Sunday, February 26, 2012

John Walker Is The Biggest Moron On The Face Of The Planet

John Walker is possibly the biggest moron on the face of the planet, save for the person (who may or may not be mythical since how fucking stupid do you have to be to hire as big a scrub loser like Jon Walker).

A good friend of mine (just kidding, I don't have friends) runs a blog called Crystal Palace Zone. He recently had an article concerning game design, and what defines a game. Then this little loser nerd comes running in out of nowhere, screaming real loud at the top of his lungs and bangin all the pots and pans throwing a huge unprofessional fit because... well, CPZ's author had the nerve to do something that humans have been doing for eons: attempting to define a certain practice and what makes it different to other practices.

"Good grief, it's so tiresome to see people *still* arguing "games are the thing *I* say they are!" The things have been around for 35 years now - you'd imagine at some point some people might notice their preference is not the definition of the medium.

The suggestion that story-led games are a thing only happening "today", and not something that has existed since the beginnings of gaming, is impressively myopic. When the first arcade games were appearing, so were the first text adventures. A decade later, when R-Type came out for the arcades, so came Maniac Mansion and Zelda II. 

It's plain ridiculous to dismiss BioWare's games for containing romances, pretending that's all they offer. Not only are such story arcs sodding well optional (good grief, acknowledging that would really spoil the poorly disguised homophobia at the root of most of these anti-Hepler tirades, wouldn't it?), but they're a thin sliver of an enormous, multi-pathed plot, put there as a fun sidetrack for those who wish to explore them. Lying that they are the core of the game makes you look ill-informed and facetious. 

You like arcade games. You don't like narrative games. So why are you surprised when you don't like Mass Effect, and why do you act like you've been personally insulted by its existing? Don't bloody play the game! What were you expecting from BioWare - a company who have been making narrative-focused games since before you apparently realise gaming started existing? Games that contained romances between characters in 1998, fourteen years ago. 

Your entire thesis is a solipsistic mess." 

Let's just, for now, ignore the meat and potatoes of his response. Let's just focus entirely on the way he worded it: Good grief. Sodding well optional. Don't bloody play the game.


I shouldn't have to explain why colloquialism are essentially a hack writer's tools when they attempt to drive a point, but come the hell on. I'm really not sure why British colloquialisms are allowed much more leeway than any other language or dialect, but it seems like the going perception these days is that if you are British and speak in a British accent then you are both funny and intelligent. You say crazy random things that are normal to you but different to us!!

Ever since the popularity of Monty Python and Zero Punctuation's Yahtzee and that fat British Cynic guy and some other stupid loser British people, British colloquialisms and the British accent have taken off in such a way to essentially let people know that we are, indeed, dealing with a bad ass here.

"Please excuse me while I make the universal motion for a handjob."

Attention losers and scrubs: British people aren't any more funny than any one else, and neither is their stupid way of talking. I lived in Suffolk for 10 years and now I'm suicidally depressed. It's not a coincidence, its a fact, British people cause depression and also cause racism and slavery. If you meet a British person on the street, please have them deported back to their sad little island.

Okay, we've dealt with the colloquial part of Jane Walker's rebuttal. Let's just take a look at one more sentence before we dive right in to his stupid, stupid thoughts.

"Your entire thesis is a solipsistic mess."

I wanna fucking cry. Just, just try reading that aloud to yourself. Now, unlike Joe Walker, I've taken philosophy 101 in college. I got an A+ and I just smocked a bunch of weed joints while blowing weed smock in the professors face. The one time I wasn't high, though, was when they went over the philosophical perspective of solipsistic thought.

While his use of the word is correct, the one thing that our professor told us to do, was to never actually write it down or use it in a conversation because you just come up as a pretentious asshole who picks random words out of a thesaurus and tries really hard to shove them into any conversation they possibly can.

Any actual writer (not that I claim to be one) knows that you just straight up don't fucking use words like that in prose unless you are writing specifically about that technical term in some kind of thesis or other professional work. Using it in everyday conversation is stupid, and for someone like Walker who is paid to write, I shouldn't have to explain why! There's a reason why the word sesquipedalian exists and it's literally there to make fun of you for being an asshole.

Now that we've dealt with that, let's actually look at the content of his argument.

"Good grief, it's so tiresome to see people *still* arguing "games are the thing *I* say they are!" The things have been around for 35 years now - you'd imagine at some point some people might notice their preference is not the definition of the medium."

good gwief chawlie bwown

First, games have been around a lot longer than 35 years, which you would've known if you weren't a massive scrub. But, as much as you don't like to admit it, games are allowed to have a definition and there isn't anything wrong with a singular person trying to build a definition that allow people to realize what is the essence of a game, what is required to have something be called a game. The only thing wrong with someone attempting to do it is if their definition isn't accurate or does not fit the majority of the product they are attempting to define (ie: saying that games are a passive medium in which the 'player' has absolutely no influence on the game's outcome). 

For fuck's sake, games already have active definitions in dictionaries. What the guy over at Crystal Palace Zone is doing is simply using those definitions and attempting to hold modern video games to that standard definition. In this case he is using the given definitive constraints of games as being something with rules, goals, challenges, etc. What you are doing, Jonathan Walker, is essentially saying that a person is not allowed to dive into a dictionary, see the definition for banana, and get upset when someone sold them an apple labeled as a banana.

Shit. You tiny idiot. You even wrote an article attempting to define why a game isn't a game (or rather why a game is an 'un-game'). Did you fucking forget that? I mean, yes your writing is awful and I'd want to immediately forget that I'd read it to but goddamn.

"If spectacle is what you wanted from MW3, then clearly you would have been delighted with the result. Spectacle, as the name suggests, being something you stare at in a non-participatory way. Which, I would suggest, is the very definition of my newly coined term (that I now fully expect to see appearing in one of those end-of-year Times articles that lists the new words in the parlance), un-game. "

Those are exactly your words. Exactly your words. You define an un-game as something that is passive something that is not affected by player involvement. By extension of this, you define what a game is. Something that you so readily insult Crystal Palace Zone's author for doing himself. 

Really, in the end, you are a pathetic hack, an "un-writer" (that I now fully expect to see appearing in one of those end-of-year Times articles that lists the new words in the parlance) if you will. A hypocrite. A liar. An awful excuse for human garbage. Go fuck yourself. 

No comments:

Post a Comment