Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

AssCreed: Liberation has a female protagonist.

So why aren't the four available character choices in Unity a female option ?

There aren't four character choices. There's Arno. You can have up to 3 others play co-op in certain missions, but to you they are brotherhood Assassins, to each of them they are Arno.

I see your point, so you are saying you cannot make any of them female because of the story line being about Arno specifically

Yes. You play as Arno, the co-op missions are available within the main game from taverns, but you don't switch characters when you play them. Everyone looks different in the demos because they added a bunch of clothing customization to Unity, so whatever other people you play with will have customized Arno's apearance and equipment to their preference. So within each player's narrative they are Arno and the other players Arnos are random Brotherhood Assassins.

 

 

Okay valid point raised, that was a bad example from my side because it doesn't appear to applicable

Edited September 25, 2014 by BruceVC

[pmp10]

 

 

 

 

 

Generally inclusivity means stripping the game of anything gender specific allowing you to play as either a male or a female with 0 difference. Making games that "appeal to the whole fanbase" generally means a watered down gray tasteless mass that everyone can swallow even though no one will really be that into it. Individual games shouldn't be cattering to everyone, games should be specialized, the market is big, the market is growing, the market has always been branching, stop trying to tie all the branches together, all it does is create more bland "enjoyable for everyone!" content that sorta sucks.

So we obviously have a disagreement of what inclusivity means, appealing to the fanbase is about inclusivity where you can play as a male or female. So we may be debating the same point? Also female characters in a game mustn't be objectified. This does not mean now the games will become "watered down gray tasteless mass"

 

But if a large AAA gaming studio like Ubisoft doesn't offer fans the chance to play as a female then this is a problem that they need to address. This objective is relevant in most cases and of course there are exceptions

 

If a game has a set protagonist, with a plot based on that protagonist, with a lot of thought put into that protagonist, why should there be an arbritrary version of that protagonist with or without boobs to make people who are strongly attached to their gender happy at the cost of any gameplay related to gender? Let's look at Pplanescape Torment, if it had added an arbitrary Nameless One w boobs Ravel, Falls From Grace, and Annah need to be stripped off all flavor, something else will have to replace Ravels main motivation for helping you out and later not being happy about you leaving, something else with have to replace Annahs reason for following you as well. Now, our new Planescape Torment could keep the content for males and make a barebone senseless Ravel for females, not give Annah any reason for hanging around you, but it'd mean extra work that a decent portion of the playerbase (men play chicks too) will never see, and anyone playing a female char would complain that the game massively lacks flavor. You gotta either remove all gender references from the game, build new just as good gender references for females, or just scrap the idea of a nameless one with boobs.

 

Some games are built with multiple potential genders in mind, some with multiple possible protagonists in mind, some aren't, and it is good that some aren't, because those games are capable of adding much more gender specific flavor. I'm naturally biased here as I'm a guy, like most protagonists, and as I have extremely little internal gender association, if I woke up a woman, besides being very freaked out I wouldn't really care one way or another, but despite such bias I still feel it is a very valid argument that the more you try to push for everyone being able to fullfill their deepest desires in one game, the more bland that game becomes, or the more work has to go into that game for the same content per gameplay.

 

You make some good points

 

As I mentioned there are exceptions, for example I don't expect Lara Croft to have a male protagonist. Planescape is another example where you can't really change the main character and I don't expect that change

My point about inclusivity is more for a new RPG like the latest Dragon Age, in this case there is no issue around inclusivity as Bioware has addressed this. But Ubisoft and there new Unity sequel in the AC saga. This needs to change because its not like its not technically possible to have a female character

 

Have you played any Assassin's Creed games? The nature of the Animus prevents a choice in character options because you're replaying a figure's memories within a single bloodline. The only way they could have a male and female playable character would be if they were in different time periods. Unity you're reliving Arno's memories, offering another character option means writing an entirely separate game.

 

 

Sure I hear you. And I played all the AC games except for Black Flag.

 

My issue is more with Unity and the four optional characters, all men. No women

 

Why were you ok with watch dogs then?

Or for that matter why are any ubisoft/open-world games acceptable?

The drop-in multiplayer is a recent gimmick and it will force you to play the protagonist of single-player.

Seems to me you have issues with design of many open-world games.

I just can't tell why you attack only specific titles for natural outcome of this approach.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally inclusivity means stripping the game of anything gender specific allowing you to play as either a male or a female with 0 difference. Making games that "appeal to the whole fanbase" generally means a watered down gray tasteless mass that everyone can swallow even though no one will really be that into it. Individual games shouldn't be cattering to everyone, games should be specialized, the market is big, the market is growing, the market has always been branching, stop trying to tie all the branches together, all it does is create more bland "enjoyable for everyone!" content that sorta sucks.

So we obviously have a disagreement of what inclusivity means, appealing to the fanbase is about inclusivity where you can play as a male or female. So we may be debating the same point? Also female characters in a game mustn't be objectified. This does not mean now the games will become "watered down gray tasteless mass"

 

But if a large AAA gaming studio like Ubisoft doesn't offer fans the chance to play as a female then this is a problem that they need to address. This objective is relevant in most cases and of course there are exceptions

 

If a game has a set protagonist, with a plot based on that protagonist, with a lot of thought put into that protagonist, why should there be an arbritrary version of that protagonist with or without boobs to make people who are strongly attached to their gender happy at the cost of any gameplay related to gender? Let's look at Pplanescape Torment, if it had added an arbitrary Nameless One w boobs Ravel, Falls From Grace, and Annah need to be stripped off all flavor, something else will have to replace Ravels main motivation for helping you out and later not being happy about you leaving, something else with have to replace Annahs reason for following you as well. Now, our new Planescape Torment could keep the content for males and make a barebone senseless Ravel for females, not give Annah any reason for hanging around you, but it'd mean extra work that a decent portion of the playerbase (men play chicks too) will never see, and anyone playing a female char would complain that the game massively lacks flavor. You gotta either remove all gender references from the game, build new just as good gender references for females, or just scrap the idea of a nameless one with boobs.

 

Some games are built with multiple potential genders in mind, some with multiple possible protagonists in mind, some aren't, and it is good that some aren't, because those games are capable of adding much more gender specific flavor. I'm naturally biased here as I'm a guy, like most protagonists, and as I have extremely little internal gender association, if I woke up a woman, besides being very freaked out I wouldn't really care one way or another, but despite such bias I still feel it is a very valid argument that the more you try to push for everyone being able to fullfill their deepest desires in one game, the more bland that game becomes, or the more work has to go into that game for the same content per gameplay.

 

You make some good points

 

As I mentioned there are exceptions, for example I don't expect Lara Croft to have a male protagonist. Planescape is another example where you can't really change the main character and I don't expect that change

My point about inclusivity is more for a new RPG like the latest Dragon Age, in this case there is no issue around inclusivity as Bioware has addressed this. But Ubisoft and there new Unity sequel in the AC saga. This needs to change because its not like its not technically possible to have a female character

 

Have you played any Assassin's Creed games? The nature of the Animus prevents a choice in character options because you're replaying a figure's memories within a single bloodline. The only way they could have a male and female playable character would be if they were in different time periods. Unity you're reliving Arno's memories, offering another character option means writing an entirely separate game.

 

 

Sure I hear you. And I played all the AC games except for Black Flag.

 

My issue is more with Unity and the four optional characters, all men. No women

 

Why were you ok with watch dogs then?

Or for that matter why are any ubisoft/open-world games acceptable?

The drop-in multiplayer is a recent gimmick and it will force you to play the protagonist of single-player.

Seems to me you have issues with design of many open-world games.

I just can't tell why you attack only specific titles for natural outcome of this approach.

 

 

I haven't played Watch dogs so I can't comment.

But I did play Far Cry 3 and there was no female protagonist and with some effect from Ubisoft there easily could be. Its not like AC where a female protagonist would fundamentally alter the story

 

Also I was asked to gives examples of games that aren't inclusive, so I am not attacking anyone.

[NWN_babaYaga]

bwuh huh huh... assasins creed has no woman hero in it... whuhuhu. Realy a heart breaking thing bwhu hu hu... maybe we should also call rambo = ramboline and rocky = rockyciousness etc.

 

Lara croft is a guy in disguise to let you know. I meet him personaly! All this is nuch a nonsense. It´s like calling out the witcher of being racist because there are no blacks in it. MEdieval europe had no blacks in northern europe for the most part. Woman were not allowed to do this and that and human mainstream will not change the history. sorry!

Edited September 25, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[Fighter]

See again. The industry targeting women, great. People making games with female protagonists, different types of female characters, great. Great when that's their choice, when it's objective market forces, etc. Promote this, ask for this, create this market.

 

Not great when you whine that someone has chosen to target men as opposed to women. Assassin's Creed or GTA or Dragon's Crown being made by men for men is not an "issue", is not "problematic", is not "misogyny". They owe you nothing.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Yeah Alaminium, got the same feel from FFG, however there are like half a million things that imply you're supposed to be into her, Ravel never really morphed into anything that wasn't female for the duration of the game. 

 

Given the fact that she's an anthropomorphic personification of sexual desire, I think half a million is actually selling it a bit short 

 

As for Ravel, she didn't really have a reason to, and as far as I'm aware, she probably has access to the level of spell slots where doing so is perfectly feasible. I mean, okay, the idea that she prefers female bodies is reasonable, but a/ there is no real text or subtext in the game confirming that, and b/ I like to think that an inherently magical monster with thousands of years of experience is not bound by such mortal concerns. (Then again, I prefer my monsters weird.)

 

I'll be blunt here, I strongly disapprove of just making people bisexual for the sake of the player getting to have boobs without being locked out of content, it feels incredibly fake and forced, it's pissing all over whatever idea the designer might have, diversity for the sake of diversity just comes out trashy, you'd now get people crying about there being no male love interests or whatever for the female TNO, you'd have people crying that there are no male love interests for male TNO, and if there is any forcefully inserted diversity into the game as the intended male character you'd be detracting from the game for everyone who doesn't want to play diversity rainbowland. 

 

It's not exactly "diversity for diversity's sake". It's, partially, diversity for verisimilitude's sake. In the US, about 3% of women identify as bisexuals, according to a CDC report on the matter. Sigil being such a melting pot as it is, I'm fairly sure that number should hold true (perhaps creep even higher). If there are a 100 female NPCs in the game (I think it's a rather conservative estimate), verisimilitude is maintained by having 3 bisexual NPCs. I don't necessarily think all of them have to be outspoken about their orientation, but saying that their inclusion feels forced and gratuitous, despite them conforming to the statistical average is weird. (By the way, I'm also fully in support of having bisexual male NPCs, also not that hard to insert. [Heh, insert. *snicker*])

 

As to this "detracting from the game for everyone who doesn't want diversity rainbowland"... Planescape is a weird fantasy-steampunk diversity rainbowland setting, if diversity pains them so much, maybe they shouldn't play a game set there. I mean, this is literally asking to erase a portion of universal human experience in a context where its inclusion doesn't only make sense, but actively reinforces setting assumptions. 

 

if you added a TNO with boobs, made it clear the gameplay wouldn't be altered and would just be identical as the gameplay playing a male, I couldn't give a ****, of course it'd still at the end of the day probably result in more complaints like "Black Isle believes all women are bisexuals/lesbians and stuff! Straight women oppressed for sexualization of women!", but if the devs are okay with that, so am I.

 

 

I'm fairly confident in stating that whoever reaches the conclusion of "Black Isle believes all women are bisexuals/lesbians whine whine straight erasure" based on the game having one bisexual human female is someone whose opinions can safely be ignored.

[Blarghagh]

Wow this thread grew quickly. I gotta catch up on it later.

 

Regarding inclusivity: I would love to see more female characters in games, but even moreso I would like to see more non-stereotyped minorities and especially I would like to see a trans character that is not a joke. I'm going to agree, though, that every game offering the option to play any type of character is detrimental. For it to be true inclusivity and not superficial fluff these traits are going to have to matter. I feel that complete inclusivity, as in "all games must have inclusivity options", isn't viable and would ruin artistic freedom.

 

I mean, inclusivity options for open world games and roleplaying games where you create your own character? Great! But I'm going to steal from Yahtzee's Extra Punctuation here and make the point of James Sunderland. Any of you guys played Silent Hill 2, pretty much one of the best story driven games ever made? This game would not work with a female protagonist, because of story and theme. At its heart, this is a story about male frustration and (deconstructed) themes of masculinity. Forcing an inclusivity option onto a game like that is seriously detrimental. That would be taking a movie like Disclosure - that requires a male protagonist for the story, themes and drama - and forcing the writer to rewrite him as a woman.

 

What I'm trying to say here is that inclusivity is a noble goal, but complete inclusivity isn't even viable but even moreso not productive. What we should strive for is more diversity. The problem is not that some games don't offer the option to play a woman or a black man or lesbian and only let you be a white man. The problem is that there aren't enough games that do offer those options. If there were more games available where you could play the other options, the games where you can only play a white man wouldn't be an issue.

 

This doesn't mean that some games couldn't have had more inclusivity options - and some of the excuses given by companies are ridiculous. Princess Peach's dress would have been too much work for New Super Mario Bros? That's dumb, you're goddamn Nintendo, you have practically infinite resources. Not all criticisms are valid, but some are.

 

Currently, most game developers are white men. They don't possess minority perspectives and they cannot (nor should be expected to) accurately present them. Of course, like I've said before, with more and more women (and other minorities) going into the game industry and more of them playing video games, their voices and visions will appear more. The problem is going to solve itself.

[pmp10]

But I did play Far Cry 3 and there was no female protagonist and with some effect from Ubisoft there easily could be. Its not like AC where a female protagonist would fundamentally alter the story

In Far Cry 3 the whole girlfriend/seductress plot would require complete rework.

Otherwise it wouldn't be inclusive of heterosexual women.

I'd say it's not that easy.

 

I'm all for cutting down on the male power-fantasy aspect of gaming but you are not providing much of a alternative.

[Shallow]

Again, my issue isn't with there being bisexual characters around, it's with characters who were intended to be straight being morphed into bisexuals, or characters intended to be male being morphed into women (or the other way around). I don't mind there being 3 bisexual characters in Torment, I mind there being three badly altered characters who practically shout "omg I'm bisexual isn't it awesome how [gamestudio that made me] is all inclusive and ****" , I'm sure they could've made proper bisexual characters, they were talented people, but when just randomly adding the bisexual element to a character, it will end up as described above.

There is a difference between fantasy-steampunk diversity and rainbowland harmony inclusitivity, and hell, I don't mind inclusitivity, as long as it is done tastefully, and as long as every character who is into the pc isn't bisexual purely for the sake of allowing the pc to be either gender, when the story was built with a pc of one gender in mind.

 

Technically Annah wasn't even a human, however, with Anita crying "Fallout New Vegas sexist I can kill hookers without anyone caring" right before the entire area would go into a nonsensical rage instead of just taking the "Not my problem, hell if I'm going to get killed for this" stance most people there probably should take, and with Anita having significant media influence, the people crying sexism without presenting a clear picture can have significant sway amongst the ones who do not check facts.

[Ganrich]

I like this guy:

 

[Malcador]

Ah if only, sadly no one has harassed Kuchera out of the business, yet. But any damage is good damage here.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, lets condone harassment against someone you disagree with therefore legitimizing his argument.

[Malcador]

True, but I just hate the guy so it'd make me smile if he did.

[Blarghagh]

I don't want him to be harassed out of the industry at all. I want him resign or be fired for the overwhelming amount of legitimate reasons that have been uncovered. Gaming journalism will not be able to regain credibility or legitimacy as long as he and Leigh Alexander are still in it.

[Malcador]

Hm, don't think he has done anything beyond being the irritant he alawys was, and I doubt either of them have the ability to self reflect and decide to leave - Alexander's a headcase in that regard. Doubt any of these 'journalists' have any integrity worth a damn, anyway, note Kuchera's quote about how hard writing jobs are to find these days, heh.

[kirottu]

I would be okay with them creating their own paper to keep the crazy contained in one place and people who would want to read that stuff could go there, "SJW times" or something. Not this pretending to be journalists ****.

[Orogun01]

I would be okay with them creating their own paper to keep the crazy contained in one place and people who would want to read that stuff could go there, "SJW times" or something. Not this pretending to be journalists ****.

The failing is not with the journalists, is with the editors that allowed their sites to become involved in politics. We are learning that this isn't just in game journalism, but other kinds.

[Longknife]

 

 

You shouldn't look at this in the context of "lost " and "won", because if you do anyone opposed to inclusivity has " lost " because never before has the gaming industry been more concerned and determined to create games that appeal to the whole fanbase. And to honest its irrelevant that people on 4chan think that this is a bad idea as they don't officially  develop games , this is way the industry is going

Rather see this as something positive as now games will cater for all people where appropriate

 

 

Honestly dude, what planet do you live on?

 

I'm not looking at it like "lost" and "won" like "cmon guys let's beat them at gamergate!!!" I'm saying that what that quote is saying is on par with "we cannot allow the Germans to bring such atrocities such as genocide into the world. Because of the sheer dangers this, I hereby order the extermination of all Germans."  It's a self-defeating stance. It's not "we sure showed them," it's that they went about it the wrong way before the issue even began. You're interpreting the "they've already lost" as me viewing this as a competition. No, I'm saying they've got a self-defeating stance based on that quote.

 

 

 

 

Secondly....again, what planet do you live on?

 

 

Let me be very very brutally honest with you: you have one of the least credible opinions on this forum.

 

You know why I say that? Because nothing in my post you quoted mentions 4chan, nothing mentions exclusivity in games, nothing mentions anything you're talking about. My response was, plain and simple: if she thinks we should change the perceived culture of harassment within the gaming industry, that's a fair point EVERYONE would get behind 100%, but unfortunately we've already lost that battle in that the very side claiming to be anti-harassment is equally as guilty of harassment, so no one has set a good example or done anything to actually change the culture and thus this entire clash is moot and should cease, IF her stance is truly the stance of the SJW side. Go back to the drawing board and think of something else once the tension has died down.

 

  The fact that you seem to spew out the same talking points in response to everyone, regardless of what they say? People are not listening to you, and NOT because "omg how dare Bruce spew the SJW message here!" No, people aren't listening because it seems blatantly obvious your opinion cannot and will not change, and half of what's said goes in one ear and out the other. You're doing a horrendous job of representing a group that's being labeled as zealous and quasi-religious in their moral code beliefs.

 

 

If you truly want to actually discuss things, please read my f***ing post and respond to it appropriately.

 

If I see a convo go down like this:

 

"Peanut butter and jelly sure is delicious"

"I agree and I wish 4chan would realize this and stop trying to stagnate the gaming community with their misogynistic DDoS and harassment techniques"

 

Then f*** yes I'm gonna be an ass to you because nothing pisses me off more than seeing someone lie to themselves and basically pretend to be interested in productive discussion where everyone's willing to be proven right OR WRONG for the sake of and in the interest of general progress for the community as a whole.

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, against my better judgement I'll ask how on EARTH do you figure that "never before has the gaming industry been more concerned and determined to create games that appeal to the whole fanbase?" Says who? According to what statistics? The only example I can name of a game with the deliberate intent of bringing more equality to the table is The Fine Young Capitalists, which as we all know was ultimately supported by the GamerGate side and nearly snuffed by Silverstring media.

  And even if that WERE the case that we saw an increase in games being made for everyone, there's question about how that came to happen. Allegedly it could occur via coercion, intimidation and censorship. And no, I think you'll find that many of us hold the stance of "Artistic Integrity > Equality" and would NOT be ok with this if it came at the cost of (or could potentially come at the cost of) stagnating and limiting artistic expression, so again even if that were the case, many of us would potentially be very unhappy with it.

 

No one gives a flying **** about equality in video games. They care about gameplay. If you want equality, you can kindly bring it up and request it to the developers you like when they develop games, and they'll possibly consider it. I once helped a guy ask EA to include disabled people in the next Sims game. Did they do it? No. Am I gonna cry and piss and moan about it for all eternity? WTF no they have another focus, that being GAMEPLAY. I merely spoke up to say "hey EA, this is me acknowledging that yes my demographic does exist and play your games," but they're not f***ing required to meet some quota or some crap. Same goes for every minority group ever, and if you have a problem with games that aren't socially friendly, vote with your wallet.

 

 

No need to use profanity, we are trying to have  a mature debate without feeling the need to insult each other.  And just so you don't say  "what planet are you living on "...you claimed I must " please read my f***ing post and respond to it appropriately" and you have petulantly decided to use the f**k several times in your post . Using offensive words doesn't make you sound more emphatic or clever

 

My advice is you should  learn "to  read your own  posts and respond to them accordingly " . You again have used the word " lost " which means someone has "won " or can "win"

 

To quote you  again " but unfortunately we've already lost that battle"....notice the usage of the word "lost ".

 

As I said there is no "lost " and no " won ", there is only suggested and expected change coming to the gaming industry. And then you ask " what changes around inclusivity have come to the gaming industry ". I clearly stated this which you conveniently ignored. Companies like Bioware and Obsidian already have male, female, gay and non-white characters that you can interact with. So the statistics are right in front of you if you bothered to actually see how games like RPG have changed just in the last 5 years

 

Also you say "people don't care about  equality in games"...this must be one of most bizarre points I've ever heard. Just because you don't care or think there will be any effective change that doesn't mean others don't care. The whole root cause of this Anita and Zoe furore is based on a need for inclusivity

 

And finally this will be last time I respond to you, I am tired of people who are incapable of having a debate without feeling the need to insult others. Grow up and learn to debate like an adult

 

 

 

So many things to say to this, from you blatantly missing the point to blatantly not responding to some of my points and instead spending the post trying to throw Oxford's dictionary at me over some nitpicky crap instead of...yknow, reply?

 

All I'll say is guess how many congressmen there are who get in one heated debate and then say "I refuse to debate with you ever again!!" Zero. I've given you a number of respectful posts that you've enjoyed, but apparently all of that is now moot because omg I called you out on some bull**** once. Bitterly ironic here is that in that sense I'd dare say your response is not that of an adult. Was I aggressive, hell yes I was. You know why? Because it was crystal ****ing clear you didn't read a damned thing about my post and were just interested in repeating your argument. At this point I question if you're aware of very basic facts revolving the issue, for example would you even know who kirottu's avatar is supposed to be... (nobody ruin this, let's see if he gets it)

 

But it's no matter, because honestly if this is how you respond - both in your emotional reaction and in how you fixated your response on reading Oxford's dictionary when some common sense would've sufficed - then I dare say you're not exactly capable of productive debate. You certainly haven't proven it thusfar.

 

  And once again, bitterly ironic: you're handling the scenario EXACTLY as the SJW side has been handling it, which is possibly -THE- most highly criticized part about their end of things, AKA they do not justify their actions. They focus not on what was said but how it was said, they do not respond to criticisms, they do not acknowledge good actions on behalf of the other side (such as the fact TFYC is by THEIR definition a step in the right direction and Gamergate supporters funded that, or even in other ways, such as Anita not praising New Vegas on equality but degrading it to another cog in her wheel of oppression by misleadingly presenting it as inheritly misogynistic), they don't do ANYTHING productive.

  

  They lecture, nothing more. They're incapable of anything BUT lectures. And the moment "omg I got a boo-boo cause someone called me a nasty name," it's never "ok but it's time to pick myself back up and keep fighting," it's "NOW TO USE THIS BOO BOO AS AN EXCUSE NOT TO JUSTIFY MY ACTIONS FOR ALL ETERNITY!! :D"

 

 

If that's how you "debate," then good riddance in my opinion. You shant be missed.

 

 

 

 

 

 No one is trying to 'destroy games' or take away 'hardcore games' or tell anyone what games they should or should not play. No one is trying to say that the 'male video game culture' has to die. What they are saying is that the current culture and ecosystem surrounding games has some toxic and unwelcoming areas and THAT needs to change.

 

What many are also saying, and what I wish was considered 'obvious' to everyone, is that having a more diverse group of game developers creating a more diverse set of games played by a more diverse set of players is good for everyone in the industry. It keeps this industry sustainable and creates an environment that allows creative, engaging games of all types to be made so that everyone can experience the joys of playing video games.

 

 

The very problem with this is that if this were their stance and their argument, then they've already lost by having people on their side partaking in the very same actions. It'd require leading by example, which clearly isn't happening. Not neccesarily by guilt of the person you've quoted, but merely by people sharing her opinions who could NOT manage to be "above it all" when it came to the bickering.

 

 

Or maybe this is a convenient excuse used by people who were determined to dismiss the other side anyways.

 

Asking the other side to behave in a manner you are unwilling to is a fundamentally dishonest thing. Also, how exactly is "you are guilty by association, therefore I don't have to listen to you" a different stance from "Gamergate is an organized harrassment campaign, and whoever says otherwise is either lying or has been duped"?

 

No, because she suggested changing a culture.

 

You know how a culture works? Monkey see, monkey do. In parts of the USA, Coca Cola gets referred to as "pop," in others it doesn't. In various parts of every country you'll find various different accents. And the practices you see in southern Germany will not neccesarily be repeated in the north. It's all because of culture.

 

So if a rapper for example were to say "hey, I do not like the heavy usage of swear words in our genre of music and think something should be done about it," then yes it would be a terriawful idea for him himself to engage in heavy swearing in his music. You lead by example and you set an example. You release a popular rap song, don't swear, and then hope it catches on. Maybe for example you'd sell better cause you're more kid friendly, you'd suddenly be one of the most famous rap names out there, and then viola others are following your game plan in the interest of money.

 

There's nothing "hypocritical" here because that quote is a female developer basically stating "this movement is happening and neccesary because the current culture is toxic and needs to change." Changing it by silencing every voice you don't agree with? That's madness, that's oppression. Changing it by example? By releasing a game where online trash talking and harassment can get you banned, and where the title is all-inclusive? You set an example. There's no hypocrisy going on here because the gaming community never claimed interest in changing that culture. It's merely incredibly sound advice that if you want ACTUAL change in that regard, be ready to set a good example. There's nothing unreasonable there whatsoever.

   And as I said, if that's their cause then they (as a collective that she's being treated as a part of whether she likes it or not. Sorry, that's not my doing, that's just the reality of the situation, and the reality harming BOTH sides) are truly handling it in a self-defeating way by utilizing the EXACT culture that they wish to fix. You cannot fight fire with fire when it comes to culture. Guess what happens: you get more fire.

 

  On a sidenote, want to know something you'll hear from both psychologists and lawyers alike (at times)? Stop pointing the finger. Psychologists will say don't obsess and point out the flaws of your debate partner because that heats things up; use sentences with "I" rather than with "you." Lawyers? Lawyers look at it more objectively, namely, even if you prove someone's a hypocrite, that does not prove that their claims hold no merit. So in this case even if you considered it hypocritical of me to suggest what I suggested above, you've said nothing to disprove that it is indeed sound advice.

 

 

 

I like this guy:

 

 

 

Just so we're clear, that's Tyrone. He gets paid to make messages for people:

 

Edited September 25, 2014 by Longknife

[NWN_babaYaga]

When i play a FPS and i shot a womans head to pieces is this now considered a crime ? What if i use a baseball bag and clubber a custom skin of a zoe to bloody pieces ? A realistic murder because it could be meant to be real ?

 

How many man are killed in FPs games compared to woman ? i say 10.000 to 1. Every war game has almost just man to kill and nobody ever questioned that. i think that is totaly unfair and troubles me deeply inside my sensitive heart. I want justice and i want it now. I want to have lots of female soldiers which i can eradicate with my MG42 lurking in my germnan nazi bunker of D Day beach attack. This is justice! We males should fight for being able to kill as many woman in FPS games as man. So in the future we will see only female soldiers being totaly ripped apart by bombs, knifes and machine gun fire. Get ready for that juice equality SJWs, get ready for some gorefest called justice!

 

just imagine the outcry of the cry babies if we realy start changing roles like the SJW´s want. commando lybia with females only or a soldier of fortune with females only.... we will give them what they want. Bloody reality of our modern live. Let them work in the canalisation and go to the frontline, let them do build our computers and run the businesses. I tell you we will die out in around 50 years! But a safer way would be an isolated island where we let them build their own civilisation and lets make it a reality show. We man will watch it with a smile and a beer!

Edited September 25, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[Elerond]

The failing is not with the journalists, is with the editors that allowed their sites to become involved in politics. We are learning that this isn't just in game journalism, but other kinds.

It is difficult not to be involved in politics, because many see not taking political stance as silent support for status quo. And video games have been part of several political issues and it rises such time and time again. So one could argue that games media that don't cover political issues don't do their job as good as they should. But I would also say that games media should look political issues from every point of view even when issues is banning/censuring/etc. things that are generally seen as bad thing by industry, consumers and gaming media themselves, because it is media's job to educate people about issues as comprehensively as they can. So media should not support single political view or be silent about political views, but instead cover all political views that they can cover. Addition to other things that they cover.

 

But sadly main thing that gaming media does these days is to work as additional advertisement venue for gaming companies and even more sad is that seems to be what majority of readers of gaming media want (by looking most read articles in big gaming media pages). So one could say that biggest enemy for consumers are actually consumers themselves 

[HoonDing]

"juice equality"

 

what

[NWN_babaYaga]

get ready for that kind of equality! I used juice because most people like juice but in reality this kind of juice, the real juice of equality will not be something they honestly are asking for. They want to dictate! Not equality in the sense of it´s original meaning!

[Oerwinde]

 

The failing is not with the journalists, is with the editors that allowed their sites to become involved in politics. We are learning that this isn't just in game journalism, but other kinds.

It is difficult not to be involved in politics, because many see not taking political stance as silent support for status quo. And video games have been part of several political issues and it rises such time and time again. So one could argue that games media that don't cover political issues don't do their job as good as they should. But I would also say that games media should look political issues from every point of view even when issues is banning/censuring/etc. things that are generally seen as bad thing by industry, consumers and gaming media themselves, because it is media's job to educate people about issues as comprehensively as they can. So media should not support single political view or be silent about political views, but instead cover all political views that they can cover. Addition to other things that they cover.

 

But sadly main thing that gaming media does these days is to work as additional advertisement venue for gaming companies and even more sad is that seems to be what majority of readers of gaming media want (by looking most read articles in big gaming media pages). So one could say that biggest enemy for consumers are actually consumers themselves

I think a good compromise would be to set up the sites like newspaper websites, with the news the most prominent part of the page, with an editorial section off to the side with the author displayed above the title. This way they don't shove their editorial content in peoples faces, and if you know you don't like a particular person's writig, you can avoid it before clicking the link.

[Orogun01]

 

The failing is not with the journalists, is with the editors that allowed their sites to become involved in politics. We are learning that this isn't just in game journalism, but other kinds.

It is difficult not to be involved in politics, because many see not taking political stance as silent support for status quo. And video games have been part of several political issues and it rises such time and time again. So one could argue that games media that don't cover political issues don't do their job as good as they should. But I would also say that games media should look political issues from every point of view even when issues is banning/censuring/etc. things that are generally seen as bad thing by industry, consumers and gaming media themselves, because it is media's job to educate people about issues as comprehensively as they can. So media should not support single political view or be silent about political views, but instead cover all political views that they can cover. Addition to other things that they cover.

 

But sadly main thing that gaming media does these days is to work as additional advertisement venue for gaming companies and even more sad is that seems to be what majority of readers of gaming media want (by looking most read articles in big gaming media pages). So one could say that biggest enemy for consumers are actually consumers themselves 

 

They are turtles that want to fly, gaming media is about gaming. Fluff for the sake of the writer rather than the audience, worse is that they are so obtuse that they have to look outside the industry for issues. Shows how much they know about what goes on or what should be considered problematic.

[Ganrich]

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/