DefaultProphet's forum posts

#1 Posted by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

@defaultprophet said:
@oldirtybearon said:

Agreed, most people aren't, but there are some who do want to ban games with "sexist content" (?). That's the issue I have. For these people in particular they hide behind "it's criticism!" like it's some bulwark of flame retardant +5. Their criticism is often masked cries for censorship because what they say isn't "well I don't like this for these reasons" it's "THIS STUFF IS PROBLEMATIC AND WHY WOULD ANYONE MAKE IT UNLESS THEY'RE A SEXIST." A reasonable adult finds something they don't like and says "well that's shitty" and moves about their day. They leave a comment on a message board or on twitter and they quickly move on to something else.

Please link me to some of these people that want to ban games. Please. Further link me to the definition of censorship that states critics voicing their displeasure is a form of it.

Ban games? No, but more than ever I'm now convinced this is often an issue of censorship, and people trying to impose their personal values on everyone else.

The argument: "No one is coming for your video games! This isn't at all about censorship, or controlling game developers, and no one is trying to bully or shame anyone into doing anything. This is just about variety and diversity, and it's just a simple request that game developers think more about these issues when they're making their games. That's all. This isn't a zero-sum game, and there's room enough for all types of games, and all types of characters. There's nothing wrong with male protagonists, and we're not suggesting anything of the sort."

I've heard this for a while.

Then new Assassin's Creed game was announced to feature a male protagonist and three male co-op characters, and the same voices who claimed the above turned around and scolded Ubisoft like they were a dog who just made a mess on their new living room rug. Actually, I think they would have been a lot more respectful to the dog.

And don't even get me started on the Far Cry 4 promo art reveal.

While I do support the argument above, I think that it's frequently not the truth for those who claim otherwise.

You're looking at AC from a super narrow perspective. The issue wasn't just that there wasn't a female co-op character. The issue was in the past Ubisoft has been good about including at least one in that scenario. They also compounded the issue by claiming it would take double the time to include one even with ex-Ubi employees saying that simply isn't the case and the majority of animation is shared between the male and female characters in AC. Nobody who complained called for banning the game. Given all of that, do you think the response was more reasonable or does it not matter?

#2 Posted by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

@heyguys said:

@defaultprophet said:

@oldirtybearon said:

@teaoverlord said:

But most people aren't trying to ban games with sexist content. I think it's interesting that you brought up games as art, because it seems like the people associating themselves with #gamergate are completely going against the idea that games are art. Artists should be allowed to create whatever art they want, but like any other art form games can be criticized from many different perspectives, and trying to shut down any feminist critique of games as "censorship" isn't taking games seriously as an art form.

Agreed, most people aren't, but there are some who do want to ban games with "sexist content" (?). That's the issue I have. For these people in particular they hide behind "it's criticism!" like it's some bulwark of flame retardant +5. Their criticism is often masked cries for censorship because what they say isn't "well I don't like this for these reasons" it's "THIS STUFF IS PROBLEMATIC AND WHY WOULD ANYONE MAKE IT UNLESS THEY'RE A SEXIST." A reasonable adult finds something they don't like and says "well that's shitty" and moves about their day. They leave a comment on a message board or on twitter and they quickly move on to something else.

The best analogy I can think of is people who like anime. I don't like anime personally. I could list a litany of reasons as to why, but ultimately I don't want to waste my time writing them out because what's the point? The people who like anime are free to like and enjoy it. They're free to immerse themselves in the culture that surrounds it, and I don't see a problem with that. I just think it's a much more productive use of one's time to talk about the things they see as examples they want more of. I think at this point it comes down to whether or not you want to have a moan about something that bugs you or do you want to talk about things you want to see more of. I can understand the appeal of having a moan, but when everyone is doing that it gets rather tiresome.

There's plenty of criticism to be had that is both intelligent and reasonable. Kill Screen has a ton of good stuff. Tom Chick - who I rarely agree with - always puts up an interesting perspective on games. I'd rather have more rational discourse like that than the latest click bait article or youtube video.

Please link me to some of these people that want to ban games. Please. Further link me to the definition of censorship that states critics voicing their displeasure is a form of it.

There have certainly been voices throughout gaming's history that have called for governmental regulation of content (for example California State Senator Leeland Yee, ironically later arrested for gun trafficking) but, to my knowledge those have been almost exclusively been tied to the general concept of violence in video games and not sexism/misogyny.

I would think, from context, you would know I'm talking about banning for sexism reasons.

#3 Posted by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

@teaoverlord said:

But most people aren't trying to ban games with sexist content. I think it's interesting that you brought up games as art, because it seems like the people associating themselves with #gamergate are completely going against the idea that games are art. Artists should be allowed to create whatever art they want, but like any other art form games can be criticized from many different perspectives, and trying to shut down any feminist critique of games as "censorship" isn't taking games seriously as an art form.

Agreed, most people aren't, but there are some who do want to ban games with "sexist content" (?). That's the issue I have. For these people in particular they hide behind "it's criticism!" like it's some bulwark of flame retardant +5. Their criticism is often masked cries for censorship because what they say isn't "well I don't like this for these reasons" it's "THIS STUFF IS PROBLEMATIC AND WHY WOULD ANYONE MAKE IT UNLESS THEY'RE A SEXIST." A reasonable adult finds something they don't like and says "well that's shitty" and moves about their day. They leave a comment on a message board or on twitter and they quickly move on to something else.

The best analogy I can think of is people who like anime. I don't like anime personally. I could list a litany of reasons as to why, but ultimately I don't want to waste my time writing them out because what's the point? The people who like anime are free to like and enjoy it. They're free to immerse themselves in the culture that surrounds it, and I don't see a problem with that. I just think it's a much more productive use of one's time to talk about the things they see as examples they want more of. I think at this point it comes down to whether or not you want to have a moan about something that bugs you or do you want to talk about things you want to see more of. I can understand the appeal of having a moan, but when everyone is doing that it gets rather tiresome.

There's plenty of criticism to be had that is both intelligent and reasonable. Kill Screen has a ton of good stuff. Tom Chick - who I rarely agree with - always puts up an interesting perspective on games. I'd rather have more rational discourse like that than the latest click bait article or youtube video.

Please link me to some of these people that want to ban games. Please. Further link me to the definition of censorship that states critics voicing their displeasure is a form of it.

#4 Posted by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

@n1nj4d00m: And why is that? Why are non gamers who couldn't care less about games journalism taking up this cause?

#5 Posted by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

@conmulligan said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

So are you arguing that the ability to attack female civilians in an action-oriented video game is inherently worse than being able to attack male civilians?

Most of the time, no. I don't think there's a distinction between running down a man or a woman with a car in GTA, for instance. On the other hand, picking up a prostitute and then beating her to death to get your money back plays into a very real danger that sex workers face, and I think it would be to Rockstar's credit to at least discourage players from doing this.

Are you suggesting that developers should put women in the same group with children and either not include them actions games, or make them completely invincible?

Nope! I was just making the point that game developers already place limits on what kinds of people the player can do bad shit to.

So out of all the ridiculous intentionally controversial things that Rockstar lets you do in GTA, and all the killing sprees, and cop killing, and drug use, and torture that you can engage in, you specifically think that the one thing that has to go is being able to kill hookers and get your money back from them. That's the thing that is over the line?

Not that I desperately want to preserve the ability to kill hookers in GTA or anything--and I haven't done so or cared about it since GTA III--but I do think it's an odd concern given everything else you can do in GTA.

picking up a prostitute and then beating her to death to get your money back plays into a very real danger that sex workers face

And shooting cops in the face doesn't play into a very real danger that police officers face? A danger and concern that male and female officers alike face, along with their wives, husbands, and children? Why should Rockstar express concern and empathy for one and not the other?

But we're getting off topic, because we were talking about hitman. Hitman specifically discourages you from killing any civilian. If you don't feel that the game does enough to discourage civilian attacks, what do you think should have been done differently?

So listen, if I were doing a video series about cop killing in video games and I pulled out GTA5 and said "This mission has you killing cops and you can kill cops whenever" would you then turn around on me and say "Well you can also kill gangsters and soccer moms so whatever why are you bringing that up?"

Of course not.

#6 Posted by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

I find it truly telling that the "Mainstream" champions GamerGate has chosen to fall in line behind are universally far right wing and have never played a game in their lives until this event. Oh I guess maybe Adam Baldwin played ODST when he was shilling it, maybe. Point is they're not gamers, they're not on your side to improve gaming journalism, they're here specifically because of politics and the belief that things are too PC. Think real hard about who you're choosing to promote as on your side.

#7 Posted by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

I don't and I get annoyed at people who take smoke breaks even though I know it's my own fault for not just taking them too.

#8 Edited by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

@marokai said:

Part of what makes discussions of sexism/racism/homophobia in any medium so difficult (and so frustrating and arbitrary) is that what people perceive as sexist/misogynistic changes over time and is so contextual. People looking at Metal Gear Solid or Tomb Raider through a modern lens see base fanservice that has little critical value. "Ugh, look, Lara Croft's boobs are so big, this is pandering." "You have to find Meryl by the shape and wiggle of her butt? Gross; turning this person into an object is so disgusting." But its not so simple.

MGS and Tomb Raider showed strong, independent women who were comfortable in their femininity, and their sexuality was empowerment, not just fanservice, and stood far and above other game characters at the time. MGS may have sexualized its female characters in certain scenes, but they were also fiercely strong, well-written and realized female characters who were comfortable in themselves, and told Snake to fuck off when he was being a creep.

It reminds me of when people look at the skirts that old-school Star Trek women used to wear. "Ugh, well of course they would wear skirts since they're girls, how cheap." But then people forget that Star Trek was born from the 60s, right in the wave of the sexual revolution. Those skirts were seen as a way for women to dress openly and provocatively and still be smart, powerful, independent women, respected in their work place as equals. Who could use their own femininity without anyone telling them how to dress or act. People forget things like this because how we think sexism is changes over time.

And through cultures, too. Hatsune Miku may be inherently creepy to people like Jeff, but to the creators and the business folks behind her, she's really not meant to be that way. Plenty of people outside of the biz may have done weird stuff with her, but it's not the intent. She's taken deathly seriously by some people; her music legitimately celebrated and appreciated. But many people in our culture make no effort to understand the cultural differences. (Which, ironically, could be construed as mildly racist.)

Tomodachi Life, for instance, is accused of being homophobic by the Western-centric games press. An insult to gays everywhere! But it wasn't. It was made for a Japanese audience that had no real appetite for features like homosexual relationships, so they simply weren't included in the design. After the fact, it was brought to North America, and everyone was outraged that it didn't conform to our cultural standards. How dare the Japanese not abide by American sociopolitical standards! But of course they wouldn't; they're a completely different society. It was a bummer it wasn't included, but it wasn't meanspirited.

What makes discussions of these issues often so divisive is because these contextual factors are often through straight out the window, and the language is black and white. There are only absolutes, with no accounting for culture or time. It's very silly.

I think people were less upset about that and more upset about the glitch where it was possible being taken out and the following "We don't want to make a political statement" press release than what your perception of the events was.

@demokk: You are killing it. Excellent job

#9 Edited by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

Bring whatever you like.

Also jagermeister. Bring jagermeister

Welp I know what I'm doing next time I go to the store. But Shocktop instead of Moon cause Coors is a shitty company but meh

@gvalo said:

@the_nubster: Strongbow is awesome! The local irish pub has it on tap and they serve "Bluebows" where they mix Blue Moon and Strongbow. Tastes like a dreamsicle

#10 Edited by DefaultProphet (468 posts) -

How is that different from the current F2P model?

@ianh83 said:

Well I'm surprised at the reaction. I think you're crazy for saying you don't want to know what a modern arcade model would produce, as if the arcade model produced nothing of worth. It's not like you're being forced to play, if it sucks just don't spend money on it.

@brodehouse said:

@corruptedevil said:

That's basically Arcade pricing. That just creates games that are unreasonably difficult and are made specifically to kill you repeatedly.

There's a Mark Cerny talk where he says the higher-ups told him they wanted the machines to earn a quarter every 2 minutes 30 seconds, so a three life game should be designed to kill the player every 50 seconds or so.

Yep this