Drama in the indy gaming biz ?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It was innovative in its approach to storytelling, not in gameplay.

 

As for "enforced political correctness taking over games"... the tabletop RPG industry proves that to be kind of bollocks. You can see the trend: the new edition of D&D talks about how your character may not fit into the gender binary - at its core, however, it's still a game about murderhobos killing monsters and taking their stuff, except said murderhobos may now be genderqueer. Pathfinder has a trans signature character, a potion of gender change, and one of their APs features a lesbian paladin NPC. They still do Standard Adventurer Stuff. Exalted 3E's example characters (all five of them) are, without an exception, people of color, with a trans man among them. Regardless, it's still a game about shiny superheroes doing all kinds of wuxia ****, not about minority rights.

 

 

Not particularly innovative in my view, and certainly not worth the massive trade off of removing almost every other feature.

 

Why is there transexual material in D&D? One can be the gender one wishes to be, there is no point in having a transitory point when a low level spell can change ones gender in an instant, and a moderate level spell can do so permanently, as well as a myriad of items in the game. One could do this when AD&D was first introduced, this is nothing new. There have always been different races of humanity, species (their races) and a vast variety of difference and diversity in gameworlds, this is not a new thing again. This sounds like just blatant and clumsy pandering that personally i'd be insulted by, one can do all this in every edition, and it was not remarked upon as something new and innovative, it simply was accepted as sexuality and race should be.

 

It has randomized bits of narration, making the experience different on subsequent playthroughs; this, paired with the unreliable narrator, the intentional vagueness of the situation and the clues the environment provides allows for a rather wide range of possible interpretations. I can respect the opinion of someone who doesn't seek that kind of experience (read: academic wankery) from their video games, but that doesn't make it any less innovative.

 

Aaand there is no "transsexual material" in D&D. There is a paragraph in the chargen chapter on character gender acknowledging that your character may not fit into the male/female binary, mentioning androgynous/possibly hermaphroditic elves, exotic races that might reproduce asexually, or that they might be trans (5E isn't big on abundant magic items, so belts of gender change are not a resource available for anyone willing to fork out the cash). I'm not sure how you could take the existence of a single paragraph in a 400-ish pages long rulebook as blatant and clumsy pandering. Same with Pathfinder, there's about 2 or 3 pages' worth of material devoted to the matter in the entire gameline. My point about how the existence of said paragraph/few pages bears no relevance whatsoever to the core of the material still stands.

[Fighter]

They're frantically trying to backpeddle now, and state that when they said "gamer" they meant only that miniscule minority who were (allegedly) sending death and rape threats, but it was a basic misstep. They revealed their true contempt for the hobby and the players themselves, who are just normal people like everybody else. Like you say Mr Parker it is basically illogical hate mongering and demonisation, mainly to lionise themselves.

 

These are the same people that would never accept this kind of generalization of any "opressed" group.

[BruceVC]

 

So apparently games no longer need the people who play them. I don't quite follow the logic, but I suppose that is because there is none.

 

They're frantically trying to backpeddle now, and state that when they said "gamer" they meant only that miniscule minority who were (allegedly) sending death and rape threats, but it was a basic misstep. They revealed their true contempt for the hobby and the players themselves, who are just normal people like everybody else. Like you say Mr Parker it is basically illogical hate mongering and demonisation, mainly to lionise themselves.

 

 

Can you clarify who exactly is backpedalling? Right from the beginning the criticism was towards " gamers " who are resistance to change in the industry. The term " gamers" refers  primarily to white, male gamers who resist inclusivity. Please provide links that indicate that when anyone said "gamer" they meant every single white male gamer. Please provide links that indicate contempt for every single gamer, as far as the various blogs and journalist articles are concerned they only talk about people who refuse to accept changes.

 

You are putting words in peoples mouths and formulating your own conclusions about what gaming journalists are concerned about. Its disappointing that you have such a myopic view of these developments. You are only seeing it in a negative light

[Chaz]

 

 

Boys, boys, boys...

 

There is no gaming journalist conspiracy to control the direction around inclusivity in games. Its not real, its in your head. You guys must stop feeding each others ideas with these preposterous suggestions

 

You see this is a perfect example a young man, so self righteous and fixated on his role as a mouthpiece that he attacks moderates who are discussing the matter reasonably, and tries to belittle them as children. I wish I was a child, but having seen half a century I certainly cannot say that I am.

 

The fact that ten articles are published on the same day, on the same matter and by the same demographic as have been caught up in this scandal of corruption, nepotism, lack of objectivity and impartiality, basic failings of integrity and ethics, and hate mongering, is fairly clear evidence that this is an attack against people who play games recreationally and wish to continue doing so.

 

The ad hominems, the lack of empathy, I am inclined to think these people don't really care or are trolling.

 

Game developers (not just the artist I mentioned) are afraid to lose their jobs if they dont "tow the party line". Don't care.

A woman gets doxxed and harrased all because she made a parody of anita sarkeesian and supported #GamerGate. Don't care, probably didn't even watch the video.

 

And she is just a small example, people that are speaking out about this cronyism are beign insulted, harrased and threatened. And it has been Documented

 

And while a lot of us want to discuss the obvious coordination of the game media in pushing an agenda, the people on the other side of the arguement keep saying (when they are not insulting us) "well, you're just a mysogynist that don't want women in gaming" are you kidding me? We love women in gaming, we have women supporting #GamerGate too and even Christine Sommers gets flak for saying that "Gamers are Human Beigns" and that we shouldn't be condemned for the acts of a few crazies.

 

While at the start of all this there was only bad press coming from Gawker Media and sites influenced by Silverstring Media a lot of other sites are starting to Pick Up The Story and people want to discuss this all over the internet, there is a 400+ page thread in the escapist, and there are discussions going on in reddit, youtube, twitter, 4chan, etc.

 

Gamers are tired of beign called sexists, mysogynists, terrorist, and truthers because we are not any of those things, we just want to play games without having a freaking political agenda shoved down our throat.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Chaz

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I find it funny that our SJW holds Nonek to a higher standard than he does with himself. Suppose he has that in common with the gaming journalists.

[Malcador]

I'm confused, I have said several times what the term "gamer"  means? It refers to white, male gamers who are objecting to changes in the industry. But this is not my own personal definition. This is what gaming journalists mean when they say "the gamer is dead"

 

Here is the link that I posted earlier, its makes the case in a reasonable way

 

http://dangolding.tumblr.com/post/95985875943/the-end-of-gamers

Funny though, always hear of women gamers wanting the title and now Some One has decided that title is now not for them and just to describe misogynistic racists. I've read that garbage and the other stuff last week, rather convenient there were so many at the same time.

 

This one is amusing - http://pattheflip.tumblr.com/post/96390223113/why-im-not-a-gamer This bit especially

 

Words exist and have meaning outside your intended communication, and you don’t own the word “Gamer”. What’s worse, you never did. I realize that if you’re reading this, there’s a high chance that this is kind of a scary thought, so: Imagine if you started calling large green fruits with black seeds and red delicious fleshy insides “bananas”. People would look at you funny and ask why you don’t know what a watermelon is. So too with the G-Word.

So apparently I don't own the word, but some other people do.

[Nonek]

 

It was innovative in its approach to storytelling, not in gameplay.

 

As for "enforced political correctness taking over games"... the tabletop RPG industry proves that to be kind of bollocks. You can see the trend: the new edition of D&D talks about how your character may not fit into the gender binary - at its core, however, it's still a game about murderhobos killing monsters and taking their stuff, except said murderhobos may now be genderqueer. Pathfinder has a trans signature character, a potion of gender change, and one of their APs features a lesbian paladin NPC. They still do Standard Adventurer Stuff. Exalted 3E's example characters (all five of them) are, without an exception, people of color, with a trans man among them. Regardless, it's still a game about shiny superheroes doing all kinds of wuxia ****, not about minority rights.

 

 

Not particularly innovative in my view, and certainly not worth the massive trade off of removing almost every other feature.

 

Why is there transexual material in D&D? One can be the gender one wishes to be, there is no point in having a transitory point when a low level spell can change ones gender in an instant, and a moderate level spell can do so permanently, as well as a myriad of items in the game. One could do this when AD&D was first introduced, this is nothing new. There have always been different races of humanity, species (their races) and a vast variety of difference and diversity in gameworlds, this is not a new thing again. This sounds like just blatant and clumsy pandering that personally i'd be insulted by, one can do all this in every edition, and it was not remarked upon as something new and innovative, it simply was accepted as sexuality and race should be.

 

It has randomized bits of narration, making the experience different on subsequent playthroughs; this, paired with the unreliable narrator, the intentional vagueness of the situation and the clues the environment provides allows for a rather wide range of possible interpretations. I can respect the opinion of someone who doesn't seek that kind of experience (read: academic wankery) from their video games, but that doesn't make it any less innovative.

 

Aaand there is no "transsexual material" in D&D. There is a paragraph in the chargen chapter on character gender acknowledging that your character may not fit into the male/female binary, mentioning androgynous/possibly hermaphroditic elves, exotic races that might reproduce asexually, or that they might be trans (5E isn't big on abundant magic items, so belts of gender change are not a resource available for anyone willing to fork out the cash). I'm not sure how you could take the existence of a single paragraph in a 400-ish pages long rulebook as blatant and clumsy pandering. Same with Pathfinder, there's about 2 or 3 pages' worth of material devoted to the matter in the entire gameline. My point about how the existence of said paragraph/few pages bears no relevance whatsoever to the core of the material still stands.

 

 

A touch of randomisation in storytelling is hardly innovative, there was randomistaion in the first Diablo, and I actually managed to complete that unlike Dear Esther. If you like it that's fine but it's hardly innovative, more feature stripped and degenerative.

 

The example you posted above sounded like blunt and clumsy pandering, I have nothing against diversity in race, species, gender or details, so long as it makes sense within the gameworld and is not passed off as something innovative, new and progressive when it was being done decades ago.

 

 

 

So apparently games no longer need the people who play them. I don't quite follow the logic, but I suppose that is because there is none.

 

They're frantically trying to backpeddle now, and state that when they said "gamer" they meant only that miniscule minority who were (allegedly) sending death and rape threats, but it was a basic misstep. They revealed their true contempt for the hobby and the players themselves, who are just normal people like everybody else. Like you say Mr Parker it is basically illogical hate mongering and demonisation, mainly to lionise themselves.

 

 

Can you clarify who exactly is backpedalling? Right from the beginning the criticism was towards " gamers " who are resistance to change in the industry. The term " gamers" refers  primarily to white, male gamers who resist inclusivity. Please provide links that indicate that when anyone said "gamer" they meant every single white male gamer. Please provide links that indicate contempt for every single gamer, as far as the various blogs and journalist articles are concerned they only talk about people who refuse to accept changes.

 

You are putting words in peoples mouths and formulating your own conclusions about what gaming journalists are concerned about. Its disappointing that you have such a myopic view of these developments. You are only seeing it in a negative light

 

 

The corrupt gaming press. All moderates and right minded people are resisting the change, constraint, censorship and preaching that these corrupt liars are trying to force upon the medium, as they have proven that they are guilty of far too many moral and ethical abuses to be trusted with even being game journalists.

 

I am using their own words and actions against them Bruce, like when you tried to belittle people by portraying them as children, such toxic and inflammatory demonisation of the supposed opposition (whom are in reality moderates seeking discussion) is a hallmark of this campaign. Whether it is Anita Sarkeesian lying about game content, Zoe Quinn condemning those pointing out her unethical behaviour or Leigh Alexander portraying gamers as nerds and menchildren.

 

It is blatant hate mongering, disgusting and wholly negative. If they wish to use a term that means anybody who plays games recreationally then they must accept that those who do will be outraged when they are accused of various infractions they have never commited, especially when it is a corrupt, hateful, and immoral minority whom are doing so.

 

Edit: I have absolutely no idea what happened with these quotes, I do apologise the editor seems to have had a tizzy. Ah that's better.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Nonek

[Amentep]

You right, the correct definitions  of words are important to me. But that's why I said to Volo " "gamers is in the context of this debate"

 

In other words you can't use the dictionary for this particular word because the word doesn't represent the

 

The problem is that the definition in the dictionary *is* the definition.

 

That another group has tried to tie a second meaning to the word so they can kill that word and declare victory is part of the issue.  Just as feminists don't want to be labeled as feminazis, we have to be clear that its inherently wrong to declare that gamer - a word that applies to anyone who games by definition - is now just privileged white male game players who don't want women playing their games in a concerted effort to break opposition by making the word toxic, making the "society" of gaming toxic.

 

Its important to understand the difference between definitions and labels.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Amentep

[aluminiumtrioxid]

A touch of randomisation in storytelling is hardly innovative, there was randomistaion in the first Diablo, and I actually managed to complete that unlike Dear Esther. If you like it that's fine but it's hardly innovative, more feature stripped and degenerative.

 

The example you posted above sounded like blunt and clumsy pandering, I have nothing against diversity in race, species, gender or details, so long as it makes sense within the gameworld and is not passed off as something innovative, new and progressive when it was being done decades ago.

 

Diablo had randomized map design in order to facilitate replayability, Dear Esther had randomized storytelling in order to widen possible interpretations of the story. I think the two have very little in common.

 

Well, without context, I imagine it might seem blunt and clumsy (and in the case of Pathfinder's gender change potion as opposed to belts of gender change being cursed items it does seem like engaging in childish one-upmanship with Wizards), but regardless of how it comes across (IMHO: D&D okay, Exalted okay but expected nothing less, Pathfinder kinda dumb), it's actually tangential to my point: regardless of having "politically correct" material, the core of these games hasn't changed. If this clique is indeed conspiring and ends up being able to dictate how video games must be done (an unlikely occurence, if you ask me), I can't imagine them having more influence on content than what is happening in tabletop RPGs now - and I personally think that having a trans or lesbian NPC in a game, or looting a gender-changing potion wouldn't detract from my fantasy adventuring.

[Longknife]

But what you guys keep missing, and I keep trying to explain this but I'm obviously failing, is this furore is no longer about Zoe Quinn sleeping with gaming journalists or the fact some gaming journalists are unethical. That is actually a separate debate, relevant but separate.

That is exactly the case, though for different reasons than what you're claiming.

 

 

The reality is that no one gives two flying ****s about Zoe Quinn. For all I care, she's a footnote in a bigger picture story. She's nothing but just one example of a corrupt market, but she doesn't deserve focus because ultimately she's just a ****ty person for trying what she may have tried, but who cares? The disturbing part is when the people who are supposed to be credible and reliable are ****ty people. If Hideo Kojima offers to sleep with kotaku for good game reviews for the next Metal Gear, yeah he's a ****ty person, but I care more about if kotaku would accept and be bought off by such a thing. That's why Zoe is a footnote and nothing more.

 

 

.....or she would be, except she's a VERY convenient shield for Silverstring media. You see, the thing is....I don't know where you get your news or what you read, but I hardly see anyone rant about her in a misogynistic manner. The only people guilty of blatant misogyny are the random idiotic youtube commentators NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS TAKES SERIOUSLY ANYWAYS, and the very boyfriend who probably didn't leak any of this with the goal of exposing corruption in the industry, but rather "**** shaming" as he might call it.

 

So who values Zoe's name? Who actually WANTS her name to reappear in discussion? The very people who would side with Silverstring media. Why? Because she's a convenient shield. Anyone interested in SERIOUS productive debate doesn't bring her up, only the idiots who wanna make fun of her for sleeping around or whatever bring her up. And that's a convenient scapegoat for Silverstring media. They can point and say "look misogyny!!" and with that argue that all of their actions are justified or neccesary.

 

 

But here's the thing. Again, we can make an "issue" out of ANYTHING. Anyone here black? Go make a video about the lack of black protagonists. I'll go make one about the lack of disabled protagonists, and another person who's a homosexual can claim there's a lack of gay protagonist and an issue with the culture. I would get $15,000 that the moment any of our videos breached a decent amount of views, there would be comments calling the black guy the N-word, comments calling me a pathetic cripple or comments calling the gay guy a flaming ****. That's not evidence gaming culture is racist, insensitive towards the disabled or homophobic. That's evidence that PEOPLE ARE **** ON THE INTERNET, ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

 

You cannot take random little statements on the Internet seriously. If you do, you're an idiot. And yet Anita for example is making a career out of is...and succeeding. Succeeding to a degree where the gaming industry is constantly being told how bad and wrong it is, where journalists in the industry are providing her with some sort of stage from which to speak, and here we are with highly suspicious connections suggest heavily bias decisions from these so called SJWs in regards to actual winners of cash prizes in indie gaming festivals. And yet when someone complains, the claim made is "oh they're just being sexist."

 

 

Listen, I know gamers and I know the Internet. Are there socially awkward or socially stunted gamers? OMG yes. Do they seem to have particular problems with women? Not at all, unless you mean problems with their ability to seduce them (sorry, but that negative stereotype's got some truth to it. Me and my French Canadian friend enjoy playing online games together to watch people flip **** when a girl with a French accent starts speaking on the mic). FFS just last week I recall on the Bethesda forums there was a discussion about if the canon Courier Six from New Vegas will be or should be female. Most people said no solely on the grounds that it seemed to diminish some of the story to New Vegas since a female would be far less likely to seriously consider the Legion as an option, but were by no means against the idea that Fallout 4 or the next Obsidian Fallout game be catered towards the idea of a female as the canon protagonist.

 

The extent to which sexism withing gaming exists as a thing is no greater than the extent of sexism IN GENERAL within the world as a whole. The sexism rate within gaming is likely on par with that of movies or TV shows, so this idea that gaming should be specifically targeted and lectured on sexism is absurd and unjustified. Obvious flame-bait comments from idiots are cherry picked and presented as though they were a representation of gamers as a whole, and look around you. I don't see a single person within the entirety of this thread (as a small sample and example) being sexist. It's undeserved.

The bitter irony is that these people are merely hurting their very ideology. People aren't thinking "oh Anita and Silverstring are right! Thank goodness they've shown me the light!" They're getting pissed the **** off that these ideological idiots are writing yet another chapter in the book of corrupt gaming practices, all in the name of a subjective ideology of what games should look like that they INSIST on forcing upon all of us. Top it off with the fact that games like Fallout New Vegas that go out of their way to be all inclusive (I've seen articles from homosexuals, women, Mormons and other religious groups all praising the game for portraying them fairly and "normal") STILL end up being showcased as examples of sexism in gaming in very misleading and deceptive clips of video all in the name of promoting her own agenda (even when NOT at all neccesary) and the girl is a lying zealot. And I promise you, the bitter irony is that she IS hurting her own cause and her own ideology, because some gamers who never even considered sexism at all and just innocently played their games are potentially being introduced to their first view of feminism. And if Anita and Silverstring are their first views of feminism, they're very likely to associate feminism with liars, scammers, corruption and over zealous ideological thinkers who force their views upon others.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Longknife

[Nonek]

 

A touch of randomisation in storytelling is hardly innovative, there was randomistaion in the first Diablo, and I actually managed to complete that unlike Dear Esther. If you like it that's fine but it's hardly innovative, more feature stripped and degenerative.

 

The example you posted above sounded like blunt and clumsy pandering, I have nothing against diversity in race, species, gender or details, so long as it makes sense within the gameworld and is not passed off as something innovative, new and progressive when it was being done decades ago.

 

Diablo had randomized map design in order to facilitate replayability, Dear Esther had randomized storytelling in order to widen possible interpretations of the story. I think the two have very little in common.

 

Well, without context, I imagine it might seem blunt and clumsy (and in the case of Pathfinder's gender change potion as opposed to belts of gender change being cursed items it does seem like engaging in childish one-upmanship with Wizards), but regardless of how it comes across (IMHO: D&D okay, Exalted okay but expected nothing less, Pathfinder kinda dumb), it's actually tangential to my point: regardless of having "politically correct" material, the core of these games hasn't changed. If this clique is indeed conspiring and ends up being able to dictate how video games must be done (an unlikely occurence, if you ask me), I can't imagine them having more influence on content than what is happening in tabletop RPGs now - and I personally think that having a trans or lesbian NPC in a game, or looting a gender-changing potion wouldn't detract from my fantasy adventuring.

 

 

No Diablo had different story and quests for each playthrough, whether one met LacDanaan (if I remember the name correctly) for instance and learned various plot points or not was entirely randomised.

 

I had lesbian characters (thanks to a bisexual university friend called Cory) and non human genders in my games thirty years ago, the corrupt game journalists forcing their mandate upon gaming is not needed and would in my opinion be harmful for subtelty of presentation, nuance, authenticity, realism or depth of setting. They have proven they wish to censor, constrain and shape according to their currently fashionable sensibilities, I can do nothing but oppose them, based upon their own actions and hate mongering.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Reading Nonek's posts had me wondering what a New Vegas done by these fellows would look like. I did not enjoy that train of thought.

[Chaz]

 

 Top it off with the fact that games like Fallout New Vegas that go out of their way to be all inclusive (I've seen articles from homosexuals, women, Mormons and other religious groups all praising the game for portraying them fairly and "normal") STILL end up being showcased as examples of sexism in gaming in very misleading and deceptive clips of video all in the name of promoting her own agenda (even when NOT at all neccesary) and the girl is a lying zealot. And I promise you, the bitter irony is that she IS hurting her own cause and her own ideology, because some gamers who never even considered sexism at all and just innocently played their games are potentially being introduced to their first view of feminism. And if Anita and Silverstring are their first views of feminism, they're very likely to associate feminism with liars, scammers, corruption and over zealous ideological thinkers who force their views upon others.

 

I just want to note that I have been complaining about the misrepresenation of video games since her first tropes vs women, even in this forum. But at least I'm glad people are starting to see the bull**** now that a game that is very dear to many of us, beign big obsidian fans, gets completely misrepresented to the point that anyone that played the game know she is shamelessly lying to us all, and the funny thing is her video gets promoted by all the major gaming sites.

 

Video Games should have no place for this kind of zealots that place their favored idoelogy over the truth, to the point they are willing to lie and manipualte to push their agenda.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Chaz

[aluminiumtrioxid]

No Diablo had different story and quests for each playthrough, whether one met LacDanaan (if I remember the name correctly) for instance and learned various plot points or not was entirely randomised.

 

 

*shrug* Whatever, I'm not exactly an expert on Diablo. I'll take your word on it.

 

 

the corrupt game journalists forcing their mandate upon gaming is not needed and would in my opinion be harmful for subtelty of presentation, nuance, authenticity, realism or depth of setting. They have proven they wish to censor, constrain and shape according to their currently fashionable sensibilities

 

What they did not do, however, was actively curtailing the artistic integrity and vision of anyone, and given the fact that they have no power to do so in the current climate, we have no way of knowing what they would do if they had it. I feel justified in extrapolating from the example of a similarly geeky medium where the influence of SJWs (or whatever) is also rearing up its head and has no noticeable effect on what the affected medium is about.

 

I think you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

[Nonek]

 

the corrupt game journalists forcing their mandate upon gaming is not needed and would in my opinion be harmful for subtelty of presentation, nuance, authenticity, realism or depth of setting. They have proven they wish to censor, constrain and shape according to their currently fashionable sensibilities

 

What they did not do, however, was actively curtailing the artistic integrity and vision of anyone, and given the fact that they have no power to do so in the current climate, we have no way of knowing what they would do if they had it. I feel justified in extrapolating from the example of a similarly geeky medium where the influence of SJWs (or whatever) is also rearing up its head and has no noticeable effect on what the affected medium is about.

 

I think you are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

 

 

Maybe I am, and I have similarly no experience of modern pen and paper gaming systems, but by their own actions these people have proven themselves to be immoral, unethical and untrustworthy, so I think taking a stand against them is entirely logical, from my point of view.

 

There are problems with gaming I admit, inclusivity is not one of them, stats now prove this, and Kickstarter is more of an answer to those problems than this little corrupt crusade. I do not see their mandate as being anything but harmful and restrictive, and they cannot be trusted at all, so I will not.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Nonek

[Gorgon]

Hardly news any of it. Havent we been screaming how games sites and reviewers are whores since, forever. 

[Longknife]

 

Top it off with the fact that games like Fallout New Vegas that go out of their way to be all inclusive (I've seen articles from homosexuals, women, Mormons and other religious groups all praising the game for portraying them fairly and "normal") STILL end up being showcased as examples of sexism in gaming in very misleading and deceptive clips of video all in the name of promoting her own agenda (even when NOT at all neccesary) and the girl is a lying zealot. And I promise you, the bitter irony is that she IS hurting her own cause and her own ideology, because some gamers who never even considered sexism at all and just innocently played their games are potentially being introduced to their first view of feminism. And if Anita and Silverstring are their first views of feminism, they're very likely to associate feminism with liars, scammers, corruption and over zealous ideological thinkers who force their views upon others.

 

I just want to note that I have been complaining about the misrepresenation of video games since her first tropes vs women, even in this forum. But at least I'm glad people are starting to see the bull**** now that a game that is very dear to many of us, beign big obsidian fans, gets completely misrepresented to the point that anyone that played the game know she is shamelessly lying to us all, and the funny thing is her video gets promoted by all the major gaming sites.

Video Games should have no place for this kind of zealots that place their favored idoelogy over the truth, to the point they are willing to lie and manipualte to push their agenda.

I've....dunno. I both did and didn't give her attention. I'm the type to examine something until I feel I can accurately explain in my own words what makes it good, bad, flawed, a masterpiece or what-have-you, but Anita as an example already had plenty of people calling her out on her crap, as well as plenty backing her up. I pretty much just quietly watched her videos myself, drew my own conclusions and occasionally watched criticisms, some valid and some stupid.

 

The big one that made me think "yep, ignore her" was when she tried to claim "I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus" was sexist because it seeks to portray all women as promiscuous dishonest cheaters. Bitchpls wtf? Saint Nicholas was in fact a guy so I doubt the songwriter EVER had that in mind; anyone with half a brain knows the song is about a kid being too young and naive to realize it's his dad dressed up as Santa. To me, that was the point where I realized any form of censorship or dictating what's included in art would inevitably hurt some work of art some way and some how. For example if I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus were rewritten to appeal to her so that it was dad kissing Santa....well it just doesn't ****ing work. The song loses it's meaning entirely. And even if it upholds the meaning, it seems to somehow deny or downplay the REALITY of Saint Nicholas being a guy. I mean would we rewrite the Importance of Being Earnest to be the Importance of being....Claudia? And claim it wasn't written by Oscar Wilde but by....Oscaria Wilde?

 

Art cannot and should not be dictated. You let the artists portray a story however they please. If you attempt to dictate it, the message gets lost.

 

Back then though it was like "yeah but she's just some you tuber voicing an opinion I disagree with so who cares, no biggie." NOW it kinda scares me to think she and a group she's involved with are sincere about trying to push an agenda on the industry. It scares me not because I think "oh noes I don't wanna play a female protagonist!!" but because I don't want art censored or legislated. This isn't about men vs. Women, it's about art vs. Censorship.

[Malcador]

Hardly news any of it. Havent we been screaming how games sites and reviewers are whores since, forever.

Sounds like some of them are literally so, just thought them figurative ones. They are also pretty bad trolls too, reading their Twitter postings

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It scares me not because I think "oh noes I don't wanna play a female protagonist!!" but because I don't want art censored or legislated. This isn't about men vs. Women, it's about art vs. Censorship.

 

I still find the idea of artistic integrity being threatened by evil feminists in a medium where even a hint of true innovation or creativity is ruthlessly stomped out by big publishers patently ridiculous.

[Chaz]

Hardly news any of it. Havent we been screaming how games sites and reviewers are whores since, forever. 

 

Well you know there is an issue when a site gives 9s and 10s to every game. (talk about equality) But it's taken to another level when they start insulting their own audience and pushing political agendas. There's a reason we are in the Off Topic section and not in the General Discussion, every forum that I know always try to keep gaming discussion and political discussion separate because games should be about fun, but many sites have become more and more sensationalists and politisized and when people complain about it they are basically insulted (sexist, terrorist, etc). Anita Sarkeesian was promoting the articles of a guy called Davin Faraci or something, a guy that said that Gamers are worse than ISIS.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Chaz

[Longknife]

 

It scares me not because I think "oh noes I don't wanna play a female protagonist!!" but because I don't want art censored or legislated. This isn't about men vs. Women, it's about art vs. Censorship.

 

 

I still find the idea of artistic integrity being threatened by evil feminists in a medium where even a hint of true innovation or creativity is ruthlessly stomped out by big publishers patently ridiculous.

Lawl well by no means did I mean the gaming industry is just the pinnacle of the arts, cause lord knows most games are made solely for profit and not with any artistic value in mind. Regardless, I wouldn't want art censored ANYWHERE. If her complaint were targeted at movies or books I'd be equally upset.

 

My stance on the whole "are games art" is that of course they can be, just like any form of media can be. Thusfar though they're seldomly used as such.

[Nonek]

There also remains creativity and innovation in even the largest most mainstream game, to add to that list I made earlier i'd add the latest Wolfenstein, which had some quite unique features and content, while in no way filtering itself or being affected by clumsy attempts at political correctness.

 

Adding the censorship of unethical liars would hardly improve the AAA industry.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Nonek

[Keyrock]

So I see the games media has entered stage 2 of the Kübler-Ross model.

[Fighter]

Publishers playing everything safe and being afraid of innovation for financial reasons are not a good comparison to the moral police brigade.

[Malcador]

Do notice a diminishing of the technical innovations as opposed to story ones (or whatever the hell they call the aspect that engages players emotionally, supposedly) in some of these articles. Shame, as the engineering aspect of games is a pretty cool thing.