3 ms·

I don't like the way it's phrased like an exclusive dichotomy, and that games must stop "pandering" to mastery to "embrace" intellectual life. This reads like s

I don't like the way it's phrased like an exclusive dichotomy, and that games must stop "pandering" to mastery to "embrace" intellectual life. This reads like someone who just likes film but doesn't like videos games turning their nose up at something they view as aesthetically inferior, as if their shitty aesthetic opinions are informed by universal objective truth itself. Yeah, absolutely, video games that enhance the emotional and intellectual lives of the audience are better for it, but games that give the audience a sense of accomplishment and reward curiosity are also better for it. There is no reason to stop doing one to do the other. Video games don't need to be movies.

elcapitan 9y ago
Maybe you should read the article before commenting on it.
- sololipsist 9y ago
  First of all, I was commenting on the quote out of context. That's why I objected to "the way it's phrased." I don't like the phrasing, whatever the context. There is no reason whatsoever that games need to give up mastery. None. Reading comprehension, bro. That being said, even in context, it's dumb. He's saying games need to stop "pandering to the player’s desire for mastery" to qualify as art. That's silly. I'm not an art relativist or anything, but this is an unnecessarily narrow definition of art: "a work must lack a specific thing to qualify as art." How stupid is that? The author just wants video games to be something they're not, and that's fine, but he is just saying whatever his judgmental gut is telling him to say, which is causing him to say stupid and patently incorrect things.
  - elcapitan 9y ago
    Neither the quote nor the article said that the games need to give up mastery, that's apparently your misunderstanding. I'm also not your "bro", just for your information.
    - sololipsist 9y ago
      I'm using "mastery" as a shorthand for what he actually said, not literally quoting the man. It's normal human communication that normal humans do every single day and there is no reason I should need to explain that. You know what? I don't think this is going anywhere.

elcapitan 9y ago

Maybe you should read the article before commenting on it.

sololipsist 9y ago
First of all, I was commenting on the quote out of context. That's why I objected to "the way it's phrased." I don't like the phrasing, whatever the context. There is no reason whatsoever that games need to give up mastery. None. Reading comprehension, bro. That being said, even in context, it's dumb. He's saying games need to stop "pandering to the player’s desire for mastery" to qualify as art. That's silly. I'm not an art relativist or anything, but this is an unnecessarily narrow definition of art: "a work must lack a specific thing to qualify as art." How stupid is that? The author just wants video games to be something they're not, and that's fine, but he is just saying whatever his judgmental gut is telling him to say, which is causing him to say stupid and patently incorrect things.
- elcapitan 9y ago
  Neither the quote nor the article said that the games need to give up mastery, that's apparently your misunderstanding. I'm also not your "bro", just for your information.
  - sololipsist 9y ago
    I'm using "mastery" as a shorthand for what he actually said, not literally quoting the man. It's normal human communication that normal humans do every single day and there is no reason I should need to explain that. You know what? I don't think this is going anywhere.