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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:15:57 GMT

replying to a posting criticizing MB for selling mostly unoriginal, 
mindless games these days, and dumping some of their older, good games,
i wrote:

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 replies (i think it's important all this be read in
context -including my eventual reply -thus the lack of editing):
 >
>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

my reply:

ah, the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie!

i find mr. oliver's reply patronizing, pompous, arrogant, and rude.
not too mention the fact that he is assuming entirely too much.

"sophomoric"? i do not think he knows me well enough to make that judgement.
"elitist"? where does he get this one? did he read something entirely
different from what i wrote?
"crap"? too eloquent for me; i cannot defend against such a well thought out
criticism.

i urge mr. oliver to go back and read my posting again.
slowly and carefully this time. it is quite short, concise, to the point.

i think he will find that i do not "trivially denigrate" parlor games.
in fact, i enjoy them often, though i do not give them as much importance 
as he does.

nor am i insulting the entire american population, believe it or not.
i am lamenting a trend; perhaps i should not have said "typical" or 
"average" american, as there is no such thing as an average person
(show me one). but, definitely a significant portion; enough to be
statistically significant in our consumer markets.

i was simply lamenting the fact that there is a definite trend in this
country (perhaps the globe) towards more mindless entertainment, more
activities that are mentally unchallenging, to the extent that more 
engaging, original entertainment is being displaced in the marketplace.
it is getting more and more difficult to find quality films, literature, 
yes, even games, in the markets geared towards the mass consumer 
(one needs to hunt down specialty shops to find anything sophisticated,
it seems).

the majority (and , yes, here i do mean "more than half") of households
in this country did not purchase a book in the past YEAR.
the majority of households in this country own a television and watch
it for several hours a day.
i claim that there is a correlation. and i claim that it is "a bad thing"
that we are reading less and less. i claim we will become a nation of 
idiots if we do not stimulate our minds.

yes, i agree that mindless entertainment has its value; i partake of it myself
often! and i'm sure that a big part of the demand for it is from those who
perform awesome feats of mental gymnastics all day long and need to give
their minds a break once in a while, and those who utilize it as a form
of lowest-common-denominator communication with their friends and loved
ones in lieu of finding other common ground. but i believe a big part of it
is people who have nothing better to do (or who cannot or will not think
of something better to do).it is bad to have too much of anything; when
the aggregate mind of a community is too idle, it cannot be too productive
(witness the recent "dent" made in the problem of
gang violence among inner city youths
in boston when a local group started a chess program for the kids. 
suddenly a noticeable number of the kids were battling each other over a 
chessboard rather than shoot at each other with guns. i do not claim chess
will solve the problem of violence in our cities -though the 
neighbors certainly noticed. i do claim that some of these kids just have
nothing better to do than get into trouble.

i do not blame parlor games for the evils of this world. i am just sorry
when the subset of them which consists of mindless, rehashed, unoriginal
entertainment is so preponderant that it is hard to find anything else.

i think this mr. oliver read much too much into my humble words, and took 
them personally.

-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