Ceci N'est Pas Une Gamer: Response

Seminal video game journalist N'Gai Croal, of Newsweek's Level Up blog, brings to our attention an article one GameSetWatch, written by Douglas Wilson, a fairly scathing and critical op ed on the term "Gamer". Here's a snippet:

I can’t stand gamers.

No, that’s not quite true. I can’t stand the concept of gamers.

And no, I’m not some anti-gaming nutcase. Far from it, games have always been an important part of my life. As a child of the 80s, I grew up with the Nintendo Entertainment System. I watched my older brother play Sierra adventure game classics like Quest For Glory and King’s Quest.

When the Internet finally found its way to our house, I immersed myself in text MUDs and played real-time strategy games with my friends over TCP/IP. I’ve finished a hefty number of RPGs, including Final Fantasies I, IV, VI, VII, and IX (I gave up on V because, well, Squaresoft mailed it in on the storyline).In my heyday I could complete Paranoia Survivor Max on the highest difficulty. I was there at the first PAX, and I’ve attended E3 twice and GDC three times. Hell, I like videogames so much that I’m doing a friggin’ PhD in game studies.

The problem is, the “gaming community” has become a kind of cult. Organized around worship sites like Kotaku, 1UP, and Penny Arcade, the Church of Gamers congregates in Internet forums and online games, rallying against the Great Satan of Jack Thompson. Smitten with near-religious fervor over their hobby, these so-called gamers increasingly treat digital games as a devotional object, a thing morally good in itself.

It’s great to be a passionate about one’s hobbies. But when fans lose touch with reality, they also lose perspective on the more important parts of life. And in doing so, gamers ironically stifle innovation in the medium they so love.

The rest can be found here.

N'Gai chimes in shortly with his own assessment of the article stating:

The Reaction: Words have power, this is true. But is more widespread use of the term "interactive entertainment"--and with it, changing the term "gamers" to "avid players of digital games"--really enough to radically change the perception or reality of videogames and the people who play them. In our opinion, Wilson has confused his diagnosis of the symptom (the clannish, obsessive, unrestrained behavior of a vocal minority of, uh, gamers) with a variety of diseases (the youth of said vocal minority; the disinhibiting nature of the Internet; and the general ignorance about games in society at large). The fact is that there is no monolithic "gaming community." There's only an assortment of people with varying degrees of passion about their pastime, so pleading with them to reform its behavior is pointless. And what ails them is not the name they choose to go by.

The Verdict: Red light. There's nothing wrong with the concept of "gamers." But individual gamers could stand to check themselves.

I more or less agree with him, though I do it in a ham-fisted manner, as usual. My response:

This reminds me of the issue of the terms "comic books" vs. "graphic novels". Like with the term gamer, comic books seem to evoke the stereotype of nerdiness and adolescence, even when the medium has long since transcended those misconceptions (for comic books at least), the public perception hasn't followed suit. Therefore, some people have felt the need to shed the old label of "comic" to "graphic novel", a label that reflects the mediums maturity.

Naturally, some people have taken issue with this proposition. I among them, I think it cheapens the whole thing, to shed a large part of the medium's history seems nothing short of snooty. Take a copy of The Watchman and any comic off the $1 rack, both are still considered "comic books". Much like how Schindler's List and Meet the Spartans are both considered "movies". It's not the term that defines the quality, far from it.

Of course, this argument isn't directly applicable necessarily. Firstly, my argument references the medium itself, while this discussion seems relegated to the terminology of those who *consume* that said medium (and I'd like to point out, like how there's no "tuber" term, there's also no term for comic book reader). And secondly, modern gaming, sadly, hasn't transcended into something beyond, not in the way movies, comics, novels, or any other established artforms have. Though I think that's obviously a whole other discussion.

With all that said though, how do I feel about the term Gamer, surprisingly conflicted actually. I've come to embrace all things geeky, and I feel that "gaming" is a large part of my identity. However, I also feel that the term "gamer" is extraneous, and even alienating. The latter I sometimes prefer, given my elitism, but I know that the medium won't grow if the audience and pool of talent doesn't either.

With that in mind, I initially sided with Wilson's article, and felt it best if the term was abolished. But I realized that I just contradicted my "comic vs. graphic novel" argument. I've since had a change of heart, and I think it's best if we keep the term, and embrace it (more so?). That way, when Gamers *do* mature, and I hope they/we will, the public perception will change along with it.

Certainly no one still thinks D&D players are Satanists right?...

Feel free to add chime in here, or over at the Level Up comments section.

Dear EA...

We've had good times in the past, the Need For Speed series is probably one of the most ingrained racing franchises in the industry, if not the racing franchise. There was Populous, and Dungeon Keeper 2, arguably Peter Molyneux's finest games. Command & Conquer, Simcity, Medal of Honor, the list goes on.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Need For Speed, with Underground being a great recharging the series needed, featuring the tightest controls for an arcade style racer, has more recently been relegated to shovelware. Medal of Honor is still fighting the same war, with the headlining feature for the game being, "Look at the Military Correspondent we have this time! He's a higher rank than our last one!" Don't even get me started with their sports games.

But your games aren't the only thing you've ruined, I remember Bullfrog in their heyday, Dungeon Keeper 2 is a personal favorite of mine. They were one of the most promising studios in the industry, but now you have them making games like Catwoman, and the Harry Potter Games.

I remember Westwood, when they were the prime contenders for King of the RTS, going head to head against the likes of Blizzard, and holding ground. Which is to be expected, seeing as how they were one of the pioneers for the RTS genre.
But your usage of the studio can be described as nothing but outright idiotic, with their swan songs being C&C:Renegade, and Earth & Beyond. No developer deserves to go out on such a low note, let a lone Westwood.

And last, but certainly not least, Origin. While, at the time, I was more interested in RPG's of the Eastern variety (forgive me), so I can't honestly speak regarding the Ultima series, I'm sure it was a fine franchise. I was however, a huge, huge, Wing Commander fan. It's certainly a shame the studio and the Wing Commander franchise are now defunct (No, do not bring up Wing Commander Arena to me...), but I think it was fair to say that the franchise went out on a high note with Prophecy... at least in contrast. Hey! I liked Wing Commander Prophecy.

But you know all of that already, no real point in bringing it up. You have, afterall, already copped to that, and I respect you for that. However, talk is cheap, and it's going to take a lot of action to sway the minds of the people. And let me tell you, the people hate you. Don't act so surprised though, you brought it on yourself, but let's forget about the past, we've started over fresh, right?

You were already off to a good start too! The Burnout series was stale, and poorly executed, before you came along and lit a fire under Critereon, resulting in the stellar Burnout 3. While Paradise could have been better, full judgment will be reserved till I see your supposedly big DLC plans take fruition.

The Command & Conquer series is as strong as ever, with C&C3 being a solid game all-round, and Red Alert 3 looking amazing. Tiberium I am a little concerned about though, conceptually, it looks like nothing out of the C&C universe, but I've been pining for a good squad-based shooter since SW:Republic Commando, and Tiberium looks very similar. If my biggest problem with the game is aesthetics, then bring it on.

And what about Rock Band! While a brilliant game in and of itself, your model for DLC is a license to print money. Brava.

Oh, and Spore, how can we forget about Spore. One of the most conceptually interesting games to come out in recent time, if not all time. You're taking a big risk in a game that features a persistent service (Sporepedia) with no apparent subscription model, a move that almost seems altruistic.

However, not everything is fine and dandy, quite frankly, when you pull things like this, I worry if this is simply another cycle of bad business decisions happening all over again.

Naturally, the blogosphere imploded, like it usually does. But while I would have defended you when being bashed unreasonably, I did nothing to defend you this time, simply because I couldn't, wouldn't. I did not agree with the idea of purchasable weapons, and quite frankly, it confused me how you could have gotten DLC so right with Rock Band, but got it so absolutely wrong with Bad Company. Perish the thought of that being actual irony.

Oh, we've chided, but I'm concerned if this is a trend that will continue, and I fear that if it does, the jokes will be more like gallows humor.

But as it turns out, maybe you really have turned over a new leaf. While it did take the internet starting a whole kerfuffle, you least know better than to ignore your customers. But what they don't seem to realize, if only because the idea seems silly (especially for such a big company such as yourself), you're still learning.

Yes, I know, people find it hard to believe, but it's true. DLC is a hard thing to do right, in fact, Rock Band is the only one to do it right. However, not all games are like Rock Band, understandable. It's also understandable that you were simply trying out a new business model for DLC, I just wish you could have thought it out a little more for BF:BC before setting it in stone.

Just a little word of advice for the future though, I know you're looking to Korea for ideas into DLC, but understand that the Korean market and the Western market are two very different beasts, as evidenced by the public outcry. Foreign ideas are just that, and you know how xenophobic people can be, regardless of how good that foreign idea may or may not be. But I can't really blame you for trying.

It would be best to think things through a little more though, get some public opinion, do some polls, just something to test the waters for a new business model before you set it in concrete. Other wise, the internet is going to be drawing dicks on it before it gets a chance to dry. (Whatever, like 8% of people do it.)


Yours Truly,

Some Guy