- x Foman123 x
- |
- Master Forum Ninja
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
I think that it is important to note that the author seems to go to great lengths to show that the Bungie community is not antisocial, is not lonely, and not sociopathic. But I have to tell you that this piece does not have the tone of a person trying to convince people about how great the hardcore gaming community is. Instead, it feeds the stereotypes of obsessive computer nerds and implores Bungie and its fans to help hardcore, in-depth gaming submit itself to the mainstream. And despite his blog or his personal beliefs, his tone is unmistakeable -- hardcore gamers (including Bungie employees) are kind of weird and seclusive, and should change their ways to embrace the mainstream.
This tone is easily identifiable, and regrettably unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Sadly, the article makes all of these assertions without citing a single source for support. The author himself is not an anthropologist or a sociologist, and thus his own observations and opinions do not merit expert treatment. As an editorial, this piece is fine. As supposed "journalism," it is woefully inadequate.
But anyway, for those of you expressing shock and disbelief at how anyone reading this article could be offended, try to expand your mind and allow me to enlighten you.
First, the author begins his piece by calling hardcore gamers "lonely" and "alienated." He then -- without citing any support for his assertions -- proceeds to draw a series of lines between "non-gamers" and "gamers." The lines the author draws are not meant to cause (or at least do not have the effect of causing) "non-gamers" reading the Time article to realize, "Hey, we're not so different after all." Nay, instead, the author's piece seems meant to accentuate (or at least has the effect of accentuating) the differences between the two.
Unlike the author, I cite a virtual cornucopia of examples:
When nongamers look at the Master Chief's helmet, they see a forbidding, anonymous mask. But when gamers look at it, they see a mirror. They see themselves.There's a foreign-legion quality to it, as if the company had been created as a refuge for smart people who wouldn't or couldn't fit into more conventional professions.It's doubtful that many people reading this could say exactly, or even approximately, what the Halo games are about. In return, they give Halo most of their waking hours, which vastly outnumber their sleeping ones. For the past few months, shifts at Bungie have run from 6 in the morning till 2 in the morning. One manager confessed that he was so strung out on caffeine, he had to drink a Diet Coke just so he could kill his cravings enough to fall asleep. . . . "We actually are insane," the engineer says . . . "Literally. We ought to be locked up."This devotion is fueled by a belief, not shared by the world at large, that video games are an art form with genuine emotional meaning and that Halo 3 will be the premier example of that art. There's an opportunity beyond video games, too, for Halo to break out of the ghetto and become a mainstream, mass-market, multimedia entertainment property.They don't need to legitimize Halo by associating it with other, more respectable media.They're happy in their invisible geek ghetto.It may be time for the Master Chief to come in from the cold and join the party, with the popular kids.
Thus, to those of you who still don't believe that this article might offend a gamer, allow me to draw some basic conclusions for you, all of which may be supported by drawing upon the above-quoted excerpts:
* According to the author, gamers are under the delusion that they are futuristic super-soldiers. Non-gamers, of course, simply see some dude with a helmet.
* According to the author, Halo fans don't read Time Magazine.
* According to the author, hardcore gamers (under the guise of Bungie employees) are incapable of interacting with regular people in a normal office environment.
* According to the author, hardcore gamers (under the guise of Bungie employees) are obsessive to the point where they become strung out and addicted to stimulants.
* According to the author, hardcore gamers (under the guise of Bungie employees) are self-admittedly insane to the point where they should be locked up.
* According to the author, hardcore gamers are under delusions about the artistry of video gaming; delusions which, of course, are clearly not true to normal people.
* According to the author, Halo is ghetto. (Sorry, but the connotations of this word are undeniable. Quote the dictionary all you want, but we all know the mental image you get when someone says the word "ghetto." Keep the audience in mind, indeed.)
* According to the author, Halo fans are out of the mainstream.
* According to the author, Video games are not "respectable."
* According to the author, Halo fans are geeks. (Again, the connotations of the word are undeniably negative)
* According to the author, Halo fans are not popular kids, but they could be if they would only submit themselves to the mainstream. (whatever that means)
You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusions about what the author is saying here. But the above conclusions are certainly possible to the biased or predisposed reader. Moreover, I doubt that you could successfully show that the author is trying to convince his audience that hardcore gamers are normal people -- students, athletes, musicians, doctors, mechanics, lawyers, carpenters, scientists, and so on -- who are just really into gaming. Yet it is easy to show how a non-gamer (the purported "audience") might see this article as saying "Here is the rationale behind hardcore gamers' devotion. Lol aren't they weird? Why won't they just be more NORMAL?"
Again, the way you read this article is completely up to you. But it is self-evident that the article could be read in a negative light by the author's so-called "non-gamer" audience. What's worse is that the author, throughout his piece, makes assumptions and assertions about the hardcore gaming/Bungie/Halo community that are completely unsupported by anything resembling a fact or source.
In conclusion, should you let this article roll off your back without taking offense? Absolutely, if possible. I am not personally offended, and neither are many of the posters in this thread.
But to say things like "there's nothing offensive in the article," "the article is not negative," or that somehow we should ignore or forgive the article's tone and implications because we are not the intended audience is both naive and wrong.
edited for minor typos
[Edited on 09.05.2007 2:42 AM PDT]