MrEco wrote:"Knowing?" Don't you mean "thinking?" That's the entire problem with elitists and fanboy's. They seem to imagine that their opinion is a fact instead of what it actually is. Just an opinion that holds no more importance than anyone elses.
Man, you sure did get pissy over one little slip of the tongue.
Take it for what you will, but I just found Bioshock I to be a far more focused game. Bioshock II, on the other hand, was all over the place. I firmly believe that Bioshock II was a flawed experience - still fun, but fundamentally flawed. That's all.
I'm elitist over narrow-mindedness. I think its weird when people think games should all be made in one particular style. I can find something interesting about almost every game I play. Sure, I have favorites, but I'll jump from playing a classical masterpiece like Shadow of the Colossus to playing cheesy crap like Phantasmagoria (which has so little choice, challenge, and interactivity that it barely even counts as a video game). And while I might wax philosophically about the artistry of Shadow of the Collossus for hours, and complain that Phantasmagoria is just a bad B-movie with long breaks of clicking around a screen until something finally happens; I still find a way to appreciate Phantasmagoria's attempts at ambitiously hybridizing the FMV and point & click genres and I appreciate its uniquely feminine story where the plot of being attacked by your possessed husband in a haunted house is a sort of metaphor for living in an abusive marriage. So I wouldn't think less of somebody for hating (or loving) Phantasmagoria, but I would think less of someone that couldn't appreciate it at all for what it is, or wouldn't even try it or couldn't find any worthwhile quality in it whatsoever. In that way, I guess I'm a little elitist.
On Halo, I think the levels are too long and monotonous, which makes the game ultimately boring. However, I also think that it revolutionized the control for FPS games on consoles and the LAN party sessions were phenomenonally entertaining. How you weight those qualities to reach a 5 star or 10 star review doesn't really matter to me.
MrEco wrote:"Knowing?" Don't you mean "thinking?" That's the entire problem with elitists and fanboy's. They seem to imagine that their opinion is a fact instead of what it actually is. Just an opinion that holds no more importance than anyone elses.
Man, you sure did get pissy over one little slip of the tongue.
Take it for what you will, but I just found Bioshock I to be a far more focused game. Bioshock II, on the other hand, was all over the place. I firmly believe that Bioshock II was a flawed experience - still fun, but fundamentally flawed. That's all.
Yeah, I'm sorry. I went into typing that knowing it could have have been a slip. Let's just blame it on a temporary moment of emotional passion that overpowered my reason in making a calculated decision.
I feel old when talking to anyone my age yet too inexperienced to effectively talk to anyone older. Life is grand that way.
I think that art can be judged and we can be kind of objective over what is good and bad. It's not a hard science but it's not completely subjective either.
That said, while I have my reasons to think that Twilight is horribly bad and that Action 52 is barely playable that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have fun with them. If you like them, have fun!
I think that what is usually called "elitism" is saying that you can only enjoy something if it's the "best".
Looking for a cool game? Find it in my blog! Latest post: Often, games must be difficult http://eriktwice.com/
MrEco wrote: Yeah, I don't think the guy was too far off, in that there's a value in being able to strip away the fluff in order to see things objectively, but I find myself more aligned with this view. Except that I would replace "fun" with "compelling". I know that this is probably an eye-roller, but I really do think that we should stop limiting the criteria for what makes a great game to that single emotion (and I've felt that way even BEFORE I saw the Rev Rant that popularized that view, haha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otyXtzLNxoI).
That was a pretty interesting video, I'd never seen any of that guy's rants before. It also reaffirms my belief that it is very difficult to have a conversation of intelligence or conviction solely through the printed word. Some people are better writers than others and this can sway people to their point of view. So much of conversation is that physical presence of the person that you are conversing with: their facial features, body movement, emphasis on words or ideas, and their general mannerisms and way of saying whatever it is they're saying. Some people can come across as very "elitist" in forums (guilty) but that doesn't necessarily mean that this is the way they act if you were to have a face to face conversation. I guess that's just my point of view though and I'm an elitist prick.
the7k wrote:Games like Halo and Call of Duty are kinda like the McDonald's of video games.
Hey, the original Call of Duty kicked ass.
A fucking men brother! United Offensive was/is the most progressive Call of Duty.
Elitism is prevalent on so many levels within gaming culture it's deserving of a social satire. You have genre elitism(i.e. this genre is inferior because such and such), brand name elitism(fanboyism), and skill level(hardcore v. casual),; it can be even further broken down for games with competitive play.
Elitism isn't knowing (or believing) that one thing (a game, a film, a wine) is better than another, whether or not the opinion is based on experience or on any particular set of criteria. Elitism isn't believing oneself to be right and another person to be wrong. Elitism (in the context of opinions) is the belief that one person is somehow special or better than another person because of those opinions. Not agreeing to disagree doesn't make someone an elitist. We could argue each other down all day about whose opinions have more merit, or whose ideas are more correct, without ever being elitists about it.
It's not about whether you respect the other person's thoughts and opinions, it's about whether you respect the other person.
flamepanther wrote:Elitism isn't knowing (or believing) that one thing (a game, a film, a wine) is better than another, whether or not the opinion is based on experience or on any particular set of criteria. Elitism isn't believing oneself to be right and another person to be wrong. Elitism (in the context of opinions) is the belief that one person is somehow special or better than another person because of those opinions. Not agreeing to disagree doesn't make someone an elitist. We could argue each other down all day about whose opinions have more merit, or whose ideas are more correct, without ever being elitists about it.
It's not about whether you respect the other person's thoughts and opinions, it's about whether you respect the other person.
Precisely
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism n. 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. (or, in this case, their taste in videogames, their subcultural or cultural status)
I think I've seen an actual elitist out in "the wild"
I remember a funny guy walking around a Blockbuster with a buddy. Head held high, voice real loud. "Don't get that, it's overrated. No don't get that either, not nearly as great as the original. Oh please, that game. Are you serious? Here rent this game"
RyaNtheSlayA wrote: Seriously. Screw you Shao Kahn I'm gonna play Animal Crossing.
I am only elitist towards the sports/gta gamer haha.
You know who I am talking about. Everybody has a friend or acquaintance they know that has all six or seven different sports games and at least one GTA. And then nothing else.
