What’s the best painting? What’s the best tv show? What’s the best game? Let’s rate them all in a listicle. Let’s put them in numerical order. Let’s get the Mona Lisa and Venus de Milo and put them side by side and go HMM, which one is the ACTUAL best? GAMERS NEED TO KNOW. GAMERS MUST KNOW WHICH ONE IS NUMBER ONE. OBJECTIVELY.
I could have a cold one day and it would affect how I viewed a fucking reload system on an FPS. But it’s my job to explain how I relate to these things. People do not come to me for my omniscience. They come to me for my foibles, feelings and biases. I am a critic not a metre stick and I don’t care if you don’t share my opinions. I can explain why I have them well and you can take it or fucking leave it.
Why do gamers demand this thing that actually does not exist? Because capitalism demands it. As capitalism’s shitty little puppets, everything must be rated ‘objectively’ so they can manipulate you into saying it’s the best so they can market it back to you, even though no opinion in the world is objective. We live in a great wide world where everything is infinite and appeals to different people. Ever notice when you find someone else whose favourite film is the same as your favourite film? It’s rare right? Do they like it for the EXACT same reasons as you? Probably not. Yeah. Maybe you don’t even have a ‘top’ film because that’s stupid fucking question. That’s how fucking opinions work. Art is not a number, commercial bullshit just wants you to think that it is so that you can be manipulated into buying more of its shit.
All the Games Media Awards, the Games Journalism Awards, Metacritic, Greenlight, the App Store, ratings systems, metrics, pageviews: all of this stuff is just a way of figuring out what is The Best so a list can be made, even though the reality is nothing is the best to everyone at any time. It’s trying to lead you to think there is anything but a huge variety of beautiful, weird and interesting things out there that are appreciated by different people at different times.
You cannot make a work of art that will destroy other art things. You can only stop that person from making art which in my opinion is a MASSIVE FUCKING VIOLENT ACT. Do you know what is a selfless, beautiful thing? Someone who gave you art for free. Because it’s there if you want it. And it’s not taken anything away from you if you don’t.
Capitalism’s insidious ploy to get you to buy only the stuff they have ploughed insidious fucking stacks of cash into en masse is the one thing killing the games industry. Surprise, you think it’s ‘the best’ because they spent a huge PR budget on it and made fancy commercials. Well done. Keep literally buying into that ploy and attempting to suffocate anything that deviates from it. You will have the same boring things to play over and over whilst huge companies make you into their slimy little zombie slave. You don’t want to play what I like? I don’t care. There’s room for us to exist on this earth, and you trying to exterminate everything that isn’t what you want is something entirely sinister and fascist.
If you succeed, there will just be you in your shitty underpants in a wasteland trying to jerk off to some free-to-play shit that hates you. Because you wanted The Best. Well The Best survived. It is only one kind of thing for one kind of person. Enjoy.
"THE NOTION OF PLAY can only escape the linguistic and practical confusion surrounding it by being considered in its movement. After two centuries of negation by the continuous idealization of production, the primitive social functions of play are presented as no more than decaying relics mixed with inferior forms that proceed directly from the necessities of the current organization of production. At the same time, the progressive tendencies of play appear in relation to the development of these very forces of production.
The new phase of affirmation of play seems to be characterized by the disappearance of any element of competition. The question of winning or losing, previously almost inseparable from ludic activity, appears linked to all other manifestations of the tension between individuals for the appropriation of goods. The feeling of the importance of winning in the game, that it is about concrete satisfactions — or, more often than not, illusions — is the wretched product of a wretched society. This feeling is naturally exploited by all the conservative forces that serve to mask the atrocious monotony of the conditions of life they themselves impose. One has only to think of all the claims détourned by competitive sports that are imposed in their precisely modern form in Great Britain with the expansion of the factories. Not only do crowds identify with professional players or clubs, which assume the same mythic role as movie stars and statesmen making all the decisions; but the infinite series of results of these competitions do not let their observers feel any of their passion. Direct participation in a game, even between those requiring a little intellectual exercise, ceases to be interesting as soon as competition for its own sake enters the framework of fixed rules. Where the idea of play is involved, nothing arouses so much scorn these days as the declaration that opens [Sawielly] Tartakower’s The Chess Bible: “The game of chess is universally recognized as the king of games.”
The element of competition must disappear in favor of a more authentically collective concept of play: the common creation of selected ludic ambiances. The central distinction that must be transcended is that established between play and ordinary life, play kept as an isolated and provisory exception. “Into an imperfect world and into the confusion of life,” writes Johan Huizinga, “it brings a temporary, a limited perfection.” Ordinary life, previously conditioned by the problem of survival, can be dominated rationally — this possibility is at the heart of every conflict of our time — and play, radically broken from a confined ludic time and space, must invade the whole of life. Perfection will not be its end, at least to the degree that this perfection signifies a static construction opposed to life. But one may propose to push to its perfection the beautiful confusion of life. The baroque — elegantly described by Eugénio d’Ors as “the vacancy of history” — and its organized beyond, play a major role in the coming reign of leisure.
In this historical perspective, play — the permanent experimentation with ludic novelties — appears to be not at all separate from ethics, from the question of the meaning of life. The only success that can be conceived in play is the immediate success of its ambiance, and the constant augmentation of its powers. Thus, even in its present co-existence with the residues of the phase of decline, play cannot be completely emancipated from a competitive aspect; its goal must be at the very least to provoke conditions favorable to direct living. In this sense it is another struggle and representation: the struggle for a life in step with desire, and the concrete representation of such a life.
Due to its marginal existence in relation to the oppressive reality of work, play is often regarded as fictitious. But the work of the situationists is precisely the preparation of ludic possibilities to come. One can thus attempt to neglect the Situationist International to the degree that one easily recognizes a few aspects of a great game. “Nevertheless,” says Huizinga, “as we have already pointed out, the consciousness of play being ‘only a pretend’ does not in any way prevent it from proceeding with the utmost seriousness…”"