1590

I’ve noticed on twitter that some successful game devs support Sarkeesian, and that may be what actually counts in this whole thing. Usually it’s the artists who get defensive towards critique, but when the audience is so protective the people being directly criticized actually take it better. Derek Yu, of Spelunky fame, took some pointers from Sarkeesian if I recall.

If you want new types of games, once again, you don’t get them by confronting what already exists and pretend change (like petitioning to add female avatars in Assassin’s Creed).

HRose, you may want these critics to stop talking and start making stuff of their own, but if the devs are happy to listen, this is a more efficient way to divvy up the labor of making better games.

1591

I was referring to games coming out that are being attacked. Not about games yet to plan, even if by same developers.

GTA comes out, and press goes after GTA. This is counterproductive.

But if Rockstar decided to make a completely different game and call it with another game, I’m not sure that this would be received with hostility.

It’s not about “critics need to stop criticize and make stuff themselves”, but about stop attacking what you don’t like. Because the problem is that GTA is being criticized for what it DOES NOT want to be, instead because it does poorly the things it wants to do.

It’s like ranting because an RPG has combat or too much text, or has a too high playtime.

It’s like attacking a love story movie because it doesn’t have enough action and explosions. It’s utterly stupid.

It’s like when above I said that no character is ever meant to represent all males or all women, and if you interpret it that way you’re plastering your own agenda onto something that was never intended to be that way. And so you’re being dishonest.

1592

Gotcha. I was thinking about the case in which the developer is concerned about representation et al, and isn’t aware those elements were botched until someone criticizes them.

In that regard, I’ve certainly found feminist blogs helpful as I’m working on my own projects.

1593

I’ll explain better the GTA example.

The game isn’t criticized because it has poor mechanics, or a boring story, or unbelievable characters. It is instead criticized for all the rampant misogyny in the game and for its representation of women.

Why this happens? It can happen for two reason. One is that the goal of this game is to drive a political message, and so influence gamers (who will then exit their homes to go steal cars, kick whores and shoot at the police). The other is that the game merely reflects the misogynist mentality of its developers. Who by extension are all misogynist themselves, and are being judged and scorned or despised because of this.

But are you sure this agenda is actually in the game, or it’s you that write it onto the game and then blame the game for it? Are you sure that GTA’s goal is to give a representation of all women and endorse violence and harassment?

Where is it written that someone cannot invent a fictional world full of misogyny? And why if this happens we are automatically convinced with religious fervor that this author is a misogynist bastard himself? Where it is even written that a fictional world needs to fit some moral canons and in all cases educate in positive ways whoever reads about it?

That’s why these things degenerate into freedom of speech arguments: fictional things that are twisted and perverted as vehicle of REAL political themes.

I’m writing a fantasy book where women are raped during a siege to a city? Then I’m a misogynist writer who writes about my own sexual fantasies.

The judgement is passed, both on the fictional thing and its author. The sentence is written. Death to the white male misogynist writer that promotes violence against women.

In the case of GTA, my interpretation is that the game isn’t simply a parody of society, as it is usually defined. But it is a parody of a stereotyped idea of society people have. There’s a further step. GTA is iconographic in the way it is created, and it captures perfectly that idea. So GTA does what it wants to do REALLY WELL. Because it mirrors precisely a certain mental landscape.

But why if GTA is made of parody and excess and political incorrectness should it also portray women in a progressive, balanced way? It’s totally stupid. It doesn’t fit this kind of game in any way. It would be simply incoherent.

The only way to change GTA would be after changing people’s mentality, and by consequence GTA would change too. But it’s utterly stupid to think that by changing GTA you will change people’s mentality. That’s, as they say, ass-backwards. GTA, being a reflection of an image, can only be changed by changing the image, not by changing the reflection.

So if you complain about GTA, you merely complain for the fact it exists. And if you complain it exists, those who like it will try to defend it, because they enjoy it, and the game doesn’t need at all a political agenda imposed on it.

1594

That is a great article, thanks. Certainly an interesting and not completely unfounded take.

1595

Of course not, but the elements are still present, and are problematic in the representation (which is more important than they being present -the context-). Not an “agenda” per se, since it’s not about openly and blatantly following an pre arranged agenda but about creators maybe being unaware of what they are creating to some extent (which, believe me, happens a lot). GTAV is a great parody of certain aspects of American Culture, and parody does call for stereotypes, but sometimes they read a little bit off (while sometimes they don’t).

Let’s see an example of where this kind of critique is applied in other, less abrasive media: take Lena Dunham’s Girls TV series. After the first season there was a lot of criticism saying the series had problematic representations of class and race (something I agree with even though I love the show, and the first season). The creator herself reacted to these critiques as surprised, because she was not aware of what she was doing, and vowed to change this in the next seasons (and it did indeed improve). Nobody ever said Lena Dunham had a classist or racist agenda (or the series did) just that the representations were problematic and consistent with some prejudices.

1596

There’s a big caveat there, tho. And it is that this TV show indeed tries to aim at a certain sort of realism and has almost a documentary style.

So if things look “off”, it’s in the interest of this specific creation to adjust it. It’s not a purely fictional thing establishing its own world. Things looking off being contrary to the goal of the show, that the show gave itself.

But in GTA the goal certainly isn’t give a balanced and realistic representation of class and race. It’s the exact opposite. So you’d complain about an aspect that mainly labels you as “not its target/not for you”.

1597

I think we’ve lost the thread. If I play a game and think the quicktime events are annoying, I’ll say so. If I play a game and find the writing for the women is eye rolling, I’ll say so. Even if I’m wrong. That’s criticism. If there’s a freedom of speech issue it’s on the side of critics.

1598

Mmmm. I would say Girls first season race and class representation is actually (sadly) realistic, at least from my experience of six years living in NYC. It wasn’t off because it wasn’t realistic, but because it failed to address issues raised by it’s own realistic representation of those issues (it was representing a realistic situation, but failed to address how that realistic situation might be unfair).

As for GTAV (for example) if the game is a satire of American Culture, it should include violence, sex and mass media (and it does) but it should also be conscious of how those elements are represented (in their satire). I don’t think anybody claimed for GTAV to become more realistic. People were having issues (founded or unfounded) of how certain things were represented within the satire the world tries to create. I actually think the game does try to speak of fairly complex issues through humor. And sometimes is successful and sometimes it falls flat. And it’s ok to point out where.

1599

As I said in the past, this is the TRUE legacy of the old ranting sites like Lum the Mad (or my own).

Opinionated and competent voices because there’s no other element at the base than sharing a passion. No hidden agendas of any kind and much more up to date and competent overall.

1600

Let’s oust a guy that apparently works at Bioware. It’s funny how these events cause people to make asses of themselves:




At GDC I cited a study where men exposed to sexy women in games reacted more negatively towards a recounting of a woman’s sexual harassment

If you don’t see the relation to the way “gamers” treat the women on the web and OUR content in games, you are engaging in willful delusion

That study was titled “Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment”. Look it up.

The content in our games matters. The industry is complicit in the idea some gamers have that women are objects for men’s amusement.

He cites studies. Apparently sexism exists because of games.

We are THIS far from Fox News.

1601

I think I feel so indifferent to all this because… (shocking secret to be revealed!) I don’t use Twitter. I don’t write in it, and I don’t “follow” people on twitter, I don’t search #trends etc. The only contact I have with it is when someone links one in a forum or is part of a news. And it seems a big part of this conflict is being fought on Twitter.

1602

That is true.

I was a innocent children. But exposure to violent games made me into a violent adult.

These people say it like it is.

I think is time to admit it. Videogames are creating a generation of people desisintietized to violence.

1603

Finally, something more ontopic for the thread!

A very amusing interview

GC: So what question have you been asked the most this week?

SP: Probably, ‘If you could be any animal what would you be?’

GC: Really? I always prefer if you could be a biscuit what biscuit would you be? Although I suppose you don’t even know what a biscuit is…

SP: Well…

GC: OK, what animal then?

SP: I say different things, just to keep it interesting. Sometimes I say tiger. I enjoy…

GC: That’s too obvious.

1604

Pretty much the only thing that I find interesting about this whole thing is that it reveals how pervasive the “filter bubble” effect has become, not just algortihmically, but from manual self-selection of sources. I think the prevalence of twitter as the battleground is indicative of that, as Twitter is highly vulnerable to self-selection.

Ideologically well-sorted, as it were. A lot of the volume from this controversy is just because people are reacting to their bubble being popped.

1605

Yup, but the interesting thing is that if you want to go harass/troll/threaten one of “them” you only need to type in @personFromTheOtherSide and reply. (As opposed to “traditional” sites, where you would need to go there, find the appropriate article, create an account, and then troll.)

1606

Actually, it did also make me wonder if 4chan has a business model yet? I remember reading an article ages ago about how Poole (moot) was tying to figure out how to monetize it, but I don’t see any sources about what its current status is.

1607

Right, the everyday experience is very filtered, but when there’s a specific topic target, it’s incredibly easy to insert yourself into somebody else’s bubble. So, people get accustomed to having their thoughts validated, while actually being quite vulnerable.

I’m just thinking that the way twitter interactions work could be ideally suited to these kind of dramatic culture war explosions. Some Sociology Masters student is probably writing a thesis on it as we speak.

1608

Yeah it was pretty out there, as all good Hail Mary’s should be :) When i have more time i will come back to some aspects of that crazy in a bit more detail.

1609

As someone who doesn’t use Twitter (at least not effectively), what is going on at this point? Are people still upset over the ZQ revelations for their own sake, or for the (I thought debunked?) gaming journalism connections, or is it now the supposed disdain for gaming journalists for gamers, or…?