"Git gud" has relevance

So because every game apparently needs controversy, even when we are up to our knees in awesome games (coming up with an article on that soon), that infamous Polygon Doom gameplay video has blown up into other media defending Polygon's first time using a controller footage. However I specifically found a good double discussion topic going on the way this article discussed it like it was some "git gud" syndrome at play. That's kind of good, because I want to discuss that "git gud" mentality as well sometime eventually. I do think there's a really dumb part of where that mentality comes from, but its all context sensitive. However when you're use for it involves the following quote...

"That “Git Gud” mentality is one part of a larger effort by “gamers” to keep games as their own private sanctuary from the wider world, open only to those who are as passionate about games as they are, and only if they’re passionate about the same games as they are."

Yeah it looks like you have some problems. Oh and sorry about the black background highlights, but something is broken with the text quoting, be it something in the blogger system, or maybe even some weird clipboard protection in the web's page. This is my only way of fixing it. I'll try to keep things short going forward, but lets actually start off with the above quote.

Have you ever thought maybe the "git gud" mentality came from a defensive state of mind rather than some unusual make-believe fantasy of creating a world for gamers? That's just not normal, and is only held to the extremists, so why would an entire hobby's dominant group be like that? I'll tell you why, because they're not. You're building a silly strawman with an outdated image of gamers that was used over two decades ago to exclude them from other hobbies or from certain social lives. There's a good reason why you hear this phrase of "git gud" mostly from the Souls side of the gaming community: only a few games are still challenging enough to fall into that category. Usually when I hear those words used seriously (very rarely. Usually people more formally point to the "learning curve" instead. The fact this very article is even using the goofy "git gud" might be its own strawman approach, since I see nobody actually saying that related to this Doom issue.), its been from the perspective that they're trying to tell you this game asks for more of your effort. When instead you challenge the game from that fundamental standpoint that its somehow bad for that, they aren't reinforcing their position for the sake of some castle party you weren't invited to; they're simply asking that you let things be, and have some fun with them, instead of in your own little corner crying over what you can't change. However the entire defense of the game is a little shifted when we talk about something related to game journalism, because this is less about how you design a game, and more about doing your damn job.

"Set aside the fact that an outlet like Polygon isn’t only writing for the most serious and dedicated videogame players. Their audience includes anybody interested in games, from the most hardcore who spend hours a day on the hobby, to the less passionate fans who only play a handful of games a year. Their writers shouldn’t be expected to reflect the tastes or share the abilities of players who devote most of their leisure time to gaming. The site maybe should’ve uploaded a less tortured DOOM video, but that half-hour clip does nothing to damage Polygon’s credibility or undermine any of the writing they’ve published. There’s nothing interesting or noteworthy about one random, unnamed employee of a videogame site being bad at one specific game. Even if Polygon was solely courting the most dedicated of self-described “gamers,” there’d be no reason to make any special notice of this particular video."

Well I can't make this stuff up, he's actually saying it doesn't matter if you're any good at your job because... reasons? Tell you what I'll give him more credit than he gives himself, and pretend he thinks like this because we're discussing a subjective or artistic field. That being said.... Chefs don't have to necessarily be good at making your food, taste is an opinion after-all. Surely that wont damage a restaurants credibility, and if you hate that, it must be because you're some disrespectful exclusionary man-child that can't accept other people might have a difference in taste, and that chef may or may not be catering to those people rather than you. Oh whats that, you got food poisoning from poorly cooked meat? Well, ya know, maybe they don't have to be as dedicated to their food as you'd like them to be. Okay I'll drop the analogy, people are always going to try and find holes with them, but the point remains.

You need someone to do their job, and yes that means actually understanding the art form at hand if we're talking about critiquing. They don't have to necessarily be for the "most serious and dedicated" fans, but they do have to do their job competently. The video in question wasn't just poor skills, or a player trying to learn, it was somebody who actually played so poorly that it made the game actually look broken. If not for the overwhelming reception and videos from other sources, that's what would have been taken from this video from the expectations of a professional source of game coverage. Instead because we knew better (and this site's credibility was already in the toilet), most of us just laughed about it and said we'd check our reviews somewhere else. When a review site uploads this video as representative footage of a video game, no we don't trust their opinion even if it they rated it good in the end. Heck after this big laughing joke, they knew they'd be shredded if they didn't post a positive review, so this just makes it as equally sketchy if not for all the other surrounding praise. I'm not asking for how "serious" they are, and if they're as "dedicated" to Doom or even FPS as me, I'm asking they do their damn job competently. ...and if you do decide to make a site more catered to the an audience that had less will-power to play, there are far, far, far better ways than uploading a video of bad gameplay and just passing it off like any other game preview.

"To these critics [gamers] it doesn’t matter if the person playing DOOM in that Polygon video is having a good time, or will be able to make smart observations about how the game or its maps and mechanics are designed."

Except that's exactly what everyone is complaining about and saying. Well more about the observations bit. The point of sources putting out videos like that to begin with is for us to ask ourselves if we'd have any fun with the game ourselves rather than the reviewer, since this is the kind of stuff we'd like to say we base our purchasing opinions off of. When they're this awful as compared to everything else, we laugh and question their credibility. We question their ability to make good reviews, which would in turn be where we do ask if they had fun and liked it. These are video game journalist writers who are supposed to be writing informative material, and this informs of as nothing more than that they cannot be taken seriously for passing the game and taking in all the details that count to players who need to spend $60. To think we're worried about anything else is silly, and the fact that you had to wait all this time to post such a defense is just as evident. Here's the reality here: this isn't the first time someone has posted a video of them playing badly at a game. In a world full of lets plays there are thousands of potential videos, and various different gamers making video content around video games at different skill levels. Some people are absolutely terrible while others are incredible. If all anybody wanted to do (and some people do want this) is to watch someone else play badly, they'll Youtube search some puzzle game lets plays and sit on the edge of their seat feeling smarter by watching someone else miss this obvious piece for 8 minutes. Instead here we are discussing a professional site, and the massive outcry is here because of that fact. This isn't some small lets play channel people watch and comment on for fun, this was an informative site's representative highlight footage of a brand new $60 video game, and they were playing it as if discovering 3D movement controls for the very first time.

"This kind of attitude limits the growth and potential of videogames. Instead of viewing games as an emerging medium that can be entertaining, informative and emotionally fulfilling, the larger world too often dismisses videogames as a childish pursuit for kids or immature adults with too much free time on their hands. Mainstream audiences see the kind of games that get the most media attention, see the kinds of people who play them and how they treat anybody who doesn’t fit into their clique, and become convinced that the kind of games you need consoles or a gaming PC to play have nothing to offer them. The market for videogames stays stagnant, with designers making the same kinds of games for the same homogeneous audience, afraid to take risks because the people who might embrace them are driven away by this arbitrary “gamer” litmus test."

Except the larger world is actually buying and spending money on games to rival even cinema at various points. A new Halo game (which is an Xbox exclusive for the record) had better release numbers than a new James Bond film. The only people actually sitting back and clinging onto these outdated views of prejudices against the notion of "gamer" are the career-endangered journalists writing about gaming. I hate to kind of say that myself being a guy that loves writing and finds recording to be an expensive and convoluted process, but its clear by both myself and this writer here that they'll let anybody into this stuff, rather than those that know what they're doing. That's the reason why this video evidence of Polygon being terrible is bad to begin with. Instead you sit here pretending this outdated stereotype exists to derail the narrative. You perform mental gymnastics in your mind to recreate this old image to tear apart despite the numbers, the public speech, the open market, that show otherwise.  Among the big mainstream games you think people shun are things like Call of Duty, and League of Legends that have proven time and time again to move massive numbers to a wide variety of players and audiences. Oh and that industry problem you mention is the same crap that we see in Hollywood, down to the point of reboots and lazy naming schemes, but yet I guess that's because there's some secret film club they're homogenizing it for that I haven't heard of until you make that up in your head? I think we can accept that high cost development creates creatively bankrupt companies who don't want to part with their heavy investment, heavy return type schemes, and that its easier to follow trends than raise the bar on standards. But I suppose that's not as entertaining since that's looking at facts, and logical reasons instead of.... whatever you're making up. Okay final quote...

If the people complaining about Polygon’s DOOM video actually cared about games as an art form or an entertainment medium, and not just their own little imaginary clubhouse, they’d want to see the videogame outgrow its current confines and become more accepted by the wider world. Instead they continually go off on tantrums like this “Git Gud” business, reinforcing why games aren’t as respected within pop culture as movies or television.

Oh, you mean the "'git gud' business" you started? Because, again, few I noticed were actually using that phrase. It usually comes out of a joke, something you even mentioned (if you see in the full article). The polygon player in question needs to be better at games not because of some fantasy club you've deluded yourself into discussing, but rather because of a real club he or she is in called a JOB! Its they're job to play, write, review, and inform on video games. Video games he or she is shown to be so terrible at that the product looks like complete misery. Its deceiving to post that as a highlight, but also irresponsible and lazy on the part of their work ethic, and that is what has been called out. As for video game as an art form, here's a news flash: It is currently in place as such without any solid confines. The closest confines that are in place, are related to the economy and artistic capability, just like any other art form. If there's any other confines, you've failed to name any within reason. However guess what comes out of considering something as a high form of art? Expectations, respect, and integrity! The art is expected to do good things. It is to be respected and treated well as such. Things related to it, are to be taken at least somewhat seriously with integrity and honesty. That's why most gamers, and respectable sites, have moved on beyond discussing games as art and more onto why our press needs an overhaul, and things like Gamer Gate are the result of such. Meanwhile you guys still bring up "games need to be taken seriously" argument, because much like the narrative you drive, its full of hypocrisies and exclusionary, snobbery attitudes.

As I touched on before, the only thing this guy isn't completely making up is that there are some instances of players excluding others with a "git gud" attitude, but those are entirely the extremists. They're the same people in films boasting such things as "Well you're not a movie fan until you've watched and appreciated Citizen Kane" or "Only dudebros like Transformers". Those people exists, because wherever there are enthusiasts, there is a tier above that, and then maybe even a tier above that next tier. There's always going to be those people who let a certain side of wanting to belong, and yet to feel on top, that take that stuff to the extreme. It could be sports, movies, books, music, etc. That's why entire cliques have formed out of names like Hipsters, Emos, Goths, etc. They wear a certain culture, design, and higher-than-normal affinity and if you don't meet up to their level they wont look at you the same way. Gamers have those elitist jerks as well, and its especially prominent among those areas where games are challenging for a good cause (only they'll twist that good cause).

However I do say it has relevance, because those cultures, and these challenging games still have something good come out of them. I love games like Doom and Dark Souls because of their depth. They're challenging for a good cause because they offer diversity among the easier turns game have taken over time, and suit the opposite end of games that have taken challenge out completely. I love those games to though. I also love some games that I can just hop into and laugh at, or goof around, or just experience something. I think Gone Home was a great game to play once. I think Glitch Hikers is an amazing, and eye-lifting experience that helped me romanticize the very notion of "experiencing". However I also think sometimes a person just needs to "git gud" and challenge themselves to something a little tricky. That's part of what games are, where they came from, and part of understanding them as an art. Or even if you don't want to see them as an art, its still part of appreciating something that exists and lives within out culture on this earth as human beings. It has the ability to capture and fill in that notion of challenge from our lives and our nature, and turns it into a romanticized form. And you know what, I believe that deserves the respect to have a decent work ethic among its critics, and if they can't give me that... well, there's a reason I never go to Polygon anyways.