363 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

Social change doesn't happen by being nice. Massive changes in American society - and America has to be the example here seeing as we're talking about American gaming companies - came on the back of huge social upheaval movements. Civil rights had outright riots. Increases representation for women came via a brand of very vocal and very aggressive feminism.

It is exactly those people who stand on their pulpit and demand change that make the difference because they're the ones who for e the public to confront the issue. People won't solve a problem until it is a problem, and as this own forum shows, for people who are on the outside the usual response to calm and rational is "well do it eventually". Not to mention that this whole calm and rational line of classification usually means something like asking for something that won't really go far beyond the status quo and going away if the answer is no.

Of course, the funny thing with all of is that my own post will probably have me labeled as a SJW, despite the fact that nothing is further from the truth.

 

More a justification for mob rule and violence in the name of a cause, similar to what we see in the middle east or african nations striving to achieve their rights with a machete blade and a couple innocent people. I don't know if you know this, but a lot of those vocal and angry people were used as examples of why those causes shouldn't have been taken seriously, because look at how violent and unreasonably they are! We can't trust them with having equality, they'll use it to kill us in our sleep! #IrrationalMinsetBackThen

 

But then look at the non-violent protests people like martin luther king jr had for his civil rights movement, and what I see from that is people not rioting, not looting, not hurting others, and articulating a valid point while demonstrating the irrationality and shameful behavior of others, and it having had a much greater impact than any of Malcom X's or Huey P. Newton's more violent and aggressive leaning ideologies.

[In Exile]

I think it is fine. I think everyone should have their right to express the issues that they do find in video games. Video games in our current generation are played by a vast number of people from all corners. It is no problem that they want to be represented and that is perfectly fine.
 
I only have 2 complaints. if 1) They skew the vision of the developer and what the developer wants to make. 2) The idea that because a developer has included something morally reprehensible he is glorifying it. To elaborate a bit more on the second point, you can address issues  that do happen in our society by including them in a form of art. Social commentary does not always have to be in your face and it can be presented in various ways. An example is Grand Theft Auto 5 which had the scene of Trevor torturing that guy. A lot of social justice urgency was shown towards that but I saw it as an opportunity to explore the ideas in torture surrounding some of the prison system in the united states. Grand Theft Auto is satire of the most ridiculous elements of the world at it's core.

Here is my problem with this whole "morally objectionable" content thing: people only ask for content that discriminates against minority groups IRL. No one asks for gender discrimination against men, or a society where being straight is heavily stigmatized and straight characters are in the closet, or the discriminated minority is all white.

Another thing that gets thrown around is sexual abuse. No one is going around saying they want the protagonist to be abused. No, it's all about the NPCs. And female NPCs at that.

All of this gets a bit close to hypocrisy for me, when a group says "there should be discrimination" but then follows that up with "but against people who aren't us" and especially with "against an IRL backdrop where my group is always the one on top and the other is often on the bottom".

I get upset about the hypocrisy more so than the cause.

[Khayness]

Social change doesn't happen by being nice. Massive changes in American society - and America has to be the example here seeing as we're talking about American gaming companies - came on the back of huge social upheaval movements. Civil rights had outright riots. Increases representation for women came via a brand of very vocal and very aggressive feminism.

It is exactly those people who stand on their pulpit and demand change that make the difference because they're the ones who for e the public to confront the issue. People won't solve a problem until it is a problem, and as this own forum shows, for people who are on the outside the usual response to calm and rational is "well do it eventually". Not to mention that this whole calm and rational line of classification usually means something like asking for something that won't really go far beyond the status quo and going away if the answer is no.

 

The problem with that approach is, it hurts more than it does help. Mostly by alienating a lot of people from sympathising with the issue, thanks to how annyoing or unpleasant they are. And since this is on the internet, people can be capital douchebags.

 

I have nothing against women, gay folks, religious and sensitive people who got offended because I didn't list them, but when I see the rabid posters on the forums, who see sexism and oppresive patriarchal agenda in every goddamn game, I sometimes think I should, just to spite them.

[In Exile]

More a justification for mob rule and violence in the name of a cause, similar to what we see in the middle east or african nations striving to achieve their rights with a machete blade and a couple innocent people. I don't know if you know this, but a lot of those vocal and angry people were used as examples of why those causes shouldn't have been taken seriously, because look at how violent and unreasonably they are! We can't trust them with having equality, they'll use it to kill us in our sleep! #IrrationalMinsetBackThen
 
But then look at the non-violent protests people like martin luther king jr had for his civil rights movement, and what I see from that is people not rioting, not looting, not hurting others, and articulating a valid point while demonstrating the irrationality and shameful behavior of others, and it having had a much greater impact than any of Malcom X's or Huey P. Newton's more violent and aggressive leaning ideologies.

You are aware that America is founded on the uprising of an armed mob of people angry about an issue on principle, whose founding legal document was literally written as a reactionary response to the stuff that made them so mad the first time around (like being forced to house troops), right?

Not to mention that this absurd hyperbole has nothing to do with what I said. Are you saying people are getting weapons to storm Edmonton and force DG to include LGBT characters at gun point?

MLK (and Ghandi) didn't advocate violence. But they advocated radical social change that had them dismissed by the majority, targeted by the government, and dismissed as radicals. They were loud. They were unabashed. And they were in everyone's face. Clam and rational were most certainly not what they were labelled as by their contemporaries.

Beyond that, for your own edification, I recommend you read more about the history of civil rights era legislation. Things like affirmative action - which was a Nixon initiative - were enacted because of the race riots and violence.

[In Exile]

The problem with that approach is, it hurts more than it does help. Mostly by alienating a lot of people from sympathising with the issue, thanks to how annyoing or unpleasant they are. And since this is on the internet, people can be capital douchebags.
 
I have nothing against women, gay folks, religious and sensitive people who got offended because I didn't list them, but when I see the rabid posters on the forums, who see sexism and oppresive patriarchal agenda in every goddamn game, I sometimes think I should, just to spite them.

But history shows us that it doesn't hurt. This is exactly how groups increased their representation. Women, LGBt, etc. It was a loud, aggressive public movement that made that happen.

[Fast Jimmy]

Implying that this isn't what I was saying?

I'm sorry, I thought when you claimed that video games perpetuate an underlying hatred that you weren't just saying "hey, let's have some more realistic female leads." Which is the problem with the entire SWJ movement - hyperbole and exaggeration. No one takes compalints like this seriously because anyone who doesn't create a perfect game by some unknowable list of standard runs he risk of being mysoginistic, racist or some other type of crude insult instead of people saying "I'd like to see a well written female protagonist."

Wanna know my opinion? I think you're taking things to an exaggerated degree. One developer does something, and there are complainers, so ultimately this means they shouldn't even bother?

That's not how your argument came out. It came out as "video game developers are perpetuating a cycle of oppression that has gone of for millenia and anyone who objects to my request is <insert insulting word here>." I'm not saying developers should stop trying, but it should come from a desire to do the work, not from fear of not doing it. Let them chase more sales, or fulfill company philosophies... not be afraid that it they do the wrong thing, they will be attacked on Twitter.

Also as I read your comment further I get the distinct impression you're interpreting my post as something else entirely. Not sure why. 

Again... your use of the phrase "irrational underling hatred" set a pretty specific tone. If you'd like to avoid such reactions, avoid using such language. It sets the stage that you are implying the design choices are not only willful, but maliciously intentional.

I'd like to see more games where these traits makes sense in context of the narrative. It's not that I need the games to revolve around a guy being gay, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that gamers come in all shapes and form and it would be great to see more games that can appeal to whomever -- Or maybe the right turn of phrase is -- Games that aren't afraid to conform to stereotypes, or mass appeal and lone and willing enough to take new steps. I think Last of Us did so by having Ellie being the center of attention in the plot of that game. I liked her a lot and that game.

That's fair. Saying "hey, it would be nice" is a great way to ask for such things. Saying that if clear violations if basic human rights existed in books and movies as in video games would cause people to freak out is not.

I don't disagree with SJW ideals. I just find the methods TERRIBLE. For effective communication, for overall civility and for basic human decency. We like video games. It would be great if, by changing the way some concepts of design are done, we would be able to expand gaming to MORE people who love it. The efforts to do so, however, should not use the same language, tenor and overall fanaticism as what should be reserved for, say, protesting that women are still stoned to death under extremist sharia law in some parts of the world.

There are times and places for moral outrage. Video game characters should rarely be one of them.

[TheChris92]

I definitely agree. This is why I have a problem with some schools of feminism. I like feminism for the sake of equity or equality among groups as opposed to feminism which totally just trashes male counterpart. I completely agree that it is hypocritical for a person to pick and choose when it comes to social justice. If social justice is done, it should be done for everyone.

That is what it is meant to be about -- It's about establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rightsfor women. At the same time it's also about shaping balance and equal opportunities for women in education and labor. The part I imagine what you don't like are extremists, which is something you'll find within masochism or any other religion/belief social groups, take your pick -- Also, like other social groups, religions, beliefs, it has split itself between sub-groups, among them being extremists.

I joked once -- That the negative from feminism probably comes from the whole "-ism" part of the word.

[In Exile]

I definitely agree. This is why I have a problem with some schools of feminism. I like feminism for the sake of equity or equality among groups as opposed to feminism which totally just trashes male counterpart. I completely agree that it is hypocritical for a person to pick and choose when it comes to social justice. If social justice is done, it should be done for everyone.

That's ... not really my point at all.

Seeing as I haven't mentioned feminism, would you care to point out what particular academic or academic stream does this? Because even someone like McKinnon - whose rhetoric sounds somewhat (completely) insane - doesn't ever go so far as to trash "male counterparts". What even is a "male counterpart"?

Or are you talking about random people who label themselves as feminists and say anti-men stuff? Because these are not the same thing at all.

[TheChris92]

That's not how your argument came out. It came out as "video game developers are perpetuating a cycle of oppression that has gone of for millenia and anyone who objects to my request is <insert insulting word here>." I'm not saying developers should stop trying, but it should come from a desire to do the work, not from fear of not doing it. Let them chase more sales, or fulfill company philosophies... not be afraid that it they do the wrong thing, they will be attacked on Twitter.


Again... your use of the phrase "irrational underling hatred" set a pretty specific tone. If you'd like to avoid such reactions, avoid using such language. It sets the stage that you are implying the design choices are not only willful, but maliciously intentional.

That would depend on the context of which I'm using that said phrase in -- Hatred exists after all -- But I was also trying to say that I don't whole heartedly believe that there's any "underlying hatred" behind the design of games like.. Resident Evil 5 for instance, just ignorance or misplaced design choices, right? But I think that sometimes it just comes off as being.. well I don't know, the wrong way? (trying not to use the H word here)
But I do apologize if it came out that way.

[Jorji Costava]

Secondly, show me a video game made in the past twenty years that has irrational hatred against a particular gender, ethnic group or sexuality. HATRED is a terrible word to use and one that, frankly, SJW can sometimes use far too often. Burning a cross in someone's yard - that's hatred. Not including enough characters of various pixelated pigmentation in your game - that's an oversight. Let's not confuse the two.

Well, there was the whole kerfuffle over GTA V's alleged transphobia. But in general, it's not necessary to use the word 'hatred'; prejudice needn't be hateful at all to be prejudice. For instance, the all-too-common phenomena of depicting female characters as skantily-clad sex objects isn't necessarily a matter of violent or intense hatred for women; it's more a matter of seeing them more as objects of desire than as persons in their own right, on equal footing with men.
 

Should games conform to the standard white male archetypes we've seen across all other media for centuries? No. Should an attempt be made to have more representation across all groups, not just as characters, but as employees in the industry as well? Sure. But should a developer feel forced and pressured to change their game and adhere to some type of artificial politically correct checklist and formula to make sure everyone is appropriately accounted for in terms of social and sexual interaction within a game before it can even be considered to go out the door? No, absolutely not. If you want equality in video games, vote with your wallet, not with your Tumblr account.

I've never understood the whole "vote with your wallet" argument. Are you just not allowed to complain about something you find objectionable? Should you somehow be silenced? Why is it desirable to shift the pressure from developers to consumers? To my way of thinking, if someone wants to complain loudly and obnoxiously on Tumblr or whatever, let them. Freedom to make the game you want doesn't mean freedom from criticism, after all.

It just seems like the familiar double bind: If people complain about the lack of representation in gaming, then they're entitled brats who needs to shut up. But if they don't complain and just vote with their wallet like you say, then everyone will think, "Hey, there's no problem. Games are selling, and nobody's complaining, so what's the big deal?" Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Cainhurst Crow]

You are aware that America is founded on the uprising of an armed mob of people angry about an issue on principle, whose founding legal document was literally written as a reactionary response to the stuff that made them so mad the first time around (like being forced to house troops), right?

They were also highly hypocritical, used blatant lies as justifications for their actions, and maintained that their cause was more important than anyone or anything else, including the slaves, native americans, and foreigners they didn't like. All men are created equal, except everyone we don't recognize as men. You really want to use them as examples for what is good social change?

Beyond that, for your own edification, I recommend you read more about the history of civil rights era legislation. Things like affirmative action - which was a Nixon initiative - were enacted because of the race riots and violence.

Anyone who was curious what I meant about people with a certain air of arrogance and self-assured superiority I was talking about, this is a good example here.

[Khayness]

But history shows us that it doesn't hurt. This is exactly how groups increased their representation. Women, LGBt, etc. It was a loud, aggressive public movement that made that happen.

 

I wouldn't compare this to any social movement really, since it's being fought on the internet. Protesting while facing real chance of police action and putting a hashtag on something and twitter it isn't really the same thing.

 

And the other issue I have with this controversial enthusiasm (look how PC can I be, god dayumn) is how it provides a free opportunity for sleazy game journalists to clickbait a lot of people, by addig nothing to the discussion, just fanning the flames. It has been going on for a while now, no wonder many of us are dead tired of it.

[TheChris92]

I'm gonna agree with osbor about the whole "Vote with your Wallet" argument -- Ultimately, I get the idea behind it, and while it effectively might leave out a developer with one less sale of their precious Call of Duty I don't think it's relevant enough to the issue of inequal representations of the LGBT community and/or women. I could choose to buy Mirror's Edge, and maybe the developer would be thinking "Jeez, guys, these guys must really like FPS-platformers. Let's make some more of them" while also "Jeez, this game is really selling. We should make some more games with female leads". I mean, in retrospect, what it is that sells about a game could vary from people to people and thus it wouldn't be enough to get the message through I think.

What I really want is developers trying to conform to a mindset, where the designing a good game, with a good narrative, without all of these mass appeal, stereotypes and other mean words in mind is top priority. Naughty Dog chose to allow a female focus group as well as a male focus group -- Although I never saw the point of a focus group for a game, but ultimately they also chose to make their cover art represent the game's story and what it was about instead of what sells (like Levine with Infinite). This is what I'd like to see. I'd like to see more developers like Naughty Dog challenging the industry by taking things to a new level, and stand by their passion for making the game they want etc. Hope what I'm saying comes across perfectly here

[xAmilli0n]

Because that simply isn't how things in the world work, for anything. Change is not instantaneous, there is a process, and it takes time for said process to occur. Social change is even harder to do, especially for starters by the time the two posters are discussing the things they want, the game is already in beta, and its trailers and stuff with all its set mechanics and character models are already out there, unable to be changed. You'd need to wait for the next game at least to get the content you were asking for, assuming the company would do it at the next iteration. That's why every time I see people making SJW-esque demands for inquisition after the trailer, I can't help but laugh at how quickly and easily people can just scrap all their pre-alpha programing and start all over again.

 

Taking what I say a little too literally.  Now does not mean the game that is about to go golden in a few months.  But rather those that can be changed.  Change is not instantaneous, and that is the point.  You have to make it a point to make sure change happens, because if you don't nothing will change, and you end up with the same thing you got last time.

 

But what good does it do to attack and belittle other fans, for not sharing your view? For all your loud noises and thunderous shouts of anger and outrage over the lack of inclusion, it signifies nothing, and turns people off from your cause. A person who stands on a soapbox and demands people storm the government or corporation anger gets no support. A person who can calmly discuss and articulate their point, show respect for other views they don't agree with, and explain why they don't agree with those views, leaves a profoundly stronger impact, even if it takes longer.

 

People are passionate, and so will act passionately.  Respect is always good, and calm discussion is nice, but often both parties aren't willing to sit down at the table, thus the quiet ones get covered up by the yelling.  Human nature thus compels us to grow louder.  Is it right or wrong? Frankly who cares.  It doesn't mean out arguments are less meaningful or articulate.

 

I'd rather bring attention to the bold sentence.  Attacking and belittling is never a good thing in an argument, because then it just breaks down to name calling, and that achieves nothing.  But this is a particular issue were frankly, I don't understand the opposition, as in, why would you (not refering to you personally) truly be against inclusion now rather than later?  Change is the only constant in life blah blah etc.

 

Fun topic.

[Jorji Costava]

I'm simply fatigued when it comes to turning everything into a political issue. I do not care what your political views and personal preferences are. As for the hardships you've faced? Everybody has faced hardship. However, everyone's hardships are different in context and how it affected people. I don't know how including certain things in random video games will help people with their hardships, but it doesn't hurt or help me, so I really don't care. As long as it's not preachy, it usually is okay since it's a challenge for writers. What I'm basically saying is that I don't see the practical use for connecting activism with videogames, but I do realize that it helps other people out there. I just want it to feel natural and not some sort of guilt propaganda.

 

I understand the fatigue, but in general I think it's pretty hard to avoid politics no matter what game, book or movie you're talking about. When things seem apolitical, it's generally because they're consistent with the status quo. If you lived in North Korea and made a video game about how Kim Jong Un is the greatest leader and the greatest human being alive, you'd probably think it's apolitical, whereas a game which raised questions about his greatness would appear to have an "agenda."

[Cainhurst Crow]

Taking what I say a little too literally.  Now does not mean the game that is about to go golden in a few months.  But rather those that can be changed.  Change is not instantaneous, and that is the point.  You have to make it a point to make sure change happens, because if you don't nothing will change, and you end up with the same thing you got last time.
 
 
People are passionate, and so will act passionately.  Respect is always good, and calm discussion is nice, but often both parties aren't willing to sit down at the table, thus the quiet ones get covered up by the yelling.  Human nature thus compels us to grow louder.  Is it right or wrong? Frankly who cares.  It doesn't mean out arguments are less meaningful or articulate.
 
I'd rather bring attention to the bold sentence.  Attacking and belittling is never a good thing in an argument, because then it just breaks down to name calling, and that achieves nothing.  But this is a particular issue were frankly, I don't understand the opposition, as in, why would you (not refering to you personally) truly be against inclusion now rather than later?  Change is the only constant in life blah blah etc.
 
Fun topic.

But don't you see that the one doing the most yelling is the SJW belligerent? They yell over everyone, including those who would have otherwise supported their cause.

 

But that's besides the point, I do agree with you somewhat on your points. Slow change I feel is better because the quality of that change can be in it of itself better, more genuine, and much more fleshed out in terms of content. What I find is a lot of SJW's don't care about quality, only quantity. To bring it back to DA, during a thread about having asians in the game, a massive debate raged about how it should be done, whether asians should be given a nation of origin and culture, or if everyone from other existing nations should just be re-textured to look asian. Both sides supported asians in the game, but one wanted it done with more effort and time then the other did, and what I found was there were more people in the SJW camp in the "slap on a retexture" camp, and more non-sjw's in the "expand the lore" camp.

 

This illustrates the different approaches to change, and how truly different they are. The SJW's in the asian thread were more quick to call people racists for not supporting them, or telling them that it would be better to expand the lore to include them, because they wanted it now. This is a sign of passion, but its passion that isn't being directed in the right way, and its mixing with a impatience that would have created a rather silly and stupid way of exclusivity, such as a orlisan noble man who looks like jet lee or cao cao.

 

That isn't good inclusivity, thats just shameless retexturing, and it is the result of wanting things now instead of later, rushed instead of done with precision and care. There are massive benefits to doing things slowly and building up a massive support in the mainstream fanbase for this to happen, and I think the impatience of the SJW's, like so many other things, kills off the support others have because it makes them come off as highly demanding, and unreasonable.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I'm simply fatigued when it comes to turning everything into a political issue. I do not care what your political views and personal preferences are. As for the hardships you've faced? Everybody has faced hardship. However, everyone's hardships are different in context and how it affected people. I don't know how including certain things in random video games will help people with their hardships, but it doesn't hurt or help me, so I really don't care. As long as it's not preachy, it usually is okay since it's a challenge for writers. What I'm basically saying is that I don't see the practical use for connecting activism with videogames, but I do realize that it helps other people out there. I just want it to feel natural and not some sort of guilt propaganda.

 

well said.

[Fast Jimmy]

But history shows us that it doesn't hurt. This is exactly how groups increased their representation. Women, LGBt, etc. It was a loud, aggressive public movement that made that happen.

You are making the false assumption that getting industry and culture to change is the same as getting laws passed.

Unless you plan on protesting in the streets for mandatory equality ratios of video game characters world wide, the two methods aren't congruent.

The government can't get out of the business of dealing with its citizenry. A company can very easily digest itself of any given genre or industry it suddenly views as too work intensive or antagonistic.

Also, marching in the streets =/= complaining on Tumblr, for the record. There's nothing extreme or in-your-face about the SJW types except their poor Internet etiquette.

[In Exile]

They were also highly hypocritical, used blatant lies as justifications for their actions, and maintained that their cause was more important than anyone or anything else, including the slaves, native americans, and foreigners they didn't like. All men are created equal, except everyone we don't recognize as men. You really want to use them as examples for what is good social change?Anyone who was curious what I meant about people with a certain air of arrogance and self-assured superiority I was talking about, this is a good example here.

I'm being arrogant by pointing out when, contrary to what you said, violent riots let to civil rights victories? Or is it because I said "for your own edification"? Should I have assumed you knew that Nixon enacted affirmative action out of fear that the riots would wreck his foreign policy, and were just being completely dishonest when you said that civil rights victories didn't result from social unrest?

As for the founding of America, my point was only that by your standard you have to treat the current unrest in the ME and the founding of the US as equivalent. If you're willing to do that, by all means, go for it. In mentioning America, however, interested in seeing whether you'd actually say that the entire manner the country was founded was a problem vs. Canada.