The Offense of Criticism to a Shill

by Jed Pressgrove

Last week, critic Yussef Cole offered a historical analysis of the animation style that StudioMDHR mimicked in its hit shooter Cuphead. Although Cole wasn’t the first to point out that the game’s early 20th-century aesthetic is associated with racial caricatures, his essay had an unforeseen level of detail, fairness, and insight. Every sentence of the article is measured. As a writer, it’s hard not to notice the craft in his criticism.

Enter Brandon Orselli, who responded to Cole’s piece with “Stop Trying to Be Offended at Every Video Game.” Taken at face value, Orselli’s title is a silly exaggeration. Cuphead doesn’t represent “every video game.” More importantly, Cole doesn’t appeal to emotion in his essay. He only mentions that as a black man aware of animation history, he doesn’t have the “luxury” of viewing Cuphead from an ahistorical lens. Even Cole’s title, “Cuphead and the Racist Spectre of Fleisher Animation,” is restrained; the use of “spectre” doesn’t suggest a visceral reaction but rather a careful observation, as ghosts are hard to see.

But I’ll throw Orselli a bone, albeit a small one. The title “Stop Trying to Be Offended at Every Video Game” could be clever hyperbole if I had been born yesterday, the very day his article was published. Orselli might also say his article wasn’t a direct response to Cole. I would reject that as a lie. Although he also references a Kotaku article, that Ethan Gach piece is a simple and brief regurgitation of Cole’s argument that is meant to generate traffic, not add to the argument. Furthermore, Orselli is definitely lying when he says Cuphead “has been the subject of multiple attempts at baseless attacks via the collective mainstream gaming journalism world.” For one thing, if you look at mainstream reviews of Cuphead, you will not see much discussion in the line of Cole’s criticism. What’s more, Orselli knows he’s trying to deceive people with that sentence about the mainstream. After all, in the next paragraph, he implies Cole is one of many “no-name bloggers.”

This is the truth: the offended party here is Orselli because he is a shill. He labels his article an editorial, yet his final two paragraphs — precious real estate for an editorialist to drive home a point — are only used to market Cuphead and its creators. “I can’t wait to see what they put out next,” he says of StudioMDHR. “[T]he game sold over 1 million copies,” he says of Cuphead, as if sales indicate quality and/or represent an argument against critical perspective. (Does Orselli also champion how many burgers McDonald’s sells?)

Orselli is free to counter any criticism of a game, just as we all are. Dishonest responses like “Stop Trying to Be Offended at Every Video Game” are worthless, though. As a critic, like Cole, I have also been accused of simply being “offended” by a game, no matter how articulate my criticism is. But it’s not a coincidence that these accusations often come from people like Orselli; people who like the criticized game in question; people who care about sales figures as if their bills won’t be paid unless a game that they like sells well.

Shills don’t understand that although offense can inspire criticism, not all criticism, as written, drips with offense. If shills want to know what offense looks like, they might go into their bathrooms, where their superficial complaints can be flushed, and stare into a mirror.


  1. While I dont agree with the idea that you cant seperate Cuphead’s animation from it’s history, that Brandon response reads like a youtube comment would, just plain embarassing.

  2. I fail to see how Orselli’s response is “dishonest” when you ignore some key considerations (the revived narrative about gamers being too preoccupied with skill, frequent censorship of gaming media, oft-vocalised complaints about gamers and popular gaming tropes) and home in on his Cuphead discussion and writing style. I have issues with his writing style too, but once you extrapolate his opinion to games beyond Cuphead, his article isn’t as absurd as you claim it to be.

    1. His article clearly focuses on Cuphead and reads like a specific reaction to Cole’s article on the game. He only had one line about difficulty and one line about censorship, so you’re really stretching to suggest I didn’t take his article for what it is.

      But to humor your argument, where is this massive outcry about the game’s difficulty in the mainstream press? Click the link that I provided in my article and scroll through mainstream reviews of Cuphead. The overwhelming majority liked the game and didn’t call for censorship.

      1. Why are you limiting the scope of the media discussion to just the actual reviews? Most of the backlash against Cuphead, in particular its difficulty and how “gamers” supposedly conceptualize it, happened in standalone editorials, entirely separate from any review of the game.

      2. It either happened in standalone editorials or — and this is a critical point — throwaway articles regurgitating points from standalone editorials to draw traffic. But again, I question how big this backlash is. How many editorials are we talking about? Do they really represent the mainstream more than the dozens of positive reviews?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s