PixlBit

I don't accept that anyone is an "authority" on what constitutes "good art," and I lack respect for people who claim to be; 

I will accept that historians and others can define what are the most important works of art. For instance, I am fine with paying respect to Citizen Kane as the important movie it was, but I don't necessarily have to like it. I think it's fine, but not at all my favorite movie, though I do respect the hell out of it. 

I'm the same. I'll pay respect where it's due but truth be told there are a lot of classical works that do not click with me. Most of William Shakespeare's stories in particular rub me wrong. Though without him I wonder if we would ever have visionaries like J.R.R. Tolkien and JK Rowling. That and most of Hollywood and Broadway owes a debt to the guy!

You've just never been properly introduced to old Will. I hated Shakespeare with a passion until I had a decent teacher who told us what was going on in the plays. They're full of sexual innuendo, wonderful rude Elizabethan words, murder, and other hijinks. That said, I am not a fan of his comedies. His tragedies and histories are wonderful. King Lear and Henry V are my two favorites, but Othello and Hamlet are great, too. Romeo and Juliet and MacBeth, not so much. The other issue with Shakespeare is that they were never meant to be read by anyone other than the actors playing the parts. They're meant to be watched. If you can find the Masterpiece Theater version of King Lear with Sir Laurence Olivier, I highly recommend it. Also, Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V, which may well be one of my all-time top ten movies. Brannagh did a really good job with Much Ado About Nothing, as well, and like I said, I'm not usually a fan of the comedies.

I think I hated Romeo & Juliet just because I was a jaded teenager. It was like rubbing "love" in my face when I did not have a girlfriend. lol. But they both died so yeah, maybe it's better I didn't have a girlfriend!

Of the plays/stories taught to us in HS I think the only ones I liked were Othello and Midsummer's night dream. Everything else kind of bored me.

If I revisted Shakespeare now I would probably have more appreciation for his works,Tami!

Othello really is his best and most underrated work. No clue how so many of his others are more popular.

Popularity wise Hamlet or Romeo & Juliet tend to trump Othello. But it was my favorite play because it addressed the difficulties of culture shock,racial tension, and prejudicy way before most of civilization pondered those things. Othello was progressive and far ahead of its' time. I think its' Shakespeare's best work but I also enjoyed Midsummer's night dream simply because it deals with the fey.

The BBC did all of Shakespeare's plays for TV. They're staged very authentically so you really feel like your seeing them as they were intended. The language is authentic too, which can be a chore, but you'll understand more by watching it then reading it. I've done both and can attest to that. You'll also get all the blood and guts, bawdy humor, and intense emotion that somehow didn't come through in taking classes on it. They're great!

One of the reasons why I started reviewing NES games was because I figured nobody would care if my reviews sucked lol. I don't expect anybody to take my shit seriously. What constitutes "authority" anyway?

Don't cut yourself short,Aaron. AVGN's livelihood came from reviewing nes,snes, & genesis games! As for "authority" I could not tell you though I've met some arrogant game journalists types who thought they were all that and a power-glove!

I don't think I'm an authority on anything, though I'm pretty sure I have a knack for picking out electronics that don't last very long or become very temperamental.

Ah,electronics. Don't make em like they used too! 

Well, one could be an authority based on facts, like someone who can explain the entire history of a genre or series.  'Authority' is a synonym for 'expert' in academic circles, meaning someone with broad and in-depth knowledge of something. Often it is the person recognized as having the most knowledge on a topic.

One can't be an authority on what other people should like or buy. One can explain in design theory terms why they think something works or doesn't work in a game. 

None of these things is the same as "knowing what is best" for someone. Video games are not a necessity or a health product, so there is no "what is good for you."  That's like saying someone should like the Knicks over the Heat because one has a better win record than the other.  A game is to serve a function for the player. Sometimes the player wants a new shooter or platformer, and maybe the only thing new is a poorly made game, which they will still play  because the game serves the function of being a new shooter or platformer.  I bought RE6 because I wanted to shoot monsters with a cast of characters I am familiar with and co-op mode, not because I wanted the best game I could get.  I can seperate my desires from what I think is actually well done. I don't have a big enough ego to think I can never enjoy bad stuff or dislike good stuff. 

I think that too. There are people that are experts in actual facts and experience. I suppose you could say they are "authorities" in their respective fields.

But when it comes to "What should people play" it's kind of a different pilgrimage for each of us,Chris. Besides, the question should be "What should "I" play?". What you play should not be my immediate concern so long as you are having fun and not going into convulsions! (If you were going into convulsions I'd at least call an ambulance though. I'm not a monster!)

But there are game journos that believe their word is friggin law and if you play "certain niche games" you must be a neck beard misogynist or a neckbeard otaku pedophile. I really hate it when these idiots bring their personal politics and personal agendas into the mix all while painting the room with broad sweeping generalizations.

I hope I don't sound arrogant, but I hope folks would consider me as being an authority on games.  At least a tiny bit.  I mean, I've been playing games since I was 5 and reviewing them for nearly 20 years. I know things.

Historically you are,Cary! I was also around early enough even to play some Atari. We are the rare breed that pretty much lived through almost every console generation. (Pc gaming included) But when it comes to "what people should play" I'm just an opinion guy. I suppose I could get into decent informative discussions on "the progression of gaming" though. That is if anyone cared to hear my two cents on that. 

Much like Macho said, the real and actual authority is from people who know about the field and know how to create something and teach others of their ways. There's no really an authority for telling people what they should and shouldn't play. Repeating an example, even if I often find myself that everytime I see anything regarding Bioshock Infinite that always comes as discouraging (which has been most of the time lol), they will never convince me of quit buying the game. Who knows if I will find it overrated as everyone says, maybe i'll find it to be masterpiece and i'll follow the "herd" or simply enjoy the game, or think it was meh.

I heard Chris Kohler, who writes about games for Wired magazine, got some teaching gigs on the side. I guess someone was willing to pay him to teach game history. That gives him some status as an "authority on games".

It never dawned on me to consider you a video game authority. Yet with age comes wisdom given you've played games for so long so that does count for something. Each have a voice in what they say in any given genre, along with views on the subject matter that others may not see. I'm still wrapping my head around the whole sexualize game aspects of recent games, which is helpful to understand given I'm more kill-crazy than overly sexualized.