Gamer Entitlement and the Argument of Exclusivity

One thing that consistently irritates me about the gaming community is its immense sense of entitlement. Gamers often make the mistake of thinking they "own" games, and therefore get to dictate what does or does not go into them. This, of course, results in enormous outrage when they don't get things exactly their way. It also creates a situation whereby they tend to push people out of the community for having a difference of opinion, thus destroying diversity.

I have a friend who is an incredibly intelligent and exceedingly vocal gamer. We discuss games every so often, but this occasionally results in some serious arguments. I'm usually pretty open-minded and accepting of other peoples' views. Problem is that, in this case, my friend tends to think of himself as always being right, even when he thinks more with his heart than his head. Anyone that follows our arguments can usually identify that the things that are upsetting him are almost entirely colored by his anger at a particular game company who shall remain nameless - it rhymes with fee-pay - that he feels has destroyed his favorite game developer, which it bought some years ago. His opinion generally contends that their games have gone downhill since then, but usually the evidence he cites for this opinion run hollow since the things he complains about are, in fact, not at all what is actually there upon an empirical look.

This, I think, is the core problem: emotions often overrule critical thought. Not that this is a bad thing, and certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but this should not be reason for making false claims about anything - or anyone. It is perfectly okay to dislike something merely because your emotions about it run high. I myself have entire lists of books I will not read because their authors have made public statements that have so offended me that I cannot dissociate their work from their personal views. But it is an entirely different problem to start placing blame for problems that don't exist merely because your own perception of things is heightened by anger.

Perhaps I come off as being too erudite at times. That's a common criticism of me, and it's fair. I totally admit it. I'm even kind of ashamed of it, but I try very hard not to let my emotions get in the way of serious thought. I have allowed that to happen in the past, and it only resulted in people getting hurt, least of all myself. However, I expect the same sort of restraint from others, and occasionally I give people too much credit. It is okay to levy criticism; no art or business would be able to do its job if it weren't. But to place false criticism of something only demeans you and the people who would take you seriously. Furthermore, it causes more damage than it promotes in creativity.

And this is where we get back on the subject of gamer entitlement. No gamer is ever right as an individual. If you want to be a gamer, you have to accept that there will ALWAYS be other gamers you disagree with, which means there will always be an audience for games you are not interested in. The idea that a game developer making changes to a game in order to make that game more accessible is a direct assault on you is a failure to understand games as a whole. Game companies desire more money, therefore it is in their interest to sell more games, which means they must make those games accessible to more people. To criticize a developer for doing this is literally the same as saying "it's popular, therefore it sucks." As a point, I try not to criticize anything based on its popularity. After all, things become popular for a reason.