Jimquisition: Tomopology Life

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

ExtraDebit:

erttheking:

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

Did you just honestly compare people who have sex with the same gender to murderers? I hope I don't need to explain why this is a false equivalence.

OT: Well done Jim. Well done.

I wasn't commenting on the degree of the offense, but the idea that there is one.

And it really falls flat because the comparison is just so out there. It's like the people who argue that we can't allow gays to marry because if we do, what's going to stop the legalization of pedophilia.

And here's the thing, gay affection makes you uncomfortable? It does the same thing for me. But I keep my mouth shut about it because a little queezeness in my stomach is nothing compared to forcing gay people to be forced to conform to heteronormativity.

Nintendo Defense Force working over time, nothing can quell the rage of a fanboy/girl scorned. Lest the big N... keep doing what it always has despite what anybody ever said to them ever. That's perhaps their greatest strength and weakness though, they will never bend to anothers will or succumb to 'peer pressure'... even if it may do them some good.

*gets back to updating his flame shield.*

MrHide-Patten:
Nintendo Defense Force working over time, nothing can quell the rage of a fanboy/girl scorned. Lest the big N... keep doing what it always has despite what anybody ever said to them ever. That's perhaps their greatest strength and weakness though, they will never bend to anothers will or succumb to 'peer pressure'... even if it may do them some good.

*gets back to updating his flame shield.*

Geez man, like...can you actually contribute to this thread instead of just assuming that everyone on one specific side of this argument are part of the phantom NDF force? I mean come on now.

JimB:
I'm surprised we're on page two of this thread and no haters have come in to trumpet about how the original mistake wasn't a mistake at all but malfeasance that allowed him to make this apology video, a second monetized video in one week to trick people into granting him more views and more ad revenue.

...You know, now that I've said it aloud, I actually kind of hope that is what happened. Milk the haters, Mr. Sterling! Milk 'em 'til their udders fall off!

Well like he said in the video around the 4:10 mark, lets not be so naive to believe jim's apology was much more then tactical :) kidding tho.

Alright well to throw some nails in the tire of inclusive maybe not being an complete win win in more of a saner respect. There were some pretty good discussions about recent Bethesda games not allowing for child npcs to be murdered. Also we could go with a more topical real life issue and talk about pro choice when it comes to your mii's or whatever getting pregnant in games.

Good on you, Jim. :)
I was really hoping you'd make a response. Glad you also chose to defend Nintendo on their decision to apologize too.

Next week........Should be interesting.... <_<

erttheking:

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

Did you just honestly compare people who have sex with the same gender to murderers? I hope I don't need to explain why this is a false equivalence.

OT: Well done Jim. Well done.

Dragonbums:

erttheking:

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

Did you just honestly compare people who have sex with the same gender to murderers? I hope I don't need to explain why this is a false equivalence.

Well at least it wasn't a shitfest like the one in the last thread where the now banned user insisted on claiming that homosexuality was a mental illness.

That was a hell of a mess I tell you. Took up an entire page worth of discussion.

What does the internet hate more?

Gay people being included in future games?
Or Anita?

0-0 Guess we find out soon....

Edit: Pfft. xD Actually, on reflection, that may have just been a joke.
Makes sense. There hasn't really been any news on her recently. Not any I've heard of at least.

Guess we'll see in a week, but my interpretation on that ending is likely inaccurate.

Mcoffey:

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

Ugh. Bad analogy bro. Murderers should bother you. They hurt and kill people. They're a threat to society and everyone in it. As such they are typically excluded. Gay people being gay hurts no one. The state of being gay is not a threat to anyone's safety, as such, excluding them is unfair and wrong. You are wrong for thinking your irrational prejudice matters more than the happiness of others.

Also, one last thing: you weren't born not liking gay people. Likely you were socialized at a young age to think less of the idea. Maybe if you thought a little more about why this is, why your skin crawls at the very acknowledgement of a person's homosexual identity, you might be able to overcome your irrationality and maybe even learn a little about yourself as a person.

I think it's more that it results in both the relationships and the character being a bit shallow and dumb since sexual identity is a fair chunk of identity and the DA2 approach was basically "Fuck it, we don't even care anymore." Isabella and Anders I can definitely take as bi-sexual but Merril and Fenris feel off in their romances as a whole and present this issue of the characters just being Hawke-sexual rather than having any genuine identity on that front. At least that was the point of contention for me and a few friends, I can't speak for everybody.

Then again pretty much all of Bioware's, hell, just about all video game romances and characters are shallow and dumb and maybe I'm just projecting other issues I have with the game on a point that typically doesn't bother me.

I do have a bit of a theory on why got put off by the apology, and it's in your video: Mass Effect 3.

To elaborate: you saw how people got treated over that. We got treated like children, insulted, dismissed as entitled whiners, and told en masse our opinions weren't as important as the vision of the artist and the will of the company. We ge3t this on other issues as well, DRM, DLC, always on connectivity, backward compatibility, it just seems that no matter how we sometimes get treated, or how eloquently we try and plead our case, there are people out there that tell us to be happy with what we get or vote with our wallets.

Then the new groups show up and seem to not be given the same scorn. Simply not buy Tomodachi life and support the Sims, or something else like everyone else was told to do for the game they were complaining about? Screw that, we're a group that should get our way by being as angry on twitter as possible. When that group gets its way, it really feels like there's a double standard involved. That being for "inclusivity" gets you, your arguments, and your tactics a free pass while being for better consumer practices, or just consideration on behalf of game companies gets you the shaft.

We don't lose anything, but we don't seem to gain when one group of people can make companies dance like trained chimps for diversity, while our own complaints come from people with too much privilege to listen to.

I still think its a shame that Nintendo got pounced on how they did.

It seems like the controversy was more over the removal of a game breaking bug, then it was the lack of gay relationships. That half assed internet nerds jumped on them because one of the things the game breaking bug did was allow for something resembling gay marriages. That they got upset over same sex marriages being removed. Not that they didn't exist before. But the removal was necessary, and it seems like most didn't realize that. And journalists not mentioning the necessity of removing the bug seems to have fueled the fire.

The idea that the 'social warrior' is never out to exclude others is ludicrous.

Now, I acknowledge that this isn't the case for the majority of people who cry out for inclusivity: most just want as many demographics represented as possible, and I respect that. Also, this opinion is built mostly from news sits, as well as interactions on blogs and on youtube (i don't get out much) so take it as you will. But there's increasingly an idea in our culture that being fair to a culture means excluding whatever is currently considered the dominant force.

It's a bit of an extension of the black/white, right/left culture you bring up here. If you want to be on the side of gay rights, you absolutely must oppose even mentioning the bible. If you're against the Democratic party, you must be /for/ the Republican party(**). If you're pro-life, you must want all women to be, and I quote, 'chained in the kitchen to serve as your personal incubator'.(*) Hell, I only call myself conservative because other people kept /telling me/ I was when I brought up my opinions on social and economic issues (say, 'we should let the markets do as they please' or 'yes, I trust businesses more than I trust Washington D.C.').

However, there seems to be a growing group who think that the best way to be inclusive is to do everything in your power to expunge anything that might offend anyone. The idea seems to be that some things are so offensive, so abhorrent that we shouldn't even acknowledge they exist. It feels less like putting Elizabeth and Booker together on the front of Bioshock Infinite, and more like relegating Elizabeth to the back: hiding something that's very much present in an attempt to make others feel better. Essentially the exact reverse of what 'be inclusive' is supposed to mean.

Unfortunately, this attitude breeds hostility on both sides of any given issue, probably even more than simply putting the offending thing in would have. The reason that many people treat inclusivity as a zero-sum game is because so often being inclusive is framed not as a question of allowing someone else to stand in the spotlight with you, but a question of who to shove out of that spotlight. This nativity scene in someone's yard needs to go because it's offending some atheists from a city over whose lives this couldn't possibly affect. This man is wearing muslim garb, he needs to be thrown out even though he's not doing anything! This woman's opinions on the market might annoy me, let's publicly shame her and get her pulled out of that conference! This person doesn't like Anita's videos, therefore they're exactly the same as the people who threatened to rape her, etc etc. To let something else shine, you have to knock something else back into the dirt. It's absurd, I'll grant, but this is unfortunately what so many self-proclaimed social warriors keep on doing.

Again, I must stress, this is not the case for most people who want things to be more inclusive and (as far as I can tell) is definitely not the case for this particular incident. It's an option in a game, it only affects you if you want it to. The attitude's just present enough and loud enough to breed a toxic and hostile enviornment whenever social issues that should be a no-brainer crop up. (also a lot of people on any side of a social issue are idiots, but we knew that already)

--

(*) The especially ludicrous thing was that (iirc) I'd already said I was asexual and celibate >.>
(**) The Democrats have all the sincerity of the Ebon Dragon (for people not familiar with Exalted, basically none) and the Republicans couldn't sell a loaf of bread to a starving man. And they're both more corrupt than a guy named Corruptus McEvilguy who sells poisoned snow to eskimos saying it's candy for their children.

I think Jim Sterling is the most honest, sincere person in the internets.

I would give him a kiss in the mouth but I'm cleraly not gay enough to do this yet. I'm working on it, but my wife is really an unsurmountable obstacle towards my gayness.

To contribute with the homophobia discussion:
Homophobia is much more related with misinformation, preconceptions, prejudice, social discourse and cultural upbring than with some kind of genetic heritage that we are born with.

All phobias are much more related to traumas and unresolved issues in infancy than with some kind of genetig heritage that we are born with.

Almost all irrational fears have actually a reason (or reasons) behind it, but it appears to be irrational because the person suffering from it is often unable to pinpoint that reason.

In psychology not all things are defined, but I would say that if we should just have to deal with people that were born homophobic, homphobia would never ever become an issue. The social and cultural aspects behind it are WAY more strong and prevalent.

HalfTangible:
Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

Uh, subtle blasphemy there, Jim. But I bet, god loves you nontheless, you magnificent bastard :D

OT: I think, that the exclusion of same sex content in this game should rather be seen as thoughtlessness. As it was pointed out several times, same sex relationships is something which is not quite in the public mind in Japan. Therefore they maybe just did not thought about it. They just patched a bug. But I can understand the outrage of those who feel that something was taken from them.
It is quite hard to implement such a same sex feature in a game, you have to double vast amounts of content, if you want to do it right. I could even understand, if this was a pure market decision. Maybe they didn't see much demand in their intended markets for such content? What percentage of the players actually complained about this? Maybe implementing such a feature would not have been lucrative.
I know, I know, the Sims did it. But as far as I recollect, in the Sims it was just the same set of animation, but with same sex partners. More like a "yeah, you can also do this". Or is this enough for homosexuals? Maybe I am complicating it in my head too much.

Great episode and, yes, Jim, I accept your apology

P.S. What's anetaserkizian?

This is the first time I've really seen Tomodachi Life footage, because Tomodachi didn't seem like my jam, but holy shit this game is whack. Worshiping the Virtual Boy? Someone's face flying off into outer space? Ninjas? 'The Regginator' in a muscle suit? I need to keep my eyes on this now.

MrHide-Patten:

That's perhaps their greatest strength and weakness though, they will never bend to anothers will or succumb to 'peer pressure'... even if it may do them some good.

You do realize you just posted this in a thread about them apologizing and promising to succumb to that peer pressure?

the apology came from people purposefully misconstruing the situation to make Nintendo appear anti-gay in the first place

Nintendo's original "We're not into social commentary" nonpology was a cowardly act based on the (thankfully obsolete) assumption that pre-emptively capitulating to the homophobic bigots is the safest choice.
It doesn't take sincere belief in the negative stereotypes surrounding LGBTs or visceral hatred and intend to harm gay people to be "anti-gay": yielding to the bigots is enough

Pogilrup:

HalfTangible:
Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

People consider apologies to be a bad thing? unless you were bullied into doing so apologizing is by its very nature a good thing.

Also It's really tempting to Godwin this thread.

The end damn near killed me, Jim. I demand an apology.

DaViller:
So we have 3 articles on the escapist, multiple long as threads and 2 jimquisitions about or related to this issue if im correct.

This means I was right, Tomodachi life is officially this years Dragons Crown *hurray*. Nintendo I salute thee.

Edit: I just noticed they have even more in common. Both where issuess that started out relatively small (via a small complaint even though tomodachis was more reasonable at first) and then became huge after the critized party responded in a very unhelpfull manner(altough again nintendos response was more reasonable). Holy shit the similaritys are starting to scare me, Im starting to believe theres more to this then I anticipated.

Both really blew up because the people who were defending the company in question decided to turn it into a bigger deal than it was.

Figured that one should show up, too. I mean, the only apparent reason this is different from requests on probably over a dozen different games is that people picked up on Miiquality and for some reason decided that they were against it. Dragon's Crown would have similarly boiled over (I'm not sure if the first round was preventable, mind) if people didn't see a couple of middling reviews and try and turn it into this whole big thing. Like, almost on the level of GTA review hate.

It was absurd. And insane. And in bitching about the issue, they brought it to light.

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

I think if murderers wanted to be included in the game, my bigger issue would be that they were, you know, murderers.

Of course, there are other issues, but if you want parity to homosexuals, this is kind of a big sticking point (and indeed,you'd need to be a danger to society to be equatable to homosexuals, which is one of the reasons people object to the comparison of gays to murderers and pedophiles....Gays aren't hurting anyone).

In fact, there are thousands of games where you can kill people. You can even play as a sociopath in many games. GTA and the Saints Row games immediately spring to mind. I think you accidentally made a completely different point:

It's more socially acceptable to depict a sociopath or a murderer than a homosexual.

I mean, seriously, think about that for a second. Sociopaths are included in the gaming community. Nobody says "well, murder is illegal" and justifies its exclusion, like they have with homosexuality/gay marriage.

what if nintendo includes homophobes in the game just for inclusivity sake? How will gays enjoy the game then?

I need more details. Am I forced to play as a homophobe, or is homophobia as optional as choosing who you marry? If the latter, why the hell do I care?

Maybe it's just me, but my answer is: I honestly don't.

HalfTangible:

Pogilrup:

HalfTangible:
Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

The part about inclusivity being zero sum.

Imp Emissary:

What does the internet hate more?

Gay people being included in future games?
Or Anita?

Anita. Anita's so powerful even her name can bring forth a shitstorm of rape threats. Anita is Voldemort, "she who must not be named" and gay inclusion is but a death eater. Still feared but without the same gravitas.

Also, I hear if you say her name in the mirror at midnight, she will immediately appear and destroy all of your games because gaming is sexist.

Redd the Sock:

Then the new groups show up and seem to not be given the same scorn.

....Are you serious? People wanting gay relationships in games have been routinely told to vote with their wallets, and it wasn't absent here.

atavax:
That half assed internet nerds jumped on them because one of the things the game breaking bug did was allow for something resembling gay marriages.

If there's one thing I know about internet nerds, it's that we are full-assed. >.>

More to the point, even some of Nintendo's apologists admit that the reason they got jumped on had more to do with how they phrased the removal. And the real pouncing didn't happen until they further ut their foot in their mouths with this "social commentary" crap. Poorly worded or not, these are what really sparked the "pouncing."

Maybe Nintendo should just stop saying stupid things. I'm curious, though,. Did you defend the Xbone when Microsoft reps were saying stupid things, too?

HalfTangible:
But there's increasingly an idea in our culture that being fair to a culture means excluding whatever is currently considered the dominant force.

Oh, it's not increasing. It's always been there and in pretty much the same fashion. At least, in this culture. That's like arguing "kids these days." And it probably extends further. People tend to be more comfortable with and able to process binary choices. Coke or Pepsi. Sox or Yanks. Democrat or Republican. Gay or Straight. Black or White.

fractal_butterfly:
Uh, subtle blasphemy there, Jim. But I bet, god loves you nontheless, you magnificent bastard :D

Subtle?

Pogilrup:

HalfTangible:

Pogilrup:

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

The part about inclusivity being zero sum.

It still isn't zero sum to include the option to BE female, because you can still pick the male option if you prefer =/ And I can't even imagine a scenario where you don't have the time or funding to create more than one player character. It might not fit your particular game (see: Mario, Zelda, etc) but if you're making a game where male/female is even an option you're gonna have the time and the funding.

And that's ignoring the fact that this isn't an 'inclusive' scenario you're presenting, this is a scenario where you absolutely must exclude someone.

HalfTangible:

Pogilrup:

HalfTangible:

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

The part about inclusivity being zero sum.

It still isn't zero sum to include the option to BE female, because you can still pick the male option if you prefer =/ And I can't even imagine a scenario where you don't have the time or funding to create more than one player character. It might not fit your particular game (see: Mario, Zelda, etc) but if you're making a game where male/female is even an option you're gonna have the time and the funding.

And that's ignoring the fact that this isn't an 'inclusive' scenario you're presenting, this is a scenario where you absolutely must exclude someone.

Well if the plan was to include one and only one preset player character, there will be opportunity costs in fleshing out that character.

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Pogilrup:

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Except it falls flat in this case. There's a negligible issue in including gay characters cost-wise, because gay models look just like straight models. So on top of the already heavily-contrived scenario, you have to include the notion that there weren't just constraints, but razor-tight ones. An already unrealistic scenario becomes even moreso.

Besides, as already pointed out, this isn't an issue if inclusion but exclusion.

Zachary Amaranth:

If there's one thing I know about internet nerds, it's that we are full-assed. >.>

More to the point, even some of Nintendo's apologists admit that the reason they got jumped on had more to do with how they phrased the removal. And the real pouncing didn't happen until they further ut their foot in their mouths with this "social commentary" crap. Poorly worded or not, these are what really sparked the "pouncing."

Maybe Nintendo should just stop saying stupid things. I'm curious, though,. Did you defend the Xbone when Microsoft reps were saying stupid things, too?

Or maybe if consumers want companies to speak to candidly consumers can't immediately interpret what they say in the worst way possible. Like when someone says they aren't trying to make social commentary interpreting it as them saying that the inclusion of same sex marriages can only be done through social commentary.

Reps typically say stupid things, so you're going to need to be more specific in terms of the Xbone. I defended the mandatory inclusion of the kinect but not the original DRM policy. I am almost exclusively a PC gamer and don't have strong loyalties to any console developer, i don't own a wii, xbone, ps4, or any handheld gaming console.

Zachary Amaranth:

Pogilrup:

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Except it falls flat in this case. There's a negligible issue in including gay characters cost-wise, because gay models look just like straight models. So on top of the already heavily-contrived scenario, you have to include the notion that there weren't just constraints, but razor-tight ones. An already unrealistic scenario becomes even moreso.

Besides, as already pointed out, this isn't an issue if inclusion but exclusion.

Ok perhaps that scenario isn't a good example, but I really want to talk about opportunity costs in creative decisions.

Opportunity costs is the cost of not receiving the benefits of the next best thing you that could've done. Basic economics concept.

Now remember GTA V's criticisms of lack of even a single female protagonists? There where three opportunities to include a female player character in the campaign, but all three were passed in favor of making three male player characters.

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

Pogilrup:
Well if the plan was to include one and only one preset player character, there will be opportunity costs in fleshing out that character.

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

If there's only one preset character, then it's deliberately being exclusive. It is the exact OPPOSITE of 'inclusivity is a zero-sum game' because there's no inclusivity in the first place.

And it's a moot point in this case, since we're talking about a game where the whole point is to custom-build your own character from scratch.

Zachary Amaranth:

Oh, it's not increasing. It's always been there and in pretty much the same fashion. At least, in this culture. That's like arguing "kids these days." And it probably extends further. People tend to be more comfortable with and able to process binary choices. Coke or Pepsi. Sox or Yanks. Democrat or Republican. Gay or Straight. Black or White.

Stop crushing what little hope for humanity I have left, please =(

LysanderNemoinis:

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

My God, are you in deep shit now. Prepare yourself for the attack that will ensue, because the things you feel (that you cannot change) are not allowed.

Whatever attack may ensue will be for other reasons (like the gay-murderer-analogy).

If you state openly that the idea of two men kissing, or, if I may be so frank, fucking each other in the ass, makes you feel icky, but are firmly against discrimination regardless because you think whatever minor personal discomfort you may sometimes face does not justify actually making the life of homosexuals significantly worse, I doubt you will get attacked a lot. On the contrary, you will see some gays applauding you. And rightly so, for admitting to know your own feelings are wrong, that takes some courage too, and supporting something that you believe is right even though it affects you personally negatively (or so you think), that's rather noble I'd say.

Pogilrup:

Zachary Amaranth:

Pogilrup:

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Except it falls flat in this case. There's a negligible issue in including gay characters cost-wise, because gay models look just like straight models. So on top of the already heavily-contrived scenario, you have to include the notion that there weren't just constraints, but razor-tight ones. An already unrealistic scenario becomes even moreso.

Besides, as already pointed out, this isn't an issue if inclusion but exclusion.

Ok perhaps that scenario isn't a good example, but I really want to talk about opportunity costs in creative decisions.

Opportunity costs is the cost of not receiving the benefits of the next best thing you that could've done. Basic economics concept.

Now remember GTA V's criticisms of lack of even a single female protagonists? There where three opportunities to include a female player character in the campaign, but all three were passed in favor of making three male player characters.

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

It is definitely hard to imagine that a significant number of potential male buyers would have been put off by making just one out of three main characters in GTA V a woman. But many female (and male) potential buyers would have very much welcomed it. Wether that female character would have been any good... well, given GTA's general attitudes towards women, that might have been a different question.

Thank you so much for this video. I'm so sick and tired of people believing that "no matter what" you should stick to an idea. This is probably one of the biggest problems in our society, not just gaming. Politicians and businesses here just constantly do whatever they want, without any consideration to analyze themselves or apologize. At best you get them saying, "oh no don't get us wrong we were heading this direction anyway" after finally backpedaling from some horrendously anti-humane or anti-consumer practice. At worst you get EA or most big banks, who absolutely refuse to budge and instead just slightly change their business model to screw you in a different way. You know, the predatory methods.

And even worse, yes the people who literally look down on a company for admitting they were wrong. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft did change, while having a shitty attitude about it, but they did change they're system to be more pro-consumer. But the people, oh my god, they people who literally believed Microsoft in saying, that they couldn't implement several features if they went back to the old system. *Sigh* There was nothing that they did with Always Online that they couldn't still do without it. You would just, you know, turn on the online when you do it, ta da, and then turn it off when not using it anymore. Microsoft just said all that to have a weapon to try and get people to buy back into their crap DRM.

Thank god for you, Jim.

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

I'll be honest with you. I have a friend who plays Fable games. It bothers him to no end that he cannot kill kids in the game. He's no serial killer or anything. But he has a point. The game is about doing what you want. Being as good or as evil as you want. I mean you can basically become like a demon/devil in the game. And you can go on murdering sprees. So his point is not that he just randomly wants to kill children, but because by all logical means, if you are going to play a totally evil character, why would you magically exclude kids?

That being said it never bothered me, except one time in Assassin's Creed III. The Assassin's Creed series normally has some kind of annoying character who you either distract with money, push them away or kill them. Well in Assassin's Creed 3, knowing that they could get away with saying "We can't just allow kids to be killable," made it so that the annoying "gets in your way all the time" NPC's were always kids. That meant you couldn't push them, kill them or anything. You always had to stop the game to get out money and waste money to get them to go away. Again, I don't want to kill kids in a game, but that's just trolly of Ubisoft to make them kids knowing that that lessens options for the player against that particular obstacle.

Mcoffey:

Abnaxis:
Alright, hear me out on this one for a sec, not completely sure what I think yet.

Whenever I run across the "homosexual option" in a game like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, much eye-rolling is usually had. The thought that immediately comes to mind is "token gay relationship ahoy!"

That's my instinctive problem with the issue: not the inclusive-ness, but the token-ness. The gay relationships aren't included because it makes sense with the narrative or the setting or the characters, but rather because the developers have a check-box to mark off, to stave off controversy.

Which to be perfectly fair, is a criticism that applies for most romance options offered in any recent title. Romance isn't included in any way that makes sense, it's just there because fans expect it (at least the vocal ones do). However, for some reason the shallowness always seems worse in the gay options--probably because the romance is already awkward and lacking in any nuance when it's written and developed by heteros, for heteros.

I think a lot of times, people just instinctively pick up on the shallow corporate cynicism involved in including a gay option for PR's sake, and it gets misconstrued as bigotry when they balk at it.

I don't understand this. The dialogue for the romance options in DAII is pretty much exactly the same, regardless of your gender. And yet, the homosexual options are more shallow? Does not compute, dude.

Captcha: "Like the dickens". Not me, personally, but everyone should be allowed to, whether in real life or in a video game.

As I said, both are mutually shallow. I mean, the fact that the dialog is exactly the same either way shows just how shallow it is to begin with. Whether you're in a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual relationship should actually make a difference if the game is interested in delivering a compelling romance narrative, but romances in DAII amount to "do the quest so we can bang before the final boss."

My point isn't that the gay option is more shallow, but that the shallowness is exacerbated by the fact that it was tacked on with a minimum amount of token effort, by people who don't have any artistic desire to add a homosexual option but included it because the corporate guys don't want a PR headache. It's transparently only paying lip service to the whole "inclusiveness" issue, which rubs people the wrong way. Angry fans then direct their ire at the people the marketing executives are trying to placate, and flames ensue.

Hahahahahahahahaha the use of Ted Haggard was very appropriate Jim

Abnaxis:

Mcoffey:

Abnaxis:
Alright, hear me out on this one for a sec, not completely sure what I think yet.

Whenever I run across the "homosexual option" in a game like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, much eye-rolling is usually had. The thought that immediately comes to mind is "token gay relationship ahoy!"

That's my instinctive problem with the issue: not the inclusive-ness, but the token-ness. The gay relationships aren't included because it makes sense with the narrative or the setting or the characters, but rather because the developers have a check-box to mark off, to stave off controversy.

Which to be perfectly fair, is a criticism that applies for most romance options offered in any recent title. Romance isn't included in any way that makes sense, it's just there because fans expect it (at least the vocal ones do). However, for some reason the shallowness always seems worse in the gay options--probably because the romance is already awkward and lacking in any nuance when it's written and developed by heteros, for heteros.

I think a lot of times, people just instinctively pick up on the shallow corporate cynicism involved in including a gay option for PR's sake, and it gets misconstrued as bigotry when they balk at it.

I don't understand this. The dialogue for the romance options in DAII is pretty much exactly the same, regardless of your gender. And yet, the homosexual options are more shallow? Does not compute, dude.

Captcha: "Like the dickens". Not me, personally, but everyone should be allowed to, whether in real life or in a video game.

As I said, both are mutually shallow. I mean, the fact that the dialog is exactly the same either way shows just how shallow it is to begin with. Whether you're in a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual relationship should actually make a difference if the game is interested in delivering a compelling romance narrative, but romances in DAII amount to "do the quest so we can bang before the final boss."

My point isn't that the gay option is more shallow, but that the shallowness is exacerbated by the fact that it was tacked on with a minimum amount of token effort, by people who don't have any artistic desire to add a homosexual option but included it because the corporate guys don't want a PR headache. It's transparently only paying lip service to the whole "inclusiveness" issue, which rubs people the wrong way. Angry fans then direct their ire at the people the marketing executives are trying to placate, and flames ensue.

I would argue that has more to do with the setting. Dragon Age is medievil in many ways, but as far as sexuality is concerned they're far more progressive than even we are, to the point where homosexuality is as common as heterosexuality. Whether or not that's realistic is beside the point. So with that in mind, one could argue that if the only difference between female Hawke courting Anders and a male Hawke is body parts, then the conversations and interactions would likely be very similar.

The shallowness of the romances is a different subject entirely, and I kind of agree (It's not our world, and if everyone is bisexual, then it's still not the strangest thing in Thedas), but I still think it's better that they make the effort (Even if it isn't a big effort) than no effort at all.

Mass Effect 3 was probably the best Bioware has been when it came to romance, with bi, straight, and gay characters. Hopefully they follow that template from now on.

Abnaxis:

My point isn't that the gay option is more shallow, but that the shallowness is exacerbated by the fact that it was tacked on with a minimum amount of token effort, by people who don't have any artistic desire to add a homosexual option but included it because the corporate guys don't want a PR headache.

How can you tell that's the intent? Bioware's shallow normally, and they've had gay characters in their games since before this became an internet kerfuffle.

I mean, if they wanted a PR headache, wouldn't Bioware have taken relationships out of the games after Mass Effect at the very least? That was a huge shitstorm. Why add a gay option when the path of least resistance would be removing relationships, not adding gays.

So tell me, how do you know so certainly that these are just to check a box?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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