Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antsan]

@DJ:
You don't know anything (or almost next to nothing) about my spending or consumption habits, my political goals or what I do to avoid making my social environment worse and what I do to make it better.

The unwillingness to even inform yourself while still taking part in discussions is a bit different from what you are accusing me of. It's not like you wouldn't be able to play any of the criticized games anymore after trying to get an insight into what might be wrong with them. Hey, even Anita says so - only because those games are sexist doesn't mean you shouldn't play or even enjoy them. Damn, almost any format I have seen shortly pointing out sexism in media had a kind of disclaimer somewhere that said that enjoying these media wasn't a bad thing and that it would just be nice if the existent sexism was acknowledged.

I actually do extend effort to know how what I am doing affects society and that is all I ask of others at this point. I don't see where you get the hypocrisy from.
Also I never claimed to exclusively optimize for social welfare. Also just not consuming isn't always the best or even an effective answer.

@Phmcw:
I thought Anonymous was rather a thing of hacker culture (which, in my experience, is quite distinct from gamer culture). I don't know much about gamer culture.
Originally I only wanted to comment on the apparent unwillingness of many people to even discuss politics in the first place. I get this feeling from people who talk about how their non-political safe-zone is destroyed by invading political people. I also never really saw a political piece about games that wasn't shouted down for, well, being political.

[DJ]

It's commendable that you give a damn, and I have no problem with it. What crosses the line for me is when people who care about an issue start cramming it down the throats of those that don't. Like the politicization of gaming press. Politics is not what most people are looking for in gaming press, especially not politics as interpreted by journalists with zero qualifications for writing about politics.

Anyway, the fact that you are using the Internet tells me enough about how much you care about your impact on the world. The Amish are really a great example for minimizing your negative impact, and it's not like they can't have good and fulfilling lives.

[Phmcw]

Well generalisations to any kind of groups can only work to an extend. "Gamers" is a very, very broad term.

From "anyone that ever played a videogames" to the "the peoples that have the same tastes, consumption habits and opinion as me", you can find it used with widely different meaning. The general public is also different depending on the countries, so that itself will cause important variations.

4chan during his prime was a big melting pot, and was at the crossroad of every internet subculture. Hacker culture has its peak during the 90's and was much more technically oriented.

Gamer culture is mostly a thing of rather educated young peoples. Any poll will tell you that they are rather left wing and progressive.

And DJ make a fine point. Arguing politics of videogame is not the same as pushing our agenda on videogames.

[Antsan]

Anyway, the fact that you are using the Internet tells me enough about how much you care about your impact on the world. The Amish are really a great example for minimizing your negative impact, and it's not like they can't have good and fulfilling lives.

People who need prosthetics are going to agree with you on this. Because technology, the Internet and anything that needs energy or oil is evil.

@Phcw:

And DJ make a fine point. Arguing politics of videogame is not the same as pushing our agenda on videogames.

I am not talking about pushing an agenda, I am talking of acknowledging that politics are a part of everything in human culture in the first place. You don't need to agree with Anita or any political commentator, it was just nice if you'd (not actually "you", only a standin for people who act like that) take the time to listen to what they have to say instead of going "wha, politics in my free time, how dare they!" or just shut up about it and go on with their lives.

[Stuebi]

I'm going to have to agree with DJ here. As it stands, it's too much.

Look at games like Dragon's Crown. Quite a few Reviews where wasting a good part of their screentime talking about how sexist the depiction of the Sorceress was. Now, ignoring the part that this is retarded in itself with the Amazon and the Knight being present, a Review that insists on cramming its political view on woman in games down my throat for anywhere between 33-50% (Or even more) of their screentime, is just a bad Review. Now, Dragon's Crown's coverage was pretty decent. Mainly because it's a damn good game and a lot of people talked about it.

But then we have stuff like Puppeteer. The creator got flak for making the protagonist male, and not delivering the option to play as a female. When asked about this in Interview he said "So should I as a game creator start pander to public opinion?" he added that anyone who wasnt content with that could just, you know, not buy the fucking thing. The way the market is supposed to work.

But of course, it's not enough. You have to colour half a freaking Review with this stuff nowadays. I dont give a flying watermelon about this stuff. It has nothing to do with the game itself, with the game you got to review. I want to know if its functional, if it's fun and if it's worth the price. Stuff like "Is stealth kissing your wife in Shadow of Mordor sexist?" in Reviews and coverings needs to stop.

The same with DEV background. I dont care if the guy/gal that made this is against gay marriage, or if he/she kicks puppies in his/her free time. I care about the fact if the product their offering is worth my money. I'm trying to buy a game from these people, not joining their Sith-Cult.

[Phmcw]

Ho I listened to Sarkeesian all right, and I wasn't delighted find a foxnews level pundit rambling about the evil of violence mysoginy in videogames.

I am talking of acknowledging that politics are a part of everything in human culture in the first place.

That's true, but only to an extend and that nuance is important. The political content of, say, Mario is void. The one of Call of Duty isn't, yet it isn't straightforward. And I thing that making shortcuts like military shooters that praise US army are encouragism militarism isn't all that straightforward.

When you get in that kind of discussion, it's imprtant to be cautious and avoid shortcuts and logic traps. While some military shooters are straight propaganda (arma, Cod, Battlefield) other hold a critical regard (sepc ops the line, stalker), and attacking the genre as a whole, for instance would both be unjustified and agriave its fan. After all Doom, the genre's founder, was slightly antimilitaristic (the hero was on mars for refusing to fire on civilians during a dystopian future).

And of course if every review of shooter mention the political leaning it will annoy the players rather quickly.

[Antsan]

@Stuebi:
I guess you've got the tough luck of someone who's present to the phase where the journalists are still learning to get that political stuff right.

I'm trying to buy a game from these people, not joining their Sith-Cult.

Funding their Sith-Cult is alright as long as you're not a participant. It's not like funding is much more important than member count in our modern world.

Tangentially related: It's nice how free-market people always talk about how the free amrket will regulate that kind of stuff, with the "informed consumer" and all. In the next breath they then proceed to bash communists for ignoring "human nature".

@Phmcw:
No disagreement there.

[Rolan7]

I'm going to have to agree with DJ here. As it stands, it's too much.

Look at games like Dragon's Crown. Quite a few Reviews where wasting a good part of their screentime talking about how sexist the depiction of the Sorceress was. Now, ignoring the part that this is retarded in itself with the Amazon and the Knight being present, a Review that insists on cramming its political view on woman in games down my throat for anywhere between 33-50% (Or even more) of their screentime, is just a bad Review. Now, Dragon's Crown's coverage was pretty decent. Mainly because it's a damn good game and a lot of people talked about it.

I feel like it got a ton more overall screentime because of the ridiculous art "assets".  I'm sure that better games received less coverage because they weren't so pointlessly controversial.  The idea of a Gauntlet/Double Dragon mix where the characters' appearances are absurd exaggerations of their classes - that's pretty cool, in a retro way.  And the art was well executed.  I just think the sorceress didn't need to be so sexualized.

Sure, sorcerers are supposed to be charismatic, since it's magic based channeling inner power.  So a dark mysterious robe like the wizard wouldn't be necessary.  But surely there are other ways to depict barely-contained energies than a *wizard hat*, ginormous chesticles, and...  Oh she actually has a wizard staff too, okay.  So she's really just a wizard who can't dress right, possibly because nobody makes clothes that fit watermelons.

In my opinion they should have gone with glowing eyes, fancy gold/jewelry, and casual energy fields.  Like the Diablo 2 sorceress!  Who also dressed sexy, but in a way which suggested exoticness and power instead of...  I have no idea what the Dragons Crown sorceress is supposed to be except "sexy wizard", and that's the problem.

Here's the game intro ("sorceress" at 55 seconds) wherein she massages a skull with her tits while twisting her ass at the camera comic-book style.  Heh, the skull even has its spinal cord attached... subtle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAt-WPK3WrM

All I'm saying is that they tried to sell this game based on sex appeal, which really is fine and all.  It's just trite, and makes me *very* wary about the game's actual quality.  And since it's how they presented the game, OF COURSE the gaming media should report on that.  Or... refuse the bait, and avoid giving the game controversy-powered attention it didn't deserve.

And I'm not sure why you said "Despite the amazon".  The amazon wears even less and is almost as busty and sexual, it just makes more sense for her archetype.

But then we have stuff like Puppeteer. The creator got flak for making the protagonist male, and not delivering the option to play as a female. When asked about this in Interview he said "So should I as a game creator start pander to public opinion?" he added that anyone who wasnt content with that could just, you know, not buy the fucking thing. The way the market is supposed to work.

So when the investigative media provides criticism of certain subsets of gaming culture we're supposed to get angry, but it's good for a game creator to blanket-dismiss our opinions?

He's right that people need to vote with their dollars.  I think what he's missing is that people spend money on people who at least pretend to listen.

But of course, it's not enough. You have to colour half a freaking Review with this stuff nowadays. I dont give a flying watermelon about this stuff. It has nothing to do with the game itself, with the game you got to review. I want to know if its functional, if it's fun and if it's worth the price. Stuff like "Is stealth kissing your wife in Shadow of Mordor sexist?" in Reviews and coverings needs to stop.

That article is clearly marked as an opinion piece.  If you don't want people's unsupported, attention-fishing opinions, you don't have to read them.  It certainly doesn't "need to stop", whatever you mean by that.

The same with DEV background. I dont care if the guy/gal that made this is against gay marriage, or if he/she kicks puppies in his/her free time. I care about the fact if the product their offering is worth my money. I'm trying to buy a game from these people, not joining their Sith-Cult.

I want to know if a developer is putting their personal political beliefs into their game, often subtly.  Besides, maybe I don't feel like financially supporting unapologetically hateful people, when I can avoid it.

[Stuebi]

*snip*

I was specifically talking about Reviews. Something these so called "Journalists" try to promote. If some Blogger writes about this stuff, whatever. I fully expect to see a compeltely biased opinion piece there.

But then we have official "gaming" sites that are trying to sell their Preschool sexism-essay as a Review. Someone else above said it allready, it depends entirely on amount and execution. Again, if you just mention that the Sorceress is tit-based click and buybait, I wont complain about a thing. Because you're probably right. But if you cant go 3 sentences without mentioning how the game doesnt pander to women in gaming, it's just a bad freaking "game Review" to me. If all I can get from most of these journalists today is "Game didnt potray the women how I wanted", learned basically nothing that would influence my buying decision.

I know he gets dropped like the Bass in these discussions, but I want stuff like Total Biscuit. Sure, some people find his harping on FPS annoying. But his "WTF is...?" Videos give me the info I need, cover the game as a whole and dont spend half an hour bashing their head against the wall on how sexist the industry appearantly still is.

Stuff like that belong into a Blog, a mouthpiece, or a seperate column. At leasts that's the way I would prefer it. Either that, or as Antsan says it, they learn to actually execute it properly without annoying everybody and their dog.

Currently, it's not worht being called "Journalism", not even a little. It's a bunch of people profilating themselves on screaming "Sexism!" at everyone and everything, and then crying in the next very sentence on how poor they are for being harassed online.

And on the subject of Pupeteer. They guy is well in his rights to release the game with only a male protagonist, and then telling people that he wont just arbitarily insert a female one just because some people were demanding it. If the guy wants to make a game about a male protagonist, then he can. This is a complaint I never understood in the first place. I can see why you would want more games to with a female lead, but does that mean every game from now on that doesnt have one has an automatical point decrease because the protagonist didnt have breasts? Really?

I want to point out, just like Puppeteer-Dude, the Reviewers and sites like Kotaku can merrily release whatever they want, how they want. It's not like I can flip a switch to blow them up remotely. Everyone can release stuff like that all day long. But you have to be prepared to get some feedback for it. And compared to the Dev who just went "Meh, dont buy it then.", Journalists are crying their eyes out.

And finally, about the whole "funding" thing. Can you provide an example of a gaming company pursuing or supporting any of these... I dunno. Atrocities? Honestly, I have a hard time believing that I support african druglords abusing children somewhere down in africa for buying Styx on Steam. And if it's just political views...then where's the problem? If someone pursues different political agendas than me, that doesnt mean I will never buy something from a company or store he's related with. That just sounds crazy.

[Rolan7]

I was specifically talking about Reviews. Something these so called "Journalists" try to promote. If some Blogger writes about this stuff, whatever. I fully expect to see a compeltely biased opinion piece there.
ated with. That just sounds crazy.

Sure, but the SoM kissing thing isn't a review, it's a disavowed opinion piece:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/1/6880061/shadow-mordor-kissing-design

Unless there is a review which does the same thing and I just haven't seen it.

But then we have official "gaming" sites that are trying to sell their Preschool sexism-essay as a Review. Someone else above said it allready, it depends entirely on amount and execution. Again, if you just mention that the Sorceress is tit-based click and buybait, I wont complain about a thing. Because you're probably right. But if you cant go 3 sentences without mentioning how the game doesnt pander to women in gaming, it's just a bad freaking "game Review" to me. If all I can get from most of these journalists today is "Game didnt potray the women how I wanted", learned basically nothing that would influence my buying decision.

I'm interested in seeing examples of this.  I'm not exactly doubting you, I don't visit game review sites much so I don't really know.  Is it really so extreme?  I assume you're speaking specifically of reviews of games which ARE sexualizing women, because I'm pretty sure most CoD reviews can go three sentences without talking about the portrayal of women.

My thinking is that Dragons Crown was asking to be made into a sexism controversy, and got exactly what it wanted.  Though I suspect most reviews actually did cover the gameplay mechanics also...  They just addressed the watermelons in the room.

Currently, it's not worht being called "Journalism", not even a little. It's a bunch of people profilating themselves on screaming "Sexism!" at everyone and everything, and then crying in the next very sentence on how poor they are for being harassed online.

Okay, I think you're exaggerating.  Maybe projecting.

And on the subject of Pupeteer. They guy is well in his rights to release the game with only a male protagonist, and then telling people that he wont just arbitarily insert a female one just because some people were demanding it. If the guy wants to make a game about a male protagonist, then he can. This is a complaint I never understood in the first place. I can see why you would want more games to with a female lead, but does that mean every game from now on that doesnt have one has an automatical point decrease because the protagonist didnt have breasts? Really?

People asked for a female protagonist.  They didn't magically deduct a point from every game without one, or demand that every game have one.  You're knocking down strawmen.

The guy's response was the problem, that he dismissed public opinion *in general* over this.  That he suggested it would be "pandering" to listen to what people want, period.  He could have just said "No" or "No, it'd be too much work" or "No, the majority of the gaming community doesn't care about having female heroes".

So hopefully people take his snarky advice and take their dollars elsewhere, to developers who listen to their fans.  Or at least don't dismiss their fans.

I want to point out, just like Puppeteer-Dude, the Reviewers and sites like Kotaku can merrily release whatever they want, how they want. It's not like I can flip a switch to blow them up remotely. Everyone can release stuff like that all day long. But you have to be prepared to get some feedback for it. And compared to the Dev who just went "Meh, dont buy it then.", Journalists are crying their eyes out.

And finally, about the whole "funding" thing. Can you provide an example of a gaming company pursuing or supporting any of these... I dunno. Atrocities? Honestly, I have a hard time believing that I support african druglords abusing children somewhere down in africa for buying Styx on Steam. And if it's just political views...then where's the problem? If someone pursues different political agendas than me, that doesnt mean I will never buy something from a company or store he's related with. That just sounds crazy.

I didn't say anything about hate crimes or... African druglords??  Yes, that does sound crazy!

I was thinking about the Chik-Fil-A situation, but also things like Metal Gear.  If I was in favor of nuclear proliferation, I'd probably avoid buying games involving Kojima!  Nothing weird about that.

[Neonivek]

Here's the game intro ("sorceress" at 55 seconds) wherein she massages a skull with her tits while twisting her ass at the camera comic-book style.  Heh, the skull even has its spinal cord attached... subtle.

When I heard this I was like "What game was that?" and then I clicked the link I was like "ugh... yeah of course"

Out of all the games I WISH sold poorly that is one of them.

[Phmcw]

That game isn't "sexualising women" per se, or I have tastes entirelt different from the rest of the population. They used that as a marketting gimmick, those two characters aren't designed to be attractive.

[Neonivek]

That game isn't "sexualising women" per se, or I have tastes entirelt different from the rest of the population. They used that as a marketting gimmick, those two characters aren't designed to be attractive.

Well given that it features a big breasted woman doing a titty slap attack in normal gameplay.

I am not sure...

[alway]

https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/520739878993420290
Oh look, more lovely death threats. This is what GG is.

[Putnam]

Right now we are ONLY escaping [this thread being locked] because we are sort of skirting around GG... and frankly lets keep it that way.