Print

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

[Bauglir]

@Nenjin

Possibly the disconnect lies over the implications of the word "obligation", because I think you're seeing it as having a heavier weight than I do. I'm not seeing it as being any more significant than, "If somebody criticizes us over it, and they're not wrong about the facts, admit that it's something we could've done better instead of defending it out of pride." Anything more prescriptive than that gets into telling people what is or is not acceptable art, and tends to shape up as an attempt to change a culture by correcting each individual element of it (this never works). The point is, though, that it's still a valid criterion, among many, for assessing a game's cultural worth.

Games have as much obligation to do any of this stuff, when relevant, as they do to, for instance, have balanced mechanics.

[Mindmaker]

Everybody is dumb but me!

This is what I've gotten from that text.
You could try talking to people instead of hurling insults all around and talking down from a high horse.

[Glowcat]

Everybody is dumb but me!

This is what I've gotten from that text.
You could try talking to people instead of hurling insults all around and talking down from a high horse.

Then you've failed to read what both I and others have discussed. The default perspective of somebody who isn't effected by discrimination in social structures is to not care about it. This comes in both ignorance of the realities of being a marginalized group and dismissing conflicts over something such as representation when they become inconvenient to your personal happiness. It's only by listening and understanding those who are effected that people begin to empathize and evidence of those elements is missing from a lot of the arguments I'm criticizing by saying that dominant group's opinion on this matter tends to be poorly considered or simply oriented towards their own sense of comfort above other moral considerations without being honest about it.

I find it predictable that you declared my statement to be a parody, a joke, and then grow defensive when I address the sense of ego which comes from a person who ignores minority perspectives. When you tell us that we're overreacting and that it's no big deal that we feel alienated by mass media you (in the general sense) talk down to us, when you declare any effort to increase representation politically motivated as if the opposite was somehow pure is talking down to us, and when you're finally called out on not being in a position to understand without first listening to others you think you're somehow the victim.

I've grown beyond tired of this line of thought on Bay12 and don't want to entertain it any longer. Among all the things which are necessary for marginalized groups to be considered fully human, I think getting dominant group people to understand that their opinion isn't automatically valid is the most important.

[nenjin]

@Nenjin

Possibly the disconnect lies over the implications of the word "obligation", because I think you're seeing it as having a heavier weight than I do. I'm not seeing it as being any more significant than, "If somebody criticizes us over it, and they're not wrong about the facts, admit that it's something we could've done better instead of defending it out of pride." Anything more prescriptive than that gets into telling people what is or is not acceptable art, and tends to shape up as an attempt to change a culture by correcting each individual element of it (this never works). The point is, though, that it's still a valid criterion, among many, for assessing a game's cultural worth.

Games have as much obligation to do any of this stuff, when relevant, as they do to, for instance, have balanced mechanics.

I read obligation to mean.....if you support LGBT folks, then you're obligated to support games that are about them. Which I disagree with. You're obligated to support games you enjoy. Any more than that, to me, is trying to make an overt political point using a game as a vehicle. I don't play games like that, because I don't play games to wage the same political and social battles I do in real life.

Also, balanced mechanics are necessary for a not broken experience. That is completely different than promoting a social theme. And like Mict said, if we held all developers to that standard, there dozens and dozens of classic games that would have never been made.

I'd prefer a world where everyone has the right to offend everyone, than world where no one has the right to offend anyone.

[DJ]

The default perspective of people on problems that people outside of their monkeysphere have is that they don't care. Expecting otherwise is silly, because humans don't work that way.

[Glowcat]

The default perspective of people on problems that people outside of their monkeysphere have is that they don't care. Expecting otherwise is silly, because humans don't work that way.

Thank you for supporting my reasoning while trying to dismiss it...

[Bauglir]

Hm.

I would posit that nobody, and nothing, can meet every possible obligation it has, and trying to do so is a recipe for failure. So I'm not saying "X fails to check Y box, it should never have been published!" So, yeah, I think our difference of opinion has more to do with what "obligation" means than with anything to do with the actual issue at hand, because I see your preferences as a consumer as perfectly reasonable. I just also see Glowcat's, for instance, as reasonable, and of the two of you (my limited experience suggests that) Glowcat's the one whose preferred market niche is unfortunately desolate.

Incidentally, you can have utter shit for balanced mechanics and still have a great game. My standard example here would be Final Fantasy 6, but I'm thinking that getting into specific examples is beyond the scope of the tangent, most likely. Likewise diversity and suchlike.

[nenjin]

Hm.

I would posit that nobody, and nothing, can meet every possible obligation it has, and trying to do so is a recipe for failure. So I'm not saying "X fails to check Y box, it should never have been published!" So, yeah, I think our difference of opinion has more to do with what "obligation" means than with anything to do with the actual issue at hand, because I see your preferences as a consumer as perfectly reasonable. I just also see Glowcat's, for instance, as reasonable, and of the two of you (my limited experience suggests that) Glowcat's the one whose preferred market niche is unfortunately desolate.

Incidentally, you can have utter shit for balanced mechanics and still have a great game. My standard example here would be Final Fantasy 6, but I'm thinking that getting into specific examples is beyond the scope of the tangent, most likely. Likewise diversity and suchlike.

Yeah, whether or not sensible mechanics is a necessary part of the equation is a topic for another thread.

Also, I can't ignore the irony when Glowcat criticizes people for not having empathy for others viewpoints, as he proceeds to leave the thread while saying he's tired of listening to their views. That's basically the fatigue a lot of people feel in this debate. You can't even be neutral without somehow being criticized as part of the problem.

[DJ]

The default perspective of people on problems that people outside of their monkeysphere have is that they don't care. Expecting otherwise is silly, because humans don't work that way.

Thank you for supporting my reasoning while trying to dismiss it...

So what do you want, exactly? A complete change of human nature? Do you want some fries with that?

[Sergarr]

...cishet? Is this some new word?

[GlyphGryph]

I read obligation to mean.....if you support LGBT folks, then you're obligated to support games that are about them. Which I disagree with. You're obligated to support games you enjoy. Any more than that, to me, is trying to make an overt political point using a game as a vehicle. I don't play games like that, because I don't play games to wage the same political and social battles I do in real life.

If you support LGBT folks, you certainly have an obligation to avoid assisting those attempting to make their lives, do you not?

You seem to have come a long way from the Mozilla thread, nenjin. There, you were a big proponent of companies "having moral and ethical imperatives". And you were arguing it didn't even matter if they had an effect- simply employing someone who thought wrongly justified action against them because of that imperative. Why do game companies get a pass?

There you argued

And what about when said business uses its wealth and power to push a social agenda? Still ok to let them do that and continue using their product, increasing their market penetration and empowering them further, because there's such a clear distinction between their business and their beliefs?

Where you said that it was not okay to continue using a product even if the business didn't advocate the problem behaviour. But here, when the business specifically is pushing a social agenda through it's media, suddenly

I don't play games to wage the same political and social battles I do in real life.

Why is it not ok to to use a product from a company that employs someone who dislikes gays, but it's perfectly okay (in fact, in your words "You're obligated to") purchase games you enjoy but which come from companies who though that game are actively working to reduce representation of minorities, often in express opposition to what would be better for the game according to the people actually developing it.

I'd prefer a world where everyone has the right to offend everyone, than world where no one has the right to offend anyone.

This has absolutely nothing to do with rights, except in the minds of people who think that's somehow a defense for bad behaviour. Something you've dismissed as a worthless argument multiple times in the past.

[Mindmaker]

Who said I haven't experienced discrimination? Not you kind of discrimination, but discrimination nonetheless. But that's not the topic here.
And I'm well versed with the discourse of representation, since it's one of the keystones of my current major.

It's only by listening and understandin [...]

Which is easier if the person doesn't start of with insults and declares everything that doesn't align with her point of view as wrong. That will only force people into a defensive position and have them dismiss anything you say. Their standpoints may just be as valid as yours.

You're also accuse me of a lot of things that I haven't done, since I've yet to answer the questions that the OP has posed.

Despite some people dismissing it as a tone argument, I just want to say that you can accomplish a lot more through dialogue, than through yelling at people that may not even be responsible for what you are angry about or having insulting or demeaning statements as a sort of preemptive strike at the start of a debate.

[Jelle]

we're becoming absorbed in the same "us. vs. them" bullshit that exists in almost every other sphere of life.

Words of truth. Unfortunately, an integral part of the human condition. 

[Glowcat]

So what do you want, exactly? A complete change of human nature? Do you want some fries with that?

You could try parsing what I wrote. Or do you disagree that people can be moved to empathize with issues that don't directly effect them? Honestly I'm confused by your response since I used it in my argument as a reason why dominant group people are predisposed to ignorance compared to somebody who is more directly effected. You seem to be expecting something from my argument which isn't there.

...

I'm sorry but you need to reread my posts because a lot of this response shows you've misread them. Pay attention to qualifiers since my arguments tend to be far more narrow than you're reading into. I can't address something I never said.

The only thing that might actually address my arguments is the inherent defensiveness that arises but I've found that either way people dismiss our viewpoints when they aren't convenient for the person, so, like, I find it hard to care about the false promise of a productive dialogue anymore.

[nenjin]

I read obligation to mean.....if you support LGBT folks, then you're obligated to support games that are about them. Which I disagree with. You're obligated to support games you enjoy. Any more than that, to me, is trying to make an overt political point using a game as a vehicle. I don't play games like that, because I don't play games to wage the same political and social battles I do in real life.

If you support LGBT folks, you certainly have an obligation to avoid assisting those attempting to make their lives, do you not?

You seem to have come a long way from the Mozilla thread, nenjin. There, you were a big proponent of companies "having moral and ethical imperatives". And you were arguing it didn't even matter if they had an effect- simply employing someone who thought wrongly justified action against them because of that imperative. Why do game companies get a pass?

There you argued

And what about when said business uses its wealth and power to push a social agenda? Still ok to let them do that and continue using their product, increasing their market penetration and empowering them further, because there's such a clear distinction between their business and their beliefs?

Where you said that it was not okay to continue using a product even if the business didn't advocate the problem behaviour. But here, when the business specifically is pushing a social agenda through it's media, suddenly

I don't play games to wage the same political and social battles I do in real life.

Why is it not ok to to use a product from a company that employs someone who dislikes gays, but it's perfectly okay (in fact, in your words "You're obligated to") purchase games you enjoy but which come from companies who though that game are actively working to reduce representation of minorities, often in express opposition to what would be better for the game according to the people actually developing it.

It's a choice someone who enjoys X but believes Y must make. Do they want to enrich people that hold a view point that's abhorrent to them? Most would answer no. And so would I if I, for example, learned that Namco-Bandai, who make Dynasty Warriors 8 which I am currently enjoying the shit out of, hates gay people and contributes heavily to their political and social repression. But from a company who chooses NOT to include a gay or transgender relationship along side their hetero one? That's claiming omission is sin, and I certainly do not believe that.

But that doesn't represent the vast majority of games. And that's where I start to get annoyed with the LGBT folks. They attribute negative motivations to people because they're not automatically included, ascribing malice where it's simply a matter of preference.

And more to the point, a video game is not a web browser. Koei or Namco-Bandai or Blizzard or aren't wielding the same level of impact on society that a web browser with the ability to restrict access to information and websites does. That's mostly where I draw the distinction. Mozilla being anti-gay is not the same as game dev X being anti-gay.

I do still believe that companies have moral and ethical imperatives in some form. But this is one of those issues where people opposed to LGBT rights also believe they're acting on a moral imperative, and so they have a camp that does not believe what they're doing is wrong. If it were an issue of them employing 5-year-olds to press CDs in China, something most people would align on the same side of, we wouldn't be having this debate. So I'm hesitant to tell someone they're wrong, even if I believe it.

And yes, I do believe this has to do with rights. You've got a right not to include LGBT views, characters and themes in your game. Just like they've got a right to make games about it, much to the consternation of conservatives. Otherwise, we should be protesting every single LotR movie because it didn't go outside of the source material to include LGBT hobbits, elves, orcs and humans. Again, the only thing at this point I wish for is that most people would just do what they do, instead of actively trying to subvert each other. But conservatives can't help giving money to actively exclude people, and LGBT groups can't help occasionally lashing out at EVERYTHING in order to be validated.

You've even got a right to make a game specifically about eradicating non-hetero people. And I won't buy it.