TeamGhobad
Banned
What is not offensive? i think that's a shorter list. Jokes aside its probably a slow news day. I refuse to believe that article is real.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Guardian: "Git gud" is offensive
- Thread starter strange headache
- Start date
GenericUser
Member
What in the current state of the world is not offensive?
git gud, try harder OP.
git gud, try harder OP.
goldenpp72
Member
Phrase meant to offend, offends. Good to know.
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Humans*
Handy Fake
Member
I bought a Rubik's Cube and painted that fucker a uniform shade of teal. Take that society.
Whitecrow
Banned
As far as I know, those who are asking the modern society a bed of roses for themselves, where no negative emotion can ever be felt, are not men.
You just need to see who writes these kind of articles.
Last edited:
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
You've never seen a male feminist then *shudders*
Handy Fake
Member
That's an interesting thought actually.
Might explain the rise in popularity of gore-fests like Saw etc... Need something to fill that gap.
Snoopycat
Banned
Op seems to be exceptionally triggered by this woman. He's had such a meltdown over the idea of her not thinking of his hobby as worth investing much time in that he's actually claimed she said the term "git gud " is offensive. She didn't.
He then calls her an "intersectional feminist." Obviously he clicked on her name, saw she'd written an article about that but clearly didn't bother to read that article because if he had taken the time to read it instead of clutching his pearls, he might have realised she isn't one of those barbarians hell bent on taking his manhood.
"'Scuse me princess, your hyper-competitive millennial life? Man, I never knew that writing smug inflammatory bullcrap while sipping on your caffè macchiato in front of your laptop would be such a burden. Them poor millenials are really having it tough compared to all the generations before."
Calm down snowflake. If you'd bothered to click that link in her article you would have realised (maybe) that it was a reference to an article about the mounting pressures people are under today and the effect on their health. There's no need to go into hysterics over someone who treats games as entertainment rather than the meaning of life. God knows what you've got against coffee. Is it too rich for you? Can your digestive system only handle milk?
"Yeah because quite evidently, all gamers are mere scrubs working low-grade jobs that have nothing meaningful to offer."
She didn't say "gamers," she said "people." The reason she said "people" and not "gamers" is because she was referencing a study about people who are unhappy with their work. This should seem obvious. It's only one sentence. Apparently it was too much for your sensitivites and you took the word "people." for "gamers," then had a wee rant about what you imagined she had said.
"Take that Truck Simulator players, you ain't got nothing on my shitty blogger lifestyle! Your work is meaningless, but I, I produce meaning!"
She's not insulting Truck Simulator players. You seem to have serious difficulty with comprehension. We'll put it down to lack of smelling salts.
I'll try to explain the article to you as simply as possible in very short sentences because I doubt your fainting couch can take much more of the strain.
Here goes -
The lady thinks video games are there to provide entertainment. She isn't very good at them. She asked people online for help. Some of them told her to "git gud." She found that unhelpful.
He then calls her an "intersectional feminist." Obviously he clicked on her name, saw she'd written an article about that but clearly didn't bother to read that article because if he had taken the time to read it instead of clutching his pearls, he might have realised she isn't one of those barbarians hell bent on taking his manhood.
"'Scuse me princess, your hyper-competitive millennial life? Man, I never knew that writing smug inflammatory bullcrap while sipping on your caffè macchiato in front of your laptop would be such a burden. Them poor millenials are really having it tough compared to all the generations before."
Calm down snowflake. If you'd bothered to click that link in her article you would have realised (maybe) that it was a reference to an article about the mounting pressures people are under today and the effect on their health. There's no need to go into hysterics over someone who treats games as entertainment rather than the meaning of life. God knows what you've got against coffee. Is it too rich for you? Can your digestive system only handle milk?
"Yeah because quite evidently, all gamers are mere scrubs working low-grade jobs that have nothing meaningful to offer."
She didn't say "gamers," she said "people." The reason she said "people" and not "gamers" is because she was referencing a study about people who are unhappy with their work. This should seem obvious. It's only one sentence. Apparently it was too much for your sensitivites and you took the word "people." for "gamers," then had a wee rant about what you imagined she had said.
"Take that Truck Simulator players, you ain't got nothing on my shitty blogger lifestyle! Your work is meaningless, but I, I produce meaning!"
She's not insulting Truck Simulator players. You seem to have serious difficulty with comprehension. We'll put it down to lack of smelling salts.
I'll try to explain the article to you as simply as possible in very short sentences because I doubt your fainting couch can take much more of the strain.
Here goes -
The lady thinks video games are there to provide entertainment. She isn't very good at them. She asked people online for help. Some of them told her to "git gud." She found that unhelpful.
Airola
Member
Maybe in future we can put a chip on our brains that gives us a sense of accomplishment with a single press of button.
Seems like a fantastic idea to write a long article about. /s
Seems like a fantastic idea to write a long article about. /s
Last edited:
Whitecrow
Banned
Of cuorse I did. But they just make follow-ups. They dont use to bring us new content to be offended about.
Airola
Member
I think the problem to many is that they can't enjoy things that they might not see to the end. People think they are entitled to win the game they purchased. It's like getting angry for a Rubik's Cube or a game of Solitaire when they just can't get themselves to solve them. People can't accept that the game has beaten them instead of the other way around. And people can't feel enjoyment from trying to solve the game.
I never understood people who thought games like The 7th Guest or The 11th Hour were bad because of insanely hard puzzles they couldn't solve. Back in the day I never got through even half of those games but I was ok with that and thought the games were still really interesting - and maybe even more mysterious than before when my lack of skill didn't let me to solve the mystery. I still loved the fact that those games existed and I would've never been disappointed if someone would've told me to get better playing them because frankly that's the truth.
For the article writer and people who dislike people who say things like "git gud" I just want to say that if you go into the game with the mindset that the point of the game is trying to solve/beat it and not absolutely certainly solving/beating it games become easier to enjoy. If that's something you still can't get your mind to get into, there are tons of games that let you have your win more easily, where you don't even have to ask help from others.
I never understood people who thought games like The 7th Guest or The 11th Hour were bad because of insanely hard puzzles they couldn't solve. Back in the day I never got through even half of those games but I was ok with that and thought the games were still really interesting - and maybe even more mysterious than before when my lack of skill didn't let me to solve the mystery. I still loved the fact that those games existed and I would've never been disappointed if someone would've told me to get better playing them because frankly that's the truth.
For the article writer and people who dislike people who say things like "git gud" I just want to say that if you go into the game with the mindset that the point of the game is trying to solve/beat it and not absolutely certainly solving/beating it games become easier to enjoy. If that's something you still can't get your mind to get into, there are tons of games that let you have your win more easily, where you don't even have to ask help from others.
MayauMiao
Member
..and rags like The Guardian continues to publish the crap articles.
Fuchalmania
Member
Agree that the OP was hyper sensitive to the article.
Having read the article, and a few others by the same author, she's going for a satirical angle. Not being serious. Trying to employ wit, and writing to an audience who aren't well versed in gaming.
I don't think she's done a great job. Wit and satire are hard to pull off, especially in the written form.
But I wouldn't tear her down just for being a woman. Seems a lot of posters here are doing that though.
You do appear to have a tendency to always get it backwards.
Hope it'll improve over time.
She disparaged the concept, the concept which is the essence of videogames.
By doing so she is inviting ridicule and deserves every once of courteous and civilized mockery this forum can possibly offer.
For those who have been reading it for years, as opposed to since 12 minutes ago, there is no question about the kind of opinion pieces the Guardian publishes and the very narrow band its columnists tend to occupy. More importantly, the attack on the Get-good idea fits perfectly into the intersectional program of systematic irrationality.
And might you be able to sip from the very same cup you're so generously offering the OP? The idea of getting-good is quintessential to videogames. She doesn't have to like it. But when she writes a questionable piece on the subject, the implication is that her distaste with it transcends mere matters of opinion and has broader significance, meaning that it is somehow applicable to gamers at large. How else would anyone besides her herself be able to relate to the article, if that weren't the case?
Gee, do. How else would peasants be able to digest the high Brow Guardian , right?
She's not good at games. Asks for help. Dismisses the advice to get good by putting in the effort - the very essence of videogames. Reasonable conclusion: the lady does not like video games. Nor does she understand them. The two seem to go hand in hand.
Accordingly, she should choose a different form of entertainment. For her own sake, I mean. Not that I would remotely care how she spends her free time.
Last edited by a moderator:
prinz_valium
Member
To be fair there is something offensive in this:
Broken clock...
Broken clock...
Snoopycat
Banned
I didn't read any of this but as ever, your wrong
Last edited:
Viliger
Member
Due to bad design, yeah. But since music and art are great, it gets a pass.
Simply_Bry
Member
Pokemon Let's Go Pickachu/Eevee might be the perfect game for her. You only have to move your arm to catch Pokemon. Oh no wait that's offensive too because amputees. Yeez this is hard.
DreamsiclesPlz
Member
I don't bother with Bloodborne and Dark Souls because I'm not amazing at games, and I know they would just cause me frustration. They're not for me, and that is fine.
But I'm not going to write an article whining about how they should lower the difficulty just for me. Put in the practice or find a new game. No reason for a bitchfit.
But I'm not going to write an article whining about how they should lower the difficulty just for me. Put in the practice or find a new game. No reason for a bitchfit.
Kdad
Member
Even so...Jeopardy makes me feel like a failure.
Paracelsus
Member
No it's not. Inclusivity for races and genders is a thing, inclusivity for non-gamers is what nearly killed gaming. When people claimed it's dishonest to compare smartphone gamers to Real Gamers™ (and they got banned by the benevolent old neogaf administration) that's what they meant. Git Gud was born with Demon's Souls and especially Dark Souls. That series became a classic because people loved after years of moviegames to actually have some challenge to overcome by pure individual skills, kinda like Ninja Gaiden. That's all it had to do to be popular, be old school with how it treated gamers (and Nioh did the same thing and it worked). Gaming is the ultimate "instant gratification" hobby (unless you consider watching Let's Plays a hobby), if they don't even want to put the minimum effort into something so trivial they would probably cut their throat if they tried hobbies that take real craft. Hell, even Risiko would drive them crazy.
Shifty
Member
The quality of the guardian's journalism is offensive.
Next.
(Also, git gud is all about context. It can be super obnoxious if coming from the wrong people in the wrong way, but it can also indicate that a challenge is surmountable, which can in its own way be a form of encourangement.)
Next.
(Also, git gud is all about context. It can be super obnoxious if coming from the wrong people in the wrong way, but it can also indicate that a challenge is surmountable, which can in its own way be a form of encourangement.)
Last edited:
Deft Beck
Member
I can see the appeal in the simulator games. I look at it from the perspective that the industries being portrayed are fascinating and involve a lot of coordination and high-tech machinery; the majority of people don't want to enter the farming industry for real, so they invest in the simulators so they can experience it without the burdens of the real thing.
As for the thread topic, I think it's easy to become angry at her, but not everyone has patience and resilience for high-skill games. If she doesn't want to improve, she can play another game. There's thousands of others.
Last edited:
ruvikx
Banned
It's almost like... overcoming a challenge is considered "entertaining & fun". News flash @ The Guardian pseudo-journalist: your views are silly, but what makes them fucking despicable is the fact you want the industry to cater to your own little stupidity & anti-gaming stance. Tens of millions (even 100's of millions) of gamers who enjoy a fun challenge & learning gameplay/overcoming a level? Fuck us all, because the Guardian says that's "bad".
I say go watch a movie if you can't be bothered to beat a video game.
I say go watch a movie if you can't be bothered to beat a video game.
Fuz
Banned
Yeah, I know where it comes from, I completed NG++ in all the DS games.
But saying "git gud" is just dumb and low effort and I always, ALWAYS, seen it used by the worst kind of "hurr durr" idiots.
Last edited:
manfestival
Member
NPCs*
ROMhack
Member
Low-tier and obviously aimed at the Guardian's usual audience of people who don't really play games but I kinda agree.
'Get good' is often a fair point but similarly it's used a lot of the time by obnoxious gamers for no other purpose than to rile somebody up. I particularly hate looking up boss strategies on, say, GameFAQs only for the topic to erupt into an argument between a) agitated gamer who can't beat said boss, and b) obnoxious gamer who doesn't want to help and spouts shit like 'git gud' instead. If I had a nickle for every time I read one of those...
However, a better, and more true, first line most certainly would have been
Like a lot of idiots with nothing better to do, I enjoy reading The Guardian.
'Get good' is often a fair point but similarly it's used a lot of the time by obnoxious gamers for no other purpose than to rile somebody up. I particularly hate looking up boss strategies on, say, GameFAQs only for the topic to erupt into an argument between a) agitated gamer who can't beat said boss, and b) obnoxious gamer who doesn't want to help and spouts shit like 'git gud' instead. If I had a nickle for every time I read one of those...
However, a better, and more true, first line most certainly would have been
Like a lot of idiots with nothing better to do, I enjoy reading The Guardian.
Last edited:
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
Some OTT outrage in here. I'm shit at games, Dark Souls and Cuphead both destroy me pretty badly, turns out they're not for me. That said, throw me a racing game and I'm usually somewhere in the top 10% or so out there once I take a bit of time with it. I don't mind games existing that aren't for me. On the flip side, I'd love to see more adventure games with actual puzzles in the 90s style (yes I know there's a shedload of stuff made in AGS but most of it's so utterly dire with awful writing and voice acting - it's not a patch on the likes of DOTT, Monkey Island 2, etc) but the market is producing mostly puzzle-free stuff like Telltale's output, Life Is Strange, etc. I'm ok with those things existing (I really enjoyed LIS) and won't complain that games are too easy. What I do ask is that people allow me my games and I'll allow them theirs.
Fuz
Banned
You may want to join us here:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/point-click-adventure-thread-2018-this-is-the-year.1460323/
ruvikx
Banned
This might be true, but even so, where's the problem? That's life. Some people are better than others at any given task. Some people can also be total dicks about their "exploits". That's also life & totally normal human behaviour from certain people who're predisposed towards that sort of thing. Personally speaking I wouldn't shit on anyone who isn't as good at a game (certainly when uncomfortable "get a life" replies are always ready). We get people who boast about their achievement & trophy totals on xbox & playstation… yet the same "get a goddamn life you loser!" retort is always just around the corner, i.e. all if fair in gaming & boasting, + what goes around comes around.
But let's be real here: The Guardian is a site which panders to folks who're stuck in "competitiveness = bad, bad bad" mindset. They check all their articles before publication & they all have to fit the agenda.
Last edited:
Frank Spencer
Banned
onlyoneno1
Member
More shit from "gaming journalist" this time from the annals of the Guardian.
strange headache
Banned
Yah, I'm so triggered, I'm literally shaking. Might explain why you're the one writing a lengthy passive-aggressive expose filled to the brim with salty buzzwords. I find your your desperate attempt at turning the vernacular of your perceived opposition against them to be rather cute. Unfortunately it's not nearly as smart as you think it is.
My gaming skills range from bad to perfectly average. I have no qualms admitting that, yet you don't see me screeching that all games should cater to my specific preferences. If some games are too challenging for me that's fine as the choice is vast enough to satisfy my gaming needs.
You don't see "journalists" like the author complaining that some books are too hard to read. Maybe because they are too embarrassed by demonstrating their own lack of reading skills. But mostly because gamers are an easy scapegoat to formulate another low-effort clickbait article.
Yeah sure, because the post war generations never endured any kind of hardships. The incessant whining about her cushiony job merely exemplifies her ignorance.
Yes, I can only stomach "soy milk". *rolleyes*
Your shtick makes you sound as inane as those who you're trying to caricaturize. I hope you're aware of... oh who am I kidding.
Had she presented the gist of her article in a reasonable manner, without resorting to vitriolic clickbait and exaggerated generalizations it would have been perfectly acceptable. If you can only bring your point across by being a smug prejudiced ignoramus and pleasurably shitting all over other "people" in order to generate attention, your article isn't worth taking seriously in the first place and you deserve all the ridicule that's coming at you.
This has nothing to do with me defending the "git gud" crowd. My main issue with the article is that it's not aimed at fostering discussion. It's prejudiced vitriolic self-centered bullcrap designed to rile up a maximum amount of people in order to generate clicks.
Last edited:
ROMhack
Member
I agree with you but I'll play the devil's advocate card and say I think it was the writer's intention to point out that the hyper-competitiveness of certain video games makes for a less fun experience when life is already competitive, which I think is indeed a fair comment looking at it from her perspective.
That said, she completely botched up the point for several reasons:
A) She didn't frame it like her personal opinion, which it is and only is that.
B) She framed it like there's something wrong with games themselves, not her inability to get reward from them.
C) She's a writer. It's a shit profession. It's ridiculously competitive. It will not lead to an easy life where one can slumber down into the confines of a comfy couch at the end of the day and enjoy a bit of Cuphead free from that dreaded work email you didn't want to see at 8.47pm. Is she for real? How does she NOT see it?
Last edited:
ruvikx
Banned
The Guardian spits on gaming. Gamer posts thread criticizing aforementioned Guardian article. To ask "why" would be the equivalent of asking why someone complains when a person spits on their breakfast. We're humans, we react. It's part of being a real person & not an NPC.
Last edited:
#Phonepunk#
Banned
Not really. These games aren’t impossible, usually this saying comes up in threads where someone is complaining about the games being trash or too hard and it’s like, no, not really, you just have to keep trying. Don’t give up on yourself. You aren’t good? Git good. It’s actually positive reinforcement. A negative response would be “stop playing, you will never be good”.
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
I saw that a while back and should probably have a proper look through it at some point, it'd be interesting to see if there are good games out there that I've missed (discovering Kingdom Come Deliverance through this forum when there'd been zero coverage of it at my former haunts has led me to realise that I've probably missed a whole bunch of stuff due to media corruption but that's a post for another day - on-topic I've thoroughly enjoyed the challenge offered by KCD and an easy mode might have made me miss that).
Back to the thread for a minute - there were a couple of decent points in the article, where I think she may have a point albeit not the one she originally intended, in that it may be harder to get into games now than it was in say the 80s (we'll leave aside the stigmatisation of gaming in those days which saw males who played games deemed nerds unworthy of human contact for now - I'm dealing with the games in and of themselves, rather than the societal aspect).
In old 2D games, due to the limited colour palette available and the low resolution, any situation was readable, and you had a simple set of actions you could perform. Up, down, left, right, fire. Designers would have a limited set of objects and would make it really obvious what they were, because they kinda had to. Into the early 90s with flat 3D and it remains readable, again due to the low-poly and low-colour nature of the display, everything has a purpose and that purpose is clear. However, moving ever further into photorealism it becomes much harder to figure out individual elements of a game that can and cannot be interacted with. We have tricks, Valve's lighting tricks to guide the player to particular routes, painting some doors on so they're obviously not interactive while making others look like clearly separate objects to the wall in which they reside. These are conventions that we as gamers have learned over the years, which newcomers may not be aware of (though of course now we have omnipresent arrows which tend to reduce that problem).
This is not to say that games should abandon their own language and conventions, as after all books have their own conventions, and many books require you to git gud to understand them, to understand the rich tapestry of metaphor, imagery and linguistic tomfoolery, some of them take a lot of work to get to the meat, we don't demand that every book cater to the reading age of a 10-year-old for instance, and on that basis there should always be a place for hard games, just as there should be a place for easy games, and given the capabilities of the medium it's nice that we can offer mixed levels for each user's preference (though that often leads to hard just scaling the number of hit points to kill the opponent more than any meaningful difference - and my earlier point about KCD where an easy mode might have robbed me of the challenge I've been enjoying is also a relevant problem with this).
Btw on intersectionality (as the OP brings it up and a few have commented on it), the author of this article has another article (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/30/intersectional-feminism-jargon) which is pretty critical of modern takes on the concept, so perhaps that's something the OP misread. "Some time in the 1970s postmodernists and other wreckers took over, junked the notions of universality and the totality of social relations that powered labourism, and replaced them with a weak, defeatist politics of difference and contingency." and "This is why we have to spend all our time monitoring Wonder Woman for traces of feminism instead of reversing the decline in union density." - pretty much fall in line with my views on this stuff.
