fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4762 ]

[ SECRET POST #4762 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4762 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 44 secrets from Secret Submission Post #682.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think you really, desperately want me to be anti-gamer, and I'm not. The Hungry Hungry Caterpillar is fine to give to a child. It has artistic merit. But you wouldn't recommend it to an adult who said that they didn't enjoy reading.

Likewise, it's totally fine if you want to spend 100% of your time playing various types of games. I've tried immersive 3D games, click-through interactive stories, mindless phone games, and side-scrollers (hey, you haven't mentioned those yet, but they're probably at the maximum end of my manual dexterity). Of all of these, I can count on one hand the number of games I've enjoyed playing. That doesn't mean that I don't think that an incredible amount of talent goes into making and playing these games. It means that I. Don't. Like. Playing. Them.

How is this hard for you?

I'm going to use another analogy. I personally don't like ballet. I can explain at great length the history and development of ballet, argue for its artistic merit, and appreciate the technical skill that goes into doing it. But I will never have the physical dexterity or body type to be a ballerina. And while I will go to the ballet if a friend wants someone to go with, I don't really bond with it and I'd rather just listen to music. I've been like that all my life.

And yet, I have never once had someone freak out on me and get upset because I don't enjoy ballet. It's kind of normal—there are things about it as an art form that are very inaccessible to many people, and even people who really enjoy it recognize that not everyone does. And everyone understands that the fact that I, Sabotabby From the Internet, does not like ballet is not an argument or value judgement against whether ballet is a good or bad form of dance or art.

Likewise, it is very fashionable among a certain social circle that I'm part of to brag about never watching TV. Yet I've never seen anyone (myself included, and I love TV) lose their shit at someone who doesn't watch TV, or suggest they try types of TV that they may or may not have considered.

Videogaming, though? If you critique a videogame (unlike if you critique other art forms) or suggest that perhaps not everyone likes playing them, you inevitably have someone bleating that you're just not playing the right ones, or that you haven't tried hard enough, or that you're a Evil Feminist who wants to deprive them of their toys.

I suspect that you may feel a little insecure about your hobby, and that's why you're defensive. I get that. Because videogames are a relatively new medium and intimately bound up with commerce, it's been a struggle to have them recognized as culturally significant. I absolutely agree with you that games have cultural merit and value; in fact, I teach a course on that very question. But you do not do your argument any justice when you stomp your foot and insist that anyone who doesn't like your hobby is an elitist snob.

As I said: If tabletop is your jam and electronic isn't, that's great.

I'm a gamer with disabilities. I can't do twitch, online multiplayer, audio without subtitles, or small screen text. I prefer gaming experiences where I can set the pace and think through mechanics on my own sweet time. I'm also a queer gamer who recognizes that visual novels are an interesting medium for queer stories right now.

What you're doing here is creating a dichotomy where serious games are as difficult as ballet (*eyeroll*), while easy games are childlike. I disagree with that framing, and you're just parroting the "git gud" argument against accessible gaming and the game genres I engage in.

It is great that you have a hobby that you enjoy. As I've said before, there is value in it. But pressuring people to like it is silly.

All media has varying degrees of accessibility hurdles to overcome. Some are physical (ballet, immersive gaming), some are intellectual (reading level, background knowledge and theory), some are psychological (I'm a completionist, and neither choose-your-own adventures or interactive novels hold any appeal for me because of that). When we are interested in those media, we take the time to overcome those hurdles if possible (I could never be a ballet dancer, I could probably read Deleuze and Guattari if I joined a study group or took a class, and I could overcome my aversion to multiple-choice stories if the story interested me enough). When we are insufficiently interested in that media, we do not devote that time to mastering the skills needed to consume or participate in it.

This isn't a dichotomy; this is the acknowledgment that media consumption requires a skill set that we can choose to acquire or not.

Yoga's another example where people who are into it get very defensive. I have physical disabilities. There is accessible yoga that I could do. Many people with physical disabilities enjoy doing accessible yoga. I don't. Before I became disabled, I didn't enjoy it either. People who like yoga will swear up and down that I'm not doing it right, that there is a type of yoga out there for me, that I am not giving it a fair chance (despite months of effort!) but the point is that the types of yoga I am physically capable of doing don't give me the pleasure of mastery that it does people who like yoga.

That's it. That's all.

For the last time, I don't care what you do with your spare time or what you find fulfillment in. It's your insistence that people who don't enjoy the thing are hating on the thing that is undermining your argument.

No one fucking cares about what you do in your spare time. No one fucking cares about what you do in your spare time. No one fucking cares about what you do in your spare time.

But, your fox-and-sour-grapes argument about ballet is elitist, ignorant, and ablelist. There are many more modes for participation than becoming a ballerina. Expecting mastery in yoga is Missing. The. Fucking. Point. So is demanding it of gamePLAY. Throughout this entire argument you've been bagging on casual games, accessible games, story-based games, and just about every game except the impossible one that scratches your itch but is impossible for you to play.

No one fucking cares about what you do in your spare time. But that's not enough for you. You have repeatedly voiced "criticism" of contemporary game design that are factually incorrect and grounded in a complete ignorance of the field. And continuing to shift attention from your expressed negative opinions about game design onto something that NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT is blatantly dishonest.

You seem to be very distressed that I don't play videogames in my spare time. Perhaps rather than shouting, you should examine why you feel this way.

No one fucking cares about what you do in your spare time. No one fucking cares about what you do in your spare time. No one fucking cares about what you do in your spare time.

Cool, we're good then. Go enjoy your games.

Sure, until you make your next post explaining how gaming is REALLY analogous to the statistical analysis of dark matter as visualized through gravitational lensing as translated in esperanto.

Why does it matter so much to you that strangers on the internet play videogames?

If you're going to compare casual games to kindergarten reading, and other games to ballet, surely your logic behind those claims can be challenged.

I'm going to try this in simple sentences.

There are different types of media. Video games are a form of media.

Different people like different forms of media for different reasons.

Personal engagement with media is not a value judgment on the artistic merit of that media.

Various types of media require different skillsets to consume. Some require a very low skillset, others a higher one, but all of these skillsets are acquired, not innate. Again, this isn't a judgment on the value of the art.

(At this point I'd normally include a visual art analogy, but you seem to struggle with analogies so I'll leave it out.)

I am not claiming that your hobbies are not valid.

I am not claiming that your media is not art.

I am not coming to take your videogames away.

My enjoying or not enjoying videogames has zero impact on whether or not you enjoy them.

The fundamental issue at hand here: I support (through dollars, design, AND advocacy) diverse, player-centric, and accessible game designs. That includes learning objects that get five minutes to games that people will live in for hundreds of hours.

I honestly don't care if you play videogames. My goal is to create and advocate for the broadest possible audience. So yes, I disagree that The Hungry Hungry Caterpillar is a good analogy for small and elegant games that do one thing really well. I also disagree that one of the most demanding and elite professions in the performing arts is analogous to learning to play larger videogames. Since the traditional gamer market is saturated, survival of the industry depends on developing new genres and providing instruction within the game for old genres.

I think if a game fails to teach the player its language and mechanics, that's a design failure rather than a player failure. I suspect you wouldn't bicker about the same movements happening within tabletop and pen-and-paper games. For that matter, the classical arts have also taken on the burden of teaching newbies. I've done some of that work as well.

Saying, "I am not claiming ..." doesn't really mean anything compared to the rest of what you've written. You put the burden of arts and game literacy firmly on the audience, and then set a high bar for entry. As designer and audience, I think that's regressive bullshit.

(no subject)

sabotabby - 2020-01-21 04:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-01-21 05:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sabotabby - 2020-01-21 10:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-01-21 13:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sabotabby - 2020-01-21 18:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-01-21 18:39 (UTC) - Expand

Your personal choice in media is absolutely not an issue here. That's been said multiple times.

As the anon you were originally talking to, you do realize that you've effectively conceded my point with the ballet comment. Ballet is a subsection of theatre, and (in whatever deluded world you live where you honestly think learning /ballet/ of all things is equally difficult at playing videogames is ridiculous), saying you don't like any videogame because you haven't found one that catches you interest is not like say you don't like ballet for the same reasons, it's like saying you don't like theatre because ballet isn't interesting to you.
And I'll repeat, it doesn't have to be interesting to you, just that deciding that an entire form of entertainment couldn't possibly hold you interest is just plain closeminded.

You're making a massive category error.

If I'd said I didn't enjoy any games at all, I might concede your point. I've played a bunch of games, video and otherwise, in a bunch of different genres and styles. Some (tabletop RPG, certain board and card games) are enjoyable, others (nearly every videogame I have ever played, which is > 0) are not.

It's possible that some people don't like theatre—like, I don't think most people go to the theatre regularly—and that's okay. They don't need to.

I was making an analogy, not saying that ballet dancing and playing videogames are equally difficult. I've had fun at the ballet and I've had fun playing like one or two videogames in my entire life, but neither were fun enough to devote hours and hours of my time to.

Why do you find this so threatening?

NAYRT: You're ignorant about ballet, and you're ignorant about games. Has it occurred to you that pushing this analogy repeatedly comes off as an attempt to gatekeep from the outside?

Why would I gatekeep a form of entertainment that I don't partake in?

I'm wondering that myself. And yet, here you are insisting that games require commitment analogous to ballet performance.

If you read what I wrote, my comment was not just about performance. You can enjoy watching the ballet without being a ballerina. You can also, as I do, intellectually understand and appreciate the skill and talent that goes into ballet, and respect that some people really like it, without actually enjoying it or wanting to either dance it or watch it yourself.

(Actually, being a consumer of ballet requires far less commitment than being a consumer of videogames. I'd guess that the most fanatical audience member goes every few months. Production is a different story, but most gamers aren't producers.)

It's socially acceptable to not like ballet at all (either as a participant or an observer), whereas in 2020, if one dares to state that not all people want to play videogames, you get angry gamers jumping down your throat.

Actually, being a consumer of ballet requires far less commitment than being a consumer of videogames. I'd guess that the most fanatical audience member goes every few months.

Habitica is a self-help web game that's designed to be played for a few minutes a day. Duolingo's model is 15 minutes a day. An Audiosurf run is the length of the mp3 file you feed it. Fallen London taps out your turns after about 20 minutes. Auti-Sim is one level that can be explored in about 10 minutes, less if the noise gets to you. Auti-Sim isn't built for repeat plays. One-shot games are used a fair bit in education and training.

If you don't actually play videogames, maybe you're not in a good position to evaluate the level of commitment involved.

I’ve played two of those. You would have to work hard indeed to find someone in 2020 who had never played a game before.

People can know about a thing that you love and still not end up loving the thing.

Still don't care. It's clear that you're going to duck criticism of any ridiculous claim you make with a manufactured persecution complex.

Actually, it reminds me of a particular style of fandom discourse that goes like this:

"The Rise of Skywalker is kind of a mess. Where did Palpatine come from and why is he making the same mistake again, and what is up with Hux?"

"*SOB* Youu jyst haTe uS bwecause we're REYLOS!"

My claims:

Games require skills and time to enjoy.
Not everyone wants to acquire those skills or commit that time.
This is not a value judgment on your hobby.

Which of these is ridiculous? Oh wait I’m not actually that interested.

Games require an excessively large investment of skills and time to enjoy, equivalent to a performing arts professional.

FTFY

The skills required for many games are to use a mouse or keyboard, and the time expected is five minutes. I know because I do that kind of usability testing on minigames for instruction.