From: Ricardo.Sedan@launchpad.unc.edu (Ricardo Sedan)
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:34:27 GMT

oh, boy... i'm going to have to reply to this one.
to refresh you memory:

In article <18575@borg.cs.unc.edu> oliver@bodie.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.100135.24184@samba.oit.unc.edu> Ricardo.Sedan@launchpad.unc.edu (Ricardo Sedan) writes:
>>
>>unfortunately, this is more, i think, a reflection of the decline and fall
>>of the american mind than of MB per se. MB is selling what the typical
>>mass market will buy; unfortunately, the unsophisticated mind of the
>>average american can entertain itself best on the likes of home alone 2,
>>america's funniest home videos, for example. the gaming interests of the
>>typical public reflect this lack of sophistication.

to which a mr. oliver has quite a mouthful to reply:
>
>
>What sophomoric elitist crap this is.
>
>First, your assumption that the "typical" American is incapable or unwilling to
>deal with mentally sophisticated leisure is trivially untrue.  Remember 
>that the leisure interests of the American consumer are not limited to 
>board games, and are extremely diverse.  Consider the *cumulative* interest
>in leisure activities and games including collecting, amateur scholarship,
>historical activities including re-enactments, non-board games including
>card games, computer games, modeling including rocketry, flight, and 
>railroad, and then consider non-game leisure activies which take up time
>that these "unsophisticated" Americans might use instead of real macho
>serious intellectual boardgaming such as woodworking, gardening, etc.
>All of these can, and most routinely do, involve serious problem
>solving and scholarship. 
>
>Now consider the social milieu in which most MB-style board games
>are brought out -- the occasional family get together or the trivial
>party.  These are not conventions of people getting together for
>some serious mind bending.  These are pepole who are looking for a 
>nice superficial framework for social interaction -- a need which is
>real, valuable, and which is specifically *not* addressed by games
>which require hard concentration.  
>
>I will use my own Christmas get-together as an example.  For Christmas,
>we had a bunch of family members get together who ranged from very young
>to very old ind from very educated to functionally illiterate.  In the evening
>we decided to play some games.  Did we drag out the computer and play V for
>Victory or any of the old wargames that some of the guys had?  Did we drag 
>out the old chess sets so ten of us could watch two of us play chess?
>Did we drag out any of the other billioon  games which you would find
>acceptable?  Of course not.  We played UNO, a completely mindless
>card game. 
>
>Now, did we play UNO because we were just silly mindless Americans?  Of
>course not.  We played UNO because we wanted a game that would bring
>us all together as an excuse to socialize.  The game did *not* as you would
>apparently believe, take up our entire mental abilities.  Instead, it did
>exactly what it is supposed to do -- provided us with an excuse to carry
>on light conversation and family gossip.
>
>The reason that people like parlor games and such is because they serve 
>primarily a social purpose.  There is nothing wrong with this, and it
>is not incompatible with having an active mental life.  The games which
>you so trivially denigrate serve that niche, and they are needed and useful.
>
>Bill Oliver

sorry to subject you all (if you're still reading) to this again. it's
been a few days, and i feel this begs a reply; normally i would think this
is not the forum for this, but i was originally replying to a very 
valid point regarding MB's marketing strategies, so i guess it's o.k.

to mr. oliver's unnecessarily rude reply i have this to say:

aaahh... the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie!

i feel someone has taken my concise posting a bit too personally. 
and taking too many liberties in attempting to read between the lines.
elitist?
look it up; i think you'll find (unless the meaning of the word has
changed drastically) there is little reason to interpret my humble
ramblings thus.
sophomoric?
give me a break!
crap?
i can't argue with such eloquence; you are entitled to your opinion, 
and i can't defend against this one.

i have just read mr oliver's reply again. i find it arrogant, pompous 
and patronizing. to him i say: do me the same courtesy and read my posting
again. you will find that i am merely lamenting MB's trend to sell
more mindless, unoriginal, challenging games (in lieu of some of
their old, better games, which have been displaced in the market)
as a symptom of a general trend in our society. they're selling what's 
making them the most money.  

i did not "trivially denigrate" anything; i did not denounce the evils of 
parlor games; i did not say there was anything wrong with anyone getting
together once in a while for some mindless entertainment.
the unassuming reader will find that i was simply lamenting the
preponderance of mediocrity in what americans choose to consume,
at the expense of challenging, sophisticated, heck, even just 
plain old "o.k." entertainment. 

perhaps i should not single out americans, but i cannot speak
from experience about most of the rest of the world.

there is a big difference between: 
the valid claim that americans are entitled
to get their minds off their problems once in a while and get together
with some friends for some "lowest common denominator" playing, 
and: 
the fact that in the MAJORITY of american households have not 
purchased a book in the past YEAR.
most households in this country own at least one television;
most high school kids don't know where vietnam is.

i claim that we spend TOO MUCH time with our minds idle; that the average
american could use something to challenge his/her mind, and at the
current trend he/she will be hard pressed to find it.

as an aside, i should point out that in boston, this past summer, during
a particularly nasty spell of gang violence among city youth, some locals
started providing the kids with the means to play chess among themselves
(lessons, boards, etc.). some people laughed, but a couple of weeks later, 
the locals noticed that a good number of the kids were now battling each
other across a chessboard rather than on the streets with ak-47's.
i am not claiming that chess will solve the problems of our cities;
i DO claim that one bifg part of the problem is too many idle minds;
some of these kids were shooting each other because they had nothing
better to do.

i'll be the first to seek mindless entertainment when i need it.
but it is not ALL i choose to do with my time. 

that is all.

-ricardo sedan


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc