Here are some thoughts on the infamous man Icy, or Icycalm, Alex Kierkegaard, who runs a game review site here: Insomnia. They are a continuation of a conversation from TIGSource. I've included some of the things said by others.
If you don't know who Icy is, he is a guy who says strong things about games. He's anti-indie, at least anti "indie," old-school, challenge-loving, and naturally offensive and a little delusional. But he's wild, strong willed, and insightful.
Me:
"Sometimes assholes are insightful. That's all the issue is. It is that simple."
J-Snake:
"I thought about that and it turns out to be not that simple for everyone. I came to the conclusion that the actual topic becomes meaningless as long as there are insults and disrespect involved because respect and appreciation is the source of life. When a person doesn't receive it there is no meaning to begin with. Those who have found their way to live can care less about temporal inconsistencies they meet here and there, others cannot."
Me:
"There's a big difference between conceptual simplicity and applicable simplicity. How do you fix your relationship with your girlfriend? Simple, listen. Execution? Maybe next to impossible. It's not an easy thing for two sides of a fight to respect each other, but often the source of conflict is something as simple as not respecting each other."
...
Derek:
"Insight doesn't come from a vacuum, you realize... if no one bothered to "prove" or "disprove" anything, then we wouldn't have any insights to begin with, icycalm's included. 100% of his articles include or are based around something someone else originally said.
Anyway, you're well within your rights to ignore me, as well, right? Take your own advice if you're not actually going to respond to any of my points. :P"
And now me again....
I wasn't trying to dodge them. Paul was doing a good job of responding, and whether you believe Icy is a cool guy or not is your prerogative. What I was saying was that the source of the issues come from this place of seeing the world through two different sets of eyes. If you can't see the value in his writing at all then I'm not going to convince you easily by marching through his points. If however I say that you're being biased because he comes across as being so demeaning then that's something you can act on, and determine if his writing is worth your time or not on your own.
This isn't a court of law. I can express an opinion without defending it. You'll be less likely to believe me but that's my choice. If you're already not listening it's not worth my time to push forward.
I hear what you are saying. I'm not ignoring you. But like Paul I find the inconsistencies in his writing to be no more plentiful than the inconsistencies in the behaviour of any given person. I think there is just this strong liberalism to this site and it doesn't surprise me at all that you can't play nice with this guy.
This guy grew up on the other side of the tracks. And he slings mud, and most of the guys here seem to sling mud, and what does that mean? Who's right? Neither side. You don't win anything by proving single points wrong. No one is going to listen until they get over whatever it is that makes them hate the other side so much. I can reason with each of my parents about the values of the other every day for the rest of my life and it will mean nothing until they can respect each other. If they don't see the necessity for respect before judging one another's opinions then arguing issues can be not the most constructive thing in the universe.
My opinion has always been that I think the guy says some things that are original. If you don't see that then it doesn't matter. You can live and die without ever caring about this guy. But it seems that having this opinion puts me on "his side." I'm not on anyone's side. I think he says 3 majorly incorrect things per article. I think he's unfair and crude and belittling and biased, and he leverages philosophy into obscure scenarios and messes with context to backhand points. But you know what? Everyone is that screwed up. The difference with Icy is that he shouts his flaws out from the top of a roof and everyone clammers to attack him. Some people are just like that. Republicans are like that. Aggressive people are like that.
Everyone has flaws. We have flaws. Some people keep them hidden and some people don't. Maybe you think this guy is immoral because he has so many. I don't care. That doesn't matter. All I am saying is that most of the attacks on his game theory is severely hampered by a blindness brought on by personal issues with the man, not the theory. Get over the bias and we can talk about theory. Don't get over the bias and we won't. It doesn't matter to me. If you learn to respect him that'll put you one notch above him, and I already like him, so expecting you to do more would obviously be unfair.
I love game design. I love reading about it. Maybe I'm an idiot because I find Icy original in some ways. I don't find that all of his points are present anywhere else. I literally didn't understand hardcore arcade culture before reading him, and that realm seems to be the root of his entire position. He wants games to challenge you directly and is very vicious against anyone who tries to pass over on that.
Every single article re-enforces the notion that games should be respected and that we should respect ourselves enough to make games that respect us and our potential. If you can see why he is so passionate about that then you can see how all of his attacks on indie culture makes sense. He's blinded too. He's obviously biased against Spelunky. That's obvious. You don't need to marginalize everything he says to justify disagreeing with his conclusions. It's okay that he's wrong and that you think Spelunky is great. I love my Mom and she makes great Lasagna and she knows how to be kind when I'm in pain, but her opinion on the tech market and world religions I take with a grain of salt. I listen to them, I enjoy the perspective, but I certainly don't agree with them, because she doesn't know what the fuck she is talking about. It is totally reasonable that an insightful person has totally wrong opinions one moment and totally right ones 3 seconds later, whether they are buried beneath a pile of garbage or not.
No one else presses me that hard. No one else convinced me so easily that one credit continues are amazing, and that Spelunky requires an atmospheric absorption to appreciate the difficulty in its mechanics. That is very different from Mario. I literally see a point he is making, have read a few dozen articles about related subjects by now, and I still don't get it. Why? Because this guy has been seeing the world differently than me for his entire life. He's got 20+ years in arcades, when I've got next to 0. He _hates_ indie games. He hates un-challenging games. He doesn't even play FF. That's original. And he writes about that, and he does it honestly, and he just goes and goes. When I read his writing I learn about him, the person. I learn about how a person can perceive video games. The very fact that he conflicts with me so regularly is what makes him so interesting, because it means he sees qualities that I do not. He plays Mario and I play Mario and we both realize the obvious design things, but then he talks about that and the manner with which he does so enlightens me to the nuances in which those design things influenced him, how they impacted a person who is totally different from me. That's where his insight lies, in his personality. That's why he writes the way he does. He fills a niche by being honest, then devolves into slinging as a defense mechanism because he stirred a hornet's nest.
Basically it's like this. I already agree with his insight. I strip out the nonsense from the reality and see something there. I wouldn't mind talking about that. But the conversation seems to focus on whether or not the things I see really are there, and proving that they are isn't an interesting conversation for me. If someone wants to learn then I'll share, but convincing you that you should listen _then_ sharing isn't the same thing. The latter is much more about getting you to listen. It is much less about game design. I have much more value in getting you to respect Icy, to see your own bias, then to read his writing for his opinions. He expresses them quite well. They are very clear for their inherent ambiguity. They are just very difficult to grasp because they are non simple. No one can sell his opinion better than him. The best I can do is throw my weight behind him.
