4 ms·
I disagree with the author's fundamental assumption that games (and mountain climbing) are fundamentally about experience, and that pretty much undercuts everyt
by ynniv 17y ago
I disagree with the author's fundamental assumption that games (and mountain climbing) are fundamentally about experience, and that pretty much undercuts everything else in this article. To say that climbing Everest is about experiencing nature is actually absurd. People climb Everest because it is an accomplishment that is as much about personal triumph as it is about experiencing nature. If the trek is modified to require no personal growth, it is no longer the same trek. The author's cool approach to the subject allows him to convincingly deconstruct the hardcore perspective, but when I look at what remains after he's done, I am not convinced that it is gaming.
TL;DR: The logical extension of the article is that someone who watches a real-time movie of people climbing Everest has a similar experience to those actually climbing Everest, and should be allowed to claim that they too have climbed Everest. In my opinion the author does a disservice to us all by making a convincing argument of this.
- grhino 17y agoIf no one knew or cared about the difficulty in climbing everest at all except those who climbed it, climbing everest would no longer have near the status that it does. He argues that hardcore gamers don't want an easy mode because it makes completing the game more of a status signal, however, the lack of an easy mode reduces the audience that is even aware of the game. Completing a hardcore game that nobody knows about doesn't give the gamer any status at all. He's not making the argument that people who climb everest by riding an pressurized elevator with an oxygen supply should be able to claim they climbed everest, but the fact that there is an elevator shouldn't logically diminish the status conveyed to actual climbers of everest.