Jimquisition: Neutered

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

I have to say, I'm getting a bit tired of discussions like this. Not because Jim isn't making good points, he is. But rather because like almost all points being made in this discussion it's countering a point that doesn't really seem to exist outside of a few crazies.

We've got one side making the completely valid and good point that not all games should cater to the same niche audience and that there should be much more variety and difference available than what we're seeing now.

We've got the other side making the completely valid and good point that games that do cater to that niche audience have every right to exist and aren't inherently evil.

And then people start arguing with each other as if these two points are in opposition to each other, throwing strawmen around as if it's some sort of agricultural festival.

I mean seriously, is there anyone who actually believes that gaming shouldn't be more varied, that what we have now is all there should ever be, or that what we have now shouldn't be there at all and shouldn't be made ever again.

Monxeroth:
Then again on the other hand in some cases it does have a fair point to dismiss the criticism when its not relevant in any way to the actual game.
For example: Does the sorceress breasts somehow lower the quality of the game? No, no it does not. Only mechanics and actual faults with the game can lower a games overrall quality in my opinion, not subjective personal nonsense like the artstyle not being appealing or the music not being received well by some. Whether you like something or not, its not a valid reason to critique a game for.

"How dare someone make a game with an artstyle that i dont find personally appealing, this game sucks"

It's a completely fair criticism, actually. If a game is visually unappealing it's less fun to play since, even if the mechanics are great, you have to watch crap to use those mechanics. This is more important to some people than others, but it's important.

For instance, even if I were a fan of platformers (I'm not particulary), I'd pass on all the Bit.Trip games simply because I really don't like the super-retro thing. It's fugly. Not interested. Does this mean I miss out on some otherwise great games? Probably. Do I care? Not really. When the screenshots alone are enough to turn me off to a game, that's the art style being a detriment to a game.

Creativity is fine, but the more you try to jam every possible view point, fetish, race, creed, religion, ext, ext, ext limits the story you can tell with that character. They no longer have a set personality to drive the narrative with so can only be treated like an amorphous blob while the story goes on around them. You can point at bad games all you want, but how about good ones like Walking Dead? If you could select your gender, and race the game would have lost a lot since you can't write for all those possible variations. Look at Dragon Age, once your past the opening story, your race and gender are practically meaningless. Your other choices really only give you a token scene or two as well.

Traits for a character should be chosen based on the story they are trying to tell, not to please marketing or the PC whiners. If you can put some element of choice into the character generation, that's all well and good as long as it isn't to the detriment of the story.

The thing with slider bars is they really are only skin deep. Fiddle with them all you want, but the game is just going to ignore your choices in the end. In SWTOR the game can't tell if I'm a naked, fat, white cyborg covered in scars and sporting a mo-hock, or a slender stylish Asian looking guy, the interactions don't change. You can call that inclusive if you want, I call it meaningless.

The problem with Jim's Saint's Row example is that a game can only be inclusive when it allows the player to chose whether their character is male, female, cis, trans, gay, straight, and gives them a huge variety of skin colours. But as soon as the designer wants to make a game with a predefined character who can't be modded in every conceivable way it becomes almost impossible to make the game "inclusive" because it won't appeal to people who want a particular character (such as an empowered female protagonist) or who don't want a particular character (I've read comments from racists who hated the Witcher because Geralt wasn't black). So trying to make games inclusive will stifle creativity because it only truly be implemented in triple A games as only they have a budget large enough to create games that allow such a wide degree of character creation.

Also the same archetypes have been used for centuries, if not millenniums, because they've been proven time and time again to be the elements of a good story. The fact that Jim doesn't like that women always have the same role will not change this.

I can't fully agree that forcing inclusion would encourage creativity but even if developers do get forced into making games that go outside of the box, it would be no worse then what we have now, where publishers snare at games that don't have a male dominating it. It's so bad that Dontnod had to fight to get Remember Me pushed forward with it's lead not suffering a gender swap. I don't believe we have to force developers to be more creative we just have to force out those that believe you can't sell anything but middle aged grizzled men or heaving mountains of bosom.

erttheking:

Silentpony:
I don't get how you can have it both ways. How you can say include everyone but don't appeal to a wider audience. Jim has always been a fan of niche games, horror being his favorite genre, but when Dead Space 3 came out, a game designed to be an inoffensive and inclusive as possible, he hated it. Didn't he say in a lot of videos that if a game has a small but loyal fanbase, that's awesome? Well how about now?! If you defend a game that has a small fanbase, by implication not appealing to a wider audience, AND rant and rave against the homogenization of games to appeal to a wider audience, how can you do a video saying the exact opposite?

He flat out said that there was a difference between being more inclusive and appealing to a wider audience. And let's face facts when people say "we want to appeal to a wider audience" they mean "We want Call of Duty fans" That is what Jim criticizes.

Right, no, I got that. He DID say there was a difference. My question is what? What is the difference? How are they different? Just saying there is one isn't the same...

Hey Jim... that's not what "neutered" means. Don't get me wrong - I agree with more or less everything you said here - but "neutering" a game, at least in my vernacular, refers to the reduction of gender and gender issues to irrelevance. The Saints Row series (particularly 3 and 4) is a perfect example of neutering a game explicitly for the sake of inclusiveness. You can be/do/love whatever/whoever you want because it doesn't mean anything at all. It's no different than Fable; the characters are interchangeable, semi-randomized dolls that all react the same way, with slightly different voices.

Should gender have meaning or carry weight in a video game? Some would argue that it should, while others (myself included) couldn't care less. I think the real question is: CAN gender have meaning or carry weight in a game without being restrictive to any "side" or playing into stereotypes? or must it always be denigrated to surface fluff in the name of "fairness"?

Shjade:
It's a completely fair criticism, actually. If a game is visually unappealing it's less fun to play since, even if the mechanics are great, you have to watch crap to use those mechanics. This is more important to some people than others, but it's important.

It's only a valid criticism when the art makes it harder to play the game; such as making it impossible to tell what you can jump on, where the enemies are, or where your character is. Hating the a game because you don't like how large a character's breasts are isn't a valid criticism as it has no effect on the game play. Also as Dragon Crown on average got a score of 83% (8.3 out of 10) a score of 6.5 out of 10 effectively means it lost nearly 2 points just because the reviewer didn't like how some of the characters looked. Such a large reduction simply can't be justified based on the preference of a reviewer, rather than a fault with the game.

lord.jeff:
I can't fully agree that forcing inclusion would encourage creativity but even if developers do get forced into making games that go outside of the box, it would be no worse then what we have now, where publishers snare at games that don't have a male dominating it. It's so bad that Dontnod had to fight to get Remember Me pushed forward with it's lead not suffering a gender swap. I don't believe we have to force developers to be more creative we just have to force out those that believe you can't sell anything but middle aged grizzled men or heaving mountains of bosom.

But if the protagonist in Remember Me was gender swapped they wouldn't have been a middle aged grizzled men (they needed to be young for story reasons) or have heaving mountains of bosom.

Silentpony:

erttheking:

Silentpony:
I don't get how you can have it both ways. How you can say include everyone but don't appeal to a wider audience. Jim has always been a fan of niche games, horror being his favorite genre, but when Dead Space 3 came out, a game designed to be an inoffensive and inclusive as possible, he hated it. Didn't he say in a lot of videos that if a game has a small but loyal fanbase, that's awesome? Well how about now?! If you defend a game that has a small fanbase, by implication not appealing to a wider audience, AND rant and rave against the homogenization of games to appeal to a wider audience, how can you do a video saying the exact opposite?

He flat out said that there was a difference between being more inclusive and appealing to a wider audience. And let's face facts when people say "we want to appeal to a wider audience" they mean "We want Call of Duty fans" That is what Jim criticizes.

Right, no, I got that. He DID say there was a difference. My question is what? What is the difference? How are they different? Just saying there is one isn't the same...

Because frankly more games designed to reel in COD gamers are really just more of the same. More first person shooters, more two weapon slot limits, more games with Americans killing foreigners and the same tired formula just getting retreated over and over again. Jim is asking for games to be more inclusive, and by that he means trying new things and stepping out of our comfort zones. In reality, he's asking for the exact opposite.

Every call for more variety, ever:

A: New X has Y in it.
B: More X with Z should be created.
C: WRY YOU WANT TO TAKEAWAY MY Y??!!
B: *facepalm*

Well we can all almost agree that giving female characters a larger chest is indeed silly. But some people do like that so i'm not going to complain- however that brings me to give some criticism towards the topic itself.

OT: I love it when developers go outside the box, not being afraid of losing the 'audience' because they didn't appeal the gamers with a straight up macho male protagonist. At the same time, you have to do it right or else it'll just spark a different audience for the wrong reasons. Like for example, Dragon's Crown has gamers who enjoy the game style and the mechanics. You can't deny though that maybe 2/4ths or a bunch of gamers will play because.. the females, simply the females with their 'structure' showing and all.

I do like how Saints Row 4 lets you make a character with any gender, even a transgender and treats you well for it. I also enjoy how they didn't even hide or tuck away any homosexuality for if your guy is gay- he'll have options to have a romance with another male just like any character could romance anyone. Reminds me a bit of Skyrim, where you can be with any NPC as long as they are meant to be available for marriage. But meh the mechanics in that for marriage and how the NPCs turn out to be hollowed shells with little to no dialogue after... it's depressing to even think about lol.

Overall, I feel games should start expanding on the open opportunities then being afraid of what society would think. I'm certainly not wanting them to feel it's okay to make a game so dark it'll feature rape- No no no... I just want them to consider breaking the mold off gender, culture, and views on the world. Doesn't have to be a serious game but don't make it so generic that it's just obvious. That's why I love Dark Souls, it's pretty challenging but the lore behind it without being fed to you is golden. It's also a game where a female can be in the heaviest armor with her face covered and duel wielding claymores. Isn't that something to praise? Lol.

uanime5:
The problem with Jim's Saint's Row example is that a game can only be inclusive when it allows the player to chose whether their character is male, female, cis, trans, gay, straight, and gives them a huge variety of skin colours. But as soon as the designer wants to make a game with a predefined character who can't be modded in every conceivable way it becomes almost impossible to make the game "inclusive" because it won't appeal to people who want a particular character (such as an empowered female protagonist) or who don't want a particular character (I've read comments from racists who hated the Witcher because Geralt wasn't black). So trying to make games inclusive will stifle creativity because it only truly be implemented in triple A games as only they have a budget large enough to create games that allow such a wide degree of character creation.

Also the same archetypes have been used for centuries, if not millenniums, because they've been proven time and time again to be the elements of a good story. The fact that Jim doesn't like that women always have the same role will not change this.

Inclusive does not necessarily go down to how you make your protagonist, and in fact a game can end up excluding people if that is all you do.

The trick is to give something for other people to be interested in. Game of Thrones is chock full of tits in some of the least titillating scenes I have ever seen (and I like tits) but it also has great character development and an approach to sexism which actually shows the impact of it on believable characters in a believable way.

That makes it pretty well loved amongst a lot of feminists, for actually showing women as strong characters.

Another good point made, Jim.

Its a shame Vanillaware felt the need to push pandering crap in their game, because all gamers are males who'll get a laugh out of it, aren't they? No, that's not true. Indeed, big boobs might still be a funny thing in Japan, but the most of the rest of the world is well over such jokes or lame representations. Dead or Alive and Soul Calibur were also cool games that could have done without such lameness too.

Kudos to Saints Row (and earlier THQ now Deep Silver) for seeing that there was little point in trying to be GTA's second similar distant cousin, when they could just go bat shit insane with it and be their own thing. That takes guts and self belief. Looking forward to SRIV.

Darwin's beard Jim control yourself.

You enjoy playing with that thing way to much.

Smeatza:
Just goes to support what I've always said.
The day every game has a character creator, will be a great day for us all.

I disagree. Being focused can created fantastic experiences, while being versatile can very well do the same. Not every game should have a character creator, just as not all books should be first-person-prospective-choose-your-own-adventure books. For example, would the walking dead have been a better game if you could have changed Clementine or Lee's gender, age, height, and skin color? Character Creators definitely have their place, but so too does static, unchanging, predesignated characters.

Still wish Saints Row had the gender slider from Saints Row 2, instead of just a standard male/female selector. Probably did it since male/female have different skeletons/walking/standing animations, but why not let the player pick which walking/idle animations they want like in Saints Row 2?

Just a thing I'm sad about.

Great video again sir I agree COMPLETELY. Instead of taking things out of my games I want to see publishers add things in. If they want to appeal to everyone MORE choices is definitely the route to go. As a hetero male I am not going to lie I LIKE THE BIG BOOBS! Why? Because it is what appeals to me as my wife will testify.

That said I am not scared of seeing things that do not appeal to me in my games. So there is an option in SR4 to be a gay man with giant pants bulge. Good for all the people who want to play like that male or female, not my personal interest, but look I can play a woman with large breasts. I have a friend of mine who is completely gay, he has ZERO interest in women and a bouncy female lead does nothing for him. We can both play the same game and enjoy it because we are BOTH included in the game. Instead of JUST pandering to my interest as a straight man, everyone can be included in what the game has to offer.

If a game only has a play style that does not appeal to your life choices.... Do not buy it.... Seriously, publishers only pay attention to the amount of money coming in. Why do you thing so many games are starting to include hetero and homo options for the main character? Because people spend money on things that appeal to them.

Sseth:
you are all arguing about insignificant things the world is coming to an end cant you see who cares about the problems presented by dragons crown or if some people think one game is neutering creativity all these video games are just made to reprogram your brain for the coming apocalypse because the illuminati is on the brick of toppling over into our world and open rule the new world order has 4.6 billion degradable bodybags prepared guess what they plan to do with it that's right to those who survive good luck ill see you out there on the wasteland I hope you pack a lunch thank god for jim also hail satan

Punctuation wouldn't happen to be the Illuminati's hypnotic Morse code, would it? ;)

Yes, giving the individuals massive customizeability within a game largely resolves the unrelateable protagonist issue.

Now, onto games like Dragon Crown. How do you think this would apply to more closed-circuit story-based titles that aren't so open world and only have a handful of characters? Games like Uncharted or Halo or Mario where the characters are somewhat stable and the voice acting is paid for them. Is your example just to give an example where it can be done without constricting the game? If so, you're of course right. But not every game will or even should have such a diverse customisation range as to give everyone what they want. Over-customization and inclusiveness can detract from a specific story. Not every game should be a platform where you can simply be anything, go anywhere, do anything you want. Some need to be a story about specific people doing specific things. That's going to be exclusive and will need to be done right too to be enjoyed. Sometimes you're going to be an older man leading a younger lady through dangerous terrain and that's simply going to be it. You don't get to be a brawny young man, you don't get to be an agile woman, just a middle-aged man and that's it. Even in games like Dragon Crown though, they are criticized for even having the option to choose characters that are one way or another. Dragon Age would have actually been less criticized for being more constricting and only having three characters.

Perhaps guys want to ensure that games are created that are still mainstream and still tailored to them. The same way movies, books, and practically every other form of art/media does. It is somewhat interesting to see that video games are where this demand is taking place albeit this being the most expensive forms of media to make more inclusive (aka more options/objects) engines. If I don't want horror movies, I don't demand that they have less scary bits in them so I can enjoy them more, I just go see the films with the things I like in them instead. If enough people want and will pay for horror movies, they'll keep getting made and so hopefully will the types I like if not horror.

But perhaps I'm missing what this group wants. I personally couldn't care less. Big jugs and a thin waistline has never improved any game for me. Maybe when I was a teenager I cared about seeing it but even then it didn't make the game better somehow. So I'm not sure how switching things up a bit would harm a game's tone.

Monxeroth:
Its really only neutering in some cases in the sense that: Oh, we dont get to have a G-cupped playable character in this game, OH NOES MY CREATIVITY.

Then again on the other hand in some cases it does have a fair point to dismiss the criticism when its not relevant in any way to the actual game.
For example: Does the sorceress breasts somehow lower the quality of the game? No, no it does not. Only mechanics and actual faults with the game can lower a games overrall quality in my opinion, not subjective personal nonsense like the artstyle not being appealing or the music not being received well by some. Whether you like something or not, its not a valid reason to critique a game for.

"How dare someone make a game with an artstyle that i dont find personally appealing, this game sucks"

But if that person personally thinks that artstyle is a very significant part of the game, then who are you to say otherwise; people are allowed to like and dislike whatever they want for whatever reason they want. Just because it is a game doesn't mean anything, games are not in some special place where the only criticism that is valid is the interactive bits and broken pieces. something can work beautifully and have the best mechanics ever, but if the artstyle is bad, sound design is terrible, story nonsensical, then I personally don't think it is a good game; you are not in any position to validate one opinion or another. All opinions are just that opinions, and you have no right to invalidate that just because you think they are doing it wrong.

TL;DR There is no right way to do opinions, if someone determines a game based on artstyle; no one can say that they aren't allowed to do that and that they are invalid because it is how they personally do it.

Hmmmm... I kinda see your point Jim and I both agree and disagree with it at the same time.

I wouldn't use Saints Row as an example, but to each his own, I see that games that let you create your own character are great and all and as much as I enjoy all of Bethesda's RPGs, Spiderweb's RPGs ('been addicted to Avernum lately, it's seriously awesome) and many other RPG's and MMOs, there are games that need a well written character that would otherwise simply hinder the experience if it wouldn't.

Remember when Jim criticized Resident Evil 6 for trying to appeal to everyone at once?

Yeah... Same thing can apply here. Gaming in general should be inclusive. An individual game doesn't have to be and often is better off not being for everyone. And there is certainly no excuse for labelling people as misogynists because they are men making things that appeal to other men.

Ask for what you want, don't point fingers at other people.

I don't know who Jim was directing this video at, because I'm yet to meet someone on these forums who holds the kind of opinion that Jim is countering. And this isn't the first video Jim's done where he appears to be arguing against some...one...some...where...that I have no clue about.

Then again, perhaps Jim is referring to a bunch of crazy people from another part of this forum that I'm yet to visit, or another website altogether where there are a whole bunch of crazies.

Jim has only been adding fuel to the fire for the past few weeks.

Making video after video repeatedly saying "calm the fuck down everyone!" is NOT how you calm people down, I hope Jim has learned that lesson by now. Find a new fucking topic so we can move on from this. Please don't turn into a Sarkeesian.

Oh and please for the love of god Jim, stop responding to completely crazy people who make up a tiny minority.

uanime5:

Shjade:
It's a completely fair criticism, actually. If a game is visually unappealing it's less fun to play since, even if the mechanics are great, you have to watch crap to use those mechanics. This is more important to some people than others, but it's important.

It's only a valid criticism when the art makes it harder to play the game; such as making it impossible to tell what you can jump on, where the enemies are, or where your character is. Hating the a game because you don't like how large a character's breasts are isn't a valid criticism as it has no effect on the game play. Also as Dragon Crown on average got a score of 83% (8.3 out of 10) a score of 6.5 out of 10 effectively means it lost nearly 2 points just because the reviewer didn't like how some of the characters looked. Such a large reduction simply can't be justified based on the preference of a reviewer, rather than a fault with the game.

You aren't in any position to determine whether or not someone's opinion is invalid on something that isn't fact-based like whether or not you like a game. If someone determines a game based on artstyle, that is their opinion; and it is a valid opinion because that is how they judge their games and you don't have to agree with the opinion, but that doesn't invalidate it.

Now your second statement about average scores is incredibly backwards thinking, and does not promote anything other than homogenization of everyone and every opinion. I am glad to see someone leave the flock and actually give something other than an 10/10! which at this point is so meaningless because of that mentality; blame the sites which average scores for that, reviews aren't supposed to be mixed up and blended, they are self-contained and are supposed to be independent of each other. It is not the reviewers responsibility to make sure an average score matches what is in your head.

Silentpony:

erttheking:

Silentpony:
I don't get how you can have it both ways. How you can say include everyone but don't appeal to a wider audience. Jim has always been a fan of niche games, horror being his favorite genre, but when Dead Space 3 came out, a game designed to be an inoffensive and inclusive as possible, he hated it. Didn't he say in a lot of videos that if a game has a small but loyal fanbase, that's awesome? Well how about now?! If you defend a game that has a small fanbase, by implication not appealing to a wider audience, AND rant and rave against the homogenization of games to appeal to a wider audience, how can you do a video saying the exact opposite?

He flat out said that there was a difference between being more inclusive and appealing to a wider audience. And let's face facts when people say "we want to appeal to a wider audience" they mean "We want Call of Duty fans" That is what Jim criticizes.

Right, no, I got that. He DID say there was a difference. My question is what? What is the difference? How are they different? Just saying there is one isn't the same...

The difference is that when a publisher says they are trying to broaden appeal, what they mean is that they want to change things to make it more like Call of Duty, or World of Warcraft, or League of Legends, they aren't actually broadening anything they are just mimicking more popular games in order to try and draw in fans of those games. Notice that whenever a developer says that they are doing that it's never something like adding a female protagonist, or bringing new elements in that have never been done before, it's always things like cover-based combat, a two weapon limit, free-to-play transactions, or a tacked on multiplayer mode. The difference is one is actually encouraging (important note: not forcing) change to try and be more inclusive (and by inclusive I mean taking into consideration, not including everything and the kitchen sink into every game), and the other just homogenizes brands in order to ape a popular title at the time.

I doubt Jim expects every attempt to succeed and publishers will probably still find some way to screw things up, but it's still better for innovation that we have and encourage the option rather than trying to artificially limit things by saying, "that's just the way things are". Even if all this controversy and pointless arguing accomplishes is to make a single developer ask themselves, "Why does my character need to be a white male? Can he be something else, or is his identity integral to the story I wish to tell?", then I would consider it all worthwhile.

m19:
Remember when Jim criticized Resident Evil 6 for trying to appeal to everyone at once?

Yeah... Same thing can apply here. Gaming in general should be inclusive. An individual game doesn't have to be and often is better off not being for everyone. And there is certainly no excuse for labelling people as misogynists because they are men making things that appeal to other men.

Ask for what you want, don't point fingers at other people.

There's a difference between a game trying to be everything and as a direct result being nothing, and developers stepping out of their comfort zones.

Yuuki:
I don't know who Jim was directing this video at, because I'm yet to meet someone on these forums who holds the kind of opinion that Jim is countering.

Then again, perhaps Jim is referring to a bunch of crazy people from another part of this forum that I'm yet to visit, or another website altogether where there are a whole bunch of crazies.

To be honest I'm sick of people making shit controversial, and Jim has only been adding fuel to the fire for the past few weeks.

Making video after video repeatedly saying "calm the fuck down everyone!" is NOT how you calm people down, I hope Jim has learned that lesson by now. When a baby is crying you don't tell it to stop crying, you divert it's attention to something else, i.e. find a new fucking topic. Please don't turn into a Sarkeesian.

I guess from now on I'm going to start having to skim over the video descriptions to decide whether it's worthwhile.

They do exist on these forums and jim does read the comments to his escapist videos as well as his destructoid articles; so if he sees it here then he will do something about it here, if it is there then he will do something about it there

kailus13:
I

Also, people might be worrying that characters like the sorceress wouldn't be allowed if detractors got their way, which would be stifling creativity somewhat.

And yet, they'll defend publishers when they actively stifle creativity by telling developers they can't have the female protagonist they wanted.

For the most part, excellent episode. I agree with much of what you said.

However, it wasn't perfect. While your points were very well made, I think it's a mistake to hold every game to the standard of Saints Row. The madcap, unchained goofiness of Saints Row makes it extremely easy to be inclusive where in other games, it's much more difficult.

Also, while I agree we need more creativity, as you said yourself long ago, creativity for it's own sake is stupid, as is inclusivity. If it makes sense in the game, go for it! Include everyone you can! But if you turn one of GTA V's protagonists into a woman just for the sake of having a female protagonist, it's probably going to feel shoehorned and shitty.

jamesbrown:
They do exist on these forums and jim does read the comments to his escapist videos as well as his destructoid articles; so if he sees it here then he will do something about it here, if it is there then he will do something about it there

If Jim is going to make every future video based on the responses to his previous videos then JimQuisition is pretty much fucked, because he'll never move on from this and neither will we.

Every video that tries to discuss sexism/gender-controversy/criticism turns into the same shit, over and over again. This has probably happened like 500 times on these forums alone and Jim isn't helping.

Jim's videos will never reach or convince the people he is responding to. It's the equivalent of a Call Of Duty pro making a thread on forums saying "OMG STOP SUCKING GUYS!" without realizing that the people who suck at the game most likely don't even visit forums and will never read his thread.

aba1:

JudgeGame:
Asking artists to break away from tired, stereotypical ideas and accept harder challenges leads to originality? This is baseless pseudo-science.

Ya I agree. I generally agree with Jim but not this week. This sorta movement will just force guidelines and stifle creativity. If the creator wants to do things a certain way than they should be able too simple as that. Saints row wanted to be have crazy customization but just because they wanted it doesn't mean everyone should be forced to have it. If someone wanted a all female cast I say go for it for all I care they just shouldn't be forced to do it.

To follow up on my earlier post, games companies are already stifling creativity. Publishers are telling developers they can't have a female protagonist when they want one. the 'inclusivity checklist' may stifle creativity. the current policy of excluding IS actively right now stifling creativity.

Windknight:
To follow up on my earlier post, games companies are already stifling creativity. Publishers are telling developers they can't have a female protagonist when they want one. the 'inclusivity checklist' may stifle creativity. the current policy of sxcluding IS actively right now stifling creativity.

...and Jim already did a video responding to publishers rejecting female protagonists. A ton of discussion already happened regarding that video/thread.

This particular video/thread has nothing to do with publishers rejecting female protagonists. It's not even addressed towards publishers.

Zachary Amaranth:

Machine Man 1992:
If people complain non-stop about sexy female characters, then eventually they are going to stop being made at all, because developers don't want the constant outrage over it from tarnishing the games reputation and giving it negative press.

And that's totally happened, so the fear is validated.

Lara Croft had her breasts reduced for this reason, so it is happening.

Yes, also a much more specious line of thinking. Positive examples are few and far between and massive hooters are still the mainstay. There's always a point beyond which such actions are utterly pointless, and your advice has the rough equivalence of telling people to stick their heads in the sand. It's a politer version of "shut up."

Well you are complaining about large breasts without providing any reason why they're bad.

Zachary Amaranth:

Monxeroth:
Only mechanics and actual faults with the game can lower a games overrall quality in my opinion, not subjective personal nonsense like the artstyle not being appealing or the music not being received well by some.

And you're free to have that definition, but art and music style/direction have ALWAYS been an element of game criticism since they existed. People seem to be complaining now only because "someone doesn't like the same art I like and said bad things about it in a review." Gaming is an audio and visual media and will be treated as such, and just because you don't want to use those criteria doesn't mean they get taken off the table.

You've ignored that Dragon Crown's score was lowered because of what some female characters looked like, not because of the art or graphics. I suspect you did this because you lack a real argument.

Art should only score badly because it makes the game harder to play, not because a bigot doesn't like the way certain characters look.

Windknight:

aba1:

JudgeGame:
Asking artists to break away from tired, stereotypical ideas and accept harder challenges leads to originality? This is baseless pseudo-science.

Ya I agree. I generally agree with Jim but not this week. This sorta movement will just force guidelines and stifle creativity. If the creator wants to do things a certain way than they should be able too simple as that. Saints row wanted to be have crazy customization but just because they wanted it doesn't mean everyone should be forced to have it. If someone wanted a all female cast I say go for it for all I care they just shouldn't be forced to do it.

To follow up on my earlier post, games companies are already stifling creativity. Publishers are telling developers they can't have a female protagonist when they want one.

Examples and sources please.

All I have heard of are a couple of developers claiming that unnamed publishers didn't want them having female characters the prominent character on the box art. The Last of Us and Remember Me being the two games. I have genuinely not heard of a single game where a publisher has denied the rights to have a female character.

Binnsyboy:

Sseth:
you are all arguing about insignificant things the world is coming to an end cant you see who cares about the problems presented by dragons crown or if some people think one game is neutering creativity all these video games are just made to reprogram your brain for the coming apocalypse because the illuminati is on the brick of toppling over into our world and open rule the new world order has 4.6 billion degradable bodybags prepared guess what they plan to do with it that's right to those who survive good luck ill see you out there on the wasteland I hope you pack a lunch thank god for jim also hail satan

Punctuation wouldn't happen to be the Illuminati's hypnotic Morse code, would it? ;)

punctuation is an inferior concept taught in our schools it's not a morse code that's ridiculous but it's made to slow down the thought process so that is why they teach it in schools so our children have a higher chance of being less intelligent and quick thinking because what they fear the most are people who can think quickly to counteract them this is what they dont want you to do i hope you do not fall into their clutches also hail satan

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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
Registered for a free account here