"I'm not alone in this attempt to destroy the nostalgic memories of middle-aged men," quips Robert "Rab" Florence as he introduces the presenting team that fronts E4's GamesMaster reboot. It's the first of many lines from the Scotsman that will raise a wry smile during the subsequent 45 minutes, but it hints at the tremendous difficulty this new venture has; the original GamesMaster, hosted by the legendary Dominik Diamond, was as close as you could get to being a semi-religious experience for many gamers in their mid-30s, so it's easy to see why Florence has reason to poke fun at the reboot's chances of pleasing those same veteran players. It turns out that he needn't have been so pessimistic – at least, that's our opinion, based on the entertaining opening episode.
While this new GamesMaster comes from a different production team and retains little in the way of connective tissue with the original run (with one exception, which we'll come to shortly), it's striking how well the tone is struck. Florence deserves the most praise here; a self-confessed fan of the Diamond-led series, he effortlessly slides into the role that his fellow countryman made his own all those years ago, injecting just the right amount of playful humour while allowing his equally likeable co-hosts – Frankie Ward and Ty Logan – room to establish their own identities within the show.
Ward is especially watchable; she's a font of knowledge for all of the challenges included within and assumes the role of the 'expert commentator' that was often filled by a random games journalist back in the '90s version of the show. Logan, meanwhile, brings with him an infectious, youthful enthusiasm that's clearly designed to pull in viewers who weren't alive when the original show was broadcast, and he's often tasked with patrolling the studio audience with a mic, fishing for opinion.
The challenges, of course, remain the focal point of GamesMaster – and in this opening episode, they're 50% based on Nintendo games. Super Mario 3D World and Splatoon 2 are both given a large amount of screen time as a result, which goes to show just how popular the Switch is at the moment. However, as before, the show has other segments to break things up; Florence's gushing review of Cruis'n Blast – filmed on the shores of the River Clyde in his native Scotland – is surprisingly effective, while the 'Educating Grado' feature – where the host attempts to explain aspects of video games to his clueless pal – calls to mind the gloriously inventive comedy seen in Consolevania, one of Florence's previous gaming-related shows.
Florence deserves the most praise here; a self-confessed fan of the Diamond-led series, he effortlessly slides into the role that his fellow countryman made his own all those years ago
Another segment shows expert gamer Sam Tuff attempting an expert challenge on the VR title Beat Saber, while another sees the presenting team tackle the driving/puzzle game hybrid Can't Drive This. With challenges focused on Call of Duty and Mortal Kombat – and the likes of Untitled Goose Game getting a few seconds on-screen – it's fair to say that this new version of GamesMaster does a commendable job of showing the vast selection of experiences that are currently available in the world of video gaming, rather than just picking the obvious examples. It would have been nice to have seen some more retro-related stuff, given that a large portion of the target audience is one step away from claiming a state pension, but the series has only just started and we'd imagine we'll be seeing some older games on display soon (oh, and celebrity challenger DJ Snoochie Shy describing the PlayStation version of the original Tomb Raider as "pixelated" made us bristle ever so slightly, we will confess).
If there's one solid connection between the old and new, it's the cameo appearance of Alex Verrey, better known to '90s TV fans as Big Boy Barry, a fictional character on GamesMaster rival Games World. Verrey – who now runs his own PR firm – actually appeared on GamesMaster before he was on that show, showing off his skills on Sonic the Hedgehog. His role in the modern GamesMaster is to mentor the show's new 'expert player', Little Lad Larry, who takes on Snoochie Shy at Splatoon 2 in this first episode. While the whole setup smacks of '90s cheesiness, it somehow works – largely because Little Lad Larry is such a likeable character.
But what of the titular GamesMaster himself? Well, it's fair to say that Sir Trevor McDonald is inspired casting as the video game-loving floating head. His delivery is perfect, and he's given even more room for jokes than the late Sir Patrick Moore was in the original series. Alongside Florence, he's responsible for much of the opening episode's laughs, and we'd honestly struggle to think of a more suitable individual to play the role.
We dare say that a small minority of narrow-minded fans will find this take on the concept too 'modern' for their tastes (one of the challengers identifies as non-binary while the duo which plays the super-tough Call of Duty challenge are a same-sex couple), but times have most certainly changed since the 1990s, and it's great to see GamesMaster become so inclusive and welcoming.
The GamesMaster reboot doesn't try to reinvent the concept, and that's what makes it work in our opinion – it's very much a 2021 take on the original format of challenges, reviews and features, all held together by some excellent presenting and plenty of knowing humour. It's a shame, then, that a show of this ilk has been pushed out onto YouTube rather than leading on TV; E4 has claimed the approach is 'social first' with a televised broadcast to follow, but with around 13,000 views in a day, the debut episode has hardly set the internet alight. Given the massive audience the original show could call upon, it seems to us that the decision to take the rebooted GamesMaster to the internet first was something of a misstep, but that doesn't detract from this otherwise entertaining production.
Does this new flavour of GamesMaster live up to the glory of the original show? We think so, and it's worth remembering that even the '90s iteration had its bumpy moments, and perhaps wasn't the perfect thing you so hazily recall in 2021, sitting there with two kids, a mortgage and all those years of repressed regret and bitterness. This isn't the GamesMaster you grew up with – no show ever will be, to be honest – but it's the next best thing, and on the evidence of this first episode, that's still pretty good.
This article was originally published by nintendolife.com on Mon 22nd November, 2021.
Agreed! I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think the co-hosts are the weakest links... They come across as cringe (but maybe the original hosts did and I'm blinded by nostalgia... Still love Dominik Diamond though!) and the commentary was pretty weak. However, regardless, I thought the show was great. It really nailed the tone and style I wanted from it and Trevor McDonald is perfect as the new GamesMaster.
As above I loved this reboot first show and was done in a way that was respectful to the original show. As a kid back then most of my gaming news was from this show and their magazine.
So pleased this show has come back as so many good memories came flooding back to me
I called this out before and will again; despite Rob's claims about the original series, if you go back and actually watch it as I did after that claim, it is INCREDIBLY diverse even from the very first episode. Exceptionally so for the 90's. Whether male, female, any race or ethnicity, etc. Not just occasionally. Every episode. Every single one. And not in a tokenistic way to go LOOK AT US REPRESENTING but simply because they were equals on the show.
Is Trevor McDonald into gaming then?
As one of the narrow-minded fans, I would advise that you can avoid boring accusations of 'box-ticking' by actually giving the co-hosts something to do, and spacing out your They/Them and same-sex couple challengers throughout the series. Its not going to be for me, but I wouldn't mind if it got a long run for a new generation. Swapping out the reserved middle-aged studio audience for a group of excited kids will immediately improve the vibe. Put it on at 5 in the afternoon, E4! Still very much for children despite words as rude as ''arse'' being muttered.
@Clyde_Radcliffe By all accounts, he isn't. But then Patrick Moore wasn't, either. He's just playing the character of the GamesMaster.
As someone who watched every episode first time round I have to say I enjoyed it. Sure, it’s not a patch on the originals but it was still enjoyable and it’s never going to be as good without Dominic Diamond and the guys from the old gaming magazines.
@Damo Shame! I suspected as much but also wondered if I was making stereotypical assumptions based on their age.
@OldPierre77 "As someone who ACTIVELY supports and supported LGBTQ+ their entire life, who has friends and family STRUGGLING in a grim world with their everyday life by actually being a normal human being and open about their homosexuality — I don’t see the point in making political statements in a show 100% about losing our free time"
Firstly, there was no 'political statement' made during the show. The contestants in question are all gamers - and they're "actually being normal human beings" (your words) by appearing on a TV show about video games and playing video games. You shouldn't have any issue with this, going by your own words?
@Damo I love and appreciate this reply 🙏🏽
My first thought: Wait, it aired already?
Looks like the TV airing is on Wednesday at 10pm, if anyone else was wondering.
Never saw the original, so it'll be an interesting first viewing at least.
We'll see. After all his woke, virtue signalling garbage pretty much attacking or at least signalling out straight white men for basically no good reason in the previous Nintendo Life interview, as well as pushing the whole "inclusivity" and "diversity" agenda a bit too hard and completely unauthentically--You do understand, Damien, that they're not doing this because they give one crap about such things but because they know ticking such boxes will get people like you to give them more words in your articles and that certain other people will tune in for that reason and no other reason and so on, right?--I'll watch this first episode and decide for myself. They don't get a free pass just because they're ticking some boxes, and they don't get any benefit of the doubt when they attack straight white men like me before the show has even started. So my first few viewings are out of curiosity to see what it's actually like for pure nostalgia's sake and nothing else. Let's see if the show is actually good, or at least cheesy and cringy fun like the original (I know it's almost certainly not gonna have any of the sexiness or double entendres and the like that made the original something a little bit edge and risky, which was much of its appeal to many of the people watching back in the day--because 2021 and such things are all "evil" now). . . .
PS. The more people like you, Damien, continue to write about and actively push all this polarising stuff around gender politics and race issues and "inclusiveness" and "diversity" and so on in places were it's doesn't really belong (keep it to the blogs and "social" media and "news" media channels and political sites), the more you're going to see this site change from something that was once pure and innocent gaming fun into some socio-political hateful nightmare where everyone is just at everyone else's throats, and not over some relatively harmful and ultimately fun Console War, but over stuff most people never wanted to be involved in in the first place--and that will be on you. So you decide what kind of site you want this to be: A site about video games, or a site that, yes, also still has video games, but ends up constantly focussing on socio-political "news"-piece trash that in reality just breeds division and conflict and animosity and hatred--look at this comments section, Damien--and ultimately results in exactly the opposite effect and end outcome to what you naively thought it was about. Look at "social" media and tell me if the world is actually better for it. . . . And if not, why would you want the site to become like that too? Well, it doesn't have to--if you just stick to the joyful and innocent and fun gaming stuff, which is why the vast, vast majority of us actually started coming here for and still come here for, and keep the politics off the site. Again, it's on YOU.
@Damo Well said!
Missed this live on TV but just watched it now on YouTube.
Really good balance of the old and the new.
@Damo Eh. There are debates that people just do not want to have regarding liberalism vs progressivism, colour-blindness vs heightened racial awareness, representation vs tokenism, and Nintendo Life is the very last place for me to try and force it. But... I didn't fully understand OldPierre's post myself, but I know this stuff is incredibly hard to discuss, and maybe you're wilfully misunderstanding to reinforce your own virtue? Non-Binary peeps and LGBT are still less than 10% of the population, so if the show makers aren't saying SOMETHING political, then booking is quite the fluke of percentage odds.
I knew it wouldn't be long until the predictable, cliched "it's trying too hard to be woke" brigade waded into this comment thread. Yawn.
@Damo So, I've not watched it yet--I'm going to do so in the next few minutes--but you're saying they've not went out of their way to actively "inform" the viewers that "these people are gay", "this person is non-binary", "they use they/them" and they like? Because, if they did, that would be "a political statement", Damien. Otherwise there would be no need or normal reason to mention it in this show about some people playing video games. So, it it wasn't forced, and if they didn't mention it, how did you know these details to write about them in your article? And why did you write about them in your article then? Because, if that's not pushing it--when otherwise there would be literally no authentic reason to mention such things when a couple of people get up to play some games--then when would it be pushing it or "making a political statemen" in your opinion? Basically, convince me it's authentic and not pushed on the viewers in a way that was utterly needless other than to tick boxes, knowing people like you would write a few extra lines about it as a result, as well maybe try to convince certain others to watch purely based on said boxes been ticked in such a way as to basically advertise it to those people?
@Reprise You mean, after it was very clearly made a point of in the main article, kinda trying to call out and basically ridicule such people for having any kind of contrary view before a single comment in said article had even been made--you mean like that?
How insightful of you.
But isn't it interesting that Damiem, in trying to not make a big deal of out it, has indeed made it a big deal by bringing it into the discussion in the first place (in a place, once again, where I do not believe such socio-political content is necessary or even wanted by the vast majority of readers--on a gaming site) and the inevitable conflict around such topics has now begun. . . .
I mean, I simply wanted to watch new GamesMaster, but before even a single episode had aired, I was getting called out for being a straight white male in an earlier interview with the show's new host. And now, before I've even watched the first episode, this article is, once again, trying to single out people based on gender and sexual preference (like somehow such a thing is special and worthy of specific mention), and foreshadowing any objections to the show focusing on such things and indeed trying to paint anyone who makes such objections in a bad light beforehand.
Do you maybe see the real problem here?
@impurekind Zzzzzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzz You're boring, dude. Go listen to Kid Rock's new song or something.
While there was great effort to select contestants in a way that appeared "inclusive and welcoming", an overrepresentation of LGBTQIA+ compared to statistics. I also noticed that the LGBTQIA+ contestants were creatives types, most likely hoping to get a foot in the door. My point is that they probably wanted a job, and to be really inclusive the show should hire a range of people, not just have them as guests. One was a streamer. Trevor Mcdonald even quipped that he didn't ask for the one contestants CV as the contestant points out they is a content creator and they later notes how they has a low level job in the gaming industry (tester). If E4 were truly inclusive they would give this person an internship, an interview or even a job. I'm not imagining a problem here, just observing they looked like they wanted a job and I hope they offered the contestant a job or at least checked to see whether they had any actual talent. "Diverse representation" is a shallow objective in the often elitist media that is still giving jobs to nephews and partners, and mates from school, instead of people, from all walks of life, with talent.
@Reprise You go listen to him.
And I didn't start this vile and insidious conversation around gender politics and all that utter crap I wish was banned from all places other than socio-political blogs and the like. It's right there in the original article, written before a single comment on said article was even made--literally creating the very platform and topic of heated debate for such conflict to now exist and grow and infest this site--so maybe direct your animosity to the person who started the ball rolling, Damien, and not the person literally saying to stop brining stuff like this into the conversation and on a site that's supposed to be about video games!
If Damien wants to talk about gender politics and the like, he should start a blog called "Gender Politics and the Like" and not a site called "Nintendo Life"--because look at what it's actually done, contrary to what he thinks he's doing. . . .
Do you not think?
@Moistnado Because none of it is authentic. It's to get certain people watching for that reason and no other reason. If it were authentic and handled with respect to all involved, which means not needlessly advertising it for no reason, then I think we'd all be happy. Some gay/bi/trans/whatever person would be hired on the show (hopefully not solely for that reason, of course) and we'd not even know about it (because why should we need to know such details while watching an episode of a show about some people playing some video games). Now that would be inclusive and diverse, and that would be authentic.
Bloody hell, it’s GamesMaster, not Fox News. Can people just stop being raging jobbies for 5 seconds?
@nessisonett I hope you're talking to Damien here, because he's the one who decided to include such socio-political content in the article out the gate, before a single comment was ever written, and for literally no good reason at all that I can see. It simply was not necessary to educate us that some person in the episode was gay and another was non-binary or whatever. Get your objections straight.
Removed - flaming/arguing
Anyway, I've now made my objections explicitly clear, and pointed out exactly where they stem from based on the content of the original article (bringing up gender politics in a gaming article for no good reason, calling people "narrow minded" in an attempt to ultimately try and ridicule and silence any contrary views before other people have even had a chance to speak, etc), written long before a single comment was made on said article. I'm out and off to watch the episode. . . .
If you shout “Keep politics out of gaming” when ever you see a same sex couple represented and not when you see mixed sex couples represented, then it’s you who are making the political statement, and it’s not a nice one.
Love the way the article said some "Narrow minded" fans will not like some of the segments, always a great way so suggest some are not very inclusive, while at the same time not accepting any difference of opinion.
@johnvboy What direction is that?
@Damo Totally agree. The was no 'virtual signalling' with the contestants and the non-binary person was a game tester so being on this show was pretty much a given for them. Queer inclusivity is vital in gaming, so many people want and need the escapism. I thought it was done expertly without a whiff of trying too hard and the couple who played Call of Duty together and talked about their relationship were frankly awesome!
@Reprise Exactly. The direction most of the modern world is headed, towards inclusivity, kindness and mutual respect. How dare they lol!
The modern media has to be seen as more inclusive, which is a great thing and long overdue, and if it's done for the right reasons it's fine, my issue is if it's more window dressing than anything else, so in this respect who knows their motivations, I would hope it's just because it's more representative of a more progressive society.
@Samwise7 Are you sure? There's a Guardian article from 2019 to skim if you're interested - 'Acceptance of gay sex in decline in UK for first time since Aids crisis'. Believe it or not, most of the 'bigots' you meet online are just 90s flavoured Liberals trying to warn Twitter Checkmarks and activists that while their intentions may be good, their methods are going to backfire bigtime. I had no issue with any of the 'diversity' contestants, but space them out if the goal is to normalise.
@johnvboy I just don't see the issue, to be honest. As someone else mentioned, the same-sex couple were gamers and the non-binary contestant was a games tester, so it didn't feel particularly forced to me. And even if the diversity angle is forced, I just don't know why people get so angry about it. Imagine getting so worked up about a same-sex couple or someone who identifies as non-binary appearing on a TV show. Someone seemed to suggest that the show went out of its way to mention the two women were a couple. Why wouldn't they mention that they're a couple? There's nothing unusual about that.
As I said no issues if the intentions are for the right reasons, my main issues are the media seems to be more inclusive just to look good, as I said this could be genuine.
@chinhead I actually think that the spacing of them is sort of irrelevant as I don't think it's going to be an unusual occurrence with this series. Any quick dip into the gaming community will find a whole wealth of queer or gender non-conforming people. Gaming is a safe space. I think the fact that the couple were girls shouldn't even be a 'thing', it's just two girls who like COD who happen to be a couple.
@johnvboy The media has to be seen to be moving the narrative on from a time where there was next to no representation. Even if sometimes it seems overdone, it's about people being able to see themselves in main stream media.
If they were including a diverse range of people because they believe that LGBTQ+ inclusivity is important, is that actually a bad thing?
Agree with that, but sometimes it can be overdone, and then the statement, if you want to call it that, loses it's impact.
Any group of people just want it to be a natural thing they are on the show, which has to be the goal of any inclusivity.
OK, I watched the show and it's actually good. In my opinion, it get's pretty much everything right in terms of looking and sounding and feeling really just like a continuation of the old show but now in glorious HD--and that's a good thing.
But, Damien, maybe you should keep the socio-political meanderings to yourself and not make specific comments on it in Nintendo Life articles. The show clearly has a bit of an agenda as is, literally making the very first contestant non-binary and very visibly so, with everyone using they/them perfectly throughout, plus having a gay couple too, and specifically making a point of mentioning they are gay and asking them about the relationship. And I work in an office that is literally built around inclusivity and all that stuff, and even there people forget to say they/them regularly to one of the staff who goes by such pronouns, yet in this episode every single person gets it right every single time. That just does not happen in the real world, unless every single person is part of that kind of group and uses such terms constantly. It's clearly pre-scripted and very much intended to push a certain message about all of this being normal and easy to just adapt to and so on. So the show is already doing its part to teach us all how to be more inclusive and better human beings. You don't have to push it any harder, Damien.
But, anyhoo, it's fun and worth watching, so long as you can just ignore the aforementioned stuff, which, admittedly, isn't subtle in even the slightest. Anyone who's tries to claim otherwise is lying to both you and themselves.
PS. The fact Meta (ex Facebook) is the sponsor of the show really should tell you volumes, whatever you read into that.
PPS. I think there actually is some good old fashioned innuendo snuck in there, which is welcome.
To be honest my issue is with the tone of this article, rather than anything actually wrong with the show or it's content.
As usual it's an article suggesting some people are intolerant, and we should just all get on with each other, but in reality will only ever divide people.
@impurekind So… you would have wanted them to make the non-binary contestant feel uncomfortable for ‘realism’?
@impurekind "You don't have to push it any harder, Damien."
See, the thing is, I didn't push anything - I correctly predicted that there would be narrow-minded people who would take issue with the episode, and you quickly 100% confirmed my suspicions.
If you're likely to go off on one of these rambles every time we even as much as mention inclusivity (which, like it or not, is part of modern life in 2021) then I'm afraid I'll have no option but to issue a ban. The site isn't going to change, so you're the one who is going to have to change.
I'd hate to lose such a long-standing member of the community, but I may have no choice. The ball is in your court.
@johnvboy After watching the show, that's the same for me. The show does what it does--this whole making a point of showing different types of people, even if it's not quite a true representation of the percentages in any particular reality, is just going to happen now (especially when Meta is sponsoring the show)--but it didn't try to make anyone else feel guilty about it or demonize them, and it did in fact mix white, black, straight, gay, [straight, white] guys and girls, which is what actual inclusivity is all about. Above all that though, it was actually well made (given it's GamesMaster) and fun. Credit where it's due.
So why the need for the "Narrow minded people" bit?, I know you are suggesting some sort of premonition was the reason, but still why even include it in the article, if not to cause back and fourth on here.
Totally agree, enjoyed the show a lot.
@Damo Read your own article, Damien, rather than trying to put it on me. But, if you want to silence my views on said things, expressed very reasonably throughout this thread, you go ahead and do exactly the kind of thing some people have been raising as objections around all this stuff, where you don't like the debate--that you literally fuelled by writing what you did in the original article "a small minority of narrow-minded . . ."--so you insult people who might want to continue the conversation you initiated, apparently unintentionally, and then silence their voice completely because it doesn't fit with your own subjective view. As before, that's on you, Damien. I can sleep fine well at night knowing I say what's true and stand for what's actually right, like getting rid of all the reporting of that crap from the site at any times where it's not necessary or wanted, while giving a perfectly fair and indeed positive review to the show as warranted.
@Samwise7 I don't massively disagree. The bigger issue for myself is the two unnecessary co-hosts that orbit the experienced white male.
@johnvboy Exactly. And now he wants to pass the buck onto me and then literally ban me from the discussion, remove me from this community I've been a part of for decades, and literally silence my voice entirely, deleting me from this group and community. And I'm sure he honestly thinks I'm the problem here and that it will make the site a better place if he forcibly removes everyone like me, while continuing to post more and more content/commentary within the site's articles that creates all of this vile stuff in the first place. Me, I'd simply like to go back to the Console Wars--but that's just my opinion.
@impurekind I have to say that I thought the article was correct to bring it up and as a gay man I loved to see the effortless inclusivity in the show. The fact that there is any complaint about it all only leads one to use the phrase 'narrow minded'. You have to have a think why it is you don't like to see it on TV or in this show in particular when it's done expertly. The non-binary game tester's jacket was on point incidentally lol. This is the norm now so people have got to get used to it.
@chinhead I think what @Damo means is that if you think it's tokenism, roll your eyes, think it's unnecessary etc, that is down to being narrow minded. It's not a big deal in the slightest, inclusivity is a good thing. The contestants sexuality or gender identity really is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things so I don't get why people are even bothered by it.
@Damo By the way, Damien, rather than trying to make the site a nicer and safer place by banning people under maybe the wrong conditions and reasoning, I think that's just going to end up with a bunch of alt accounts where said people are even more extreme in their views and their desire to express them and be heard, precisely because they know how forcibly certain inclusive types will try to silence them as soon as they say something they don't like. My suggestion is not to ban said people but rather make the site a place that's not focussing on said polarizing topics so much, like it used to be before "social" media warped everyone's minds and got them all evangelising. If you stop mentioning socio-political stuff where it's not necessary--not completely but just stopping it when not necessary or relevant--maybe you would find that would actually have the result you desire. And I say that sincerely as someone who's been here for a long time and can see the change slowly happening, and, despite your obvious good intentions, it's not for the better. Everyone who comes here does so because they love articles on video games and Nintendo and stuff like that--it couldn't be more simple.
@Damo The only reason for people to take issue with obvious tokenism is narrow-mindedness? Imagine if Rab got this gig alongside his long-time Consolevania Co-host, Ryan. Presumably, You've immediately upped the easy banter and personality quotient on the show 100%, but that would also mean a TV show in 2021 fronted by two old, white males, which is a no-go. Now, I think that was the wrong move, and more than that, discrimination. Can I really not have that opinion? Is it that hateful? What if we all just back down and agree to disagree?
@Samwise7 It clearly is tokenism. But I'm glad you liked it. As you say, this is the way things are now, and all there is to do is sit back and see if society is more or less inclusive in the next ten years.
@Samwise7 But, as you just said, the show literally had it, right, and it wasn't somehow hidden and hard to notice, right, so why make a comment in the article about "a small minority of narrow-minded . . ."?
Why not just review the show for the how it covers gaming, how funny the jokes are, how good the intentionally-bad effects are, and how fun it is? Why, be you straight or gay or whatever, do you feel it has to literally be mentioned explicitly beyond just having said stuff?
The way the show did it was actually okay, clearly very intentional and with purpose, but just integrated in there along with everything else, treated entirely normally rather than pointed out as something different, as I imagine you would surely like it to be, and fun. But imagine if it has said at the start "Now, we're going to include a non-binary and a gay couple, and if you even question why or ask why we thought it was necessary to then additionally point that out to you now, you're narrow minded", like in the article. . . .
Do you understand?
The problem in not the problem I think many people have convinced themselves it is.
@impurekind I quote:
"The show clearly has a bit of an agenda as is, literally making the very first contestant non-binary and very visibly so, with everyone using they/them perfectly throughout, plus having a gay couple too, and specifically making a point of mentioning they are gay and asking them about the relationship"
You utterly exposed yourself with that comment and the many, many others you have posted on this topic. I raised the point in the original piece that people would attack the show for being too inclusive, and you confirmed my thoughts within minutes (and penned several essay-length replies outlining your position quite clearly) so please don't try and make out this is 'on me'.
Given that you've had a warning and have ignored it entirely, then I've got no option but to issue a ban.
Judging from the comments here I can already give this show a hard pass.
@Damo Ban me too then. You're well out of order.
Removed - duplicate/fake account; user is banned
@Kirk Yep. Its great being 'on the right side of history'. Gives you licence to do all sorts on heinous shiz.
Removed - inappropriate; user is banned
McDonald's formula on full display here.
Total agreement, write an article in a loaded way, so rather than just simple reporting of the fact the show had a diverse group of participants, and this was a good thing, it had to resort to the assumption people would not like it, because they were narrow minded.
Can only be written this way to cause division in some way or other, then when people react to this sort of blatant baiting, fall back on the whole "People have proved me correct" all along.
Then the threat of a ban just because someone dared to not agree, and rise to the bait that was offered, couldn't make it up.
There are 10 paragraphs in this review.
The shortest of the 10 paragraphs praises the show for diversity.
Looking at this comment section, you'd think that was the entire review.
@chinhead Is that an honest request?
@Damo It would be best. It wasn't my intention to row on here, but its likely to continue now unless you remove the temptation.
@chinhead Let's give it until tomorrow. If you still feel the same way, drop me a line here and I'll do it.
It won’t be gamesmaster properly until they have some topless models as guests and dress them in leather and make them bounce up and down on a horse.
@Damo Up to you. I won't be less of a bigot tomorrow and perhaps some posters would feel unsafe due to your permissive attitude towards hate speech.
Sound like your own personal wish list to me.
Obviously I have read the article and the comments and would like to say that that I also didn't like the 'narrow minded' reference in the article either. But then I am not surprised as recently there has been other occasions of reporting things of that nature in a way to cause division.
But overall I don't come here, or watch the Games master tv programe for any other reason that gaming and cannot help to thing that things are done for effect and not because of any good.
@Clammy Haven't you read the comments, by the sounds of it the programe has gone full circle.
Literally all the comments about being offended at being called 'narrow minded'. If you're offended by it then you're the ones that he was speaking about! The irony of it all. There is absolutely no question that the inclusion should be in it and it was done really well.
@Samwise7 ‘All these snowflakes getting offended over nothing smh’
Spot on! Great presenter and Trevor fits the bill well.
@Clyde_Radcliffe Definitely not, but the idea of Trevor McDonald with a headset, gaming chair, high end PC and RGB lights all over his room is very funny
Trevor McDonald is a legend. And a Spurs fan. Love it.
Removed - duplicate/fake account; user is banned
People are upset the article tried to divide people, and now it's been altered.
@johnvboy : yes it is my personal wish list. But gamesmaster of old actually did this.. go look on YouTube.
@johnvboy I’m just trying to change the topic away from narrow minded people crying
Well not being narrow minded I have no issues with the stuff you wanted, not my cup of tea, but I will defend your right to have all that stuff.
Just felt the article kind of jumped the gun with the narrow minded bit, I mean give people chance to commit the crime before convicting them of it.
Absolutely embarrassing reading some of the comments here. People claiming the show was being too "political" purely because the people on it had the audacity to exist. The word 'non-binary' wasn't even mentioned at any point during the entire segment with the first contestant, and yet some people are acting as if they were trying to preach about it and jam it in everyone's faces (don't get me started on the guy claiming his four-year-old agreed with him that a show shouldn't be making political statements - aye riiiight).
The reality is that the contestant was simply on the show, made no attempt to talk about how they identified, simply played the game, got their joystick and left, but the fact they even exist is apparently too much for some people to accept. Absolutely embarrassing.
Anyone who knows their history knows that ever since it was set up in 1982, Channel 4 had a remit to provide content that "appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society". There were people of all ages, genders and races on the original show too and nobody batted an eyelid, but now it's 2021 and apparently that means it's a "box-ticking exercise" if everyone isn't a white male.
Have a word with yourselves, some of you.
@scully1888 ''There were people of all ages, genders and races on the original show too and nobody batted an eyelid''
''but now it's 2021 and apparently that means it's a "box-ticking exercise" if everyone isn't a white male''.
You have three presenters. The one with the charisma, presenting experience and games knowledge, and the two there for representation.
You can say I'm disgusting for seeing it that way, I say E4 are the ones in the wrong for cynically tokenizing them.
You have a non-binary contestant and a gay couple. Absolutely fine. But the odds of these people being featured on the very first show, one after another, are infinitesimally small, unless E4's goal, the whole point, was to actually showcase differing gender identities and sexual preference.
The audience was supposed to notice. We noticed, we mentioned it, and for this reason we need to ''have a word with ourselves''?
Love it, I remember watching this when I was a kid
Sounds interesting! I vaguely remember seeing something like this once and going: "cool, video games on TV!! " we're a bit spoiled nowadays but this could help keeping me up to date with other consoles than just the switch! 😂😁
(And why can't we say anything lgbt+ related, without several people writing a novel in the comments! 😂🤣)
Your post represents everything that is wrong with this debate, and just like the original article, which to Liam's credit he has altered the wording to remove the "Narrow Minded" comment, which in my opinion shows lots of maturity, which is rarely seen in such exchanges from either viewpoint.
Your post as a lot of other commenters seems to want to pick sides to the argument, with the view that it's either you agree totally, or if you have any questions about something you are in the anti whatever group is being discussed, when in reality you will get these more polarizing views, but more times than not there are genuinely good arguments presented by either side, and lots of this is lost with the whole I am right, you are wrong statements.
We need to move past this whole division/sides mantra to have any chance of a decent debates on such subjects, and while I agree the more polarizing comments need to be highlighted, their is a tendency to treat every counter opinion as the enemy, which again will only ever turn these comment sections to a battleground.
On this article you can see both points of view, and even the most critical person on here did say the whole show was good, and did not try to push any political agendas etc, when he had finally watched the programme. My only issue was with the initial reporting on the article, as it seemed to want to cause some sort of outrage, by suggesting some would not be happy with parts of the shows content, and calling them "Narrow minded", I said in a previous post it would have been far better to just report the facts and then let the commenters take it from there.
As I said Kudos to Liam for changing the wording of the original article.
@chinhead You can't call the presenters as "the one with the charisma, presenting experience and games knowledge, and the two there for representation," then claim that isn't a disgusting take.
If you actually watch the show you'd see that Frankie Ward in particular was the one who provided all the knowledge (especially during commentary), so to completely dismiss her and Ty Logan despite their clear knowledge of the subject is basically saying that women and Black people can't present the show without being there for representation.
So despite just brushing off what I said before your wee 'white-men-only' rant, all you've done is prove that yes, as far as you're concerned, those presenters are a "box-ticking exercise", even when they're blatantly showing their credentials on-screen.
You've basically created a situation where anyone other than a straight white male isn't allowed to appear on the show without their presence being questioned, and that's shameful.
AND ON THAT BOMBSHELL
@scully1888 Fruitless debate. Yes, you're right. It is disgusting. Disgusting that E4 picked people for their surface traits and nothing else. You're unwillingness to admit it isn't disgusting, I guess. Just naive? I dunno.
''basically saying that women and Black people can't present the show without being there for representation''
No, not at all. I'm not sure how old the term 'diversity hire' is. but it gets used a lot NOW, because that is what we're seeing. Before, people got jobs based on the skills they brought to a role more than what demographic they'd appeal to.
Whatever, its too early for me and i'm waving the white flag. Go back to my first post, near the top. A little bit of snark, but I also offer constructive criticism, wish the show makers well, and hope this finds an appreciative audience. What more can I do?
One more thing. ''There were people of all ages, genders and races on the original show too and nobody batted an eyelid''.
Thank you for bringing this up. I miss the 90s so very deeply. Can't imagine we'll see another time this free and liberal while I'm still kicking around. We really do need to get our narratives straight though. Did women and POC back then have movie and TV representation or not then?
@impurekind TV shows reshoot parts on a regular basis. If someone mixes up the pronouns of one of the contestants, they can just reshoot that part. You might think that means it's scripted, but it doesn't. I was on Countdown once and quite a lot of reshoots happened there, just because the clock wouldn't always move, so the round would happen as normal, then at the end they'd reshoot the part that went wrong. This happens on gameshows all the time. Plus, having them broadcast someone using the wrong pronouns for a person is a not very good thing to do. It would make the producers look like awful people and could be quite hurtful for the contestant themselves. As for the couple, if they were a straight gaming couple, would you have issues with them being asked about their relationship? Asking about the relationship of a couple is a way of getting to know them to make them more relatable to those watching at home. It shows that behind the gaming they lead normal lives like any other couple in the world. You're literally finding problems where there are none.
@Samwise7 So you seem to think name calling is fine if you deem the subject worthy, that is the apitamy of narrow mindedness. Or if you want companies and business to treat you like a politician holding a baby then you go ahead and take that as a victory.
I'm looking forward to watching the re-boot, they just need McDonalds to sponsor it and it will be nostalgia overload!
@OldPierre77 the only political statement is coming from crybaby incels who think they own the gaming industry and should be catered entirely to their bigoted needs. The contestants were asked on as a statement of intent. That the 90's attitude of gaming only being for lads is loooooooong gone and is now for everyone. In fact these people were probably chosen to ONCE AGAIN remind bigots that their viewership and opinions are no longer wanted or cared about. It would seem Gamesmaster will be added to the never ending list of celebrities, tv shows, sports and entertainment that no longer give a flying f**k about hateful little trolls. Oh, and one more thing, the only parents who don't want their children knowing about equality are the one's that don't believe in it!
We dare say that a small minority of narrow-minded fans will find this take on the concept too 'modern' for their tastes (one of the challengers identifies as non-binary while the duo which plays the super-tough Call of Duty challenge are a same-sex couple), but times have most certainly changed since the 1990s, and it's great to see GamesMaster become so inclusive and welcoming.
Why is this paragraph in the article? Referring to people as same-sex couple and non-binary is the opposite of inclusive and has caused the comments section of this article to be filled with bile. Who cares if they are same-sex or non-binary? It matters not, and it's weird that you felt the need to point it out. It's only truly inclusive when we stop referring to these people as if they are different when they are not. They are gamers. Their personal orientations have nothing to do with anything.
Christ alive, how can a thread about a show about gaming be so focused on social politics? The show's ***** simply because it lacks any of the humour and pinash which Diamond bought to it. The main host is still OK, would make a good co-host, but the co-hosts are utter toss and the whole show feels too scripted. It gets the general setup right, so the foundation's there, but it still feels like Colin Farrell's version of Total Recall compared to the original. On the LGBT issue, I like that it features two good looking lesbians.
Tap here to load 96 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...