"I'm logged on to an MMORPG with people from all over the world and getting XP with my party using TeamSpeak." ~ Stan, South Park, Make Love Not Warcraft
There's a few things that annoy me about elitist gamers.
You know the people I'm talking about: The people that have an undeserved arrogance about them whether it's because they think they can crush anyone in their favorite, often meaningless, video game or because they muse about a topic they know nothing about and sound like they are talking out of their ass. One can't help but to imagine the stereotypical guy in his mother's basement when the thought comes to mind. Maybe you consider the high-pitched third-grader yelling at you over voice chat. Regardless, I think we can all agree that elitists are a bane on the gaming world. Even if they do have the skills to back up their big mouth, no one seems to like these people. Except maybe other elitists. And is it just me or does it seem like there are more of them on GameFAQs and Xbox Live?
There are three statements that really get under my skin. They arguments come from elitists far too often, thus I have heard these disputes many times in the past. I, for one, believe that anyone who ever makes one of these remarks needs a nice Falcon Punch to the mouth those words spurted from.
You can't compare Game A to Game B (because Game A is a Genre A and Game B is a Genre B.)
My simplest rebuttal here is that anything can be compared to anything. All things have properties that can be measured in some way. I can take two completely different objects -- for example an apple and a blimp -- and point out plenty of similarities and differences between them. I can compare their sizes, colors, textures, compositions, uses, and so on. Similarities? Perhaps they're both shiny or both irregularly shaped. If I can compare two objects that seem absolutely dissimilar, how can two things that are both games become incomparable? You want more solid proof that two very different games can be compared? Game of the Year. Writers and critics had to determine the better of Portal 2 and Skyrim this past year, so they had to make some kind of comparison to come to their respective decisions.
Game C can never be a competitive game.
I heard this disputed a lot when Super Smash Bros. Brawl was released, and it infuriated me to no end. If there is anyway to defeat or outscore another person in any kind of game, then chances are there are at least two people out there who are willing to make a reasonable wager for a chance to win something. That's enough for me to consider a game competitive. "Reasonable" is the key word. A game on which you would make no more than a $1 wager or requires too much luck to reliably produce a champion through skill does not produce reasonable wagers. Truly, the elitists argued Brawl could not be a competitive fighting game because it lacked the key elements of a fighting game. These disputes are inherently flawed not only because it did become a competitive game but also perhaps due to the elitists' narrow view of the game. If you do not consider it a competitive fighting game, then do not place so many labels on it.
This joke from Game D isn't funny anymore.
Just stop. Stop trying to sound cool because you're not. You know in your mind it's still funny, so don't try to jump on the bandwagon with all the others haters. That 1000th "Can't Let You Do That" or "Arrow in the Knee" gag is still just as funny as the first. If you honestly are tired of these jokes, then I feel sorry that you lost your sense of humor. I guess only the newest of memes amuse you, huh?
And I am not an r-tard!
ArgentStew, the Gaming Sage