Blarghagh

You: The SJ agenda has, ironically - and sadly - resulted in less minority representation in games. Bruce: Could you explain this, please? You: The decision-makers are afraid that they'll lose their jobs if they screw up representing minorities, and therefore rather cut minorities out of the games than risk that. Me: Man, publishers are kinda ****. Maybe we should talk about that. You: You are misrepresenting me! Me: *blink blink* ...okay... You're misrepresenting me AND your own post right now. Of course I'm going to call you out on it if you're using it to attack me. [emphasis mine] The publishers are not the subject of your post, I am and the other people here are. If that was not your intention as you claim in hindsight then the mistake is entirely yours for saying the wrong thing. I'm very much interested in talking about how crap video game (and other media) publishers are (and they are, even as a low level indie dev my experiences with publishers and PR agents has been nothing but torture and the way they respond to media hype, buzz and criticism is a major part of that), but that was not what the conversation was about.

You're inferring from my post that it's solely the fault of the "SJW", whatever that is. That inference is in no question entirely and only your thing. I don't care what you think the "tone" of the internet text is, you're just crapping one out and pretending it's mine. I've never stated or implied in any way, shape or form whatsoever that they were the sole cause of anything. The question Bruce asked me wasn't bloody "how did the SJ agenda and also maybe other random things that may have also had that effect impact the video game landscape", the topic was the SJ agenda and the SJ agenda is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, contributing factors to the decrease of minority characters in video games (and pretty much all media) but I would never claim it was the only cause. I explained how and why the "SJ Agenda" of the media causes less minority characters and I stand by that, but everything else you took out of there is just a bunch of absolute bogus assumptions and generalisations. Essentially, we were talking specifically about the correlation between cancer and age and you're jumping in here saying "you're dumb because cancer can also be caused by bacterial infection and if you ignore that you're dumb".

Yes, because my (completely out of context) thoughts and extremely personal, anecdotal experience reflect the opinions of other people here. Can one of your posts in this thread ever in the history of time not contain a generalisation? My god. Any single person posts here and you respond with "haha look #GamerGate I disagree with you all". I also enjoy the part where you take half a paragraph of text that may not completely encompass the entire truth of a complicated issue entirely out of context and pretend you've debunked it with an argument that could (and does) very much include that reasoning while entirely ignoring the rest of a giant wall of text. You have a very strange way of debating. Yes, the risk adverse nature of publishers applies very much - and I explained just exactly why it's a risk. The careers I'm talking about aren't those of the artists, it's the commitee, which tends to be the bigwigs. It's not the artists that make the decisions - every single artist in the game industry I've ever met (and I've met a substantial amount) wants to draw more interesting and varied characters. And when it applies to ****ty license games made at no budget to cash in on crappy IPs, it's certainly not just about financial risk to your target audience when you cut out background characters solely over fear of moral outrage. Target audiences being mostly male definitely have a lot to do with why big games tend to have male leads, but these characters have way more than just gender in common and the fear applies to all characters, not just the leads, and it's certainly not the only reason that they're all a very specific looking blank slate with no personality or defining traits. Defining traits means you represent that trait. Every single defining trait must be purged to keep it "neutral" for the watch dogs.

I can't recall who recommended it, but many thanks to the person who recommended the film "Wild Target" here. It was pretty hilarious.

Oh, I get it! It's a generation raised by overprotective moms.

So video games and metal. Did we go thirty years back in time somehow?

Those thing look like Warcraft 3 map editor, i can make that, but it's limited to whatever it's offer Even high end engines like UDK and CryTek are limited in what they offer if you're not a programmer. Try out what works. The best way to get your ideas for games heard is to make games. Start out with a smaller game, or make a vertical slice (a single part of your larger game). Source: Experience.

I'd rather have someone see me naked than reading my personal e-mails, if it's about the value difference.

I can't say how bad it is because most forms never make it to the shelves due to focus groups, but take from my example what you will. This was tiny shovelware company for mobile games that consisted out of five actual employees and fifteen unpaid interns. If it was that big a deal for them, I can't imagine what the pressure on an AAA company is. I'm pretty sure it's why Ubisoft consistently just makes **** up when faced with criticism. Bwahaha, female characters are harder to animate. There is literally no difference between neutral male and female mocap. The irony here is that I still consider myself someone who wants social justice and minority representation despite claims that I'm not. Most of the reasons I support #GamerGate are because of my "SJW-hood" and because #GamerGate is against those who in my experience harm inclusivity more than promote it (Feminist Frequency being the chief offender at this point). I have mentioned before (about a dozen threads previous) but what got me looking into #GamerGate more deeply was the part where my girlfriend tweeted this picture: And was subsequently harassed and assaulted for "supporting a misogynist hate movement" when she wasn't even aware of the controversy at the time. If your response to a simple picture that has nothing on it that is objectionable is so violent then there is no way that you're the good guy. So yeah, I started supporting #GamerGate because I was white knighting. Go figure.

No, I support BioWare's attempts at inclusivity and I also respect their right to make that content (although Bioware's manner of making a characters sexuality only matter to the person playing the game and not as a part of that character's life and personal experience is problematic to say the least and sends a message that a person only matters if they have a sexuality you can use). I've discussed the matter of unfair judgement towards minority characters (a white character can have flaws and he's well-written, a minority isn't perfect and it represents that minority and will get crushed by the press) in depth a ton of times in these threads so I have no desire to do so again nor be held to an arbitrary number, but here's a story from my own experience. When I was interning at a company that made awful shovelware games. This game was released but I'm pretty sure nobody even played it. I had a bar scene to populate with characters and a certain amount of props and customizable character bodies (ripped from the company's other games because they worked no-budget) to do this with. Now this was a WW2 wargame based on some B-movie war license, and it didn't have any female representation. This was the only place with civilian characters instead of officers, so at the center table, I put two women in poses as if they were speaking to each other. A sneaky way to have the game pass the Blechdel test, so to speak, since it was literally the only way I as an intern could change anything. Of course, it was a bar and the table props had bottles on them. Our PR guy flipped a lid when he saw it, since I had put "alcoholic women" as a "centerpiece" of this scene and if it remained this way, we were going to get our asses kicked, so I was forced to remove them and to be safe, not add any women in this single scene with civilians. The game came out with no women in it at all, because that would be safer than adding two women in the background. Contrast and compare to pretty much all games with strong female leads such as Tomb Raider and Bayonetta (written / designed and produced by women respectively) getting their butts kicked by feminist media when almost no games get attacked for having no female characters at all (there was the last Assassin's Creed, I guess, but that one makes no sense to me since there WAS an Assassin's Creed game with a female lead - I guess nobody noticed because she was boring and had no character flaws). There is a culture of fear when it comes to adding minority representation. Game developers by and large want to make games with more diverse casts. It's not coming from the game developers, the supposed "boys club". It's coming from moral authoritarian responses to games that project their own sexism and racism onto these games. Why do you think this is? Do you think game artists all want to design the same character? No, it's because (and ironically, people have taken offense to it) these things are designed by commitee to be as non-offensive as possible. They are all white men because they are terrified of getting their careers handed to them on a silver platter for making a minority character that, god forbid, people don't like. Hell, even the men are limited. I'm sure one of these guys must have had blonde hair during development, and you can bet your ass the focus group made a huge stink about him being an aryan ubermensch ideal and that's racist. I've talked to a huge amount of developers who are concerned about the same thing. You cannot write real characters and have narrative diversity if you use minority characters because you will get slaughtered out there, which is why the amount of female and minority leads has dwindled over the years (that, and the fact that nobody seems to buy them, poor poor Beyond Good & Evil 2, still waiting for you Jade, but with Ubisoft's track record lately...). (Note: This was my first internship at a game dev, and it's probably relevant to say that within the first three weeks of me being there I was explained by the CEO what to look for in reviews for mobile games to tell whether they're real or bought. *shrug*)

I have a way that the SJ agenda has changed the landscape. Less minority characters.

I enjoy cooking, so I don't really want to. I can understand the benefits of getting everything you need in just one container, though.

You're preaching to the choir here man. There have been serious efforts to shut the harassment down but there simply isn't much people can do to fend off anonymous trolls. It's all well and good to tell me "they in YOUR movement" but I still don't know who they bloody well are and how to stop them. But knowing this doesn't change the fact that some people in #GamerGate are still absolute ****.

I must confess I do not know how my private e-mailing of companies and careful consideration of what I tweet and retweet using a hashtag enables these people. They started doing it before #GamerGate was even a thing and they'll keep doing it after it fades. The media coverage may have brought more of them out of the woodwork but it's not really me or those on my side that controls that coverage, is it?

Tale did not state he supported the hardcore anti-#GamerGate people. This helps no one.

He's got a point though, #GamerGate can be pretty awful. But when push came to shove, the side that couldn't agree on anything wasn't the one that told me that if I don't join them in fighting then I was a terrible human being that needed to be purged. That was the side that agrees on everything pretty vehemently. I'm not willfully ignorant of anything, I'm very well aware and I'm choosing the lesser evil as I was made to.

Did I use it as such? I believe I've pretty graciously accepted said criticism and admitted that I share that criticism.

I have no control over what KiA discusses. I think it's unproductive towards #GamerGate's stated goals so everyone involved with that bit can just **** right off as far as I'm concerned. But like I said, amorphous blob of people. If I browse the hashtag, I see a lot of people constantly disagreeing with each other.

Hey, don't look at me. I don't care what she does at all. I recall that when this was "The Quinnspiracy" before #GamerGate even existed that I viciously condemned her harassment. The problem is that every time #GamerGate has forgotten her, somebody has to bring her back up. Sometimes it's a "pro-#GamerGater" (because the downside of being an amorphous blob of people is that anyone can claim to be one) and sometimes it's an "anti-#GamerGater" and most of the time it's herself, such as with the article adressing #GamerGate she recently posted (if you're really being harassed by someone, I'd say the correct response is not to legitimize them by engaging). In other news, I find it very irritating that the Apple store has declined to carry Papers, Please. I understand why, the uncensored nudity obviously, but it's completely and utterly nonsexual. Slap a parental warning on it and you're good to go. Now you're just censoring an incredibly engaging and educational experience.

Okay, since too many people are going on about it, let's get out some specific definition. When I accuse something of being censorious, I refer to this definition: Merriam-Webster defines "to censor" as the following: To examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc. Can we all agree that while Target is not guilty of this, it is definitely the goal of the petition that caused Target's decision and that by this definition censorship is not, by any stretch of the word, excluded to any entities other than government?

Obviously hella photoshopped, but something about the look and the mystery and the ornateness of the mask makes me think this lady is very pretty.

I don't feel Target is doing real censorship, but I feel it's the goal of the petition that caused Target to take this position. Have you guys read it? It is explicitly stated that the goal is to have eventually all other stores follow suit and such morally wrong content can no longer be sold anywhere. It's not "I won't shop where this stuff is available, listen to me your consumer", it's "I won't stop as long as this stuff is available, don't listen to this product's consumers".

Yeah, mobile games are rife with false reviews. You practically have to buy them to get any traction unless you go viral. I've sadly gained a lot of experience with this, being literally ordered to negotiate with these people. Never trust a review is doubly true for mobile games. Apple literally sells them themselves.

Obsessing. He got the wrong one. It's also not a codename, it's a response. Somebody else talks about them, you go "literally who?" Either way, I'd rather not mention them sooner than I would. It's a pointless subject that leads to pointless discussions like this. Because engaging with people who consistently engage #GamerGate on their own accord is harassment and "obsessing".

Think that's Quinn, not Wu.