[Musenik]

Originally Posted by Fop

It's only natural active gamers shun the trend of simplifying games they play to cater to a market that doesn't even care for games. Nobody thinks we're better persons, only better gamers.

You're reinforcing my point. People can shun games by not buying them. They shun other people by commenting on what makes themselves superior. This is how schoolyard bullies raise their social position, by pointing out or demonstrating the weakness of a victim. Most often (and most subtly) it's done through creating humor at the expense of that victim.

My premise is, Emily's opening and ending statements reinforce exclusivity. That's what I walked away with, regardless of my initial chortle. That's what I'm talking about. Just because you didn't experience the same thing, doesn't me what I experienced isn't important. Will you now say you're better than me at reading?

[fov]

A joke's not a good joke if it doesn't make people a little uncomfortable. I learned that in psychology.

You've made your point -- you're uncomfortable with the joke. I'm sorry that that's the case. No one else seems to be, though, and you already said you don't take issue with the body of the article. Why is this being beaten into the ground? If you're looking for an apology for what I wrote, it ain't gonna happen. I've been known to make poor jokes in the past, but this isn't one of them.

-emily

[Musenik]

I haven't asked for an apology. I'm not looking for an apology. I made an original remark about my concern, and that satisfied me.

Then several responders tried to rationalize that my concern wasn't important. I stood up for myself. I gave an example of why I was concerned.

I thought that was the end of it when the conversation digressed into a thread of ridiculous hijinx, as forum threads often do.

Then another person suggested that no problem existed, and I reiterated that I had one, and I supported my original premise with an illustrative example.

That person returned with a remark so tattooed with a bulls-eye, I loosed what I continued to hope would be my last rebuttal.

Why are you calling that 'beaten into the ground'? It's just a debate.

[Fop]

Originally Posted by Musenik

My premise is, Emily's opening and ending statements reinforce exclusivity. That's what I walked away with, regardless of my initial chortle. That's what I'm talking about. Just because you didn't experience the same thing, doesn't me what I experienced isn't important. Will you now say you're better than me at reading?

I won't say that because I haven't got enough examples of how you've interpreted articles, nor am I such a great reader. Nevertheless, getting to your conclusions from what was written in the article is not very good reading.

Nobody is demonstrating the weaknesses of casual gamers except the maker of the game reviewed. Humour might be often used by bullies, but that doesn't mean you're a bully if you use humour.

[Musenik]

Originally Posted by Fop

Humour might be often used by bullies, but that doesn't mean you're a bully if you use humour.

Obviously, it's not a very good debate since the writer's intent continues to be defended, when the complaint is concerned only with the writer's choice of words.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Musenik

Obviously, it's not a very good debate since the writer's intent continues to be defended, when the complaint is concerned only with the writer's choice of words.

You can't just separate intent out like that. It's true that bullies use humour to create torment, but they INTEND to cause hurt. In the case of the article this is clearly not Emily's intention.

As I said before, (and Emily confirmed) I saw that opening line as a dig at the very prejudices you are accusing her of reinforcing (intentionally or accidentally) Humour has been used in this fashioon for decades.

To take your Canadian example, "South Park - The Movie" represented Canadians as all having wobbly heads and funny accents. Thiis serves as a perfect example of a stereotype showing a group of people as "different" allowing justification for war (when the real problems are clearly closer to home) Similarly, an episode had a new flag for the town depicting a black figure being hung by a group of white figures. The town-wide argument about racism is halted in it's tracks when it's discovered the boy's haven't noticed the difference in skin colour.

And who exactly are you saying is going to be oppressed anyway. It's already been made clear that most casual gamers won't even recognise the label (it only has meaning within the game community) so they can't be offended if they don't think it applies to them. Do you perceive a future in which more serious gamers (like the members of this site) will dominate and belittle less committed players?

I'm not sure what you're aiming for. You've already said you don't want an apology. You've been keen to stress you don't think one group should be considered superior to another but no-one appears to be disagreeing with you on that (just that this was not Emily's intention, her being a games reviewer with an arguably poor sense of humour rather than a bully) Are you saying writers have to carefully scrutinise everything they say for possible offence? (Can't call the good guys white hats and the bad guys black hats. Could be viewed as racist) If so, then I must stand firmly against you. Not allowing a light, self-mocking remark which can't offend any group (since the group doesn't even know it exists per se) is a severe curtailment of freedom of speech and I kind of value that.

[Musenik]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

You can't just separate intent out like that.

To paraphrase an earlier post: "Just because a person isn't a bully, doesn't mean that another won't feel bullied by them." If you've ever taken a course in workplace harassment, then you'll know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by stepurhan

Are you saying writers have to carefully scrutinise everything they say for possible offence?

Absolutely not, which is why I don't want an apology, but I do reserve the right to comment on what people say and write. I believe this is the forum category for such comment.

Are you saying that no-one should be allowed to express their opinions about that which is written? If so, then I must stand firmly against you.


As for the non-existence of the oppressed, of course the casual gamer exists. It certainly exists in the minds of some people here who call themselves non-casual or serious gamers. I believe an earlier poster claimed to be a 'better gamer'. He must be comparing himself to someone. So far, the only examples I've read here of people's opinions of 'casual gamers' have been negative.

I don't think that's very neighborly, and I exercised my right to comment on it.


How about we all meet in a bar, beat the crap out of each other, and share a few beers afterwards? My carpel-tunnel's acting up...

[Scoville]

Of course casual gamers are people.

Now, hardcore gamers on the other hand...

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Musenik

To paraphrase an earlier post: "Just because a person isn't a bully, doesn't mean that another won't feel bullied by them." If you've ever taken a course in workplace harassment, then you'll know what I'm talking about.

I've not taken a course in workplace harrassment but I think I know what you mean. It's perfectly possible for someone to act in a way that upsets others, even if that isn't their intention. Following on from that I can see what you're saying about intent being separate (to some extent). However, soemtimes upset arises because of misunderstanding of intent. For example I can say to my wife "Get to the kitchen where you belong woman" (which would be offensive if I meant it) but she is aware I don't seriously think like that (Her normal response is a succint "Ha!")

Absolutely not, which is why I don't want an apology, but I do reserve the right to comment on what people say and write. I believe this is the forum category for such comment.

Are you saying that no-one should be allowed to express their opinions about that which is written? If so, then I must stand firmly against you.

Fair enough. I didn't intend to say you had no right to comment but I can see that what I said sounds just like that. I apologise unreservedly for this. The right to raise objections is just as important a part of freedom of speech as the right to make statements that could be considered objectionable.

As for the non-existence of the oppressed, of course the casual gamer exists. It certainly exists in the minds of some people here who call themselves non-casual or serious gamers. I believe an earlier poster claimed to be a 'better gamer'. He must be comparing himself to someone. So far, the only examples I've read here of people's opinions of 'casual gamers' have been negative.

I don't think that's very neighborly, and I exercised my right to comment on it.

I acknowledge that the prejudice exists. I can also see that, as a result of this, some gamers may look down on others (though the group being looked down on may not understand why) But I don't think the lines in the review reinforce this. Taking the two lines in question.

Repeat after me: "Casual gamers are people too."

Okay, now that I got that out of my system…

This can be read as "A prejudice against casual gamers exists. I have been guilty of holding this prejudice. This is wrong. Casual gamers are people too and deserve equal rights" This would make the phrase uniting rather than dividing.

And if you do, hey, this trend toward casual "almost adventure" games could be something we're all going to have to get used to.

This could be considered as belittling casual gaming. However, this sentence also expresses a legitimate concern of us "more serious" gamers. To a certain extent there is a limited amount of game publishing muscle to go around. If more of this is devoted to games that can be picked up and played for short periods of time then there will be less for the more in-depth games that require more commitment to play that many of us prefer. It's a concern that it is the "serious" gamer that's going to become the oppressed minority, not the casual gamer.

How about we all meet in a bar, beat the crap out of each other, and share a few beers afterwards? My carpel-tunnel's acting up...

Sounds good to me. Averaging out our locations I guess we're looking at some sort of trans-atlantic cruise ship. Any preferences?

[Glenn Epic]

Okay Musenik, you've proved your point. Casual gamers ARE people too.

[Fop]

Originally Posted by Musenik

To paraphrase an earlier post: "Just because a person isn't a bully, doesn't mean that another won't feel bullied by them." If you've ever taken a course in workplace harassment, then you'll know what I'm talking about.

That wasn't my post you were paraphrasing, was it? If it was, you completely twisted it's meaning.

Originally Posted by Musenik

Are you saying that no-one should be allowed to express their opinions about that which is written? If so, then I must stand firmly against you.

You have every right to express your opinion and we have every right to tell you why you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Musenik

I believe an earlier poster claimed to be a 'better gamer'. He must be comparing himself to someone. So far, the only examples I've read here of people's opinions of 'casual gamers' have been negative.

Yes, I was comparing myself to people who do not play games regularly. I have no doubt that my skills in playing games are better. That doesn't mean my opinion about casual gamers is negative. It's just an attribute that doesn't have a stigma like skin color has. Let's take your eye color example:

If a brown eyed kid makes a comment about ugly blue eyed kids after the teacher has separated the two groups, he's out of line.

However, if a brown eyed kid makes a comment before the separation about blue eyed kids having blue eyes, he's only stating the obvious. Eye colour isn't something that is used to gauge people's worth as human beings, neither is skill in gaming.

Just because I think I can get head shots in Counter-Strike more often than people who haven't played it doesn't mean I harbour some negative feelings against those people.

[Jackal]

Interesting that this debate is still going on. Musenik, by all means, speak your mind freely. No one has remotely suggested you shouldn't.

What isn't clear is that you ARE actually speaking up for anybody, because you've yet to identify anyone who'd be offended. You've failed to address that question on several occasions. Until you do, this is an interesting theoretical exercise, but that's all. What's funny to me is that I'm usually one of the most outspoken opponents of adventure gamers spouting elitist crap towards other genres. This is simply NOT such a case.

You've refused to acknowledge that Emily's comments are, in fact, a tongue-in-cheek way of overcoming the very prejudice you're concerned about. The "context" that you're missing is that those two insensitive, offensive, bullying (ahem) lines come in an entire article devoted to exploring a game that was created "specifically for the downloadable market." Meaning, not for experienced adventure gamers; the readers of this site. Further meaning, simply by virtue of writing the article about a game the developer made for a "different group", Emily has already shown more respect for the casual gamer than... well, from what I can gather... pretty much anyone else. How much easier to simply ignore the whole thing altogether?

By choosing to remove a few words from their original written context, magnifying and analyzing them on their own, you've completely distorted their purpose. Could someone still misconstrue them in context? I suppose. Could the article have picked a safer, more sanitized joke? Sure. But as has already been said, we're not going to cater to the most hyper-sensitive people that might potentially be out there. We obviously differ on where to draw the line, as to me this IS about being politically correct, and not about showing basic respect.

I'll just close with this. If there's a segregating statement in the entire article, it's the excerpt taken from this statement on the game's website:

In our user testing of casual gamers, the majority of them were unable to perform basic activities found in traditional adventures. That's why we re-invented the genre specifically for this market.

The distinctions were there already. Not created by us. If I were a casual gamer (and acknowledged myself as such), I'd be far more offended by THAT generalization than by an obviously humourous remark on a site specifically geared to adventure gamers.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Fop

You have every right to express your opinion and we have every right to tell you why you are wrong.

Since we are, in fact, talking about opinions on both sides here, I must contest this statement. It seems written from the assumption that your opinion is the only valid one. Admittedly, most of those posting have come out against Musenik (myself included) but that only means we BELIEVE Musenik's opinion to be wrong. To start with an assumption you're going to tell someone "why they are wrong" shows poor debating technique and a lack of respect. If you want someone to come round to your way of thinking you must persuade them. Telling them they are wrong will just entrench them in their opinions.

In fact, I find Musenik's general principle (that calling one social group inherently superior to another is a bad thing) to be sound. I just feel it is misplaced in the context that it was raised.

[Fop]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

Since we are, in fact, talking about opinions on both sides here, I must contest this statement. It seems written from the assumption that your opinion is the only valid one. Admittedly, most of those posting have come out against Musenik (myself included) but that only means we BELIEVE Musenik's opinion to be wrong. To start with an assumption you're going to tell someone "why they are wrong" shows poor debating technique and a lack of respect. If you want someone to come round to your way of thinking you must persuade them. Telling them they are wrong will just entrench them in their opinions.

In fact, I find Musenik's general principle (that calling one social group inherently superior to another is a bad thing) to be sound. I just feel it is misplaced in the context that it was raised.

Oh no, I was just reminding that freedom of speech goes both ways, precisely encouraging debate instead of what you read from it.

Although I do think you have the goals of debate a bit wrong. It would hardly be possible without telling "why they are wrong", although you have to be diplomatic about. Convincing people is rarely possible, debate usually helps more with establishing your own views. Note the "why", but I can't fathom how debate would be possible without disagreement.

[Musenik]

Originally Posted by Jackal

You've refused to acknowledge that Emily's comments are, in fact, a tongue-in-cheek way of overcoming the very prejudice you're concerned about.

Honestly, I did not read the first line at all like that. It's the opening line, so the only context going into the article is the reader's baggage of the moment. I suspect she wrote it with her audience in mind, which appears to be demonstrated by her loyal champions here. I'm new to this board, so I don't have the advantage of knowing the culture.

From my point of view. I'd just returned from the GDC, where a lot of experienced gamers were talking all about casual gamers being the current force that's growing the PC games market, and how THEY've lowered the level of games. So when I read the opening line, I smiled at her phrasing, but I also rolled my eyes a little. After a while, I felt I should comment about it.

I've learned a LOT about the culture here, since then. <smile>

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Musenik

Honestly, I did not read the first line at all like that. It's the opening line, so the only context going into the article is the reader's baggage of the moment. I suspect she wrote it with her audience in mind, which appears to be demonstrated by her loyal champions here. I'm new to this board, so I don't have the advantage of knowing the culture.

From my point of view. I'd just returned from the GDC, where a lot of experienced gamers were talking all about casual gamers being the current force that's growing the PC games market, and how THEY've lowered the level of games. So when I read the opening line, I smiled at her phrasing, but I also rolled my eyes a little. After a while, I felt I should comment about it.

I've learned a LOT about the culture here, since then. <smile>

Musenik, have you asked a whole bunch of 'casual' gamers you know (or even any friends/family who sometimes play Solitaire or Minesweeper) how they felt reading Emily's article? I asked my sister to read it quickly (she plays Solitaire once in a while) and she said, "So? What's the big deal"

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Also, Musenik, I hope you're also aware that we have a HUGE number of other good things here to offer you besides Emily's article, here in the forums as well as all of AG.com. Why don't you go explore? Your energy spent on this thread alone could also be re-channeled discovering us as a site and as an awesome community. Thanks for joining us.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Fop

Oh no, I was just reminding that freedom of speech goes both ways, precisely encouraging debate instead of what you read from it.

Although I do think you have the goals of debate a bit wrong. It would hardly be possible without telling "why they are wrong", although you have to be diplomatic about. Convincing people is rarely possible, debate usually helps more with establishing your own views. Note the "why", but I can't fathom how debate would be possible without disagreement.

My point is in debate you aren't telling by people why they are wrong but why you think they are wrong. This is why they are called opinions instead of facts. We've put forward logical arguments supported by some anecdotal evidence but without doing a proper survey of casual gamers (and not just people we know who happen to be casual gamers) we can't say for sure. There may well be a group out there that would feel offended and belittled by Emily's words. Instinctively we feel there won't be. Our own little investigations show no sign of them. But that's not the same as saying they're not there.

I'm not suggesting anyone really tries to do a survey like this. if nothing else, there are far more important subjects (even just in the field of discrimination) that such energy could be devoted to. Just don't tell people they are wrong unless you're dealing with indisputable fact.

[Fop]

This is not my native language, stepurhan, please let's not get bogged down by semantics. Of course we debate opinions, who in their right mind would have a debate over facts?

[Maquisard]

Originally Posted by Fop

This is not my native language, stepurhan, please let's not get bogged down by semantics. Of course we debate opinions, who in their right mind would have a debate over facts?

Religious debate is all about arguing the facts, and people do it all the time. 'Cause you know, everyone thinks they're peddling facts once it comes to these issues. But, you could argue religious folk aren't in their right mind.