E3, No longer about games apparently.

  • 145 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Dox516 (7 posts) -

Hello to all,

This is my first post in this community. I claim to be no expert on anything. You have been warned.

Listening to podcasts from multiple industry websites, including Joystiq's and Idle Thumbs, as well as reading articles from Polygon I have noticed a trend that made its way to the forefront.

I grew up with E3. It was always an exciting time to get new about games. This was the chance to see the future of games for the next year or two. There was hype to be sure and a lot of advertising. There was sizzle reels and a G4tv days and all kinds of magazine special issues. As time went on the show changed and the commentary became largely digital. However, it always seemed like it was games or game consoles. This year this seems to have changed.

In listening to podcasts, videos, and other commentary, most of the talk seems to be focused on other elements. I actually read articles in which they talk about E3 being violent. Well, E3 has video games. Video games have commonly been violent. Someone was complaining about Mortal Kombat being violent. Really? I had Mortal Kombat on Game Gear. And parents and politicians were FREAKING the F--- out about that game being to violent. And that was gratuitous pixelated violence. But that was what the technology was capable of at the time. And now we have 3D OMFG violence. And most people are not freaking out. We have seen this before. Its business as usual. I love games and they are capable of many things, but guess what? They are often violent. They often tell stories of being violent. You often do violent things. Call it escapism, call it what you will. People are fascinated by violence. Gaming media apparently JUST realized that games are violent. My biggest complaint with violent games is that many times that's all there is to them. And that is just boring. Like SAW 14. Who cares? The reality is they have do something new for people to KEEP caring. It cannot be just violence or they will only have the hardcore or the unexposed to appeal to.

Now to the many "scandals". Namely the Ubisoft "too much work" defense and the Far Cry "Evil Aryan" cover art. I have also heard complaints about games not making me "care" enough about the characters in a game. It does not make me feel like I should care about the protagonist or about the other characters. The reality is, not every game can appeal to anyone. Just like every movie, book, or painting can not touch everyone in a DEEP way, nor can every game.

Also why is there not more transgender, gay, one legged, unicycle riding, dwarves, who hail from Uganda, and practice Kabala characters in games? I would consider myself a feminist in that I believe in equality for the genders. And I do think its funny that every male character looks like a 30 something white guy. That said, why do we need to have a protagonist from every walk of life. Especially with the boom of independent gaming, games are being made. If you want to make a game about whatever gender, creed, religion, whatever then more power to you. But people want all of the big Dev's to serve everyone and be politically correct. Please don't do that. Let us have interesting stories that may not be PC.

I am all for social commentary and analyzing our culture. This includes games. But why is E 3 suddenly about racism, sexism, the evil of violence, the lack of personal journeys of (insert uninteresting thing here), or whatever scandal we create? I want to here about the games. Not what ridiculous scandal we can create out of them.

Anyway I have ranted enough. Just something I noticed. Feel free to disagree with me. Just read through Polygon and listen to Joystiq.

Tim

#2 Posted by Nightriff (5082 posts) -

Great first post and welcome. And this week alone has made me think about never visiting polygon again, god every little thing is click bait on that site, reminds of my days of when I used IGN.

#3 Posted by ViciousBearMauling (1095 posts) -

Oh dear.

I agree with you on some levels. We seem to be debating a lot of things other than "Is this a fun looking game?" recently. Some could say that it's a sign of a maturing medium. Or some would say that all this serious business needs to get out of video games. Who knows where we're headed, I just hope that the games are fun.

This reminds me, after seeing a similar thread, but more about sexism/racism at Ubisoft, I mentioned the topic to a coworker. He is a very casual gamer, but his answer threw me off. He said, "Equality is cool and all, but the majority of people who play video games are probably 15-30 year old dudes, so it's kind of the obvious choice for better sales."

You always see that stuff, but for someone on the outside just coming to that conclusion fairly quick is funny to me.

Who knows, video game discussion is a mixed bag. Sometimes serious commentary on the maturity of the medium, other times frameate and resolution debates, and then you just get the crazy people that want Shenmue 3.

#4 Posted by Sen0r_Awes0me (99 posts) -

Feel free to avoid sites that cover opinions on aspects of gaming culture and development that you don't care for or aren't concerned about

I don't think these expressed opinions are ruining E3 or even really slowing down most of the game publishers/developers involved. That being said, as Geoff Keighley mentioned on the Live Show tonight, a theme of the press conferences was asking for community feedback and response.

#5 Posted by Marokai (2970 posts) -

I recommend visiting this tumblr over visiting Kotaku or Polygon.

#6 Posted by csl316 (8669 posts) -

Earlier today, I went to Polygon and saw three stories in a row about gender in games and such. Followed by "It's getting better: I spent an entire day at E3 playing as women characters." So it almost seems like that site's talking in circles.

Game issues need to be discussed, I suppose. But I take games far less seriously because I play them for fun. Must be different if you're actually a part of the industry.

Giant Bomb and Game Informer have been great destinations for the show if you're looking for pure game content. That's what I'm looking for, so those are the sites I visit.

#7 Posted by Beyond_Recall (47 posts) -

More accurate title would have been "E3, no longer just about the aspects of games that I personally care about, apparently."

#8 Posted by Aetheldod (3579 posts) -

@dox516: Hi duder first and foremost welcome , our creed on these parts is dont be a jerk , you can agree or disagree but name calling and douchebaggery is frowned upon , and yeah that was your mistake going to polygon. We are also having the same debate , but we manage to almost keep it cool headed most of the time :)

And I actually decided not to pay attention to any gaming media , even from the duders as this time around they feal jaded etc. So I just saw the conferences and whats comming ... getting hyped by the Witcher 3 and Dragon Age 3 and Bloodborn. E3 is done for me and Im glad I am keeping at the edge (most of the time anyway). About the Ubisoft debacle (if we can call it a debacle) , I think it is the journalist agenda getting way out of hand and lately Im getting really tired of the one street way of most of the gaming media. Look I want more diversity like any other duder , but now they are just picking up on anything. Granted ubisoft response wasnt smart and the rep pretty much fucked up. And now they are complaining baout Mortal Combat ? Oh my :/ now I kind of miss Jack Thompson.

#9 Posted by Pr1mus (3909 posts) -

Is this a trap to make me read Polygon? Because that's not gonna work!

In all seriousness i agree with a lot but i don't think this has anything to do about E3. This is just how game's media have been in general for a couple years. There's just that many more stories being written during large conventions like E3.

The best thing i did was removing every single gaming site bookmark i had save for Giant Bomb. I'm not here for news and editorial content anyway but for the entertainment the crew provides. I visit the forum a couple times a day and subscribes to r/games on reddit even if i never visit the page itself. If there's a story big enough that needs to be know it will surface here on the forum or on reddit and i'll see it. I don't think i've missed anything important ever since then and haven't been exposed to most of the garbage that gets published on gaming websites.

Online
#10 Edited by Dox516 (7 posts) -

@pr1mus: I am just recently starting to get back into reading about gaming again. So I was reading a lot of websites and I was unaware of the all the attempts at social commentary. Live and learn I guess.

I suppose that's its fair that I just do not like it, but at the same time I was unaware that part of "gaming" is talking about how we need to be aware of the "bro-ing" of video games.

Anyway thanks for the input folks and the warm welcome.

Tim

#11 Posted by yoshisaur (2723 posts) -

@dox516: I don't know if E3 has anything other to do about it than a high traffic time for people to be looking at video game websites. Polygon has been known to go ape shit with controversial topics, so this isn't very new. It is getting very annoying, but it has its place. We need to have activists willing to speak out and shape our future, since we obviously don't want to. We just want to play games and enjoy them, and we do. So, lets just let the rest of the internet who can handle all of that drama, and avoid it like the plague ourselves?

That's pretty much what I do. That's why, for a while, I was so offended at some of the stuff Patrick was posting. It's not that hes an offensive person, I was just use to a specific type of personality here and that he delivered something I've been trying to avoid. He's a critical player in this website, however, and I'm glad hes here. He speaks for the people that need to be spoken for to make up for the people like myself who refuse to take part in it.

It will always be annoying, and I'm sure multiple articles from Patrick will annoy me in the future, but remember that everything needs to be balanced. Equality in video games, let alone life, will never progress if there aren't people pushing it forward. We just need to remember not to get tangled up in their mess, and keep on enjoying games like we do now.

#12 Edited by believer258 (11905 posts) -

I feel the need to point out that all of those issues are, in fact, related to games. Like it or not, video games are growing as a medium and discussions that you don't like are going to happen. Have they been handled well? Oh, God, no, for the most part they've been handled pretty terribly. The stink of clickbait articles and fucking idiots attacking easy targets is everywhere on the internet. That does not, however, mean that we shouldn't ask questions like "what place can violence have in video games" and "why isn't this medium more diverse?"

#13 Edited by Aetheldod (3579 posts) -

@kindgineer: But come on ... nobody and really nobody is halting any developer be it indi or triple AAA , either by law or judicial or anything like that to make the changes these people keep hammering us about, if they dont want to do it its their prerrogative. So I dont know why they keep trying to over force the issue and again im not against the idea of having more diverse characters in gender ethnicities etc. They want those games ... well fucking make them instead of beating the hammer insensatly over and over and making less patient people like me getting tired of the disscussion that clearly does not go any ware , instead of brute forcing the resolution by making the games the harp so much about. With so many tools like kickstarter or indigogo , I dont see what is halting them. Let them put out their money and time to do so if they are so hell bent on it. (Which I still think it is the more sensible and actually practical solution)

#14 Posted by JasonR86 (9707 posts) -

You say they aren't talking about games and list several examples of journalists taking about games just not in the fashion you want. I imagine you can find a place where people talk about video games in the way that you want rather than in any other way. Why ask certain outlets to suit your personal needs when there are other outlets that do? Makes one sound pretty entitled.

#15 Posted by IBurningStar (2173 posts) -

At a certain point, most of it turned into the game related media trying to prove how "mature and grown up" they all are. They want us to know how progressive and enlightened they all are. Only, they are often doing it in the slimiest and cheapest way possible. They go for the lowest hanging fruit, and blow thing way out of proportion. Sometimes they create issues to have with games and developers seemingly out of thing air. People called Puppeteer sexist because it didn't have a playable female character. I'm sorry that the developers resources and creative vision didn't line up with your requirements. The terms sexist and racist have been thrown around so haphazardly that they are starting to lose all meaning. And all this causes the real problems to get lost in the shuffle. This medium does need to expand and grow, but having the media go click bait crazy and essentially becoming cheap newspaper tabloids is not the way to go.

#16 Posted by crithon (3227 posts) -

Blogging killed E3.... although I was reminded of an article on Entertainment Weekly of e3 of 1999 being too violent and using Diakatana after the events of the Columbine shooting. But I'd imagine 10 years before that an article in Time magazine of the Simpsons being too Politically Incorrect for a cartoon airing after In Living Color and Tracy Ulman.

#17 Posted by Milkman (16789 posts) -

There are three threads on the first page of the forums about pretty much this exact same thing.

Online
#18 Posted by DarthOrange (3864 posts) -

You are complaining about sites like Kotaku and Polygon on the Giant Bomb forums. There is a reason we are all here instead of on those sites.

#19 Edited by Zornack (195 posts) -

Youtube and twitch are eating up all the actual game coverage so "gaming" websites have to transition to what'll get them clicks, and right now that's faux outrage.

#20 Edited by Gruebacca (519 posts) -

@dox516 There's definitely people who try to insert social commentary into just about everything for social commentary's sake, but that doesn't mean social commentary has to be annoying. People often group gamers into two extreme camps. One camp is perceived to be full of those who just want their games "to be games" and want to ignore any social ills the games may be contributing to in order to retain their self-esteem. The other camp is seen as those willing to complain about every little thing that offends them in the slightest and shout them angrily into the other camp. In reality, there's also a good middle-ground of gamers who don't want either end shoved down anybody's throat, but they do want social progress, not for progress's sake, but because these things start to become boring after a while.

You bring up your example about how just about every shooter has a tough 30-something white male protagonist. You could construct and argument about how this is all horrible overt discrimination, but you can also construct the argument that not only is it discrimination, but that it is also boring. Spend some time on Giantbomb, and you'll find that a large chunk of the community is absolutely bored to fucking tears at all the tough 30-something white male protagonists in shooters. They see it as something that's been done to death for so many games and years without enough interesting aspects introduced over the years to justify it. Gamers love seeing new things and quickly get tired of things they perceive to have already seen before. We start to notice trends like this in games after a while, and these trends become more obvious over time. Eventually, social conventions change enough so that further examples of games using these tropes come off as boring, and later on as overtly offensive.

For example, few complained about the sexist man-child the titular character of Duke Nuke 3D was when that game came out because no one really thought about it, but then people moved on from that kind of stuff, and when that same Duke Nukem crawled back into the present with Duke Nukem Forever, people sighed and shook their heads as if they couldn't believe that kind of game would even exist today. Also, no one once thought about same-sex relationships in games that involve some kind of simulation of life before, but people's views have now changed, and the lack of an incorporation of such in a feature in Tomodachi Life came off as offensive in 2014. If that game came out ten years ago, it might not have raised a ruckus because we never put the trend of the lack of same-sex relationships in games together. It's just something we didn't think about.

There's a lot of social commentary to be had about games, but it's certainly grating when some people treat games as nothing but social commentary.Some try to push their opinions onto others in order to keeps some personal agenda going. That doesn't mean that everybody talking about social issues in relation to gaming is a total ass. I think it's all about honesty. If you put the effort into making a mature, convincing, and honest argument about your feelings to a game and how it handles x or y, people will take your argument into consideration. They'll start to notice the trends, and they'll eventually grow tired of them. If someone is tired of the same old conventions, they'll make a game with their own conventions. Not every game needs to be about something similar to simulating the life of an impoverished Uzbek vagabond on the streets of Milwaukee, but it would certainly be nice if more games touched on stuff like that. Social commentary should exist because it's interesting, not because it's necessary.

#21 Posted by Dox516 (7 posts) -

I could sit here an try to defend what I was saying, but I won't. I was just pointing out what I saw. Another entitled white gamer with first world problems. I will return to the high minded literature I suppose

Tim

#22 Posted by Slaegar (709 posts) -

Remember that time when Polygon was calling a vampire, drinking the blood of a woman, rape, (and killing a man outright, but that part didn't matter) and that they should remove the scene from the game (The scene where a vampire drank someone's blood) since it hurt her feelings.

People are totally fine when you are gunning down hundreds of white people, but Alex (who I normally like) was panicking that someone might hurt an elephant. People get scared when violence happens slightly out of the norm. You can mag dump into a "terrorist" with your freedom boolets (M4 or M16 only) and get a teen rating. The moment a knife cuts someone's face you get mature+++.

Being politically correct is miles from being right. It is politically correct to advocate the stoning of gays as long as it's part of someone's culture, but calling something "gay" is so wrong it gets a TV Ad telling you not to say it.

#23 Posted by DarthOrange (3864 posts) -
@slaegar said:

People are totally fine when you are gunning down hundreds of white people, but Alex (who I normally like) was panicking that someone might hurt an elephant.

#24 Edited by Turambar (6784 posts) -

@slaegar said:
You can mag dump into a "terrorist" with your freedom boolets (M4 or M16 only) and get a teen rating. The moment a knife cuts someone's face you get mature+++.

I don't think this part is true.

Being politically correct is miles from being right. It is politically correct to advocate the stoning of gays as long as it's part of someone's culture, but calling something "gay" is so wrong it gets a TV Ad telling you not to say it.

Don't think this happens in real life either.

#25 Posted by MikeJFlick (443 posts) -

Great first post dox, agreed with many of your points, hope you stick around to keep these sorts of expressions aloud.

@dox516 said:

Hello to all,

This is my first post in this community. I claim to be no expert on anything. You have been warned.

#26 Posted by Octaslash (528 posts) -
@slaegar said:

Remember that time when Polygon was calling a vampire, drinking the blood of a woman, rape, (and killing a man outright, but that part didn't matter) and that they should remove the scene from the game (The scene where a vampire drank someone's blood) since it hurt her feelings.

Polygon never said anything like that.

People are totally fine when you are gunning down hundreds of white people, but Alex (who I normally like) was panicking that someone might hurt an elephant. People get scared when violence happens slightly out of the norm. You can mag dump into a "terrorist" with your freedom boolets (M4 or M16 only) and get a teen rating. The moment a knife cuts someone's face you get mature+++.

1. Fuck you, elephants are better than people.

2. It totally depends on the graphic nature of the dumping and face cutting to determine whether or not it is fucked up enough to get an M rating. There is a pretty clear difference between Nathan Drake blasting baddies in a bloodless fashion and seeing someone slowly burn to death, graphically in Call of Duty.

#27 Posted by Turambar (6784 posts) -
@csl316 said:

Earlier today, I went to Polygon and saw three stories in a row about gender in games and such. Followed by "It's getting better: I spent an entire day at E3 playing as women characters." So it almost seems like that site's talking in circles.

It's almost as if the site has multiple writers with differing opinions as opposed to being a single minded monolith of "progressiveness".

#28 Edited by Dallas_Raines (2161 posts) -

"Yo, you can shoot guys in these games and then you can stab guys in these games. You can PARKOUR up buildings in half of them, and you can run to mountains in the other half!"

#29 Posted by Itwongo (1198 posts) -

@dox516: Nice first post. Welcome to the site, we could use more people like you around.

#30 Posted by Random45 (1201 posts) -

You know what? What the hell happened to being objective? It feels like Patrick is the only writer who even ATTEMPTS to be objective in his articles, and consequently I typically only read what Patrick writes when it comes to gender and racial issues. It feels like every other site is being too subjective, with the tone of their articles being very accusatory, and even putting in sensationalist titles to get more views. That was the main reason I stopped visiting Gamespot as often as I used to, and due to their articles now, I'm not going to be visiting Polygon much anymore either.

I think a game journalist ought to have a college degree before they can write about anything related to controversial issues. I still remember the whole Mass Effect 3 ending shit, where some game journalists were outright attacking fans who didn't like the ending. It's because of shit like that that a lot of people don't take them that seriously anymore.

Anyway, I'm a bit off topic, but I semi-agree with everything you have to say. I DO think sexism and racial issues need to be addressed, but I think only someone who actually went to school for journalism and can be objective should be the one writing about it. If you don't fit that qualification, then just talk about the damn games and shut your trap regarding issues way above your head before you make yourself look like an idiot.

#32 Edited by FinalDasa (1727 posts) -

@dox516 said:

I have also heard complaints about games not making me "care" enough about the characters in a game. It does not make me feel like I should care about the protagonist or about the other characters. The reality is, not every game can appeal to anyone. Just like every movie, book, or painting can not touch everyone in a DEEP way, nor can every game.

Also why is there not more transgender, gay, one legged, unicycle riding, dwarves, who hail from Uganda, and practice Kabala characters in games? I would consider myself a feminist in that I believe in equality for the genders. And I do think its funny that every male character looks like a 30 something white guy. That said, why do we need to have a protagonist from every walk of life.

First welcome to the site, always nice to have more people posting and engaging on the site.

I wanted to single out these two quotes for your post. You say that not every game should cater to every person and you're right. But the complaint, generally, is that most games don't even try. Like you say "every male character looks like a 30 something white guy". Isn't that strange? The world isn't 90% 30 something white men, yet we are constantly playing as them.

The controversy at this E3 was about a major game publisher asked directly why one of their biggest franchises had only ever had one playable female protagonist and specifically why this newest one couldn't have one at least as a co-op partner. Their response was the sore point. Claiming adding a character who could appeal to 50% of the gaming population (it's a little lower than that but women playing games has grown incredibly over the last decade or so) was too much work was slightly insulting and down right wrong as later claimed by a former Ubisoft animator. (Also Far Cry 4, another Ubisoft game, will have a playable women character in co-op mode).

So while a gaming publisher or developer cannot make every walk of life. It's strange that they can't seem to cater to something as simple as a single female character. And even stranger that when directly asked they didn't say, "story didn't dictate a female character" or "we're always open to diversifying our characters", instead they claimed it was too hard and invited in a deeper look by gamers and the press.

Just remember the world is a diverse place. We shouldn't shut ourselves in and refuse to evolve or open ourselves up to new experiences. Games allow us the unique experience to explore new worlds and lives like we have never been able to before. Let's not turn ourselves into a closed society of gaming nerds but instead set an example for other entertainment cultures to follow.

Moderator
#33 Posted by me3639 (1756 posts) -

Dont take it seriously because the people who are PLAYING games and having fun dont give a sheet.

#34 Posted by IBurningStar (2173 posts) -

@anund said:

After feminists bawled their eyes out of the last Tombraider game they completely lost me. Lara was the epitome of a strong, female lead and that game took no end of shit from upset feminists. You know what I say to those people? Fuck off, you useless turdmuffins. I'm done with you and your worthless crying over non-issues.

What's worse? Men did this to feminism. I didn't see many females crying over Lara. What I saw was men being upset a woman was not treated with silk gloves and writing article after article about how horribly sexist it was. No, gentlemen, that if anything is sexist.

So what you are saying is that this all nothing more than a bunch of white knights seeing who could be the white knightiest. Interesting.

#35 Edited by Swallagoon (18 posts) -

#36 Posted by Draugen (649 posts) -

@dox516 said:

Also why is there not more transgender, gay, one legged, unicycle riding, dwarves, who hail from Uganda, and practice Kabala characters in games?

See, you make a genuinely compelling argument, and then you write this, and I can no longer take it seriously, because it leads me to believe that either you find this a valid comparison to the calls for more representation for for example female characters in gaming, or you are just incapable of seeing the point of view of the people who want this.

I am one of those people who like to "care", as you put it. I am one of those who'd like to see female (and male for that sake) characters written better. I love a compelling narrative. But I can still see why other people don't care. And I do agree that the advocates of my side should be better at picking their battles. But if you feel the way the sentence above indicates, then we have nothing to discuss, because there is no common ground to be found.

#37 Edited by Fattony12000 (7410 posts) -
#38 Edited by Slaegar (709 posts) -

@turambar said:

@slaegar said:
You can mag dump into a "terrorist" with your freedom boolets (M4 or M16 only) and get a teen rating. The moment a knife cuts someone's face you get mature+++.

I don't think this part is true.

Being politically correct is miles from being right. It is politically correct to advocate the stoning of gays as long as it's part of someone's culture, but calling something "gay" is so wrong it gets a TV Ad telling you not to say it.

Don't think this happens in real life either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_desert_storm

>Rated T

"Cultural"

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1243907 (comments on an article)

http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/05/10/bill-maher-dinesh-dsouza-battle-liberals-condemning-islam/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAga4TV746k

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality#Treatment_of_Homosexuals

"Homosexuality is one of the most disgusting sins and greatest crimes.... It is a vile perversion that goes against sound nature, and is one of the most corrupting and hideous sins.... The punishment for homosexuality is death. Both the active and passive participants are to be killed whether or not they have previously had sexual intercourse in the context of a legal marriage.... Some of the companions of the Prophet stated that [the perpetrator] is to be burned with fire. It has also been said that he should be stoned, or thrown from a high place."

#39 Posted by Humanity (9240 posts) -

@turambar said:
@csl316 said:

Earlier today, I went to Polygon and saw three stories in a row about gender in games and such. Followed by "It's getting better: I spent an entire day at E3 playing as women characters." So it almost seems like that site's talking in circles.

It's almost as if the site has multiple writers with differing opinions as opposed to being a single minded monolith of "progressiveness".

If there is one way to very accurately describe Polygon it most definitely is "a single minded monolith of progressiveness" and they're making that rock bleed any which way they can. Articles like "there are more severed heads at E3 than female presenters!" are nauseating in their misguided attempts at something closely approaching social commentary.

"Why is the world" should be an ongoing feature on their site where they can continuously feign outrage at things like, why are all the men in shampoo commercials super fit or how come the hamburgers in McDonalds commercials look so much better than what you actually get.

Online
#40 Posted by pcorb (99 posts) -
@humanity said:

@turambar said:
@csl316 said:

Earlier today, I went to Polygon and saw three stories in a row about gender in games and such. Followed by "It's getting better: I spent an entire day at E3 playing as women characters." So it almost seems like that site's talking in circles.

It's almost as if the site has multiple writers with differing opinions as opposed to being a single minded monolith of "progressiveness".

If there is one way to very accurately describe Polygon it most definitely is "a single minded monolith of progressiveness" and they're making that rock bleed any which way they can. Articles like "there are more severed heads at E3 than female presenters!" are nauseating in their misguided attempts at something closely approaching social commentary.

"Why is the world" should be an ongoing feature on their site where they can continuously feign outrage at things like, why are all the men in shampoo commercials super fit or how come the hamburgers in McDonalds commercials look so much better than what you actually get.

What makes you believe that people aren't capable of having a genuine negative reaction to things? Do you think all "outrage" is feigned just to annoy you or something?

#41 Posted by shinjin977 (759 posts) -

@dox516: Just use giantbomb. Where they care about dumb shit and none of that click bait bullshit. Your problem is you visit polygon and joystiq for "news". Its like reading trashy Hollywood gossip magazine and complaining about why we give so much attention to movie stars. Giantbomb doesnt cover everything so you can use siliconera for japanese games or eurogamer for everything else. Eurogamer is the most quality site for gaming news bar-none. Giantbomb is the most entertaining.

#42 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3729 posts) -

@slaegar said:

http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/05/10/bill-maher-dinesh-dsouza-battle-liberals-condemning-islam/

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality#Treatment_of_Homosexuals

"Homosexuality is one of the most disgusting sins and greatest crimes.... It is a vile perversion that goes against sound nature, and is one of the most corrupting and hideous sins.... The punishment for homosexuality is death. Both the active and passive participants are to be killed whether or not they have previously had sexual intercourse in the context of a legal marriage.... Some of the companions of the Prophet stated that [the perpetrator] is to be burned with fire. It has also been said that he should be stoned, or thrown from a high place."

It's funny how hateful some liberals can be of mainstream Christianity, which may believe that homosexuality is a sin, but certainly doesn't preach hate or violence.

And speaking of political correctness, here's perhaps my favorite video on the subject:

#43 Posted by Humanity (9240 posts) -

@pcorb said:
@humanity said:

@turambar said:
@csl316 said:

Earlier today, I went to Polygon and saw three stories in a row about gender in games and such. Followed by "It's getting better: I spent an entire day at E3 playing as women characters." So it almost seems like that site's talking in circles.

It's almost as if the site has multiple writers with differing opinions as opposed to being a single minded monolith of "progressiveness".

If there is one way to very accurately describe Polygon it most definitely is "a single minded monolith of progressiveness" and they're making that rock bleed any which way they can. Articles like "there are more severed heads at E3 than female presenters!" are nauseating in their misguided attempts at something closely approaching social commentary.

"Why is the world" should be an ongoing feature on their site where they can continuously feign outrage at things like, why are all the men in shampoo commercials super fit or how come the hamburgers in McDonalds commercials look so much better than what you actually get.

What makes you believe that people aren't capable of having a genuine negative reaction to things? Do you think all "outrage" is feigned just to annoy you or something?

No of course not, and I never grouped together all of humanity under this premise. Usually I'm not one to care, it is what it is and I don't have to read anything if I don't want to - but I actually find Polygon extremely distasteful in how they approach any subject matter. I see their articles and its just gross for the lack of a better word.

Online
#44 Posted by Anund (897 posts) -

@draugen said:

@dox516 said:

Also why is there not more transgender, gay, one legged, unicycle riding, dwarves, who hail from Uganda, and practice Kabala characters in games?

See, you make a genuinely compelling argument, and then you write this, and I can no longer take it seriously, because it leads me to believe that either you find this a valid comparison to the calls for more representation for for example female characters in gaming, or you are just incapable of seeing the point of view of the people who want this.

I am one of those people who like to "care", as you put it. I am one of those who'd like to see female (and male for that sake) characters written better. I love a compelling narrative. But I can still see why other people don't care. And I do agree that the advocates of my side should be better at picking their battles. But if you feel the way the sentence above indicates, then we have nothing to discuss, because there is no common ground to be found.

When females are represented in gaming the developers drown in complaints about how they are implemented (See: My rant above about Tomb Raider). Seems safer to not touch women with a 10 foot pole, because there is no winning when it comes to trying to include them in games.

#45 Posted by pcorb (99 posts) -

@anund said:

@draugen said:

@dox516 said:

Also why is there not more transgender, gay, one legged, unicycle riding, dwarves, who hail from Uganda, and practice Kabala characters in games?

See, you make a genuinely compelling argument, and then you write this, and I can no longer take it seriously, because it leads me to believe that either you find this a valid comparison to the calls for more representation for for example female characters in gaming, or you are just incapable of seeing the point of view of the people who want this.

I am one of those people who like to "care", as you put it. I am one of those who'd like to see female (and male for that sake) characters written better. I love a compelling narrative. But I can still see why other people don't care. And I do agree that the advocates of my side should be better at picking their battles. But if you feel the way the sentence above indicates, then we have nothing to discuss, because there is no common ground to be found.

When females are represented in gaming the developers drown in complaints about how they are implemented (See: My rant above about Tomb Raider). Seems safer to not touch women with a 10 foot pole, because there is no winning when it comes to trying to include them in games.

A game portrays a woman as a victim of an attempted rape in order to make players want to "protect her", people complain about this, and the best response, in your opinion, is to just not include women in games at all? Am I reading that correctly?

#46 Posted by Nictel (2412 posts) -
#47 Edited by Anund (897 posts) -

@pcorb said:

@anund said:

@draugen said:

@dox516 said:

Also why is there not more transgender, gay, one legged, unicycle riding, dwarves, who hail from Uganda, and practice Kabala characters in games?

See, you make a genuinely compelling argument, and then you write this, and I can no longer take it seriously, because it leads me to believe that either you find this a valid comparison to the calls for more representation for for example female characters in gaming, or you are just incapable of seeing the point of view of the people who want this.

I am one of those people who like to "care", as you put it. I am one of those who'd like to see female (and male for that sake) characters written better. I love a compelling narrative. But I can still see why other people don't care. And I do agree that the advocates of my side should be better at picking their battles. But if you feel the way the sentence above indicates, then we have nothing to discuss, because there is no common ground to be found.

When females are represented in gaming the developers drown in complaints about how they are implemented (See: My rant above about Tomb Raider). Seems safer to not touch women with a 10 foot pole, because there is no winning when it comes to trying to include them in games.

A game portrays a woman as a victim of an attempted rape in order to make players want to "protect her", people complain about this, and the best response, in your opinion, is to just not include women in games at all? Am I reading that correctly?

Yeah. Yeah you are. Because people like you will never be happy. By that I mean the type of person you represent. I am sure there is a way to include women in games which would make you, personally, very happy. But one of the other "yous" out there would rage against it.

Did shit happen to Lara Craft in Tomb Raider? Yeah, shit happened. Did she get hurt? Yeah. Did that make her quit? Give up and hope for a man to save her? No, she showed strength. She overcame the difficulties the game's story threw at her and she came out the other side stronger and more capable. Somehow you manage to turn this into a sexism. Good for you, take a moment to pat yourself on the back for being such a stand-up guy.

You done? Now, alright. Let's say they instead sugar coated everything that happened to her. There were no bad men on the island doing what bad men do to lonely women. There was no need for Lara to really do anything dangerous to survive, she didn't get hurt throughout the story, she wasn't tested in any way just to ensure she wasn't hurt. This would make a better game? This would make her a better female character? Hardly. People would complain. People like you. "Sure, Nathan Drake can kill a bunch of guys, tough through hardship and survive, but god forbid we ever put a woman in that situation! Sexist! Women are just as tough as men! Give us a strong female character for once! SEXIIIISSSST!"

Screw that. Yes, it's better to never include female characters in games. No one will ever be happy with them. They are either too weak, too emotional, they get treated like dolls which is not ok, or they get beat up which is torture porn (I believe that was the phrase Patrick used). How do you win?

You don't.

#48 Posted by GiantLizardKing (447 posts) -

AAA games are Jerry Bruckheimer movies. They are big and they are dumb. They are also full of explosions and neck stabbings/face chain sawings. Nobody expects high minded commentary out of "The Rock" or "Con Air". You shouldn't expect much more out of Assassin's Creed or Far Cry.

But good news guys, there are other games. We have a lot of choices in what we play. Rather than getting upset that your gender/ethnicity/religion/whatever isn't well represented in Transformers 3 or Godzilla maybe you can spend that time Watching "My Dinner with Andre" or "The Piano".

#49 Edited by pcorb (99 posts) -

@anund: Believe it or not, I'm happier that games include people who aren't 20-40 y/o white guys rather than ignore them altogether. That's a relatively recent development though. If you seriously think that overnight games can go from mostly ignoring women to representing them fairly and accurately, you're being very unreasonable. It's a slow process, and it's kind of dumb to respond to problems in that process (or, more accurately, to people pointing out the problems in that process) by saying FUCK IT, LET'S JUST STOP.

#50 Edited by Brodehouse (9949 posts) -

@anund said:

What's worse? Men did this to feminism.

The men, I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.