"Gamers" Are Still Dead, Y'all

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Ogoid:

Murlin:
Literally nobody gave a shit about Sarkeesian until people declared her the devil

People only started "declaring her the Devil" when games media in general started treating her hackneyed, moralizing "won't someone think of the children" posturing as the single most important event to gaming since Pong, and declaring anyone daring to utter a single breath in disagreement as the living embodiment and proof of her every last Seduction of the Innocent claim.

That all seems rather exaggerated, don't you think?

Naldan:
Mass shootings is something I hear about mostly from the US. Care to make another example? ... Are mass shootings not simply a US thing?

Anders was pretty bad. First he murders a bunch of clerics to cause a war for no good reason in March 2011 to try and cause civil unrest, and then he leaked into our reality to murder a bunch of kids in July 2011 in Norway to try and cause civil unrest. I blame myself. I wanted to shank Anders so badly but felt threatened by Bioware because he was my Healer. The hate isn't supposed to cause them to leak into our word. It must be a bug, not a feature. And he just had to do it in a country with no Death Penalty. I should have known shanking the healer wouldn't have been enough to kill him. /End Dark Sarcasm

Then as much as we like to paint the Sufferage Movement as some Idealistic Peace Mongering Women they had a fair number of Bombing and excessive Violence in UK as compared to the US suffrage movement that chose to oppose militant action. In the UK they were practically a paramilitary organization.

From my perspective in the US, it seems that most other countries are more willing to label mass shootings as a US thing but sweep under the rug their violence as Acts of Terror. People in England didn't have a Bombing Problem it was just those Suffragettes, or the IRA, or the Villian of the Week. In the US we place much more credit on the Individual that did it than their group.

In the US we also have Freedom of the Press. Which might seem unrelated to the problem at hand, but because most outlets didn't understand Suicide Contagion they made the instances like Columbine much worse. I'm all for freedom of the press, and it's a consequence of it. About a decade ago the Press was educated on the subject so they stopped plastering school shooting all over the news 24/7. They have a few ethical standards they TRY to uphold. Countries like the UK and Japan that can actively censor the news don't have this problem, but I'd rather have the US Liberty view of a free press than not.

Murlin:

You got your timeline backwards there pal.

Pretty sure I don't, but fine - let's say I did.

Would people "declaring her the devil" somehow make her "criticism" in any way more significant, or justify supposed professional journalists suspending any and all critical thought and turning what one can only reasonably assume to be a wilful blind eye regarding, oh I don't know, provably false claims, intentional misrepresentations or unauthorized use of third-party footage and art on her part?

Because, personally? I don't think it would.

BreakfastMan:

That all seems rather exaggerated, don't you think?

*Shrug*

Having the possibility of knocking out strippers in a game and dragging their bodies around - being penalized all the while, mind - counts as "a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality", so... you know.

When in Rome, and all that jazz.

BreakfastMan:

Ogoid:

Murlin:
Literally nobody gave a shit about Sarkeesian until people declared her the devil

People only started "declaring her the Devil" when games media in general started treating her hackneyed, moralizing "won't someone think of the children" posturing as the single most important event to gaming since Pong, and declaring anyone daring to utter a single breath in disagreement as the living embodiment and proof of her every last Seduction of the Innocent claim.

That all seems rather exaggerated, don't you think?

This is the standard line: pretend like Sarkeesian and her devious ilk are some kind of threat that spawned from nowhere and suddenly beguiled the whole of the industry with their witchcraft. Some people even compared her to Jack Thompson in the beginning. Though after he got involved with GG that comparison dropped as Jack "actually tried to get video games outlawed" Thompson, the disbarred lawyer, was suddenly a pretty OK fellow.

Ogoid:

Pretty sure I don't, but fine - let's say I did.

Would people "declaring her the devil" somehow make her "criticism" in any way more significant, or justify supposed professional journalists suspending any and all critical thought and turning what one can only reasonably assume to be a wilful blind eye regarding, oh I don't know, provably false claims, intentional misrepresentations or unauthorized use of third-party footage and art on her part?

Because, personally? I don't think it would.

Repeating your fever dreams doesn't make them come true.

Sarkeesian's rise to fame began after 4chan targetted her. At the time she was just some middling feminist critic with a slightly larger audience, of which there were plenty, she just happend to strike a cord with /v/ apparently.

I think you'll have a hard time finding a lot of articles in big name game sites talking about her before that whole tizzy started. Because that remains her biggest claim to fame: exploiting her harassment to gain public recognition. Even at the time people were saying as much.

Ogoid:

BreakfastMan:

That all seems rather exaggerated, don't you think?

*Shrug*

Having the possibility of knocking out strippers in a game and dragging their bodies around - being penalized all the while, mind - counts as "a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality", so... you know.

When in Rome, and all that jazz.

No, I don't really know what you are talking about here at all.

Dragonlayer:

To be fair, it's very easy for one's hackles to be raised when criticism of questionable aspects of gaming culture are couched in such loaded terms:

- GAMERS are TOXIC not you, just the naughty ones but if you take offence then you're clearly a naughty one
- GAMERS are part of a culture that PROMOTES SEXISM not you, just the naughty ones but if you take offence then you're clearly a naughty one
- GAMERS promote a culture of WHITE HETEROSEXUAL MALE EXCLUSIVITY that KILLS CREATIVITY AND DIVERSITY not you, just the naughty ones but if you take offence then you're clearly a naughty one

Similarly, when the sort of people who make hours of video in response to minutes of criticism couch their views as being "rational" and supporting "facts over feelings", I'm not going to be sympathetic to their feels being hurt, you know?

It brings to mind someone loudly proclaiming "Feminists are bitches" in disgust, then when someone objects they merely respond "Oh I only meant the Feminazi ones, why are you getting so upset?". Not to mention that criticism can so very often come with unspoken insinuations, just look at any movie review thread in Off-Topic, where Michael Bay's movies are commonly derided as godawful moronic trash for lowest common denominator ticket-buyers. It's not always easy to calmly dissect the (hopefully) unintended implications that everyone under the broad spectrum of "Gamers" bears fault for the twats, particularly under incredibly clickbaity titles. Unfortunately, in my opinion this also presents something of a conundrum because I don't think anyone can take a look at gaming culture and declare it completely free of toxicity: death threats to developers for altering weapon reload speeds, or the immature clusterfucks that inevitably arise whenever the words "race" or "sex" are mentioned put the lie to that.* Even in the case that a portion of these kinds of comments are simply trying to get a rise out of people - something I personally believe, because it's the easiest thing in the world to "fire and forget" some racist/sexist comments anywhere on the net in order to see the people froth at the mouth - they cannot really be described as anything but "toxic", but then just writing a slew of "Gamers are dead, yo" articles automatically shuts down any attempt at reasonable discussion because it's so easy to feel slandered by them. I'm sure many will argue that it's on the audience to avoid knee-jerk reactions, and that's a valid point (I won't deny that my initial reaction to many race/sex articles in gaming is usually "Oh Christ, not this again...." before I "calm" down), and that Mr Hidalgo isn't writing anything personally insulting. But I think there is still a certain, sanctimonious "Holier than thou" attitude that comes across in these kinds of articles that I feel does nobody any favours.

*Though I remain unconvinced that this is a problem unique to gamer culture.

*shrug*
Back in the day, Polygon's "Gamerz R Dead" article was just a list of notable events that had happened in the last week, not least of which was Sony Online Ebtertainment's CEO's plane being grounded by a bomb threat and a SWATing caught on livestream. For some reason, this article was being branded as an attack on gamers. I've got an aweful hard time figuring out what was objectionable about it

Though I'm glad you brought up movie criticism. I'd be genuinely curious to see if reviewers who bash the latest Transformers movies get the same kind of death threats and petitions for them to be fired that somebody who gives GTA 5 a 9 out of 10 gets.

altnameJag:

Dragonlayer:

To be fair, it's very easy for one's hackles to be raised when criticism of questionable aspects of gaming culture are couched in such loaded terms:

- GAMERS are TOXIC not you, just the naughty ones but if you take offence then you're clearly a naughty one
- GAMERS are part of a culture that PROMOTES SEXISM not you, just the naughty ones but if you take offence then you're clearly a naughty one
- GAMERS promote a culture of WHITE HETEROSEXUAL MALE EXCLUSIVITY that KILLS CREATIVITY AND DIVERSITY not you, just the naughty ones but if you take offence then you're clearly a naughty one

Similarly, when the sort of people who make hours of video in response to minutes of criticism couch their views as being "rational" and supporting "facts over feelings", I'm not going to be sympathetic to their feels being hurt, you know?

It brings to mind someone loudly proclaiming "Feminists are bitches" in disgust, then when someone objects they merely respond "Oh I only meant the Feminazi ones, why are you getting so upset?". Not to mention that criticism can so very often come with unspoken insinuations, just look at any movie review thread in Off-Topic, where Michael Bay's movies are commonly derided as godawful moronic trash for lowest common denominator ticket-buyers. It's not always easy to calmly dissect the (hopefully) unintended implications that everyone under the broad spectrum of "Gamers" bears fault for the twats, particularly under incredibly clickbaity titles. Unfortunately, in my opinion this also presents something of a conundrum because I don't think anyone can take a look at gaming culture and declare it completely free of toxicity: death threats to developers for altering weapon reload speeds, or the immature clusterfucks that inevitably arise whenever the words "race" or "sex" are mentioned put the lie to that.* Even in the case that a portion of these kinds of comments are simply trying to get a rise out of people - something I personally believe, because it's the easiest thing in the world to "fire and forget" some racist/sexist comments anywhere on the net in order to see the people froth at the mouth - they cannot really be described as anything but "toxic", but then just writing a slew of "Gamers are dead, yo" articles automatically shuts down any attempt at reasonable discussion because it's so easy to feel slandered by them. I'm sure many will argue that it's on the audience to avoid knee-jerk reactions, and that's a valid point (I won't deny that my initial reaction to many race/sex articles in gaming is usually "Oh Christ, not this again...." before I "calm" down), and that Mr Hidalgo isn't writing anything personally insulting. But I think there is still a certain, sanctimonious "Holier than thou" attitude that comes across in these kinds of articles that I feel does nobody any favours.

*Though I remain unconvinced that this is a problem unique to gamer culture.

*shrug*
Back in the day, Polygon's "Gamerz R Dead" article was just a list of notable events that had happened in the last week, not least of which was Sony Online Ebtertainment's CEO's plane being grounded by a bomb threat and a SWATing caught on livestream. For some reason, this article was being branded as an attack on gamers. I've got an aweful hard time figuring out what was objectionable about it

Though I'm glad you brought up movie criticism. I'd be genuinely curious to see if reviewers who bash the latest Transformers movies get the same kind of death threats and petitions for them to be fired that somebody who gives GTA 5 a 9 out of 10 gets.

I think you forgot the most important thing there Jag: no actual people are responsible for those things, just naughty ghosts. Checkmate, SJWs!

I wonder if this is why much of modern art is mostly just random things thrown together. No complaints about diversity or inclusivity then.

medv4380:

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli8NvDPWdg

BreakfastMan:

You won't know until you read the article.

But I had already done that when I first wrote anything in this thread.

So... care to elaborate? Or are you just gonna keep being dismissive with nothing constructive to say?

Dalsyne:

BreakfastMan:

You won't know until you read the article.

But I had already done that when I first wrote anything in this thread.

So... care to elaborate? Or are you just gonna keep being dismissive with nothing constructive to say?

So, this article is really exactly 100% the same as all the others? Not different at all?

BreakfastMan:

So, this article is really exactly 100% the same as all the others? Not different at all?

I take it "article" and "opinion" are synonyms to you?

Dalsyne:

BreakfastMan:

So, this article is really exactly 100% the same as all the others? Not different at all?

I take it "article" and "opinion" are synonyms to you?

An article is a method of expressing one's opinion.

BreakfastMan:

An article is a method of expressing one's opinion.

And we were talking about the opinion contained in the article, not the article itself. So I ask again, and for the last time: what exactly is the nuance of opinion that the article contains, that makes this opinion so much different than all the other nonsense peddled by its peers?

Dalsyne:

BreakfastMan:

An article is a method of expressing one's opinion.

And we were talking about the opinion contained in the article, not the article itself. So I ask again, and for the last time: what exactly is the nuance of opinion that the article contains, that makes this opinion so much different than all the other nonsense peddled by its peers?

Well, have you actually read the article?

Deadguy2322:

That appears to be the limit of his pseudo-intellect.

At this point he's just deliberately wasting my time. Guess he was biding his time until I said something he could interpret in a way that got him a gotcha argument. That's how internet argument warriors tend to work, anyway.

Now let's see if he goes by quotes or actually reads the thread.

Dalsyne:

BreakfastMan:

An article is a method of expressing one's opinion.

And we were talking about the opinion contained in the article, not the article itself. So I ask again, and for the last time: what exactly is the nuance of opinion that the article contains, that makes this opinion so much different than all the other nonsense peddled by its peers?

The author is totes a real feminist ally, unlike the accusations slung at Joss Whedon, Devin Faraci, Matt Hickey, Nick Robinson, etc, etc? XD

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Please give hugs? ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Smithnikov:
*snip*

The first one won't play for me for some reason, as for the rest:

I can't recall an FPS that stopped being an FPS out of fear it might theoretically inspire a shooting, or a massive rebalance of SimCity Societies to be pro-nuclear, or similar for Fate of the World, or devs doing something to force you to be productive instead of y'know playing their games (unless you want to count microtransactions, but I don't think that's the motive for those).

The Medal of Honor thing (literally removing the word "Taliban" and referring to them merely as the "Opposing Force") was about military and veterans organizations feeling it hit a little too close to home rather than it not expressing a specific right-wing view. Apparently they get offended by people playing people they are currently fighting shooting at players playing them. And yes, I do think they were being silly over that.

Nice shifting of the goal-posts by the way, you've gone from "Gatekeepers in gaming demand we embrace right wing Christian censorship of games" and "Right wing bullshit is demanded" to "sometimes right wing pundits blame games for bad things that happen [like they used to do music and comics], generally to no effect unless it's veterans groups being offended (see Medal of Honor and Six Days in Fallujah)."

Still nothing akin to threatening a studio and it's employees over an exposed midriff. Or seeing a cool trailer at E3 and demanding one of the devs publicly apologize because he tweeted the wrong opinion about something a few years ago.

Dalsyne:

Deadguy2322:

That appears to be the limit of his pseudo-intellect.

At this point he's just deliberately wasting my time. Guess he was biding his time until I said something he could interpret in a way that got him a gotcha argument. That's how internet argument warriors tend to work, anyway.

Now let's see if he goes by quotes or actually reads the thread.

Well now, that seems like a rude thing to say. I just wanted to know if you had actually read the article, no need to get testy.

Mazinger-Z:

Dalsyne:

BreakfastMan:

An article is a method of expressing one's opinion.

And we were talking about the opinion contained in the article, not the article itself. So I ask again, and for the last time: what exactly is the nuance of opinion that the article contains, that makes this opinion so much different than all the other nonsense peddled by its peers?

The author is totes a real feminist ally, unlike the accusations slung at Joss Whedon, Devin Faraci, Matt Hickey, Nick Robinson, etc, etc? XD

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Please give hugs? ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Good try buddy, but better luck next time.

Mazinger-Z:

The author is totes a real feminist ally, unlike the accusations slung at Joss Whedon, Devin Faraci, Matt Hickey, Nick Robinson, etc, etc? XD

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Please give hugs? ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

I don't *like* bashing NewClassic because I know he's been here a long time and at least he's tried to be fair, but as a random guy on the internet, venting in the comments section and proclaiming my disapproval is all I can do. I don't have the clout to sit him down and explain how it's a hypocritical mindset that relies on gross generalizations of a group of people that represent humanity more than a whatever "culture" and his standards for them are both unrealistic and driven by disingenuous ideologues that have made careers out of being victims and spreading chaos. That's for him to figure out, sometime in the future when hopefully this feminist haze will pass and everyone will wake up to the monster they worship.

Dalsyne:

Deadguy2322:

Dalsyne:

But I had already done that when I first wrote anything in this thread.

So... care to elaborate? Or are you just gonna keep being dismissive with nothing constructive to say?

That appears to be the limit of his pseudo-intellect.

Hahahaha guess who quoted me like a clingy ex. I guess he really does care, for all of his trying not to show it.

Thanks for the laugh breakfastbro, seems like even someone like you can be useful for something.

http://nymag.com/selectall/2015/12/nine-canonical-responses-to-u-mad.html

See response #1, my dude.

Dalsyne:
I don't *like* bashing NewClassic because I know he's been here a long time and at least he's tried to be fair, but as a random guy on the internet, venting in the comments section and proclaiming my disapproval is all I can do. I don't have the clout to sit him down and explain how it's a hypocritical mindset that relies on gross generalizations of a group of people that represent humanity more than a whatever "culture" and his standards for them are both unrealistic and driven by disingenuous ideologues that have made careers out of being victims and spreading chaos.

He's also easy to sit down and talk with. "Force" is a strange way to frame it when you could have easily asked. My messages are open.

Murlin:

Ogoid:

Murlin:
Literally nobody gave a shit about Sarkeesian until people declared her the devil

People only started "declaring her the Devil" when games media in general started treating her hackneyed, moralizing "won't someone think of the children" posturing as the single most important event to gaming since Pong, and declaring anyone daring to utter a single breath in disagreement as the living embodiment and proof of her every last Seduction of the Innocent claim.

You got your timeline backwards there pal.

He and others have based years worth of hate boners for this woman and her "gamejournopro" accomplices on their alternative facts; you're not going to get any of them to join us in the real world by providing proof of their errors. Any believers left have invested way too much of their identities into this conspiracy theory to back out now.

Agreed, if you pepper a story with every conceivable group to halt protests you end up with bland a bland story that you can't "complain" because your group is "represented". There's even this weird expectation that you have to support the product even if you don't like it just because your "group" is represented. Buy this game it has an X. You didn't buy the game you must be X-phobic. I'm at the point I consider that style of articles coming out about something before release a flag for bad games.

I'm fine with deep games covering diverse topics, but if someone said I should Play Final Fantasy 6 because of its story about Unwanted Pregnancy it will be a level of absurdity the world could not contain. Do not generate reality ending memory leaks.

Mau95:
I wonder if this is why much of modern art is mostly just random things thrown together. No complaints about diversity or inclusivity then.

medv4380:

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli8NvDPWdg

maninahat:
And if you read the actual metacritic quotes, you get things like:

'Trumping the first in nearly every way, Dishonored 2 is at the very top of the list of "must play"...
'Dishonored was already amazing, and this sequel bests it on every level...'
'Dishonored 2 is an improvement over the original game in every sense of the word...'

I'm not going to bother reading through all the reviews, but it has been safe to say that a lot of critics have said it is better than the first game, regardless of what score they've given to either. I think it is better than the first game as well. Not everyone will agree with that of course.

It was the second game in a series that had just proven itself viable. It got more attention and a higher budget, and all the attendant hype that it would be "bigger and better" than its predecessor. It should have been so.

...And yet its scorings were virtually identical, and its sales were down.

None of which seems to inherently trumpet a better game- much less one that was particularly better for Sarkeesian's influence, which is the more salient point.

Nor, to be fair, does it suggest any influence she might have had made it worse. But it does suggest the most visible sign of that influence didn't have the effect of driving sales numbers up.

Not just that, seeing as how it completely undermines your argument that feminist critics are coercing gaming culture and undermining developers. Here's a clear example of a creator accepting the criticism without condition and deciding on their own free will to adjust the sequel accordingly. Where exactly is the coercion, the dubious tactics and the vague goals here? All Sarkeesian did was talk to the guy about his game, and the guy agreed wit her point.

Neither of us knows what words were actually exchanged. I can't know whether the overall message was "It will make a more robust and compelling game if there is a female protagonist" or "it would be good for the medium as a whole if this prominent game shows that a female lead can drive a successful game" or even "if you we meet and you don't make visible changes the narrative that you're ignoring my input will be all anyone hears about your game for the entirety of its sales launch period".

What I can know- and Dishonored's creator may well have known- is that similar imbroglios have burdened other prominent games to their detriment, making it more difficult for those associated with the games to get any other sort of news or promotion out to the public that isn't immediately cross-contaminated with drummed-up controversy.

I can also recognize that meeting with someone like Sarkeesian is a great way to get a jump on preventing such controversy, even if it's only less volatile "white male dudebro toxic masculinity hero" variety.

And even if all that weren't true, one example doesn't "completely" undermine anything so much as highlight your willingness to ignore an atmosphere in which the discussion of everything from Game of Thrones to The Avengers ends up getting waylaid and certain people's best hope for keeping their jobs is the hope that the Internet shows its usual attention span.

Sarkeesian has, in the past, made some good points. Also some questionable ones. Also some in which she wildly mis-stated her evidence or put forward as given ideas that were anything but proven.

But at the point where she suggests that adding a female protagonist is not sufficient, but rather that removing a male one is her idea of progress... I run out of patience for misandry that mis-labels itself as feminism.

You keep describing it as coercive, but making youtube videos and articles talking about videogames is not in anyway nefarious as you make it sound. It is safe to say Sarkeesian is influential, but that influence is a product of her being right about a lot of problems with the industry and the fandom, and the changes in the industry are a product of devs agreeing with the criticism (like above). Trying to sell it as though our multi-billion dollar industry is being pressured against its will by some woman in flannel and her ilk just strikes me as desperate attempt to explain why game designers put more value in what the feminists are saying and not their nay-sayers.

If you would spend more time supporting your arguments rather than peppering them with "desperate" and "completely" and similar absolutism, it might be easier to actually come to some conclusions.

For example, there may well be some developers who honestly welcome such criticism. But there are also undoubtedly some whose "heeding" of it is a PR ploy... And there are clearly some who resent it, or have been harmed by it.

From a financial standpoint, there's a real question whether the atmosphere of hostile scrutiny can have any effect on the bottom line of these games besides a negative one. Assassin's Creed: Syndicate introduced a female co-protagonist, had decent reviews, and was one of the worst-selling games of the series. The Tomb Raider reboot had to go through several re-releases before it reached its sales goals.

Hell, I personally purchased a copy of Remember Me largely because I didn't appreciate Capcom's apparent impression that a female lead could carry an action title- but apparently I wasn't in broad company on that one.

On the "indie" level, receptivity to such issues occasionally seems to pull a potentially obscure game out of darkness. But that's rarely where the massive knee-jerk pile-ons occur. When it comes to the multi-million selling titles, it often seems that big publishers would be better advised to keep their heads down and wait for the easily-incensed to find another target, which never seems to take very long.

It's difficult not to get the distinct impression that there's daylight between those who follow social-justice minded critics and those who actually purchase the games.

There are some who follow Sarkeesian's broadcastings, since she seems to be the example that keeps coming up- enough that her work keeps getting funded, certainly. Because she's "right on the issues"?

There are people who say as much about Alex Jones and Infowars.

No, I don't think Sarkeesian is that bad. But it also illustrates that when a demagogue catches the wave of a particular group's passions, they become distinctly less than critical and discerning about what that demagogue might say, and increasingly willing to demonize even perfectly reasonable questioning of their beloved figurehead.

I can answer that question now. Yes, thematically it makes sense that Emily is the protagonist in the sequel - it means that as a character, and as the player, Corvo's actions in the previous game influenced Emily's actions as ruler. You get a richer story in which Corvo has handed the baton on to his daughter, and its up to her to figure out a safer path. On top of that, it gives her a closer personal connection to the villain, who usurps her throne and makes a strong case against Emily's mother. Gameplaywise, it excuses giving her a new range of different powers that give you a more varied experience. I like being able to play as Corvo as well, but his character feels less relevant to the plot and I see him more of an extra than on the same standing.

Also, I'm finding it hard to imagine a situation where diversity isn't better, especially considering the lack of it.

I'm resisting the temptation to say "you're entitled to your opinion", as that would come off as unnecessarily and unintentionally patronizing.

But consider the recent "Agents of Mayhem". A diverse cast, certainly, by all accounts- but I've read numerous reviews that suggest significant parts of it are under-developed, that their playground is small, that many of the things they're give to do are repetitive and underwhelming.

Or the recent "Mass Effect" game, whose creators undoubtedly thought having a transexual character would be a feather in their cap- only to have the way said character presented themselves attacked.

It is almost always better for creators to have laser-focus and clear vision of what they want their game to be, especially if things that are grafted on to play to smaller demographics end up being shallow and under-thought and take away from time and energy that would have been better spent on central game-play conceits. This isn't just true about social issues- there was a plague of bolted-on multiplayer components in first-person shooter games not too long ago.

None of this is to say that an author with laser focus and a clear vision of creating a game centered around a transgender Latina action heroine couldn't make an awesome game. But it would undoubtedly suffer from trying to play to some critic's (or marketer's) notions of what that game had to be.

And that such a game probably wouldn't make it through the approval process of a big publisher isn't really surprising. But it doesn't fill me with angst, either- in part, again, because there is a significant independent developer pool right now.

BreakfastMan:

I think you forgot the most important thing there Jag: no actual people are responsible for those things, just naughty ghosts. Checkmate, SJWs!

That only men are allowed to bust GOD DAMMIT!

So hold on a minute, correct me if I'm wrong here but, people are still whining and saying that gamers are all white sexist males who hate and despise anything other than porn and trolling or some shit like that?

I thought that ended many o years go.

From scrolling through all 8 pages, I have learned that some chick that I have never heard of and some dude that I don't care about (or heard of) are dictating? And this cherry chick is also doing that? But everyone's a feminist who hates white supremacist males who play video games, because only that type of person plays games.

Ok, who let the test subject out of quarantine. Someone get the mind-wiper and don't let him escape again.

superhobomonkey:
So hold on a minute, correct me if I'm wrong here but, people are still whining and saying that gamers are all white sexist males who hate and despise anything other than porn and trolling or some shit like that?

I thought that ended many o years go.

From scrolling through all 8 pages, I have learned that some chick that I have never heard of and some dude that I don't care about (or heard of) are dictating? And this cherry chick is also doing that? But everyone's a feminist who hates white supremacist males who play video games, because only that type of person plays games.

NewClassic:

This isn't the first article I've written in this vein, nor will it likely be the last.

Please don't make anything like this again. This isn't a good article.

Just my opinion, not trying to be mean or rude. In fact I'm going to do a lot of preaching. I just wanted to say something. I have learned practically nothing from this article. I was miffed.

You want a discussion on how toxic gamers are, by writing the most divisive article possible? I mean whatever discussion happening is being drowned out by either "you are a hack" or "lololol gamers BTFO". It's an absolute shitshow. You implicitly tie this to GG in the title, and the first line is passing judgement on the stereotype gamers usually think themselves as. I really, really hope that one of your motivations wasn't to expose how terrible gamers are, because anyone could see this coming. I mean, GID is right next door.

You can criticize these things, and you always were able to. Be as polite as possible, no matter how passionate you are about it. When you look down on people, drop unpleasant stereotypes, especially ones that are especially accurate, 10 times out of 10, people will get offended. It doesn't matter if the meat of the content is about saving kittens. People will see you talking about the ugliness of the male gamer in the first line of the article and then your issue of female character oversexualization, and they will put the pieces together. I have to apologize if I sound like I am a hypocrite and am riding on a high horse, you can grill me later, but it seems like you wanted all hell to break loose. I'm not blaming you for the shit you got, this is on us gamers.

Still I want to stress that there is a better way to do this. You're basically holding a mirror infront of gamers, and saying "you don't want to be this ugly guy, do you?" You're putting the burden on the community to change itself, which is ridiculous and it'll never happen, not with content like this. I don't want to be told to recognize this stuff that I supposedly have no control over as problematic, what does that even mean btw, I agree with your points half-assedly? I honestly have more faith in developers banning half of the community for effect, than in the community itself.

If you're going to try to do it, do it like this.

https://kotaku.com/if-you-hear-someone-getting-harassed-in-an-online-game-1796921373

The title sounds like a PSA. You have a woman telling her experience playing Overwatch, it doesn't get any more real than that.

Cecilia D'Anastasio:

There will always be assholes in online games. But who sanctions it are the indifferent or cowardly bystanders who stay silent while strangers harass those of us just trying to enjoy the game and play it without making big, game-changing compromises. (Overwatch, like many other online multiplayer games, is a team game with involved strategy and is best coordinated over voice chat.)
...
If there are no social repercussions for antisocial behavior, and especially misogynistic behavior toward female teammates, it will continue. So if you are one of these four silent teammates - who will suffer no real harm for shaming a harasser or supporting the harassed - you are complicit in these online games? now-entrenched culture of toxicity.
...
My being harassed is not my fault. It is the fault of specific maladjusted people and a culture that acquiesces to their cruelty. I will not tolerate it. And I will not be part of a community that silently endorses it. That's why I'm speaking up. And that's why, when your teammate is getting harassed for their gender, voice, race or demographic, you should speak up, too. And if you do not, you are a part of the problem.

And the top comment.

Stonsils:

"Suck it up"

"Rise above it"

"Don't let it get to you"

"I get people calling me a *Expletive* all the time and you don?t see me whining"

etc.

Do yourself a favor and bookmark this article so that the next time you're tempted, you can remind yourself that you're being an asshole

A bit heavy handed but this is exactly what we need. Everyone has been in a situation like this. We are introverts and very shallow people emotion-wise, after all. I feel like a prick after reading this. This isn't some wishy washy wankfest of how "boohoo gamers are bad look how they bit the bait". The purpose is to stigmatize harassment. It seems so obvious, but for some reason nobody has told me this. I'm thinking, "Preach! Oh wait, I don't really want to do that." There has to be at least one person, out of four, who will speak up. It doesn't matter if that person is ignored or destroyed, you have to take that risk. It doesn't matter if the harasser is getting a kick out of the backlash, that's not the point. I'd rather have this drilled into my head so I am compelled to do it automatically and maybe stop being a piece of shit, than to read your article over and over. There will be people who feel offended, as if they are being shamed for something they didn't do, and they'll probably be livid (most of them are toxic players btw). But here's the thing. There are no real attacks, no misunderstandings. They haven't a fucking leg to stand on.

Another reason why I don't like this article is, look, if you are going to go on about the depiction of women in 2017, you are seriously going to need more than this. Everyone already has a Rolodex of arguments ready just for this occasion. Basically you're saying that gaming appears hostile to women because it's too sexy and makes everyone look like horny male teenagers. Honestly, I just assume that every young male has atleast 1TB of porn saved of their computer.

Saying platitudes like "No one is saying these things in games are bad or should be removed" or "we are only criticizing them" is hardly an argument. It's used way too much and is euphemism to make a demanding and wide change in video games as less controversial by pretending it's not going to happen. It's like saying "You know... gaming in general needs less dogs, I'm not saying dogs are bad or anything but people who own dogs tend to leave shit all over the place. I don't want that association in games". If you don't want these things to be removed, then why are you bringing it up in the first place? For fun?

Honestly, I don't care how problematic tits are in video games. However most of the world probably supports your views. You want other people to agree with you however, then offer better ideas, solutions, things people would be happy to compromise on. Believe me, much of us would much rather play deep games rather than shallow sex games. Very few people like tit games, which are not even passable for fapping. Most people are arguing off of principle, remember that.

Remember Fire Emblem's skinship system? It was replaced with a conversation system, something most people including myself would find more enjoyable then moving the stylus up and down. What about TracerButt, which was replaced with much more fitting pose. How about replacing skimpy body armor with unique historically accurate platemail that looks cool, since everything is always fantasy shit. That's what we need, we need to get rid of these things, and replace them with things that are better than ever before, things we would have never seen before. You can't please everybody, but at least the game is better for it.

Think of it this way, would you rather read a person complaining, or would you rather read someone who is passionate about solving an issue and is willing to offer neat solutions people are interested in. Personally I find that much more entertaining and friendly than a rant that only half of the website will enjoy. You might not get views, and even if people still give you shit while still being nice, at least they have absolutely nothing to stand on.

If you actually read through this entire post, thanks. I'll get off my high horse.

Callate:

It was the second game in a series that had just proven itself viable. It got more attention and a higher budget, and all the attendant hype that it would be "bigger and better" than its predecessor. It should have been so.

...And yet its scorings were virtually identical, and its sales were down.

The same could be said for Fallout 3 vs Fallout New Vegas, or many other games in which the sequel gets a marginally lower score on a review metric. It seems like you're telling me that the words of the critics - the ones explicitly telling you the sequels are better - don't matter, and only the numbers they provide matter, even though the point of game scores isn't so that you can catalogue games on an objective sliding scale of quality.

Neither of us knows what words were actually exchanged. I can't know whether the overall message was "It will make a more robust and compelling game if there is a female protagonist" or "it would be good for the medium as a whole if this prominent game shows that a female lead can drive a successful game" or even "if you we meet and you don't make visible changes the narrative that you're ignoring my input will be all anyone hears about your game for the entirety of its sales launch period".

What I can know- and Dishonored's creator may well have known- is that similar imbroglios have burdened other prominent games to their detriment, making it more difficult for those associated with the games to get any other sort of news or promotion out to the public that isn't immediately cross-contaminated with drummed-up controversy.

So as I understand it, you think it is a case of either Sarkeesian blackmailing the devs to make them put more women in their games, or the dev's cynical attempt to avoid negative criticism by placating those big mouth feminists? How is this the more plausible option than the dev simply agreeing with her, given that he says how important he thinks criticism is?

But at the point where she suggests that adding a female protagonist is not sufficient, but rather that removing a male one is her idea of progress... I run out of patience for misandry that mis-labels itself as feminism.

On the contrary, it is not misandry for Sarkeesian to suggest that the sequel ideally should have been purely female led (which isn't the same as "removing" a male lead from a finished game). She makes the observation that playable female characters are most often only included in games that also provide a male option, however devs don't ever have a problem with making male only led games. You consider it misandry for someone to ask why this couldn't have been a female only game, but do you consider it misogyny when the reverse happens and countless games are male led?

For example, there may well be some developers who honestly welcome such criticism. But there are also undoubtedly some whose "heeding" of it is a PR ploy... And there are clearly some who resent it, or have been harmed by it.

From a financial standpoint, there's a real question whether the atmosphere of hostile scrutiny can have any effect on the bottom line of these games besides a negative one. Assassin's Creed: Syndicate introduced a female co-protagonist, had decent reviews, and was one of the worst-selling games of the series. The Tomb Raider reboot had to go through several re-releases before it reached its sales goals.

Perhaps it was worse selling because the market had become saturated with Assassin's Creed sequels. Having a female protagonist was possibly an attemptto freshen up a series that was already getting flak for growing stale and repetitive, but I find it interesting that you think the real culprit for reduced sales is anything other than players being bored with getting basically the same game in a different shell, every year for the last ten years.

Meanwhile, the new Tomb Raider actually shifted an impressive amount of units, however the production costs were so bloated that the game had to make an unrealistically high number of sales to break even.

But consider the recent "Agents of Mayhem". A diverse cast, certainly, by all accounts- but I've read numerous reviews that suggest significant parts of it are under-developed, that their playground is small, that many of the things they're give to do are repetitive and underwhelming.

Or the recent "Mass Effect" game, whose creators undoubtedly thought having a transexual character would be a feather in their cap- only to have the way said character presented themselves attacked.

It is almost always better for creators to have laser-focus and clear vision of what they want their game to be, especially if things that are grafted on to play to smaller demographics end up being shallow and under-thought and take away from time and energy that would have been better spent on central game-play conceits. This isn't just true about social issues- there was a plague of bolted-on multiplayer components in first-person shooter games not too long ago.

I don't know how you think the game design process works, but having a trans character or a racially diverse cast is not an extra resource drain for the dev team, distracting them from making their games better. It is literally no more work and no more jarring to someone's concentration to write a character as black or white, or trans or cis, or whatever. And I suppose games like Overwatch would be way better if they didn't waste their resources by including more diverse characters, right?

Congrats on successfully baiting the remaining audience into the most engagement this site has seen in weeks. Feels a bit like grinding up the last bit of your seed corn for food though. But hey, at least you passed "Which My Little Pony Would be Your Bestie?" numbers.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
[

Knights of Malta? Knights Templar? Order of Hospitallers? The Jesuits? The Berbers? The Vandals? The Vandals are an example of a people moving from what is modern Germany, through Italy and the Iberian, and raiding and settling North African soil. Busy little blighters.

Yes I'm aware of these groups, though like the Ottomans after them they, having failed to assimilate the natives or replace them, all fell. That's sort of a trend in history when it comes to migratory conquest.

The only exception to this is the Balkans, where the Ottomans slowly conquered the place before eventually being pushed back, and Iberia, where there was a conquest, then the Moors where kicked out when the Spanish pushed them back.

So the only exception is almost 800 years of Iberian colonization and occupation? By various leadgroups no less?

And during that 800 years the Spanish, from a strategically weaker position, threw men at them and whittled them down to nothing. Given that they where a small part of the population to begin with it's a testament to their military abilities that they lasted as long as they did.

Unless you're going to tell me that the historical records we have is all wrong, as well as the migration data based on current day genetic distribution are both wrong.

???

My point was that at no point outside of the areas conquered by Muslims has there been a noteworthy non-white population in Europe before the modern era. Hell outside of France most of us here where alive before it happened.

Zontar:
Yes I'm aware of these groups, though like the Ottomans after them they, having failed to assimilate the natives or replace them, all fell. That's sort of a trend in history when it comes to migratory conquest.

???

The reason why the Vandals fell was because of Justinian. Not because they failed to colonize a place.

And during that 800 years the Spanish, from a strategically weaker position, threw men at them and whittled them down to nothing. Given that they where a small part of the population to begin with it's a testament to their military abilities that they lasted as long as they did.

And speaking of a civilzation that expanded their influence and become the world superpower for 300 years afterwards ... how about the Spanish Crown? Of which its language is thriving, and the shadow of its past still alters the political landscape of much of the world even in its absence?

How about the Portuguese? Until only recently they still maintained a presence in Macau. Of which their legacy continues through the one of the busiest waterways on the planet, the Malacca strait (Malacca being a Portuguese trading port and fortress they conquered from the Malay Sultanate and re-constructed at the start of the 16th century).

The influence of their architecture still remains, a weird mix of Imperial Chinese influences, Islamic religious iconography, and Portuguese traders and port engineers ... a city that has overseen numerous wars and occupiers and is considered by ethnic Chinese, ethnic Malays, both Christian and Islamic scholars, as the 'spiritual and historical capital' of what would become the very new nation of Malaysia after the end of British occupation.

Malacca is, quite literally, the melting pot of religion, empires, history of the old and the new, rolled into a tiny pinprick on a map. A legacy that continues to shape Southeast Asian and Australasian politics, and has been the focus or locale of numerous wars of empires since the early modern era.

You're speaking nonsense, mate. History is replete with examples of multiple centuries of colonization between Europe, Africa, Asia, and beyond. And not just in the Christian sphere of influence, but rather over a millenia before Christ and even prior the age of iron tools, you had 400-500 years of uninterrupted colonization by Asiatics in Africa AND Europe.

Their legacy maintained strongly by their successors, who established major port cities in places like Carthago Nova ... which to this day maintains that legacy, in its namesake Cartagena.

The city of Marseille? Try its Greek and Phocaea heritage of Massalia ... ofwhich was populated primarily by Ionian peoples ... from modern Turkey.

My point was that at no point outside of the areas conquered by Muslims has there been a noteworthy non-white population in Europe before the modern era. Hell outside of France most of us here where alive before it happened.

???

Defining 'non-white', you mean non-Caucasian people? If you mean brown people, we have evidence Arab traders have routinely colonized and settled parts of Europe. So ... you're wrong.

You also know who is considered Caucasoid? People like this young girl from Afghanistan. Caucasians ... includes Iranic people subgroups who spread westward and northwest-ward.

image

Also includes these 'non-white' Iranic ethnic groups in places like Imperial China, since circa 7th Century AD and the slow collapse of the Sassanid Empire...

image

Define your fucking terms, Zontar. Because they look pretty 'white' to me. And given groups like these basically birthed the mass migrations of groups like the Taiga nomads and Scythians, you might actually want to bone up on some basic fucking pre-history before you pretend to have a point.

They call it 'Indo-European migrations' for a fucking reason, been happening since the 5th millenia ... and yes, we have fucking proof. Through the use of language, no less ... you know, that thing that spreads wherever people go and settle? Or did I forget all those times Spanish spread by simply the Conquistadors rocking up and giving a friendly wave and just leaving the place unscathed?

The extensive use of proto Indo-European languages went on to shape and define Celtic, Romance, Greek and Slavic offshoots of European languages. So literally groups like the Iranic peoples and their descendents and offshoots that moved throughout eastern Europe (Sintashta-Petrovka culture) from their entry point of the Pontic-Caspian steppes gave Europe the foundational basics of all other organized languages it would use well after they had left or re-consolidated into new ethno-regional societies. Their reach fundamentally altered European societies, and we have proof.

In terms of linguistics, groups like the Iranic peoples spread the foundational basics of what would become Urdu, Hindustani, Punjabi, and all major extant European languages. In terms of archaeology, we're undecided whether we should date it from late neolithic, or middle neolithic. Regardless, the fucking evidence is there.

You owe English to the antiquity and resounding success and evolution of 'Indo-Europeanism' to coin a conjoined word... and it sure as hell didn't begin in Europe. It began in Eurasia and the Iranian plains. Iran is quite literally where we get 'Aryan' from.

image

Leave the...uncontrollable cellular growth...in 2014-2015, please.

I know the site is hurting for clicks, but fuck.

 Pages PREV 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