Why I hate "dudebro," "brogamer," etc.

[Jmustang1968]

You must not play sports games...

Yes, they could do more changes in a title with 2 year releases than yearly, but they mae improvements each year. And the big thing is, sports gamers want a new game each year.

[Xeros]

I dont play them except for Fight Night. Sports gamers may expect a new one each year because thats been the routine since the mid 90s? Ive watched people play them a lot and I have played a bunch of EA sports games. A good example is the first Xbox360 EA sports titles were released at the same time as the PS2 and Xbox ones, which both had many more features (Madden, Tiger Woods, NHL). Fight Night round 3 felt like more of a game in some ways, than 4 did for some reason.. They took some of the cinema out of it I think, and added very bland commentary... but since they added Tyson (removed Holyfield, De La Hoya, etc) to the roster and juke while moving, and fixed the hug mechanic a bit, all the boxing game fans bought it because we expected a better game (oddly it was 3 years between these releases). I just think its a bad trend to make a full price title in the same franchise every year, and titles that are partial remakes/steps backwards seemingly on purpose, should maybe be treated and priced as such. Anyways a bit off topic but its a fairly relative to the OP if you look at it like its a problem that comes from marketing and not directly from the bandwagon.

[Menegrothx]

You must not play sports games...

Yes, they could do more changes in a title with 2 year releases than yearly, but they mae improvements each year. And the big thing is, sports gamers want a new game each year.

What kind of improvements are you talking about? I doubt they radically change the gameplay every year. If the game tries to be realistic, then the gameplay should remain unaltered year after year once they get the controls right.

If you look at Tony Hawks pro skater games, they had usually one big new gameplay element in every new game. First manuals, then reverts, open world and quests rather than timed runs, then walking and driving etc. But the main thing in those games besides new tricks and skaters was totally new levels. I understand that you loose a few old players and gain some new players in an annual sports game, but the levels remain the same year after year, so there just isnt enough new content to justify the price tag. In THPS games you had all kinds of different levels with great level design, but in Fifa/NFL/NBA/NHL you cant really do anything about the level design since every level has to be the same size because of standardization.

[AppleQueso]

You must not play sports games...

Yes, they could do more changes in a title with 2 year releases than yearly, but they mae improvements each year. And the big thing is, sports gamers want a new game each year.

What kind of improvements are you talking about? I doubt they radically change the gameplay every year. If the game tries to be realistic, then the gameplay should remain unaltered year after year once they get the controls right.

"Realism" is a lot more than just controls you know.

[Menegrothx]

"Realism" is a lot more than just controls you know.

Well my point is that if NFL 2010 was 10/10 and all in all the perfect current gen football game, there is no legit reason to publish NFL 2011 when you can update the game up to date with DLC/patch that includes all the new players etc. Because other wise it would mean re-releasing the same game with a couple of new players. Any new gameplay mechanics and such are pointless as they would just ruin the system that is already perfect, so in that case there isnt any reason to make any new football games before the next generation of consoles arrives. If every new game makes the overall gameplay experience a bit better, it raises a quesiton "why cant they just make one proper football game?". Because they can make more money if they sell an imperfect product and offer a slightly enhanced version every now and then.

[Jmustang1968]

"Realism" is a lot more than just controls you know.

Well my point is that if NFL 2010 was 10/10 and all in all the perfect current gen football game, there is no legit reason to publish NFL 2011 when you can update the game up to date with DLC/patch that includes all the new players etc. Because other wise you would either re-release the same game with a couple of new players. Any new gameplay mechanics and such are pointless as they would just ruin the system that is already perfect.

The system isn't perfect. The improve on it each year. The biggest things being physics and AI. Gameplay modes and improved features are also nice.

[Blu]

After synthesizing most of the posts in this thread, I thought I would weigh in with a small opinion to pick your brains.

I'm surprised to see the word bromance has been mentioned in this thread. Bromance has often refers to a male friendship that is platonic and without sexual undertones. Heterosexual males inappropriately use this term to describe a friendship with another male clearly defined as platonic in fear of being accused of having romantic feelings. In turn, bromance carries a homophobic sentiment with it, because a bromance clearly distinguishes itself from a romantic gay relationship.

Using this same logic, I think retro gamers might use the term dudebro to separate themselves from the group, concerned of being associated with a group who brings harm to their own image and casts a negative light on their hobby. Retro or hardcore gamers want to disassociate themselves with the dudebro/brogamers accused of degrading/objectifying women, swearing over Xbox Live, etc. However, the result is maintaining a lot of societal status quos by normalizing terminology of dudebro and brogamer, etc.

As I see it, we're all interested in the same hobby, and there's always some overlap. It does no good to polarize ourselves from one another; instead find some common ground and educate one another.

[o.pwuaioc]

In turn, bromance carries a homophobic sentiment with it, because a bromance clearly distinguishes itself from a romantic gay relationship.

That's not homophobic in the least.

[Blu]

I'd beg to differ. If a man uses the term bromance to describe his friendship with another male, that eliminates any ambiguity on whether or not there's a romantic interest. In particular, if two males share an intimate relationship (not in the physical, sexual sense) where they're not stoic and actually talk about emotions, their problems, etc, why is the term bromance used as a classifier? The noun itself is homophobic.

http://majorityminority.wordpress.com/2 ... asi-genre/

[o.pwuaioc]

I'd beg to differ. If a man uses the term bromance to describe his friendship with another male, that eliminates any ambiguity on whether or not there's a romantic interest.

So far, so good.

In particular, if two males share an intimate relationship (not in the physical, sexual sense) where they're not stoic and actually talk about emotions, their problems, etc, why is the term bromance used as a classifier?

Why not?

The noun itself is homophobic.

Just because you and some random person on some random blog assert this does not make it true. Bromance is no different than the even older "Platonic friendship", which according to your logic would be "heterophobic", since it is used to describe non-romantic friendship between a male and a female.

Ugh, that blog totally butchers Plato as well. Why do the ignorant feel so compelled to spew their nonsense publicly?