Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8242550" data-attributes="member: 5142">I don't think that it's pompous or intellectually self-serving to try understanding the fundamental differences in games, systems, and modes of play in our diverse hobby. Mainstream views in the hobby can definitely take the criticism it gets, and it doesn't need white knights defending it from internet nobodies. I wouldn't be interested in learning about the art and craft of this hobby if I didn't engage these sort of conversations that actually dared to question the normal paradigms of mainstream gaming. I have learned a lot about my own gaming preferences (and those outside of my preferences) through these conversations and how to elucidate those preferences that I have. These conversations have also expanded my growing list of games that I've played and would like to play. I understand that my level of philosophical engagement of the topic may not match the typical gamer, but look into any hobby. I enjoy watching basketball when I can, but there are people who love memorizing the stats, the plays, the rules, etc. That's not me, but I'm not one to brow beat others for engaging this at an overly intellectualized or mathematical level. One of my relatives is an amateur wildlife photographer. The level of engagement that they immerse themselves with is far beyond that of a casual photographer taking outdoor pictures. They are constantly reading, learning, practicing, engaging other amateur and professional wildlife photographers about how to make better nature photographs in terms of their their timing, their framing, their techniques, their equipment, their software, etc. For many people, myself included, they are perfectly fine with being the sort who takes casual photos in the wilderness. However, I wouldn't dare accuse them of intellectual fanwankery just because it's above my own level of engagement in the hobby. Yeah. Same.</blockquote>

Verification