Sorry I omitted most of your post, but RL is calling and I just replied to what I found was the gist of your reasoning...
That's how little you care about me.
I've got to give it to you, you really made me feel bad about it...
And sorry for the delay. I've had an important matter to attend to and will be terribly busy in the coming days.
I think that half of the reason of Codex's existance is the deep disillusionment and dissatisfaction with the direction gaming in general took over those years. In order to appeal to the masses games lost their "higher" purpose - the potential to become something more.
To be quite honest I read it more like "They are not making the pulpy lowbrow entertainment I like, but the pulpy lowbrow entertainment that has mass appeal." And then they just get elitist like most people does in such a situation.
I'm really sorry but the moment you read a Girls' Generation fangirl being all elitist about Girls' Generation while dissing those who enjoy, say, T-Ara or
4minute phominat as inferior beings with neither taste nor discernment you lose the ability to take all such people seriously.
Yes, this proves true most of the time on the 'Dex and in many different places - squabbling in the sandbox over the height of sandcastles. I wouldn't dismiss the whole issue as pointless whining, however. I hate to make a louzy argument of authority, but I guess plenty of eminent Codexers do have a point about the decline in production values, work ethics and priorities when it comes to the process of game development and resulting products. For the sake of clarity, this is not going to be a clear high-brow vs low-brow example. Let's consider a mechanism instead: segmenting games into DLCs. In the long run it is hardly a positive thing which leads to various forms of abuse and decrease in quality. Most people like it, however: attracted by viral marketing and low-brow cues (e.g. sex, horse armour, items) they support the scam worsening the market for everybody. Does it mean that he minority should STFU and let the rest enjoy what they want? Or should they boycott the whole thing, supporting anti-DLC actions or trying to influence the devs to make only free-DLC so there is not dishonesty involved?
Should we accept what we find clearly wrong or harmful, in any other facet of gaming?
Generally games now are like sweets - it's good to have some from time to time, but have too much and nothing good will come out of you. Considering that games are rather time-consuming pastime which cannot broaden our horizons (because - as we agreed - they are low-brow) an average gamer eats plenty of those sweets. The question is, what will happen to him in the end?
Why in the name of the immortal, divine, flying, omniscient fuck do you care? It is his right to live a lowbrow life with no deeper meaning or appreciation if he wants to.
And maybe he's more happier like that than you are like this, so to each his own.
When it concern individuals I don't know, I do not care. Freeedom is for all. When it affects whole groups of people, I do. Just because games - as products of culture - influence worldviews and opinions of societies.
It's fine when such an individual like yourself - with a interests in a variety of subjects and abundant knowledge (
) - is aware of the true status of contemporary gaming and can approach them with more of a happy-go-lucky attitude. The problem starts when the people who grow up on nothing but playing games (because it's goddamn time-consuming so there's no time to read a book, go to cinema, see an opera performance etc.) start to extol this and that game as "art" or something along those lines, with - let's face it - nothing to back it up save for their ignorance. And there are more and more individuals like that (Bioware social, for instance).
The problem with ignorance is that you never recognize it until you lack it, which means both it is impossible for him or her to recognize the lack of this or that because a videogame tells them to (instead, "stupid videogame for no life nerds, lol") and that at the end of the day they might be as right and you as wrong as you believe them to be wrong and you right. *shrug*
And then, I doubt you are perfect. Not even I, goddess incarnate of earth, of heaven above, and of the infernal abysses below, am perfect. Just very, very, very close to being perfect. Anyway, just as you are saying "They should spend less time doing lowbrow shit and more becoming better," one could say you should spend more time becoming better and less discussing what others are doing. Which is, you know, exactly what you would be doing if such development was as important to you as you are making it sound like it is... Criticizing other people's lifestyle and choice of subjective worldview is in no way more constructive than playing games about hot girls and hot guys killing monsters in a wildly suggestive manner that make your hormones revolt.
Ahh... but then one could argue that discussing anything which goes beyond objective facts (such as interpretation of those facts and criticism of those interpretations) is pointless because these time could be better spent at becoming a better individual (screw the fact that discussing subjective opinions is one method of getting clearer view on all matters and thus turning into a better person).
Moreover, even this statement was my subjective opinion, which may be less valid than someone else's (perhaps) more objective view (how can I know that his opinion is subjective/objective without eliciting it first, by stating my own stance?), so it's best to keep quiet and not to say anything that could slight someone in some way. It's a vicious circle, really.
Needless to say I don't agree with that. :/ Criticism of worldviews, the way people live is exactly the thing that drives us on - for better or for worse. We judge by nature - whether it is the surface ('hmm, nice... chest!'), someone's actions or - yes - opinions. We seek conflict and voice our reservations about this or that. The sooner you identify and talk about the (maybe completely superficial or even imaginary) problem the sooner you will solve it. I find this sort of thing far better than pretending the issue doesn't exist and subconsciously hating something. Even if I am totally wrong, what's the worst that could happen? That I will learn the rationale behind someone's else's standpoint and maybe come round to accept them (after grumbling under my nose for some time)? Become a better person? Note, that all of this is perfectly subjective (or is it?).
Of course, part of the problem here is that if something can be characterised by a derogatory feature it is good enough reason to criticise it. People take such criticism personally, interpreting it as attacks on their ego, which is one short step away from criticizing individuals and their worldviews. This - as I said - it is not bad IMO. It's natural.
Ok, that went all meta, and beside the original issue. :/
Man, that last paragraph came out as totally bitch. Believe me, I said that in a friendly manner, even if it does not look like it.
No worries. I trust mine scribblings aren't taken in any other way, either.
I used to date this wannabe daoist sorcerer who always said a deep and smart person finds meaning and depth even in the most shallow thing, and that a fool would find even the sea shallow. And while I am sure he just stole it from some chinese book or something I believe he to be quite right.
Yes, but this statement is a little bit arbitrary as well. That one finds depth in e.g. Harlequine novels doesn't really mean there is any. If the same person found e.g. Bulhakov's "Master and Margarita" a boring read about nonsense, it doesn't mean it lacks depth.
But I guess, what you trully meant to say is that a genuine daoist sage would find depth in both "Harlequin" and Bulhakov's novels.
And yes, hotness and beauty make everything better by themselves but on their own they are like glamour - they are very superficial. And if misused they can become as pleasing as grotesque.
Uhm... That's just as arbitrary as saying beauty and charm is everything, and depth is for losers and ugly nerds who don't really have a choice.
Hey, hey - you started it. Your first statement was equally arbitrary as this one or mine.
Besides, I agreed beauty does make things better on its own. When you see a well-built, fashionable handsome guy / beautiful girl one of the things your brain registers is that because they look so well, they are probably self-reliant, classy, do sports (which proves their unyelding willpower) and you generally get positive vibes. Contrast that with your typical basement dweller, who can only scare the people off. Forgive me being trite, but looks can really speak about character... but no one guarantees they speak the (whole) truth. Limiting yourself to the surface (especially in the first case) of things is kinda self-defeating. We've both read our share of fairly lore, we know how glamour works, and we know how well it applies to real things ("don't judge the book by its cover" and all that).
Well, that was a totally GD material in my post, so let's end with something on topic.
Having read the article once again, I realised why people here acted all allergic to it, despite its rather mild and fair-minded content. It's the title - "the Male Gaze". It implies that just having a look at a girl/guy and thinking "nice ass" is something worth of disdain and scorn. I can hardly agree to that, as to me it's a perfectly normal reaction. Deniying this would be pretty masochistic. However taking advantage of this mechanism in order to market your product is just low... as are all sociotechniques created to control your consumer base better.
I think that I went too far with this post. :/ I'll try to be more laconic in the future ones.
