Plaintiff wrote...
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Grown up's table? Please do not be condescending as part of your response. It does nothing to the value of your argument and is an attempt to intimidate, which is part of what many people talk about when they say the BSN is toxic.
I'll use a loose example here. TW1 had collectible cards for the women you sleep with. Many people decry this feature, as it devalues women and forces upon the player a mindset that womanizing and mindless sex is acceptable, as many gamers will want to collect them all. Even though doing so is totally optional.
So why is it considered a valid critique of a video game (one I have seen multiple Bioware devs cite when discussing The Witcher) when it involves collecting sex cards, but the same concept (that players will try to collect everything they can) is the player's fault if they can't resist using their real money to buy equipment, like gear DLC or premium gear content?
Because one promotes a demeaning view of women, and the other hurts nobody at all? The two issues are not at all similar.
People take issue with The Witcher because of the product, not the method of delivery. If The Witcher had implemented a mechanic whereby players had to pay to see nude portraits of the female characters, the issue would still be how it demeans women. Not the fact that people were being forced to pay for ******, because every sane person understands that men do not have an inalienable right to see ******, fictional or otherwise.
Why the same revelation has not been made re: weapon, armor and story DLC, I have no idea.
A few things here.
One:
Not the fact that people were being forced to pay for ******, because every sane person understands that men do not have an inalienable right to see ******, fictional or otherwise.
Just as an aside, for being a very vocal homosexual player, it seems odd that you seem to focus on the fact that only men would be interested in seeing female nudity.
Two: nudity and/or sex scenes do not demean women.
What DOES demean women is promoting a behavior of serializing women to have sex with and move on. It reduces their worth.
But to say that the cards, or the sexual content they imply, is demeaning to women is just not accurate. The poses most of them are in are too mild to make it into Playboy in some cases.
So, if we can come to grips with the fact that it is not the cards themselves (and the optional content they represent) which demeans women, but rather the known fact that a gamer's tendency to collect all things IN CORRELATION to the content of the card is what is morally objectable.
Now - to be clear - content is fine, but capitalizing on the player's natural tendencies which, in turn, promotes unwanted values - not fine.
So, microtransactions which prey on the impatience of some players, or gear DLC which prey on the collector's nature of some players, or Day One DLC which prey on someone wanting every bit of the story involved with a game... none of the content is inherently bad. And any player does have the option of not pursuing this content.
But the moral being taught here - you can't have all the gear, story or be one of the best players in the online community without paying actual real dollars - is not a good one. I'd wager no one can argue the idea that whoever shells out the most money should have a more complete game experienece is a good concept, in and of itself.
To recap, the content is there. The option to not do it is there. And the moral apprehension of preying on a gamer's tendency to pursue that optional content and reinforce a negative moral behavior is there.
So how is it, in a substantial way, different than the Witcher sex cards?
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 07 février 2013 - 05:56 .
Retour en haut
