363 réponses à ce sujet

[TheChris92]

Troy Baker romances Laura Bailey?

No, I meant to say "not be a love interest".

[Milan92]

No, I meant to say "not be a love interest".

 

Ah, gotcha.

[Allan Schumacher]

But don't you see that the one doing the most yelling is the SJW belligerent?

 

I think this is a matter of perspective.  Because I disagree that they're the loudest, but would likely identify more closely with "SJW" than not.  The response to Anita's kickstarter was probably the catalyst to make me start looking at the whole issue more closely.

 

I've seen lots of people invade the "We'd like to see more Female Inquisitor" thread with posts that are clearly meant to provoke.  Which leads to escalation and derailment.

 

 

Escalation is a HUGE issue.  People don't believe that they are acting hostile.  And in turn respond more hostile to perceived hostility and things get very heated very quickly.  It happens on these boards all the time and not just about issues pertaining to social justice or stuff like that, but things like Mages vs Templars and so forth.

 

 

Few people go "I'm the one acting irrationally mad with not so well thought out points."

[TheChris92]

I feel it's interesting because the discussion in this thread, and others alike it, like those that talk about more publicity for the playable female protagonist of Dragon Age, inevitably leads to derailment, and not always intentionally. 

 

Perhaps this could be taken as nay-sayers being loud about how much they are tired of hearing it -- It also puts off some people from, like myself, even daring to ask or raise the topic because it never goes anywhere and wishful thinking won't change it. Perhaps that's a weak part on my behalf and it makes it out as if I'm not really that interested in seeing more female protagonists, or what have you. I like discussing it with people I can talk to but what difference is that gonna make, right? I only just recently felt like participating in this thread, short as it may have, to clarify that I still want this to happen and to make it clear that it is a problem that exists. People aren't gonna stop asking about it, anymore than the people who are critical towards the romance subject, or the combat of said game -- The topic won't ever cease to appear and hopefully, eventually, it'll be enough, to see things change accordingly. 

 

I don't think anything I've said couldn't have been summed up in Alan's post above so what ever -- I do hope to see more developers that approaches game-making, where the priority is to make a good story and not think too much on what might sell -- Focus on the story you want to tell and don't let the concept of a female protagonist scare you. I've said before but I'll just say it again.

[Fast Jimmy]

Perhaps the underlying psychological reaction is the following:

• Women/ethnic minorities/sexually diverse/etc. groups feel alienated by the way games are made today.
• Above said groups push for change in the way games are made so that they will like it.
• Gamers who like gaming as it exists today (warts and all) have the natural fear that to change gaming may make it a pass time they no longer enjoy.
• Alternatively, saying that you enjoy gaming as it exists today (or are a developer in gaming today) would also imply that you are a bigot against those groups who do not feel included in gaming.

This may be all subconscious and under the surface, and also highly illogical (but the again, if you subscribe to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, most subconscious lines of thought ARE highly illogical), but it could be the case.

The SJW side saying "change gaming to include everyone" may sound, on a subconscious level, like "I don't like gaming as it exists today - change it to suit me and anyone who likes gaming today is SOL because they are a bigot."


Again, just spitballing a theory as an amateur Psychologist.

EDIT:

To sloppily summarize my already sloppy theory, SJW are saying "Why are you so against changing gaming? I hate it!" while, for lack of a better phrase, the dudebros are saying "why are you so set on changing gaming? I love it!" Each one is treading on the other.

[General TSAR]

Interesting theory Jimmy.

 

My biggest problem with SJM is they have people like Sarkeesian pushing their agenda.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yet what is seen all too often is even MORE claims of inequality the second a developer starts to become more inclusive. Look at Bioware - they have worked hard to provide a wide variety of sexualities by the player character. When they made everyone bi-sexual in DA2, they recieved flak from the LGBT community that said that sexuality is more than just a switch about who one hops in the sack with. So now Bioware is making exclusive sexualities and people complain that the ratios between the various sexes and sexualities may be skewed, or that their preferred LI is not going to fall into their respective "bucket."

 

I used to react like this.  Sometimes I still do.  I learned that in many cases it's because of my own humanity and defensiveness, and it's an exercise in my privilege (and authority) to insinuate that people should bring up points in a way that I am more comfortable with, when it behooves me to try to understand the criticism.  Alternatively, we could take DA2 outrage (or ME3 outrage) and ignore it since a lot of it was so vitriolic.  Would you consider this an ideal solution?  I mean, if someone decides to call us a bunch of liars for a variety of reasons, is it okay if I conclude "this isn't framed the way that I like... so I'm going to ignore it?"

 

Also, I think you're being unfair in your representation of DA2 criticism.  There's a lot of LGBT people that love DA2's romances for their inclusiveness, and when compared to DAO feel it's infinitely better.  Yes some would like more representation, but asking for iteration isn't a huge issue.  It's content feedback.  Some like it as is.  Others feel things like representation is still important and would like us to still consider it.  I do see some people feel it's problematic to erase bisexuality, and feel that even using player driven terms like "playersexuality" is a form of validation.  I think some of the feedback in this regard is very hostile, but at the same time I now consistently refer to the DA2 romances as bisexual.  So was it ineffective?

 

 

Further, by trying new things and approaching subject matter that we're less familiar with, we innately open ourselves to criticism from some people because we possibly weren't even on the radar in some cases.  People give us feedback on these topics because we've shown that we're willing to give it a try.  It'd likely not be productive on the Call of Duty forums (note: Call of Duty has started adding female characters themselves, so I don't even know if my example is particularly valid).

 

 

And on a final note, it's always important to remember: the most extreme views are the ones that go viral.  No one cares about "well reasoned argument for why ME3 ending was poor."  But they pick up on "Man files complaint with FTC."  It's everyone's responsibility to remember that the extreme views are almost always overrepresented.

 

 

I'll comment more after work.

[SlottsMachine]

A lot of these problems would be stemmed if we had better written games in general. Bioware has been heavily criticised after recent releases and some of that is justified but we also have many other games where any plot or characters is just an afterthought. Most characters in games are still more or less of the cardboard variant.

[In Exile]

Perhaps the underlying psychological reaction is the following:

• Women/ethnic minorities/sexually diverse/etc. groups feel alienated by the way games are made today.
• Above said groups push for change in the way games are made so that they will like it.
• Gamers who like gaming as it exists today (warts and all) have the natural fear that to change gaming may make it a pass time they no longer enjoy.
• Alternatively, saying that you enjoy gaming as it exists today (or are a developer in gaming today) would also imply that you are a bigot against those groups who do not feel included in gaming.

I certainly think these are two elements to a lot of the reaction the shape games take from (I think the issues when it comes to the make-up of the industry is totally a different set of factors), though I do think that part of that is that a lot of issues about games are conflated (and it depends a lot on what type of games and what type of forum we're talking about). 

 

A good illustration was the recent kerfuffle over Blizzard saying that they're interested in making games fun, not promoting diversity (this is not a direct quote). One discussion that came out of that was over the implication of "fun", and the idea that a game that's more inclusive is somehow less fun. 

[Fast Jimmy]

A good illustration was the recent kerfuffle over Blizzard saying that they're interested in making games fun, not promoting diversity (this is not a direct quote). One discussion that came out of that was over the implication of "fun", and the idea that a game that's more inclusive is somehow less fun.

See, I view it in a different light.

A company may say "we want to make sure our company and all of its products are as safe for the environment as possible rather than make money." This isn't saying it is impossible to make money if you want to be environmentally friendly; it simply is stating the focus of your endeavors. To me, saying "we are focused on making fun games, not on inclusive games," as a general statement, says they put the fun first, then let the chips fall where the may in terms of other items like inclusiveness.

It is a statement that has the connotation that inclusivity isn't fun, true... but I don't think that is an inherent aspect to the argument.

[In Exile]

See, I view it in a different light.

A company may say "we want to make sure our company and all of its products are as safe for the environment as possible rather than make money." This isn't saying it is impossible to make money if you want to be environmentally friendly; it simply is stating the focus of your endeavors. To me, saying "we are focused on making fun games, not on inclusive games," as a general statement, says they put the fun first, then let the chips fall where the may in terms of other items like inclusiveness.

It is a statement that has the connotation that inclusivity isn't fun, true... but I don't think that is an inherent aspect to the argument.

 

But that parallel doesn't work. The analogy would be "We're here to cheaply and efficiently extract oil; we're not here to take care of the environment." There's an opening salvo when you're taking something that's generally considered a virtue and saying that it's not a goal. 

 

At any rate, my point is that language like that is what gets the ball rolling on both sides, just like how a statement that "protecting the environment isn't our problem" would get a lot of negative press coming from BP. 

[Inquisitor Recon]

Good for Blizzard. I can only wonder at what the SJW hivemind is asking for on the Blizzard forums. When slaying demons in the burning pits of hell I don't think one should be concerned that "(insert minority here) isn't represented enough".

 

For most games the more time spent worrying about "inclusiveness" means less time that can be spent on the core aspects of the game. I've since adopted the viewpoint that romances in a RPG aren't worth the trouble considering the hysteria it generates but it seems to me that the focus on "inclusiveness" is detrimental to the quality of the original romances.

 

But that parallel doesn't work. The analogy would be "We're here to cheaply and efficiently extract oil; we're not here to take care of the environment." There's an opening salvo when you're taking something that's generally considered a virtue and saying that it's not a goal. 

 

At any rate, my point is that language like that is what gets the ball rolling on both sides, just like how a statement that "protecting the environment isn't our problem" would get a lot of negative press coming from BP. 

The environment is something tangible that can be damaged and that is relied upon by everybody for the supploy of essential resources. While this SJW "inclusiveness" is just whatever some people on tumblr are shouting about at the moment. Dumping oil into a lake is a problem while offending somebody somewhere for not creating content for them isn't. It would be like if I went to Ford and asked them to design and build a car just for my tastes and expected a serious response from them.

[In Exile]

Good for Blizzard. I can only wonder at what the SJW hivemind is asking for on the Blizzard forums. When slaying demons in the burning pits of hell I don't think one should be concerned that "(insert minority here) isn't represented enough".

 

For most games the more time spent worrying about "inclusiveness" means less time that can be spent on the core aspects of the game. I've since adopted the viewpoint that romances in a RPG aren't worth the trouble considering the hysteria it generates but it seems to me that the focus on "inclusiveness" is detrimental to the quality of the original romances.

 

This is the article covering the topic that I found: http://www.polygon.c...izzard-nintendo

 

Blizzard is, interestingly, more aware of the problem. Quoting from the best:

 

"Pardo notes that "because most of our developers are guys who grew up reading comics books," Blizzard games often present women characters as a sexualized comic book ideal that "is offensive to, I think, some women."

 

Certainly things like don't present women in a sexualized comic book ideal if you think it's actually offensive to women is something that takes away a great deal from designing video games, because all Blizzard developers are apparently space aliens who grew up in caves and never have interacted with women outside of comic books in their lives.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Mr. Harper there seems to be one of those who invents a problem. Blizzard tends to follow their own formula. The women are usually beautiful, most of the men are rough action-hero types, the bad-guys are usually the sort who will throw people into a volcano just for the laughs, etc. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong about this. Now I can respect the idea that perhaps they should try doing things a bit different, scenarios that are less clear cut good vs. evil, female characters who aren't so perfect, etc. But this whole "INJUSTICE" angle argument people like Mr. Harper would cite only make me roll my yes.

[Allan Schumacher]

Good for Blizzard. I can only wonder at what the SJW hivemind is asking for on the Blizzard forums. When slaying demons in the burning pits of hell I don't think one should be concerned that "(insert minority here) isn't represented enough".

 

You're not actually doing that.  You're playing a video game.  The threat is wholly contained in the video game's setting and the setting asks the player to choose a particular character to adventure with.  The basis of your argument seems rather silly and not exactly understanding what issues people seem to have with it.

 

Since, however, you seem to be saying that you don't really care, then is it safe to assume you're expressing a tacit approval for making these changes since you don't lose anything if they had decided to simply make a character model look differently, while other people may benefit?  Or is there a resistance to do something like this simply because it feels like a concession and you're worried about slippery slopes?

[Jorji Costava]

See, I view it in a different light.

A company may say "we want to make sure our company and all of its products are as safe for the environment as possible rather than make money." This isn't saying it is impossible to make money if you want to be environmentally friendly; it simply is stating the focus of your endeavors. To me, saying "we are focused on making fun games, not on inclusive games," as a general statement, says they put the fun first, then let the chips fall where the may in terms of other items like inclusiveness.

It is a statement that has the connotation that inclusivity isn't fun, true... but I don't think that is an inherent aspect to the argument.

 

My problem here is that "fun" as a concept is just too vague to serve as a useful competing value to oppose to inclusivity. This becomes clear in contexts outside of inclusivity: Suppose I criticize a game for its wildly inconsistent lore and ludicrously unrealistic animations; the developers' response is to say, "We're more interested in making the game fun rather than realistic or consistent." Did that answer your objection? I think not. Same goes when we move from talking about realism to talking about inclusivity.

 

For most games the more time spent worrying about "inclusiveness" means less time that can be spent on the core aspects of the game. I've since adopted the viewpoint that romances in a RPG aren't worth the trouble considering the hysteria it generates but it seems to me that the focus on "inclusiveness" is detrimental to the quality of the original romances.

 

I agree that romances in general haven't been well implemented in games, but my view is this: If you're going to have them at all, you may as well try to balance the available content between straight and LGBT players. Here, I like to draw an analogy to the paragon/renegade system of ME: I'd prefer it if there were no such system, but if it's going to be there, you ought to have roughly the same amount of content for both paragon and renegade players. This is so even though the majority of players (about two thirds) were mostly paragon (indeed this is consistent with the general pattern with games that have "good" and "evil" paths; fewer than 10% of Fable players took the 'evil' path).

[Inquisitor Recon]

You're not actually doing that.  You're playing a video game.  The threat is wholly contained in the video game's setting and the setting asks the player to choose a particular character to adventure with.  The basis of your argument comes across as a failed attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

 

Since, however, you seem to be saying that you don't really care, then is it safe to assume you're expressing a tacit approval for making these changes since you don't lose anything if they had decided to simply make a character model look differently, while other people may benefit?  Or is there a resistance to do something like this simply because it feels like a concession and you're worried about slippery slopes?

I suppose that the fact that it currently isn't raining hellfire and brimstone outside slipped my mind. The river of blood seems to have dried up too, what a shame.

 

Yes you choose a character, and you can only customize so much of the character. If somebody wants to argue that they should be able to customize more of that character fine, but they shouldn't dress it up with talk of justice and portray it as some sort of struggle against oppression.

 

A tacit approval? Of course not. I'd first need to know which specific change we are referring to here. Any change involves time and effort to implement and should be weighed accordingly. Depending on the game there is usually a list of things I'd rather see improved first.

 

And I tend not to concede anything to those with an axe to grind. This isn't some matter of human rights, it's just software.

[jillabender]

 

There's a lot of LGBT people that love DA2's romances for their inclusiveness, and when compared to DAO feel it's infinitely better.  Yes some would like more representation, but asking for iteration isn't a huge issue.  It's content feedback.  Some like it as is.  Others feel things like representation is still important and would like us to still consider it.  I do see some people feel it's problematic to erase bisexuality, and feel that even using player driven terms like "playersexuality" is a form of validation.  I think some of the feedback in this regard is very hostile, but at the same time I now consistently refer to the DA2 romances as bisexual.  So was it ineffective?

 

The issue of bisexual erasure is something that's led me to think more carefully about some things I've said about DA2's approach to LI sexualities. In the past, I've sometimes made the argument that "We don't really know how the romanceable characters in DA2 would describe their sexuality – they might think of themselves as bisexual, but it's also possible they might think of themselves as pansexual, or gay with some straight tendencies, or the other way around. Or maybe they don't feel any need to label their sexuality beyond expressing attraction to the people they are attracted to."

 

When I've said that, I was coming from a perspective that it can be a problem to hold rigidly to the idea that gay, straight and bisexual are the only options when it comes to sexual orientation, because there are people who don't feel that any of those categories really fit them – and I still stand by that.

 

On the other hand, I'm coming to realize that my saying "We don't really know how the characters would describe their sexuality" might also be frustrating for people – because there are so few examples of openly bisexual characters in media in general, I can appreciate why people might take issue with the idea that we "don't really know" the characters are bisexual unless they explicitly declare that they are. It's something I'll have to continue to think about, while listening carefully and trying to keep an open mind.

[In Exile]

Mr. Harper there seems to be one of those who invents a problem. Blizzard tends to follow their own formula. The women are usually beautiful, most of the men are rough action-hero types, the bad-guys are usually the sort who will throw people into a volcano just for the laughs, etc. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong about this. Now I can respect the idea that perhaps they should try doing things a bit different, scenarios that are less clear cut good vs. evil, female characters who aren't so perfect, etc. But this whole "INJUSTICE" angle argument people like Mr. Harper would cite only make me roll my yes.

 

Blizzard, by their own admission, are apparently unable to understand how women look because they read comic books, since women are space aliens and men who design video games are never exposed to in other media or real life, and otherwise openly admit that their designs are offensive to "some women". That's... a serious problem. It's not that they aren't aware, or think that what they're doing is OK. They think what they're doing is wrong, and don't care. 

 

There is definitely something inherently wrong when someone subjectively thinks they're offending people and uses an absurd excuse to justify why they can't do anything about it. 

 

I suppose that the fact that it currently isn't raining hellfire and brimstone outside slipped my mind. The river of blood seems to have dried up too, what a shame.

 

Yes you choose a character, and you can only customize so much of the character. If somebody wants to argue that they should be able to customize more of that character fine, but they shouldn't dress it up with talk of justice and portray it as some sort of struggle against oppression.

 

A tacit approval? Of course not. I'd first need to know which specific change we are referring to here. Any change involves time and effort to implement and should be weighed accordingly. Depending on the game there is usually a list of things I'd rather see improved first.

 

And I tend not to concede anything to those with an axe to grind. This isn't some matter of human rights, it's just software.

 

But we aren't talking about anything that would cost extra, in relation to Blizzard. We're literally talking about character models that the developers have to design, and their choosing to do it in a way that doesn't value part of their audience. It's not like costs go up 30% if they choose to less comic-book like portrayals of women. Hell, lots of so-called SJWs would probably prefer just re-sizing the male armour for women, which if anything would save costs and artists' time. 

 

It's a matter of respect, not just software. 

[Jorji Costava]

Like I said "I" play video games because they are entertaining, I am not responsible for what a quantified number of gamers chooses to be entertained by and how, if I want to be swept up in political BS I'll watch CNN or MSNBC.

Sure, this might be somewhat relevant if SJW's were addressing their concerns to you and no one else; obviously, they're doing no such thing. Is there any particular reason why the conversation about games and the politics therein should be centered around your personal interests?
 

Great, believe what you want. Did I ever I say that the only manner in which I discuss video games is by their entertainment value (I ask because that's what it seems like you are implying)? I discuss all types of things under the sun about video games; the plot, back stories of characters, lore, battle mechanics, I don't feel the need to overshadow a potentially good game discussion with politics when there are hundreds of activists and watchdog groups out there ready to do it in my stead and then some because a new release didn't cater to a select group's interests.

Two things: First, I never implied that you mean to be saying that entertainment value is the only way to talk about games. What I'm saying is that entertainment value isn't at all a useful way to talk about games, because the term is just too vague; when you say that you like a game because it's entertaining, you're not saying anything more substantive than when you say that you like a certain kind of food because it tastes good.

Last point: If you're not interested in having discussions about games and politics, then stay out of such discussions. I don't much care for the World Cup; what I don't do is post in message boards about the World Cup about how boring I think the whole thing is. I just avoid such discussions. The whole idea of posting in a thread about X to announce that you don't find X interesting just seems like a waste of time to me.

Anyways, I'm done responding to you.

[jillabender]

I think this article is relevant to why representation in games has a real impact, because the author shares how, as a black man, he was forced to justify his hobby by people who accused him of "acting white" by enjoying video games.

 

He also shares that while growing up, he felt that he could insulate himself from racism and violence by losing himself in games – but as an adult, he realized that he had been trying to distance himself from other black men in a way that was ultimately destructive, and that the constant images of black men as violent thugs that he encountered in games (and other media) had led him to internalize racism and to alienate himself from his own blackness. https://medium.com/r...dy-3fead6bc8ffb

[addiction21]

My opinion is that it is and has been moving in the right direction.

 

Mope not much more to say.