Gaming and the Language of "Them Versus Us"
Language is an evolutionary thing. It changes over time, reflecting the needs of the culture that use it. Furthermore, each unique sub-set of society seems to create and utilise its own bespoke lexicon. From business, science, politics, religion, to sports and other leisure activities, all use terminology that is unique to their own group. Overtime some of these terms’ crossover from one niche to another to eventually find broad mainstream acceptance. It is a fascinating process and one I think has accelerated in recent years due to the growth of social media.
I have written before about the subject of gaming semantics and the fact that some terms are so ambiguous and not clearly defined. This subsequently leads to skewed debates and discussion, as there is not a mutually agreed frame of reference of definition. This time I want to focus on another linguistic issue that it currently blighting the discourse surrounding games. That being the proliferation of pejorative terms and ill-conceived labels, which are used not to describe but to discredit. It sadly adds to the increasingly bi-partisan nature of all public debates these days and reinforces my current stance of not defining myself by a pastime that I pursue. The gaming community is becoming increasingly intolerant and I don't wish to be associated with such things.
Language is an evolutionary thing. It changes over time, reflecting the needs of the culture that use it. Furthermore, each unique sub-set of society seems to create and utilise its own bespoke lexicon. From business, science, politics, religion, to sports and other leisure activities, all use terminology that is unique to their own group. Overtime some of these terms’ crossover from one niche to another to eventually find broad mainstream acceptance. It is a fascinating process and one I think has accelerated in recent years due to the growth of social media.
I have written before about the subject of gaming semantics and the fact that some terms are so ambiguous and not clearly defined. This subsequently leads to skewed debates and discussion, as there is not a mutually agreed frame of reference of definition. This time I want to focus on another linguistic issue that it currently blighting the discourse surrounding games. That being the proliferation of pejorative terms and ill-conceived labels, which are used not to describe but to discredit. It sadly adds to the increasingly bi-partisan nature of all public debates these days and reinforces my current stance of not defining myself by a pastime that I pursue. The gaming community is becoming increasingly intolerant and I don't wish to be associated with such things.
Something that often comes up in discussions about PVP, is the term "carebear". Initially this was a term that was jokingly employed to describe players that preferred the social interaction of PVE content and avoided player versus player gameplay. Now it seems to be a routine epithet to negatively label anyone who doesn't advocate any of the competitive aspects of gaming. If you do not like PVP, or end-game raiding, warzones, skirmishes or the like you are a "carebear". The implication being that caring and compassion are negative things and potentially a sign of weakness. It is a blanket term design to be besmirch and standard ammunition in ad hominem attacks.
During the seventies, UK national politics was extremely binary. The right was focused on privatisation, small government and the free market with the left advocating the welfare state, social responsibility and equality. It was during this period that I first became aware of the term "do gooder"; a term broadly meaning a well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropist or reformer. Yet overtime it simple degenerated into a pejorative label for anyone who's politics were not sufficiently right wing enough. Any sort of policy that advocated fairness or parity was lambasted with this term, to the point where it became nothing but a vacuous buzz word. The reason I mention this is because the exactly the same thing is happening today with the trite label "social justice warrior".
In recent years games discourse has sunk under the weight of these sorts of terms. Any sort of meaningful and mature discussion is obscured under a swath of pointless and ultimately meaningless terms. "Feminazi", "delicate snowflake", "filthy casual gamer" and other such names are bandied about, dragging the debate away from a level playing field and into the playground. Combine this sort of rhetoric with the prevailing mindset that eschews reason, critical thinking and scope to disagree in a civil fashion and all rational discussion ends. The winner is simply those who shout loudest. History has shown us that such groups are seldom the best informed.
When this sort of philosophy prevails it ultimately does more harm than good. Sadly at present, too many gamers are busy indulging in territorial pissing that they are oblivious to the fact that they are befouling their own waterhole. It's only a matter of time before the well is truly poisoned. If gaming culture genuinely wants to improve for everyone's benefits then it needs to start thinking. That begins with the language that we use towards each other. The alternative is to continue down the current road and let those who want to watch Rome burn, do so to the detriment of all. In the meantime there will be those that disassociate themselves from the mainstream and set up isolated safe havens for likeminded gamers. However that doesn't really fix the long-term problems. Are smaller more fragmented markets and communities ultimately good for gaming?
"Adequate"
“Why re-release a game that’s perfectly adequate but doesn’t do anything particularly noteworthy or special?” Rogue Trooper Redux review by Tom McShea. Here we have in a nutshell the ill-conceived attitude that plagues contemporary gaming reviews, although it is also applicable to other mediums. Too often these days, I find myself reading critiques of games, movies and TV shows where the author feels that the product has failed because it is not exceptional. Such reviews will frequently cite numerous positive factors or attributes and reference how the product has been competently assembled. Yet in the final summation, the author will then full back upon the stock criticism that in spite of all this, the game does not “re-invent the wheel” or set a new “benchmark”. It is just “adequate”. However, I believe that this is a much misunderstood and frequently misused word. And that its reoccurring use stems from a culture of unrealistic expectations.
“Why re-release a game that’s perfectly adequate but doesn’t do anything particularly noteworthy or special?” Rogue Trooper Redux review by Tom McShea. Here we have in a nutshell the ill-conceived attitude that plagues contemporary gaming reviews, although it is also applicable to other mediums. Too often these days, I find myself reading critiques of games, movies and TV shows where the author feels that the product has failed because it is not exceptional. Such reviews will frequently cite numerous positive factors or attributes and reference how the product has been competently assembled. Yet in the final summation, the author will then full back upon the stock criticism that in spite of all this, the game does not “re-invent the wheel” or set a new “benchmark”. It is just “adequate”. However, I believe that this is a much misunderstood and frequently misused word. And that its reoccurring use stems from a culture of unrealistic expectations.
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “adequate” as follows. Satisfactory or acceptable in quality or quantity. The word has its origin in the early 17th century and derives from Latin adaequatus meaning "made equal to", being the past participle of the verb adaequare. Now we have a clear definition, let us consider in what context we would use the word in day-to-day life. Often, when I am hungry I will avail myself of specific chains of restaurants or fast food outlets. They provide satisfactory meals, conveniently at an acceptable price. Therefore, they are adequate. If I was unhappy with any aspect of the food or the service that was provided, then I would not use the word adequate to begin with. If you have to qualify somethings adequacy, then it is not adequate. So, with this in mind there are many things that can be classified as adequate; food, drink, a book, music, a box girder bridge or a drunken sexual dalliance. The moment you apply the term to something, you are clearly stating that it is “not shit”. If you are using the word to mean anything other than its dictionary definition, then you’re using it using it incorrectly.
Contrary to what certain quarters of the media and pop culture may tell you, life isn’t a never-ending series of high octane, boisterous, spiritually fulfilling events that engage all your senses and leave you sated. Day-to-day living is mainly routine, predictable and yes, you’ve guessed it, adequate (if you’re lucky). In fact, for an ever-growing group of the population adequacy is giving way to shit. The reason fun and enjoyable events stand out is because they are not frequent and the punctuate the mundane with brief periods of joy. Any addict will tell you that too much of your “drug of choice” ultimately negates the high you gain from it. Hence not only is adequate a functional and succinct word, it also represents a state of being that is integral too our lives. Like oxygen, it can be argued that humans need a specific amount of adequacy in their lives. An excess either way is not desirable but the right amount in your life provides a context and a scale against which other experiences can be measured and quantified.
So, returning from philosophical musings to the thrust of this post about gaming, I think people should think long and hard before they decided to label a game adequate. If you are trying to crowbar the word into your review as a pejorative, then simply dispense with it and clearly state what you think is wrong. The reality of the situation is that many game releases each year are adequate. Those like Tom McShea who seem to expect the “noteworthy and special” need to recalibrate their personal desires. It is impossible for the video game industry or indeed any other, to continuously innovate and perpetuate a market where every new title pushes boundaries. This why for every L.A Noire there is a Vendetta: Curse of Raven's Cry. Therefore, let us as a gaming community, look to our personal lexicon and start using the English language properly when framing out thoughts. I believe that it is important to precisely say what we mean, or else how can we mean what we say?