Jimquisition: Neutered

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

Imp Emissary:

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.

If you genuinely think that all people want that, then I believe you are mistaken. There are many people such as myself who would like more variety of characters. But the people who look at characters such as Bayonetta/The Sorceress and so on and don't complain that that they are sexual, but that they are sexist are not the kind of people who merely want more variety. They are saying there is something wrong with the characters themselves, not the trend they are a part of.

Sexism is bad.
Saying something is sexist is saying that it is bad.
I sincerely doubt that anybody who thinks games are sexist think "It's okay if some games are, as long as it is not all of them".

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.

I am almost entirely in agreement with this. You are correct in saying that they did not change the games to pander to complaints, and I was wrong when I said that. They did not "change" the ending so much as expand upon it, as you said.

However the point I was really getting at as that they changed their product in response to complainers. Not by retconning the ending, but by releasing the Extended Cut they still did not stick with their "artistic vision", they decided to alter it to please some people.

You are correct in saying that it was their decision to do so, if they felt strongly enough they could have stuck to their guns. But when it comes to a company owned by EA, then I sincerely doubt "Sticking to your principles and losing money" is what they would consider "acceptable".

People accuse Microsoft of not having faith in their vision for the Xbox One, but I genuinely think they believed it was a good idea. But faced with the fact that seemingly the entire online gaming community despised it, they chose to backtrack because they would have lost millions if they hadn't.

That is still their fault rather than the consumers I guess, but for those who were happy with the original design, I think it is understandable that they were upset by the decision, and the principle is the same for game design. People who like something don't want the developers to take it away due to complaints, and I think that is a reasonable belief.

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.

This one I cannot agree with. They could have had Elizabeth on the front cover, but they made the cover to appeal to the COD crowd. Before the Jim mentioned it in his video, nobody based the cover on a gender issue, it was about trying to appeal to the shooter crowd. Nobody working on the game mentioned gender at all.

The Last of Us is one of the few games in recent years to make a female central character. They also released the game amongst a huge debate over gender in video games. They claimed an unnamed publisher objected to her being prominent on the cover (not on there at all) and they claimed they had to specifically request female game testers, not fight for them.

It was a fantastic PR move when you think about it. It has an underdog kind of ring to it. The developer standing up against the evil publisher and fighting for the right to have women in their games. The amount of people who posted in the news stories saying they were going to buy the game just to support them shows what an excellent idea that announcement was.

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.

Well then you have lost all credibility, because you are quite clearly insane.

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.

Well you are right and wrong with this.

You are right in the point you are making.

You are wrong in suggesting I am in any shape or form worried about it, because I genuinely don't care if they do disappear. I only own two games that have sexually designed characters and neither of them have the sexiness as the main selling point (BloodRayne and Skullgirls). I don't really care for sexualised characters and I certainly don't lose any sleep over the idea that games might not have them. I don't like "fan service" in general, I at best can tolerate it.

I wasn't making my point because I think it would happen.

My issue is with people complaining non-stop about not getting the games that they want. Games are an optional form of entertainment, not a right. People have the right to complain yes, and they have the right to want developers to do different things, but the way many people act it comes across as a demand, not a request. As if game developers owe different demographics games that suit their wishes.

That goes for all debates, not just gender, but we very rarely hear anybody claim about the lack of homosexual, black, hispanic or non-English protagonists, which is why it probably seems that my opinion is limited to the gender discussion. If people behaved the way they do in regards to gender in gaming with other aspects, my attitude would remain the same. And I don't like the stereotypical "grissly, white male protagonist" either. I much prefer playing as female characters.

It's why I stopped visiting the Bioware forums. Every other thread was demanding changes in one way or another or accusing them of being various nasty things just because they decided to do something in their game that some fans didn't like.

Game developers spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars making games. Nobody has the right to tell them what they "should" be making or that they are "wrong" for making something if they don't like it. Games are a luxury item, not a requirement, so the idea that they "should" cater to all tastes is just childishly naive.

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

Pffft, don't apologise. I much prefer being responded to by people who actually think their posts through no matter how long they are, over those who make a quick snarky remark and move on.

That said, I won't be continuing this discussion any further. Nothing against you, I enjoyed reading your response, but I have generally speaking been trying to avoid gender related topics (I don't even know what Part 3 of Tropes vs Women is about), and coming into this one has simply reminded me why. I find them quite tiresome overall and I was pretty idiotic joining this one in the first place.

Also, Thank God for Jim.

Amen

I saw the mention of GTAV lacking a female protagonist, as though it's an issue. No one criticizes The Godfather, Reservoir Dogs, Heat, Scarface or any classic crime film for lacking a female crim, because that's very simply how the criminal sphere is. Why the double standard? I don't see why films can be well received for brutal honesty, whilst video games are considered backwards for lacking gender equality.

When I read the blurb at the bottom of your video while it was loading....
I thought you were talking about the shenanigans wherein a game (like an RPG) has its "appeal broadened" and it becomes more... at this current time, more "frat-boy-shootery" because that's the "ideal" market atm.
But that kind of bullshitery was only brought up at the end. (cause you've already talked about how bad that is)

All in all, there really should be more equality in games... and the guys who are complaining about having their games "neutered"... are probably the same guys who raised hell on the Bioware forums when Anders "raped" them in DA2.
Which was one of the only good things about DA2 in my opinion. (the inclusivity of having the LIs be player-sexual: Isabella is always bi, but Merrill and Anders are either gay or straight depending on your PC's gender. At least they appear to be given no dialogue to the contrary.)

Mahemium:
I saw the mention of GTAV lacking a female protagonist, as though it's an issue. No one criticizes The Godfather, Reservoir Dogs, Heat, Scarface or any classic crime film for lacking a female crim, because that's very simply how the criminal sphere is. Why the double standard? I don't see why films can be well received for brutal honesty, whilst video games are considered backwards for lacking gender equality.

All of those have interesting female characters, with the exception of Reservoir Dogs. Now I'm not among the critics calling for an additional female protagonist there, but there's something to be said for other crime thrillers like Out of Sight and Jackie Brown.

I'm also - oddly - not very interested in GTA V.

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

This is pretty much what you are taught in any art school/class whether it be painting or writing. The only time you are asked to maintain any type of continuity is when you are creating an artistic work in a certain style. And people voice their opinions about styles all the time. "I don't like rap music" for instance.

I was about to make a comment about how art cant be held up to the same standards of science, but then I realized it was you that tried to combine them. Take your (complaints about) "pseudo-science" and get out of discussions about art.

animeh1star1a:
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.

Very true, and you picked a perfect example there. The characters of the Walking Dead game are so close to perfect that I would say they border on the sacred.
But I still can't help but wonder, how much would be "lost" if you could change Lee's gender, skin colour, voice etc.

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"

For some people it does affect the quality of the game. Logic and reason be damned, it is YOUR subjective opinion that someone else's subjective opinion be ignored or dismissed.

If you don't like someone's subjective opinion then ignore it. Simple AND logical.

More like "It's likely not a coincidence we're using a term commonly associated with the removal of testicles to aggravate a group of people who would rather not be associated with it".

I wouldn't argue that creativity is being limited because some people have a problem with some games. Support inclusive games. I don't care. But if a game is going to not be inclusive then too bad, it isn't being made for you. I don't like Dragon's Crown's pandering. But it's allowed to do it, and I don't think it's sexist either.

Your point about language though is silly. Yes it may be creative or challenging to invent turns of phrase. Largely the opposition to turns of phrase that are often labelled 'casual mysogyny' or 'casual racism' is not that the user is being uncreative, it's that they're bad things to say and shouldn't be said. To which I say fuck that, I say what I want, and stick to those turns of phrase because I don't mean anything discriminatory and the critics need to realise that before they start pointing the finger. Just because a group of people makes a fuss about something I see as an invalid concern doesn't mean I should alter my language for them. Furthermore, you can't parody stereotypes with new phrases. Defeats the point.

jmarquiso:

Father Time:

erttheking:

That's an interesting argument that kind of loses some of it's weight because Shakespeare's works were a product of their time. He specifically wrote them to be about the then modern day world, basising them on the then values. If Shakespeare lived in modern day, he would never write anything like that. He would write plays based on modern values.

No one is saying that developed should be forced to go in and change what they wanted to do. They're saying that they want more variety

I disagree. There is a ton of variety now and yet we have this argument every time a games comes out with blatant sex appeal aimed just at men (unless it's a series that's been doing it forever like Dead or Alive).

erttheking:

and for people to step out of their comfort zone. When people criticize Call of Duty for doing the same thing over and over again, people don't rush to it's defense, saying that people should stop trying to oppress Infinity Ward's creative vision. Why is it ok for people to criticize call of duty for doing the same things over and over again, but not to criticize the gaming industry as a whole for doing the same things over and over again.

Nobody proclaims that Call of Duty is sexist/racist/bigoted whatever for doing the same thing all the time. Nobody says they have to change their tropes in the name of "moving the game industry forward" or "not alienating people (as if they shouldn't be expected to just avoid series they don't like)".

Not to mention that Shakespeare would have been pressured to make changes - not by the people - but by the play's producers and the crown. That said, he was the populist blockbuster writer of his day. So if you don't think he took criticism to heart, you'd likely be mistaken.

So wait because he was popular he must've taken criticism to heart? How does that follow? He could've just done his own thing and ignored the critics, like a lot of people do.

Skyrim with mods is probably the best example of what people REALLY want. One of the most popular things aside from the main official patches are the character creators and skeleton replacers and make your game look prettier with better npcs. You can't look at characters, armor or npcs without coming across a few terms like ADEC, CBBE, TBBP. They stand for, Acdale's Eye candy, Caliente's Big Bottom Edition, Tender Body and Busts Physics. Are people alienated that these exist or the fact they were made by people and supported by many others mean deep down people really embrace this stuff?

Teshi:

Father Time:
I can give another example too. Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare. Long story short, a man wants to marry a woman for her money. The woman is incredibly hostile and insults people a lot (hence shrew). He tames her by out-performing her in a 'be a terrible spouse' competition while pretending he's mistreating her in the name of love. And he's the hero of the story.

You can guess how that's been changed to make it more inclusive. And you can't tell me with a straight face that that wouldn't have stifled creativity if Shakespeare had made it today and had been pressured to make those changes.

This is an example that proves the opposing point, if anything. Despite the content of Taming of the Shrew, and despite the era in which it was created, Shakespeare's body of work is not generally viewed as exclusionary toward women.

Body of work maybe but Taming of the Shrew? Not so much. You don't throw in other works by the same person when judging how good one piece is.

Teshi:

Which is what most people who are calling for greater diversity in gaming want.

Ok you and I both know that's not true. They want more women protagonists even if it's just gender swapping someone and keeping the same plot.

Thanatos2k:
I wouldn't have cared if JC (JessiCa?) Denton was a woman, and I'd hope women don't care that he was a man.

Okay, so, you're a girl, a little girl. You are, as all children (and most adults) are, trying to figure out what the world is and where you fit into it. You're constantly on the lookout for people to help you figure things out, because the world is confusing. Identity is confusing. You don't know it at the time because you're a kid and you've only barely even learned to think, but you're trying to find someone who can help you be the person you will one day be.

The only thing you know is that you are girl. You know it because everyone tells you all the time. Your clothes tell you that, the way your mother styles your hair tells you that. Your toys tell you that. Okay, fine, you're girl! That's okay. That's a good place to start figuring things out. So what is girl? Girl is not boy, you know that already--even a child who hasn't learned how to think picked up on that real early--but that's not a useful answer to you because you don't need to know what you're not; you need to know what you are.

So you look at the world, observing it like the larval form of a scientist, observing it and categorizing the results and trying to turn the data into useful information. You look at TV and you find that girl is pretty, girl is never fat and only rarely ever messy in her appearance, so you file away that appearance is important to be girl. You go to McDonald's and you find out girl likes ponies and princesses, so you file that away too. You go to movies and you find out that there is usually only one girl in the world, and she only ever talks to men and always ends up being their girlfriend, so you file that away too.

You go to video games and you find there's really no one like you in video games. The girls there are weird, they're off, and eventually you realize it's because they never do anything. They just have things done to them, usually by men, and they only exist when a man is doing things to them. Then they go away and stop existing until the man thinks about them again. You still aren't totally sure what girl is, but you know for a fact that's not right: You exist all the time, and you do things instead of having things done to you. For a long time, you decide that video games are full of crap and their teachings should be ignored because they don't know anything. One day, though, one inevitable day you're not really even thinking about it when a question occurs to you, the first question a child ever asks about anything:

Why?

Why are video games telling you that girl is a thing that never acts on its own and that only exists in relationship to a man? Is it because video games think that's what girl is, or (and you don't want to think this, you're kind of horrified and hurt to think this, but it's too late and you can't stop the thought from occurring to you) is it because that's what video games want girl to be? And if that's it, why? Are they afraid of girl? Do they hate girl? Do they fear and hate you?

--

Let's drop the roleplaying (though you could fit almost anything in the place of the word "girl" into my example as long as it's not "straight, white man;" try "gay," "transgender," or "black"). The point I'm getting at is that you, Thanatos2k, are in a position where you don't have to care that JC Denton is male, because you have so many males to choose from. Women don't have that many choices. JC Denton may only be one character in one game...but so is every character in every game, and when you look at how all those one characters and one games add up, certain conclusions are inescapable. The video games industry doesn't want women to be part of it, which is really weird (their money is worth exactly as much as a man's money) but tolerable. What's more, it doesn't like women. That last one is the one that stings.

Ooo! Was that Hydro-Man from Spider-man:TAS I saw?

Why is it when games come out with characters that all reality would never exist in real life, THAT's when people decide to bring up games need greater diversity.

90% of games have humans, 10% of games have robots. Why doesn't the robot game have humans it's got no diversity?

Mahemium:
I saw the mention of Grand Theft Auto V lacking a female protagonist, as though it's an issue. No one criticizes the Godfather, Reservoir Dogs, Heat, Scarface, or any classic crime film for lacking a female crim, because that's very simply how the criminal sphere is. Why the double standard?

People do criticize those movies for their gender politics. If they don't criticize them by name, it's because they're criticizing them under the general auspices of the Bechdel test.

MeChaNiZ3D:
I say what I want, and stick to those turns of phrase because I don't mean anything discriminatory and the critics need to realize that before they start pointing the finger.

Your point here seems to be that you have less of a burden to choose your words carefully as to convey your exact meaning as precisely as possible than everyone else in the world does to already know what you're thinking. I find this position insupportable.

JimB:
snip
The video games industry doesn't want women to be part of it, which is really weird (their money is worth exactly as much as a man's money)

It's actually not weird at all.
I know that 49% of gamers are female, but the thing is - for a company it doesn't really matter. It won't matter to them until percentage of female gamers will reach at least 51% (or in another scenario that I will explain below). Why? Because making those female-(or everyone-)oriented games will cost them a lot of money. And these expences will not be covered unless bulk of the gamers will be considering sexist games repulsive and stop giving them money as a result.
So the only choice here is somehow to convince most of gamers that such games are not good. And also convince them to stop buying these games.
Which is not going to happen because most gamers will find an excuse to buy (or pirate) a game they like, no matter what kind of views this game contains.

Miroluck:
It's actually not weird at all.

No, it really is. I get the whole "more men play video games, so let's try to get their money" thing, but why are they making it an either/or choice? Yes, men make 51% of the gaming demographic, but you know who makes 100% of it? Men and women. Why not aim for both? And if one hundred percent is impossible (which I think we all agree that it is), why not redefine the conversation along lines other than the properties of one's crotch? Why not aim for [people who like X] rather than [men or women]?

It's super-weird. I do not get how it makes good business sense. How it promotes lazy thinking, sure, that I get, but how it makes good sense? I got nothing.

JimB:

Miroluck:
It's actually not weird at all.

No, it really is. I get the whole "more men play video games, so let's try to get their money" thing, but why are they making it an either/or choice? Yes, men make 51% of the gaming demographic, but you know who makes 100% of it? Men and women. Why not aim for both? How it promotes lazy thinking, sure, that I get, but how it makes good sense? I got nothing.

Again - making games more equal will cost additional money, and these people don't want to risk like that.
I get that "aiming for both" market would be more profitable, but for market as it is right now? Changing anything is too scary for them.

JimB:
Okay, so, you're a girl, a little girl. You are, as all children (and most adults) are, trying to figure out what the world is and where you fit into it.
...Why are video games telling you that girl is...

If McDonald's, TV and video games are places where your children are looking for answers in existential questions, hoping to form their identity, you are a bad parent. And if children really ask: "Oh Ronald! Why are we here?", I really hope, he tells them the truth in the creepiest of ways.

Thanatos2k:

You said "the very best games in the gaming history" without actually thinking about gaming history. Don't blame me.

That is only a part of the sentence. The key word being "many". "Many" of the greatest games in history. Not "all", or even "most". Many. This includes recent history as well, not just the 90s.

So you're arguing that the characters aren't even really male characters because they didn't need to be male, AND simultaneously arguing that females are alienated because there's so many male characters and no one for them to identify with. Make up your mind. And really, stop selling women short. I've never been "alienated" by having to play a female character, I wouldn't have cared if JC (JessiCa?) Denton was a woman, and I'd hope women don't care that he was a man.

No, I'm not saying that. That should be obvious if you can link the various points in my posts to a common point. When I say "alienation" I'm talking about black and white, someone can still love a game while still feeling alienated by it. I haven't played Dragon's Crown but I gotta say the art style throws me off as well, not just because of the women but because of all the characters look like some kind of disfigured freakshow. And yes, such an art style can really detract from the experience.

You might not have any problem with playing a female every now and then in a game, but imagine if EVERY game you played besides a rare few FORCED you to play as a female protagonist. You might still enjoy the games, but you might also feel like the people making the games aren't really doing it for you, or caring about how you feel, and it might make you seek out other hobbies instead. As I said in my first post, women may not have problems playing an everyman, but if they're not going to do or say much and the gender isn't ultimately that important in many of those older games, then why force women to play a male? It's usually because the developers and publishers are targeted men and boys, and make it more relatable to them.

Add in the caveat that, in this world where everyone is forced to play as female characters in games, all the men NPCs portrayed are wimpy, weak, insulting caricatures of what men are like in real life. You'd probably get pretty offended by that, and want to change it.

See, the thing is, a tight well written linear story doesn't really allow you the freedom to craft your own characters and experiences. A tight well written linear story has preexisting characters that can't be changed with some checkboxes and dialogue choices. They go through arcs from the beginning of the story to the end. They change according to the wishes of the author. Linearity is not and has never been a BAD thing, just a different way of telling stories.

That's precisely what I said in the first post. Linear stories aren't necessarily bad things, and there have certainly been some really good stories that have been linear... but 8/10 times that's simply not the case. There's a reason why games have a hard time being taken seriously, and part of it is because not many devs put a lot of effort, time, or money into storytelling. When they try, it's usually mediocre at best. This goes double, even triple for the Japanese game market. While there have certainly been good stories within JRPGs, they've been stuck in a rut for a long time now and no amount of character creation or inclusitivity is going to fix the main problems in that genre.

In Mass Effect, while it has a good story for the most part (lol ending), Shepard doesn't change from the beginning of Mass Effect 1 to the end of Mass Effect 3 at all. Many of the other characters have arcs but Shepard acts almost identically the whole way through. Same thing happens with most other games that have character creation. In games like Dragon's Dogma and Demon's Souls your created character doesn't even really say or do much themselves - they barely even HAVE a character. Same with Baldur's Gate, Kingdoms of Amalur, etc.

I couldn't disagree more, but it is a subjective matter that depends on how you approach a story like Mass Effect. I can start out as a goody two-shoes Paragon with upstanding morals who slowly get disillusioned and becomes more Renegade-like, only to hold onto those values when they really matter in the end. No, the developers can't program every single emotional reaction one can imagine, but that's what your own imagination is for. This also goes for the SR series, even though you're more or less forced down a fairly linear storyline, you can come up with your own motivations and reactions to things, and adds to the experience. I'd much rather have something like that than the developer trying to tell me a story, because much of the time the story they want to tell isn't really worth it in the end and just makes me want to go back to shooting or beating up things.

I'd much rather have that freedom of a character "checklist" than have all those boxes already filled out for me with no choice, like the way it was in GTA games. I really love the GTA games, but story and really good main characters have never really been their strong suit, and yes, they could be much better games if I was given a bit more freedom as what to do with them. When I play Nico or CJ or Tommy, I feel like I have to have their motivations and their personality, limiting the experience in what should be an open-ended game. This is why the three interchangeable male protagonists in GTAV is a somewhat of a controversy, because no matter how good the rest of the game is, it will always feel like Rockstar is intentionally stifling my own creative input in the game so they can force their story down my throat.

Books, theater, movies, and other traditional art forms are one-way, a book's story and characters and writing style is all it has, and it better be good to be considered a good book. Games include so many different forms of media it's almost staggering, and along with that it is also interactive. Now that we have the technology to truly do it, developers should drop the idea that they should be telling the stories for us, as they have proven time and time again they simply can't do it as consistently well as other mediums, with only the occasional gem in a pile of crap. Instead, they should create platforms in which players can create their own stories, especially now since graphics have more or less plateaued.

Miroluck:
Again: making games more equal will cost additional money, and these people don't want to risk like that.

Then what are "these people" (only put in quotation marks to indicate that I'm not sure whom we're talking about, not because I wish to imply derision) doing in positions of authority over these decisions? Profit only comes at the expense of taking risk. Who can look at the video games industry as it is, either from a social perspective as I do or from a business perspective as I would expect developers to do, and think, "This is a sustainable model that will serve to increase our profits?" It's just--it's lazy. That's the only explanation I can conjure here. It is too lazy to think critically and too lazy to be brave. Maybe I'm missing something, but laziness is all I got.

nuttshell:
If McDonald's, TV, and video games are places where your children are looking for answers in existential questions, hoping to form their identity, then you are a bad parent.

The places they are looking are the world. Like it or not, McDonald's, TV, and video games are all part of the world; and like it or not, there is a lot more world to teach kids things than there is parents. Please do not sit here and argue that parents, that two individual human beings, should somehow be able to overpower the message the entire world sends without having to change that message first; it smacks of a complete abdication of personal responsibility.

JimB:

Miroluck:
Again: making games more equal will cost additional money, and these people don't want to risk like that.

Then what are "these people" (...) doing in positions of authority over these decisions?

Well, positions I'm thinking about are usually taken by white straight rich men, and they are there because other w.s.r. men decide who's going to take those positions.

Profit only comes at the expense of taking risk. It's just--it's lazy. That's the only explanation I can conjure here. It is too lazy to think critically and too lazy to be brave. Maybe I'm missing something, but laziness is all I got.

Now that you've said that, I think that maybe, their own views are a little more important for them to reinforce than profit.

Eve Charm:

leviadragon99:

Eve Charm:

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.

Really it's different from people JUST saying a movie is awful and no one should ever see it and it should die in a fire then the people that take one look at the art of a game and call it trash? Defend movies on their merits but don't defend games?

It's not about the scores, it's about the existence. You can't and never will be, able to homogenize art. For the good or bad, it should exist and shouldn't have to be watered down for anyone. You can't put a boob slider on Hand-drawn characters, just like the statue of david in real life doesn't come with an "sex appeal slider" often imitated but never duplicated, whether it's your thing or not, it's better to exist then not to exist at all.

No. those people who scored Dragon's Crown lower than the general consensus weren't challenging its right to exist or demanding it be changed, they were expressing their personal disapproval, saying it wasn't for them and suggesting that maybe it isn't for everyone, that the aesthetic design could be a deal-breaker for some. And I think you'll find that score inflation pattern in the industry aside, ranking a game a six isn't the same as calling it trash and dismissing it entirely, certain themes, content, ideological perspectives or politics can substantially influence someone's opinion of a piece of media, for some, they won't be able to get past it, but for others, they can enjoy it in spite of an aspect they might see as a flaw, or they might be okay with it, but demanding that everyone be okay with it, that there be no discussion or dissent... well that's just boring.

Also, the endless call of duty clones out there and the endless popcorn big action movies that fail to get it right prove that you CAN homogenize art... you just really shouldn't, of course we could bring in what personal definition of art you're going by, whether you mean something as specific as high art or whether you're all-inclusive for it to mean any form of theoretically creative media, but that's a whole other can of worms. In any event, it's still a bit rich saying that diverging from the ludicrously over the top sexualisation that so many games seem to follow would be making things LESS homogenized.

Yeah, like Jim said a little while back, parody or not, when so much of its contemporaries use that kind of imagery unironically...

No one is trying to take away your toys or say that those games can't be made any more, don't even pretend that's the argument going on here, what we're asking for is the usual stuff AND a little more variety, this doesn't have to be an either-or mutually exclusive thing, maybe make some room by cutting out some of the focus-tested dreck that no-one likes anyway?

Hell, why do I have to reiterate so many of the points Jim has made over his videos to you? Do you just watch them to disagree or do you fail to even consider the points he raises?

Father Time:

leviadragon99:

Father Time:

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'

Point the first: I believe you to be either blind or deluded if you're not seeing that hostility and willingness to harass anyone with two X chromosomes until they leave the game/forum in certain segments of the community, I might have hyperbolized a little, but it's there.

Point the second: She received hostility before she even started, before she had a chance to make her case, before anyone knew what she had to say, just because she was raising the possibility that it could potentially be a problem, I'd say the reaction more than proved her right, if male gamers are so insecure that they have to attack someone suggesting there's bigotry, I don't see it being much of a stretch to think they might be bigots, and what happened after she began to make her case? A substantial amount of her negative feedback continued to be mindless, tasteless threats and personal attacks, dismissals on the stupidest of grounds, and very little in the way of actual countering of her arguments. So yeah, damn right I consider that to be bullshit, you can disagree with someone, but be civil about it rather than yelling at them to die in a fire.

point the third: Annnd yet this video would seem to suggest that Saints Row 4 does that pretty well by letting anyone be the lord of the sandbox... heck, I can't recall Skyrim alienating anyone through potentially offensive viewpoints or deliberately exclusionary tropes, or Dragon Age, or Mass Effect, or Portal, or Planescape Torment, or the Fallout games, or Pokemon, or Persona 4, or Dust, or Minecraft, or Bastion, or Shadowrun just to name some that I'm most familiar with. Name me something from each of those games that'd alienate a viewer based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, or any of the other big ones, for extra points, try actually coming up with something someone might find offensive that isn't balanced out by the game trying to show the other perspective. Yes, it's almost impossible to make something that everyone will like, and there's people out there that can get offended about just about anything, but I think some games do alright with not actively sabotaging their chances with more than half the population of the earth.

Point the fourth: I think you're exaggerating a little, and I'll remind you that most of those more varied games come from the indie circuit, or for smaller riskier projects. The mainstream, high-profile, most visible games out there do seem to have a hard-on for gun-bros. Hell, irrespective of the quality of the final product, Remember Me's personal story does tell of a certain reluctance to bring in female leads, Lara only got her reboot because of delicious nepotism by her established brand, most of the games I can think of that'll allow you to play a female character do so because you create your own with both genders and a bunch of bodysliders as options, or choose/customize from the start, rather than ones where the female lead is the set established, fleshed out character, while white male leads being the set option in games is far more commonplace.

JimB:

Thanatos2k:
I wouldn't have cared if JC (JessiCa?) Denton was a woman, and I'd hope women don't care that he was a man.

Okay, so, you're a girl, a little girl. You are, as all children (and most adults) are, trying to figure out what the world is and where you fit into it. You're constantly on the lookout for people to help you figure things out, because the world is confusing. Identity is confusing. You don't know it at the time because you're a kid and you've only barely even learned to think, but you're trying to find someone who can help you be the person you will one day be.

The only thing you know is that you are girl. You know it because everyone tells you all the time. Your clothes tell you that, the way your mother styles your hair tells you that. Your toys tell you that. Okay, fine, you're girl! That's okay. That's a good place to start figuring things out. So what is girl? Girl is not boy, you know that already--even a child who hasn't learned how to think picked up on that real early--but that's not a useful answer to you because you don't need to know what you're not; you need to know what you are.

So you look at the world, observing it like the larval form of a scientist, observing it and categorizing the results and trying to turn the data into useful information. You look at TV and you find that girl is pretty, girl is never fat and only rarely ever messy in her appearance, so you file away that appearance is important to be girl. You go to McDonald's and you find out girl likes ponies and princesses, so you file that away too. You go to movies and you find out that there is usually only one girl in the world, and she only ever talks to men and always ends up being their girlfriend, so you file that away too.

You go to video games and you find there's really no one like you in video games. The girls there are weird, they're off, and eventually you realize it's because they never do anything. They just have things done to them, usually by men, and they only exist when a man is doing things to them. Then they go away and stop existing until the man thinks about them again. You still aren't totally sure what girl is, but you know for a fact that's not right: You exist all the time, and you do things instead of having things done to you. For a long time, you decide that video games are full of crap and their teachings should be ignored because they don't know anything. One day, though, one inevitable day you're not really even thinking about it when a question occurs to you, the first question a child ever asks about anything:

Why?

Why are video games telling you that girl is a thing that never acts on its own and that only exists in relationship to a man? Is it because video games think that's what girl is, or (and you don't want to think this, you're kind of horrified and hurt to think this, but it's too late and you can't stop the thought from occurring to you) is it because that's what video games want girl to be? And if that's it, why? Are they afraid of girl? Do they hate girl? Do they fear and hate you?

--

Let's drop the roleplaying (though you could fit almost anything in the place of the word "girl" into my example as long as it's not "straight, white man;" try "gay," "transgender," or "black"). The point I'm getting at is that you, Thanatos2k, are in a position where you don't have to care that JC Denton is male, because you have so many males to choose from. Women don't have that many choices. JC Denton may only be one character in one game...but so is every character in every game, and when you look at how all those one characters and one games add up, certain conclusions are inescapable. The video games industry doesn't want women to be part of it, which is really weird (their money is worth exactly as much as a man's money) but tolerable. What's more, it doesn't like women. That last one is the one that stings.

See it's stuff like this that prevent people from taking arguments against this seriously. I didn't play video games while growing up to find my place in the world. I played them to have fun and to experience interesting stories. End stop. I mean my god, people actually obsess over this kind of stuff?

JimB:

Miroluck:
It's actually not weird at all.

No, it really is. I get the whole "more men play video games, so let's try to get their money" thing, but why are they making it an either/or choice? Yes, men make 51% of the gaming demographic, but you know who makes 100% of it? Men and women. Why not aim for both? And if one hundred percent is impossible (which I think we all agree that it is), why not redefine the conversation along lines other than the properties of one's crotch? Why not aim for [people who like X] rather than [men or women]?

It's super-weird. I do not get how it makes good business sense. How it promotes lazy thinking, sure, that I get, but how it makes good sense? I got nothing.

The size of the demographic isn't just about the overall population, it's about income and willingness to part with it. If one group are the majority for a console game with a higher profit margin while another prefers free facebook games, it's not hard to tell who a company would target. The same logic applies to who buys lots of DLC and who buys merchandise (more a Japan thing I know, but still, a game plus a bunch of statues and wallscrolls is better than a game in and of itself, and it also explains why so many pinup figures).

Beyond that, there's a fear that the complainers don't represent a lost demographic, but the PC police that just want the option there so long as they don't have to financially support it. For all the hoopla, Remember Me sold like garbage, when you'd think for all the demand for that character type online, it would have done Tomb Raider numbers. Other medium can be looked at to see if the result differ, but it isn't always pretty. Comic Books get the same lack of inclusivity crap, but by July's sales, the highest selling female solo book is Batgirl, placing 56th selling short of 40,000 copies nation wide. Things like Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel and World's Finest staring Huntress and Power Girl do worse. World's Finest even gave PG an outfit without a boob window at first but gave it back to stop bleeding sales when the women they tried to appeal to didn't show up.

That, in a nutshell, is business: it isn't the largest pool you chase, but the one most reliable. Spending lots of money to chase after small sales that aren't guaranteed isn't a great strategy. It can create success, but also bankruptcy. If a company isn't sitting on piles of capital, it isn't surprising they'd pander to a crowd they know will show up for big boobs, and not risk their company that this time the internet means in when they promise to buy what they're begging for.

hentropy:

So you're arguing that the characters aren't even really male characters because they didn't need to be male, AND simultaneously arguing that females are alienated because there's so many male characters and no one for them to identify with. Make up your mind. And really, stop selling women short. I've never been "alienated" by having to play a female character, I wouldn't have cared if JC (JessiCa?) Denton was a woman, and I'd hope women don't care that he was a man.

No, I'm not saying that. That should be obvious if you can link the various points in my posts to a common point. When I say "alienation" I'm talking about black and white, someone can still love a game while still feeling alienated by it. I haven't played Dragon's Crown but I gotta say the art style throws me off as well, not just because of the women but because of all the characters look like some kind of disfigured freakshow. And yes, such an art style can really detract from the experience.

Spoken like people who don't know what they're talking about. I'll repeat what I said earlier:

There is a female character you can pick with unrealistically huge tits. There's a female character you can pick with an unrealistically huge ass. And there's a female character that.....doesn't have either of those. That looks completely normal. Same with the male characters. There's one with an unrealistically broad chest. There's one with unrealistically huge muscles and....an unrealistically broad chest. And there's one that is perfectly normal.

If you don't like the disproportionate characters you aren't forced to pick them. Go with the Elf or Wizard. Dragon's Crown is a wonderfully inclusive game. It has someone for every gameplay preference AND art style preference if that matters to you for some unknown reason. Just like Saint's Row 4.

It's sad that all you've heard was the bad things about the art style and believed them because you like to get outraged. The sexism brigade claimed another victim. Dragon's Crown is as inclusive as it gets.

You might not have any problem with playing a female every now and then in a game, but imagine if EVERY game you played besides a rare few FORCED you to play as a female protagonist. You might still enjoy the games, but you might also feel like the people making the games aren't really doing it for you, or caring about how you feel, and it might make you seek out other hobbies instead. As I said in my first post, women may not have problems playing an everyman, but if they're not going to do or say much and the gender isn't ultimately that important in many of those older games, then why force women to play a male? It's usually because the developers and publishers are targeted men and boys, and make it more relatable to them.

Every game isn't like that now and hasn't been. Stop cooking up a world that doesn't reflect reality to try to make "WHAT IF!" arguments. What if there weren't any video games at all and people had to watch movies which also often don't have female main characters!? Wait, we don't hear this kind of nonsense screamed about movies do we, and they're pretty bad offenders. (You know, Bechdel test and all) Man of Steel just came out - why not WOMAN of Steel huh? I'm alienated!

Add in the caveat that, in this world where everyone is forced to play as female characters in games, all the men NPCs portrayed are wimpy, weak, insulting caricatures of what men are like in real life. You'd probably get pretty offended by that, and want to change it.

Again, that doesn't happen now with female characters. Not in Dragon's Crown, not in most games. So what is there to change?

See, the thing is, a tight well written linear story doesn't really allow you the freedom to craft your own characters and experiences. A tight well written linear story has preexisting characters that can't be changed with some checkboxes and dialogue choices. They go through arcs from the beginning of the story to the end. They change according to the wishes of the author. Linearity is not and has never been a BAD thing, just a different way of telling stories.

That's precisely what I said in the first post. Linear stories aren't necessarily bad things, and there have certainly been some really good stories that have been linear... but 8/10 times that's simply not the case. There's a reason why games have a hard time being taken seriously, and part of it is because not many devs put a lot of effort, time, or money into storytelling. When they try, it's usually mediocre at best. This goes double, even triple for the Japanese game market. While there have certainly been good stories within JRPGs, they've been stuck in a rut for a long time now and no amount of character creation or inclusitivity is going to fix the main problems in that genre.

Could not disagree more. JRPGs seem to have gotten worse BECAUSE of feeble attempts at inclusivity for the sake of it. I mean hell, look at FF13.

In Mass Effect, while it has a good story for the most part (lol ending), Shepard doesn't change from the beginning of Mass Effect 1 to the end of Mass Effect 3 at all. Many of the other characters have arcs but Shepard acts almost identically the whole way through. Same thing happens with most other games that have character creation. In games like Dragon's Dogma and Demon's Souls your created character doesn't even really say or do much themselves - they barely even HAVE a character. Same with Baldur's Gate, Kingdoms of Amalur, etc.

I couldn't disagree more, but it is a subjective matter that depends on how you approach a story like Mass Effect. I can start out as a goody two-shoes Paragon with upstanding morals who slowly get disillusioned and becomes more Renegade-like, only to hold onto those values when they really matter in the end. No, the developers can't program every single emotional reaction one can imagine, but that's what your own imagination is for. This also goes for the SR series, even though you're more or less forced down a fairly linear storyline, you can come up with your own motivations and reactions to things, and adds to the experience. I'd much rather have something like that than the developer trying to tell me a story, because much of the time the story they want to tell isn't really worth it in the end and just makes me want to go back to shooting or beating up things.

I don't think your character is changing when you click the paragon choices in one conversation and the renegade choices in another. You can IMAGINE he's changing but those same choices pop up in the next menu anyways - all that you have is either an inconsistent character (you can at any time pick things contrary to their established personality up to that point) or an avatar that really has little character at all.

If you have to imagine the characterization of your character because the game can't or won't provide it then you can't have a real character arc.

I'd much rather have that freedom of a character "checklist" than have all those boxes already filled out for me with no choice, like the way it was in GTA games. I really love the GTA games, but story and really good main characters have never really been their strong suit, and yes, they could be much better games if I was given a bit more freedom as what to do with them. When I play Nico or CJ or Tommy, I feel like I have to have their motivations and their personality, limiting the experience in what should be an open-ended game. This is why the three interchangeable male protagonists in GTAV is a somewhat of a controversy, because no matter how good the rest of the game is, it will always feel like Rockstar is intentionally stifling my own creative input in the game so they can force their story down my throat.

Books, theater, movies, and other traditional art forms are one-way, a book's story and characters and writing style is all it has, and it better be good to be considered a good book. Games include so many different forms of media it's almost staggering, and along with that it is also interactive. Now that we have the technology to truly do it, developers should drop the idea that they should be telling the stories for us, as they have proven time and time again they simply can't do it as consistently well as other mediums, with only the occasional gem in a pile of crap. Instead, they should create platforms in which players can create their own stories, especially now since graphics have more or less plateaued.

So in books, movies, and traditional art forms it works but in games it doesn't work "80% of the time"? That's pure nonsense. You like create-a-character games that have weak characterizations and no character arc for the main character where the backdrop story is more important - fine. Nothing wrong with that. But when you start saying that every story should be like that because it's not "inclusive" otherwise it's spitting in the face of the people who enjoy linear character stories where they don't create their characters. Every game should not be the same.

Thanatos2k:

JimB:

Thanatos2k:
I wouldn't have cared if JC (JessiCa?) Denton was a woman, and I'd hope women don't care that he was a man.

Okay, so, you're a girl, a little girl. You are, as all children (and most adults) are, trying to figure out what the world is and where you fit into it. You're constantly on the lookout for people to help you figure things out, because the world is confusing. Identity is confusing. You don't know it at the time because you're a kid and you've only barely even learned to think, but you're trying to find someone who can help you be the person you will one day be.

The only thing you know is that you are girl. You know it because everyone tells you all the time. Your clothes tell you that, the way your mother styles your hair tells you that. Your toys tell you that. Okay, fine, you're girl! That's okay. That's a good place to start figuring things out. So what is girl? Girl is not boy, you know that already--even a child who hasn't learned how to think picked up on that real early--but that's not a useful answer to you because you don't need to know what you're not; you need to know what you are.

So you look at the world, observing it like the larval form of a scientist, observing it and categorizing the results and trying to turn the data into useful information. You look at TV and you find that girl is pretty, girl is never fat and only rarely ever messy in her appearance, so you file away that appearance is important to be girl. You go to McDonald's and you find out girl likes ponies and princesses, so you file that away too. You go to movies and you find out that there is usually only one girl in the world, and she only ever talks to men and always ends up being their girlfriend, so you file that away too.

You go to video games and you find there's really no one like you in video games. The girls there are weird, they're off, and eventually you realize it's because they never do anything. They just have things done to them, usually by men, and they only exist when a man is doing things to them. Then they go away and stop existing until the man thinks about them again. You still aren't totally sure what girl is, but you know for a fact that's not right: You exist all the time, and you do things instead of having things done to you. For a long time, you decide that video games are full of crap and their teachings should be ignored because they don't know anything. One day, though, one inevitable day you're not really even thinking about it when a question occurs to you, the first question a child ever asks about anything:

Why?

Why are video games telling you that girl is a thing that never acts on its own and that only exists in relationship to a man? Is it because video games think that's what girl is, or (and you don't want to think this, you're kind of horrified and hurt to think this, but it's too late and you can't stop the thought from occurring to you) is it because that's what video games want girl to be? And if that's it, why? Are they afraid of girl? Do they hate girl? Do they fear and hate you?

--

Let's drop the roleplaying (though you could fit almost anything in the place of the word "girl" into my example as long as it's not "straight, white man;" try "gay," "transgender," or "black"). The point I'm getting at is that you, Thanatos2k, are in a position where you don't have to care that JC Denton is male, because you have so many males to choose from. Women don't have that many choices. JC Denton may only be one character in one game...but so is every character in every game, and when you look at how all those one characters and one games add up, certain conclusions are inescapable. The video games industry doesn't want women to be part of it, which is really weird (their money is worth exactly as much as a man's money) but tolerable. What's more, it doesn't like women. That last one is the one that stings.

See it's stuff like this that prevent people from taking arguments against this seriously. I didn't play video games while growing up to find my place in the world. I played them to have fun and to experience interesting stories. End stop. I mean my god, people actually obsess over this kind of stuff?

Well that's why YOU play games. It may not be why OTHER people do. And that's the whole point, isn't it? The subjective experience you will get from a videogame will differ from the subjective experience that other people do.

Take "FEAR". This game outright offended me. Now I've found the artistic viewpoints of media creators to be "offensive" but it's rare that I find myself saying "this offended me" because I don't feel that I, as the consumer of the media in question, am being "targeted". It's not personal. The creator of the media has no idea who I am and is making no assumptions about what I, as a person, would find acceptable or unacceptable on a subjective level.

FEAR, however, was different. The casual misogynistic language used when the token blonde "hostage" character was about just annoyed me. It was unnecessary to the gameplay, to the atmosphere, to the story, to the characters within the game. What I took away from it was: "The writers of this game are satisfied to write lazy misogynist dialogue because they think the people who buy their games are lazy misogynist assholes who'll buy into this." Sorry, but that annoys the hell outta me.

Now admittedly I hadn't had a great relationship with FEAR from the start. Honestly I think it's bad. Not mediocre, not possessing good points and bad points, just flat-out bad. It's not scary, the characters are uniformly unlikeable, the combat sucks (you can't lose if you use the slow-motion device, you can't win if you don't), it's repetitive to the point where it feels as if nothing interesting will ever happen, the player has no control whatsoever over the story and is constantly forced to act in ways that are dumb as hell and predictably end in disaster ever single damn time, and the plot (with a final twist about a character we know absolutely nothing about) is confused, uninteresting, and ends on an infuriating cliffhanger. All of this is enough to make me not enjoy the experience of playing the game. But I didn't really DESPISE the game until the bit with the hostage.

Would the game really lose anything if this crap was removed? - no. As discussed, it adds nothing to story, atmosphere or character (apart from making me dislike some of the characters a little more than I already do).

Does it risk alienating its potential audience by using casual misogynist language? - well I would say the fact that it's a bad game risks alienating its audience a lot more. But the language issue sure as heck isn't helping to widen the community of FPS players.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? - if you go on some of the more notable FPS communities nowadays, HELL yes. Overall... I would still have to say "yes". But most of all it just seems kinda stupid. Why write characters like this at all? What is gained by it?

Now I realise that there are a lot of people who enjoyed this game, and had no problem with the specific dialogue choices that annoyed me. That's fine. I'm glad that they had a good experience with this game (I plainly didn't). But that DOESN'T mean that I can't judge the developers and publishers for some of their choices, nor does it mean that I can't look for answers in terms of WHY those choices were made. And the answers I've found? Not pretty, and not complimentary to the gaming community as a whole.

I'll be honest, i just like being pandered to :P

If that means big breasted depictions of women, i'm ok with that.

Will i go out and bitch at someone else who disagree? no, its too much effort lol

Miroluck:
Well, positions I'm thinking about are usually taken by white straight rich men, and they are there because other w.s.r. men decide who's going to take those positions. [...] Now that you've said that, I think that maybe, their own views are a little more important for them to reinforce than profit.

Are you agreeing with me? No, really, I'm asking. It's been so long since I've read someone agreeing with me that I'm not sure I can recognize it. This post doesn't seem like disagreement, but...

Thanatos2k:
I didn't play video games while growing up to find my place in the world.

Yes, you did. Everything we do is a learning experience, a series of lessons we internalize and apply to ourselves. The learning process is based almost entirely on imitation.

Redd the Sock:
The size of the demographic isn't just about the overall population, it's about income and willingness to part with it.

Okay, so, what's the thought process here? There seems to be some algebraic equation of marketing that reads "disposable income + interest = penis" written in dry-erase marker on a board somewhere. Am I missing something, and if not, why am I seemingly in a minority for thinking that particular equation is goofy?

Redd the Sock:
For all the hoopla, Remember Me sold like garbage, when you'd think for all the demand for that character type online, it would have done Tomb Raider numbers.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never heard of the damned game until Yahtzee reviewed it. Prior to that review, I had no awareness of its existence. I bought it as a birthday gift for a friend, and he has received it tepidly because he thinks it's kind of badly designed; I believe his primary complaints are how often the game takes control away from him for a cut scene and how badly the game conveys what are objects to interact with and what's just background sealed off by an invisible wall.

Redd the Sock:
Comic books get the same lack of inclusivity crap, but by July's sales, the highest selling female solo book is Batgirl, placing 56th and selling short of 40,000 copies nationwide.

I don't much like that book, so I'm kind of surprised it does that well.

Redd the Sock:
Things like Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and World's Finest staring Huntress and Power Girl do worse.

Wonder Woman is the only one of those I've read, and I'm not surprised it does worse than Batgirl because it is the worst book ever. Or, well, it was when I stopped reading it some months ago.

Redd the Sock:
World's Finest even gave Power Girl an outfit without a boob window at first but gave it back to stop bleeding sales when the women they tried to appeal to didn't show up.

Since the most famous examples of DC's treatment of women post-Nu52 are Starfire ("I have amnesia, which means I'm operating under a neurological handicap, but I run around posing for the viewer and have anonymous sex with people who should know better") and Catwoman (whose face didn't appear in the first issue of her comic book for what, three or four pages? but there were multiple loving close-ups of her ass and tits), I cannot blame anyone who doesn't choose to give DC credit for making Power Girl be an interesting character just because she's in an outfit that is painted over her boobs instead of an outfit that has a boob window.

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.

Not really, no. That's like saying you can't hate techno music because you don't like the completely artificial sound of it; that's a perfectly valid reason to dislike techno. Does that mean everyone should dislike techno? No, but it means if you get assigned a techno album to review, you're pretty obviously going to give it lower marks than someone who isn't averse to that entire style of music would. As long as you explain the reason for your low marks ("I can't stand the style") so that your audience is aware of how you arrived at that score, it's perfectly legitimate.

If you didn't like the style of the music but tried to say the album was bad because of other reasons - poor composition, let's say - when that isn't the case, that's a problem. But that wasn't what happened here, as I understand it. The problem was stated, the game was marked down because of said problem (art style, depiction of women, whatever you want to call it), everyone moves on with their lives.

Why is this valid? Because if the art style dramatically effects your enjoyment of the game, it is an effect on gameplay. Not mechanically, but if mechanics were 100% of gameplay no one would bother putting effort into art style in the first place, right?

Think of it this way: would Bastion have gotten the high marks it did if, instead of the narrator it has, it was narrated by Gilbert Gottfried?

I doubt it.

JudgeGame:

Jarimir:

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

This is pretty much what you are taught in any art school/class whether it be painting or writing. The only time you are asked to maintain any type of continuity is when you are creating an artistic work in a certain style. And people voice their opinions about styles all the time. "I don't like rap music" for instance.

I was about to make a comment about how art cant be held up to the same standards of science, but then I realized it was you that tried to combine them. Take your (complaints about) "pseudo-science" and get out of discussions about art.

Instinctively, I would love to laugh at the jarring disconnect between your lack of critical reading skills and your needlessly elitist endorsal of art. Instead, I'll point out that my original post was a simple use of satire that flew way over your head and leave you pondering that. However, I'd advise you to be much more polite in future. You'll have a hard time finding people to talk to whenever you use that deprecating, arrogant, horrid approach.

Yes, I indeed missed your sarcasm. However, how do you know I wasn't being satirical when I said, "Take your (complaints about) 'pseudo-science' and get out of discussions about art"? Because I was.

I must've missed that day in class where they taught us how to read sarcasm in a short 2 sentence line of text.

You are hardly one to lecture me on politeness when you question my reading skills and then call my approach, "deprecating, arrogant, horrid". Except for that last line, my post was a calm, non-insulting attempt to educate and illustrate that opposing opinions need not be met with histrionics.

That is of course, unless you were being sarcastic again.

I don't wish to talk to overly sensitive people. The sooner I offend them away from me, the better off things will be for BOTH of us.

CmRet:

Stabby Joe:
Saints Row IV seems to be receiving a lot of "pre-hate", at least what I've seen so far, mostly because of story and gameplay changes. Despite that though I wonder how much it will come up here.

I haven't seen this myself but i have to ask. Why? Saints Row is made to be over the top, outta this world, ridiculously raunchy and fun. Why would it get hate for doing what it's been doing all these years and getting good review for? Not to mean I'm directly asking you my friend I'm just asking in general and quoting this so I don't get people confused.

I don't really understand the hate either actually. There is an understandable degree with the Third in regards to certain aspects that many liked, like separate gang arcs and great clothes customization but even now with 4, it seems to be coming from elsewhere.

I think some don't like that it dumped the gang warfare aspect more so but what some call dumped I'd say evolved. Gang war is overdone and the old hip hop themes of the first two are passed their prime by now in my opinion. I'm glad it's mixing things up and even if people don't like it, at least you can't call it stale unlike many popular franchises today.

Legion:

Sexism is bad.
Saying something is sexist is saying that it is bad.
I sincerely doubt that anybody who thinks games are sexist think "It's okay if some games are, as long as it is not all of them".

I know you want to abandon this topic but I just had to respond.

Assuming that "sexism is bad" is a true statement, it ignores the fact that there are varying degrees of sexism and therefore badness. I have no qualms admitting that I am sexist. I don't believe I am a bad person, because I believe I am sexist in ways that are inconsequential and not overtly offensive.

Therefore, I am someone that thinks some games are sexist and that it's okay if some are as long as it's not a predominant trend.

Edit: maybe the world would be a better place if more people could admit their minor flaws publicly without getting overly defensive/aggressive towards whom ever pointed them out. And, if they could realize that some criticism is not tantamount to wanting the critical item/issue to burn in the lowest pit of hell.

 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