htown1980: I guess that is the big difference. I looked at what they "actually" said, not what they "basically" said. To me there is an important distinction.
Neobr10: Alright, if you want the article, here it is:
"‘Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet.
It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not.
They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there.
‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.
(...)
That’s not super surprising, actually. While video games themselves were discovered by strange, bright outcast pioneers -- they thought arcades would make pub games more fun, or that MUDs would make for amazing cross-cultural meeting spaces -- the commercial arm of the form sprung up from marketing high-end tech products to ‘early adopters’. You know,
young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff.
Suddenly
a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time. Suddenly they started wearing shiny blouses and pinning bikini babes onto everything they made,
started making games that sold the promise of high-octane masculinity to kids just like them.
(...)
“Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.
These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience."
And this is just from the Gamasutra article, there's a lot more in other similar articles that were posted at the same time to attack their audience.
htown1980: I appreciate that it was an analogy. I just don't think that it was a good one. I don't think a race of people is analogous to a group of people who undertake in a particular hobby.
Neobr10: Oh boy, do you really have to do so many acobratics instead of admiting that you are wrong? It has nothing to do with races, i even mentioned christians as an example because of that. I'm just saying that labelling any group with offensive adjectives is fucking ridiculous. It doesn't matter if we are talking about a religious group, an ethnic group or a group that share the same hobby. Can you understand it now or do i have to draw a picture for you?
htown1980: Do you think it is a double standard to be insulted about the "gamers are dead" articles but not about "objectified women in gaming"?
Neobr10: Obviously not, because a game is just a fucking game, it's an entertainment product and nothing else. The article was real i did feel offended by it, just like i found it offensive when an user here called all greeks "crooks".
This embarrassing "article" shows what a prime example of a true "hater" is capable of.
This person needs professional help rather than a podium and an audience.
It actually reads a bit like Hitler, which reminds me, that I really need to read the complete "Mein Kampf" someday to look for more patterns shared with some groups of today that like to see themselves as the current "left wing" .
Sorry for implementing Godwin's Law here.