A Civil Discussion with Garwulf on Gamergate

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Just one thing.

If you're insistence on not being lumped with "literally who's" is valid...and it probably is, am I allowed the same benefit of NOT being lumped in with Anita Sarkeesian AND every fringe Tumblr SJW that thinks they have something to say on gaming?

StatusNil:

"Under a GamerGate banner"? That's a "banner" that was planted on a wide variety of people critical of Muh GaemzJournoList to isolate and stigmatize them, by said Journolisters and cronies.

[

Kinda like SJW and Cuckoldf, eh? Didn't stop those from being handed out like candy. Why was it okay to deal out those scarlet letters?

Smithnikov:

StatusNil:

"Under a GamerGate banner"? That's a "banner" that was planted on a wide variety of people critical of Muh GaemzJournoList to isolate and stigmatize them, by said Journolisters and cronies.

[

Kinda like SJW and Cuckoldf, eh? Didn't stop those from being handed out like candy. Why was it okay to deal out those scarlet letters?

Who said that it was? In most cases when someone falsely applies the SJW label they tend to get called out on it. At least here in Proxy-Ville....
The irony here is that you seem to have no problem throwing out labels of your own. Honest question here; why should give you the benefit of the doubt when the majority on your posts on the subject are passive aggressive digs (GATEKEEPERS seems to be your favorite) and calling to a victim status?
You seem to be demanding a courtesy while not even entertaining returning the favor.

CaitSeith:

The funny thing is that sexy armor is so common that (compared with the other option) it may be considered the most general choice. But I don't have the numbers to be certain.

I mean you can certainly say skimpy armor is liked by the majority of women as well, or at least, those who play these kinds of videogames. I wouldn't say it's impossible considering how many women I've seen play MMOs where skimpy female was the ONLY character template you could choose. I'm just erring on the side of caution.

Dalsyne:

CaitSeith:

The funny thing is that sexy armor is so common that (compared with the other option) it may be considered the most general choice. But I don't have the numbers to be certain.

I mean you can certainly say skimpy armor is liked by the majority of women as well, or at least, those who play these kinds of videogames. I wouldn't say it's impossible considering how many women I've seen play MMOs where skimpy female was the ONLY character template you could choose. I'm just erring on the side of caution.

Anecdotal, I know, but I know one colleague that told me she deliberately chooses the skimpy armour options in WoW because people tend to assume you were a guy playing a girl character and she was tired of the random crap sent her way. That is she saw a marked difference in player behaviour compared to when she chose more conservative attire and was correctly identified as a female and was therefore treated in various rude ways. So there can be complicating factors on why a person chooses what they choose.

But that little snapshot also suggests that men and women are making different choices in their attire, enough so that she noticed a significant difference in behaviour that she changed from her own preference in order to be treated in a way she would prefer.

proxyhostlawl:

Who said that it was?

The Gatekeepers and their reps.

The irony here is that you seem to have no problem throwing out labels of your own. Honest question here; why should give you the benefit of the doubt when the majority on your posts on the subject are passive aggressive digs (GATEKEEPERS seems to be your favorite) and calling to a victim status?

Victim...implies some sort of real damage done, or some sort of suffering, and I don't honestly feel it. TARGET, yes, but I don't feel right calling myself a victim.

You seem to be demanding a courtesy while not even entertaining returning the favor.

Cart before the horse here; I'll stop when they stop. But the rules of engagement where I've had these discussions seem to imply that label slapping is just fine and dandy.

Smithnikov:

Just one thing.

If you're insistence on not being lumped with "literally who's" is valid...and it probably is, am I allowed the same benefit of NOT being lumped in with Anita Sarkeesian AND every fringe Tumblr SJW that thinks they have something to say on gaming?

Yes, you are allowed to not be blindly lumped in with them off the bat as well. If a case can be made drawing parallels or similarities though, such as your persistent hangup with announcing people were calling you an SJW or you gross use of generalizations and cherry-picking despite even admitting here you know it probably not correct to do, then you have to defend against that sort of comparison on your own. Having valid, relevant similarities between the others you are being categorized with does overrule the default benefit of the doubt after all. Still, you being an anonymous poster on a discussion board, I don't care too much if you do or do not like to be associated with them, I usually try to concentrate on the media and their known supporters instead. Since they are the source of the problems. And I try to avoid using labels like SJW where I can because of the nature of their overuse has degenerated their definition some.

I will point out though that the connections between the gaming media and there supporters with the likes of McIntosh, Anita and other fringe supporters and allies is simply too much to ignore at this point for them to be given the same benefit of the doubt as an anonymous poster. Their actions in promotion of their beliefs, the small size and uniform political views of the group, the narrow range of tolerated opinions in general, the moral and political framing of conversations, the continued and willful sue of logical fallacies, demonization, and misrepresentation, and the abuse of responsibility and privledge for personal ideology are too well documented and too frequent to ignore the theme running through. Anita, McIntosh and voices regularly promoted by the gaming media itself, and the well-known voices within the gaming media have shown more than enough to justify lumping them in for general points describing their behavior and motivations.

altnameJag:

nomotog:

altnameJag:
*Shrug* Stones, glass houses, etc. Block lists, boycott lists, wrong-thinking anti-gamers who don't even play games, emailing advertisers to put pressure on publications because you don't like their opinions...

Careful about casting that first stone.

Like I said: the only people who can force a game to change are publishers, game devs, and some governments. Guess they'll just have to grow a spine.

So this is really the hair I hate to split. No one is holding anyone at gun point, but the intent is to presser games to change. I don't think that is a bad thing at all, but people are so touchy about it it leads to this really annoying dance.

Well, sure. Let's just say I hope this thread is still on the front page when Mass Effect Andromeda comes out and people start complaining about what's "getting shoved down our throats".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're not fully understanding the issue. Criticism is fine. But when it's done with the weight of the (gaming) media supporting your criticism then it becomes quite a different situation. Especially if it becomes a moral issue.

Which makes sense with what nomotog said about the intent to pressure games to change.

L3Nix:

altnameJag:

nomotog:

So this is really the hair I hate to split. No one is holding anyone at gun point, but the intent is to presser games to change. I don't think that is a bad thing at all, but people are so touchy about it it leads to this really annoying dance.

Well, sure. Let's just say I hope this thread is still on the front page when Mass Effect Andromeda comes out and people start complaining about what's "getting shoved down our throats".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're not fully understanding the issue. Criticism is fine. But when it's done with the weight of the (gaming) media supporting your criticism then it becomes quite a different situation. Especially if it becomes a moral issue.

Which makes sense with what nomotog said about the intent to pressure games to change.

But there is nothing inherently wrong with pressuring games to change. It's basically impossible not to do it. The real question we should be asking is what we should presser them into. You can have a good argument even if it is a moral one. (Honestly if your not making a ethical judgement then your not saying anything.)

nomotog:

L3Nix:

altnameJag:
Well, sure. Let's just say I hope this thread is still on the front page when Mass Effect Andromeda comes out and people start complaining about what's "getting shoved down our throats".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're not fully understanding the issue. Criticism is fine. But when it's done with the weight of the (gaming) media supporting your criticism then it becomes quite a different situation. Especially if it becomes a moral issue.

Which makes sense with what nomotog said about the intent to pressure games to change.

But there is nothing inherently wrong with pressuring games to change. It's basically impossible not to do it. The real question we should be asking is what we should presser them into. You can have a good argument even if it is a moral one. (Honestly if your not making a ethical judgement then your not saying anything.)

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that, won't, might not, support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Edit: to replace won't with might not

nomotog:

But there is nothing inherently wrong with pressuring games to change. It's basically impossible not to do it. The real question we should be asking is what we should presser them into. You can have a good argument even if it is a moral one. (Honestly if your not making a ethical judgement then your not saying anything.)

What about an aesthetic judgment?

"Yes: all the arts are immoral, except those baser forms of sensual or didactic art that seek to excite to action of evil or of good. For action of every kind belongs to the sphere of ethics. The aim of art is simply to create a mood."

-Oscar Wilde: The Critic as Artist

Have we become too Victorian to enjoy a mood without obsessive moralizing, some 125 years after Mr. Wilde rejected such fusty preoccupations? I say it's about time for an aesthetic movement.

L3Nix:

nomotog:

L3Nix:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're not fully understanding the issue. Criticism is fine. But when it's done with the weight of the (gaming) media supporting your criticism then it becomes quite a different situation. Especially if it becomes a moral issue.

Which makes sense with what nomotog said about the intent to pressure games to change.

But there is nothing inherently wrong with pressuring games to change. It's basically impossible not to do it. The real question we should be asking is what we should presser them into. You can have a good argument even if it is a moral one. (Honestly if your not making a ethical judgement then your not saying anything.)

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that won't support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Sometimes some of us want to play more than steam indie games

L3Nix:

nomotog:

L3Nix:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're not fully understanding the issue. Criticism is fine. But when it's done with the weight of the (gaming) media supporting your criticism then it becomes quite a different situation. Especially if it becomes a moral issue.

Which makes sense with what nomotog said about the intent to pressure games to change.

But there is nothing inherently wrong with pressuring games to change. It's basically impossible not to do it. The real question we should be asking is what we should presser them into. You can have a good argument even if it is a moral one. (Honestly if your not making a ethical judgement then your not saying anything.)

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that won't support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

What about pushing games away from an audience that can support it. Like recall horror games. No one made them for a long time because they didn't think they had an audience, but duck they were wrong and the move back has been good for everyone.

You say what if your wrong, but what if your right. You have to make an argument that someone is wrong, then that maje an argument they are right, ect ect. The important part is that we are allowed to have the debate.

StatusNil:

nomotog:

But there is nothing inherently wrong with pressuring games to change. It's basically impossible not to do it. The real question we should be asking is what we should presser them into. You can have a good argument even if it is a moral one. (Honestly if your not making a ethical judgement then your not saying anything.)

What about an aesthetic judgment?

"Yes: all the arts are immoral, except those baser forms of sensual or didactic art that seek to excite to action of evil or of good. For action of every kind belongs to the sphere of ethics. The aim of art is simply to create a mood."

-Oscar Wilde: The Critic as Artist

Have we become too Victorian to enjoy a mood without obsessive moralizing, some 125 years after Mr. Wilde rejected such fusty preoccupations? I say it's about time for an aesthetic movement.

There are two types of argument in the world. Ethical and factual. Factual is focused on what something is. This is a cat, this cat is fluffy, ect ect. An ethical argument focuses on if what something is is a good thing. Is it describable. Cats are bad, fluffy things are good. (FYI Cats are totally a good thing in the world.)

Here is the secret everyone knows but doesn't admit. Every side moralizes. You can't counter a ethical argument with anything but an ethical argument.

undeadsuitor:

L3Nix:

nomotog:

But there is nothing inherently wrong with pressuring games to change. It's basically impossible not to do it. The real question we should be asking is what we should presser them into. You can have a good argument even if it is a moral one. (Honestly if your not making a ethical judgement then your not saying anything.)

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that won't support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Sometimes some of us want to play more than steam indie games

Speak for yourself :P

undeadsuitor:

L3Nix:

nomotog:

But there is nothing inherently wrong with pressuring games to change. It's basically impossible not to do it. The real question we should be asking is what we should presser them into. You can have a good argument even if it is a moral one. (Honestly if your not making a ethical judgement then your not saying anything.)

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that won't support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Sometimes some of us want to play more than steam indie games

If those games are proven to be popular and profitable, isn't it only natural to think that those games will become more mainstream? or even influenced by it? Money talks.
Unless, you're wanting game devs to create and support a type of game that hasn't proven itself yet to have a winning formula. There's a lot of risk involved. These things take time though.

nomotog:

L3Nix:

nomotog:

But there is nothing inherently wrong with pressuring games to change. It's basically impossible not to do it. The real question we should be asking is what we should presser them into. You can have a good argument even if it is a moral one. (Honestly if your not making a ethical judgement then your not saying anything.)

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that won't support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

What about pushing games away from an audience that can support it. Like recall horror games. No one made them for a long time because they didn't think they had an audience, but duck they were wrong and the move back has been good for everyone.

You say what if your wrong, but what if your right. You have to make an argument that someone is wrong, then that maje an argument they are right, ect ect. The important part is that we are allowed to have the debate.

What do you mean about the horror games? To be honest, i'm so off and on with keeping up with that genre. Are you talking about the rise of the survival horror type games?

Edit:
Also, if possible, could you rephrase your last paragraph. I'm not able to understand the point you're making.

L3Nix:

nomotog:

L3Nix:

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that won't support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

What about pushing games away from an audience that can support it. Like recall horror games. No one made them for a long time because they didn't think they had an audience, but duck they were wrong and the move back has been good for everyone.

You say what if your wrong, but what if your right. You have to make an argument that someone is wrong, then that maje an argument they are right, ect ect. The important part is that we are allowed to have the debate.

What do you mean about the horror games? To be honest, i'm so off and on with keeping up with that genre. Are you talking about the rise of the survival horror type games?

No the re-rise. You had your SH horror games and they were killed off some time around RE4. Then no one would make them for so long because they thought there was no market. Then amnesia comes out and people are like oh shit you know all the SH fans we forgot about turns out they want to buy games we should get onto that. I know we can make RE a SH game again. (Now we have too many so we might be in for a new fall. Sun rise sun set.)

nomotog:

L3Nix:

nomotog:

What about pushing games away from an audience that can support it. Like recall horror games. No one made them for a long time because they didn't think they had an audience, but duck they were wrong and the move back has been good for everyone.

You say what if your wrong, but what if your right. You have to make an argument that someone is wrong, then that maje an argument they are right, ect ect. The important part is that we are allowed to have the debate.

What do you mean about the horror games? To be honest, i'm so off and on with keeping up with that genre. Are you talking about the rise of the survival horror type games?

No the re-rise. You had your SH horror games and they were killed off some time around RE4. Then no one would make them for so long because they thought there was no market. Then amnesia comes out and people are like oh shit you know all the SH fans we forgot about turns out they want to buy games we should get onto that. I know we can make RE a SH game again. (Now we have too many so we might be in for a new fall. Sun rise sun set.)

I loved RE4. If i remember correctly RE5 and RE6 were basically the same game, but with a different setting, tons of more action, and a lifetime supply of ammo. The genre became stale though. Anyway, i interpreted that situation to mean something a little different. The crowd that you said was gone, was always there, but the game devs knew that. They knew that nobody was going to buy another RE6, wrapped up with a different number. But that didn't mean that that market didn't exist. They were just smarter and weren't going to buy the same crap. So the problem became one of risk. What could they create that would be different enough but still familiar, while also being fun and scary.

L3Nix:

nomotog:

L3Nix:

What do you mean about the horror games? To be honest, i'm so off and on with keeping up with that genre. Are you talking about the rise of the survival horror type games?

No the re-rise. You had your SH horror games and they were killed off some time around RE4. Then no one would make them for so long because they thought there was no market. Then amnesia comes out and people are like oh shit you know all the SH fans we forgot about turns out they want to buy games we should get onto that. I know we can make RE a SH game again. (Now we have too many so we might be in for a new fall. Sun rise sun set.)

I loved RE4. If i remember correctly RE5 and RE6 were basically the same game, but with a different setting, tons of more action, and a lifetime supply of ammo. The genre became stale though. Anyway, i interpreted that situation to mean something a little different. The crowd that you said was gone, was always there, but the game devs knew that. They knew that nobody was going to buy another RE6, wrapped up with a different number. But that didn't mean that that market didn't exist. They were just smarter and weren't going to buy the same crap. So the problem became one of risk. What could they create that would be different enough but still familiar, while also being fun and scary.

The point I was making was that the market existed, but wasn't being sold to. Just as there is the risk of selling to a market that doesn't exist there is also the risk of not selling to a market that dose exist. You take a risk both ways. You can easily kill a game by playing it too safe.

So to rewind this back up to the original point.

L3Nix:
I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that, won't, might not, support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Edit: to replace won't with might not

What if your wrong too? It's always a risk.

nomotog:

L3Nix:

nomotog:
No the re-rise. You had your SH horror games and they were killed off some time around RE4. Then no one would make them for so long because they thought there was no market. Then amnesia comes out and people are like oh shit you know all the SH fans we forgot about turns out they want to buy games we should get onto that. I know we can make RE a SH game again. (Now we have too many so we might be in for a new fall. Sun rise sun set.)

I loved RE4. If i remember correctly RE5 and RE6 were basically the same game, but with a different setting, tons of more action, and a lifetime supply of ammo. The genre became stale though. Anyway, i interpreted that situation to mean something a little different. The crowd that you said was gone, was always there, but the game devs knew that. They knew that nobody was going to buy another RE6, wrapped up with a different number. But that didn't mean that that market didn't exist. They were just smarter and weren't going to buy the same crap. So the problem became one of risk. What could they create that would be different enough but still familiar, while also being fun and scary.

The point I was making was that the market existed, but wasn't being sold to. Just as there is the risk of selling to a market that doesn't exist there is also the risk of not selling to a market that dose exist. You take a risk both ways. You can easily kill a game by playing it too safe.

So to rewind this back up to the original point.

L3Nix:
I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that, won't, might not, support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Edit: to replace won't with might not

What if your wrong too? It's always a risk.

Well, the idea is to not just make a game but to make one that will sell right? If you create what sells, and like with the RE example and how they had to adapt and change in order to give fans what they wanted, then how could those games not get made? Especially if there's already an indie scene that allows more creative freedoms to explore.

runic knight:
snip

The rest of the customers are far more numerous and they don't like how the collective has been trying to pass themselves as their repesentatives. The principle still stands that the main drive of those gamers convincing others to get offended was being offended in the first place; everything later has been bringing up justifications to make their backlash appear not to be driven mainly by a emotional response. Sadly that isn't an uncommon strategy used by the two extreme sides of this conflict (or in politics).

L3Nix:

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that, won't, might not, support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Edit: to replace won't with might not

Sorry to dig this up a bit, but I've been stewing on this for a bit: How come this only flows in one direction?

For example, a fair number of games in my favorite genres (tactical jrpgs, jrpgs in general) have been sliding further and further down the otaku-pandering, loli-bait, waifu-simulator hole. And most of them have been losing relevance at the same time.

And yet, when I complain about that, I still get to be the guy who has to change games. What's the deal?

L3Nix:

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that, won't, might not, support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Edit: to replace won't with might not

The publishers do it all the time by themselves. For example, who asked to have less frequent dialog prompts, the removal of neutral answers or less "investigate" options in Mass Effect 3 dialogs? Who asked for the game mode that chose the dialog automatically without ever prompting the player? Who asked for such heavy focus in combat? Who asked for multiplayer? We can see some things were added; but several others were replaced or removed. You may like or dislike these changes, but the fact is that these were made with a goal in mind: Mass Effect 3 had to outsell Mass Effect 2, and the only way to do that was to attract the audience who wasn't interested in ME2. And the ME2 audience? Well, EA bet they would buy ME3 anyways (after all, how many pre-ordered it?).

The argument is that the change is to cater an audience that might not support itself. My question is: does that catering exclude the enjoyment of the pre-existing audience? Are the changes affecting something that it is intrinsic of the game or something the main things that the audience actually enjoy from the game? Sometimes the former isn't part of the later.

EDIT: Corrected quoting

altnameJag:

L3Nix:

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that, won't, might not, support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Edit: to replace won't with might not

Sorry to dig this up a bit, but I've been stewing on this for a bit: How come this only flows in one direction?

For example, a fair number of games in my favorite genres (tactical jrpgs, jrpgs in general) have been sliding further and further down the otaku-pandering, loli-bait, waifu-simulator hole. And most of them have been losing relevance at the same time.

And yet, when I complain about that, I still get to be the guy who has to change games. What's the deal?

The deal is they are the audience changes are made for so they like it. Like 90% boils down to thing I like vs thing I don't.

CaitSeith:

runic knight:
snip

The rest of the customers are far more numerous and they don't like how the collective has been trying to pass themselves as their repesentatives. The principle still stands that the main drive of those gamers convincing others to get offended was being offended in the first place; everything later has been bringing up justifications to make their backlash appear not to be driven mainly by a emotional response. Sadly that isn't an uncommon strategy used by the two extreme sides of this conflict (or in politics).

The "being offended" narrative happened to be pushed after people had been complaining about the media's bullshit for a long while, with scandals like the Doritos Pope showcasing this fact. People had been calling out the gaming media for their various fuckups for a while. Even among the gamergate controversy itself, people were complaining about the media's unethical and unprofessional behavior before gamergate even was coined, and pointed to the articles as a final declaration of the gaming media being unsalvageable for it and as a reason to really dig into things and find all those conflicts of interests and demonstrable hypocrisy.

altnameJag:

L3Nix:

I get what you're saying. But, if your wrong, then you're changing games to cater to an audience that, won't, might not, support itself.

Like, are there no games in the market that fit your taste? Wouldn't it be easier to support those games that feature those things you like? This has the benefit of showing that there's a market to be catered to as well.

Edit: to replace won't with might not

Sorry to dig this up a bit, but I've been stewing on this for a bit: How come this only flows in one direction?

For example, a fair number of games in my favorite genres (tactical jrpgs, jrpgs in general) have been sliding further and further down the otaku-pandering, loli-bait, waifu-simulator hole. And most of them have been losing relevance at the same time.

And yet, when I complain about that, I still get to be the guy who has to change games. What's the deal?

Probably because you are looking at the games genre that already faded into a niche having reacting to that fade by appealing to what they assume is the core crowd so they don't lose them as well. Because of the growth of western rpg, traditional, tactical and especially jrpg are losing audience because they are by design more conservative and have been selling less well compared to the western ones. Appealing to what the remaining core audience seems to want (by mimicing what they pay for consistently) is a fair business decision, especially when coupled with how pandering to otaku has shown profitability in related merchandise. Furthermore, the lack of support for smaller projects that reflect what you want would also be seen as a black mark against any suggestions to do that.

The reason your personal tastes aren't being met is because they simply have not been demonstrated as reliably profitable across the whole. Hell, look no further than overwatch to see how the "waifu" culture notion helps to promote the game, showing that design ideal is still useful in gaming regardless of the media's moralizing. That, of course, doesn't mean it is the only way it can be profitable, but companies, especially those that invest a shitload into a game, aren't going to take a lot of big risks. They are conservative in execution and will rely on trusted tropes and reliable marketing, for better or worse. Ironically, thus often involves doubling down on them when the market growth in a genre slows, until the next trend booms and they chase that. See platformers, dirty brown shooters, minecraft-clones, and survival horror genres to see this trend demonstrated. You have a couple star games that pull people's attention, then a flood on the market copying the trend, the market shrinks because of the shovelware, but the flood grows even more pandering to the core concepts with only novelties in difference in hopes of appealing to the narrowing audience instead of immediately trying something all together new. Then the next hit happens, and they chase that one.

In this all though, you are very lucky. Games like Undertale recently demonstrate that classic RPG with quirky characters and story can be big hits. Copycats will follow suit, and while likely as not to not be as good or profitable, you might get a handful of ones that are great games inspired by the success of the first in the line. Supporting the games with aspects you like is the only reliable way to help guarantee more will be made.

Tactical RPGs are going to have a comeback the second they learn the right way to call themselves xcom, but not call themselves xcom.

nomotog:
Tactical RPGs are going to have a comeback the second they learn the right way to call themselves xcom, but not call themselves xcom.

Or they could just go back to the old system: take an established series and put 'Tactics' at the end. Final Fantasy Tactics! Suikoden Tactics! Onimusha Tactics!

I liked that system.

NPC009:

nomotog:
Tactical RPGs are going to have a comeback the second they learn the right way to call themselves xcom, but not call themselves xcom.

Or they could just go back to the old system: take an established series and put 'Tactics' at the end. Final Fantasy Tactics! Suikoden Tactics! Onimusha Tactics!

I liked that system.

Fallout tactics

See? It even works with Western titles.

undeadsuitor:

NPC009:

nomotog:
Tactical RPGs are going to have a comeback the second they learn the right way to call themselves xcom, but not call themselves xcom.

Or they could just go back to the old system: take an established series and put 'Tactics' at the end. Final Fantasy Tactics! Suikoden Tactics! Onimusha Tactics!

I liked that system.

Fallout tactics

See? It even works with Western titles.

Exactly! Yes! And now that I remember Fallout Tactics exists, I need to go buy it (during the next big sales)...

NPC009:

nomotog:
Tactical RPGs are going to have a comeback the second they learn the right way to call themselves xcom, but not call themselves xcom.

Or they could just go back to the old system: take an established series and put 'Tactics' at the end. Final Fantasy Tactics! Suikoden Tactics! Onimusha Tactics!

I liked that system.

Xcom Tactics?

StatusNil:

Have we become too Victorian to enjoy a mood without obsessive moralizing, some 125 years after Mr. Wilde rejected such fusty preoccupations? I say it's about time for an aesthetic movement.

Good question. Maybe we should ask the right wing moralizers and tossers of the word "cuckold" and "degenerate" that as well...if we're allowed to without getting called SJW's or shills of the gaming media/Zionists/liberals/cultural marxists.

NPC009:

undeadsuitor:

NPC009:

Or they could just go back to the old system: take an established series and put 'Tactics' at the end. Final Fantasy Tactics! Suikoden Tactics! Onimusha Tactics!

I liked that system.

Fallout tactics

See? It even works with Western titles.

Exactly! Yes! And now that I remember Fallout Tactics exists, I need to go buy it (during the next big sales)...

I have it, but I can't say I like it. You can tell the system wasn't designed for squad based tactical combat. It played rather clunky. The annoying bit for me was leveling up. Every character has the skills of a MC so you had so many points to throw out. (Then again I has been awhile since I played it. Maybe I should go back and try it again. Tastes can change.)

Smithnikov:

Just one thing.

If you're insistence on not being lumped with "literally who's" is valid...and it probably is, am I allowed the same benefit of NOT being lumped in with Anita Sarkeesian AND every fringe Tumblr SJW that thinks they have something to say on gaming?

Then please do the same to those of us who want egalitarian treatment for both gender's and don't wish to be mocked or lumped in with the worst reactionaries on that side. (Something you did to me previously in a manner I saw as insulting, condescending and unfairly lumping in fringe elements with those of us that just want fair treatment)

Smithnikov:

But as Paul Elam, the great Paladin for Men's Rights has said before, it looks like the "Egalitarians" and MRA's are content with simply feminist bashing or calling women "Murderers" on online blogs. That alone is enough contribution for them.

Get off this notion that simply whining about it and saying how evil feminists are stopping you from doing ANYTHING and do it. I learned to stop cursing the darkness and start lighting candles. Until you and other "egalitarians" and MRA's do the same, I dont' care to hear from you, or any other "men's rights Activist" and especially not from other smug "Egalitarian".

You lumped me in with fringe members. You lumped egalitarians in with fringe men's rights stereotypes so how can you ask for the same treatment without approaching hypocrisy?

So you want to not be lumped in with fringe members that support a cause but in a manner you disagree with? Then please do the same courtesy when talking to people like me.

FriendoftheFallen:

You lumped me in with fringe members. You lumped egalitarians in with fringe men's rights stereotypes so how can you ask for the same treatment without approaching hypocrisy?

Because the people you identify with, by name, are doing exactly that, acting like the fringe MRA', and have little to no criticism for even the most ignorant and insulting statements coming from their people. I was lumped in with people I not only fought in the past, continue to fight, but directly and vocally despise. When was the last time you took an MRA or genuine misogynist to task for what they spouted? Do you at least try to give places like /r/incel even half the venom you do to random tumblrina or college students doing stupid things.

I find Sarkeesian to be a con artist. I find SJW idealogy and suppression of speech policies to be garbage. Yet I'm told I AM one for something as petty as my games of choice.

There's the difference.

So you want to not be lumped in with fringe members that support a cause but in a manner you disagree with? Then please do the same courtesy when talking to people like me.

When I identify with certain elements, you can lump me in with them all you like.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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