. I'm trying to say why this one is incorrect. Thus my suggestion that you go back and read that original argument. "" @Ragdrazi said:I think you should express yourself in a more calm and composed manner. "" @beej said:You could go read the argument I wrote earlier and appreciate what I'm trying to say, or you could just respond to a one sentence statement some more. "" @Ragdrazi: Create a derogatory term based off of what is mainly subjective. "Every term humanity has ever created is entirely subjective. "
As for meaning, every term we use is subjective. But it may refer to something objective. I've provided the reference for Pretender's term. You may disagree that what it refers to is true. But that does not change the fact that is referencing something commonly believed.
This is me discussing the applicability and truth of this term. The reference for Pretender's statement is a commonly held statement of fact that you may or may not agree with. Your agreement or disagreement doesn't even matter here.
And no, every word isn't subjective, words cannot be separated from its semantic content and that content exists outside of the personal. My whole point was that his basis for that term is so subjective that he has no real argument for it..
So again, would you like me to copy and paste my argument?
Whoa, hold up. So anyone obsessed with Modern Warfare 2 or who thinks video games are better now than they were in the 90s is mainstream or somehow bad? I think you seriously need to rethink this. Anyway, as far as "streamers" goes just call them "the mainstream", there's no real reason to start trying to push a new phrase like that.
You know about the morning star / evening star argument correct?
My point is that he does not need to come up with an argument. The burden of proof for the two commonly made statements of truth the term references is not his. It is not up to the navigator to prove what the planet Venus is.
Do what ever it is that you wish to do with your argument.
It's cool. I was a total prick when I was 18 too.
1) regarding the "sub-culture, or niches" charge.
This attack is nonsensical, even if we can divide games into sub-cultures, then by definition not everyone can be in them. Therefore it's foolish to blame someone for being a necessary product of unnecessary categorization that you engage in. By trying to dissect gaming in this manner you've created what you claim to hate.
2) Not caring about innovation.
I would argue that all of them do, and that you have no evidence to suggest that they don't. People do take notice of changes, maybe they aren't entirely forming their buying decisions off of what is innovating, but the fact is that people still buy new games, and still appreciate changes. You may ask for proof of my point, to which I would respond, where is your proof?
Another response that's important to make here is that you fail to prove the value of innovation in every game. Sure the changes between CoD4 MW2 and Blops weren't massive, but you fail to show why that's on face bad. Obviously some innovation is good, and that is occurring in the industry, but it's just as fine that some games aren't providing constant massive innovation.
3) regarding mainstream/lowest common denominator.
The whole lowest common denominator argument rests on the unfounded assumption that you are smarter or in some way better than the target of the phrase. Which you fail to prove, given that we have no reason to believe that you're better than them (hell you could actually be the lowest common denominator) then we have no reason to apply this term to anyone, as we lack the proper metric to apply it. These kind of value judgement are dumb for reasons like this.
As for "mainstream" being bad. Once again you fail to prove WHY it's bad. Given that game development is still diversified, even more so now in some sense (the internet is really enabling indie devs) how is having games that market themselves for mass appeal bad? It's not like it harms the sales of innovative games, since you said yourself that people who buy mainstream don't like innovation, so therefore they would just be an unused market. (uh oh, contradiction!)
This attack is nonsensical, even if we can divide games into sub-cultures, then by definition not everyone can be in them. Therefore it's foolish to blame someone for being a necessary product of unnecessary categorization that you engage in. By trying to dissect gaming in this manner you've created what you claim to hate.
2) Not caring about innovation.
I would argue that all of them do, and that you have no evidence to suggest that they don't. People do take notice of changes, maybe they aren't entirely forming their buying decisions off of what is innovating, but the fact is that people still buy new games, and still appreciate changes. You may ask for proof of my point, to which I would respond, where is your proof?
Another response that's important to make here is that you fail to prove the value of innovation in every game. Sure the changes between CoD4 MW2 and Blops weren't massive, but you fail to show why that's on face bad. Obviously some innovation is good, and that is occurring in the industry, but it's just as fine that some games aren't providing constant massive innovation.
3) regarding mainstream/lowest common denominator.
The whole lowest common denominator argument rests on the unfounded assumption that you are smarter or in some way better than the target of the phrase. Which you fail to prove, given that we have no reason to believe that you're better than them (hell you could actually be the lowest common denominator) then we have no reason to apply this term to anyone, as we lack the proper metric to apply it. These kind of value judgement are dumb for reasons like this.
As for "mainstream" being bad. Once again you fail to prove WHY it's bad. Given that game development is still diversified, even more so now in some sense (the internet is really enabling indie devs) how is having games that market themselves for mass appeal bad? It's not like it harms the sales of innovative games, since you said yourself that people who buy mainstream don't like innovation, so therefore they would just be an unused market. (uh oh, contradiction!)
" Oh you mean people who aren't elitist douchebags like you? So streamer is a compliment then, fair enough. "I was going to post something exactly along these lines but you worded it better than I ever could.
" Honestly? It makes you sound like a massive cock. A massive, hipster-y cock. "
@beej said:
1) regarding the "sub-culture, or niches" charge.
This attack is nonsensical, even if we can divide games into sub-cultures, then by definition not everyone can be in them. Therefore it's foolish to blame someone for being a necessary product of unnecessary categorization that you engage in. By trying to dissect gaming in this manner you've created what you claim to hate.
2) Not caring about innovation.
I would argue that all of them do, and that you have no evidence to suggest that they don't. People do take notice of changes, maybe they aren't entirely forming their buying decisions off of what is innovating, but the fact is that people still buy new games, and still appreciate changes. You may ask for proof of my point, to which I would respond, where is your proof?
Another response that's important to make here is that you fail to prove the value of innovation in every game. Sure the changes between CoD4 MW2 and Blops weren't massive, but you fail to show why that's on face bad. Obviously some innovation is good, and that is occurring in the industry, but it's just as fine that some games aren't providing constant massive innovation.
3) regarding mainstream/lowest common denominator.
The whole lowest common denominator argument rests on the unfounded assumption that you are smarter or in some way better than the target of the phrase. Which you fail to prove, given that we have no reason to believe that you're better than them (hell you could actually be the lowest common denominator) then we have no reason to apply this term to anyone, as we lack the proper metric to apply it. These kind of value judgement are dumb for reasons like this.
As for "mainstream" being bad. Once again you fail to prove WHY it's bad. Given that game development is still diversified, even more so now in some sense (the internet is really enabling indie devs) how is having games that market themselves for mass appeal bad? It's not like it harms the sales of innovative games, since you said yourself that people who buy mainstream don't like innovation, so therefore they would just be an unused market. (uh oh, contradiction!)
"
Pretender has referenced a valid situation. The only other thing their term rests on is the idea that there are people who are happy with the situation, and those who are not. If we accept that this demarcation exists, the term is valid.
The burden of proof for proving the situation exists does not rest with Pretender. Pretender has merely made a term referencing things that people have already proven. If you do not agree with what has been proven, you will need to take that up with them, and not Pretender.
You are emotionally reacting to the term, which is your right, when you say it implies anything about Pretender. That games are being made to the lowest common denominator is the often made statement which Pretender's term references. It is, again, not Pretender's job to prove it.
As for the mainstream being bad, the situation often discussed is that innovation happened in the 90's much more than it does now, as game designers focus on the money. That situation would appear to be self evidently bad. The burden of proof is, again, not on Pretender. However, it is clearly and self evidently proven.
So, I really don't understand why you felt the need to cut and paste your argument. I feel as though I have had to cut an paste my response. I've said very little in this reply that I haven't said to on this thread already.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment