Jimquisition: Neutered

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

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.

Registered to make a comment for this.

Jim has gone 0/2 now on misrepresenting people's complaints. Last week he was wrong about why people were pissed about the review (hint: the score wasn't the only problem despite Jim acting like it was) and this week it's about why people don't like limitations being put on the creative design of their games.

Because while it is true that limitations force creativity, you know what they also do? They limit. You know, by definition. And Saint's Row 4? Saints Row 4 has very clearly had no limitations whatsoever on its creative design, which is why they're able to be so inclusive. Saints Row 4 did not expand their audience appeal through limitations, but by the exact opposite - bowing to no one's complaints and sensibilities (Except that of the corrupt Australian ratings board).

When people cry sexism at the drop of a hat for games that aren't actually sexist, and if developers finally start listening we aren't going to get more creative games - we're going to get SAFER games, the scourge of the AAA industry Jim has ranted about for forever. I don't want that, and I don't think Jim does either.

Inclusivity made it so that Thief does not even have a jump function and every action a "press X to win" simulation. What is being done in the industry isn't "inclusivity". It's a pool of apocalyptic giant grey goo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8pImL1FeaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5--ZKsAi5E0

Why do I need quicktime events to "run into the shadow quickly"? Why do I need XP? Why do I need to hunt around for hotspots?

The reason Thief was fun was because you developed the ability to hop from shadow to shadow and learned how to move very fast around the level without alerting every guard. You didn't need to upgrade skills. You learned those skills. If something didn't work, you had to develop another strategy and not spam powers. This isn't creative. This is the end result of a general trend of people wanting to feel like they accomplished something without any effort.

Saints Row 3 is also unrefined. I enjoyed it for a good amount of time, but it's trying to ride too high for too long before crashing down.

"Done right."

It's almost never done right.

Also, that game is trying to copy others so hard it hurts.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qFIR7kUocUM/0.jpg
http://gamingbolt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/assassins-creed-4-wallpapers.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcMS7m4A9YNF4bikCrLNAfXzcgYAi7t84etxWtQ9icmQzT7_2f
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdLRkP502BO2HMbmBvKu_MuhNsdnU5Lfs4ZSCe8Q-UDr_xy8e9NA
http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/thief4-lurking1.jpg
http://d1vr6n66ssr06c.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Dishonored-BETHESDA-360-590x352.jpg

As Cheap Trick once sang, "I want you to want me" or in this case "I want you to want to be inclusive".

This is the issue some seem to forget (or ignore). It's not that we don't want games to be inclusive, It's that we don't want games to have to be inclusive.

Good video Jim, once again i find my self in agreement with you... wich is not that often

So long as it is indeed new things being brought and not the old things being censored.

"Tropes" seems to be a dangerous word nowadays because of a certain video series. I'm as sure of said video series disapproving of Saints Row four as I am of it disproving of everything else. Don't make the mistake of having thrown your support behind such an unsubstantiated opinion and call it "academic" like some others on the escapist. It's this video series that people are concerned about because it appears to call for the censoring of just about anything it discusses rather than calling for inclusion.

Also if video games are to travel down new paths towards a hopefully bright and varied future it will undoubtedly make a few blunders along the way that may temporarily discourage creativity. As earlier featured - creativity for the sake of creativity on an already different from the norm franchise such as metroid perhaps can alienate existing fans. It was too much change too soon and most do not like to see their beloved protagonist so weak and so human considering the positively inhuman feats they must pull off.

When it comes to publishers all wanting that call of duty audience, well change could not occur there fast enough.

uanime5:

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.

What the characters look like IS part of art direction. So yes, that score was lowered because of the art.

I just disagree with you on a fundamental level on this one. Games are multimedia. That means the audio, visuals, and mechanics of a game all come together to form a whole. Any one part can add or detract from the finished product. Saying you can't criticize a game because of it's art direction is like saying you can't criticize a play or movie because of it's set or costume design.

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

Falseprophet:

It's long established by many creators in all artistic endeavours that restrictions and constraints actually spur creativity. You can't really have the opportunity to "think outside the box" if there's no box. I really don't understand what science or pseudo-science have to do with creativity.

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.

I was attempting sarcasm. Actually, I'm re-reading my original post and I'm certain it was text-book sarcasm.

What if Saint's Row had a giant purple floppy vagina give away that had a real game equivalent?

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?

Pretty sure I catch your meaning. You are trying to say that you are afraid that if we change the current status quo that we may end up with an entirely new checklist for publishers to "broaden the appeal".

As an example:
A current publisher might demand that the game have:
1 Male Protagonist
2 Multiplayer
3 RPG elements
4 Big Boobs on a stick figure

But if we change their targets we might end up with

1 Female Protagonist
2 Social Options
3 Beating up men larger than Protagonist
4 Big wankers in tight pants
(note: None of this is to be indicative of what I think the average woman wants, I am just pointing out how stupid publishers are)

So by demanding certain things of people who have shown that they are needlessly anal about obtaining previously demanded project features, we could end up just curtailing creativity for the same reasons all over again. Well, you are in luck, because I have a solution!

From now on, no publisher shall have any say in how a game is made. The publisher will only be allowed to know a game's name before they invest in it, and that is all. They will have no further say in the creative process, and will be given their initial investment +15% once the game has made enough. All other proceeds will go to the developer, who will skip the silly store things and distribute straight from their own websites. (intended as sarcasm... or am I...?)

JudgeGame:

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

Falseprophet:

It's long established by many creators in all artistic endeavours that restrictions and constraints actually spur creativity. You can't really have the opportunity to "think outside the box" if there's no box. I really don't understand what science or pseudo-science have to do with creativity.

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.

I was attempting sarcasm. Actually, I'm re-reading my original post and I'm certain it was text-book sarcasm.

Don't worry m8, I think most of us understood your meaning. Though for future reference you should put some form of [/s] or something after your sarcastic remarks, or you end up with people like this quoting and arguing the point you are agreeing with.

OT: I mostly agree with Jim, but there are cases where it will neuter creativity. That isn't to say that it won't increase creativity much more often, because it will, but in terms of "The boobs on this chick make me sick, let them be gone (not saying that everyone is saying that, but there are some), it will destroy that artistic choice. If you destroy any form of choice, you are stifling creativity. What we need is to encourage more diversity and vibrancy in our games, but it is a difficult line to walk to generate such encouragement without resorting to A: rampant complaints/lawsuits/ect or B: trying to rely on people to vote with their wallets (though voting with your wallet is your strongest option currently, so I do encourage people to do so).

Rabidkitten:
What if Saint's Row had a giant purple floppy vagina give away that had a real game equivalent?

I am almost, almost afraid to ask how one would use a "giant purple floppy vagina" in the game as a weapon...

Desert Punk:

Rabidkitten:
What if Saint's Row had a giant purple floppy vagina give away that had a real game equivalent?

I am almost, almost afraid to ask how one would use a "giant purple floppy vagina" in the game as a weapon...

Use your imagination.

Nice haircut Jim!
It makes your face look more slim.
I had to type this on a whim,
or I might get the banhammer..err..

I don't know about this one, Jim. Normally I think you're absolutely spot on with almost all your observations on games, and I get your broad point here, but I also think that people have reason to be defensive, anxious and cautious.

We've had some extremely shrill and baseless criticisms of the way games (and gamers) treat women, and we've also had a lot of fair comments. The problem is that a lot of people are nervous about the games industry deciding that the risk of offending anyone is too great, and that as a result, they should stick to extremely "safe", tried and true and placidly inoffensive material.

That's the opposite of the bold risk-taking in the quest to include new demographics that you seem to be calling for in your video. I guarantee that freakouts over the boobs in Dragon's Crown or the all-male cast in GTA V are not going to push devs, or executives, to "think outside the box", or take creative risks. Far, far, far from it.

Why would they? That's not how risk-aversion works. Instead, they're going to meticulously filter out anything that could cause any offence to anyone, leaving behind a bland paste.

You constantly reference Saint's Row in this video - do you honestly think there aren't shrill harridans who don't find that game exceedingly offensive? How about all the people who are really upset and get a real boo boo at the idea of being able to increase your penis size, or dick punch someone, or smack someone with a dildo, or view killing innocent bystanders as funny and rewarding? Saint's Row is not your "neutered" game. It's massively offensive, except for one aspect: it's expansive character creation engine.

So your argument that game makers being desperate not to offend actually increases creativity rather than stunting it falls over on two counts: first, the drive not to offend will result in more risk-averse game design, gravitating to things you KNOW won't offend because you've done them a million times before, rather than trying new things that could offend demographics you hadn't even considered.

Second, your example of Saint's Row is a poor one. Saint's Row is not what happens when game designers get together to try to include every demographic. It's self-evidently a game that does its best to try to offend a wide array of people, but it laudably doesn't seem to care, and it also laudably has an inclusive character creation toolkit.

Those are my thoughts, anyways. I think you're doing great work, obviously. I think you may have gotten a little carried away in this one instance, though. I get that you're frustrated at how excessively defensive a lot of gamers are about legitimate criticism, but in this case, they do also have a point.

I think it's just a bunch of people over-analyzing what's really in front of them. Those much-maligned supreme feminist council don't want "checklists" for inclusitivity- they just don't want EVERY game having at least one ridiculous looking booby monster in order for a publisher to greenlight it. The issue with this is how a lot of games choose to tell their stories, but forcing the player to play as certain pre-defined character and have no choice as to the interactions with NPCs. This is the kind of linear storytelling that books and movies and most other forms of entertainment follow, and it's not really inherently bad, but also limits the player's experience to what the developers and storytellers designing the game wanted them to experience. In such a case, the story they want to tell better be pretty damned good.

In such a situation, I'd say that many females feel left out as they can't play as or interact with anyone who isn't either a male NPC or stereotypical female plot device, which is what women get with most games.

There's a reason why many of the very best games in the gaming history has the player either controlling an everyman/non-human protagonist or allows you to design your own character. It's simply a matter of fairness. The reason why the SR series is a good example of this is because you can control every aspect of your character's looks (besides height, annoyingly enough) with no bias. You can create a grotesque booby clown if you want or a completely flat and modest woman with short brown hair. It doesn't force you into a box like other mediums and makes you play as a pre-determined character, not just an empty shell of a Link or Gordon Freeman even a woman has little trouble relating to, but an actual character where they game's creators have decided your personality and motivations for you.

Even if you're a dude, you might find it hard to really relate to or like Nico Bellic, what with all the whining and melodrama. My own brother refused to play San Andreas because, you guessed it, he didn't like idea of playing as a thuggish black guy (at least in the beginning). He might be racist and have a minority opinion, but it still goes to show you that whenever you force the player into your "vision", you risk alienating them.

So really I think the answer to this riddle- the riddle of trying to create inclusive characters without also having quotas to fill- is to simply make it so that the player, not the developers, are empowered enough to create characters to craft their own stories and at least assume the roles that they want to play, while also adding NPCs who aren't all boring or lazy caricatures.

I couldn't agree more. Your reference to your own old episodes is wonderful! I was one of the many people asking you to stop the cussing during your earlier episodes and only later decided to watch a newer one and fell in love with your new use of creative language. :)

There's also the fact that, as Jim pointed out in another video, that acknowledging these criticisms doesn't necessarily mean anything is going to change. So perhaps we should be a little (read: a lot) less reactionary.

I agree. Videogames need more restraint...

...Especially when it comes to Dragon's Crown boobs. I mean, I'm a straight guy and even I find those things grotesque! Honestly, if I had to stare at those things all game, I'd find them off-putting as well. At the very least, I have zero problems with the reviewer using the art style as a criticism. Or saying that it's an "adolescent fantasy".

If I had a criticism of the... well... criticism, I'd say that it would be better described as pandering to a very specific idea of a demographic that I'm not really sure exists. I mean, is there REALLY anybody out there, adolescent or not, who finds the idea of a woman with breasts twice the size of her head sexy? (Bear in mind that I don't know how much of this was intended as a parody of female images in videogames; although even if it was intended that way, it seems like a very odd thing to try and stuff into a RPG-brawler.)

I think that Jim's point that creativity and inclusivity are not opposing forces is a great one, but I'd even add to it. If you make games more inclusive, they'll get a more diverse audience. And when they get a more diverse audience, you'll get a more diverse group of people who are actually inclined to design and make the games. Leading to a much deeper pool of creative brains.

So making videogames more inclusive encourages more diversity among the people MAKING, not just playing, the games.

Actually I'm gonna repost that last point for emphasis, since it kinda got lost in the post.

- If you make videogames more welcoming and inclusive, you attract a greater diversity of gamers.
- Some of those gamers will become game developers (actually, are there any developers who AREN'T gamers?)
- Therefore you will get a greater and more diverse group of brains to design the games, leading to greater variety and a more healthy environment in which new and creative ideas can flourish.

Sound good?

Huzzah! Jim's said the point I've been trying to make for years! Not necessarily on this site, but still! Thank god for Jim!

Games being inclusive, and welcoming won't be the deathknell of gaming! It'll create more variety! Hell, it might actually SAVE the gaming industry by, you know, getting in more customers. Customers that might have been turned off by the rampant sexualization of women, and very rare idealization of women.
Not every game needs to be inclusive, but there's needs to be a lot more than there are now!

Are people trying to take away the big boobies? No, not really. We're just trying to get variety!

Character customization, while really damn nice, isn't the end all, and be all, though. A variety of protagonists is, though.

Honestly, if you wanna see the people that Jim is talking to/about, those defenders of gaming regardless of anything, look in youtube where his vids are posted a week later, and look to the threads about feminism, sexism, female representation, and the vids he's put up, and the threads about them. These people exist, minority, or not.
These threads aren't reaching 10+ pages because everyone's agreeing with eachother. There's people who blindly defend, or don't give a damn about what games do.

When I saw the Title "Neutered" and a picture of Saints Row I assumed this episode would be able the recent censoring of Saints Row IV in Aus. Still, another cracking episode.

hentropy:
There's a reason why many of the very best games in the gaming history has the player either controlling an everyman/non-human protagonist or allows you to design your own character.

I don't believe that to be true in the slightest.

Deus Ex? Forced Male main character.

Final Fantasy 7? Forced Male main character.

Xenoblade? Forced Male main character.

Suikoden 2? Forced Male main character.

Nier? Forced Male main character.

Metal Gear Solid? Forced Male main character.

God of War? Forced Male main character.

Planescape Torment? Forced Male main character.

The list goes on. It really has NOTHING to do with the gender of the protagonist. Nothing whatsoever.

Rabidkitten:

Desert Punk:

Rabidkitten:
What if Saint's Row had a giant purple floppy vagina give away that had a real game equivalent?

I am almost, almost afraid to ask how one would use a "giant purple floppy vagina" in the game as a weapon...

Use your imagination.

That's right, we're trying to be all inclusive here so get creative! How about it could be like a giant plunger and you can get some quick-motion suffocation kills. Or maybe it can shoot dolls that look like babies... baby action figures... at high speed that explode on contact.

And then, in co-op, it could pair up with the big floppy purple dildo so that you hit the baby action figures to make them go further and do more damage.

kailus13:

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.

More character diversity would be nice though.

Jim's not asking to stop characters like her, he's more asking for them to become less common.

Jimothy Sterling:
Neutered

Why do gamers defend their favorite titles from criticism with such volatility? According to some, it's because they don't want to see their genitalia removed.

Watch Video

Can i just point out one of your other things on here is " movie defense force "

Oh dear Christ... this phenomenon is actually a thing? People really use that argument? Goddamn...

It's just another way for the ingrained bigotry to try and find excuses for itself.

This just seems like double think. I'm not convinced that appeal to a wide audience and inclusivity are inherently different.

You say changing your language forced you to be more creative? OK fine, but not everyone else is that creative so if they couldn't think of a substitute they'd be "neutered".

And sometimes there is no substitution. Sometimes you HAVE to use those phrases. Example

Would Jon Stewart's "go fuck yourself" choir be as powerful singing something else, I think not?

I'm reminded of Penn and Teller Bullshit where they had an episode on profanity. To make a point they spent the entire episode insulting people incredibly rudely without using profanity. The idea was it's the message that matters not that you avoided specific phrases. And frankly hiding the same intent with innuendo or different phrases isn't a godsend of creativity.

On to Dragon's Crown when did it become accepted fact that having a single character be a woman with big tits means that women all over will be put off from it? Seems kinda like a bullshit blanket statement.

And yeah it's not creative to use big breasts but so what there's other things that haven't been done that might disinterest a certain group. You can't pretend the only things that may be sacked in the name of exclusivity are only things that have been done to death.

leviadragon99:
Oh dear Christ... this phenomenon is actually a thing? People really use that argument? Goddamn...

It's just another way for the ingrained bigotry to try and find excuses for itself.

Ingrained bigotry is people who like having big boobed women in their games?

Honestly the people who make games don't owe you anything, they are not obligated to make games that appeal to you.

Eve Charm:

Jimothy Sterling:
Neutered

Why do gamers defend their favorite titles from criticism with such volatility? According to some, it's because they don't want to see their genitalia removed.

Watch Video

Can i just point out one of your other things on here is " movie defense force "

Oh yeah, because challenging people to see things the mainstream audience dismiss as terrible in a new light is EXACTLY the same as ravenously demanding that all reviews of a game give it perfect scores.

Father Time:

leviadragon99:
Oh dear Christ... this phenomenon is actually a thing? People really use that argument? Goddamn...

It's just another way for the ingrained bigotry to try and find excuses for itself.

Ingrained bigotry is people who like having big boobed women in their games?

Honestly the people who make games don't owe you anything, they are not obligated to make games that appeal to you.

No, the ingrained bigotry is people trying to chase female gamers out of the community, it's the ludicrous level of hostility Anita Sarkis-whatever gets for even suggesting that maybe some games out there might not have the best depiction of women, it's the rape threats on twitter, the "make me a sandwitch" meme, and the idea that a game has to alienate people to remain pure and creative.

And they are indeed not obligated, where in my argument does it say that? But it might just help them out if they did make games that genuinely appeal to a market beyond the brogrammer demographic from time to time.

Dansrage:
Give 'em an inch they take a mile.

Not to be "that person," because I did read the rest of your post, but isn't that exactly what was said about things like suffrage, integration, and gay marriage? Every time a group wants to stop being marginalized, the groups that want to keep them marginalized argue "we can't treat them fairly because things will just get out of hand!"

That isn't an excuse for not doing the right thing. EVER. The flaws that come with extreme feminism don't excuse keeping sexism alive, just as the flaws that come with extreme civil rights ("reverse-racism," as some call it) don't excuse keeping racism alive. If those issues arise, then we'll deal with them just as sexism and racism were dealt with. Otherwise, don't impede progress because of a bunch of myths and maybes.

leviadragon99:

Father Time:

leviadragon99:
Oh dear Christ... this phenomenon is actually a thing? People really use that argument? Goddamn...

It's just another way for the ingrained bigotry to try and find excuses for itself.

Ingrained bigotry is people who like having big boobed women in their games?

Honestly the people who make games don't owe you anything, they are not obligated to make games that appeal to you.

No, the ingrained bigotry is people trying to chase female gamers out of the community,

Not happening.

leviadragon99:

it's the ludicrous level of hostility Anita Sarkis-whatever gets for even suggesting that maybe some games out there might not have the best depiction of women,

How dare she receive backlash for her opinion that things are sexist and/or cause real life sexism.

leviadragon99:

it's the rape threats on twitter, the "make me a sandwitch" meme, and the idea that a game has to alienate people to remain pure and creative.

I can't think of a single game that doesn't alienate someone for whatever reason.

leviadragon99:

And they are indeed not obligated, where in my argument does it say that? But it might just help them out if they did make games that genuinely appeal to a market beyond the brogrammer demographic from time to time.

Oh they do. Quite a lot. Thing is whenever a game gets made that does people have to act like it's personally responsible for bringing sexism to gaming or alienating women. There's already a variety in games. NOTHING is stopping you from avoiding those games and still having a ton to play. So at this point it's 'some women will judge all of gaming because of Dragon's Crown and we need to make sure those ultra-judgemental people are fans of gaming'

Lilani:

Dansrage:
Give 'em an inch they take a mile.

Not to be "that person," because I did read the rest of your post, but isn't that exactly what was said about things like suffrage, integration, and gay marriage? Every time a group wants to stop being marginalized, the groups that want to keep them marginalized argue "we can't treat them fairly because things will just get out of hand!"

That isn't an excuse for not doing the right thing. EVER.

There is no right thing to do in this situation other than not trying to get or threaten censorship.
This isn't a moral issue, the game publishers do not owe you anything and they aren't harming anyone with games like Dragon's Crown.

I really like using this quote so I'm going to use it again. It was talking about music censorship but it applies here.

Frank Zappa:
Ladies, please be advised: The $8.98 purchase price does not entitle you to a kiss on the foot from the composer or performer in exchange for a spin on the family Victrola.

So tell me, Jim, what exactly separates Dragon's Crown from Saints Row other than a hell of a lot more money and staff to work in specific scenarios for all those extra options? Last I checked, the sorceress wasn't the only option for a playable female character, and the other two had radically different body types from her. You are effectively complaining that comically large breasts are an option, even though you listed that among the strengths of Saints Row. Maybe you think there should have been multiple body types for every class in Dragon's Crown, a game made by a team of about 20, some of whom were working on other projects at the same time? Do you have any idea how much money and work it would take to make that many additional art assets, given that Vanillaware actually painted them all, instead of using easily modifiable CG models? From where I'm standing, you just come off as a hypocrite.

Also, 'feminist types' don't create the kind of media you seem to think they do. They publish stories full of centaur gang-rapes and savage African cannibals, or novels of which the first third is devoted to browsing child pornography on future-4chan, or occasionally make movies about how gay men are motivated exclusively by the desire to harm women. An awful lot of well-regarded creative endeavors by actual feminists would have 'feminist types' like you crying bloody murder the length and breadth of the net; just look at all the ignorant third wavers calling 'straw feminist' at Angela Carter novels, as if they were in any position to talk about feminism compared to her.

 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