hrn212

So...you're assuming all the women gamers out there are unmarried? Or are you just assuming there aren't that many women gamers? Why do you think that enjoying hardcore games and being a wife are mutually exclusive?

Hmmmmm...interesting interview all around but...a lot of what Meade is saying seems to rely on a very specific and homogeneous, yet largely undefined, understanding of what a 'real' gamer is. And that's kinda troubling.

Like, for example...he talks about World of Tanks being fantastic and hardcore and then says, "you won't get many wives playing it." As though being a wife and enjoying fantastic hardcore games are mutually exclusive. Or even the less offensive, but still frustrating, comment about folks who only play sports games with their friends being "not-gamer gamers." So on and so forth...I'm not going to pick out all the quotes, don't worry. But, like...he assumes a shared definition of 'gamer' without having ever explicitly stated that definition.

Then later Meade talks about games as art and not wanting to pander to what people expect (which is all great)...but that's after he's made a value judgement based on what he thinks a 'real' gamer is and isn't. So again, kinda troubling.

Anyway, I'll end my rambling there...

Okay, yes. But also...a bland refusal to address a present-day audience's expectations (in particular a straight audience's expectations) for a queer character is also powerful (or can be, assuming the story is interesting, etc). Depicting a queer character whose life is not even remotely touched by prejudice based on their sexuality is powerful.

As I said before, part of the problem with ME and DA is frankly that they didn't follow through enough with this attempt to depict a world without homophobia...so bits of the game were actually unintentionally laced with present-day prejudices.

Anyway...I don't mean to pick on you and I'll stop the lecture now.

The thing is, meeting straight white dude's expectations is what's considered 'best practice' when it comes to most AAA games (and pop culture in general). This is part of why, when you've been talking about your personal expectations and breaking immersion, I thought you were applying them more universally. Because, in general, your personal expectations are applied universally.

But also...breaking expectations is part of what makes for good storytelling. If you anticipate every beat of a story, it becomes boring. Discovering that what you thought you knew about a character (or the world) is actually wrong can be really powerful.

Thus, that common argument that I made (about accepting dragons and spaceships but not a gay utopia) applies rather well to both ME and DA, I think. In ME it is not surprising one would expect to see similar prejudices to our current world...but it's also not impossible that we have a world where those prejudices are more-or-less gone in some (even not-so-distant) future. The breaking of that expectation can be quite powerful.

Now, whether ME and DA executed portraying these queer utopias well is another question entirely.

Well now you're asking me to prove a negative...but alright, I'll bite. Let me rephrase: It does not harm anyone. She did not perpetuate a stereotype which is used to commit violence against people; she did not personally attack anyone; she did not threaten or insult anyone; she did not name names or call out a specific individual...thus, no harm. - That someone might have read her statement and had their feelings hurt, well yeah...that's possible. As I said, that sentence wasn't particularly nice or polite...but Quinn is human (like the rest of us) and thus isn't always going to be the most polite or the nicest.

As for the second part: those two are mutually exclusive when we're talking about 'Quinn wasn't nice' versus folks sending threats and slurs to Quinn, personally.

Just to clarify...I didn't mean I didn't want you to reply directly...just that I wasn't asking those questions with the expectation that you must answer directly.

Anyway...so...you wrote "I think that the dialogue and the romance itself loses its impact by not being treated in a manner that would resonate with my experience." That's what I was responding to...you said the romance loses impact because it doesn't resonate with your expectation. Now, perhaps I read that incorrectly...but I thought you were making a somewhat universal statement (that it objectively loses impact) because of the way it doesn't meet your personal expectations. Perhaps what you meant is just that it loses impact for you because of the way it doesn't meet your personal expectations? - Which is somewhat different as I thought you were making more universal statements.

As to the second bit...see I disagree with you with regards to whether ME or DA is going for a fairy tale tone. In many ways it is going for a more grounded version of a fantasy, sure...but it's still a fantasy. They've got magic and space magic and hyper-sexual blue alien ladies and giant robot aliens and Morrigan...like, Morrigan is straight out of a fantasy. Adult fairy tales, perhaps, but still fairy tales.

Like, of course not every gay person prefers the way ME handled representation to a more realistic one. The point of diversity is a diverse set of representations. Both the story of overcoming struggle and the fantasy of living without struggle are valuable stories...but considering ME and DA have spaceships and dragons why is it that the notion of a gay guy not having to struggle with discrimination is what throws your 'unrelateable' switch but the blue aliens don't? (Also a somewhat hypothetical question).

Okay, two things, though...

One: Why is it that resonating with your experience should be prioritised? Especially if you're not part of the group of folks who are being represented.

Two: Aren't people of colour and lgbt people and what-not allowed fairy tales, though? I'm assuming you're a straight white dude, here, and if not please forgive me...but straight white dudes got all their fairy tales when they were kids. They saved the world and rescued the princess and blew up the evil villain's lair. So now that you're an adult (or a teenager or whatever) you're like...hey, let's see something more complex and real.

And minority adults also want to see something more complex and real (because we're adults). But we also want to see our power fantasies...our fairy tales...because we didn't really get that as kids. We had to map ourselves onto straight white dude fairy tales...and the queering (so to speak) of hetero texts is fascinating and useful...but still not quite filling that same desire as just having an explicitly queer fairy tale would be.

Three (or 2a, I guess): Isn't it troubling that something which is a bit of a fairy tale regarding minority folks is equality. Whereas a fairy tale (or power fantasy) for a straight white dude is...well...actually having power.

Okay, those aren't exactly questions I'm expecting you to answer directly...

(Okay, now I really am out the door...I'll be back later, though. I do like this conversation...I know I often come across a bit more aggressive online than I mean to be, so, yeah).

On my way out the door but just wanted to say:

@veektarius: One more thing about the question of social agenda versus absorbing narrative. The thing is, all games have a social agenda...even if it's unintentional...even if that agenda is just "treat status quo as neutral" or "treat status quo as normal."

@video_game_king: One more thing to add about Quinn...it's also so frustrating to see this particular "her response is not nice enough" sort of argument levied against her, of all people. I mean, she's sat in a panel with Patrick in which she talks about the difficulty of how to respond to internet jerks. And she's talked about the difficulty in not responding to the hate with immediate anger...so I think any worry one might have at whatever inferences you might have made at her "nothing better to do" comment are unfounded. She clearly isn't attacking anyone, is what I'm saying.

So...you expect Quinn to never respond to any of this in a human way? You expect her response to always be the Most Moral and Perfect?

Her response does not hurt anyone...thus the fact that it's not a perfect response is not a problem. My "justification" which makes it understandable DOES make it okay, because her response was not harmful. The question of whether something is understandable but not okay is legit only when the thing is harmful.

For example, I'm sure we could explain some folks' hateful messages to Quinn in such a way that makes them understandable (perhaps some folks are acting out aggression due to personal problems or whatever)...but that would not make it okay because their hate was still harmful. Quinn's statement, though not an ideal response, is not harmful.

This is why I said that your comparison of the two is uncalled for. You cannot compare something that's not all that nice to something that's actually threatening or insulting.

It is actually quite exhausting the way this plays out (over and over and over). Folks decide to focus on whether or not someone's response to hate is Good Enough, rather than focus on the fact that...y'know...it's messed up someone was targeted by hate.

I can't tell if this is a genuine question or I've we've venturing into specious arguments. If there are no characters the issue of whether there are lgbt characters is mute...because there are no characters...