"Gamers" Are Still Dead, Y'all

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

"Gamers" Are Still Dead, Y'all

The image most of the world has of "gamers" is slowly fading away, but those holding onto it are keeping the culture drowning in a quagmire of toxicity.

Read Full Article

Yeah I'm sure this article will go down well.

wait,

As Leigh Alexander has already said, "Gamers" are over. The worst aspects of the "gamer" image need to be universally examined and challenged.

Of all the people you could quote, you picked an unhirable bufoon whose antics killed not only the brand of her site but also the acceptance of gaming in the wider culture by use of overblown hyperbole and outright lies? Yeah ok. I'll just be over here watching this article get 'critiqued'.

As genuinely great as games like Bayonetta and Lollypop Chainsaw are, we also need to accept that the criticism about the sexuality built into them is valid.

No we don't. At least not the broad "cultural criticism". Saying you don't personally like Bayonetta's design is one thing, saying that her design is harmful brings up questions of "to whom?" and the answer is inevitably a bunch of nonsense of how these games represent all gamers or some such nonsense and shows that gamers only care about T&A or some such nonsense.

So the end result is a contradiction to another thing you said

No one is saying these games are inherently bad, or there should be no games styled and developed in this way

That point is clearly what's being made. Because there are a lot of games that aren't "icky" or whatever, but what's important is that we stamp out women's power fantasies or whatever.

Not what I expected to read, and in a way I don't think it's a piece that needed to be written (the whole conversation around gaming culture has both moved on, moved sideways, been poisoned, and obfuscated countless times... up is down and most people aren't paying attention any longer. though arguably most people never were, of course). In a way it just seems like stirring the pot [again], particularly given a certain mention of a name that'll trigger all kinds of folk.

I can't say much more about it, though, other than I broadly agree.

Though re Lollipop Chainsaw: criticism of anything is perfectly fine, but criticising that game's sexuality requires nuance, because it requires looking into every element of it, all scenes, and what may be extracted from the whole. I'm a feminist, and to me Lollipop was both playing with objectification and exploiting it, e.g. the assumption is that Juliet's the one being most objectified [by the audience and gaming culture], when of course Nick's also being literally and figuratively objectified. Juliet's eye candy on one level, but also an incredibly competent, bilingual badass.

Any critique that ostensibly tells her to put some clothes on is kinda missing the point, as well as ultimately limiting or denying the creators the freedom to poke and prod assumptions and tropes. Everyone needs to suss out and be able to recogn

vallorn:
Of all the people you could quote, you picked an unhirable bufoon whose antics killed not only the brand of her site but also the acceptance of gaming in the wider culture...

Huh. I wasn't aware "wider culture" had rejected gaming based on a single writer/article/collection of articles/etc. News to me!

Oh wait, did someone say---

overblown hyperbole

?

The fact this is being posted here of all places stretches credulity. It's October 1st that comes at the end of September, not April.
While the article's point is meh- harmless enough, even poignant in a few places, the title alone is practically inflammatory.

"Gamers" never died. We're just in the process of respawning.

And when that's done, we'll purge the political bullshit from our games, and stand vigilant until the end of time to ensure it fucking stays out.

I have some problems with this article.

This dev comes out after that thread on twitter. How about a link? A link to... https://twitter.com/Gaohmee/status/903510296534204416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgamer.com%2Fdevelopers-share-their-hidden-mechanics-on-twitter%2F ? Maybe all the negativity got removed, because I found a single tweet were she was called a liar by a hothead.

https://twitter.com/Gaohmee/status/903510060197744640 The one with 782 comments, overwhelmingly positive and constructive? Or those 7.2k likes?

Then what -is- toxic masculinity, exactly? I have experienced a fair share of toxic women in my life. Like, holy shit, the classes in my years were dominated by female bullies. And they behaved exactly like toxic masculinity is being described, just with female equivalence. Aside from the harassing stuff, you know. I mean actual harassment.

So what makes this toxicity so masculine?

I stop asking questions now, because I get tired by people who easily get confused when not spoken to directly. Which can be attributed to my inability of speaking eloquently enough due to my lack of experience in actually speaking English.

You're wrong. This dev is wrong. He feels like something. I recently often felt like my heart was about to explode, didn't make it any more true.

######
- This has nothing to do with masculinity. If you want to scapegoat anything, it's the overall climate. EVERYBODY is being toxic assholes. There is literally in any class, of any gender, of any identity, race and religion, country, blood type, ideology an increasing amount of people who flip their shit over nothing, call for arms and at the very least think about killing someone. This is something that gets worse.

Still, this is something that is just getting bundled by the prisma of the society as a whole we call the internet. And you concentrate on the tiny bit that taints the light. You're oversensitive. The dev is oversensitive, aside from being plain wrong.

######

- You attribute something that still is so minor to a stereotype that is getting rarer by the day. You, on the other hand, strengthen the stereotype of a writer (blogger, journo, shit-stirrer) who either really believes what they say, is out for virtue-signaling, clicks, or a combination of these. A bit ironic on a site that seems to be closing sooner than later (sadly). Why do you further this harmful stereo-type? Stuff like this is exactly why nobody fucking reads anything that comes close to news/niche columns anymore. That's harmful. That's toxic. Or go big, try some genres not written about as much with a large potential readership, like for example sexism in mobile games, the masculine toxicity through freemium games and such. These also are gamers, they make the majority and something as outrageous as this is a big part of why Polygon, Kotaku et al stay in business despite being THE LAUGHINGSTOCK in the in-group.

######

Finally, before you talk about an in-group/out-group mentality and taking this as a basis basically for your accusations, how about really learning about the words you have in your head instead of going with "You know what I mean." since you go with this as your basis for your article. You're talking about the social-psychological term, failing to recognize why it's absolutely necessary, naturally and also, now comes the best part; how to easily be a part of an in-group and why it's a good thing that those who don't want to belong to a group don't belong to the group.

What, effectively, you're calling for isn't for a group to be acceptive, for a community to be "all"-inclusive (except for those you don't like). You're calling for the abolishment of a group.

Of a group of millions of millions of diverse people, now with mobile devices even more diverse. A "group" you identified here in the first place. What the hell is even a gamer? Who behaves exactly like you described? Assholes? So every asshole is a gamer? Or every gamer is an asshole?

########

So, it's impossible to destroy something that, a) is too big and too losely defined, b) nobody has any control over, and c) barely exists. You're looking for a white, isolationistic, 21+ years old, straight, toxic, vocal, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, racist, cis-gendered gamer bro who uses a language like someone who seriously -is- on the autism spectrum. And you hypothize this as a threat to an industry.

Why? Because, an in comparison small amount of people online, who you most often than not don't even know the fucking gender of, let alone anything else, were assholes.

---

And this is why I have a hard time taking someone writing about this industry in any capacity seriously anymore if I don't get hard facts and proof upfront. Goes for any kind opinion, btw. Thanks for delivering.

I'm not impressed with Randell's rant.

Why does a developer not go out of their way to be as transparent as possible? Because they don't want their words used in a court of law against them.

For example, I bought Skyrim for the PS3. I would love it if they would confirm for me that they made the same 32bit memory mistake they did for the PC on the PS3. But they're not because it would expose them legally. They knowingly released an unfinished product and charged me full price for it. Uncapped Virtual memory crashes at the 2gig 32-bit memory barrier just as everything else does in 32-bit land. Just one slows down earlier due to drive performance, and the other does not.

With plenty of mistakes like that, it's not a surprise that some developers have become gun shy from fans justifiably angry with them. Frankly, they're only making the problem worse. Right now they have a barking dog that's avoided bitting anyone. The first time the "big boys" get bit when their game if forcibly recalled and a hefty fine imposed they'll know they can't go back to how things where.

Now if the market wasn't actively trying to prevent users from getting rid of bad product by waging war on the right of first sale then maybe we'd still be segregated by Console Liberty or PC Servitude. But that barrier broke down with all the DLC and Digital Releases. Gamers who know true Liberty have been forced to mix with the enslaved PC Gamers. And they are willing to chop off their hand to escape, and the other hears stories of freedom they never had, but desperately want.

The two should never have been mixed as they are today.

Sad

NewClassic:
"Gamers" Are Still Dead, Ya'll

The image most of the world has of "gamers" is slowly fading away, but those holding onto it are keeping the culture drowning in a quagmire of toxicity.

Read Full Article

What, is it 2014 already? I wonder what great things this year has in store... Perhaps those nerds will finally be bullied into terminal submission? Then there will be dancing... with girls!

Yeah, we need precisely NONE more of this stuff, with all the rampant stereotyping and craving for validation. I've been supporting The Escapist for not throwing Leigh Alexander's stale venom in my face. Are these two interconnected things now subject to the chill winds of change?

In disbelief, a gamer.

Lol @ the reaction to this. It seems some people never left August 2014...

You know, even most pro-gamergaters are sick of this thing. Most of the hate I tend to see now is failing individuals trying to reignite that mess to generate clicks. I can't imagine why the Escapist would try that method though. /s

Oh boy one of these articles. Ugh and talking bout Leigh Alexander.

MiskWisk:
You know, even most pro-gamergaters are sick of this thing. Most of the hate I tend to see now is failing individuals trying to reignite that mess to generate clicks. I can't imagine why the Escapist would try that method though. /s

Eyup, this sort of thing or trying to stir the pot is usually done by hacks. Its surprising to see this here in 2017

crimson5pheonix:
Saying you don't personally like Bayonetta's design is one thing, saying that her design is harmful brings up questions of "to whom?" and the answer is inevitably a bunch of nonsense of how these games represent all gamers or some such nonsense and shows that gamers only care about T&A or some such nonsense.

So the end result is a contradiction to another thing you said. [Quote snipped.] The point is clearly what's being made. Because there are a lot of games that aren't "icky" or whatever, but what's important is that we stamp out women's power fantasies or whatever.

See, I feel like you're deliberately sidestepping nuance in order to make your point. Saying criticism is valid isn't automatically saying it's encompassing, or that the criticisms devalue every other aspect of a a piece of media. Saying that the game Shenmue has a weak soundtrack is a perfectly valid criticism, even if it's a measured one because the minimalist approach to soundscapes actually helps develop the homely, casual atmosphere of the setting. I love Shenmue, but having criticisms doesn't devalue the entire experience. One can have a valid criticism for a thing and still believe it to be good.

So true is the topic of sexualization. Bayonetta earns its sexuality. It's a fast, vibrant, sexually-charged action game, and its protagonist rocks the vibe with the same smooth panache as someone like David Bowie or Marilyn Monroe. The sexuality is an inextricable part of the experience, but recognizing that the sexuality doesn't happen in a vacuum is still valid. Games, at large, tend to sexualize their protagonists. It works for Bayonetta, but there are still valid criticisms to be had. There being a good reason for something doesn't mean the criticism is invalid or moot. That's all that passage is saying.

As for the wider criticism, I think you're misunderstanding how cultural criticism works. Games like Robert Yang's Stick Shift are highly sexual, but there is no culture for male sexual objectification in the same way that there is for women, so the ways in which games like it are transgressive are different than the ways something like Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball are.

And, as the article says, there is nothing wrong with expressing sexuality as significant themes in games. In fact, avoiding doing so creates weaker games. But it's worth recognizing and acknowledging that criticisms on these themes are also valid, valuable, and worth considering.

Darth Rosenberg:
Though re Lollipop Chainsaw: criticism of anything is perfectly fine, but criticising that game's sexuality requires nuance, because it requires looking into every element of it, all scenes, and what may be extracted from the whole. I'm a feminist, and to me Lollipop was both playing with objectification and exploiting it, e.g. the assumption is that Juliet's the one being most objectified [by the audience and gaming culture], when of course Nick's also being literally and figuratively objectified. Juliet's eye candy on one level, but also an incredibly competent, bilingual badass.

I actually largely agree with you. I do think it was clever characterization, and a really interesting way to play that character.

That said, I also think the marketing played pretty firmly to the sexuality and violence. I think when discussing the game as a piece of the gaming canon, such as it is, we're also allowed to take it as it's perceived and how it is. Which is why it's worth saying "Even though this is largely a good example, criticisms of its approach to sexuality are still valid criticism." I feel the same way about Bayonetta, so they felt like good examples to compare one another to.

Criticisms and critiques like these need to coexist, rather than feel that one objectively cancels out the other. There is, and should be, room for both.

Chaosian:
The fact this is being posted here of all places stretches credulity.

It's nice to have counterpoints every now and then.

I vehemently disagree with this.

It's "y'all."

Thank you for your time.

NewClassic:

crimson5pheonix:
Saying you don't personally like Bayonetta's design is one thing, saying that her design is harmful brings up questions of "to whom?" and the answer is inevitably a bunch of nonsense of how these games represent all gamers or some such nonsense and shows that gamers only care about T&A or some such nonsense.

So the end result is a contradiction to another thing you said. [Quote snipped.] The point is clearly what's being made. Because there are a lot of games that aren't "icky" or whatever, but what's important is that we stamp out women's power fantasies or whatever.

See, I feel like you're deliberately sidestepping nuance in order to make your point. Saying criticism is valid isn't automatically saying it's encompassing, or that the criticisms devalue every other aspect of a a piece of media. Saying that the game Shenmue has a weak soundtrack is a perfectly valid criticism, even if it's a measured one because the minimalist approach to soundscapes actually helps develop the homely, casual atmosphere of the setting. I love Shenmue, but having criticisms doesn't devalue the entire experience. One can have a valid criticism for a thing and still believe it to be good.

So true is the topic of sexualization. Bayonetta earns its sexuality. It's a fast, vibrant, sexually-charged action game, and its protagonist rocks the vibe with the same smooth panache as someone like David Bowie or Marilyn Monroe. The sexuality is an inextricable part of the experience, but recognizing that the sexuality doesn't happen in a vacuum is still valid. Games, at large, tend to sexualize their protagonists. It works for Bayonetta, but there are still valid criticisms to be had. There being a good reason for something doesn't mean the criticism is invalid or moot. That's all that passage is saying.

As for the wider criticism, I think you're misunderstanding how cultural criticism works. Games like Robert Yang's Stick Shift are highly sexual, but there is no culture for male sexual objectification in the same way that there is for women, so the ways in which games like it are transgressive are different than the ways something like Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball are.

And, as the article says, there is nothing wrong with expressing sexuality as significant themes in games. In fact, avoiding doing so creates weaker games. But it's worth recognizing and acknowledging that criticisms on these themes are also valid, valuable, and worth considering.

snip

Well you're illustrating exactly what I'm saying. You're bringing up a specific instance in a specific game to criticize and that is okay. Saying Shenmue's music is bad is not saying anything outside of Shenmue.

But then when you bring up sexualization you are bringing up wide all-encompassing criticisms. Even against games that you yourself believe fall outside that criticism. The problem of saying "games have too much sexualization" is that it's not a nuanced position. It's blunt and shallow. It would be like saying nobody should like a game with minimalist soundtracks like Shenmue because they can be done poorly.

Marter:
I vehemently disagree with this.

It's "y'all."

Thank you for your time.

Yeah, I gotta say, that is some shoddy grammer their Nuke.

"So yeah....it's September 26th, 2017, and we have maybe 10 people left on the site: how can we drum up some attention?"

Fucked up my months there, like a right fool.

Wow, so time machines are no longer the stuff of science fiction, they're the stuff of science fact.

American Tanker:
And when that's done, we'll purge the political bullshit from our games, and stand vigilant until the end of time to ensure it fucking stays out.

Canonizing the status quo is a political belief. The politics are already there, homie.

Naldan:
I have some problems with this article.

Cool, that's how criticism works.

Then what -is- toxic masculinity, exactly? ... So what makes this toxicity so masculine?

This is a huge discussion, and something I really don't think this particular article has room to discuss at length. But, in brief...

Toxic Masculinity, as a concept, is describing the aspects of masculine socialization that result in systemic toxicity. Things like socializing men to eschew emotions other than things like passion or anger tends to mean that, in general, men socialized this way come across more aggressive, view either aggression or power as the correct ways to resolve conflicts, and have difficulty either showing or articulating emotions because their mechanisms for expressing softer emotions are dissuaded and hardly taught.

Being male isn't inherently toxic, but there are aspects of masculinity that typically lead to toxic behaviors being valued, and behaviors that are "feminine" are punished for being wrong. However, men don't need to be louder, or aggressive, or less patient. They just usually are, and are taught that way. Also works to make "feminine" behaviors bad by association.

If you want to scapegoat anything, it's the overall climate. EVERYBODY is being toxic assholes. There is literally in any class, of any gender, of any identity, race and religion, country, blood type, ideology an increasing amount of people who flip their shit over nothing, call for arms and at the very least think about killing someone. This is something that gets worse.

Still, this is something that is just getting bundled by the prisma of the society as a whole we call the internet. And you concentrate on the tiny bit that taints the light. You're oversensitive. The dev is oversensitive, aside from being plain wrong.

I feel like we're falling down the all-encompassing hole again. We can criticize aspects of any given culture or political belief without also suggesting that the wider things are holistically bad. Toxic masculinity is still bad, even if there are also bad agents who aren't men. We can still recognize that feminine sexuality is policed while still celebrating expressions of said female sexuality. We can talk about how socializing bullying as only being physically harmful means that women can unwittingly become emotionally abusive, but also criticize physical bullying too.

Again, there's a distinction between being willfully uncaring about wider criticisms and being oversensitive to them. That line varies from person to person, but acknowledging a culture for one isn't excusing the same behaviors out of another group.

It's okay to concentrate on a small collection of problems to solve just that area first. It's also how most people first learn to solve a Rubik's Cube, one side at a time, but that definitely doesn't mean they're doing it wrong.

You, on the other hand, strengthen the stereotype of a writer (blogger, journo, shit-stirrer) who either really believes what they say, is out for virtue-signaling, clicks, or a combination of these. A bit ironic on a site that seems to be closing sooner than later (sadly). Why do you further this harmful stereo-type? Stuff like this is exactly why nobody fucking reads anything that comes close to news/niche columns anymore. That's harmful. That's toxic. Or go big, try some genres not written about as much with a large potential readership, like for example sexism in mobile games, the masculine toxicity through freemium games and such.

I think you'll find that this topic does indeed include discussing the problem of overt sexualization on the part of those who try to market to folks who play games. It's not stated explicitly in the text, but I figured Leigh had exhausted that particular niche far enough that I didn't need to retread it in an article that was already around 1500 words long.

That said, you could easily be right about furthering a stereotype. Like any criticism, this one is perfectly valid. But, I would argue that identifying a culture that could stand to read perspectives like these mind find things worth discussing here. This comment thread is certainly more lively than my last 10 or so pieces on the Escapist, so even if I'm stereotyping too furiously, I've also found people in this comment thread who fit the mold I've poured here, so I don't think I'm entirely off-base either.

What, effectively, you're calling for isn't for a group to be acceptive, for a community to be "all"-inclusive (except for those you don't like). You're calling for the abolishment of a group.

I mean, sure? I'd argue the running thesis of this article is "Don't be afraid to accept criticism as valid even if it doesn't seem immediately so, and introspection about the things accepted as gospel might ease the strain of toxicity in gaming." So, yeah, I suppose if we're drawing a Venn Diagram of "folks who play games" and "folks who refuse to humor any sex, race, or class criticism," then I am trying to dissolve that middle group. However, I think the gaming community as a whole would benefit from being able to look inward from time to time and say "I can see how someone could find that offensive, might be worth looking for alternative ways to do this."

So, it's impossible to destroy something that, a) is too big and too losely defined, b) nobody has any control over, and c) barely exists. You're looking for a white, isolationistic, 21+ years old, straight, toxic, vocal, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, racist, cis-gendered gamer bro who uses a language like someone who seriously -is- on the autism spectrum. And you hypothize this as a threat to an industry.

Not really, I don't think. I mostly hypothesize people who internalize elements of each of those things that are potentially harmful, and recognize that the culture itself could easily grow wider without those influences. However, it's not a catch-all. There are people being harmful and problematic in games that have none of those traits. Just because it's not the focus doesn't mean it's not still worth criticizing. Those traits just seem rather encompassing, and rarely willing to play ball with discussion.

StatusNil:
Yeah, we need precisely NONE more of this stuff, with all the rampant stereotyping and craving for validation. I've been supporting The Escapist for not throwing Leigh Alexander's stale venom in my face. Are these two interconnected things now subject to the chill winds of change?

I promise you that articles written with all the qualifiers you seem to imply to want here would be super dry. To wit:

A Snippet of That Article:
Further, the longer open tolerance to any and occasional aggressive disagreement to anything perceived as "harming games" is able to be considered a culturally appropriate, level-headed response, the longer even certain game developers will be able to develop opinions that find enough social aspects of the gaming community to be too generally, or at least vocally, toxic. Even from within, the fact that there is an enduring theme of war rhetoric pervading forum and comment disagreements, often to the exclusion of discourse on the subject, creates a sort of unspoken hostility even when trying to discuss in good faith. And historically, good faith discussion rarely happens, because those most passionate about replying are often those most passionate, and hatred is a type of passion. Games culture, as a result of these particular agents and their ability to generally get direct access to persons who can be see as most appropriate for these passions, has an aggression problem. Because there is relatively little culture for tolerating criticism, it's a difficult problem to address without also becoming a victim of it. It's time to own up to that.

As for craving validation... Sure? I mean, what writer actually creates work without wanting it to be read? If you agree, cool. If not, that's cool too. The article even states that all criticism is valid, even this kind.

MiskWisk:
You know, even most pro-gamergaters are sick of this thing.

That tweet thread appeared about this time yesterday. It's not like this discussion is old hat.

kenu12345:
This sort of thing or trying to stir the pot is usually done by hacks. Its surprising to see this here in 2017.

Hacks can have divisive opinions too. If you want to disagree, you're welcome to. There's a whole comment thread here precisely for that function.

Marter:
I vehemently disagree with this.

It's "y'all."

Bah, I say we let it be a stylistic choice. "Y'all" is so structurally unbalanced. Isn't "ya'll" just so much more visually pleasing? (Also, I think it's more phonically accurate, given how the tongue rolls.)

BreakfastMan:
Yeah, I gotta say, that is some shoddy grammer their Nuke.

No points for the obvious bait. Seven points, however, for "shoddy." Fun word.

NewClassic:

BreakfastMan:
Yeah, I gotta say, that is some shoddy grammer their Nuke.

No points for the obvious bait. Seven points, however, for "shoddy." Fun word.

I will have you know, that would count as top-tier bait in WW.

NewClassic:
That said, I also think the marketing played pretty firmly to the sexuality and violence.

The perception of objectification - of Juliet, and then of Nick - was a part of the game's themes; the player getting an eyeful up her skirt, whilst she ostensibly uses his head as a weapon against his wishes. There was the layer of perceived cultural objectification, and then the forms the player was complicit in. It couldn't have been marketed without some semblance of leeriness.

Did it try to have its rainbow coloured cake and eat it? Sure, and to what degree is up for debate and perception or simple preference. But all art needs to be able to blur lines and provoke, and I feel anyone who paid attention to what the game was doing with regards to characters and themes would've found an oddly lovable and empathetic work.

...also - tangential though it may be - apparently Lollipop's explosions of rainbow particle effects and swooshes influenced Guardians Of The Galaxy 2's awesome title sequence, what with the beastie vomiting up rainbow hued energy and sparkles, so a little bit of Juliet, Nick, and Sudai51 live on in that inter-dimensional critter's spewings.

I think when discussing the game as a piece of the gaming canon, such as it is, we're also allowed to take it as it's perceived and how it is.

Sure, but certain standards should be met when something's trying to pass itself off as critique.

Which is why it's worth saying "Even though this is largely a good example, criticisms of its approach to sexuality are still valid criticism." I feel the same way about Bayonetta, so they felt like good examples to compare one another to.

Lucid criticisms that take into account context and intent, sure. Critics have to want to engage with the creator's vision or perspective as well. And yes, call them out on their bullshit when necessary (Quiet's design and lore's probably a good example).

Chaosian:
The fact this is being posted here of all places stretches credulity.

Why?

American Tanker:
And when that's done, we'll purge the political bullshit from our games, and stand vigilant until the end of time to ensure it fucking stays out.

Want to "purge political bullshit" from all other mediums, then? What's BS to you? Things you don't condone or agree with?

Gaming needs more politics, not less (and no, that's not saying politicised games need to wipe out mindless, empty-headed crap like Mario[1] - as gaming continues to mature it'll have to spread its thematic wings a bit more. I'd probably consider Spec-Ops:TL as a politicised game, btw, as an example of a commentary on society's attitudes to violence/slaughter-as-entertainment. I don't consider ME:Andromeda politcised at all, but evidently it triggers some people somethin' awful, so some view it as such).

[1] I kinda hate Nintendo [whilst recognising what they've done for the industry]. Bite me.

crimson5pheonix:
Well you're illustrating exactly what I'm saying. You're bringing up a specific instance in a specific game to criticize and that is okay. Saying Shenmue's music is bad is not saying anything outside of Shenmue.

I'm afraid I can't agree. Examples can exist both within a fixed point (the context of a narrative of a game), and as a general rule. Although I believe having two sticks that control look and movement is a great innovation in game design schemes, there is most certainly a culture for it in modern gaming. However, it was - if memory serves - popularized by Halo. Speaking about that control scheme would be both a criticism on Halo and the control scheme itself.

Being able to rationalize something in context doesn't mean it's devoid of also participating in art. Everything can be contextualized with everything else, which is what makes the wide arrays of things like academic and cultural criticism possible, even decades or centuries after a piece of work has been published, examined, exhausted, examined, explored, exhausted, and examined again.

But then when you bring up sexualization you are bringing up wide all-encompassing criticisms. Even against games that you yourself believe fall outside that criticism. The problem of saying "games have too much sexualization" is that it's not a nuanced position. It's blunt and shallow. It would be like saying nobody should like a game with minimalist soundtracks like Shenmue because they can be done poorly.

Right, but my position wasn't "games have too much sexualization." It was "Games rarely examine their dependence and frequency of sexualization, to the detriment of what they could be or become."

In the same way, a talented composer could have undoubtedly created a dynamic soundtrack for Shenmue that would have improved the feel of it without losing the atmosphere. Not dissimilar from what one finds in games like Breath of the Wild. Similarly, games that underconsider the possibilities of nonsexualized costumes, or rather the integration of sexualization into more powerful forms of characterization (as I discussed with Darth Rosenberg above in regard to Lollipop Chainsaw), then games could improve or iterate in ways they generally don't.

The criticism itself has nuance, but it depends a lot on reading. This article speaks to say that the games culture doesn't allow itself to read depth into these sorts of criticisms, and as has happened here, it appears more shallow than it could (and was implied to) be.

BreakfastMan:
I will have you know, that would count as top-tier bait in WW.

We're professional grade in Featured Content. Step your game up.

NewClassic:
Bah, I say we let it be a stylistic choice. "Y'all" is so structurally unbalanced. Isn't "ya'll" just so much more visually pleasing? (Also, I think it's more phonically accurate, given how the tongue rolls.)

But the apostrophe replaces letters and the letters you're replacing at the "o" and "u" in "you," so it makes sense if the apostrophe goes before the "all."

It's just wrong. :D

http://writingexplained.org/yall-or-ya-ll-difference
http://www.southernliving.com/culture/yall-or-ya-ll
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3312/yall-or-yall

NewClassic:
Although gaming is alive and well, the basement-dwelling Mountain Dew goblin teenager stereotype who screams at his mother for "interrupting" his boob-modded Call of Duty match to give him his pizza rolls image others have of gamers is still very troublesome. It's an image we need to resist.

Troublesome indeed- who puts a boob mod on a first person shooter featuring an overwhelmingly male-and-heavily-camouflaged roster of characters?

BreakfastMan:

NewClassic:

BreakfastMan:
Yeah, I gotta say, that is some shoddy grammer their Nuke.

No points for the obvious bait. Seven points, however, for "shoddy." Fun word.

I will have you know, that would count as top-tier bait in WW.

WW Callout Post

crimson5pheonix:
Saying you don't personally like Bayonetta's design is one thing,

Yeah, that's worth only three death threats at most. I think by then even the SJW-est of SJWs will have gotten the message. Anything beyond that is just overkill.

Three years later and the salt continues to flow.

Marter:
But the apostrophe replaces letters and the letters you're replacing at the "o" and "u" in "you," so it makes sense if the apostrophe goes before the "all."

It's just wrong. :D

Prescriptivism in linguistics is boring. May as well just call it [jɔl] if we're going to be so unnecessarily specific.

IceForce:
Wow, so time machines are no longer the stuff of science fiction, they're the stuff of science fact.

Isn't the future great?

Squilookle:
Troublesome indeed- who puts a boob mod on a first person shooter featuring an overwhelmingly male-and-heavily-camouflaged roster of characters?

The exceptionally tasteful. Hot Ryu would be proud of all of us.

BeetleManiac:
Three years later and the salt continues to flow.

NewClassic:

crimson5pheonix:
Well you're illustrating exactly what I'm saying. You're bringing up a specific instance in a specific game to criticize and that is okay. Saying Shenmue's music is bad is not saying anything outside of Shenmue.

I'm afraid I can't agree. Examples can exist both within a fixed point (the context of a narrative of a game), and as a general rule. Although I believe having two sticks that control look and movement is a great innovation in game design schemes, there is most certainly a culture for it in modern gaming. However, it was ? if memory serves ? popularized by Halo. Speaking about that control scheme would be both a criticism on Halo and the control scheme itself.

Only if you're saying the idea behind the control scheme is bad. In which case you would be criticizing all games that have the control scheme and saying that it can't be implemented properly. If you're talking about Halo specifically, you're either saying the controls were implemented poorly or that those kind of controls would be bad for Halo.

And this is the exact problem with these kinds of articles. You say you want to have a nuanced conversation, but you start with some of the least nuanced positions. Criticizing a specific aspect of a specific game is nuanced. Broadly criticizing a broad idea that can be implemented in any number of ways that would invalidate your criticism is not nuanced.

Being able to rationalize something in context doesn't mean it's devoid of also participating in art. Everything can be contextualized with everything else, which is what makes the wide arrays of things like academic and cultural criticism possible, even decades or centuries after a piece of work has been published, examined, exhausted, examined, explored, exhausted, and examined again.

Only if you want to compare apples to oranges. In this case, trying to compare Bayonetta to DoA: volleyball.

But then when you bring up sexualization you are bringing up wide all-encompassing criticisms. Even against games that you yourself believe fall outside that criticism. The problem of saying "games have too much sexualization" is that it's not a nuanced position. It's blunt and shallow. It would be like saying nobody should like a game with minimalist soundtracks like Shenmue because they can be done poorly.

Right, but my position wasn't "games have too much sexualization." It was "Games rarely examine their dependence and frequency of sexualization, to the detriment of what they could be or become."

In the same way, a talented composer could have undoubtedly created a dynamic soundtrack for Shenmue that would have improved the feel of it without losing the atmosphere. Not dissimilar from what one finds in games like Breath of the Wild. Similarly, games that underconsider the possibilities of nonsexualized costumes, or rather the integration of sexualization into more powerful forms of characterization (as I discussed with Darth Rosenberg above in regard to Lollipop Chainsaw), then games could improve or iterate in ways they generally don't.

But they do do that. Regularly. Often. And get praised for it too when it's handled well. Because gaming is nuanced. And just decrying sexual designs because there are instances of games that don't dwell on such things is a shallow criticism. Like your Shenmue example can be answered with "they could have, but they didn't, and there's no reason for them to. Their decisions were just as valid as your thoughts and your suggestion isn't exactly ground breaking."

The criticism itself has nuance, but it depends a lot on reading. This article speaks to say that the games culture doesn't allow itself to read depth into these sorts of criticisms, and as has happened here, it appears more shallow than it could (and was implied to) be.

But the criticisms never have nuance. If you're starting from the position of "the industry" or "the community", you're starting with a blanket criticism that had better apply to the entire group, otherwise you're being unclear in your terminology and implying things you don't mean.

That title is a bit click-hungry.

Now watch the comments prove you right. Never fails.

American Tanker:
"Gamers" never died. We're just in the process of respawning.

And when that's done, we'll purge the political bullshit from our games, and stand vigilant until the end of time to ensure it fucking stays out.

If you really want politics out of gaming, you're basically saying you don't want gaming to be able to portray: Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, conflict between real nations, positive depictions of communism, negative depictions of communism, corporations being the main villain, genocide, nations being exploited for resources by more powerful nations (Imperialism or neo-colonalism), transhumanism, class divide, international relationships, environmentalism, democratic revolutions, or even government sponsored heath care.

That's what it'd really mean to get politics out of gaming, and I'm just scratching the surface.

Zhukov:
That title is a bit click-hungry.

Now watch the comments prove you right. Never fails.

I fell for it.

BreakfastMan:
Lol @ the reaction to this. It seems some people never left August 2014...

yeah but they won (pick whichever side you think won). You have to make sure everyone knows your right.

American Tanker:
"Gamers" never died. We're just in the process of respawning.

And when that's done, we'll purge the political bullshit from our games, and stand vigilant until the end of time to ensure it fucking stays out.

Good luck to anyone who thinks politics will be purged from anything.

BeetleManiac:

crimson5pheonix:
Saying you don't personally like Bayonetta's design is one thing,

Yeah, that's worth only three death threats at most. I think by then even the SJW-est of SJWs will have gotten the message. Anything beyond that is just overkill.

Three years later and the salt continues to flow.

I know. So many websites and the like going on and on about GamerGate. How they signaled the rise of the Alt-Right, how it was responsible for getting Trump elected, even long after most proponents of it have gone elsewhere. I guess the idea that people aren't gonna swallow media narrative was just too much to deal with.

Oh wait, that's not where you think most of the salt is coming from is it?

Seriously Beetle, people who live in salt houses shouldn't throw stones. You are easily the angriest anti I've ever seen on this website when it comes to this subject, and one of the more confrontational on other subjects, and there's at least one person on this website who literally wants to see entire chunks of this country purged.

Also, to the author of this piece, "Y'all" is a contraction of "You All". That's why the apostrophe goes BEFORE the a. I appreciate the desire to want to indulge in my people's culture, but please try to get the spelling right. Thank ye kindly.

Metalix Knightmare:
Oh wait, that's not where you think most of the salt is coming from is it?

Hey, I'm not one of the people who read a bunch of articles saying we should move past an awful stereotype and nailed myself to a cross over it. I don't know why you're getting saucy with me.

BeetleManiac:

Metalix Knightmare:
Oh wait, that's not where you think most of the salt is coming from is it?

Hey, I'm not one of the people who read a bunch of articles saying we should move past an awful stereotype and nailed myself to a cross over it. I don't know why you're getting saucy with me.

Because your default mode is Saucy. I can honestly say you're one of the more confrontational people on this website. As an aside, who's nailing themselves to a cross here? Aside from American Tanker, the people who were Pro GG have been discussing the article with the writer rather reasonably. Again, most of the people still on said crosses and screaming to the high heavens about it are people trying to blame GG for all of America's current woes.

In addition, I wouldn't say getting upset at an enthusiast press deciding to openly crap on their audience in a desperate attempt to hide the fact one of their own got their hands caught in the cookie jar is nailing one's self to the cross, but that may just be me.

As for the article, it's not good. At all. But a few bits in particular really stood out to me. Sadly for the state of my own linguistic abilities, someone else summed up what I would say a lot better. Credit to HenkkaArt for said summaries.

The other part of the struggle is the culture itself. It's hard to push into games from the outside because there is resistance to the concept of glossaries. More pertinently, those who need them. Things that widen games to audiences formerly in the outside of the culture read as some kind of betrayal. Those who feel passionately about games seem to want to keep them close, locked into a familiar shape with familiar communities. The culture that feels those already playing belong to the in-group, and out-groups trying to join either need to fold themselves quietly, or leave. That games don't belong to anyone but those already in.

A question: Is this "culture" thing an American invention? I've never felt that gaming is some sort of in-group that is nigh impenetrable by those who come from the outside. I've been a lifelong gamer every since I got NES console back in 1989-90 (and before that I used to play on an Amiga at my uncle's place) and never have I felt that I belonged to any gamer group. And never have I felt that I was missing something crucial to enjoy games.

This idea of the in-groups keeping all the "valuables" for themselves is a terrible theory. Everyone who plays or wants to play video games has an internet access and they are free to learn about games as much as they want or can. And all of it can be done with zero contact to anyone else. This whole thing is manufactured nonsense. Unless you are a person who just can't handle things on your own but always require a chaperone to hold your hand, the entire world of gaming is open to you. You can play with your friends if you don't like the "in-groups". You can play solo. And you can play one-offs with random people who you'll never see again after the gaming session.

This notion that when you start playing video games, you need to inject yourself into "the culture" is such a pot of wet cats that it irritates me to no limit.

"But here's the rub: all the stuff you ever wanted to know about game development would be out there if not for the toxic gaming community. We love to talk about development, the challenges we face, the problems we solve, the shortcuts we take. But it's almost never worth it."

Yeah, we'd love to talk about these things but sadly most if not all game studios and especially publishers make you write NDAs that limit what you can say. I'd like to talk about my own experiences when we developed our latest game but I don't want to risk it by saying something I'm not supposed to talk about. And if I write a dev diary and talk crap, I expect to be called out because of it. I mean, I don't want to listen to some by-the-numbers bullcrap talk about video games and the industry so why should I expect others to listen to me spew similar crap at them? Also, a lot of developers talk about these things, in conferences and on YouTube etc and I've yet to see a qualified professional who does a great talk or makes a good tutorial/educational video to receive actual negative comment barrages or this "toxic gamer" line that these charlatans seem to peddle.

Most talks about the creation of games at GDC et al are well-received by fans and have good ratings on YouTube etc. It's the bullcrap talks that get trashed in the comments, you know, the ones where even a non-industry person can see that this person is full of it. If you want to be received well among the fans, stop making pretentious, crappy games and start talking about things people want to hear.

Make interesting games that people want to hear about. Be interesting people that people want to listen to talk. Talk about interesting stuff people want to learn about. It's not the audience's fault if your talk about how Street Fighter 5's female characters are awfully designed because they show skin and have boobs is met with negative reviews. It's not the audience's fault if you try to push some agenda while trying to disguise it as a proper game dev talk. People see through that and the high horse attitude of "Let me show you how it is done properly, you maggots!" doesn't help either.

No one is saying these games are inherently bad, or there should be no games styled and developed in this way, but that we genuinely need to recognize that skimpy nuns, bikini-clad martial artists, exposed-breast ninjas, and The Witcher sex scenes create an image that the games community doesn't resist.

Now, we aren't saying ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves but you really should. Also, why in the seven hells would I want to resist the sexy akimbo-wielding nuns or bikini-clad martial artists? I like that stuff just as much as others like the tofu that they tell themselves is just like real meat. News flash: you can want to have different types of games and good for you but the game developers owe you nothing. You don't like it, don't buy it.

And as a final point to the "how gaming is seen by outsiders": almost every regular joe and jill I've met who doesn't game says the first thing that comes to mind when asked about video games is either Super Mario Bros, Farmville or Angry Birds and perhaps, just perhaps, Grand Theft Auto (and even then it's not the manufactured rage against some make-belief misogyny but just the name because it is so heavily marketed that everyone knows the name even if they don't really know what it is about).

Conclusion: Stop crying about the "gamer community/culture" because there isn't one tangible group of people who all share the same values and act like a hivemind. You keep saying that people shouldn't apply the actions of a few to an entire group of people be it some minority or a fandom, so why are you doing it when it comes to gaming? Also, don't go prancing into a group expecting people to just welcome you out of the blue, especially if your mission is to try and change that group. Have a bit of humility and maybe make your own posse with your friends. You don't need to belong to every mailing list and forum to be able to play video games or to get the most out of them.

GOD but I wish I could be that articulate on demand. Also, where the hell do you find mods to add boobs to Call of Duty? I don't doubt it's out there, but that seems a bit odd to be a very widespread thing.

Metalix Knightmare:
-snip-

If I'm so confrontational (and I won't deny it, I am opinionated), what does it say about you that you're still chomping down on the hook?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here