Some thoughts on gaming culture...

On a recent episode, there was mention of Phoenix potentially having some discussions on culture and history later, and it got me thinking about some things I've rolled around in my head from time to time, mostly when some actor or otherwise famous person spouts a spectacularly bad take on gamers. Most especially when the word "toxic" starts getting thrown around. There's a fair bit of people trying to push the pendulum one way or the other, some I think trying to overcorrect, and others that confuse being against the same thing for being on the same side. To start, I'd like to dig into history a bit for some reference on where I think "good and normal" ought to be.

Probably the first introduction of video games to the general public was the coin operated arcade cabinets. I think the first few produced by Atari were set up in bars, and later on you might find a dedicated arcade where the games were the main business. In either case, players were at a private business, and could be removed if their behavior got out of hand. With the introduction of home PCs and consoles, you might visit a friend's house (or they visit you) to play games with or against each other. There's likely some exceptions, but for me there was pretty much always a parent around for such gatherings, so again if behavior got particularly unruly, someone could be sent home, or grounded or otherwise penalized. Up until the start of internet gaming, there was usually some external moderator present to keep a lid on things. A little cajoling or trash talk is fine, an angry argument or punches being thrown would not be tolerated. It was all handled locally as well; just because the kid down the street can't control his temper doesn't mean I lose my console too.

The start of internet gaming is where things get a bit unhinged. I can give game devs a bit of grace for the early days, since up until that point they only had to make gameplay work within a single machine. Having a game work while communicating between multiple machines is a whole other thing, and players communicating with each other may only have been thought about in so far as teammates would need to be able to coordinate. Text is far less bandwidth than audio, so the earliest games used text to chat, and as a result, players had to start moderating themselves. Players still living with their parents could get away with all manner of foul language because the typing all sounds the same. I imagine when some people find out there are no hall monitors, they figured that means anything goes. In my personal experience, the most aggressively offensive gamers are a small outlier, but as often happens, dishonest people will cherry pick something extreme, and present it as typical and common. After this many years, I think developers should have been able to come up with reasonable solutions to manage communications, but I've seen that particular ball get dropped quite a bit. That might be a whole other discussion for another time.

Lately I've been thinking more about the discourse around the subject of "toxic" players, and where some people might be saying things we'd tend to agree with, but are stuck in the sort of leftist thinking patterns we've come to recognize, and use those statements to justify or excuse poor behavior. "It's just some trash talk," or "that's just how guys treat each other" may be fair for a short clip out of context. People that haven't had good role models for how men interact may take that to mean that's how guys always treat each other. I've recently seen a chain of YouTube shorts where a couple of guys were trading some trash talk about an upcoming competition, and after a half dozen shorts, one of them responded to some of the comments they both were getting on their videos with "they get we're friends, right? That we actually don't hate each other?" I can understand how a viewer that had only seen that string of shorts, and none of the videos with longer discussions (still including some trash talk, but probably less than 10 minutes out of two hours of discussion) might see their relationship as more antagonistic than the reality of it. Personally, I think if someone offers nothing but insults and never acknowledges skill or accomplishment (especially when they've been bested,) or offers any sort of civil discussion, they're just an ass.

Recently I've been encountering people that seem to be stuck in leftist patterns of thinking, but believe they're on the side of good simply because they dislike the ugly, angry feminist characters in games. As the saying goes, "hate the game, not the player." I think there's a faction that has no problem with "the game," they just want it working for them instead of against. All the cognitive dissonance, the "this is okay because we're doing it, but if you do the same it's wrong" is there, and I consider it equally harmful in the long run as the woke DEI slop we've seen in recent years. So, to draw out the familiar pattern: "It's not happening." I don't think this phase happened exactly the way the woke-scolds would use it; at most there may have been "I haven't seen that sort of behavior directly, but I've heard stories or recordings." "If it is happening, why do you care?" I'd put this phase near the beginning of GamerGate, probably a bit before, when feminists started complaining about elements of a hobby they had no intention of participating in. "It is happening, and it's a good thing!" This is about where I think things are today. Statements like "those snowflakes would never survive a CoD lobby," while basically true, I don't think tell the whole story. I'd wager most normal men wouldn't count that CoD lobby behavior as good and virtuous. It probably shouldn't be encouraged, but in the grand scheme of things, it's kinda small potatoes. Unfortunately there are some who would latch on to the fact that such behavior wasn't automatically and emphatically condemned, and interpret that as approval and endorsement. There's no shades of gray with them, no "should be used sparingly or in moderation." If it's ever acceptable, it must always be accepted. "It's just trash talk," and "I was only joking," become cover and clearance to be a total ass all of the time. Finally "well, you're just a bigot." I've seen a few instances that might be the start of this phase. Generally with bullies you hit them back (literally or figuratively;) when you become too expensive to prey upon, they'll look for easier opportunities elsewhere. Lately I've seen some of the "I was only joking" asses pull out the "you're just soy if you can't handle it" card when they get any push back over their behavior. Just like the leftists - total projection (they're actually too weak to handle a little push back), and "my behavior can't be wrong, your reaction to my behavior is the only problem here!"

Anyways, some of my musings and observations. Questions, comments, hate mail, cease and desist letters?