Now tell me at the same time that games do not, and can not, influence people negatively, and you'll have illustrated my exact point, thank you.

Are you suggesting that such a setup can't be used to tell a compelling story or provide an interesting experience? That seems incredibly narrow-minded and dismissive. I can think of a dozen different "overused" setups in fiction of all mediums that are still used to great effect today. I don't see why this one is any…

How would you suggest they tell the story of a city in which every person has vanished? Would newspaper clippings and written diaries really be any better? Environmental storytelling can only go so far.

It's not about passion, it's about rationality (or a lack thereof). I've never heard anyone say that books can't influence someone negatively one minute, then say they're the most influential medium the next, but that's something you see all the time from the game community. You see it in these very comments all the…

That depends on what you think the purpose is. If you play for action, sure. If you play for exploration, story, and the joy of discovery, then not so much.

I think you’re taking hyperbole too seriously. The point is that we as gamers like to pretend the criticisms that come from those outside the culture are irrelevant or misinformed, often without ever giving them fair consideration. When someone says “games can’t affect you the way other art forms can” we scream “oh…

That’s what he’s saying; it doesn’t make any sense to dismiss the fears of those outside the culture without taking them seriously in the first place. He's saying we need to take these people and their criticisms seriously before dismissing them outright.

Amongst themselves, sure. But not when confronted with someone outside the culture criticizing games. In that situation they put games up on a pedestal as the highest form of art imaginable.

Hang around this comment section any time there's a new study published about video game violence. You'll run into them. "Video games saved my life and cured my cancer!"

Except it's basically the exact opposite of that: dismissing the fears of those outside the culture offhand without giving them any real or fair consideration.

There are tons of people who act like games are the second coming any time anyone outside the culture begins to criticize them. They circle the wagons and cross their arms and refuse to hear any disparagement, regardless of how reasonable.

Between male and female is a nearly infinite continuum, but sports demand rules, categories, dividing lines that form a frame of reference. Otherwise, contests are meaningless.

Man, that's like half the season. That's practically the entire runtime of the original movie (which was hilarious). If you can't be funny in 90 minutes, I'm not giving you another 150.

That’s quite an analysis based on my opinion of one TV show, Dr. Phil. Don't quit your day job.

Child abuse if overkill, obviously, but participation trophies are incredibly dumb.

Or they’re people with opinions that are different from yours.

No. If someone has wasted a hour and a half of my time, I'm not interested in wasting any more on them.

it’s just not a comedy gem, definitely not for cynical 20-somethings. But I meant it is definitely an “easier” comedy that someone who doesn’t like satire could enjoy.

If so I would imagine the original movie wouldn't still be funny to me, but it is. The show is like if a bunch of actual random teenage drama nerds tried to make the prequel to Wet Hot.

The original movie has been on Netflix for ages. The show, though? I don’t just mean that there were no out-loud laughs. I mean that it wasn’t funny. It was almost aggressively unfunny. It was like watching a bunch of actual random teenagers trying to make a prequel to Wet Hot American Summer.