this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2026
415 points (96.8% liked)
Gaming
8375 readers
25 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's interesting to attempt to analyze and chart this, but his analysis isn't the end. One notable failure, in my opinion, is he attempts to calculate the average browness (and other variables), not the percentage of games that have a lot of brown. Average browness largely measures outliers.
Also, not excluding sports games, and things like that, is ignoring a large part of what people discuss with this. The argument isn't that all games were more brown then. It's largely that shooters, or action games in general at most, were more brown than other years.
Basically, saying it's a myth (despite it being a well-recognized thing at the time) referencing one source isn't correct. At most you can make the statement that some data implies it's a myth. I highly suspect the methodology here is not accurate to what the actual understanding is. It's a good effort, but it is not the end of the discussion.