Scott, an achievement for beating a game in a really hard way is the exact same carrot as beating Super Mario 3. In fact, it is a more substantial carrot, because you do get to keep the carrot as proof that you completed it, instead of just a memory. Therefore, If you want to brag about it (and if you beat a really hard game or level, trust me, you do) and your friends don't believe you, you have proof right there, which will make the bragging more enjoyable. Also, it is definitely true that achievements can give players ideas on how to enjoy the game better, by challenging them to do things they wouldn't normally think of, which increases the potential enjoyability of the game. The offer of permanent awards to prove how well one can do at a game is a reason for most people to challenge themselves a bit more than they would normally, which, unless they take it too far, will allow most people to gain a bit more enjoyment out of the game, and there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, there are people who play games specifically for the achievements and gamerscore are usually stupid. In fact, they're basically the same type of person who enjoys WoW, or obsess over sports, or view Digg and Slashdot as contests to get the most front-page stories or the most comments scored a five. Huh, that 5-scored comments thing sounds kinda familiar...
EDIT: Oh, and One Sin, that is horrible and disgusts me. EDIT2: Also, Godwin's law. EDIT3: Sorry Sail, it's been fixed.
Take you out of immersive experience. Ruin multiplayer as people play for achievements.
This is why they should tell you about winning the achievement when you pause, die or beat a level. Sorta like how older games would tell you how many secrets you found or how much of the level you completed when you beat a level/stage.
It seems to me from listening to Scott's somewhat hard to understand argument/reasoning, is that he really seems to dislike people who strive to earn achievements for the sole purpose of upping their gamer score. But then yet somehow he then makes an illogical jump from that to achievements should be thrown out, because people are abusing the system.
Now I agree that people that play games just for achievement points should be looked down upon, but that's their decision, and they are choosing to waste there time on it. But I think that regardless of the abuses they are a good idea.
I wrote a long post for this topic after listening to the show, then lost it all!
OK, to basically sum it up, Scott was wrong, Rym was right for pretty much all the reasons people have stated before but with my own working towards the same end point. Achievements are simply milestones in a game, they mark the basic completion of the game, with some more advanced variations available. The more advanced ones ARE bonus modes like you said they should be, you don't HAVE to do them, its optional. And did anyone else notice that when ever Rym trumped Scott in an argument he simply responded with "meh"... It reminds me of a classic line in friends "hey great argument, exhaling"
To respond to your "conclusion" Scott "If your getting enjoyment from the actual sense of accomplishment of defeating a challenge, overcoming obstacles then you don't need some little light to get more enjoyment" - The light is NOT there to give you the enjoyment, it is there to confirm that the feeling of satisfaction that you have completed the challenge is justified as you did it correctly. The achievements are based around tasks that require increasing amount of skills in order to obtain, whether the challenge be trivial or complex, it requires skill in order to complete and there for a person should feel proud/satisfied that they have completed it, the achievement "light" confirms that the task was done correctly. Take Tetris for example, you don't have to get a Tetris (completing and removing 5 solid lines at a time) in order to enjoy the game, but when you do get one, you feel good about this, and to let you know you did something correctly the game plays a little noise for you as a sign of you doing well. That's the same as an accomplishment.
"If your getting enjoyment from the light turning on and not getting the enjoyment from the things you do to get the light to turn on why the fuck are you doing them?" - As I just pointed out, the light coming on is not the part that causes the enjoyment, it is simply a signal that the task has been completed correctly. The enjoyment in that case comes from knowing you completed something that wasn't easy/fun. In effect, beating the system. Its like people who run a marathon, I'm pretty sure 3/4 of the way through they wont be thinking to themselves "yeah this is fun, I am enjoying the burning in my legs, the pains in my chest ..." but once they get to the end, they will be damn happy to have completed it, and the little certificate they get at the end is a little thing for them to keep to say "my skill at running is good enough to allow me to complete this marathon and i feel happy about that" just a little green light popping up for them saying, yep, well done there, you are right to feel good for completing that.
And WoW takes skill, if you don't have skill in WoW you WILL NOT progress, its impossible, no matter how much time you put in. There comes a point in the game where the basic point and click of low levels will not work and will not get you experience. There for you must gain some skills in order to progress. At the top level if you don't have any team playing skills, you will not progress, and even if you do, you wont progress as a player or a team if you don't expand your team playing skills.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, XBox 360 games with achievements have to have an X number of achievements with a total of X points gained from all those achievements, right? AKA, developers short in time will put achievements at points like "OMG! You beat the first boss, here, have X points, 1 achievement and good luck with the other X bosses"
Here are some of my Mii's that I posted on Check Mii out Channel. 5818-9646-7660. This is ok looking Casca from Berserk. 9217-5124-8588. This is Yukino Miyazawa From Kare Kano. 2766-7354-8188. The one and only Lupin the III. Great show guys. Someone need's to buy Scott a X-box 360 for Christmas.
Ooh, Yukino from Kare Kano. I'll definitely check it out when I get home. My stupid self forgot to take down the numbers of the Miis I submitted. I really wish Nintendo would let you see all the Miis you submitted and see how they are each individually scored instead of the one that's ranked best. Perhaps, something they'll add down the road. -_-
However, I spent a good 2+ hours last night on the "Check out my Mii" Channel. I would have to say, there are too many Michael Jackson, Star Wars, & Naruto characters, but I guess that's to be expected. It really amazed me at some of the ingenuity that people used to make certain Miis. For example, the "Art" ones were people created a person on a bike, or a person in a car. Those were pretty cool.
I recently submitted Maya from Heroes and Kon from Bleach. Hopefully, they will get good responses. ^_^
potential to make games worseExplain!Take you out of immersive experience. Ruin multiplayer as people play for achievements.
I fully disagree with the immersion thing simply because something like BioShock had perfect timing with their achievement pop ups. Other games like TF2 isn't the most immersive experience but when you have everyone delaying the game because they want to temporarily add each other to their friends list for the fucking stupid achievement I hate it. I don't think that they make the game worse, they just make some people retards. Find a game with some friends or people who aren't retarded and problem solved.
Everyone on the "disagree with Scott" camp said what I had to say. To add I think it's really trivial to not respect or respect less just because they're crazy for achievements.
Also great episode. This is the first episode that made me yell at my computer.
Scott and I might not see eye to eye on things like unions, but I agree 100% with him on this. I think a bunch of you would too, if it wasn't for the fact that Rym is a master debater. I don't know if I can do a better job, but I figured I'd give a first crack at it.
First, Scott isn't lying when he says he doesn't care.
My impression is that Scott is frustrated by the fact that some people don't realize that the way that they are looking at things is counterproductive. He also has no respect for such people. It would be left at that, except for the fact that these people and their misguided perceptions are starting to have an influence on the way that games are being made, which forces Scott to care about other people's beliefs because now they affect things that he enjoys.
Second, Scott is arguing from a disadvantage.
Many of his points only hold merit if you accept the controversial viewpoint that gaming itself has inherent value beyond being a way to kill time and provide cheap thrills; that through gaming you are given the opportunity to get and hone skills that will make you better as a person. Many times Rym sidestepped the point of Scott's rant by digging at this. If gaming has no inherent value, the warm fuzzies from "achievement" recognition harm nothing (because gaming has no inherent value to harm) and provide warm fuzzies. However, Scott's argument is that in shifting the focus of play from personal mastery to merit badges, you can lose the thing that made the game worth playing in the first place.
Merit badges should just be a shorthand way of letting others quickly know that you have accomplished certain things that may be tricky to observe without them investing some time into testing you. They should have no value for the person who actually made the achievements.
However, whenever merit badges exist there also exists the temptation to focus on the badge rather than the thing it represents. You get compliments and warm fuzzies whenever you wander around wearing the badge, but you only get use from the skills its supposed to represent when you get thrust into a situation where those skills are needed, which is usually far less common, even if those fewer times tend to have more riding on them.
That change of mindset opens up a whole world of problems.
You can be given a merit badge for anything, regardless of any inherent value the thing might have. A few hours ago I took a rather satisfying dump, for instance. If I had felt the urge, I could have created a certificate for myself acknowledging the fact.
Also, a merit badge, like hard cash, is only as good as the issuer. I could give you the 500 Zombie Kill merit badge for wading into the fray and killing 500 Zombies by hand, or I could give it to you for dropping a Heavy Lourde on a group of 500 zombies stuck in a pit, or I could just give it to you arbitrarily as a reward for buying my game, whether any zombies had died or not.
If game designers realize that the only reason that you buy their games is for the warm fuzzies having merit badges provide, what incentive do they have for compelling game play and complex strategy, which are time-consuming, expensive, and a pain in the neck to create? Their goal is not to uphold the ideals of game design, their goal is to separate the largest number of consumers from the largest amount of money with the smallest cost on their parts.
As other companies notice the success of companies producing merit-badge generators, the percentage of the market devoted to genuine quality games would go on the decline, making it a pain for mastery-based gamers to find games that provide the sort of experience they're looking for.
Many of his points only hold merit if you accept the controversial viewpoint that gaming itself has inherent value beyond being a way to kill time and provide cheap thrills; that through gaming you are given the opportunity to get and hone skills that will make you better as a person. Many times Rym sidestepped the point of Scott's rant by digging at this. If gaming has no inherent value, the warm fuzzies from "achievement" recognition harm nothing (because gaming has no inherent value to harm) and provide warm fuzzies. However, Scott's argument is that in shifting the focus of play from personal mastery to merit badges, you can lose the thing that made the game worth playing in the first place.
I'm sorry but this has problems. This is like saying "You'd think this is immoral to, if you were a christian".
Your arguement doesn't hold up unless you strawman the entire argument. If achievements are used correctly, they let a player know when they are thinking outside of the box or acheiving a level of play that is above what people consider normal. For example. HL: EP2 has achievements, some of them mark when you've gotten past certain areas of the game "Quiet Mountain Getaway" (which you get for surviving the ambush at White forest Inn) This sort of achievement just tells someone they've defeated a major encounter in the game, no big deal. "Little Rocket Man" (Send the garden gnome into space), requires a shit-ton of crazy management carrying a garden gnome form the beginning of the game to the end, which having not beat the game, probably is a pretty crazy accomplishment in persistence. (not to mention probably is a hindrance) If you launch the gnome into space, you get that reward of launching plus some proof that you actually did it. Also really good achievements are "Puttin' ON a Clinic" (Defeat the chopper in Episode Two without any misses). This means your are excelling at this game, and the game gives you a bit of recognition for this. If you believe that games "improve" some aspect of your life other then leisure and passing time. Then you can't argue that some of these achievements listed should be beneficial for you as a "gamer". I'm not saying that achievements can not be handled stupidly. Just at worst they are window dressing (unless it's multi-player and people for the first few days are just being achievement whores) and at their best they test how well you've learned to move within a game's mechanics.
How can I make this Theodore Roosevelt Mii? Anyone have a picture or instructions so I can make him?
Here is my friends code if Scott, Rym, or anyone wants to send him to me which would be hella cool! Obviously I will add you in return. 2959-3405-2582-5754
At least I understand why Scott hates achievement-based games. Well, I don't "understand" exactly, but I've now heard the argument in the generic sense. I can hardly add to Rym's rebuttals.
Jcc raises an excellent point, though. Scott's arguments begin to make sense if you accept the controversial notion that gaming has some inherent value beyond just entertainment. I won't reiterate that argument here; read it.
I, however, do not believe that is true. Assuming you include in "entertainment" the sum total of the enjoyment (and, perhaps, to some extent, frustration) one gains from the game itself, the social environment in which one plays the game (if any), and the meta-enjoyment of owning and playing the game in the RL circumstances in which one might currently exist, then I certainly and solidly believe there is no further meaning to gaming.
What meaning could there be? Well, I can think of a few things.
First and foremost: Advocacy for a given platform. Scott gave away one of the hidden reasons for his dislike of achievements, that they are primarily specific to Xbox Live games. Scott, being an affirmed (one might say zealous) supporter of Nintendo consoles, resents any factor that might draw players of multi-platform games away from his preferred platform and onto another. Likely, this is due to a strong desire on Scott's part for high sales figures on Nintendo products to validate his faith in that platform. Or, in simpler terms, the more the Nintendo platform seems superior to the world at large, the more superior he can feel for advocating it.
This is, of course, true for other games, such as the obvious example of MMOs. Scott has made his position on the computer platform well known. He makes an exception for Valve products, but then, he also makes an exception to his rule that popularity affirms superiority (in the case of the Nintendo platform) when it comes to certain MMOs. Perhaps he fears that the popularity of certain MMOs will draw funding and public support away from the platform of his choice, thus decreasing his gaming potential. If so, that is rank and abhorrent elitism that deserves nothing but contempt. If not, well, it will take more than a simple denial to dissuade me from the belief.
Another meaning to gaming that is often quoted is skill. However, the idea of achievement-based gaming is that it takes a certain level of skill to achieve certain things. Thus, achieving these goals allows you to announce to the world your skill. Scott often accuses achievement-based games of having no skill requirement. This clearly misses the point of achievement-based gaming. Whether the achievement is "kill 1000 zombies" or "kill Kael'thas Sunstrider", there is clearly some skill required, whether the amount (on some imagined absolute scale of skill) is high or low. To deny this is to deny reality. Scott is no stranger to this, and if you don't believe that, you've never listened to GeekNights. Thus, I can't argue against this, but I can only hope the logic is plain.
What other meaning could there be for gaming? Perhaps, when one invests a substantial portion of one's life into a hobby, a certain type of individual might feel an overwhelming need to validate that investment in some (hopefully) universally-accepted way. For instance, one might advocate only a specific type of game and/or platform which some perceive to be the "most advanced" or "most forward-thinking". Thus, one becomes a supporter of a subset of gaming which the individual would like to see more of. In that way, this hypothetical gamer is advancing the cause of gaming for all--at least toward the goal he believes is best for all--making gaming more than just entertainment.
This approach would require a common logical fallacy, that being the assertion that a relative property is, in fact, absolute. To say that any subset of gaming is "the best" or even "the most important" is, at best, relative to some specific population or time period. Any assertions of the sort need more qualification in order to have any hope of validity. However, it is, of course, quite easy to fall into this logical trap, and, apparently, rather difficult to escape.
In short, I vehemently refute the assertion that gaming has, or can possibly have any meaning or purpose besides entertainment (as fully detailed above).
Why? Perhaps it is a matter of opinion. However, I offer this as support for my opinion, that it may perhaps sway the undecided toward it.
Those who believe gaming has some higher purpose beyond entertainment show a clear pattern of elitism and disrespect toward those who they believe are not serving said higher purpose. In other words, these people egregiously offend those who they have decided, according to arbitrary specifications, are not helping "the greater good of gaming". They make enemies of those who did not offend them.
This attitude breeds hate, resentment, and petty arrogance over such a trifling and innocent thing: games.
Conversely, my attitude is one of acceptance toward every possible game. Though there are many games, platforms, and whole genres in which I do not, myself, take part, I do not ever, in logical superiority or in arrogant vain, berate those people for their choice, or seek redress for some real or imagined wrong caused by their gaming preference.
Of course, I get offended when such people go out of their way to attack my preferences, unprovoked, seeking only to express their disrespect based an elitist, logical invalid, and ultimately antisocial premise.
So, whether or not the logic holds up, it leads only to despicable ends, and thus I abhor it.
It's bad enough that a lot of people who own this game are doing this trick. What's worse is that you know that there are people buying or renting this game for the sole purpose of doing this.
I'm now curious as to whether Scott ever intentionally tried to get the fireworks at the end of World 1-1 in the originalSuper Mario Brothers.
While I think you bring up something valid, it's probably a moot point - he'd claim it was about showing skill and not about getting an extra award. *grin, duck, and run*
Comments
EDIT: Oh, and One Sin, that is horrible and disgusts me.
EDIT2: Also, Godwin's law.
EDIT3: Sorry Sail, it's been fixed.
5818-9646-7660. This is ok looking Casca from Berserk.
9217-5124-8588. This is Yukino Miyazawa From Kare Kano.
2766-7354-8188. The one and only Lupin the III.
Great show guys. Someone need's to buy Scott a X-box 360 for Christmas.
I was lucky enough to have a Dave & Joel episode be released last night to buy my time.
Explain!
Those old chairs will make for some nice weapons.
Jump Ulitmate Stars was rather bad at that when exiting J-Universe mode.
Now I agree that people that play games just for achievement points should be looked down upon, but that's their decision, and they are choosing to waste there time on it. But I think that regardless of the abuses they are a good idea.
I wrote a long post for this topic after listening to the show, then lost it all!
OK, to basically sum it up, Scott was wrong, Rym was right for pretty much all the reasons people have stated before but with my own working towards the same end point.
Achievements are simply milestones in a game, they mark the basic completion of the game, with some more advanced variations available. The more advanced ones ARE bonus modes like you said they should be, you don't HAVE to do them, its optional.
And did anyone else notice that when ever Rym trumped Scott in an argument he simply responded with "meh"...
It reminds me of a classic line in friends "hey great argument, exhaling"
To respond to your "conclusion" Scott
"If your getting enjoyment from the actual sense of accomplishment of defeating a challenge, overcoming obstacles then you don't need some little light to get more enjoyment" - The light is NOT there to give you the enjoyment, it is there to confirm that the feeling of satisfaction that you have completed the challenge is justified as you did it correctly. The achievements are based around tasks that require increasing amount of skills in order to obtain, whether the challenge be trivial or complex, it requires skill in order to complete and there for a person should feel proud/satisfied that they have completed it, the achievement "light" confirms that the task was done correctly. Take Tetris for example, you don't have to get a Tetris (completing and removing 5 solid lines at a time) in order to enjoy the game, but when you do get one, you feel good about this, and to let you know you did something correctly the game plays a little noise for you as a sign of you doing well. That's the same as an accomplishment.
"If your getting enjoyment from the light turning on and not getting the enjoyment from the things you do to get the light to turn on why the fuck are you doing them?" - As I just pointed out, the light coming on is not the part that causes the enjoyment, it is simply a signal that the task has been completed correctly. The enjoyment in that case comes from knowing you completed something that wasn't easy/fun. In effect, beating the system.
Its like people who run a marathon, I'm pretty sure 3/4 of the way through they wont be thinking to themselves "yeah this is fun, I am enjoying the burning in my legs, the pains in my chest ..." but once they get to the end, they will be damn happy to have completed it, and the little certificate they get at the end is a little thing for them to keep to say "my skill at running is good enough to allow me to complete this marathon and i feel happy about that" just a little green light popping up for them saying, yep, well done there, you are right to feel good for completing that.
And WoW takes skill, if you don't have skill in WoW you WILL NOT progress, its impossible, no matter how much time you put in. There comes a point in the game where the basic point and click of low levels will not work and will not get you experience. There for you must gain some skills in order to progress. At the top level if you don't have any team playing skills, you will not progress, and even if you do, you wont progress as a player or a team if you don't expand your team playing skills.
Note: X != other X, in these examples.
However, I spent a good 2+ hours last night on the "Check out my Mii" Channel. I would have to say, there are too many Michael Jackson, Star Wars, & Naruto characters, but I guess that's to be expected. It really amazed me at some of the ingenuity that people used to make certain Miis. For example, the "Art" ones were people created a person on a bike, or a person in a car. Those were pretty cool.
I recently submitted Maya from Heroes and Kon from Bleach. Hopefully, they will get good responses. ^_^
I fully disagree with the immersion thing simply because something like BioShock had perfect timing with their achievement pop ups. Other games like TF2 isn't the most immersive experience but when you have everyone delaying the game because they want to temporarily add each other to their friends list for the fucking stupid achievement I hate it. I don't think that they make the game worse, they just make some people retards. Find a game with some friends or people who aren't retarded and problem solved.
Also great episode. This is the first episode that made me yell at my computer.
First, Scott isn't lying when he says he doesn't care.
My impression is that Scott is frustrated by the fact that some people don't realize that the way that they are looking at things is counterproductive. He also has no respect for such people. It would be left at that, except for the fact that these people and their misguided perceptions are starting to have an influence on the way that games are being made, which forces Scott to care about other people's beliefs because now they affect things that he enjoys.
Second, Scott is arguing from a disadvantage.
Many of his points only hold merit if you accept the controversial viewpoint that gaming itself has inherent value beyond being a way to kill time and provide cheap thrills; that through gaming you are given the opportunity to get and hone skills that will make you better as a person. Many times Rym sidestepped the point of Scott's rant by digging at this. If gaming has no inherent value, the warm fuzzies from "achievement" recognition harm nothing (because gaming has no inherent value to harm) and provide warm fuzzies. However, Scott's argument is that in shifting the focus of play from personal mastery to merit badges, you can lose the thing that made the game worth playing in the first place.
Merit badges should just be a shorthand way of letting others quickly know that you have accomplished certain things that may be tricky to observe without them investing some time into testing you. They should have no value for the person who actually made the achievements.
However, whenever merit badges exist there also exists the temptation to focus on the badge rather than the thing it represents. You get compliments and warm fuzzies whenever you wander around wearing the badge, but you only get use from the skills its supposed to represent when you get thrust into a situation where those skills are needed, which is usually far less common, even if those fewer times tend to have more riding on them.
That change of mindset opens up a whole world of problems.
You can be given a merit badge for anything, regardless of any inherent value the thing might have. A few hours ago I took a rather satisfying dump, for instance. If I had felt the urge, I could have created a certificate for myself acknowledging the fact.
Also, a merit badge, like hard cash, is only as good as the issuer. I could give you the 500 Zombie Kill merit badge for wading into the fray and killing 500 Zombies by hand, or I could give it to you for dropping a Heavy Lourde on a group of 500 zombies stuck in a pit, or I could just give it to you arbitrarily as a reward for buying my game, whether any zombies had died or not.
If game designers realize that the only reason that you buy their games is for the warm fuzzies having merit badges provide, what incentive do they have for compelling game play and complex strategy, which are time-consuming, expensive, and a pain in the neck to create? Their goal is not to uphold the ideals of game design, their goal is to separate the largest number of consumers from the largest amount of money with the smallest cost on their parts.
As other companies notice the success of companies producing merit-badge generators, the percentage of the market devoted to genuine quality games would go on the decline, making it a pain for mastery-based gamers to find games that provide the sort of experience they're looking for.
Your arguement doesn't hold up unless you strawman the entire argument. If achievements are used correctly, they let a player know when they are thinking outside of the box or acheiving a level of play that is above what people consider normal. For example. HL: EP2 has achievements, some of them mark when you've gotten past certain areas of the game "Quiet Mountain Getaway" (which you get for surviving the ambush at White forest Inn) This sort of achievement just tells someone they've defeated a major encounter in the game, no big deal. "Little Rocket Man" (Send the garden gnome into space), requires a shit-ton of crazy management carrying a garden gnome form the beginning of the game to the end, which having not beat the game, probably is a pretty crazy accomplishment in persistence. (not to mention probably is a hindrance) If you launch the gnome into space, you get that reward of launching plus some proof that you actually did it. Also really good achievements are "Puttin' ON a Clinic" (Defeat the chopper in Episode Two without any misses). This means your are excelling at this game, and the game gives you a bit of recognition for this. If you believe that games "improve" some aspect of your life other then leisure and passing time. Then you can't argue that some of these achievements listed should be beneficial for you as a "gamer". I'm not saying that achievements can not be handled stupidly. Just at worst they are window dressing (unless it's multi-player and people for the first few days are just being achievement whores) and at their best they test how well you've learned to move within a game's mechanics.
Here is my friends code if Scott, Rym, or anyone wants to send him to me which would be hella cool! Obviously I will add you in return.
2959-3405-2582-5754
At least I understand why Scott hates achievement-based games. Well, I don't "understand" exactly, but I've now heard the argument in the generic sense. I can hardly add to Rym's rebuttals.
Jcc raises an excellent point, though. Scott's arguments begin to make sense if you accept the controversial notion that gaming has some inherent value beyond just entertainment. I won't reiterate that argument here; read it.
I, however, do not believe that is true. Assuming you include in "entertainment" the sum total of the enjoyment (and, perhaps, to some extent, frustration) one gains from the game itself, the social environment in which one plays the game (if any), and the meta-enjoyment of owning and playing the game in the RL circumstances in which one might currently exist, then I certainly and solidly believe there is no further meaning to gaming.
What meaning could there be? Well, I can think of a few things.
First and foremost: Advocacy for a given platform. Scott gave away one of the hidden reasons for his dislike of achievements, that they are primarily specific to Xbox Live games. Scott, being an affirmed (one might say zealous) supporter of Nintendo consoles, resents any factor that might draw players of multi-platform games away from his preferred platform and onto another. Likely, this is due to a strong desire on Scott's part for high sales figures on Nintendo products to validate his faith in that platform. Or, in simpler terms, the more the Nintendo platform seems superior to the world at large, the more superior he can feel for advocating it.
This is, of course, true for other games, such as the obvious example of MMOs. Scott has made his position on the computer platform well known. He makes an exception for Valve products, but then, he also makes an exception to his rule that popularity affirms superiority (in the case of the Nintendo platform) when it comes to certain MMOs. Perhaps he fears that the popularity of certain MMOs will draw funding and public support away from the platform of his choice, thus decreasing his gaming potential. If so, that is rank and abhorrent elitism that deserves nothing but contempt. If not, well, it will take more than a simple denial to dissuade me from the belief.
Another meaning to gaming that is often quoted is skill. However, the idea of achievement-based gaming is that it takes a certain level of skill to achieve certain things. Thus, achieving these goals allows you to announce to the world your skill. Scott often accuses achievement-based games of having no skill requirement. This clearly misses the point of achievement-based gaming. Whether the achievement is "kill 1000 zombies" or "kill Kael'thas Sunstrider", there is clearly some skill required, whether the amount (on some imagined absolute scale of skill) is high or low. To deny this is to deny reality. Scott is no stranger to this, and if you don't believe that, you've never listened to GeekNights. Thus, I can't argue against this, but I can only hope the logic is plain.
What other meaning could there be for gaming? Perhaps, when one invests a substantial portion of one's life into a hobby, a certain type of individual might feel an overwhelming need to validate that investment in some (hopefully) universally-accepted way. For instance, one might advocate only a specific type of game and/or platform which some perceive to be the "most advanced" or "most forward-thinking". Thus, one becomes a supporter of a subset of gaming which the individual would like to see more of. In that way, this hypothetical gamer is advancing the cause of gaming for all--at least toward the goal he believes is best for all--making gaming more than just entertainment.
This approach would require a common logical fallacy, that being the assertion that a relative property is, in fact, absolute. To say that any subset of gaming is "the best" or even "the most important" is, at best, relative to some specific population or time period. Any assertions of the sort need more qualification in order to have any hope of validity. However, it is, of course, quite easy to fall into this logical trap, and, apparently, rather difficult to escape.
In short, I vehemently refute the assertion that gaming has, or can possibly have any meaning or purpose besides entertainment (as fully detailed above).
Why? Perhaps it is a matter of opinion. However, I offer this as support for my opinion, that it may perhaps sway the undecided toward it.
Those who believe gaming has some higher purpose beyond entertainment show a clear pattern of elitism and disrespect toward those who they believe are not serving said higher purpose. In other words, these people egregiously offend those who they have decided, according to arbitrary specifications, are not helping "the greater good of gaming". They make enemies of those who did not offend them.
This attitude breeds hate, resentment, and petty arrogance over such a trifling and innocent thing: games.
Conversely, my attitude is one of acceptance toward every possible game. Though there are many games, platforms, and whole genres in which I do not, myself, take part, I do not ever, in logical superiority or in arrogant vain, berate those people for their choice, or seek redress for some real or imagined wrong caused by their gaming preference.
Of course, I get offended when such people go out of their way to attack my preferences, unprovoked, seeking only to express their disrespect based an elitist, logical invalid, and ultimately antisocial premise.
So, whether or not the logic holds up, it leads only to despicable ends, and thus I abhor it.
Gaming is for fun.
You know..."fun and games"?
So have fun, and be nice.