TR Member Perks!

Chris:

Greetings! My name is Todd, and if you don’t mind, I am going to accept the invitation you gave on your platform to respond to your Vice article and subsequent blog post by posting a response on my platform.

Before getting started in earnest, though, I want to state up front for everyone who reads this the following: Chris was not a member of GameJournoPros that I could see, and Chris did not author any of the Gamers Are Dead articles on August 28th and 29th that I call the “2 Minutes Hate.”

The 2 Minutes Hate is actually a great place to start, as you took the time to make a limp-wristed defense of Leigh Alexander’s mind vomit that got the 2 Minutes Hate started.  If hers were the only article to come out that day, it could have been ignored.  I could have writen off Alexander’s asinine rantings as sour grapes from someone who knew virtually nothing and had done less in the videogame industry, yet somehow felt entitled to the 100 billion dollars the industry was going to generate in 2015.  Taken by itself, it read as half sour grapes and half arrogant presumption that she, alone, was the gatekeeper of who does and does not get to identify as gamer.

But it wasn’t just the Alexander article, was it? It was more than a dozen on the same day, with click-bait, garbage headlines ranging from the “death of the gamer identity” to “the women who killed gamers” to “here’s how to kill gamers.”  The headline of Devin Wilson’s “guide to ending gamers” can only be read one way: “end” in this case means kill or murder.  Isn’t it strange that I’d been a gamer for over 30 years at the time the 2 Minutes Hate happened, and the thought of killing anyone not ideologically aligned with me never occurred to me?  The anti-capitalist, anti-intellectual, pro-authoritarian, pro-populist, anti-gamer crowd sure is bloodthirsty over an optional hobby that’s been a meritocracy for thousands of years.

This brings me to my second point.  I was a child of the 1980’s—I turned 4 in 1980.  As a child of the 1980’s, I got used to not having tacit approval for being a gamer to the point I stopped asking for it, let alone needing it.  At no point did I want my parents to be involved in my videogame escapades.  I say this for a couple of reasons.  First, I’d exceeded my parents’ skills at videogames before I was 10.  Oh, sure, I’d played Ms. Pac-Man with my mom, and I had a TRON lightcycles style MP game for the Intellivision that my dad would play with me sometimes.  Those experiences weren’t terribly profound; conversely, I have far more vivid memories of my mother cursing at my father in Toys ‘R Us because I’d wanted Phantasy Star II for the Genesis, and it cost an extra 20 dollars because it came with a guidebook.

The second reason I was perfectly content with my parents watching TV every night instead of playing video games with me is because I was already gaming with them.  They needed a fourth player in order to play some classic, deck of 52 card games (Euchre and Sheepshead), and I was conscripted before the age of 10 to be the fourth player.  However, it wasn’t necessary to simply fill a chair; rather, I had to also “play correctly.”  Given there was no game if I left, leaving the table was also not an option.  So, forgive me for shattering your narrative, but the very last thing I ever wanted as a 80s baby was for my parents to interject themselves into what video games I played and how.

Now, before you or anyone else starts to type a response of how abused I was as a child, I will tell you that I was not.  I was taught the single most important skill I have ever learned: self-reliance.  Without self-reliance, I would not have been able to move away from home, change majors 8 months away from graduation, earn two STEM degrees in college, move away from home again, have a successful 14 year career in aerospace, start a business, and immigrate to Europe all before the age of 40.  Self-reliance, responsibility, and work ethic allowed all of those things to happen, and it was my parents who instilled those things in me.

I think the more appropriate phrase to use rather than, “All 80s babies wanted was for their parents to join them,” would be to say the desire of an 80s baby to have their parents included in their videogame was directly proportional to the level of relationship the 80s baby had with their parents outside of gaming.

And you posturing about “proper gamers” not speaking for everyone three paragraphs after you adopted the arrogant presumption to speak for every “80s baby” wasn’t lost on me either, but I’m also aware it’s a “Do as I say, not as I do” world, especially for authoritarians, so it’s all good.

Everyone’s a Gamer, but not All Gamers are Created Equal

Let’s address the premise of your Vice article for a second.  Everyone’s a gamer.  Does that mean every gamer is equal?  Certainly not.  For example, the skills required of the home game Euchre player are different from the skills required of the casual Magic: The Gathering player are different from the skills required of the professional poker player.  All three are gamers, according to your article, yet none of the three are remotely related to each other beyond each of them playing physical card games.

Which is why I am glad you brought up the businesswoman who’s a level 70 paladin in World of Warcraft.  Level 70 was the max level in The Burning Crusade, which was very nearly perfect as a videogame.  It rewarded competent players who were also good teammates with significant challenges that rewarded high level gear, but also provided progression for players who were neither good enough players, nor good enough teammates to progress high level content.

If it were 2007, and the businesswoman, level 70 paladin just played, that would be the end of it.  Live and let live, as they say.  That isn’t what happened in 2007, 2008, and the beginning of 2009, was it?  How many forum threads, created by how many level 70 paladin business people were created claiming the hard content in TBC was, indeed, hard?  So hard, in fact, it was impossible to progress if one had a full-time job.  What of the guilds built almost exclusively of people with full-time jobs (and not just any full-time job, aerospace engineers)?  So hard, in fact, it was impossible to progress because of family commitments.  What about the guilds with guild leaders, officers, and members that had families?

In short, spending 5 minutes on Elitist Jerks so the mathematicians in the WoW playerbase could tell you how to play well was too much to ask for some people—for them WoW was too hard, and going to any length, including whoring out their spouses and children as the reason why they were bad at the game, was worth trying to compromise the integrity of World of Warcraft.

Therein lies the potential difference between the level 70 paladin, the Candy Crush player, and myself.  It would never occur to me to go to the Candy Crush forums to complain Level 95 was too hard and the game should be changed to accommodate me.  I know why Level 95 is too hard. Some of the factors are beyond my control—variance based on short-term luck—other factors are completely within my control—I suck at Candy Crush. My experience is it’s only a matter of time before the Candy Crush player decides to branch out and destroy my favorite game because it’s too hard to achieve Platinum God in The Binding of Isaac, and Platinum God is an entitlement, so getting Platinum God should be easier.

So, I suppose my question is this: What difference does it make if everyone is a gamer if not every gamer is created equal? Further, since there are so many games being made on a daily basis, shouldn’t the correct response to someone trying to get a game developer to compromise the integrity of their game be to go find the game that meets their expectations?

Collateral Damage

Finally, I’d like to say it is unfortunate you find yourself as collateral damage in a culture war. Your point is well made, you did not write any of the “Gamers Are Dead” articles, and you are certainly not your colleagues at Vice.  That said, I’d like to offer the following.

Imagine you’ve held something as part of your identity since you can remember.  You suffered consistent ridicule for that identity since you can remember.  Not even your home was safe from the ridicule.  Eventually, after fighting for years to obtain a modicum of respect for how you spend your free time, that begrudging respect was given, not because they developed a respect for that part of my identity, but because I’d become a success “in spite” of it.  Then, imagine waking up one day and being told you were a misogynist because you held that identity; that you needed to die because of that identity; that you were a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic person because of that identity.

My point is millions and millions of gamers became collateral damage as a part of the 2 Minutes Hate, and no one, including you, stopped for a second to ask if the 2 Minutes Hate was going too far.  No one, including you, stopped to say, “Maybe if we address these matters of public interest gamers seem to care a lot about, we can end this situation before it gets out of control.”  So while I concede you personally had nothing to do with attacking gamers, you also had nothing to do with defending gamers while they’ve been attacked for the last year.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, Chris, and if you want to engage further, I’d be happy to talk with you.  I’m pretty easy to find, so let me know.

Regards,

Todd Wohling


Todd Wohling

A long time ago on an Intellivision far, far away my gaming journey started with Lock n' Chase, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons The Cloudy Mountain, and Night Stalker. I earned both a BS-Physics and a BS-Mathematics from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Today I spend most of my time on PC. I left a career of 14 years in aerospace in Colorado, so I could immigrate to Norway.



  • ArsCortica

    [ ] not told
    [x] told

  • Bill

    Well said Todd. Indeed. :^)

  • Vezill

    Very well said =) Agree fully.

  • Flakk

    Superb. +1 Internetz to you, Sir.

  • boag

    Shrecked

  • Ryan Juel

    You, my friend, hit the nail squarely on the proverbial head. You have eloquently described my opinions, in ways that I could not.

  • PoldaranOfZam

    “Which is why I am glad you brought up the businesswoman who’s a level 70 paladin in World of Warcraft. Level 70 was the max level in The Burning Crusade,
    which was very nearly perfect as a videogame. It rewarded competent
    players who were also good teammates with significant challenges that
    rewarded high level gear, but also provided progression for players who
    were neither good enough players, nor good enough teammates to progress
    high level content.”

    I think I love you, man.

  • Casey

    You can go ahead and forward this letter almost verbatim and put my name on it as a response.

    [ ]not told
    [X] No Country for Told Men
    [X] Told School
    [X] Told Dogs
    [X]Grumpy Told Men

  • Bigb

    Just WoW! Nailed it.

  • Hi Todd.

    I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my articles. Given that the end of my second article recommended that such responses be civil I’m less thrilled at the use of phrases such as “limp-wristed” and “arrogant” directed at me. But that’s by-the-by.

    I hope you don’t mind if I address a number of points you make separately, just so my response is in some way structured.

    Firstly, I’m not sure what the ‘2 Minutes Hate’ moniker means. If you’re implying the articles in question were all posted within two minutes of each other, that’s a slight exaggeration. Regardless, I’ve stated in the past that I make a point of not writing entire articles on GamerGate and as such my “defense” of Leigh Alexander’s article wasn’t so much “limp-wristed” as deliberately not heavy-handed.

    I have no interest in defending to the death articles I never wrote, whether or not I agree with them. The point of my blog was not to discuss the merits or otherwise of Leigh’s article – I mentioned it merely for the purposes of providing some background and context as to why people were criticising my connection with Vice, based on the numerous tweets I received from people accusing me (i.e. Vice) of hiring someone who wanted to “kill gamers”.

    This takes me onto your – with respect – extreme claim that Devon Wilson’s article, headlined “A Guide to Ending ‘Gamers'” (and not the fictional “Here’s how to kill gamers” you conjured out of thin air), was actually suggesting that anyone not ideologically aligned with him be literally “killed or murdered”. The very first paragraph of Devon’s article explicitly refers to “doing away with the concept of gamers”, rendering your wild claim that he was literally advocating murder instantly moot. If you disagree with the opinions made you’re well within your rights to do so, but making grossly exaggerated (and serious) allegations lessens the credibility of any valid argument you may have.

    I appreciate your childhood differed from mine (and please don’t presume I was going to suggest you were “abused as a child” – the thought didn’t even enter my head, so there was no need for that), and I concede that perhaps my article should have read that “SOME children from the ’80s” wished their parents would join in. That said, the inverse is true: your own personal situation does not render those of other people like me invalid. The point remains there were still a number of gamers in the 1980s (of which I was one) who wished our hobby was more widely accepted and enjoyed by society. This was something that brought us joy and we wanted other people to discover its benefits too.

    Your section entitled “Everyone’s a Gamer, but not All Gamers are Created Equal” is the part that concerns me the most. First of all, just as an aside, my articles were referring to video games, so your suggestion that I think anyone who plays Euchre or any other physical card game is a ‘gamer’ isn’t actually accurate.

    More importantly, at no point in either of my articles did I say all gamers were “equal”. Of course someone who spends 40 hours a week playing League Of Legends is more invested in gaming than someone who spends their train journeys playing Candy Crush: that simply goes without saying. My point is merely that I would consider anyone who enjoys playing games a ‘gamer’, just as I would consider both Lance Armstrong and a man who uses his bike to go to work every day ‘cyclists’. In my eyes, there are many different shades, niches and levels of enthusiasm that fit under the ‘gamer’ umbrella.

    I must object to your rather harsh criteria that determines what constitutes a ‘gamer’, to the extent that it appears you don’t even feel my hypothetical businesswoman who was a level 70 Paladin in World Of Warcraft would qualify. Your fear that a Candy Crush player would eventually ruin The Binding Of Isaac is, in my view (and that’s all it is), rather hysterical and unnecessary. As I say above, gamers have widely varying levels of enthusiasm: I find it very unlikely that someone who plays Candy Crush on the train will be so inspired by it that they’ll go home, install Steam and buy an indie game they likely have never heard of, then instantly demand it’s made easier. This is a chain of incidents that are so unlikely, your fear is completely unfounded.

    I don’t buy this constant argument that ‘casual’ gamers are going to infect the ‘hardcore’ games and make them easier. For every half-hearted example I’ve seen of this, there’s a Mega Man 10, Dark Souls, 1001 Spikes or N++ that shows there are still plenty of difficult games out there for the more die-hard gamers to sink their teeth into.

    I’ve also seen a lot of responses, including yours, that seem to imply I’m sort of outsider, that whether I’m “attacking” gamers or “not defending” them I’m doing so from the sidelines. I feel it necessary to make it clear that I’m a gamer too: not just by my own definition as someone who plays games, but likely by your definition as someone who lives, breathes and dreams this amazing hobby.

    I played my first video game at the age of three back in 1986 and have owned almost every major console since then (I missed out on the Sega Saturn, but nobody’s perfect). I’ve played tens of thousands of games over the years, my framed and Miyamoto-signed copy of Super Mario World takes pride of place in my living room and my Xbox Gamerscore is currently over 163,000. And I invert my Y-axis, if that counts for anything. Probably only in my head. 🙂

    So while I completely appreciate that your own gaming experience and knowledge makes you feel you have the authority to decide who’s allowed into the ‘club’, and how you presumably feel you’ve worked so hard to earn the right to call yourself a ‘gamer’ and don’t like the idea of people exerting less effort enjoying the same title, all I ask is that you please appreciate that I too have (three) decades of gaming experience and knowledge, and so I too have earned the right to give my own opinion on the definition of the term.

    Ultimately, I never attacked ‘gamers’ because, frankly, I am one. I don’t support GamerGate (because I can’t support a movement that has led to me personally being frequently accused of corruption with absolutely no evidence purely because of my job title), but at the same time you will find no evidence of me making blanket statements about ‘gamers’. Any criticism I have directed at anyone has been at clearly defined sub-groups of the gaming community. If you don’t feel my criticisms describe you, then they aren’t aimed at you. If you don’t exhibit misogynistic behaviour or hatred, then I’m not accusing you of anything of the sort – I’m only criticising those who do.

    At the same time, I will not defend ‘gamers’ because, by my own belief and definition, everyone who plays games is a gamer. Therefore, if I was faced with a hypothetical blanket statement that 100% of gamers are “racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic” (I’m quoting you here, though I’ve never seen such an accusation leveled at the entire gaming community), it would be hypocritical of me to defend ‘gamers’ with a similar blanket statement implying 0% of them are. Given that the term ‘gamer’ covers an enormous range of ages, genders, sexual orientations, ethnicities, religious beliefs and political persuasions – with every type of morally sound and questionable viewpoint represented – both claims are as ludicrous as each other.

    I hope this response has shed some extra ligth on my thinking behind my articles, and I trust it lessens some of the concerns you may have regarding them.

    Chris Scullion

  • JeremyVerdi

    I played video games in part to get away from my parents during the 80’s and 90’s, just throwing that out there.

    EDIT: Also, misogyny, a word that means one harbors a *hatred*, not a dislike or distaste or indifference toward but a *hatred* of women is being tossed around like an internet scarlet letter and applied to anything ranging from innocuous fun having to distasteful or childish behavior. Your reply seems to be preoccupied with who is an authority to make assertions about what, so when you say “If you don’t exhibit misogynistic behaviour or hatred, then I’m not accusing you of anything of the sort – I’m only criticising those who do”, what is your measurement for accusing others of hating an entire gender, I wonder? Would you agree that accusing someone else of hating an entire gender is a fairly serious, almost fantastical claim?

  • DukeMagus

    There are some decent points AND there’s some small inconsistencies within your own “rejoinder” (must be the wrong word: in my mother language is “tréplica”. since re-reply wouldn’t work, let’s pray St. google sent me the right translation).

    More than opinion and tone differences, i’m specially concerned with how you seem to try to play around with how “literal” certain terms should be taken and spin it in complete different directions according to what would put your argument in an advantageous viewpoint or ridicule rhe open letter

    NOTE: for paragraph counting purposes, i regarded the “hi todd” in the first line as title, rather than a paragraph itself

    – In the third paragraph you try to imply that you didn’t understood the “2 minutes hate” term and tried to take it literally. English may not be my mother language, but i’m almost sure you have similar terms like “15 minutes of fame” and the like. I struggle to believe you did such a shallow interpretation of the term, either by considering the autor unworthy of your attention and cognitive skills or sheer incapacity.

    TL;DR1 i don’t believe you’re dense, so i can’t accept you wrote that in good faith.

    – In the fourth and fifth paragraph you make a lenghty analysis and downplay Todd’s own views implying he fas referring to actual murder. Once again, you imply you’re taking it litterally. In my comprehension, modern (and specially digital) communication uses the words to express a raw sentiment rather than the literal meaning.

    When someone angrily writes “GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!” (in caps with multiples exclamation marks as a bonus), he isn’t asking you to somehow twist your penis so it reaches your rearside and copulate with yourself, but rather expressing his anger and desire that you feel bad/lose relevance/suffer in proportion to the anger the person who wrote the expeletive was feeling.

    It easily applies to all the “gamers are dead”, “how to kill gamers”, “how to end gamers” etcetera. the “kill/murder” terms meant “disappear/lose relevance/have its voice stifled and its status as a group reduced to ashes”. When he Todd wrote ” “end” in this case means kill or murder”, he was referencing that the “end” word in the title wasn’t expressing “reach completion/advance/gain relevance”, but rather the same negative sentiment that the “kill/murder” terms carry in the context.

    I onse again struggle to believe you did such shallow interpretation with honesty of debate in mind. Such meaning spin looks deliberately used to weaken Todd’s comment without actually engaging it.

    TL;DR2: same as TL;DR1

    – In the seventh paragraph you claim the the comparison with card games is invalid. It’s an analogy, and a working one, deliberately expanded further in the open letter, yet you stopped there and dismissed it as “inaccurate” just because it was an analogy rather than going straight to the point.

    – In the eighth paragraph you finally comes to one of the richest points to discuss in the matter: putting all “gamers” under the same umbrella and treating them as such. Todd claims the “we’re all gamers” is a generalist approach and ammounting/cherishing/criticizing all using it is a weak point. (I’m particularly with him on that one)

    – In the ninth and tenth paragraph i’ll take liberty to expand on your assumption of “your fear that a Candy Crush player would eventually ruin The Binding Of Isaac” and take it as if you meant that literally. this will be ONLY FOR EXAMPLE purposes, and i’m not implying you really firmly and blindly meant what you wrote on that.

    Anyway, the fear is not that a “candy crush player ruin the binding of isaac”, but rather that all the players that thinks candy crush have the “ideal” depth starts bending the industry into make non-niche games more “shallow” and “easier” (Binding of isaac, dark souls, n+ and 1001 spikes ARE niche games that cater a very specific public that i’m willing to bet 2 american dollars that is a small percentage of the whole gamer population). Things like overabundance of checkpoints, excessive workarounds not to fail, easier achievements, etc. That makes the “achievement” and “challenge” of a game less and less fulfilling, all trusting in this “we’re all gamers” generalistic notion. And frankly, it’s happening. More and more games substitute challenging maps for simple and empity QTEs, FPSs like CoD and Battlefield have health magically regenerating instead of having to actually mind your advance and explore to get a health pack, so on and so forth. Todd is not worried with candy crush “infecting” binding of isaac, but maybe the next big action, RPG or shooter game. (may he comes and point me as wrong if i am)

    TL;DR3: The open letter is addressing mainstream games and you’re using niche titles as a counter argument. Comparing apples and oranges don’t work in this case.

    – In the twelfth paragraph… that’s a whole load of points! Nice!

    – In the thirteenth paragraph, the whole “authority to decide who’s allowed into the ‘club'”sounds ironic and dismissive of the matter at hand: claiming for a deeper analisys and a more frequent use of a less generalist and more accurate classification isn’t akin to create a “hardcore club”, but rather recognizing that, while “we’re all gamers”, each demographic should be analyzed according with it’s own peculiarities! It’s a respectful gesture to recognize someone by its personal qualities rather than just as a generic blank figure with “gamer” written on the id card and nothing else (once again, may Todd corrects me if i misunderstood him)

    *On a side note, i’ve checked the “Games Journalism: That Prick” text and i disagree with you in a key term: the relation of the authors and the site that hire them

    While i agree that you can’t just address everyone that works in a site for all that happens there, it has one key exception and doesn’t work the other way around.

    First, here ARE people that answer for all that’s in a site or at least in a section of it. Figures like editors have the specific role of analyzing the content of the site and have the exclusive power of ask for changes or even deny a particular piece of going online.

    Second, you CAN call on a site for what its staff publishes on it. When you’re employed by a site, you’re given the right of speaking using its platform and reaching its user base, you’re representing the site. Regardless of the author, if he’s an IGN employee, paid by IGN and writing there, the reviews posted by him on IGN ARE IGN REVIEWS and IGN can be called out as a company for the content on it. You can’t shield the company and put all the blame on a single person. His position and powers were given by the company, and most of them have an editor (or similar figure) to analyze the content and see if it’s fit with the site vision and values

    That’d be all. Sorry for the long post and thanks for reading.

    (PS: written while listening to the Front Mission OST. Strongly recommend both the OST, the game and the Series)

  • Todd Wohling

    Hi Chris.

    First, thanks for replying. I’m a relative nobody in all this, so someone like you taking the time to read 1500-ish words and respond as you did is a high compliment. I wasn’t expecting some of your responses about the tone of my piece. In retrospect, the piece is aggressively worded. Part of that is my writing style, which you’d have no insight into since we just “e-met” yesterday. I used “limp-wristed” as a replacement for “weak”, as I feel your defense of the Alexander piece of “We’re really saying the same thing” is ignoring the bitterness of the Alexander piece. I’m much more receptive to debating the idea of “We’re All Gamers” than discussing the Alexander piece.

    I fundamentally disagree with your analysis of Devin Wilson’s article, but I suspect we’re not going to achieve common ground on that point.

    I want to point out I’m by no means the arbiter of who is and isn’t a gamer. Part of that is because, to me, being a gamer isn’t just limited to physical acts. Being a gamer is a state of mind. The desire to challenge oneself is, to me, inherent in holding the moniker of gamer. So I don’t think the businessperson pulling out their phone on a train to kill time playing Candy Crush is a gamer, or, if they are, they certainly aren’t the same kind of gamer as the person streaming Hearthstone or League 25 hours per week. You claim my fear of the Candy Crush player coming home and ruining Isaac is unfounded. From where I sit, that’s exactly what happened to WoW during the TBC era. It was why Wrath was rushed out the door 5 months before it was done, and it was why Tier 7 was so shamefully easy. Then again, I was knee deep in a podcast on WoW Radio talking about this stuff nearly every week, so I have to admit my world view when it comes to TBC and Wrath is probably skewed.

    I included the paragraph about childhood abuse not specifically for you, but for the random passerby who’d read my paragraph about being conscripted to play cards with my family and say, “Wow. That sounds horrible.” It wasn’t, and I appreciate you reading that particular paragraph for what it was.

    I’ll restate I find it distasteful you’re being lumped in with people simply because you’re a byline on Vice. That’s completely unfair.

    Thanks again for taking the time to read the article and comment on it. I’d love the opportunity to continue discussing this topic, as I think you’d be fun to spar with about topics in gaming. Regardless, I plan to reread your articles with what you’ve written here in mind.

    Regards,
    TW

  • Nope Naw

    Hang on a sec. You double down on the whole “anyone who’ve played any game is a gamer” thing, yet you feel fit to assert gamer cred in order to prove that “[you’re] a gamer too”?

    I can understand the sentiment of “Everyone is a gamer”, but I do not agree. Watching a Hollywood blockbuster doesn’t make you a moviebuff. Going to the gym doesn’t make you an athlete. Listening to one metal album doesn’t make you a metalhead. Here’s the thing, doing those things in isolation doesn’t make you part of the identity they carry, but doing so can all lead to it.

    If you’d taken that angle instead, people would probably have had less of a problem with your article(s).

    If “Everyone is a gamer” is your creed, let me give you mine: “Gaming is for everyone, yet not everyone is a gamer.”

  • I make it clear in my article that by mentioning my ‘gamer cred’ all I’m doing is suggesting I’m a gamer not only by my own definition but that of those keen to keep the title an elitist one.

    It was only to show that I’m not some failed journalist who discovered gaming a couple of years ago and decided to make himself an expert on it – I do know my stuff whereas the implication from some (not necessarily Todd, I should stress) is that I must be coming at this from a position of inexperience if I’m embracing ‘casual’ gamers.

    As for your analogies, you’re deliberately attributing extreme terms to the people you describe. Of course watching a Hollywood blockbuster doesn’t make you a movie buff, but it makes you a moviegoer. Going to the gym doesn’t make you an athlete, but it makes you a gym member. Listening to metal album doesn’t make you a metal head, but it does mean you’re into music.

    The issue here, of course, is that you associate the term ‘gamer’ with similarly elitist terms such as ‘athlete’, ‘movie buff’ and ‘metalhead’, whereas I associate it more with general terms such as ‘moviegoer’, ‘gym member’ and ‘music fan’.

    If “gaming is for everyone”, as you claim, then what do you call someone who games? Logically, it should be a gamer.

    In my opinion (and that’s all it is – I don’t claim my opinion is the definitive rule as you seem to), ‘gamer’ should be the general phrase for anyone who likes playing any sort of game. It’s only logical. For people like you or I who are more invested in the hobby, there are plenty of other titles we could use to distinguish ourselves such as ‘gaming enthisiasts’ or even (much as I’m not a fan of it) the ‘hardcore gamers’ title that started doing the rounds following the launch of the Wii.

  • Nope Naw

    “If “gaming is for everyone”, you claim, then what do you call someone who games?”

    Now who’s the one drawing extreme analogies? You didn’t delineate there whether or not “someone who games” means “someone who games occasionally/casually” or “someone who games a lot”. But, I’ll answer the question.

    What would you call someone who plays games occasionally or casually? Casual gamer, most likely. I bet you’re eager to do a little jump and claim victory because the word gamer is there, but hold that for a second.

    The keyword there is “casual”. This is why I said I understand the sentiment, but do not agree. The word “gamer” means a lot of things to a lot of people, but what it arguably means to most people who identify with its colloquial meaning is a life long love and appreciation for games and the industry that creates them, that runs deeper than a casual interest.

    I find it interesting that you take a very much “holier-than-thou” attitude towards me in your reply, when all I did was say that I didn’t agree with your sentiment, and point out a (in my eyes) discrepancy. The discrepancy being that you seem to condemn “eliticism”, yet use it to “prove yourself” to said “elitists”. (I don’t consider myself an elitist, so you inferring that I am… well, whatwith your article(s) you’ve been lumped in with crowds you might not agree with. Surely you understand the issue I have with being treated similarly.)

    If you truly hold these views, which you’re free to, why would you care about proving your gamer cred? Isn’t that the opposite of what you’re trying to achieve with said articles?

    Edit: I’ll add another little tidbit for you to ponder. I’m not a native english speaker, and in our language there isn’t really a word for “gamer”. But, the word gamer is still used and recognized as referring to what you could call “core gamers”.

  • Hi Duke

    – First of all, being ‘dense’ and being disingenuous are not the only two possible outcomes regarding my views on ‘2 Minutes Hate’. I genuinely don’t understand the use of the phrase.

    Of course I’m aware of phrases like ’15 Minutes Of Fame’ but that would then imply that after those two minutes the hate stopped forever: whereas to this day I’m constantly informed by ‘friendly’ (i.e. not usually friendly) types on Twitter that we games journalists are always attacking gamers.

    Either way, it was just an aside so I don’t want to spend too long discussing a phrase that remains the sole property of a single writer: if Todd wants to keep using it, I am nobody to tell him otherwise.

    – As for the “killing gamers” thing, I am of course aware of the practice of pretending to take something literally in order to take an argument to a ridiculous stage and thereby ignore the main point. However, once again, I genuinely believe this to have been the case here.

    Had Todd simply referred to the article referring to ‘ending gamers’ then his point would have remained the same: gamers, according to his definition of them, are under threat from people who want to break up the group. However, when he then goes on to explain in explicit detail that “end” can only mean “kill or murder”, followed by the use of phrases such as “killing anyone” or “bloodthirsty”, I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest the article implies going beyond the mere ending of a title.

    – The card game analogy is just semantics so I’m not too fussed about it. If you interpreted it in a different way then that’s perfectly fine, I’m not going to waste either of our times pursuing it 🙂

    – You suggest I take the example of a Candy Crush player ruining The Binding Of Isaac literally, implying I shouldn’t have. The article explicitly states: “It’s only a matter of time before the Candy Crush player decides to branch out and destroy my favourite game because it’s too hard to achieve Platinum God in Binding Of Isaac”. I take it literally because it’s explained in literal terms – it’s only a matter of time before The Binding Of Isaac is made easier by ‘casual’ gamers.

    This aside, I also completely understand that it was merely an example of a larger concern, that games are in danger of being made easier to pander to a larger audience. I don’t necessarily feel this the sole problem of the prevalence of ‘casual’ gamers – a Candy Crush player is unlikely to ever be interested in Dragon Age Inquisition (for example) so I feel the worry that they’re responsible for the ‘dumbing down’ of gaming is misplaced.

    My own personal opinion is that, yes, gaming in general is getting easier. But this is down a myriad of reasons, mostly related to society in general. We live in a time where most people have shorter attention spans: they watch TV while checking Twitter on their phone, they play MMOs while listening to podcasts, the Xbox One even has a Snap function so you can load up Twitch and, Xzibit-style, watch someone else play a game while you play a game. Developers are finding it increasingly necessary to come up with ways to ‘hook’ a gamer who may be more susceptible to distraction than they may have been five or ten years ago.

    On top of this, I’d argue the wider choice of games is affecting game difficulty too. I don’t mean wider choice as in casual mobile games etc, I mean even the games library of a ‘hardcore gamer’ is larger than it ever has been thanks to things like Steam sales, PS Plus and Xbox Games With Gold. Most of us have ever-increasing backlogs so if we find ourselves getting frustrated with a difficult section in a game we’re more likely to think “forget it, I’ve got other games I need to play”.

    I feel the above is a more notable reason for things like regenerating health in FPS games: nothing is more disheartening in a COD campaign than dying and and having to restart a checkpoint, so regenerating health minimises the likelihood of a “forget it, I’ll play something else” situation.

    – Regarding my apparent ironic and dismissive treatment of Todd’s gamer credentials, I apologise if that’s the way it came across, it certainly wasn’t intended to appear that way. My point was merely that nobody has the sole authority to decide what constitutes a ‘gamer’, regardless of how much experience they have: not Todd, not me, not you, not any other gamer or journalist. There is of course space to discuss and debate this (as we’re doing just now), but my point was just that having three decades of experience shouldn’t necessarily give anyone the final say.

    – Finally, I do agree with your point that editors at least bear some responsibility as they’re the ones who ultimately give the nod on every article that goes up. However, it should also be noted that this doesn’t mean the editor agrees with every article on the site either: the best editors are the ones who allow different viewpoints – even ones they disagree with – in order to encourage debate and discussion.

    So while readers can indeed address any concerns to the editor of a publication, I’d still encourage them to get into the habit of associating articles with their writers rather than their editors or their publications in general.

    – The idea of calling out a site for what its staff publishes on it can only go so far. I am not Vice staff. I am a freelance journalist. I wrote to Vice UK’s games editor pitching the idea for my article and he agreed to it. I wrote the article, it was posted, I’ll get paid for it in a couple of weeks and I’ll move on. I am not Vice, and my opinion is not that of Vice’s – Vice is not a person, it is a collection of articles from different people with different viewpoints.

    It would be foolish of me to not write for Vice because of an article it posted in the past. In fact Vice actually once published an article describing my home town as some sort of booze-ridden hellpit (http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/hanging-out-with-vomiting-scots-and-booze-pedaling-monks) which was filled with inaccuracies and obvious fabrications. I actually posted an angry comment on that article – it’s still there if you check – but that didn’t stop me pitching to Vice two years later because in my view the responsibility lay with that writer alone.

    Anyway, I think I’ve gone on a bit here. I’ll stop now. Congrats if you made it to the end 🙂

    PS – I do like Front Mission but it’ll take a hell of a lot to draw me away from my regular Ridge Racer Type 4 soundtrack listening session!

  • By “misogynistic behaviour” I clearly mean treating someone in a hostile or abusive manner based on their gender, the sort of thing you can see in hefty lists on sites like http://fatuglyorslutty.com/ – you don’t have to hate every women who ever lived in order to display misogynistic behaviour, so your suggestion that I’m accusing such people of “hating an entire gender” is just nonsense.

  • Hi Todd

    Thanks for clarifying a few things there.

    Like you say, I think your view on WoW is a tad skewed in that you’re clearly such a dedicated player, what you find easy may be challenging to others.

    Regardless, I just can’t get behind the notion that someone has to dedicate countless hours to gaming before they can consider themselves a gamer. There should be no conditions of entry, no theme park style “you must be this level to ride with us” rule that decides who counts and who doesn’t.

    As I say in another reply elsewhere here, I think the issue simply lies in our differing definitions of ‘gamer’. Of course not all gamers are ‘equal’ in terms of commitment and dedication to the hobby. By my definition anyone who plays games is a gamer, whereas I would describe people like you or I as ‘gaming enthusiasts’ or, much as I’m not a fan of the term, ‘hardcore gamers’. Just like there are cinemagoers and film buffs, or gym members and bodybuilders. It’s purely down to a disagreement in terminology used.

    Anyway, that aside, I appreciate the respectful response and also appreciate that neither of us is likely to ever change the other’s mind. And that’s fine 🙂

    Regards,

    Chris

  • First of all, I don’t think “If gaming is for everyone, what do you call someone who games?” is an extreme analogy. It’s a basic logical sequence.

    The key word in your entire reply is “arguably”. Your definition of ‘gamer’ may be one thing, but mine is different. My definition of ‘gamer’, by its very logic, is someone who games: regardless of how much they do it and with how much passion.

    By using the term “casual gamer” you’re already unconsciously subscribing to my line of thinking. If the definition of a ‘gamer’ is someone with “a life long love and appreciation for games and the industry that creates them”, then surely “casual gamers” (who I would assume don’t have this lifelong love for games) can’t exist? And yet you happily accept you use the phrase.

    I don’t understand how you’re perfectly fine with using the phrase “casual gamer” but you have an issue with using a phrase such as “hardcore gamer” or “expert gamer”. Both are ways of taking the general ‘gamer’ category and then assigning a specific niche to it, so I don’t understand why one is fine but the other isn’t.

    If you don’t consider yourself an elitist, I would respectfully suggest you give it some more thought. Your claim that “gaming is for everyone, yet not everyone is a gamer” is an elitist statement, suggesting that not everyone who plays games is worthy of the title you and your peers enjoy. You establish a clear two-tier hierarchy and place yourself in the top (elite) tier.

    And as I’ve already explained in my first reply to you, the only reason I felt it necessary to “prove my gamer cred” is to make it clear to ‘hardcore’ gamers that I know what I’m talking about. I’ve had too many people in the past claim I’m not a ‘proper’ gamer and that my opinion is therefore worthless (despite having no idea what my gaming history is). By giving my gaming background I’m merely eliminating the possibility of that diversionary tactic.

    Finally, I object to your suggestion I take a “holier-than-thou” attitude, when I make it explicitly clear in the last paragraph that I’m all I’m doing is expressing an opinion. Your hostile attitude isn’t necessary: we’re more than capable of doing this in a civil manner, as shown elsewhere in this comments section.

  • Nope Naw

    You’ve shown a much more hostile attitude towards me than you give yourself credit.

    If I was truly an elitist I would assert that non-gamers cannot, or should not, become gamers. Something which I have never said. Quite the contrary. You assert that it is my view that there’s some sort of hierarchy, which is blatantly untrue.

  • I’m not going to get into the pettiness of whether I’m being hostile, other than saying anyone looking at this will see I’m being respectful as I can. I’m making my points without resorting to language like “holier-than-thou”.

    Your exact quote is “gaming is for everyone, yet not everyone is a gamer”. Therefore, logically, you imply that everyone who takes part in gaming falls into two categories – “gamer” and “non-gamer”. Hence a hierarchy, of which you place yourself in the top tier, hence elitism.

  • Nope Naw

    Again, assertions. That seems to be all you have.

    I’ve explained to you why I don’t agree with your insistance that I’m an elitist, yet you ignore it in favor of meager sophistry. I wouldn’t call that “respectful”.

  • Well, you can interpret it how you like. I’m not making an “assertion”, I’m making a logical statement based on something you said.

  • Reptile

    Chris, first I think that the world that better describe “people who play games” is “players”, while “gamers” would be a better term for people who commit themselves in to gaming. Also what is wrong with “hardcore gamers”? Casual gamers are gamers that play on a casual schedule while hardcore gamers play in a hardcore schedule, and there is also professional gamers that are the ones who play tournaments or so. But that is, it is about time not skill, there are casual players that can be better than hardcore ones even thought the majority of hardcore players can do better because they play more.

    Second, I’m sorry if you knew people who where, like you said, “you must be this level to ride with us”. But that is not rule, if you want to be considered a gamer, the only thing you must do is like gaming and know gaming, if you fake that you like gaming or that you has gaming knowledge just because you want to be “in the circle” without REALLY liking games (Like people who jump on a trend just to be popular) THEN people will notice and point out that you are a fake gamer, because you know, you would be lying, you have no true ‘love’ for games.

  • This is purely down to personal preference but I think the term ‘players’ is too vague because that could mean anything. A player could be someone who plays football, for example, or someone in a band. Also, the term has taken on a new meaning in this day and age – if I was to tell someone I was “a player”, chances are their first interpretation of this would be in the hip-hop sense, as in someone who is skilled in manipulating (playing) others.

    Meanwhile, ‘gamer’ is a term that leaves someone in no doubt what pastime you’re referring to.

  • Max

    “Movies is for everyone, yet not everyone is movie buff” doesn’t seem like a problematic phrase to me.

    Film buffs aren’t elitist if they point out I’m not a film buff when I rarely go see movies, have seen extremely few staples of the medium and don’t know very much about film in general. It’s just them pointing out reality.

    Someone who is deeper into a hobby isn’t “above” another person, but their words and opinions hold more weight than someone who swims in the shallow waters.

    All I’m seeing you do here is dance around basic facts of existence just because you dislike the implications.

  • dsadsada

    I’m going to respectfully disagree with your definition of gamer and agree with Todd’s. Let me use your cyclist example.

    A person who rides a bike as their mode of transportation is to me, simply someone using a convenient item. Cars or motorcycles may be out of their budget or using a bicycle is more cost effective given their travel distance for example so they’re using bicycles instead. But these particular people have no passion for their bikes at all. They don’t think about improving them, they don’t think about the frame models, they don’t use it for exercise outside of what they’re getting from commuting, they don’t take them off road for things like mountain biking except when going off road is convenient for travel, and they would be perfectly willing to trade their bikes for cars or motorcycles given the choice.

    Conversely, a cyclist would be someone who cares about their bike, who looks into information regarding frames, brakes, wheels and tires to improve them, who regularly uses them for recreation like taking a ride on the weekends to nowhere in particular, who has an interest in cycling competitions, who plans off road trips in places like the mountain, who uses them for extreme sports, and who sees other forms of transportation as mere conveniences but would otherwise never trade in their bikes until the day they can no longer ride them whether physically or through some other reason such as working more to provide for their family. To these people, their bicycle is an intrinsic part of their identity that given the option, they would never choose to part with.

    As per the logic above, the person passing time on the bus playing candy crush isn’t a gamer. That person is simply someone passing time with something convenient, in this case an electronic form of entertainment that happens to come with an item they always carry (their phone). They may move on to another game or have several games on their phone but ultimately, the games are mere time wasters to them. But a person with several games on their phone constantly trying to get the high score in many of them, putting in more effort than most to understand and exploit the game’s mechanics, and even being competitive in some such as the mobile card games like Rage of Bahamut are much easier to call a gamer instead.

  • Reptile

    Yeah, but football (like any other sport) is also a game, it has rules, objectives and end goals. Just like Stock car, golf, etc. Well if they play games they are gamers too aren’t they? And then, you don’t say just “I’m a player”, you have to specify, like say “I’m a videogame player”, “I’m a soccer player”, “I’m a guitar player”. And there we have a perfect term for people who play videogames but aren’t gamers, “videogame player”, just like you can be -instrument- player without being a musician or a car driver without being a racer.
    Linking that, if everyone who plays videogames are gamers wouldn’t everyone who drives cars be racers?

  • eltonBorges

    Indeed, see, even today is not hard to be a gamer, but it’s still weird here in Brazil. Sometimes, I would like to have more people close to me that share the desire to play, I wasn’t so lucky, but, did it stop me from getting more that 100 hours in Dragon’s Cown on my Vita? Or beating the 300 challenges from MK 9? We just love what we do, and it’s part of our lives, as you said. I have my job, I live by myself, and that’s just fantastic in many ways.

  • CC

    On the first day of GamerGate, I met a lot of casual players who play specifically casual games, but soak more hours into the hobby than some “hardcore” players because they like to multi-task.

    I propose this then!

    “Gamer” is a label that can be for ANYONE who wants it, but like “progressive” or “SJW” or “Republican” there come with automatic stipulations of what you do with it. Play games.

    A “player,” (as feminists told me in the first week of GamerGate, saying I had to distance myself from the word “gamer” or I could no longer be a “good” feminist) is someone who simply plays games, but doesn’t care for the competitions, doesn’t deal with aggressive games, doesn’t play battle card games, doesn’t read gaming articles, and takes no part in the gaming culture.

    My fiance and I are both gamers. He doesn’t like certain “hardcore games” and he loathes rogue or roguelikes, and even though he plays less variety than me, he plays more social & multi-player games, which I tend to be shy about because I like messing up in the privacy of my own screen where no one knows that it took me 20 tries to get onto a single damn ledge. But I’m still a gamer, because I can fucking kick his ass in strategy and MOST things… except for anything dokidoki moe out of Japan and way too cute clearly meant for six year old girls because he is way too into those. My bff plays roughly a lot of the same games as I do, but she refuses to call herself a gamer, because she doesn’t know the history, culture, and she just doesn’t want to be expected to have any amount of skill. When we play League of Legends together we just goof around and help new people learn the game, and even though I’ll “challenge” her on steam, it’s less about the challenge, and more about the completionism. She doesn’t consider herself a gamer because it’s not her primary hobby. I do, because it is mine. Fiance’s primary hobby is arguably anime, but even at anime cons, he goes straight for the gaming.

    It’s like how if kindergarteners are asked “who’s an artist” they’ll all raise their hands. But if you ask high schoolers, only a few very hardcore artists will. Our idea of how much emotional/mental/financial/time-based investment is required to meet a minimum standard changes as we ourselves evolve.

    Honestly, I didn’t even realize how important gaming was to me until #GamerGate. It’s been nice. I’d forgotten how much my arcade days impacted me as a kid and how much gaming saved my life as a teen. I’m a gamer, and I’ll fight to defend my right to that title. But my bff is a lover of casual games, and my “try this new Artifex Mundi game!” test dummy, and that’s awesome too. A large field like gaming deserves a large variety of genre and makeup of players in its communities.

    http://news.utoronto.ca/sites/default/files/2015-07-14-iwata-via-twitter.jpg

  • You dodged his question. He asked why you feel like you’re qualified to determine that someone is being hostile to a woman BECAUSE she’s a woman, rather than just being hostile to a woman. Perhaps you could answer it?

    Look, it’s just that it’s fairly presumptuous of you, and it’s a conclusion that relies on fairly serious assumptions about a person’s intentions, as well as their character. You can in fact be a dick to a woman without being a dick to her because she’s a woman, and rather than being a misogynist, you’d just be a dick. And no matter how you might try to bend and twist the definition of the word, labeling someone as a misogynist absolutely DOES imply that you believe that they hate the female gender. If that’s not your intention, then might I suggest you stop using the word?

  • coboney

    Hey Chris, I can’t obviously speak for Todd but I can be about 99% sure what 2 minutes hate stands for.

    1984. In particular in the book 1984 by George Orwell (one of the classics of dystopian futures) has an event in it called 2 minute hate. Each day the Party that rules the country transmits 2 minutes of hate that is mandatory viewing for people to see and build up resentment against an external power there.

    Now because of the nature of 1984 the exact nature of whether or not there were any enemies really or if they were invented is unknown and speculated on, as is the nation itself on how big or small it is.

    In this usage he’s not invoking it literally but instead saying that the 18 articles were a bunch of people using their stage to declare and force their opinion on people. A lot of people identify with that term personally and they felt that as a personal attack and many of the people who do identify with that term have been discriminated against in the past. To many it felt like a dedicated and organized attack.

    If you have any more questions on it – I’m more than willing to discuss 1984 as I find it a fascinating book and many of its ideas have been picked up in all sorts of other mediums because it was a wonderfully scathing look by George Orwell.

    On the watering down of games – this is something I have seen at times. Not so much in mobile games but consoles to some extent sometimes – RPGs for the mid 2000s all became essentially action RPGs with console bits. The type of game with a long story, of dialogue options and choices… now some of it is a change to more cinematic storytelling. We have seen a resurgence in the last few years in those more niches – and in ones like point and click games that were also hit very hard by it.

    The reason streamlining has become often a ‘dirty’ word in many fans minds is that because what it also came to mean was stripping down of actual features that they loved and found to be essential to it. That is not to say that streamlining is always a bad thing – it can often be good to understand your key things and focus on those.

    One thing I know I worry about right now with gaming is the way free to play has often gone. It can be done well and in those cases I’m fine with it. Done poorly though, you end up with bad gates, bs penny pinching of players and addictive driven game play that takes advantage of psychology to trick people into spending money exploiting people who can’t afford it.

    On Bylines – as someone who writes and edits I have to say I think that it is something that many people don’t pay enough attention to. The by line matters and you can’t expect everyone at a site to share the same opinion – I can say I don’t with everyone here!

    However, I think part of it is that the gaming media has downplayed it as well. It’s not This Person’s Score – its gamespot’s score. It’s oftentimes the way it is presented and it’s something we could do better to. But it is something I have seen a lot in gaming journalism here compared to things like commentators in other media or when you get to video content.

    The what is a gamer debate is a lot like the ‘what is a game’ that I think is ultimately largely pointless and won’t really go anywhere. Each person has their own definitions of each and they all seem to be different.

  • Again, we’re getting into semantics here but I’d say someone who plays football, golf etc was a sportsperson rather than a gamer.

    I don’t think the “if everyone who plays video games is a gamer then wouldn’t everyone who drives a car be a racer” question works because not everyone who drives a car is racing. They would be drivers instead.

  • Ah, you see, I’m not that familiar with 1984 so that’s why the 2 Minutes Hate reference was lost on me. Thanks for clarifying, rather than suggesting I was deliberately being disingenuous.

  • No, I didn’t dodge his question. His question was invalid because he asked me to defend a claim I had never made.

    If you’re a dick to someone purely because she is a woman, that is misogynistic behaviour. It doesn’t mean you hate all women, it purely means you’re exhibiting the sort of behaviour that would be expected of someone who does hate all women.

    There’s a crucial difference between actually being a misogynist and behaving like one.

  • coboney

    I’ve seen enough people assuming everyone is familiar with everything literary wise here to get irritated at that. Not in this comment section but its happened more than a few times one slip of a tongue because our owner didn’t know a particular literary term and answered a question taking it literally that lots of trolls will take a misunderstanding out of context. I consider 1984 a classic and strongly recommend reading it because Orwell does a great job but I also admit as someone interested in politics and writing it kind of hits me perfectly. Orwell was masterful, in my opinion, at how he hit on dystopian authoritarianism. You’ll also find that a lot of things tend to reference it obliquely once read – or I have at least when I go looking back at things!

  • Todd Wohling

    Yeah, the 2 Minutes Hate was a reference to 1984. I’ve used Orwell quite a bit when discussing the articles that came out on August 28th and 29th of last year.

    @everyone: I understand you’re angry about the 2 Minutes Hate (so am I), and some of you vehemently disagree with “everyone’s a gamer” (as I do); however, please keep in mind Chris did not have to come “in to the lion’s den” to engage us. He choose to do so, and we should respect him for that, if for no other reason, than none of the people who wrote the 2 Minutes Hate would “lower” themselves to do it. I for one appreciate him taking the time to engage us and provide a different perspective, even if we disagree.

    Cheers,
    TW

  • Typical

    Wow, late to the party and don’t want to read the whole list of replies to see if someone brought this up, but:

    The etymology of “Gamer” comes from “WarGamer” which was used to denote players of tabletop war and RPG games. So all of you are essentially not real gamers until you break out your minis and paint, so get to it.

    That said, you know no one is claiming to be a gamer if they’re a candy crush addict, they don’t read candy crush related news, there are no candy crush personalities like Fatal1ty (I know, showing my age), and there will never be a sudden springing up of a con created by the fans dedicated to candy crush. Instead, this casual crap tries to glom onto the already established work by the hardcore fan gamers who have done these things. If someone asks if you’re a car enthusiast and you respond “yeah, I love my 98 corolla” that ends the conversation, same as a “gamer” who says “I play some Candy Crush”.

    Edit: I hit post by accident:

    On the other hand, the watering down of games also can’t be traced to casual scum, it started back in the 80s in the nintendo era. I recall reading an article in some pub back then where one of the bog name Japanese devs was lamenting they put a lot of work into a story and most players don’t see it because it’s too hard. I keep wanting to say it was Kojima, but I can never find the article when I bring it up, but I can put this here:

    http://www.p4rgaming.com/majority-of-gamers-today-cant-finish-level-1-in-super-mario-bros/