Time Bullies "Lonely, Alienated" Gamers

Gamers are livid over last week's Time article on the Halo series. The author, Lev Grossman, shoots on players for loving games with "lonely, alienated, and unironic passion," and refers to Halo 2 as being an "exclusive for the Xbox 360."

Dan Zuccarelli at BBPS, who brought the article to a wider audience yesterday, is canceling his Time subscription in anger over what he considers to be an attempt to "devalue and marginalize video games and, by extension, video game players" and goes on to accuse Grossman of numerous other incorrect facts and assertions made in the piece.

"We'll start with the simple stuff," Zuccarelli writes. "The stuff that points to the laziness of the reporter in doing even a minor amount of research."

The article also touches on videogames as art:

This devotion is fueled by a belief, not shared by the world at large, that video games are an art form with genuine emotional meaning and that Halo 3 will be the premier example of that art.

and offers commentary on what the Halo franchise is doing to break out of the videogame market:

There's an opportunity beyond video games, too, for Halo to break out of the ghetto and become a mainstream, mass-market, multimedia entertainment property. Other parts of the culture are catching on. Marvel publishes Halo comic books. There are five Halo novels in print. The Halo sound tracks are released as albums.

The article concludes with Grossman's thoughts on Bungie, Halo's designers:

They don't need to legitimize Halo by associating it with other, more respectable media. They sell enough units and make enough money. They're happy in their invisible geek ghetto.

Permalink

Halo, art? I don't think even Bungie would make that claim. And he writes this the same week Bioshock came out? Have I stumbled into some parallel universe where articles in Time consist entirely of the writer making things up, or is this just the way it's always been and I never noticed?

I can understand confirming readers' largely-justified bias of gamer subculture (makes for a more palatable read), or drinking a bit too deeply of the Microsoft marketing brew (theirs is among the most potent, and they understand journalists), but would it have killed him to do some basic research?

In reading the article as a whole, I found it less offensive than the individual quotes in this posting and the posting linked.

He still had some glaring errors, but his tone overall wasn't so bad. 4 books in print, 1 out in October (which would make 5, but he probably didn't notice it was "Pre-Order", not "Buy It Now").

Overall, it seems like he was talking to the TIME audience, and making the poor assumption that none of them are gamers. I've always been a Newsweek person myself, so no love lost here. Outrage is going to be greater than the offense calls for, but he certainly shouldn't get away with this scot free.

I also find it hilarious that they posted a correction, only correcting that Halo 3 is 360 exclusive, not Halo 2. I hope they don't stop there...

Wow. I'd have to say his tone is pretty ... well it certainly belies what he thinks of videogames himself. I didn't find it so much offensive as disappointing.

One would hope that a writer taking on an article about one of the biggest phenomena in videogames would have a little respect for the medium and the game, which he really does not seem to have. I more get the idea of someone who wink-winks and nudge-nudges when talking about the videogame "industry." But, it's an editorial, and he will give his opinion in it.

I recently let my Time sub lapse. Can't say as I'm regretting that right now, since I'm clearly not the audience, if this was written with the intention of confirming their readers' biases.