Friday, May 23, 2014

Why I don't listen to just anyone.

  Following up to my last post, I think that some people are just not worth listening to. Quite simply, some people are trolls. I'll give two examples:

1. MikePreachWoW

  I've already had my say concerning his video Accessibility and Apathy, but since some people reference his guides, particularly new players, I really tried to take him seriously again. I watched The Legendary Dilemma,  The first 5 minutes are a rambling rehash of the past legendaries. Seriously, it takes him 5 minutes to get to his point, where he simply asserts that legendaries just should be weapons, and that he doesn't think the legendary questline in MoP was epic enough. Too much grind, not enough specialness.

  But maybe that's just a jaded opinion of someone who doesn't want to keep up with changes to the zeitgeist. Instead, let's look at video on a subject I'm more familiar with: What's the Best Tank in MoP?

 It's assumed, in reference to active mitigation, that a good tank really makes a difference. Then the question is posed: Does a bad tank make enough of a difference? He makes the caveat that he's not currently tanking endgame content while also saying how he does his homework, does his research, etc. Keep that in mind as I quote him a few times here:

  "Threat is just no longer a component of tanking."

  Well, that's just not true. First off, he seems to be unaware that "Paladin's snap aggro is garbage." However, it has been removed as an issue a great deal, so I'll still see the point. Threat has been removed as far as it has been from the game because threat sucks. It's just not worth the downsides, and the "fixes" to vengeance in MoP have made it worse in some ways, particularly in dealing with taunt swaps. But Preach doesn't know this, apparently. This is a hotly debated issue between tanks, but it gets dismissed.

  "Bad players aren't that much worse than a good player"

  This is said in reference to someone gemming for stamina and/or avoidance. This is likely presuming that player then at least continues to execute their rotation decently. I would argue that Preach's definition of a "bad player" is exactly the pseudo-elitist bullshit that infects commentary on these subjects, spreading to other jaded souls who also don't bother to crunch the numbers for themselves or test their "hypothesis." A bad player stand in bad, misses GCDs, does not use cooldowns properly, etc. A good player "gemmed wrong" will far outperform a truly bad player. This is as it should be. All this aside, just how can a bad player not be that much worse than a good player, if a good tank really makes a difference? Preach isn't being consistent here.

  Preach then references the math done by Theck, saying he likes to "read the math, then translate into what I think is the answer for you guys." Nearly in the same breath he says "I'll do the research, I'll do the homework, I'll go and read what's going on out there...." Excuse me, but no. Theck does the research and homework, and already translates what he finds, which you can read for yourself in the sections of his articles usually titled "Summary" or "Conclusions."

  This is where he loses me, about 9 minutes in to a 48 minute video. Preach is bringing nothing new to the table, merely reposting information he does not understand or even have the context for and drawing false conclusions that seems to coincide with the average trade chat of "dumbing down the game." He is a troll. People like him are best ignored.

  2. Anita Sarkeesian, a.k.a. FeministFrequency

  Sarkeesian argues that tropes in video games are harmful to women, e.g. Damsel in Distress. By all means, I suggest anyone see the first one, at least. Then I recommend one of at least three things.

  1) If you laugh, laugh with me and let's move on.

  2) If you are in agreement with her points, we'll have to agree to disagree, at best.

  3) If you are unsure what to think, try watching a few response videos, like:
    Feminism vs Facts (RE Damsel in Distress) by Thunderfoot
    Female Game Developer's Response to Tropes vs Women by Doll Divine Dress Up Games
    Female Objectification in Video Games? Anita Sarkeesian vs Gamers by Cheshire Cat Studios
    Sexism and Stereotypes in Video Games? by KiteTales
    Anita and the White Knights by Internet Aristocrat
    Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate and Part 2: Burqa Beach Party by

  Decide for yourself.

  Bottom line, Anita Sarkeesian is not a gamer, is not a feminist, and is not even arguing her points intelligently despite her academic experience. I assume she's trolling. It's also possible she's a con artist. Either way, people like her are best ignored.

  And that's all I have to say about that.



  1. I find it deeply ironic that you find stupidity offensive, and talk about how some people are not worth listening to, yet manage to miss the incredibly badly argued, logically incompetent, hole-ridden idiocy that is the list of links you use to support your disagreement with Sarkeesian. Especially when you then use some of those idiocies in your summary at the end.

    I can't speak to the first half of the post as I can't be bothered going through those links and I am not a tank, but I was prepared to take your word for it that he wasn't worth listening to. After the second half, though, and discovering what you think is "intelligent" argument in those links, I'm not sure I can anymore.

    It would be much more enlightening if you actually explained your issues with the Tropes vs Women in Videogames series, rather than assume and dismiss challenges to your worldview.

    1. It seems I'm not entirely clear. I'm not in full agreement to all videos linked. In fact, that would not be possible, as the videos express different points of view (the horror!).

      Also, can I have your stuff?