How gamergate ruined games

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

Smithnikov:
Yup, only room for CONSERVATIVE politics in gaming.

And gods help you if you go in against them...

You know what, I'm going to call you out on this one. Give some examples. C'mon, large protests over a game not matching some game not paying proper lip service to a conservative belief, sufficient to make the developer have to change it. Large groups blowing up social media over Bill in the Last of Us being gay, or ditto for about half the cast of Life is Strange.

I'm willing to bet the best you can manage is a bit of talk that certain games are "barely games" (typically "walking simulators") and that certain titles got wildly more attention than they deserve by media (typically titles produced by folks within a certain relatively small group), almost as though it was more about being made by the right people than actually being any good.

I want something at least on the scale of the Original Sin midriff thing, complete with threats made against the studio, for something both equally minor but offensive to right wing sensibilities. Should be tons of examples.

Schadrach:

Smithnikov:
Yup, only room for CONSERVATIVE politics in gaming.

And gods help you if you go in against them...

You know what, I'm going to call you out on this one. Give some examples. C'mon, large protests over a game not matching some game not paying proper lip service to a conservative belief, sufficient to make the developer have to change it. Large groups blowing up social media over Bill in the Last of Us being gay, or ditto for about half the cast of Life is Strange.

I'm willing to bet the best you can manage is a bit of talk that certain games are "barely games" (typically "walking simulators") and that certain titles got wildly more attention than they deserve by media (typically titles produced by folks within a certain relatively small group), almost as though it was more about being made by the right people than actually being any good.

I want something at least on the scale of the Original Sin midriff thing, complete with threats made against the studio, for something both equally minor but offensive to right wing sensibilities. Should be tons of examples.

This one is a fun one because you can find a lot of people having blow ups about a lot of games being too progressive or something, but I can't think of any that had a direct impact to how the game was made. (I guess they just don't have as much impact on devs or maybe they have impact we don't see well? I don't know off hand.) We did have people blowing up about Ellie from the last of us being gay, or life is strange being too feminist. (Though in relation to the topic of this thread the other side seems to be less willing to complain about a games progressive politics being bad. Oh they will complain, but they will find a way to complain about it in a roundabout way.)

Schadrach:
sufficient to make the developer have to change it.

This is the part I find hilarious. You guys are still convinced that every game dev not named Tim Schaeffer secretly agrees with you, so if they don't cater to your near-constant complaints, you automatically assume they must have been coerced into doing so.

Schadrach:

You know what, I'm going to call you out on this one. Give some examples. C'mon, large protests over a game not matching some game not paying proper lip service to a conservative belief, sufficient to make the developer have to change it.

Farcry 5.

Battlefield: Hardline.

BeetleManiac:

Schadrach:
sufficient to make the developer have to change it.

This is the part I find hilarious. You guys are still convinced that every game dev not named Tim Schaeffer secretly agrees with you, so if they don't cater to your near-constant complaints, you automatically assume they must have been coerced into doing so.

No, I just assume that when, after a bunch of people very publicly scream about what sexist or racist scum the devs are for doing whatever has a bug in their bonnet this week, sometimes coupled with threats against the studio, small changes in accordance with those people's will get made that they are probably related to said people.

Smithnikov:
Farcry 5.

Is it no longer about a predominately white conservative christo-fascist cult that takes inspiration from the Branch Davidians and the Bundys set in rural Montana? Because I thought that was the big right-wing complaint about that one. That would be disappointing, I was looking forward to grabbing that one the first time it went on a decent sale.

Smithnikov:
Battlefield: Hardline.

I'll admit to not following anything Battlefield related too closely, but I thought aside from the usual consumer-related stuff about DLC and map packs and the like the big complaint about Hardline was that it was "inappropriate" to release what was essentially "Battlefield: Cops and Robbers" after high profile police shootings of the sort that caused riots "unrests". But I didn't think it was the right complaining about a game where you play as militarized police.

Schadrach:
No, I just assume that when, after a bunch of people very publicly scream about what sexist or racist scum the devs are for doing whatever has a bug in their bonnet this week, sometimes coupled with threats against the studio, small changes in accordance with those people's will get made that they are probably related to said people.

Exactly, you assume any change made that you don't like must have been done out of coercion. We're in agreement.

Schadrach:

Is it no longer about a predominately white conservative christo-fascist cult that takes inspiration from the Branch Davidians and the Bundys set in rural Montana? Because I thought that was the big right-wing complaint about that one. That would be disappointing, I was looking forward to grabbing that one the first time it went on a decent sale.

Ubisoft had to throw in some minorities to ensure that they weren't making a game that encourages "white genocide".

I'll admit to not following anything Battlefield related too closely, but I thought aside from the usual consumer-related stuff about DLC and map packs and the like the big complaint about Hardline was that it was "inappropriate" to release what was essentially "Battlefield: Cops and Robbers" after high profile police shootings of the sort that caused riots "unrests". But I didn't think it was the right complaining about a game where you play as militarized police.

Actually, it involved a female character in it being too competent at close quarters combat. It was seen as being "pandering to Feminists".

Schadrach:

Is it no longer about a predominately white conservative christo-fascist cult that takes inspiration from the Branch Davidians and the Bundys set in rural Montana? Because I thought that was the big right-wing complaint about that one. That would be disappointing, I was looking forward to grabbing that one the first time it went on a decent sale.

They hurriedly threw in a bunch of Diversity on the baddie side, allegedly because the developers were so disturbed by the "woke" Gaming+ crowd going all "Yasssss! I gets to shoot me lots of TRUMP SUPPORTERS!!!" I kind of understand why, those nuts do have serious problems with distinguishing between fiction and reality.

StatusNil:

Schadrach:

Is it no longer about a predominately white conservative christo-fascist cult that takes inspiration from the Branch Davidians and the Bundys set in rural Montana? Because I thought that was the big right-wing complaint about that one. That would be disappointing, I was looking forward to grabbing that one the first time it went on a decent sale.

They hurriedly threw in a bunch of Diversity on the baddie side, allegedly because the developers were so disturbed by the "woke" Gaming+ crowd going all "Yasssss! I gets to shoot me lots of TRUMP SUPPORTERS!!!" I kind of understand why, those nuts do have serious problems with distinguishing between fiction and reality.

That's pretty funny if it's true. Is there a source for that?

Smithnikov:

Schadrach:

Is it no longer about a predominately white conservative christo-fascist cult that takes inspiration from the Branch Davidians and the Bundys set in rural Montana? Because I thought that was the big right-wing complaint about that one. That would be disappointing, I was looking forward to grabbing that one the first time it went on a decent sale.

Ubisoft had to throw in some minorities to ensure that they weren't making a game that encourages "white genocide".

I'll admit to not following anything Battlefield related too closely, but I thought aside from the usual consumer-related stuff about DLC and map packs and the like the big complaint about Hardline was that it was "inappropriate" to release what was essentially "Battlefield: Cops and Robbers" after high profile police shootings of the sort that caused riots "unrests". But I didn't think it was the right complaining about a game where you play as militarized police.

Actually, it involved a female character in it being too competent at close quarters combat. It was seen as being "pandering to Feminists".

I could have sworn you were talking about uncharted 4 in this post.

If you think gamergate ruined games, then you care way too much.

I'm sitting over here blissfully unaware of everything around me, happily playing the best of the best.

IceForce:
And besides, when did 'gamers' collectively decide that politics shouldn't be in videogames?

At the time the whole thing went down. It was both a call for journalistic integrity/transparency as well as a pushback against the progressives that had somehow infested this and other forums like it.

IceForce:
Some of the best games use copious amounts of politics as a plot device to great effect. Bioshock for instance uses very heavy political themes, and is commonly lauded as one of the best games of recent times.

It's nothing to do with politics as a plot device, which I also agree can be great. Skyrim, Dragon Age: Origins, The Witcher games, all these have themes including politics, racism and such like and are fantastic in no small part thanks to that. I'm not talk about politics as a plot device, but specifically contemporary progressive politics, including shit like "diversity" (whereby if a game doesn't have x of each race, the devs are racist), gay rights, transgender stuff (see ME: Andromeda), virtue signalling, representation of X and all the rest. Everyone not a feminist/SJW (ie. the vast majority) got tired of being called sexist/racist/homophobic for not wanting all that nonsense in their games.

Smithnikov:
Yup, only room for CONSERVATIVE politics in gaming.

No, no contemporary politics. But it was only the regressive-left, aka progressives aka liberals who were screaming and frothing about every female costume being sexist, not enough gay people, not enough black people, not enough whatever, and disagreeing meant one was a bigot. From a personal point of view, I don't want contemporary politics in my games, no matter what they are.

DrownedAmmet:
Wait a sec, did you stop playing games because "feminists/SJWs" said mean things about them?

Errr...no?

DrownedAmmet:
I've been playing games and talking about games this whole time, and I am hugely interested in the representation and politics of the games I play.We never went anywhere

Okay, well the vast majority of us don't want the nonsense about representation and social justice in our games. You can buy and play BioWare games, they have what you're looking for. For those of us who don't agree with your political view, don't want your political views imposed on games and aren't sexist/racist/homophobe/etc/etc, we're glad GG happened and got rid of the bulk of the SJWs. I didn't realise it would kill this site while they were at it, but live and learn.

KingsGambit:
.

Well, all the same. I came to the conclusion the last couple of days that the gaming subculture is beyond help at this point and not worth saving, and it's for reasons not related to GamerGate, SJW's, or otherwise.

Far as I'm concerned, the progressives or anyone else who wants to ruin gaming can have it.

Smithnikov:

KingsGambit:
.

Well, all the same. I came to the conclusion the last couple of days that the gaming subculture is beyond help at this point and not worth saving, and it's for reasons not related to GamerGate, SJW's, or otherwise.

Far as I'm concerned, the progressives or anyone else who wants to ruin gaming can have it.

What's the reason?

Smithnikov:

KingsGambit:
.

Well, all the same. I came to the conclusion the last couple of days that the gaming subculture is beyond help at this point and not worth saving, and it's for reasons not related to GamerGate, SJW's, or otherwise.

Far as I'm concerned, the progressives or anyone else who wants to ruin gaming can have it.

That's a shame man, it's really not as bad as all that. It was for those few days back then when it all kicked off, but the dust is settled now. There's some great games out there, and while the Escapist is ailing, I'm sure there are some good forums out there (if you should happen upon them do let me know!).

We've had some really good games in the last couple of years...not many, but some. Dark Souls 3, XCOM2, DE: Mankind Divided, Hitman and while I haven't played them, I've heard good things about Overwatch and Titanfall 2. Not to mention some indie gems. And this year we have Destiny 2, Divinity: Original Sin 2, RE7 and a bunch of PS4 exlusives that are making me tempted to buy one. If you have a good group of friends TBH, you can ignore what the rest of the industry is doing while you enjoy the games you play together. There's still good gaming communities and critique, reviews and discussion is alive and well. The political shit happened and it's mostly done now.

Sexual Harassment Panda:

StatusNil:

Schadrach:

Is it no longer about a predominately white conservative christo-fascist cult that takes inspiration from the Branch Davidians and the Bundys set in rural Montana? Because I thought that was the big right-wing complaint about that one. That would be disappointing, I was looking forward to grabbing that one the first time it went on a decent sale.

They hurriedly threw in a bunch of Diversity on the baddie side, allegedly because the developers were so disturbed by the "woke" Gaming+ crowd going all "Yasssss! I gets to shoot me lots of TRUMP SUPPORTERS!!!" I kind of understand why, those nuts do have serious problems with distinguishing between fiction and reality.

That's pretty funny if it's true. Is there a source for that?

Sadly nothing solid. I seem to recall it was an anonymous post somewhere, from someone who claimed to be on the dev team. I must have come across a link on KiA, or even Twitter. Basically it was about how they were ordered to add different skin colors to enemy mooks in a big hurry, at the last minute before they were supposed to show it at whatever event it was, and the mishaps that caused. This would have been directly in response to the reveal of the "cult "plot that caused the whole "killing Trump voters" hype (as well as that fake change.org petition against that kind of thing).

Dunno, sounds plausible to me.

StatusNil:

Sexual Harassment Panda:

StatusNil:

They hurriedly threw in a bunch of Diversity on the baddie side, allegedly because the developers were so disturbed by the "woke" Gaming+ crowd going all "Yasssss! I gets to shoot me lots of TRUMP SUPPORTERS!!!" I kind of understand why, those nuts do have serious problems with distinguishing between fiction and reality.

That's pretty funny if it's true. Is there a source for that?

Sadly nothing solid. I seem to recall it was an anonymous post somewhere, from someone who claimed to be on the dev team. I must have come across a link on KiA, or even Twitter. Basically it was about how they were ordered to add different skin colors to enemy mooks in a big hurry, at the last minute before they were supposed to show it at whatever event it was, and the mishaps that caused. This would have been directly in response to the reveal of the "cult "plot that caused the whole "killing Trump voters" hype (as well as that fake change.org petition against that kind of thing).

Dunno, sounds plausible to me.

Sounds more like #FakeNews to me.

An "anonymous post" you say... probably best to not go Listening And Believing something unverifiable like that.

Sexual Harassment Panda:

Smithnikov:

KingsGambit:
.

Well, all the same. I came to the conclusion the last couple of days that the gaming subculture is beyond help at this point and not worth saving, and it's for reasons not related to GamerGate, SJW's, or otherwise.

Far as I'm concerned, the progressives or anyone else who wants to ruin gaming can have it.

What's the reason?

You familiar with LowTierGod?

KingsGambit:
The political shit happened and it's mostly done now.

It's not the political shit. That rubbed me the wrong way. Hard. Drawing blood. And left scars. Still, I'd be willign to keep fighting for this hobby if it stopped there.

Then something else happened. I learned who gaming decided to have as it's celebrated heroes did. After all the bitching and moaning about Sarkeesian getting money for her horseshit, then I saw who gaming really does support financially with no reservations...

StatusNil:

Schadrach:

Is it no longer about a predominately white conservative christo-fascist cult that takes inspiration from the Branch Davidians and the Bundys set in rural Montana? Because I thought that was the big right-wing complaint about that one. That would be disappointing, I was looking forward to grabbing that one the first time it went on a decent sale.

They hurriedly threw in a bunch of Diversity on the baddie side, allegedly because the developers were so disturbed by the "woke" Gaming+ crowd going all "Yasssss! I gets to shoot me lots of TRUMP SUPPORTERS!!!" I kind of understand why, those nuts do have serious problems with distinguishing between fiction and reality.

Soooooo, you're FINE with gaming caving to political pressure as long as it's on account of a certain political side?

Smithnikov:

Sexual Harassment Panda:

Smithnikov:

Well, all the same. I came to the conclusion the last couple of days that the gaming subculture is beyond help at this point and not worth saving, and it's for reasons not related to GamerGate, SJW's, or otherwise.

Far as I'm concerned, the progressives or anyone else who wants to ruin gaming can have it.

What's the reason?

You familiar with LowTierGod?

No, sir. Should I be?

Smithnikov:
Actually, it involved a female character in it being too competent at close quarters combat. It was seen as being "pandering to Feminists".

I'm having trouble finding anything about this aside from one Reaxxion article complaining about it. Am I just searching using the wrong Google-fu, or was it really just confined to one guy on a gaming site owned by Roosh V? Did they change anything in response?

Hell, the wikipedia article doesn't even mention a "controversy" except in the Talk page, and there it's not anything to do with female characters and is instead about the southern militia that was the enemy in a gameplay trailer.

Smithnikov:
Ubisoft had to throw in some minorities to ensure that they weren't making a game that encourages "white genocide".

StatusNil:

They hurriedly threw in a bunch of Diversity on the baddie side, allegedly because the developers were so disturbed by the "woke" Gaming+ crowd going all "Yasssss! I gets to shoot me lots of TRUMP SUPPORTERS!!!" I kind of understand why, those nuts do have serious problems with distinguishing between fiction and reality.

The two takes on this are interesting.

StatusNil:

I know you weren't invited to the Grand Assembly, but we didn't actually decide that "politics shouldn't be in videogames". We decided videogames shouldn't play politics. Much like Bioshock doesn't.

That's a very hazy distinction.

BioShock is without doubt very political, offerring a very negative view on libertarianism/laissez-faire capitalism. There's never a moment where it preaches per se, but it's hard to derive any meaning from BioShock other than the assertion that lack of regulation in a society will generally lead to negative consequences. That's a theme that's still very pertinent to the modern day.

Smithnikov:

Farcry 5.

Battlefield: Hardline.

You can add The Tyranny of King Washington to that list. I remember when it came out there was a Fox News article lambasting "the French" for sullying George Washington's name, not realizing (or caring) that it was based on a "what if?" scenario. Oh, and the following:

-Six Days in Fallujah (too touchy a subject matter)

-Uncharted 4 (a woman beating two men? Sexism!)

-Overwatch (Tracer is gay! Damn SJWs!)

KingsGambit:
At the time the whole thing went down. It was both a call for journalistic integrity/transparency as well as a pushback against the progressives that had somehow infested this and other forums like it.

KingsGambit:
It's nothing to do with politics as a plot device, which I also agree can be great. Skyrim, Dragon Age: Origins, The Witcher games, all these have themes including politics, racism and such like and are fantastic in no small part thanks to that. I'm not talk about politics as a plot device, but specifically contemporary progressive politics, including shit like "diversity" (whereby if a game doesn't have x of each race, the devs are racist), gay rights, transgender stuff (see ME: Andromeda), virtue signalling, representation of X and all the rest. Everyone not a feminist/SJW (ie. the vast majority) got tired of being called sexist/racist/homophobic for not wanting all that nonsense in their games.

I'm sorry, but this comes off as extremely narrow minded. Lots of other forms of art, from books, to films, to everything in-between, aren't punished for engaging with modern politics and social issues. The idea that games shouldn't do these things boils down to one of three options:

a) Games aren't art, or are inherently lesser forms of art.

b) Games should be censored from engaging in socially relevant subjects.

c) I'm fine with politics in games, just the "right" kind of politics.

One of those options can cover almost every argument I've heard from Gamergate - it's less about wanting to keep ideologies out of the medium and more enforcing its own brand of ideology.

Looking at those examples, the only thing I can agree with is the subject of diversity, in as much that shouldn't be a pro or a con, but the others..."transgender stuff?" You mean how Andromeda had a trans character and was eviscerated for it because it dared to have a trans character?

KingsGambit:

We've had some really good games in the last couple of years...not many, but some. Dark Souls 3, XCOM2, DE: Mankind Divided, Hitman and while I haven't played them, I've heard good things about Overwatch and Titanfall 2.

Well, you might want to stay clear of Overwatch. I mean, it's got a gay character. One that sent the Internet into uproar because...she was gay.

But silly me, only the left is ever triggered by these things.

KingsGambit:
There's still good gaming communities and critique, reviews and discussion is alive and well. The political shit happened and it's mostly done now.

Ah yes, critique is fine, just not critique in anything that approaches thematic depth.

That's part of the legacy Gamergate left. It's not that strong of a legacy because games don't often engage in socially relevant subjects anyway - they've always lagged behind other forms of media, and luckily, I can consume those forms of media to get more intellectually stimulating material. But while I wouldn't say Gamergate "ruined" games, it has probably done a number on the medium's evolution - confining it to 'safe' topics, if it engages with those topics at all. But I guess the main difference between 'then and now' is that when BioShock was released, everyone lauded it, and having played it this year, I can see why. If BioShock was released now, it would probably be eviscerated for pushing an agenda. (anti-libertarianism/anti-Randism).

Hawki:

You can add The Tyranny of King Washington to that list. I remember when it came out there was a Fox News article lambasting "the French" for sullying George Washington's name, not realizing (or caring) that it was based on a "what if?" scenario. Oh, and the following:

-Six Days in Fallujah (too touchy a subject matter)

-Uncharted 4 (a woman beating two men? Sexism!)

-Overwatch (Tracer is gay! Damn SJWs!)

Yeeup, forgot about those.

Oh, and also worth adding that GamerGate completely gave Fox News a pass on it's anti-gaming garbage. Not enough feminists or SJW's on the panel of Fox and Friends to be considered a threat.

Hawki:
There's never a moment where it preaches per se

And funnily enough, that turns out to make a big difference. But an even bigger difference is the media context surrounding it, back when you didn't have an unelected commissariat masquerading as an enthusiast press scrutinizing it for compliance with a Party Line and evaluating it accordingly. That shit poisons everything it touches, striving to make it inert to any potential significance beyond the didactic.

There's lots more to address in your post, but I can't be bothered with all the quote-snipping. So I'm just going to say that there seems to be a very odd notion of "art" going around. First of all, "a) Games aren't art, or are inherently lesser forms of art" is probably the best out of the limited set of options you envision, though not quite getting to the point.

Ironically, my conception of "art" is heavily "informed by" (as we used to say in Muh Cultural Studies) the Cultural Marxist "Critical Theory" of the Frankfurt School. Specifically in that the products of the "culture industry" are not strictly speaking "art", as the production lacks the autonomy of authentic artistic creation. Presumably, a no-budget independent game by some auteur could be art, but even that can be easily corrupted by positing it as some kind of "pro-social" message. But anything bigger than that requires the resources of capitalist enterprise, and thus is inherently created to appeal to buyers in a market. It can have elements of art within it, but as a whole, it's not. Therefore, a more fitting analogy, and I mean this with no pejorative connotations, would be pornography. Of course not necessarily in any sexual sense whatsoever, but in that it provides a functional fantasy for the player.

Now, the point of porn should be rather obvious. It exists to stimulate the audience, and that is its purpose. Why should other entertainment products be subjected to extra demands for the kinds of supposedly added value that detract from the experience? If you make porn that's designed to inculcate the correct way of sexual practice, you no longer have porn, but some kind of an instructional presentation. That's probably not going to be all that hot for most people, so bad porn. Similarly, other entertainment products may offer different kinds of stimulation, from intellectual to emotional to visceral, and trying to force them into some didactic mould only serves to defeat their purpose. That's the difference between exploring political ideas and trying to hammer them into people. Some people enjoy the former, but the only pleasure available through the latter is the pleasure of the demagogue in seeing others being pounded with their hammer. And even that is in paltry meta form, it's off-screen.

So yeah, much of the talk of "games as art" strikes me as needy special pleading for the cultural prestige associated with the word that only serves to distract from a more accurate understanding of the medium. Games can approach art and incorporate art, and you can have meaningful emotional and intellectual experiences with them. Why is that not enough? Furthermore, the more politically and attitudinally prescriptive games become, the less they have functionally in common with actual art. You know what tells you what to do? Instruction manuals. Are they the height of literary art?

StatusNil:

And funnily enough, that turns out to make a big difference.

It makes a difference, but by the standards that SQWs use, BioShock would be "preaching."

StatusNil:

But an even bigger difference is the media context surrounding it, back when you didn't have an unelected commissariat masquerading as an enthusiast press scrutinizing it for compliance with a Party Line and evaluating it accordingly. That shit poisons everything it touches, striving to make it inert to any potential significance beyond the didactic.

...the fuck did I just read?

StatusNil:

Ironically, my conception of "art" is heavily "informed by" (as we used to say in Muh Cultural Studies) the Cultural Marxist "Critical Theory" of the Frankfurt School. Specifically in that the products of the "culture industry" are not strictly speaking "art", as the production lacks the autonomy of authentic artistic creation. Presumably, a no-budget independent game by some auteur could be art, but even that can be easily corrupted by positing it as some kind of "pro-social" message. But anything bigger than that requires the resources of capitalist enterprise, and thus is inherently created to appeal to buyers in a market. It can have elements of art within it, but as a whole, it's not. Therefore, a more fitting analogy, and I mean this with no pejorative connotations, would be pornography. Of course not necessarily in any sexual sense whatsoever, but in that it provides a functional fantasy for the player.

Ah yes. "Cultural Marxism." The boogeyman that refuses to go away.

But fine. What constitutes art can be down to the individual, but by the standards posted above, practically nothing could be considered art. By said standards, a piece of art can't be considered art if:

-More than one individual takes part in its creation (which removes almost any film ever produced for starters, never mind games)

-Has any kind of message (you use the term "pro-social," whatever the heck that means). So that removes any piece of individually-created piece of art that strives for any kind of meaning/theme. So that removes numerous books as well.

-By these standards, the only things that could be considered art would be visual art and music, and even that's static when you consider how artists often created their artwork via commission.

StatusNil:

So yeah, much of the talk of "games as art" strikes me as needy special pleading for the cultural prestige associated with the word that only serves to distract from a more accurate understanding of the medium. Games can approach art and incorporate art, and you can have meaningful emotional and intellectual experiences with them. Why is that not enough? Furthermore, the more politically and attitudinally prescriptive games become, the less they have functionally in common with actual art. You know what tells you what to do? Instruction manuals. Are they the height of literary art?

Okay, first of all, stop italicizing every other word - it doesn't make your posts seem any more intelligent, they make them seem pretentious. Second of all, I don't accept the term "special pleading" because games incorporate by their nature other recognised facets of art, including music, words, and visuals. There's actually an advantage in considering games as art because it affords them legal protection and adds impetus for preservation.

So, yes, I consider games as art, because they incorporate existing artistic techniques, and do engage in emotional and intellectual engagement in expression that comes from a creator or creators. That's not to say every game is a piece of art, but that's the same that can be said for every other form of art out there. It's the "high art vs. low art" or "genre fiction vs. literary fiction" dichotomy, and while I don't think there's a hard line between those things, a non-artistic piece within the medium doesn't diminish the status of the medium as a whole.

Hawki:

Okay, first of all, stop italicizing every other word - it doesn't make your posts seem any more intelligent, they make them seem pretentious.

It's for emphasis. I always imagine preaching from the pulpit of a cathedral as my template for debating people who appeal to "art" and whatnot. Because that's like pulling rank on us plebs who give no fucks and just like cool stuff.

Too bad you ignored my positive argument for a porn-like approach to games. I've spent a lot of time working on that over the past years. But yes, few things are art in the romantic sense that people try to evoke when trying to control what other people should be into. The definition is something like "autonomous solution of an aesthetic problem". That just means you are trying to create something without calculating its appeal to other people, whether commercial or political. Just to make that thing, book, painting, composition, whatever, into something that satisfies you aesthetically.

But whatever, obviously your main concern is with ""the status of the medium", rather than the medium. Not that turning it into agit-edutainment is doing much for that. And "pretentious", moi? You're the one who wants the games we play chin-stroked over in the Louvre.

Edit: Had to correct "autonomic" into "autonomous". Must have been autocorrect. Must have! MUST!

StatusNil:

It's for emphasis. I always imagine preaching from the pulpit of a cathedral as my template for debating people who appeal to "art" and whatnot. Because that's like pulling rank on us plebs who give no fucks and just like cool stuff.

The pleb who's preaching from a cathedral. Right...

StatusNil:

But yes, few things are art in the romantic sense that people try to evoke when trying to control what other people should be into.

...the fuck?

StatusNil:

The definition is something like "autonomic solution of an aesthetic problem".
That just means you are trying to create something without calculating its appeal to other people, whether commercial or political. Just to make that thing, book, painting, composition, whatever, into something that satisfies you aesthetically.

Which practically every piece of art has at least some element of. The level of control is going to vary by circumstance and medium, but it's still there for the most part.

StatusNil:

But whatever, obviously your main concern is with ""the status of the medium", rather than the medium. Not that turning it into agit-edutainment is doing much for that.

My main concern is the status of the medium...says the person who claims to have spent years perfecting an argument on the status of the medium.

Well, actually no, I'm not overly concerned with the status, anymore than I'm concerned with the boogymen that supposedly plague it. No idea what agit-edutainment is, but I'm sure you've got a detailed explanation that I'll care even less.

This point in time, I'll just accept you as a Poe.

Smithnikov:

Hawki:

You can add The Tyranny of King Washington to that list. I remember when it came out there was a Fox News article lambasting "the French" for sullying George Washington's name, not realizing (or caring) that it was based on a "what if?" scenario. Oh, and the following:

-Six Days in Fallujah (too touchy a subject matter)

-Uncharted 4 (a woman beating two men? Sexism!)

-Overwatch (Tracer is gay! Damn SJWs!)

Yeeup, forgot about those.

Oh, and also worth adding that GamerGate completely gave Fox News a pass on it's anti-gaming garbage. Not enough feminists or SJW's on the panel of Fox and Friends to be considered a threat.

Don't forget that Zayra was also SJW pandering, because she was doing what the developers said they wanted to do from the get go and was making the cast diverse. Because responding to feedback to make the game more like what you said you wanted it to be is SJW pandering. Also her hair being pink was SJW pandering (even though it was based off of the appearance of a Blizzard employee, very few people seemed to pick up on that)

I also recall a couple of gamers on this board claiming that Borderlands 2 was shoving homosexuality down our throats. Because there was a single line of dialogue in which Sir Hammerlock makes a reference to a "Old boyfriend." Nothing sexual, nothing romantic, he just states that the person he wants you to get some stuff from used to be his boyfriend. That's it. And it was "shoving homosexuality down our throats."

Anti-SJWs. They're pro-developer choice until the developer does something they don't like.

Oh, and if we're allowed to point out conservative reactions as a whole, not just gamers, we can always point out the infamous Mass Effect scandal, because Fox News realized it had *gasp* SEX! Laughable bad sex scenes, but don't tell them that, Fox News employees probably get fired if they ever have sex that's not missionary and solely for the sake of procreation.

Hawki:

This point in time, I'll just accept you as a Poe.

Well, in that case, be that word our sign of parting. Leave my loneliness unbroken! - quit the bust above my door!

P.S. "There lives no man who at some period, has not been tormented, for example, by an earnest desire to tantalize a listener by circumlocution. The speaker is aware that he displeases; he has every intention to please; he is usually curt, precise, and clear; the most laconic and luminous language is struggling for utterance upon his tongue; it is only with difficulty that he restrains himself from giving it flow; he dreads and deprecates the anger of him whom he addresses; yet, the thought strikes him, that by certain involutions and parentheses, this anger may be engendered. That single thought is enough. The impulse increases to a wish, the wish to a desire, the desire to an uncontrollable longing, and the longing, (to the deep regret and mortification of the speaker, and in defiance of all consequences,) is indulged."

IceForce:

StatusNil:

Sadly nothing solid. I seem to recall it was an anonymous post somewhere, from someone who claimed to be on the dev team. I must have come across a link on KiA, or even Twitter. Basically it was about how they were ordered to add different skin colors to enemy mooks in a big hurry, at the last minute before they were supposed to show it at whatever event it was, and the mishaps that caused. This would have been directly in response to the reveal of the "cult "plot that caused the whole "killing Trump voters" hype (as well as that fake change.org petition against that kind of thing).

Dunno, sounds plausible to me.

Sounds more like #FakeNews to me.

An "anonymous post" you say... probably best to not go Listening And Believing something unverifiable like that.

Look, without anonymous posts on the internet, they never would have found out that Anita Sarkeesian was working on Mirror's Edge 2 because the controls were sexist. Which was a totally real thing that totally actually happened totally probably.

erttheking:

Oh, and if we're allowed to point out conservative reactions as a whole, not just gamers, we can always point out the infamous Mass Effect scandal, because Fox News realized it had *gasp* SEX! Laughable bad sex scenes, but don't tell them that, Fox News employees probably get fired if they ever have sex that's not missionary and solely for the sake of procreation.

But to our esteemed GateKeepers and Defenders of the Culture, that's just fine, since conservative politics and gaming are one in the same, dontchaknow.

StatusNil:

Ironically, my conception of "art" is heavily "informed by" (as we used to say in Muh Cultural Studies) the Cultural Marxist "Critical Theory" of the Frankfurt School. Specifically in that the products of the "culture industry" are not strictly speaking "art", as the production lacks the autonomy of authentic artistic creation. Presumably, a no-budget independent game by some auteur could be art, but even that can be easily corrupted by positing it as some kind of "pro-social" message. But anything bigger than that requires the resources of capitalist enterprise, and thus is inherently created to appeal to buyers in a market. It can have elements of art within it, but as a whole, it's not. Therefore, a more fitting analogy, and I mean this with no pejorative connotations, would be pornography. Of course not necessarily in any sexual sense whatsoever, but in that it provides a functional fantasy for the player.

This is one of the biggest loads of fancy word bullshit I've seen in a while, as if you literally just grabbed a bunch of social progressive buzzwords and hoped no one would call you on it, and its' conclusion is fallacious in that it fails to account for the whole of society, which, ironically, is what Critical Theory is all about. The problem with your selection of analogy is that within your own rigid conception of art, there can be no art but that made of someone with no interest in profit and who seeks only to make something that has no message (which most artists would say is not Art, as one of the defining markers of Art in most art criticism is its' intention to convey a message). This essentially means that your analogy is made only because it best suits your intention of portraying games as mindless self-indulgence, something the player only consumes or uses because it satisfies some base desire. But in actuality, your conception of art means that nothing we perceive as art today is really so. Not any music produced by a music company, not any movie by production company, no decorations meant to be sold or any game that was ever intended to sell for profit (it would also make artists like Warhol, Michelangelo and Dali not true artists, because they commercialized their art).

So a more proper analogy would be contemporary movie production, as movies also better represent the full extent of gaming from indie development to massive summer blockbusters/AAA releases and takes into account the massive amount of people involved in production. It also accounts for all the different reasons that people create and watch movies, some for mindless self-indulgence, some to be captivated by stories, some to be mentally challenged by the dilemmas or ideas presented and some movies are, indeed, educational tools (Duck and Cover, anyone?). Pornography is a really bad analogy because it serves only as wank material, whereas games are so much more. This is obvious when you realize all the contemporary applications of games: Some are indeed political vehicles (Bioshock), some are education tools, some are rehabilitation tools after injury or accidents, some are mindless fun and some are complex mental challenges.

As I was recently reminded, the difference between pseudo-science and science is that the former works from an assumption and goes backwards to find evidence that confirms it, the latter starts with a question and embraces all available evidence to answer the question. Your conception of art is obviously the former as your entire line of thought is meant only to make a correlation between pornography and games, so that your own assumption that games are just mindless entertainment can be confirmed and thus your ideas about what games "should be" can be validated.

In closing, some of the most poignant and memorable works of art have always been political. Guernica (1937) by Picasso is heralded as great art because it captured the horrors of the German terror bombing, the message was what made the art powerful. To suggest that art should lack political messages ultimately shows a lack of understanding of art that would make most artists cringe.

Gethsemani:

StatusNil:

Ironically, my conception of "art" is heavily "informed by" (as we used to say in Muh Cultural Studies) the Cultural Marxist "Critical Theory" of the Frankfurt School. Specifically in that the products of the "culture industry" are not strictly speaking "art", as the production lacks the autonomy of authentic artistic creation. Presumably, a no-budget independent game by some auteur could be art, but even that can be easily corrupted by positing it as some kind of "pro-social" message. But anything bigger than that requires the resources of capitalist enterprise, and thus is inherently created to appeal to buyers in a market. It can have elements of art within it, but as a whole, it's not. Therefore, a more fitting analogy, and I mean this with no pejorative connotations, would be pornography. Of course not necessarily in any sexual sense whatsoever, but in that it provides a functional fantasy for the player.

This is one of the biggest loads of fancy word bullshit I've seen in a while, as if you literally just grabbed a bunch of social progressive buzzwords and hoped no one would call you on it, and its' conclusion is fallacious in that it fails to account for the whole of society, which, ironically, is what Critical Theory is all about. The problem with your selection of analogy is that within your own rigid conception of art, there can be no art but that made of someone with no interest in profit and who seeks only to make something that has no message (which most artists would say is not Art, as one of the defining markers of Art in most art criticism is its' intention to convey a message). This essentially means that your analogy is made only because it best suits your intention of portraying games as mindless self-indulgence, something the player only consumes or uses because it satisfies some base desire. But in actuality, your conception of art means that nothing we perceive as art today is really so. Not any music produced by a music company, not any movie by production company, no decorations meant to be sold or any game that was ever intended to sell for profit (it would also make artists like Warhol, Michelangelo and Dali not true artists, because they commercialized their art).

Well, yeah, it does tend to limit the concept of art. But you should take it up with the Frankfurt School, particularly Theodor Adorno. Here's a store link to a relevant collection of essays, which I must admit I didn't read all the way through myself (yet!):

https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Industry-Selected-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415253802

Why don't you read the whole thing and then call me out on my "fancy word bullshit" from a position of superior information?

See, the thing is that these Cultural Marxists are pretty severe regarding "fun". They don't really approve any of that stuff. But the popularizers who are dumbing it down for the masses like to pretend that they just want to make stuff "better", to reel the suckers onboard. Really they're more opposed to our Decadent pop entertainment than interested in improving it. And I for one am not into cheering on the Fun Police.

Also, entertainment doesn't need to be "mindless". Shakespeare was entertainment, and his stuff isn't really all that mindless. Not that I'd know in my vulgar ignorance, but so I'm told.

StatusNil:
snip-a-de-do-da

...mind if I cut in? I've done a fair bit of reading on the Frankfurt School. It's still fancy word bullshit, just from a standpoint of cultural elitism that devalues and disempowers the work of the lower classes by presuming their artistic endeavors lack 'merit', though said merit comes from an impossible-to-achieve checklist that demands artists function outside the cultural structure of capitalism that they live within. 'You dare charge for your work? Then you are no true artist!' kinda shit. Makes sense from a standpoint that capitalism is an evil and corrupting force that defiles all within it's framework, but functionally it's just... well, elitist bullshit.

It's kinda my problem with the Frankfurt School: they're very good at talking a big talk, but frankly they're not good at walking the walk. Their cultural frameworks are always too... broad-brush (a criticism for most schools of philosophy, honestly) for appropriate media application, in that while it does function as a workable critic of mass-media such as Broadcast Television (in which the observation 'they're just in it for the money' is hardly a unique view on their behalf), but much poorer at criticizing artistry on both a smaller-scale and within a historic context, since it presumes too much on the motivations of the artist in question. And, frankly, presumes that art created to pander to an audience cannot be meaningful or artistic, as if the contamination of commercialism pollutes the artistic idea because... well, they're are marxists after all. They've never struck me as the kind of people who think highly or someone who doesn't share their worldview.

Also, just as an aside, I always have a giggle when Cultural Marxists works are being sold on a capitalistic market like Amazon. 'Commercialism is one of the great evils of Western Society - and you too can find out all about it for 29.95, plus postage!'.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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