Jimquisition: Neutered

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

erttheking:

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.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Take for example the ability to choose the protagonist's gender. That already waters down what you can do with characterization. Because now the narrative has to work for both and you need to do twice the work with voice acting and animation.

An individual game can be just one thing, like a strictly male or female fantasy. And that's not a crime like many these days act that it is.

Legion:

Windknight:

aba1:

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.

http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/

'Sleeping Dogs, in its later stages developed at United Front Games and eventually published by Square-Enix, originally began life at Activision as "Black Lotus", an open-world crime game with a female protagonist. However, under the belief that their predominantly male target audience would not play such a game starring a woman, management demanded that the protagonist be replaced with a man, and further tied the previously-unrelated game into the then-abandoned True Crime franchise. '

And in remember me's case, many publishers refused to publish it because they had a female lead character.

Legion:

Windknight:

aba1:

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.

No, when it came to remember me, the developers had to actually fight to make the main character female. Some publishers refused to go with it because of the female character.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/18/4120694/remember-me-publishers-balked-at-female-lead-character

Yuuki:

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.

I was responding to a post claiming 'inclusivity' will stifle creatively. I was making the point that the OPPOSITE, that people seem to be championing, is already stifling creativity, not encouraging it.

So many mixed feels about this vid... which is weird as I basically agreed with all of it.

I wanna see more diversity in the medium (as well as a few others) but the idea that ALL new games should do this... no, I could never agree with that. A good artist/s can produce some truely amazing things under restrictions while others work better with a larger pallette. Some wanna push their passion in new directions while some wanna stay the course and do what others have done, maybe better.

Different people like different things. I like my characters to have full personalities but I also like abit of 'flair' to lighten the mood every now and then.

Artists should do what they want, if you don't like it than maybe its not for you. I hate mordern shooters so I don't play them, I critise what I don't like about them but I don't blame the artist/customer for liking it in the first place. People wanna read Twilight, read Twilight, people wanna play CoD, play CoD, you only live once right... I would say yolo but I hate that bloody phrase.

Don't think i'm against critisism, I really liked your 'Dragon Frown' ep Jim. The reveiw you mentioned is exactly what i'm on about. She was bothered by the female portayal and thats fine. Personally I think abit of sex appeal (aimed at whomever) is no big deal but some don't like it. True, keeping females in supportive/panda'ering roles to tick some sort of list is bull but if thats just the way that artist roles than... as I said mixed feels.

m19:

erttheking:

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.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Take for example the ability to choose the protagonist's gender. That already waters down what you can do with characterization. Because now the narrative has to work for both and you need to do twice the work with voice acting and animation.

An individual game can be just one thing, like a strictly male or female fantasy. And that's not a crime like many these days act that it is.

Yes, but the problem is that more often than not we get plenty of male fantasies, but barely any female fantasies. That's the developers staying in their comfort zones.

Also in the line of games that are "equal opportunity offenders" like Saints Row 4, I'm kind of sick of seeing feminists and white knights take big steamy shits on Lollipop Chainsaw without even playing it just because it has a cheerleader on the cover and a trophy for looking up said cheerleader's skirt. Maybe if they played the fucking game, they would see that Juliet isn't your typical female protagonist at all, and that the game is just as equally "sexist" to its male lead as it is the female lead (poor guy is a disembodied head who gets treated more like an item than a person and gets dragged around despite protests and requests to be left behind). But no, fuck playing it. Just take a big steamy shit all over it because this is on the cover: http://d1vr6n66ssr06c.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/LollipopChainsawCover01-600x690.jpg And then go get a job on Fox News or in Congress where all the other dipshits who bash games without playing them first work.

One other thing I'd like to see from that crowd is more praising of games that they feel do it right. Right now, from where I'm sitting, it seems like all they want is to shit on games they feel are being sexist until no more sexist games exist. I don't thing the solution to the problem here is to completely remove sexism like that from games, I think it's just to offer more games that aren't quite so sexist. There's a market for the sexist stuff and the people who actually want and enjoy it shouldn't be denied it. It reminds me of a few years back when shitting on "fun" games was all the rage and people were going on about how we need to completely get rid of them so we can have more super serious games. No. We just need to offer more of the other thing (serious games and non-sexist games) so everyone can have what they want, not flip the situation around so we're still stuck with one group feeling like there aren't enough games for them.

jamesbrown:
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.

If someone is greatly reducing a game's score because of their personal preferences then they shouldn't review games. A subjective review is only useful to someone with the same prejudices, while an objective review is useful for most people.

People also shouldn't review games if they consider the art style to be more important than the game play (reviewers who praise a game based on how if looks, even when it's impossible to play, are completely useless).

Finally a bad plot is only a problem in a plot driven game. If the majority of the game would be the same regardless of what the plot was then a poor plot isn't a good reason to give a game a bad score.

Reading some of the responses here, I'm honestly starting to think the issue lies with, well, boxes. Jim, you say putting a box (restriction, as you put it) around doing the same durn thing over and over will help creativity. I completely agree, assuming that's the only box being used. You also mentioned Ye Olde Focus Testing (to death). This is another box, and developers/publishers wield it like the Mighty Sword of Mediocrity it is. So, to keep with your language metaphor: You've got a poem (something where vocabulary is extremely important). You want to say stuff in your poem, but it has to be about a specific subject, can't have language that's above a 9th grade level, must appeal to a certain group, and must rhyme (i.e. the box a publisher might put around the next fps). Now you want to add "also appeal to another group, while still keeping the first group." That's a lot of restrictions! I can see why people would say it stifles creativity, because after a certain point, you stop forcing creative solutions and start restricting any creative ideas.

That said: Maybe we should be arguing for more varied games, based on less strict focus testing. Maybe we should be encouraging devs to sacrifice cutting-edge tech (that costs stupid amounts of money) in favor of more innovative ideas. That way, there aren't so many boxes to be in. Hell, if people could get over it: Using the same art assets and engine to make completely different stories. Yeah, seeing the same colored crates between two vastly different games is visually boring, but if the complaint is always "we can't afford new ideas," using those same assets will save on development time and money.

Windknight:

http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/

'Sleeping Dogs, in its later stages developed at United Front Games and eventually published by Square-Enix, originally began life at Activision as "Black Lotus", an open-world crime game with a female protagonist. However, under the belief that their predominantly male target audience would not play such a game starring a woman, management demanded that the protagonist be replaced with a man, and further tied the previously-unrelated game into the then-abandoned True Crime franchise. '

Well that is just idiotic. I'd have much preferred that idea. Although "Black Lotus" would have been a terrible name. In Command and Conquer: Generals the special unit for China was a female hacker called Black Lotus so that'd be pretty unoriginal.

Then again, it doesn't surprise me considering it's Activision.

Windknight:
And in remember me's case, many publishers refused to publish it because they had a female lead character.

erttheking:

No, when it came to remember me, the developers had to actually fight to make the main character female. Some publishers refused to go with it because of the female character.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/18/4120694/remember-me-publishers-balked-at-female-lead-character

So they weren't denied it, they made the game anyway. Nobody was forced to stop making a game with a female protagonist.

Windknight:

I was responding to a post claiming 'inclusivity' will stifle creatively. I was making the point that the OPPOSITE, that people seem to be championing, is already stifling creativity, not encouraging it.

Which is incorrect, because publishers are considered "Enemy Number 1" on here. Very few people supported the fact that publishers have been reluctant to support female protagonists. The most people have said is that they have "the right" to, not that they condone it.

The claim that people are "championing" publishers who don't want female protagonists is being melodramatic. You will be very hard pressed to find people on here who don't blame publishers for pretty much everything that is wrong with gaming today.

erttheking:

Yes, but the problem is that more often than not we get plenty of male fantasies, but barely any female fantasies.

You realise that is sexist don't you?

That's the equivalent of saying girls don't like action figures.

Monxeroth:

For example: Does the sorceress breasts somehow lower the quality of the game?

To me it does , for the exact opposite reason it would for a normal person, to me the sorceress is just So oversexualized it's plain boner-killingly unappealing. At some point the boobs just move around so much and look so damned fake that it just turns me off of the game itself. Like, literally everything else meant to be titillating they show is appealing to me.

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.

Games are a multimedia medium, the sound design, art design, and anything else in the game is a valid reason to critique it. 2001 a space Odyssey is pretty much liked only because of its cinematography (and HAL but he's by no means the majority of the film), the way it looks. If you don't want the art to be judged than you're stuck with text-based games, because as long as games have art it's a valid point to critique.

Jimmothy MacSterling, I could NOT agree more. The same logic that makes people say "If we change anything about the core of games, we risk stifling creativity!" IS the exact same logic that makes people say things like "I am so against censorship, I think this videogame review should be censored!!"

It's called cognitive dissonance, and it is one of the greatest enemies of critical thought.

erttheking:

Yes, but the problem is that more often than not we get plenty of male fantasies, but barely any female fantasies. That's the developers staying in their comfort zones.

Yes. And that's worthy of talking about, why that happens.

But I'm getting annoyed when people find malice in individual products. If I wake up tomorrow and decide to write a story about a knight saving a sexy looking princess -- because I'm a guy and that's what I like. Yes it is unfortunate that I'm doing what everyone else is doing yet again, but I'm not a sexist or a misogynist. My comfort zone is not a crime.

jamesbrown:
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.

Yes I am. If an opinion isn't based on a valid reason then it's clearly invalid.

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.

An opinion is only valid if it is logical. I could have an opinion that feminists cause cancer but that doesn't make it a valid opinion.

Now your second statement about average scores is incredibly backwards thinking, and does not promote anything other than homogenization of everyone and every opinion.

An average score is an example of homogenization of everyone and every opinion. It's impossible for it to be anything else.

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.

Do you have any idea what an average score is? Hint it's an average of all the score by all the reviewers. As such the more a reviewer's score deviates from the average the more gamers are going to question why the reviewer gave it this score.

Legion:
Snip

Yeah, but the fact that some publishers flat out refused to publish a game with a female main character should tell you that the gaming industry has some pretty damn big problems.

m19:

erttheking:

Yes, but the problem is that more often than not we get plenty of male fantasies, but barely any female fantasies. That's the developers staying in their comfort zones.

Yes. And that's worthy of talking about, why that happens.

But I'm getting annoyed when people find malice in individual products. If I wake up tomorrow and decide to write a story about a knight saving a sexy looking princess -- because I'm a guy and that's what I like. Yes it is unfortunate that I'm doing what everyone else is doing yet again, but I'm not a sexist or a misogynist. My comfort zone is not a crime.

The problem with a story like that is that it just delves into boring and tired cliches that as I guy even I am tired of. Not because it's sexist, but because it's boring and shallow. Everything that that story has to offer has been done by other people and has been done better. Your comfort zone isn't a crime. But it's not right for your comfort zone to envelop everything.

Callate:

I guess ultimately, my love for the idea of games that push and expand the boundaries doesn't push as far as suggesting that every game should have to do so, or that games that don't are always deserving of criticism simply because they could have used their place in the spotlight to push a more progressive agenda and failed to do so. Shakespeare used plenty of plot lines that were borrowed from fairy tales and Greek and Roman theater, tropes that were hundreds or even thousands of years old even as he re-immortalized them. I'll happily cheer a game that make me feel like their unconventional transgender multiracial protagonist stakes their claim as if they've always been there, and leads a terrific game that fills me with joy to play. But I'm not necessarily going to bitch and moan (yes, I'm aware of the word choice) if an otherwise great game fails to supply a female protagonist.

What was it Jim said about "innovation", before?

This is a good paragraph, pushing ones boundries is the only way to improve but if you don't get a solid footing you'll proberly slip. People shouldn't be scarred though, they should do what makes them happy.

Being reasonable in (and asking the same of) a den of rabid fools (on both sides) is madness.

You're asking for inclusion and leeway in a field that has had a game's point (Castle Doctrine) completely thrown out of the window in favour of pushing a bunch of ultra-feminist bullshit that, I'd hope to the heavens, embarsses any person in thier right mind regardless of gender.

I mean, gee, Jim, why not just yell at the tide? You'd probably get somewhere with that.

Besides that, I'm sure as shit that Saint's Row hasn't got it's nose (or any orifice for that matter) clean and free from the gaze of certain so and sos, regardless of how inclusive it may or may not be.

erttheking:

Legion:
Snip

Yeah, but the fact that some publishers flat out refused to publish a game with a female main character should tell you that the gaming industry has some pretty damn big problems.

Yes.

That publishers are greedy. They only think in terms of profits, they don't give a damn about creativity. I thought this was well established back during the micro-transaction rage.

Publishers don't see games as art or as entertainment, they seem them in terms of profit and loss, like all top level businessmen. That is their world, not the development world. It says absolutely nothing about game development, which is the part we experience when we actually play the games.

Legion:

Windknight:

I was responding to a post claiming 'inclusivity' will stifle creatively. I was making the point that the OPPOSITE, that people seem to be championing, is already stifling creativity, not encouraging it.

Which is incorrect, because publishers are considered "Enemy Number 1" on here. Very few people supported the fact that publishers have been reluctant to support female protagonists. The most people have said is that they have "the right" to, not that they condone it.

The claim that people are "championing" publishers who don't want female protagonists is being melodramatic. You will be very hard pressed to find people on here who don't blame publishers for pretty much everything that is wrong with gaming today.

Again, when there was coverage of the Remember Me problems and the Last of Us (both the attempts to remove Ellie from the cover and the fact no female focus testing was implemmented from the get go), and Jim did his video on the cull of female protagonists plenty of posters chimed in to defend the publishers as they 'did the market research' and 'knew what they were doing'. Then again, said publisher were showing an exclusive, boys club mentality and maybe that's what was being defended.

Legion:

erttheking:

Legion:
Snip

Yeah, but the fact that some publishers flat out refused to publish a game with a female main character should tell you that the gaming industry has some pretty damn big problems.

Yes.

That publishers are greedy. They only think in terms of profits, they don't give a damn about creativity. I thought this was well established back during the micro-transaction rage.

Publishers don't see games as art or as entertainment, they seem them in terms of profit and loss, like all top level businessmen. That is their world, not the development world. It says absolutely nothing about game development, which is the part we experience when we actually play the games.

Does it? I don't think so. I think it's safe to say that the greed of publishers has effected the development of games, see what EA did to Command and Conquer 4, Mercenaries 2, Mass Effect 3, Fuse, and so on and so forth.

Shadowstar38:
The only thing I got out of this episode is that I should get Saints Row 4. The footage he was showing looked all kinds of insane.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Too bad I am dirt poor right now cause I really want to play that.

Anyways, as to the original topic, gotta agree with you Jim. I don't care if overly-sexualized characters exist, just as long as there's some normal ones too...and some really wierd ones...and some gross ones...and some transgender ones...and some bad ones...and some gay ones...and some old ones...Just MORE of everything would be really cool...save maybe the big-titties because there's plenty of that already so that can stay on the same level.

Excellent video, Mr. Sterling, as usual, and though it's taken me a while to come around, your new glasses suit you.

Windknight:

Legion:

Windknight:

I was responding to a post claiming 'inclusivity' will stifle creatively. I was making the point that the OPPOSITE, that people seem to be championing, is already stifling creativity, not encouraging it.

Which is incorrect, because publishers are considered "Enemy Number 1" on here. Very few people supported the fact that publishers have been reluctant to support female protagonists. The most people have said is that they have "the right" to, not that they condone it.

The claim that people are "championing" publishers who don't want female protagonists is being melodramatic. You will be very hard pressed to find people on here who don't blame publishers for pretty much everything that is wrong with gaming today.

Again, when there was coverage of the Remember Me problems and the Last of Us (both the attempts to remove Ellie from the cover and the fact no female focus testing was implemmented from the get go), and Jim did his video on the cull of female protagonists plenty of posters chimed in to defend the publishers as they 'did the market research' and 'knew what they were doing'. Then again, said publisher were showing an exclusive, boys club mentality and maybe that's what was being defended.

I am sure there were. Out of a forum of thousands there are naturally going to be a handful who hold bizarre views like that. But the general forum consensus is that publishers are money grubbing bastards who only care about statistics, not games. If you are holding out for a worldwide consensus on such matters you will be waiting your entire life.

erttheking:

Does it? I don't think so. I think it's safe to say that the greed of publishers has effected the development of games, see what EA did to Command and Conquer 4, Mercenaries 2, Mass Effect 3, Fuse, and so on and so forth.

That is because EA owns the companies that made those games. They are effectively both the developer and the publisher when it comes down to it. They may be called "Bioware" employees and such, but it is EA who is their boss.

I do not deny that publishers can have an influence, but that is still the problem with the publishers and not the developers. Unless you object to developers sometimes caving in to them (like Bioshock Infinite with it's godawful box art). But when they have hundreds of people who need paying, sometimes they have to make a deal with the devil.

That is the unfortunate nature of games being a profitable business.

Legion:

Windknight:

Legion:

Which is incorrect, because publishers are considered "Enemy Number 1" on here. Very few people supported the fact that publishers have been reluctant to support female protagonists. The most people have said is that they have "the right" to, not that they condone it.

The claim that people are "championing" publishers who don't want female protagonists is being melodramatic. You will be very hard pressed to find people on here who don't blame publishers for pretty much everything that is wrong with gaming today.

Again, when there was coverage of the Remember Me problems and the Last of Us (both the attempts to remove Ellie from the cover and the fact no female focus testing was implemmented from the get go), and Jim did his video on the cull of female protagonists plenty of posters chimed in to defend the publishers as they 'did the market research' and 'knew what they were doing'. Then again, said publisher were showing an exclusive, boys club mentality and maybe that's what was being defended.

I am sure there were. Out of a forum of thousands there are naturally going to be a handful who hold bizarre views like that. But the general forum consensus is that publishers are money grubbing bastards who only care about statistics, not games. If you are holding out for a worldwide consensus on such matters you will be waiting your entire life.

erttheking:

Does it? I don't think so. I think it's safe to say that the greed of publishers has effected the development of games, see what EA did to Command and Conquer 4, Mercenaries 2, Mass Effect 3, Fuse, and so on and so forth.

That is because EA owns the companies that made those games. They are effectively both the developer and the publisher when it comes down to it. They may be called "Bioware" employees and such, but it is EA who is their boss.

I do not deny that publishers can have an influence, but that is still the problem with the publishers and not the developers. Unless you object to developers sometimes caving in to them (like Bioshock Infinite with it's godawful box art).

Well then, I think we've got something that the both of us can agree on.

Though I think that the fact that Irrational Games felt that they had to appeal to the gunbros of gaming in order to make Infinite succeed kind of tells me that the industry is in a very bad mindset that we need to get the Hell out of.

Give 'em an inch they take a mile.

The problem with feminism in gaming, and in a lot of media and society as a whole, is that these changes are not being requested for the benefit of self-appointed victim groups, they're being made to the detriment of an existing, established group. It's all about emasculation, and as crazy as it may sound not a lot of men are not okay with that. Look at radical feminists in Sweden demanding that men be made to sit down to pee, and taking pictures of private citizens on buses and trains alleging that they are sexually harassing female passengers by sitting in 'masculine' positions. Is that comparable to complaining about large breasts? I think so, because when there are no more problems left to complain about these people manufacture new ones, because they rely on their victimhood and perpetual outrage to get what they want.

I game for escapism, for a release from social expectations and requirements. In an online game I can brutally murder another person by chainsawing them in half or disintegrating them, I can be violent and aggressive and competitive in a structured, safe environment with no real-life consequences. I can then go out into the world as a completely passive and cooperative person because I have a safe outlet for my frustrations or whatever anger I may encounter in my day to day life.

I already have to step on eggshells, be careful about what I say and think incase someone somewhere takes offense to any unpopular or socially unacceptable opinions I may have, I have to censor myself daily on the off chance some perpetual victim will take umbrage. I live in a world where I could be fired for expressing an opinion people don't like, or thinking the wrong thing. Completely benign or unrelated comments can be twisted into hate crimes based simply on how the 'victim' is feeling that day.

I won't see my hobby politicized, I won't see my hobby modified to suit extremists, I won't see creativity censored to keep unreasonable people quiet. These people didn't care about gaming until it became popular, back when only nerds and geeks played games nobody could care less if the portrayal of women was sexist or otherwise, if the player was male or female, or if cis-gendered males oppressed Womyn through their sexist male power fantasies. Now that it's a larger medium with a wider audience suddenly it needs to be politicized, people use it as a platform to get their extremist views across and, yet again, force free-thinking people to bow to bullying and chastisement.

All of the so called journalists rallying around extremist feminists for page views are cowards, and traitors to their medium. They have no integrity and cater to whatever political correctness dictates at the time of writing.

Every gaming community I can name reacts violently to outspoken feminists, and that reassures me that they have no foothold, despite how much the media panders to them, poor, inoffensive victims that they are.

Lieju:

Jamash:

The Boss, the character you play in all 4 games, is still the same person they were in the first Saints Row game, who was a man, a man who only achieves an optional female appearance through cosmetic surgery, making a female Boss a Transsexual.

What if she was a woman all along but was disguised as a man in the first game because she thought that was the only way to gain power in a violent gang-environment?

That's the way I see it and justify it....I wanted a female character in Saints Row but as has been said it wasn't an option so I decided that when SR2 came out that the boss's true gender is finally revealed when the bandages came off. For that reason I thoroughly reject any nonsensical ideas of transgender bosses that get bandied about when it come up when the SR franchise is discussed.

uanime5:

jamesbrown:
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.

Yes I am. If an opinion isn't based on a valid reason then it's clearly invalid.

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.

An opinion is only valid if it is logical. I could have an opinion that feminists cause cancer but that doesn't make it a valid opinion.

Yes but logic is also based on things, its not some unifying all perfect force. It is a awesome tool that lets you take base assumptions, and beliefs and find the best way to apply. If you change a base assumption good logical will give you a different answer. Just like any equation, different input equals different output. You base assumption is that the only thing that matters to a game is the gameplay. Opinions that have a different assumptions like art style matter, are invalid to you, but this does not make the illogical or invalid in general.

On topic The developers working form check boxes are not the ones I would care about the creativity of, so having the check boxes be at a more inclusive medium sounds nice.

Edit: some grammar changes+ a p.s.
Also for people that think discussing this further is point less and we should just stop I would point out that I avoided sexism threads for months because I was tired of the discussion and upon coming back their were more reasonable well argued people on both sides.

erttheking:

The problem with a story like that is that it just delves into boring and tired cliches that as I guy even I am tired of. Not because it's sexist, but because it's boring and shallow. Everything that that story has to offer has been done by other people and has been done better. Your comfort zone isn't a crime. But it's not right for your comfort zone to envelop everything.

Yeah it is cliché, that was the point. I'm tired of it too. But it is your problem not a problem for the people voting with their wallets. And people do call sexism over this, which is my problem.

There is nothing creative about Saints Row. Just because Saints Row devs have a lot of creative freedom doesn't mean jack shit. Creative freedom without a focus isn't creativity. It's cheap tricks. There's nothing creative in accepting every stupid idea someone has and putting it in the game. Look at Saints Row 3. The story was shit, the characters were shit, the missions were shit, the city was boring and empty, the NPC's were hardly more interesting than trees and because of all this gameplay got old after 15 minutes. And SR4 looks like more of the same. They focused more on what they can put in the game, than what makes sense and how to refine the things that are in so they could be fun. There is a name for that. It's called bad game design!

On the other hand, look at GTA V. They may not have the crazy shit that SR has, but they don't need it. They don't need to rely on cheap tricks. Everything in that world makes sense. Nothing is there "just because". They have a clear focus. Big city that resembles Los Angeles. Story is set in the events after the economic crash. 3 criminals with lives of their own working on a series of heists together. You get to play as the protagonist and the antagonist in the same story. That's creativity. That's useful innovation.

Bruce:

JohnHayne:
What I don't get is why, oh, why, people who complaint about this or that type of game just ignore them and invest more time and money on games they like?

Isn't "Because the industry don't make them" a bad excuse??

If I was a game designer and someone told me that my game is this or that, I would say: "Yeah, it is... This is how I made it... Do I force you play and like my games? So don't try to impose your view into my work".

The solution to the lack of certain content in game is resolved by creating new content, not trying to change other peoples work.

Okay. Then I won't buy your games. Good luck with that whole food thing.

Not buying my game is as much your prerogative as it is mine to make a game the way I want.

It doesn't mean that one shouldn't listen to critiques and advice, but that the final word in a game is that of the author's. If he/she decides to make the way another party wants (publisher, activists, etc), it is his choice still.

And don't you worry about the food thing... I'll be fine...

A female protagonist created without the idea of eye candy first and foremost and with a backstory different from the usual stuff that they all get? Why, Jim, I didn't know you'd met Reimu before.

zerragonoss:

uanime5:

jamesbrown:
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.

Yes I am. If an opinion isn't based on a valid reason then it's clearly invalid.

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.

An opinion is only valid if it is logical. I could have an opinion that feminists cause cancer but that doesn't make it a valid opinion.

Yes but logic is also based on things, its not some unifying all perfect force. It is a awesome tool that lets you take base assumptions, and beliefs and find the best way to apply. If you change a base assumption good logical will give you a different answer. Just like any equation, different input equals different output. You base assumption is that the only thing that matters to a game is the gameplay. Opinions that have a different assumptions like art style matter, are invalid to you, but this does not make the illogical or invalid in general.

On topic The developers working form check boxes are not the ones I would care about the creativity of, so having the check boxes be at a more inclusive medium sounds nice.

Edit: some grammar changes+ a p.s.
Also for people that think discussing this further is point less and we should just stop I would point out that I avoided sexism threads for months because I was tired of the discussion and upon coming back their were more reasonable well argued people on both sides.

An opinion may contain an argument or not. In the matter of personal taste logic may not always apply: it's an arbitrary choice. "I like this or that", period.

But if your opinion relies in an argument, logic applies. "This is good because x and y". In this case, rules of logic applies to determinate if the argument is valid or not.

Dansrage:
that. Look at radical feminists in Sweden demanding that men be made to sit down to pee, and taking pictures of private citizens on buses and trains alleging that they are sexually harassing female passengers by sitting in 'masculine' positions.

Ahem.

BULL. FUCKING. SHIT.

Unusually harsh language, yes, but that is simply not true. It's probably one of the more ridiculous of those hysterical fairytales I've heard in a while. I think everyone would be please to know that the extreme-feminist dictatorship that the internet likes to be horrified by, is thankfully complete rubbish.

Ninjamedic:
The only problem I have with using Saints Row as an example is the fact that the Player Character is a Customisable Avatar. While fine for RPGS, Sandbox Games and other games with a custom PC, it doesn't really say much about games like Red Dead Redemption or GTA V where the characters/story are written specifically to the one intended vision of the designers for those characters.

This may be irrational of me, but given the current mentality to design and events like Retake Mass Effect, isn't there a risk of a precedent that will only result in another set of checkboxes for developers to make their games 'acceptable'? Don't think I disagree with the spirit of your argument, I just think there needs to be a caveat about this being for encouragement of new ideas and not to be interpreted as something to be expected from the get go of a games inception.

Did any of what I said make sense?

I understand what you fear. However, at the same time I don't find there to be much reason to fear those things ever happening.

Here's the thing, people who don't want any change have brought up before why the giant tits that flop all over the place, and the almost naked women just lying around the place will never leave. They bring it up as the reason there will never be the change, but it is in fact the reason you shouldn't fear any "change in precedent".

There are a lot of people who enjoy that look. Enough that some games can(and some try) to make it a big part of their marketing. Say what you will about Dead or Alive's gameplay being good or not, but you can't say they haven't used the looks of their female characters to sell copies. There is a market for people who want their Jiggle Physics. Even if the precedent changed to that not being the first thing devs want to make, it still will be made plenty because it has an audience.

That's the problem Jim is talking about though. Not just with this issue, but on a whole lot of the industries issues. The people who like that are just one part of the audience. As Jim put it; People aren't trying to actually "broaden the audience. They're going after the same audience everyone else is thinking that's all that they can do without trying to find new/different people, because that would mean they would have to CHANGE what they do.

Again, one part of this argument stems from a false presumption that the giant tits that jiggle even if the girl isn't really moving is THE only thing that people find to be a sexy female look. People don't want no more sexy female characters. They want different kinds of sexy characters. You don't have to have crazy body proportions, and be half naked to be sexy!
In fact I'd say it often hurts the chances of a character being considered "sexy" if they do that, because it comes off as trying to hard.

If a precedent is made, we will not lose the Jiggle Physics. We will only gain new/different types of female characters.

Legion:
I both agree and disagree.

I agree with the point you are making, but at the same time you seem to be countering a point that doesn't seem to be exactly the one being made (at least from what I have really seen).

When I see people complain about games being restricted I don't see them meaning in the sense that they will have less creativity. They tend to mean that they will have less creative freedom. That by caving into people saying "This is bad" or "You shouldn't be doing that" they are paving the way for people to dictate what developers can and cannot do. That would be stopping developers from making the games that they want to make and they will end up only making games that the loudest people want made, so as not to get any backlash from it.

I suppose the Mass Effect 3 ending is a good example. They chose to make the ending as it was originally and people complained about it extremely vocally. So they released the extended cut. Many people argued that by caving into the people complaining the developers gave up their creativity, because they didn't make the ending that they thought the game should have, they gave in and created the ending that the complainers wanted.

I think the fear is that if enough people start complaining about certain features in games, it will become considered socially unacceptable to have those features at all. In some ways that is actually a valid point. 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.

First: As I said before, people don't want sexy characters to go away. They just want different kinds of sexy characters, not just the same old same old.

Second: BioWare didn't make the ending the complainers wanted. They changed their ending, on their terms.

People wanted Shep. to be able to live. They didn't get that(I still say that one end where we see Shep. breathing is just bull to be ignored).
People wanted a way to beat the Reapers with out the Star child's help. Those that took that path(shot him) got a continued Reaper cycle.

I once had a short talk with Grey about that in the comments of his comic. And he explained exactly what they needed to do, and what they did eventually, and then some.

They just had to explain the ending more to the audience. ME2 starts with Shep. dying in the most extreme way they could think of. Shep should not have survived. But soon after, we get him/her right back. Why wasn't there THAT much hate for this? Because they took their time to explain it, and that it wasn't easy or simple. That is what they do with the changes to the end of ME3.
The major parts of it stay the same(with a few exceptions like the relays not being destroyed completely), and adding extra scenes in that gave us more information about what was going on.

Even after all that it's still a bit unclear completely what the end means, but most people found it to be enough.

I am with Jim 100% on his side of the ME3 end altering. In the end everyone could complain all they want, but Bioware had the final call. They heard what people were saying, and chose to change the end a bit because they wanted to. They looked at their work, and decided that they could deal with changing their artistic vision.
IF they really had faith in the ending, and had no doubts that it was the was it was meant to be. They would have stuck with it.

They didn't give in because "the fans forced them". They did it because the fans convinced them that they had a point. And in the end I think they found a good middle way to improve the work without changing it into something completely different.

As for the complaint about sexism in The Last of Us and Bioshock? I never really heard of such complaints until the article on the escapist about Naughty Dogs response to it. And I don't think you can argue(well) that asking for more types of female characters has lost us more creative things that the current precedent that women characters that aren't sexualized can't sell games.

Heck, look at the games you brought up. Bioshock Infinite couldn't have Elisabeth on the front cover, The Last of Us had to fight to get Ellie on the front, and to get women in to test out the game. There is no need to worry about a terrible precedent being put in the industry because there already is one.

Look. There is something I want to make clear to both of you.
I like you two. You're cool people, and I enjoy seeing you around the Escapist.

That said, while I can understand what it is you're worried about, and I agree if the change were to come the way you're afraid it will, it would be bad.
However, from my perspective it just seems very less than likely, and hard to even say possible. I just don't see these fears ever coming true.

For the benefit of the doubt though; lets say that we start seeing the jiggle physics "go away"(even in the doom of doom results I don't think it would go away completely).

To paraphrase MoveiBob, who was always and still is on the side that the ME3 ending shouldn't have been changed; "If these things we are trying to keep can be lost, by just having a reasoned discussion about them. What is the real value of what we are trying to protect?"

Would keeping the abundance of Jiggle Physics, be worth not seeing different types of sexy characters more often, if that really was the sacrifice we would have to make?

Again, I don't even think we have to lose the Jiggle to gain the other types. We won't be seeing less of it. We would be seeing more of other things.

Sorry to be so long. I hope you both have good days, and better weeks.
=w= b
Also, Thank God for Jim.

 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
Register for a free account here