Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
This gaming article
http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/i-play-for-fun-the-four-dumbest-words-in-video-games
Hardcore gamer elitism is the worst thing.
Comments
I hate it when people say that they play games to be "happy."
Happiness is what you get when you don't realize that the game you're playing is shit.
...That guy just...
Both sides are stupid in this, alright?
After reading the article, I have to agree with Icalasari.
"I play for fun" is actually a misstatement; what people actually mean when they say that is (usually) "I don't have an intense, significantly-behavior-affecting attachment to the game(s) that I play". Or, slightly rephrased: "I have a casual attitude toward gaming." That's all it means.
For the most part, this is probably for the better.
So essentially the author wants to be recognised for their skills, but doesn't want people with a more casual approach to feel validated in their approach.
How pathetic.
Edit:
Kept reading. Couldn't finish the article. It makes the mistake of putting words in the mouths of others. It's essentially self-aggrandising pseudo-psychology. If no-one gives a shit about someone's gaming skills, it's probably because competitive games aren't a huge deal. Most people in the world don't care, so it's unreasonable for people to think that their approach will be appreciated in a free, open, non-competitive environment.
As far as I read, the article was nothing but a vulgar tantrum.
I don't get why people complain about this article.
When I read, I got a message that was more "Saying that 'you play for fun' implies that I'm not having fun taking the game seriously", which is a condescending thing to imply.
Probably because the author thinks that Iphone games are destroying the industry.
^^ It can imply that, but it's such a simple phrase that it can say a variety of other things as well. Reducing it to that one phrase is self-serving and intellectually dishonest. It doesn't help that the article was written in such a way that made obvious the author wanted recognition for their virtual combat skills.
It's nothing to get worked up over. "I play for fun" can mean "Taking the game seriously isn't fun" -- but then again, for many, it isn't. It can also mean "I play the game without analytical consideration" or "I play the game without competitive intentions" which are perfectly valid considerations.
^ That, too.
Thanks for bring that particular passage up, Alex, since it seemed to me to be the least grounded in evidence. Your points about the different uses of the phrase "I play for fun" strike me as pretty persuasive too.
I guess there are people who use the "fun excuse," but honestly, I do not find it that annoying since unlike say pro football, the goal of playing video games is not necessarily winning. I agree that it makes sense to have that as a goal and that competitive players are entitled to their pursuits, but I feel like the main problem with the article is that it is based almost entirely on the competitive mindset.
So yeah, I think that if you accept all of the assumptions that the author makes about why people play games are true then the argument makes some sense, but that is only part of the story since it leaves out the reasons why a good number of "casuals" play games without regard to W/L records.
I might be over-thinking this though.
I didn't think it was just about those four words, it seemed like it was describing those four words in a specific context, i.e. when someone who 'plays for fun'is losing in a game to someone who doesn't. It's got a substantially narrower meaning in that context.
Then the article should've made that clear at the outset rather than condemning the phrase in any context.
In the paragraph that "I play for fun" is introduced, the article makes no attempt that contextualising it. Furthermore, they insult everyone who uses or has used the phrase, alienating that portion of the audience. It looks as though this article is a self-congratulatory matter aimed at people who already dislike the "I play for fun" phrase rather than making a sincere attempt to discuss it in multiple contexts for various audiences.
Yes, it's quite obviously a polemical piece instead of a journalistic one. I'd still prefer not to dismiss the message out of hand because of that, however.
I don't deny that the article has one legitimate point in one legitimate context, but its tone, language and generalisations ensure it's of limited worth in most discussions. I certainly wouldn't use it as an example of an article with convincing levels of discussion.
Absolute bullshit. The message of this article isn't that 'I play for fun' is condescending towards those who go in-depth in a game. If it was, it would explain the ideas behind it and how different people enjoy a game differently. The aim of this article is to demonize people it disagrees with as uncouth and stupid. It psycho-analyzes those it disagrees with as insecure and it places its position as the single superior one. It backs bullshit isolationism among a subculture that should be looking to spread among other groups. This article is in essence b'aawwwing about people who don't pay his hobby the same amount of insane deference he is, and this is speaking as someone who has obsessed over frame-rates of moves in Blazblue.
So in essence, I'm going to ask Yui Hirasaw about what she thinks about playing games for fun.
Well said, Yui.
Yui does use a tautological argument, though.
But in doing so she brings to light the contextual flaw of villifying someone who plays games for fun. =D
Yui_Hirasawa_haters_gonna_hate.gif
I don't see how it not taking the approach you think it should take changes the subject matter.
i mean, shit
it's right there in the article, couched in inflammatory rhetoric maybe, but the point is pretty obviously there.
The author just continues to come off as a prick, though; in that paragraph, he makes it absolutely clear that all he wants is to exceed other people. That's one perspective to have concerning life, but it makes his biases very clear.
>I don't see how it not taking the approach you think it should take changes the subject matter.
You're right. Just because people use strawmen and incendiary dialogue and artificial villification doesn't mean we should find the article defucnt.
>it's right there in the article
Actually it's not there at all.
The very paragraph you quote both strawmans and put words in the mouth of his fictitious opponents and then tries to twist being good at video games as a good life skills. It's absolute bullshit not meant to explain a viewpoint but to villify another.
This is not an article about explaining how being an in-depth gamer is satisfying. (something I'd actually like to see) It's an article about bitching about those 'stupid casuals'.
If anything, he seems to defeat his own point. The very paragraph implies that he doesn't have fun for himself or for self-gratification. He just wants to be better than others at some artificial task.
"Only losers do that. Those nerds should get lives. Clearly, true memories are created by being too drunk to remember what happened the night before."
WAH WAH WAH I got teased in highschool because of my hobbies(not because I was a blowhard) and now forever see the world in jock-nerd paradigms
https://room208.org/shimmie/post/view/2280?search=%5Esv%5Es
Shame I can't post this immediately after Yui, but.
Also the writer of the article likes Icycalm.
Think about that.
meh. whatever.
^^I'm unsurprised. When I started reading the article, I scrolled up to make sure it wasn't by Icycalm.
Can someone summarize Icycalm's opinion in a paragraph describing (but not judging) them?
I know that he's...rather bad at handling users who disagree with him, but that's a separate issue.
He thinks that indie games are almost universally terrible, and they're a serious threat to the continued existence of the kind of games he likes(which are mostly obscure Japanese shooters).
To be honest, this guy just comes across as resentful because no-one else cares about all the hours he put in to become a highly skilled gamer. But why should they? It's his choice, apparently because he enjoys doing it. What does he expect, a round of applause?
That's what leaderboards are for.