How gamergate ruined games

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

Lightknight:

nomotog:
The focus should be more on what the agenda is if there is one. There are agenda's for most things. Even the most generic reviews of a game will be pushing the no bugs agenda. The one that demands all games to be released with minimal to no bugs... Or to be published by Bethesda.

The agendas they were complaining about were more-so politicizing gaming to support certain personal ideologies rather than reviewing the game based on its own merits. A game that is buggy is factually buggy and merely being disrespectful to Native Americans or something.

Also it was never about reviews. I often found GG complaining about non review content.

I think saying it was "never about reviews" is a little to hyperbolic. I agree with you that the majority seemed to be about gaming journalism in general being hyper-focused on social issues in a way that frequently belittled and dismissed the consumers but they certainly included reviews as well. I remember a lot of discussion around that time over some kind of side-scrolling action game.

Take for example the argument over Polygon's review of Dragon's Crown (a game I did not play nor do I care about):

https://www.polygon.com/2013/7/31/4553958/dragons-crown-review-heavy-metal

The author drones on and on about how some females in the game were depicted. In short, the author sits in judgment of people who enjoy that kind of artwork. Danielle makes the focus of the article be about her personal taste in how women should be depicted and not how the game functions. See how it steps outside of being mere review and becomes more about her beliefs in this instance?

Anyways, this article came up frequently as one of the precursors to the GG debacle. An example of belittling guys' natural appreciation of sexuality and also the incredibly inane premise that we shouldn't enjoy saving a damsel from a villain. I'm still a bit miffed on journalism taking a stance against damsel rescuing. The entire idea is that women shouldn't be kidnapped and do deserve agency and so if anyone sees a person in that position and has the power to free them they should. People were literally complaining about teaching people to save others.

If a game is sexist and you judge it for being sexist, then you are judging it based on it's own merits. In this case the merit is how sexist it is. Being judged on your own merits doesn't mean being judged by your own standards.

I am nothing if not a little hyperbolic... You see the title of the thread right. :P Though if you didn't care about the game, then how could it be about the review? Like the issue never was that this criticism was accompanied by a number it was more that it simply existed.

So the kidnapping thing is um odd. I see it like a lot where people take the argument that the DoD is kind of a sexist story telling convention and turn it into an argument that Mario should let Peach get.. well whatever is going to happen to her if she doesn't get saved. It's not even remotely the same argument.

nomotog:
If a game is sexist and you judge it for being sexist, then you are judging it based on it's own merits. In this case the merit is how sexist it is. Being judged on your own merits doesn't mean being judged by your own standards.

"Merit" as it is typically used here generally involve how something is done rather than the nuanced or subjective ideologies behind it. So are the mechanics solid, is the writing good, is the artwork well done (even if you don't like what is depicted). That kind of stuff would be the merit of the game. An example of this in the real world would be a gay person saying, "I just want to be judged on my own merits rather than because I'm gay." The same mindset behind that very reasonable desire should be able to apply here.

I mean, an extreme case like that would almost have warranted a second bias-based score. Like "here's the score if you don't have hangups over scantily clad women" and "here's the score if you do". When a singular bias overpowers an article like that it ruins the value of the review for everyone but people who hold the same bias.

I am nothing if not a little hyperbolic... You see the title of the thread right. :P Though if you didn't care about the game, then how could it be about the review? Like the issue never was that this criticism was accompanied by a number it was more that it simply existed.

I'm kind of just recounting an article I saw people taking a lot of offense to. I'm not saying I espouse their beliefs. I just understand where they're coming from and am trying to articulate it for a common ground.

So the kidnapping thing is um odd. I see it like a lot where people take the argument that the DoD is kind of a sexist story telling convention and turn it into an argument that Mario should let Peach get.. well whatever is going to happen to her if she doesn't get saved. It's not even remotely the same argument.

It's odd because they (people saying it is sexist) claim DoD takes away the agency of the damsel when in reality the entire narrative of a DoD story is to return the damsel's agency after a villain robbed them of it. I think it is incredibly worthwhile to teach young men and women that people who rob others of their freedom are the bad guys and people who act to save them are the good ones.

So it has been troubling to me that the anti-DoD narrative gained the sort of traction it did when it is actually a positive message.

Lightknight:

Take for example the argument over Polygon's review of Dragon's Crown (a game I did not play nor do I care about):

https://www.polygon.com/2013/7/31/4553958/dragons-crown-review-heavy-metal

The author drones on and on about how some females in the game were depicted. In short, the author sits in judgment of people who enjoy that kind of artwork. Danielle makes the focus of the article be about her personal taste in how women should be depicted and not how the game functions. See how it steps outside of being mere review and becomes more about her beliefs in this instance?

Anyways, this article came up frequently as one of the precursors to the GG debacle. An example of belittling guys' natural appreciation of sexuality and also the incredibly inane premise that we shouldn't enjoy saving a damsel from a villain. I'm still a bit miffed on journalism taking a stance against damsel rescuing. The entire idea is that women shouldn't be kidnapped and do deserve agency and so if anyone sees a person in that position and has the power to free them they should. People were literally complaining about teaching people to save others.

Did we read the same review? About 75% of the review is about the game's mechanics and how repetitive they ended up being despite a promising beginning. The oversexualization of the characters is a valid concern as it greatly distracts from the enjoyment of the game. A simplistic, sexist storyline does not add to the enjoyment of the game. Those seem valid points and would certainly affect my desire to play the game. It is not really much different than reviewers warning me that Mass Effect 3 had an unsatisfying ending.

Lightknight:
In a lot of ways, people want the game to be based on its own merits. But we all know reviewers that hate rogue-likes and such. A compromise is generally to disclose your bias by saying something like, "I hate rogue-likes" but even then if someone were to say something like, "I don't like this game because it depicts women in sexy clothing" then it tends to cross the line (socially) into moral policing which no side enjoys.

How is that moral policing? There's no call to action, there's no policy platform, there isn't even any implicit shaming. I find it much more likely that a bunch of gamers are just thin-skinned and prone to perceive attacks where they don't exist.

Perhaps they just want people to stop politicizing/social championing games?

Then games are not art by their definition. We all agree that trying to restrict what content in a medium can and cannot be published outside of a clear and established interest to the public good is a sticky proposition. But Gamergate went above and beyond by declaring that anything they perceived as "SJW" was verboten. They told the liberals to make their own, and then when they did GG was there to rag on those games and say they never should have been made.

I argue that it's incredibly petty on their part too because games are a multi-billion dollar global industry. There's room for artsy games and fanservice junk alike and everything in between. And yeah, reviewers are going to have opinions. And so long as there is an audience whose tastes align for the most part with those opinions, then unless there is a malicious intent there's no problem.

Yes, GG have repeatedly claimed malicious intent from the people they scream about, but I've never actually seen such intent demonstrated. And when I ask for better proof, I usually get insults in return. Ultimately, they go back to demanding that games be made the way they insist.

No, I believe that what the majority of GGers really wanted was to make gaming their own personal safe space. They want to protect the "purity" of gaming similarly to how psycho-Christians want to protect the "purity" of their virgin daughters.

Nielas:

Lightknight:

Take for example the argument over Polygon's review of Dragon's Crown (a game I did not play nor do I care about):

https://www.polygon.com/2013/7/31/4553958/dragons-crown-review-heavy-metal

The author drones on and on about how some females in the game were depicted. In short, the author sits in judgment of people who enjoy that kind of artwork. Danielle makes the focus of the article be about her personal taste in how women should be depicted and not how the game functions. See how it steps outside of being mere review and becomes more about her beliefs in this instance?

Anyways, this article came up frequently as one of the precursors to the GG debacle. An example of belittling guys' natural appreciation of sexuality and also the incredibly inane premise that we shouldn't enjoy saving a damsel from a villain. I'm still a bit miffed on journalism taking a stance against damsel rescuing. The entire idea is that women shouldn't be kidnapped and do deserve agency and so if anyone sees a person in that position and has the power to free them they should. People were literally complaining about teaching people to save others.

Did we read the same review? About 75% of the review is about the game's mechanics and how repetitive they ended up being despite a promising beginning. The oversexualization of the characters is a valid concern as it greatly distracts from the enjoyment of the game. A simplistic, sexist storyline does not add to the enjoyment of the game. Those seem valid points and would certainly affect my desire to play the game. It is not really much different than reviewers warning me that Mass Effect 3 had an unsatisfying ending.

It doesn't repeat the other criticism/praises. It just keeps coming back to this one in 5 separate paragraphs in the article and lists it as a primary dislike of the game.

I see where the people who complained about it are coming from. Women not wearing much clothes really isn't a problem. Reviews of Game of Thrones don't suffer because of nudity and the few that do are likewise scoffed. So I don't find it too unrealistic for people here to complain about a puritanical support to scrub traditional sexuality from games.

Lightknight:
So I don't find it too unrealistic for people here to complain about a puritanical support to scrub traditional sexuality from games.

I'm sorry, I need to call bullshit here. There is a vast gulf between being fed up with gratuitous fanservice and being a puritan. Also, I have to ask, what is "traditional" sexuality? What does that even mean?

Smithnikov:

Not a single, solitary, explanation, for why a supposedly non right wing movement gave a complete pass to right wing anti-gaming interests, and happily used right wing spokespeople and celebrated them.

OK, this is actually pretty simple. If the protests against the antics of the press entangled in the "GamerGate" scandal can be considered a "movement", it's not a "right wing movement" nor an anti-right wing movement. Because it's a single-issue protest open for anyone to participate in, no membership card required. Got it?

Anyway, what "right wing anti-gaming interests" are supposed to "get a free pass" from which non-existent "GamerGate" Authority anyway? And how does it decide which spokespeople to "use" and "celebrate", not actually being a real thing and all?

People can be right about a thing regardless of which side of some artificial line they get assigned to in the tired old game of Muh Electoral Binary. Likewise, it's up to individuals to choose who to associate with, not some collective superentity. I know many of us could create some coalition with more consistent PR appeal on paper any day, but that's against the very spirit of the thing.

StatusNil:

Anyway, what "right wing anti-gaming interests" are supposed to "get a free pass" from which non-existent "GamerGate" Authority anyway? And how does it decide which spokespeople to "use" and "celebrate", not actually being a real thing and all?

The NRA and Rebel Media.

Lightknight:

nomotog:
snip

Also it was never about reviews. I often found GG complaining about non review content.

Take for example the argument over Polygon's review of Dragon's Crown (a game I did not play nor do I care about):

https://www.polygon.com/2013/7/31/4553958/dragons-crown-review-heavy-metal

The author drones on and on about how some females in the game were depicted. In short, the author sits in judgment of people who enjoy that kind of artwork. Danielle makes the focus of the article be about her personal taste in how women should be depicted and not how the game functions. See how it steps outside of being mere review and becomes more about her beliefs in this instance?

Let's do something fun: break down by pargraph the review and see how troublesome it really is:

The paragraphs with comments about the design of the female characters are fully quoted.

Title: Swords and sorcery and cleavage abound in Dragon's Crown
1. "Dragon's Crown is a fantasy-obsessed teenaged boy's dream: crazy, violent and full of impossibly large breasts."
2. Developer's previous work
3. "But the game's repetitive structure and a troublesome presentation of women prevent Dragon's Crown from transcending its juvenile influences."
4. Premise.
5. Mechanics.
6. Visuals and mechanics.
7. Mechanics and praise to boss fight design.
8. Differences with Vita
9. Boss fight design.
10. Mechanics.
11. Positive mechanics.
12. Mechanics and level design.
13. Side content design.
14. Visual design.
15. "Dragon's Crown's serious liberties with female anatomy are distracting. Two player characters - the Amazon and the Sorceress - are explicitly sexualized, with breasts literally bigger than their heads with rear ends to match, and plenty of the screen real estate is dedicated to their respective jiggles and sashays. But at least these characters are powerful women, with agency and a penchant for destroying rooms full of bad guys."
16. "The same can't be said for the female NPCs that fill Dragon's Crown's dungeons and other environments. Most of the women in the game are barely clothed, with heaving chests, backs twisted into suggestive positions, some with their legs spread almost as wide as the screen. They're presented as helpless objects, usually in need of rescue. It's obvious, one-sided and gross."

Wrap up: "Dragon's Crown is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy"
17. "It's a fun mix of RPG tropes and dynamic brawler action. But I found its over-exaggerated art style alienating and gross in its depiction of women even as it shines in building a world of fantastic monsters and environments, and the forced grind through the same stages dulled my excitement."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where he's shaming anyone who enjoys the game. And for droning on and on, I see it only briefly at the beginning and at the last 3 paragraphs; while the other 11 paragraphs (the biggest ones) don't mention anything negative about the female characters.

It's the first time I read the review, and, for such big controversy, I expected something more condemning or assertive than this.

BeetleManiac:

Lightknight:
In a lot of ways, people want the game to be based on its own merits. But we all know reviewers that hate rogue-likes and such. A compromise is generally to disclose your bias by saying something like, "I hate rogue-likes" but even then if someone were to say something like, "I don't like this game because it depicts women in sexy clothing" then it tends to cross the line (socially) into moral policing which no side enjoys.

How is that moral policing? There's no call to action, there's no policy platform, there isn't even any implicit shaming. I find it much more likely that a bunch of gamers are just thin-skinned and prone to perceive attacks where they don't exist.

Sure, people do lash out at things that aren't there sometimes. They read into things that are really just surface level stuff. So why would gamers (who are also people, it turns out) do the same?

But there are implied points that can't be so easily dismissed. If you give a game fewer points and a bad/worse review because there are sexy women in it. Then you are implying that liking/enjoying sexy women is wrong. Though, some reviewers/journalists have been fairly overt in this explanation.

Let's also not forget that there's nothing wrong with consumers complaining even though they're being ridiculous. The following should be a perfectly normal interaction:

Consumer of journalism: "What you said has offended me!!!"
Journalist: "So?"
Consumer of journalism: "I don't like being offended!"
Journalist: "Neither do I, but it still happens and I move on like a big boy/girl because I don't have a right to not be offended"

Being upset or offended doesn't mean the person who upsets you or offends you has to grovel or change their way. Let people complain, it's the internet and there are far too many people out there to not have a few people get offended at everything and anything.

Now, as a business hearing your consumers complain about your product, that's a different story that you need to pay attention to. But in general? That we care about people getting offended is a little silly.

Perhaps they just want people to stop politicizing/social championing games?

Then games are not art by their definition. We all agree that trying to restrict what content in a medium can and cannot be published outside of a clear and established interest to the public good is a sticky proposition. But Gamergate went above and beyond by declaring that anything they perceived as "SJW" was verboten. They told the liberals to make their own, and then when they did GG was there to rag on those games and say they never should have been made.

I'm unsure how a medium is reported on would change what the medium itself is. You're taking too many leaps of logic here. The argument is against reporting on games, not games themselves necessarily. Or are you including something else I'm missing?

I argue that it's incredibly petty on their part too because games are a multi-billion dollar global industry. There's room for artsy games and fanservice junk alike and everything in between. And yeah, reviewers are going to have opinions. And so long as there is an audience whose tastes align for the most part with those opinions, then unless there is a malicious intent there's no problem.

Keep in mind, it is okay for consumers to complain about a product they are consuming. But I tend to agree. I actually like some reviewers for the sheer purpose that I almost always disagree with them. "Huh, they dislike that game because it doesn't match their political stances? Bet I'll love it". All I care is that reviewers be consistent.

I do agree with them that it would be nice to have significant bias disclosed in the same way that other conflicts of interest should be noted. But recognizing one's own bias is difficult given relative spheres of influence sometimes leaving us in a bubble where we don't recognize that we're outside of the norm to even see that it's bias. But people should still know their audience better than that.

Yes, GG have repeatedly claimed malicious intent from the people they scream about, but I've never actually seen such intent demonstrated. And when I ask for better proof, I usually get insults in return. Ultimately, they go back to demanding that games be made the way they insist.

Malicious intent? What would even be done that could be called malicious? Soapboxing, sure, even colluding with other journalists to create a common agenda, sure, but malicious? It seems to me that their intention was always to do what they felt was right and not to actually harm. Some of them certainly lashed out at people when they got angry (Like that Alexander Leigh article or whatever), but most just wanted to further inclusion into gaming and that's fine.

I think a line was crossed when they told people they were wrong for wanting certain things. A guy is wrong for wanting sexy female characters in a game. A white male is wrong for wanting a protagonist that looks like him. A guy is wrong for wanting to save a damsel.

These are odd steps to take and some journalists lit the powder keg by going to far. So that's how the dance of social advancement goes, two steps forward, one step back and sometimes which direction is forward gets confused.

EDIT: Hmm, I think I thought of something that could be seen as malicious by that group:

The general fear they had was that journalists would encourage developers to make or alter games in such a way that make them less enjoyable to this group. That is a reasonable fear if the people expressing it had beliefs that differ drastically from that of the journalists. I mean, I do enjoy games less when they ram a political stance I'm not passionate about down my throat the whole game. That does get tedious so I do understand this fear at least even if I'm not particularly struck by it.

In a way, complaining about journalism and getting this voice heard was their way of letting game makers know that they are still a significant market. It's really no different than when other groups complain about things like depictions of women and such. It's all just advocating for their own interests and no side is bad for doing that.

No, I believe that what the majority of GGers really wanted was to make gaming their own personal safe space. They want to protect the "purity" of gaming similarly to how psycho-Christians want to protect the "purity" of their virgin daughters.

If this really is/was somehow the case, then is it not their prerogative to pursue what they deem as a safe space? You say it seethingly and with disdain, but do you feel the same about people on college campuses wanting a safe space away from public lectures of people they disagree with? If you do feel the same, then at least you're internally consistent which is always refreshing.

Smithnikov:

The NRA and Rebel Media.

You mean the National Rifle Association or some other NRA? How are their anti-gaming activities going, lots of talks at big game industry gatherings rapturously received, with no one daring to disagree? I must have missed it.

And Rebel Media, meaning Gavin McInnes occasionally talking smack about gaming... Yeah, now there's a powerful threat to gaming. The thing is, you see, people have stupid opinions all the freaking time. It's only when they get elevated to an enforced, unquestionable consensus that we need to worry about them.

BeetleManiac:

Lightknight:
So I don't find it too unrealistic for people here to complain about a puritanical support to scrub traditional sexuality from games.

I'm sorry, I need to call bullshit here. There is a vast gulf between being fed up with gratuitous fanservice and being a puritan. Also, I have to ask, what is "traditional" sexuality? What does that even mean?

I am personally somewhat discontent over the taboo of depicting sexuality in the US. It really is a repressed nation and every special interest group takes it in weird directions. Like making it evil to be depicted a lot or at all. It's all pretty silly. But that's just my opinion. As someone who grew up in a college town and routinely saw girls jogging down the street in spandex underwear I simply can't be phased by cartoon breasts.

So yeah, I see people getting outraged over them either way as trying to remove (or purify) sexuality from the medium. As such, puritanical was a very intentional use of the term. You are free to disagree with me by all means and I invite your counterpoint. But I have arrived at this conclusion through years of careful thought and consideration.

CaitSeith:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where he's shaming anyone who enjoys the game.

She. The author's name is Danielle Riendeau and I personally think her article was good and extremely thorough.

And for droning on and on, I see it only briefly at the beginning and at the last 3 paragraphs; while the other 11 paragraphs (the biggest ones) don't mention anything negative about the female characters.

It's the first time I read the review, and, for such big controversy, I expected something more condemning or assertive than this.

I mean, when I first came across that controversy I was also kind of confused. Danielle has a point, the characters were insanely exaggerated to the point that I didn't bother picking up the game. I think some of their major counterpoints was that the men were exaggerated too. Like, if men having a larger right-hand was seen as attractive then the developers would have given them massive bear claws of hands. But instead men seem to just have muscle and faces that are exaggerated unless we can get some giant ol' bear cock hidden away in there somewhere but the ESRB classifications get all frowny faced at that.

It's also been one of the disparate problems. Women's hip size, breasts, butt and legs are major features seen as attractive and easy to exaggerate. But male's features are usually bulk or toned muscles and the face with the occasional butt there as well but usually on the toned front rather than the bulk front. So I'm not so sure men aren't exaggerated similarly in media but that the common forms are just so different as to not be as overt as large breasts and legs a mile long.

When I say she droned on and on about the topic, I mean she addressed it more than any other topic and she did. But come on, it's also clearly the most distinguishing feature of the game. It really is.

I'm just recounting one such example of what got people riled up. There weren't very many standout examples, just a little here and there that I think the right/wrong people picked up on enough to start building up the heat and subsequently going ape shit over the slightest mention of corruption in journalism (whether real or imagined).

BeetleManiac:

I can be very pleasant, even charming, when I'm not about to meltdown out of fear of whether or not I can pay rent this month.

Sucks.

That said, I do confess that I'm not especially good at suffering foolishness in others gladly. One of the reasons why my ignore list has grown so much over the last couple of months. The fleeting sensation of triumph over intellectually bankrupt sophistry isn't worth the headaches that come from having to argue with gatekeepers, political hacks and other sundry randos with an ax to grind.

So you see this as almost like a sport? You actively want competition?

I can't say that's how I want things, but I don't begrudge you it either, if I'm understanding you correctly. I must say though, in regards to the axe-grinding, that's the impression I got of you circa the "Then why do you complain about it more?" comment, and... Kinda before then too, to be honest.

Having someone make wrong assumptions about what you think isn't a good time, and I'd argue a missed opportunity since it doesn't actually move things forward any since the focus then becomes correction. Enquiry is a better angle. Basically anything other than dumping your baggage on some unsuspecting person is preferable.

Really, the whole clusterfuck that is Gamergate taught me I was right to not take anonymous people online at their word. The amount of dishonesty, venom, suspicion and general abrasiveness tossed my way for not immediately joining the crusade or even for espousing an opinion that was deemed "SJW" in nature got to the point where it became indistinguishable from barking dogs.

I'm not going to lie, I do really enjoy the term "SJW". I get that when these things get adopted by the thoughtless they pretty much become meaningless and end up a burden for innocent bystanders, but I do love how certain people get a real bug-up-their-ass about it.

I think I personally expressed some measure of objection to the term "dudebro" here back in the day. I was told "hey, it's an observable thing" and that there was nothing wrong with it. Then I took some issue with the term "mansplaining" (I think I was labelled a "mansplainer") and was told much the same thing, "hey, it's a term for something we've observed, deal with it".

Well... "SJW" didn't magic itself into existence and then trend arbitrarily. "Hey, it's something observable" seems pretty damn accurate from where I'm sitting(not a shot at you).

You find fun where you can.

Lightknight:
-snip-

Makin' a lot of assumptions, dude. I don't have time to unpack this tonight, but I'll see about stealing some time for it tomorrow.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
So you see this as almost like a sport? You actively want competition?

No. Truth is, I see most internet arguments as a hassle. More accurately, I believe everyone is ignorant of something because no one can know everything, yet we all have a little shoulder devil that pops up now and again telling us the rest of the planet is dumber than us. Some of us learn to ignore the little bastard. Others, not so much.

As for SJW, I know where the pejorative originated. I've met people like that. I imagine they are as frustrating to me as the open-carry ammosexuals are to firearms enthusiasts who aren't bonkers. And I've been called worse for less. I've actually had people tell me to kill myself for not liking something they liked. There comes a point where it's all just so much noise.

StatusNil:

Smithnikov:

The NRA and Rebel Media.

You mean the National Rifle Association or some other NRA? How are their anti-gaming activities going, lots of talks at big game industry gatherings rapturously received, with no one daring to disagree? I must have missed it.

Wait, who was giving anti-gaming talks at big game industry gatherings that were rapturously received without criticism?

That sounds like a "pics or it didn't happen" moment.

StatusNil:

You mean the National Rifle Association or some other NRA? How are their anti-gaming activities going, lots of talks at big game industry gatherings rapturously received, with no one daring to disagree? I must have missed it.

And Rebel Media, meaning Gavin McInnes occasionally talking smack about gaming... Yeah, now there's a powerful threat to gaming. The thing is, you see, people have stupid opinions all the freaking time. It's only when they get elevated to an enforced, unquestionable consensus that we need to worry about them.

You can't be racist against whites, because whites have all the power.

Smithnikov:

StatusNil:

You mean the National Rifle Association or some other NRA? How are their anti-gaming activities going, lots of talks at big game industry gatherings rapturously received, with no one daring to disagree? I must have missed it.

And Rebel Media, meaning Gavin McInnes occasionally talking smack about gaming... Yeah, now there's a powerful threat to gaming. The thing is, you see, people have stupid opinions all the freaking time. It's only when they get elevated to an enforced, unquestionable consensus that we need to worry about them.

You can't be racist against whites, because whites have all the power.

You're joking, right?

RaikuFA:

Smithnikov:
snip

You're joking, right?

Either that or the argument is so clumsily oversimplified that it may as well be a joke.

Gamergate didn't ruin anything from a pure games industry standpoint. Hell they didn't even really effect games journalism.
Mostly because despite their mantra all of the things and people they targeted was personal politics and Twitter slapfights.
While Assassin's Creed was getting unwarranted 10/10s the so called 'Journalistic Ethic's Watchdogs were more concerned about Anita doing a thing and Bioware announcing a trans character or some shit.
The only thing Gamergate affected was general online gaming discourse. But even then those conversations were always trash 80% of the time to begin with. GG just elevated it from basic trash to flaming trash. Nothing has really changed.

RaikuFA:

You're joking, right?

Very sarcastically, but yes.

The dismissal of the massive right wing dickery hurled in the name of GamerGate get's excused because, supposedly, none of those people were important.

It comes off to me exactly the same as the idiotic notion that you can't be racist against white people, because white people have all the power. Because SJW's and their allies controlled the journo scene, it's therefore impossible for GamerGate to act like dicks to people.

It's also called "punching upward" by some left wing talking heads.

BeetleManiac:

No. Truth is, I see most internet arguments as a hassle. More accurately, I believe everyone is ignorant of something because no one can know everything, yet we all have a little shoulder devil that pops up now and again telling us the rest of the planet is dumber than us. Some of us learn to ignore the little bastard. Others, not so much.

I was going to say "surely it goes without saying that nobody knows everything", but I totally know people who act like they do.

What keeps you coming back?

As for SJW, I know where the pejorative originated. I've met people like that. I imagine they are as frustrating to me as the open-carry ammosexuals are to firearms enthusiasts who aren't bonkers. And I've been called worse for less. I've actually had people tell me to kill myself for not liking something they liked. There comes a point where it's all just so much noise.

Internet gonna internet.

Smithnikov:

The dismissal of the massive right wing dickery hurled in the name of GamerGate get's excused because, supposedly, none of those people were important.

It comes off to me exactly the same as the idiotic notion that you can't be racist against white people, because white people have all the power. Because SJW's and their allies controlled the journo scene, it's therefore impossible for GamerGate to act like dicks to people.

It's also called "punching upward" by some left wing talking heads.

I... whaaaat?

You were talking about the NRA. What in the world is this "massive right wing dickery" the NRA is "hurling in the name of GamerGate" and is getting excused? I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

And whatever the details, your comparison to that "whitey can't be racisted against!" nonsense is off by several nautical miles. That's an Orwellian attempt to re-engineer a perfectly lucid, functional and established concept in order to spuriously legitimize vicious practices by the very people deriving their justification from supposedly resisting those very practices, and it's being heavily promoted by the pseudo-Academic establishment and various identity-political actors downstream from that toxic source. In other words, a concerted attempt to tamper with the tools of considering their proposed problem. That's some deep rot alright, far beyond mere silly opinion.

Edit: Furthermore, "GamerGate" is not an agent with a singular will, therefore "GamerGate" indeed cannot "act like a dick". Individuals of course are able to so conduct themselves.

Smithnikov:

runic knight:

First, as you've been corrected on multiple times, no, no matter how much you wish it so, gamergate is not some right-wing political movement, and no, they weren't singling out anyone who wasn't right wing.

All I've gotten out of you is "Nuh Uh's"

Not a single, solitary, explanation, for why a supposedly non right wing movement gave a complete pass to right wing anti-gaming interests, and happily used right wing spokespeople and celebrated them.

Well for one, they didn't. Even pro-gamergater voices were called into question. Milo wasn't trusted. People looked into things and called it out and there is history of that in the megathread itself, as well as every other gathering point for gamergate. The problem you have, and it is pretty obvious, is that they didn't reject them for their politics outright.

For another, your asking why gamers didn't attack the wider media that wasn't related to gaming at the time and which hadn't attacked them yet, a question who's answer was obvious to anyone. They concentrated on the gaming media and any media or personalities that attacked them. You know, because that was the uniting factor, they were pissed at the gaming media. This is like asking "why didn't they reject chick-fil-a" because that was outside the scope of the total. Worth noting though, that individuals part of gamergate DID do that, or encouraged that. It just wasn't picked up by the rest because they didn't care about things being an ideological fight, they cared about it as a consumer level one.

For another, you are asking why they didn't attack the political cause you specifically wanted them to when most were barely connected to each other and that solely by a shared displeasure at the gaming industry. Others tried to get them to do the same and failed. Hell, one of the biggest names in the early days, Internet Aristocrat, tried and failed to get them to attack liberalism itself, the direct opposite ideological target you wanted them to attack. Because it gamergate wasn't about political lean, it was consumer driven response.

Your question is nonsensical and relies entirely on assumptions that are baseless. I have dug up examples before, and you really aren't worth the repeated effort there.

I am sorry you seem completely unable to deal with your personal vendetta against a few insults from shitposters

The irony in that statement is palpable.

I'd say "please, do explain" since this is just worthless snarky commentary, but again, you really aren't worth it. I know why already. You would likely make a claim that gamergaters are just on a vendetta themselves. You'd ignore the distinctions between consumers responding to shitty service and you just being upset miscellaneous people made fun of you. You'd ignore that a media is a larger, more powerful and thus more important entity to wrangle into following their ethical guidelines and that despite your dislike, the posters calling you "cuck" were still within theirs. You'd ignore the the media's attempts to attack gamer could affect the industry harmfully for customers in a myriad of ways, to say nothing of the direct harm they cause and thus different than you being called names since you are worthless to the world the same as any other individual poster on a message board is.

to the point out outright manufacturing falsehoods and making dishonest accusations at entire groups of people based off of very poorly cherry picked examples that support it, but no, your attempted misrepresentation of reality doesn't make the actual motivations and goals of gamergate change to fit your reality.

And neither does your apologetics, jack. I know who slapped the SJW label on me. I know who said I wasn't a real gamer and declared me an enemy. I know who complained about being called sexist one week and the next week trotted out Milo, RooshV, Vox Day, and Matt Forney without a hint of awareness. I know who said this fight was about taking down The Jews. I know who bought it hook line and sinker when the right put on dad jeans and tried to make themselves out as gaming's eternal friends.

You got mad when the journos used accusations of sexism as a shield, and I supported you.

But what did you do not long after? You put out shit like "How Women Have Destroyed Video Games".

I'd love to see you show me where I did any of that?

Or are you pretending I am that man of straw you charge against in the field? Or that amalgamation of everything wrong and evil in your mind that haunts your sleepiness nights like a boogieman in the closet?

Is there even a point in correcting your statements here about being wrong, that people like Milo were accepted as useful tool kept at arms length from the start, or that voices like Roosh were mocked, laughed at and disowned? You obviously didn't care when I and others revealed those claims to be dishonest before, including with evidence and examples. Why would you bother now?

Gamergate was a consumer backlash against the gaming media that occurred across all political spectrums and multiple sites. The fact that the people gamergate called out all shared a political uniformity is not indicative that the backlash was opposing that ideology itself, especially when multiple studies demonstrated that gamergate as a majority was overall sharing that same political lean on the individual level as the media itself

/pol/ was left wing leaning? And you call ME delusional....

/pol/ was a very smart part of the whole. Most of gamergate was general customers of the sites, gamers unhappy with the media and who wanted better. But nice of your to display that you are unable to accept that gamergate was anything but that phantom you concocted.

even if the overall had no such political lean in its direction itself (or, in short, most gamergaters were liberals themselves, like the media, but gamergate overall didn't concern itself with liberal political party issues, it instead worried about what actions and behavior the media was doing in the name of their political ideals). The media and their allies being a borderline ideological cult of gatekeepers and manufacturers of outrage all sharing a uniform political lean was called out because that caused open bias and directly affected their ability to do their job properly. It affected their ability to do their job (and thus affected the customers they were meant to serve the interests of) when they put their own personal political causes ahead of their responsibility to informing the public what would be relevant and factual to the public, and they were putting their political cause ahead of their duty to be ethical and responsible in the position of authority that their profession enjoys. The fact you are were personally peeved because people called you mean names, likely in response to these sorts of openly intentionally dishonest arguments, also does not demonstrate your claim in the least, and actually harms it as that sort of chip on your shoulder merely showcases why you are being dishonest in your representations of the group in the exact same way a racist will justify their racism.

You know what my "intentionally dishonest arguments" that got me labelled everything from a Jew to a cuckold to a communist?

Know what it was?

I questioned someone saying that State of Decay was 'SJW trash'.

That was my great intellectually dishonest sin.

You likely don't believe me. I could care less.

Oh no, I believe you believe it. I just don't believe it justifies your actions toward such a large group of people in the least. I also don't believe your question was as innocuous and innocently presented as you claim. Your posts here show how confrontational, emotional and near-intolerable a poster to interact with you can be. And that isn't even taking into account the difference in site culture, language and personalities. They aren't nice places where opinions are always argued calmly after all. I think that your response to that trolling though certainly showed them everything they wanted to see though, be it just a rise out of you, or that you were exactly what that label means to them. And I think that if all it took was someone saying something mean about your opinion to drive you to this level of obsessive vendetta, that gamergate was worlds better off that you weren't part of it. I was called worse for arguing against the developer boycotts suggestions. I didn't blame the total for the fact there were people being assholes. Sure didn't start spreading lies and aiding and abetting the gaming media itself by promoting and propagating it's bullshit narrative.

That is like pretending someone smearing shit on the wall at a restaurant to write "kill all conservatives" being called out by the customers trying to have a meal is another "night of long knives" because you happen to agree with the feces-written political statement and want to pretend that people not wanting to see employees smearing their shit on the walls is a grand political statement in itself. If any situation would be comparable, it would have been the media's attempt to demonize and attack those openly vocally opposed to them (you know, abusing privledge and position of authority in order to "kill off" dissenting opinions because of political ideology).

You know what this reminds me of, come to think of it? The garbage left wing definition of "racism".

The notion that non-whites cannot be racist because they aren't in power.

The fact that I got slammed and insulted by my own subculture is fine and dandy, because they weren't journos or "people in power"

For the same reasons those left wing apologists of anti white racism can fuck off, I say the same to this notion.

I am not acceptable losses because the media acted like shitheels.

But all of gamergate an acceptable loss because a shitposter acted like a shitheel?

Or is that different because it happened to you and wasn't you trying to do it to them?

Your comparison is flawed. You got slammed and insulted by your own subculture, but you know what, so what?

You want pity for how some troll called you a mean name? You want to feel sympathy because someone was a jerk?

No. Your actions are not justified because of that.

I have gotten shit as well. And shit on. And shit flung at. It happens in every subculture and it sucks but that is the nature of groups. People will be assholes to each other, and closer proximity breeds the likelihood. Even online proximity.

That doesn't justify demonizing and misrepresenting an entire group of people by the barest connection to them. That does not justify this vendetta. That does not justify aiding the accusations and false claims that can damage people's lives.

The reason people were concerned with the journalists being unethical and unprofessional is because of the damage they could do overall. They had more power than the average customer. They had greater reach. And they could harm people for disagreement. It isn't that they were being jerks while in power, it was they were abusing that power to be jerks.

The death threats, harassment and attempts to remove people from their jobs that weren't related to serving the public or their not fulfilling the responsibility and duty of the profession. That would be a lot more akin to the night of long knives, since it was actually politically motivated, involved an over-extension of authority and an abuse of privledge and power in order to satisfy personal interests.

And while a lot of the behavior by the media and the personalities they support would be right at home with an authoritarian socialist regime that used force to maintain ideological purity

As opposed to the authoritarian facist regime that's trying to impose idealogical purity (helicopter rides, anyone?)

You actually think people are serious about that? I mean any amount of people that would represent the whole of a group, not the cherry picked examples you like to claim represent the whole to justify your emotional rhetoric.

No, gamergate is not pushing for a fascist regime because so many who are or were part of it opposes your political view's authoritarian fascism. Opposing and mocking groups like Antifa does not mean nor require supporting the same force from the right and it is foolish to think so. moderates exist, and it is not an act of extremism to call out and oppose extremists.

[quote]that should be argued in a case by case basis. Only relevant way would be when the comparison has a point that extends beyond "they are nazi" where just calling them evil would suffice to show it is purely emotional, or just saying you think people should punch them for disagreeing with you.[/quoete]

Which doesn't help your case when you advocate for tossing people from helicopters for being a communist.

Or, as I've seen lately, gassing people for being a Jew or a "Normie".

When that is being suggested seriously, when even causing harm to someone for that is being suggested seriously and not just the edgelord nature of those discussion boards, you would have a point.

You know, it is odd, for someone who claims to be so hurt for being rejected by the subculture, you show such a total lack of understanding of the humor, jokes, language, tone, attitude, and nature of it. You take things like "helicopter rides" seriously, you were insulted by being called cuck (the fact you were even surprised at all let alone insulted suggests lack of understanding that was going to happen), and you have clung to and openly promoted this dishonest representation of a group of people for years since then. I don't get it.

Do you think the person who insulted you matters to the rest of everyone else? Do you think you matter to anyone else? Why would they? Why would you? Why would I? We are voices in text behind display pic avatars. We have no bonds with you and you with us that are not mutual and intentionally made. All we binds us in the end is a love of gaming and the internet. Some was mean to you? Call him it right back. Laugh at him. Mock him. But don't involve innocents who had no relation to him and no way to stop or even know of him. Don't let a vendetta grow against a group of people. Doing so, it just shows you never saw yourself as part of the group. Doing so, it shows you never wanted to be part of the group.

Lightknight:
-snip-

Yeah, if I'm going to be able to respond to all of that, you need to tell me what you mean by "traditional sexuality." I have no idea what you think that is, but I hear that phrase as an oxymoron because sex and romantic culture within a society are in states of constant evolution. And hell, even if we pick out the mores of a particular time period, there's still the question of whose cultural traditions are being referred to. This is, after all, a global medium and that must be a consideration in AAA distribution. So yeah, I need a definition.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
What keeps you coming back?

Same as what fuels a lot day-to-day bad decisions. You get stressed out and bad ideas start sounding better. It's like getting drunk, only not.

runic knight:

When that is being suggested seriously, when even causing harm to someone for that is being suggested seriously and not just the edgelord nature of those discussion boards, you would have a point.

You know, it is odd, for someone who claims to be so hurt for being rejected by the subculture, you show such a total lack of understanding of the humor, jokes, language, tone, attitude, and nature of it. You take things like "helicopter rides" seriously, you were insulted by being called cuck (the fact you were even surprised at all let alone insulted suggests lack of understanding that was going to happen), and you have clung to and openly promoted this dishonest representation of a group of people for years since then. I don't get it.

I was insulted and even threatened, and you don't get why I'm angry about it?

Some was mean to you? Call him it right back. Laugh at him. Mock him. But don't involve innocents who had no relation to him and no way to stop or even know of him. Don't let a vendetta grow against a group of people.

When that group of people supports them doing it, I make no apologies about opposing them.

You may be okay with them shitting on you, but I don't like to be shit on, and you got a lot of nerve telling me or anyone else to shut up and enjoy being shit on.

Smithnikov:

runic knight:

When that is being suggested seriously, when even causing harm to someone for that is being suggested seriously and not just the edgelord nature of those discussion boards, you would have a point.

You know, it is odd, for someone who claims to be so hurt for being rejected by the subculture, you show such a total lack of understanding of the humor, jokes, language, tone, attitude, and nature of it. You take things like "helicopter rides" seriously, you were insulted by being called cuck (the fact you were even surprised at all let alone insulted suggests lack of understanding that was going to happen), and you have clung to and openly promoted this dishonest representation of a group of people for years since then. I don't get it.

I was insulted and even threatened, and you don't get why I'm angry about it?

Some was mean to you? Call him it right back. Laugh at him. Mock him. But don't involve innocents who had no relation to him and no way to stop or even know of him. Don't let a vendetta grow against a group of people.

When that group of people supports them doing it, I make no apologies about opposing them.

You may be okay with them shitting on you, but I don't like to be shit on, and you got a lot of nerve telling me or anyone else to shut up and enjoy being shit on.

I get why you are mad.

I don't get why you believe your personal feelings justify your actions against people completely unrelated to what happened to you. "Being mad" isn't a valid reason to treat an entire group of people the way you do. Especially one as diverse and dissociated as gamergate.

Nor do I get when you openly use what happened to you to justify shitting on others while being oblivious to the fact that shitting on others is doing the same sort of thing you felt justified your response in the first place. You unapologetically became what you claimed to hate.

But I suppose it is perfectly fine when you demonize people, misrepresent them, accuse and aid harm against them because people unrelated to the ones calling you names didn't stop someone calling your a cuck despite having no means or reason to since that is part of the very nature of that subcommunity you wanted to be part of.

BeetleManiac:

Lightknight:
-snip-

Yeah, if I'm going to be able to respond to all of that, you need to tell me what you mean by "traditional sexuality." I have no idea what you think that is, but I hear that phrase as an oxymoron because sex and romantic culture within a society are in states of constant evolution. And hell, even if we pick out the mores of a particular time period, there's still the question of whose cultural traditions are being referred to. This is, after all, a global medium and that must be a consideration in AAA distribution. So yeah, I need a definition.

Oh, I see what you're asking.

I just mean human attraction to the traditionally sexy body parts. Breasts, butts, faces, legs, whatever. Nearly every culture had a thing for those parts even if what is good or bad has changed (big butts vs small butts, large breasts vs small breasts, etc). I also mean the general nature of humans to be attracted to other humans. So, traditional in more of the basic human nature sense. That's as opposed to the more nuanced nature of being attracted to someone's internal mechanisms/features like personality traits.

Like "*Gasp* Developers emphasized the female character's cleavage!!!" shouldn't mean anything to anyone as a negative because of course breasts are a common attractor and no, attractiveness isn't bad or to be demonized.

Sorry if you thought I was saying they were trying to scrub traditional man/woman attraction or something and not discussing LGBTQ as part of my argument of people whose sexuality are also being suppressed by this kind of "sexy is bad" rhetoric.

Lightknight:
Sorry if you thought I was saying they were trying to scrub traditional man/woman attraction or something and not discussing LGBTQ as part of my argument of people whose sexuality are also being suppressed by this kind of "sexy is bad" rhetoric.

How are people saying that sexy is bad? If I'm watching a period piece adapted from a Jane Austen novel and the 19th century women are wearing bikinis, how attractive they are is irrelevant to the fact that it does not make sense. It is not sex negative to say that one is tired of gratuitous pandering and fanservice, especially if it does nothing to add to the experience.

Further, where are you getting the whole "purity" angle from? Because they only ones I hear talking about protecting the "purity" of games are gamergaters and their various apologists. You're assuming a lot about other people's motives, but you haven't demonstrated any evidence for those motives outside of your own speculation.

BeetleManiac:

Lightknight:
Sorry if you thought I was saying they were trying to scrub traditional man/woman attraction or something and not discussing LGBTQ as part of my argument of people whose sexuality are also being suppressed by this kind of "sexy is bad" rhetoric.

How are people saying that sexy is bad? If I'm watching a period piece adapted from a Jane Austen novel and the 19th century women are wearing bikinis, how attractive they are is irrelevant to the fact that it does not make sense. It is not sex negative to say that one is tired of gratuitous pandering and fanservice, especially if it does nothing to add to the experience.

Further, where are you getting the whole "purity" angle from? Because they only ones I hear talking about protecting the "purity" of games are gamergaters and their various apologists. You're assuming a lot about other people's motives, but you haven't demonstrated any evidence for those motives outside of your own speculation.

By getting upset when characters are sexualized, they are being inherently sex-negative. By bullying and shaming developers for doing so, sometimes to the point of job loss if the developers/project managers dare respond, they are trying to remove occurrences of sexualization from media even though it's merely their own personal view and sensibilities they're trying to police on others' works. Conversely, people getting outraged that they would dare voice their wants and desires and trying to shame developers who do try something different are likewise guilty of similar things so please don't take this as a one sided piece so much as an attempt to deconstruct what's happening internally from both sides.

It is one thing to say it is tiresome. It is another thing to say it is inherently wrong and to demonize gamers who like it and want it to keep happening. It's an incredible double standard to call gamers neckbearded whiners for saying they like that trend in gaming at the same time the person complaining of them are themselves whining about how things currently are. Both can complain, as consumers do. But neither has some kind of moral high ground over the other. Sex isn't wrong and being attracted to sexy things isn't wrong. Just as wanting stronger female characters isn't wrong either. The biggest sin of gaming developers with respect to the last few decades of gaming was moreso sloppy character writing for the damsel. Just because they need your help doesn't mean they can't be interesting, for example.

Regarding your example, if it is a "period piece" then it doesn't have bikinis or it wouldn't be a "period piece". It would merely be an adaptation. The complaint you could reasonably levy against such a film is that it was incorrectly billed as a period piece, not that they are somehow ethically wrong for having made such an adaptation regardless of how trite it might be in your eyes. Chainmail bikinis, as ridiculous as they are, never hurt anyone unless their pants were way too tight in the "crotchal" region. So what if that was the direction the artists and character modelers took? A lot of people are into that so it's a competing interests thing rather than a moral imperative.

Lightknight:
snip

Yes, presenting female characters as sexy or sexualizing female characters isn't inherently bad. But having 90% of the important female characters in the medium sexualized is.

Lightknight:
By getting upset when characters are sexualized, they are being inherently sex-negative.

How? Do you know what "sex negative" means? Because wanting to have sex does not automatically make you sex positive.

By bullying and shaming developers for doing so, sometimes to the point of job loss if the developers/project managers dare respond, they are trying to remove occurrences of sexualization from media even though it's merely their own personal view and sensibilities they're trying to police on others' works. Conversely, people getting outraged that they would dare voice their wants and desires and trying to shame developers who do try something different are likewise guilty of similar things so please don't take this as a one sided piece so much as an attempt to deconstruct what's happening internally from both sides.

Pics or it didn't happen. I have not seen what you are describing outside of a few dark corners of social media that only GGers and other cranks take seriously. I have never once in my life seen any evidence that this alleged attitude is a genuine threat to the industry.

Sex isn't wrong and being attracted to sexy things isn't wrong.

Who is saying otherwise? Name names.

Regarding your example, if it is a "period piece" then it doesn't have bikinis or it wouldn't be a "period piece". It would merely be an adaptation. The complaint you could reasonably levy against such a film is that it was incorrectly billed as a period piece, not that they are somehow ethically wrong for having made such an adaptation regardless of how trite it might be in your eyes. Chainmail bikinis, as ridiculous as they are, never hurt anyone unless their pants were way too tight in the "crotchal" region. So what if that was the direction the artists and character modelers took? A lot of people are into that so it's a competing interests thing rather than a moral imperative.

This isn't black and white. Have you ever played Pathfinder? You seen the character designs? They're fucking bonkers. The iconic sorcerer is many a gamer's wet dream, the iconic fighter is made mostly of abs, the iconic magus is what goth female fanfiction writers see when they close their eyes and even the iconic half-orc inquisitor has an amazing rack. The outfits are absurd. The alchemist is covered in more fragile glassware than a vape shop, the oracle looks like she just got out of the shower, and all of the female metal armor has tits hammered into it.

But this isn't a deal breaker for me. The whole game embraces the gonzo aesthetic. It's high fantasy and the laws of physics have to share space with the Rule of Cool. And that's fine. Go nuts! Just don't do it halfway. In fact, as ludicrous as all these character designs are, they actually manage to pack a decent amount of personality into them.

By contrast, Dragon Age is a low-magic setting where technology is barely catching up to Medieval European standards, mages are as cursed as they are gifted, and the world itself is cold and indifferent. Chainmail bikinis would not make sense in this setting. It would break immersion.

It is possible to love both settings for their own merits. Golarian and Thedas are both well-crafted settings and worlds with their own interesting mythologies and histories, and they take different tones in terms of narrative and aesthetic to match the experience of play they're trying to create. The problem myself and many others have is not that there is too much sexiness in gaming, it's that most of it has no direction or objective other than to titillate a stereotype of the average gamer. It is not made specifically with the play experience in mind and is often served up for its own sake. To make matters worse, the excuses we're given are sometimes brain-shatteringly bizarre. Quiet breathes through her skin, so that's why she has to be perpetually half-naked, nevermind the fact that she could still just as easily breathe through her skin in a cotton shirt.

That's the thing. A lot of the sexualization in games is only of women and usually gratuitous. And frankly, I find it a little insulting to see publishers continually assuming that I haven't matured past the age of 14. They're not putting this shit in because of how much they respect your sexuality. They're doing it because they assume this is what the lowest common denominator buys.

You're welcome to your fanservice. I just don't want it in everything because fanservice is like junk food: hits the spot when you want it, but consuming too much of it isn't healthy.

CaitSeith:

Lightknight:
snip

Yes, presenting female characters as sexy or sexualizing female characters isn't inherently bad. But having 90% of the important female characters in the medium sexualized is.

Why? Why is that bad? Males are also sexualized. Are you claiming that they don't make male characters in games also physically attractive? You've seen my comments that for men the traditional sexy traits aren't as exaggeratable like the traditional female traits are. Breasts, butts, legs and hips are really easy to exaggerate and make more noticeable. Men basically have muscle, face and butt while even then, toned muscles are frequently seen as more desirable on men than bubble butts or even muscle men (which do exist). So you may not see someone like Nathan Drake as sexualized but he actually is as much as males can be. Handsome/rugged face (as compared to the boyish pretty face other male characters have that is also liked), muscled but not overly so, and toned in the right areas such as a nice firm ass from all that climbing.

Yeah, think about the toned curvature of those man-humps he's got. People talked about that. A character modeler obsessed over how they'd look. Someone made various models of Nathan with different butt-types most likely:

image

Men are exactly the same as women. If there's a feature people find attractive in either sex then that sex generally wants to have it. Like I said earlier, if men had a feature like a massive lobster claw that women found extra attractive then you could safely bet the male protagonist of any such game would have a massive lobster claw. But we don't have that. Do you honestly believe I wouldn't want to play as an attractive protagonist if any? I've been a gamer for a lot of years and I've never gone the route of unattractive. Maybe scary at most.

Lightknight:
Why? Why is that bad? Males are also sexualized. Are you claiming that they don't make male characters in games also physically attractive?

"Physically attractive" and "sexualized" are not the same thing.

Men basically have muscle, face and butt while even then, toned muscles are frequently seen as more desirable on men than bubble butts or even muscle men (which do exist). So you may not see someone like Nathan Drake as sexualized but he actually is as much as males can be.

Except for the fact that he gets to dress like an actual human being and never conspicuously poses in a way to show off his package? I noticed that was something missing from your list of male attractive parts, nothing mentioned about packing heat.

I'm starting to see part of the problem is that you draw no distinction between being good-looking and being sexualized. There are ways of seeing people as attractive that do not conclude with, "I would absolutely put my penis in that!"

Nathan Drake is an action hero first and a generically good-looking white dude second. Women in games rarely can say that. They are sold on their appearances, their bodies, how sultry or submissive they are. The publishers (and many devs) treat their female characters less like characters and more like scenery that you can masturbate to.

Lightknight:
Do you honestly believe I wouldn't want to play as an attractive protagonist if any? I've been a gamer for a lot of years and I've never gone the route of unattractive. Maybe scary at most.

That's a power fantasy. Being good-looking enough that you get more of what you want, more attention, more approval and other good-looking people trying to get into your pants. That is most certainly a power fantasy. Women have those too. You ever asked them what theirs are?

BeetleManiac:

Lightknight:
By getting upset when characters are sexualized, they are being inherently sex-negative.

How? Do you know what "sex negative" means? Because wanting to have sex does not automatically make you sex positive.

If you are going to warp the term "sex negative" around however a group defines what is good or bad sexuality then that's quite an amazing shifting goalpost. I'm just talking about something that sees something being depicted as sexy as an inherent negative. Like a low-cut shirt being worse than a normal shirt or something.

By bullying and shaming developers for doing so, sometimes to the point of job loss if the developers/project managers dare respond, they are trying to remove occurrences of sexualization from media even though it's merely their own personal view and sensibilities they're trying to police on others' works. Conversely, people getting outraged that they would dare voice their wants and desires and trying to shame developers who do try something different are likewise guilty of similar things so please don't take this as a one sided piece so much as an attempt to deconstruct what's happening internally from both sides.

Pics or it didn't happen. I have not seen what you are describing outside of a few dark corners of social media that only GGers and other cranks take seriously. I have never once in my life seen any evidence that this alleged attitude is a genuine threat to the industry.

I mean, here's one of Nathan Grayson trying to take a developer to task for making sexy characters:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2427552,00.asp

Got to the point where the developer had to make a public apology. Basically people with this particular ax to grind try to bait developers into responding to their criticism on the subject and if they respond it becomes a whole thing. Think of MGS5, Nier and Overwatch and the whole scandals produced when developers just responded to the comments. It's made it so people can't even talk about it and I don't think that's healthy.

Sex isn't wrong and being attracted to sexy things isn't wrong.

Who is saying otherwise? Name names.

If you demonize sexuality being portrayed in games, you likewise demonize the consumption of it. Do you disagree with that implication/inference? It's pretty basic logic there.

This isn't black and white. Have you ever played Pathfinder? You seen the character designs? They're fucking bonkers. The iconic sorcerer is many a gamer's wet dream, the iconic fighter is made mostly of abs, the iconic magus is what goth female fanfiction writers see when they close their eyes and even the iconic half-orc inquisitor has an amazing rack. The outfits are absurd. The alchemist is covered in more fragile glassware than a vape shop, the oracle looks like she just got out of the shower, and all of the female metal armor has tits hammered into it.

But this isn't a deal breaker for me. The whole game embraces the gonzo aesthetic. It's high fantasy and the laws of physics have to share space with the Rule of Cool. And that's fine. Go nuts! Just don't do it halfway. In fact, as ludicrous as all these character designs are, they actually manage to pack a decent amount of personality into them.

By contrast, Dragon Age is a low-magic setting where technology is barely catching up to Medieval European standards, mages are as cursed as they are gifted, and the world itself is cold and indifferent. Chainmail bikinis would not make sense in this setting. It would break immersion.

It is possible to love both settings for their own merits. Golarian and Thedas are both well-crafted settings and worlds with their own interesting mythologies and histories, and they take different tones in terms of narrative and aesthetic to match the experience of play they're trying to create. The problem myself and many others have is not that there is too much sexiness in gaming, it's that most of it has no direction or objective other than to titillate a stereotype of the average gamer. It is not made specifically with the play experience in mind and is often served up for its own sake. To make matters worse, the excuses we're given are sometimes brain-shatteringly bizarre. Quiet breathes through her skin, so that's why she has to be perpetually half-naked, nevermind the fact that she could still just as easily breathe through her skin in a cotton shirt.

That's the thing. A lot of the sexualization in games is only of women and usually gratuitous. And frankly, I find it a little insulting to see publishers continually assuming that I haven't matured past the age of 14. They're not putting this shit in because of how much they respect your sexuality. They're doing it because they assume this is what the lowest common denominator buys.

You're welcome to your fanservice. I just don't want it in everything because fanservice is like junk food: hits the spot when you want it, but consuming too much of it isn't healthy.

it is perfectly fine for you to feel this way. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's just not empirically wrong for any developers to do that. If everything ends up being fanservice, that's unfortunate, but it's no one's individual responsibility to not cater to their fans.

BeetleManiac:

Lightknight:
Why? Why is that bad? Males are also sexualized. Are you claiming that they don't make male characters in games also physically attractive?

"Physically attractive" and "sexualized" are not the same thing.

I'm saying that the physical qualities that make males traditionally attractive are hard to sexualize in the same way that a female's traits are. At least harder to portray in a way that wouldn't get a mature rating because apparently you can straight up murder countless people in a game without getting an adult rating but throw in one cock and you're probably there. Same with a vagina though.

Men basically have muscle, face and butt while even then, toned muscles are frequently seen as more desirable on men than bubble butts or even muscle men (which do exist). So you may not see someone like Nathan Drake as sexualized but he actually is as much as males can be.

Except for the fact that he gets to dress like an actual human being and never conspicuously poses in a way to show off his package? I noticed that was something missing from your list of male attractive parts, nothing mentioned about packing heat.

A vagina, asshole and penis can all kill your game if you get an adult rating. But male characters still frequently have that bulge and have for a long time.

image

That's a power fantasy. Being good-looking enough that you get more of what you want, more attention, more approval and other good-looking people trying to get into your pants. That is most certainly a power fantasy. Women have those too. You ever asked them what theirs are?

If you say it's not to look attractive then that's the biggest load of malarky in existence. Not only do we all want to look sexy, but women take it to a whole other level by undergoing actual procedures to hit their goals. That's not to say that men don't get the occasional lipo, muscle insert and wouldn't get a dick lengthener if such a thing existed.

Again, I simply don't see a way male characters could be portrayed at the same level of sexualization that women can thanks to the ease of exaggeration adipose tissue being attractive presents.

 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