Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Nakia]

I am a woman, an older one who was around in the late Sixties and Sevnties when women did struggle for equal rights.   I believe in equal rights.  That does not mean I believe that men and women are the same, they aren't.

 

I play games for entertainment, relaxation, to relieve stress or escape the boredom of the mundane world.  In a game I am the most powerful being there.  I am the hero, the saviour of the world or just an adventurer who landed in a sticky situation.  I have played D&D games where women lost a couple of points of strength but gained some bonus points to dexterity.  Had no problem with that.  I do like my melee fighters dressed in proper armour but have women friends who like the sexy armour for their character.  I have never played Witchers but have female friends who love it.  I like looking at attractive women and attractive men.  Who wants a bunch of hags in their games as the main character?  In a game I can be young, beautiful and powerful. 

 

My opinion of these women and the men who support who have the audacity to call themselves feminists is that they are femitrolls.  Playing a power game and that they are being discriminatory and sexist themselves.  They want to take all the fun out of life.  Guess they are so miserable they want the rest of us to be miserable.

 

If I offend anyone here I do not apologize as that is my strongly held opinion.

[Chilloutman]

I am a woman, an older one who was around in the late Sixties and Sevnties when women did struggle for equal rights.   I believe in equal rights.  That does not mean I believe that men and women are the same, they aren't.

 

I play games for entertainment, relaxation, to relieve stress or escape the boredom of the mundane world.  In a game I am the most powerful being there.  I am the hero, the saviour of the world or just an adventurer who landed in a sticky situation.  I have played D&D games where women lost a couple of points of strength but gained some bonus points to dexterity.  Had no problem with that.  I do like my melee fighters dressed in proper armour but have women friends who like the sexy armour for their character.  I have never played Witchers but have female friends who love it.  I like looking at attractive women and attractive men.  Who wants a bunch of hags in their games as the main character?  In a game I can be young, beautiful and powerful. 

 

My opinion of these women and the men who support who have the audacity to call themselves feminists is that they are femitrolls.  Playing a power game and that they are being discriminatory and sexist themselves.  They want to take all the fun out of life.  Guess they are so miserable they want the rest of us to be miserable.

 

If I offend anyone here I do not apologize as that is my strongly held opinion.

 

Well at least you offended Bruce, but dont worry, there is enough of 'Gray Knights' who will support you against his rays of rainbow mind control

[Nakia]

 

I am a woman, an older one who was around in the late Sixties and Sevnties when women did struggle for equal rights.   I believe in equal rights.  That does not mean I believe that men and women are the same, they aren't.

 

I play games for entertainment, relaxation, to relieve stress or escape the boredom of the mundane world.  In a game I am the most powerful being there.  I am the hero, the saviour of the world or just an adventurer who landed in a sticky situation.  I have played D&D games where women lost a couple of points of strength but gained some bonus points to dexterity.  Had no problem with that.  I do like my melee fighters dressed in proper armour but have women friends who like the sexy armour for their character.  I have never played Witchers but have female friends who love it.  I like looking at attractive women and attractive men.  Who wants a bunch of hags in their games as the main character?  In a game I can be young, beautiful and powerful. 

 

My opinion of these women and the men who support who have the audacity to call themselves feminists is that they are femitrolls.  Playing a power game and that they are being discriminatory and sexist themselves.  They want to take all the fun out of life.  Guess they are so miserable they want the rest of us to be miserable.

 

If I offend anyone here I do not apologize as that is my strongly held opinion.

 

Well at least you offended Bruce, but dont worry, there is enough of 'Gray Knights' who will support you against his rays of rainbow mind control

 

Thank you, I am immune to mind control rays.  I am armoured in my own arrogrant opinions.  Actually I toned down what I think of these people.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Its hard to relate to modern art because it has moved away from the notions of beauty that are easier to admire. I understand why it has done so, but I am too, rarely impressed by what I see. However, once you get into the depth of drawing and painting, you come to appreciate how difficult it is to "do more with less". Representing things in as few lines and colors as possible and keeping it all in balance and beautiful is a huge and very difficult juggling act. 

 

As far as games are concerned, they aren't art. A dog biting on your ass will provoke an emotional response, that does not make the act artistic. To be art games need to contribute something valuable to the human condition as in the great works of literature, or be exceedingly beautiful as great works of art, or sometimes both, as film can do (rarely).

 

So far, that hasn't been happening.

 

 

Although the likes of Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld and Planescape Torment are the ones that I consider having "artistic value".

 

Interesting definition. How would you quantify "contributed something to the human condition"? Because that sounds like a bunch of floaty mumbo jumbo to me (no offense, I really am interested in how you quantify it). I suppose I could add "cultural impact" to my list of things I recognize over "art", but it's hard to gouge and a lot of things that aren't "art" have cultural impact. As for modern art that actually does such things as you describe, that can fall under craftmanship or self-expression. Like I said, you can recognize what people call the amorphous blob "art" as different things and remove the debate because art has become a silly word with no meaning anyway, a dumb emotional construct. If people would appreciate craftmanship or evocativeness or any of the other things I mentioned in my post rather than dumping it all into "art" it would be a lot easier. I mean, look at what Wikipedia has to say about Art: "Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities." It's bloody nonsense, that's what it is. As a game designer, I recognize a lot of craftmanship goes into video games. There's no debate to be had there, so why are we debating whether it falls under "the products of a diverse range of human activities".

 

 

As aluminiumtrioxid said. You will find the inevitable "what is art" discussion on the first page of any art history book and while it is recognized that the question can't be answered fully because art is subject to change and reinterpretation you can still train yourself to appreciate partly by knowledge, and partly by intuition.

 

Craftsmanship and evocativeness are both insufficient traits.  A masterful craftsman can paint a photo-realistic portrait, but that portrait can still be of low artistic value. A B-movie poster can be very evocative, but also be utter kitsch at the same time.

 

I have an interest in art although my knowledge of the subject is limited. I don't see what the great works of literature, art, architecture have in games. At best, they imitate them without offering anything new and of lasting value. At worst they're nothing more than a time waster.

[Meshugger]

I am a woman, an older one who was around in the late Sixties and Sevnties when women did struggle for equal rights.   I believe in equal rights.  That does not mean I believe that men and women are the same, they aren't.

 

I play games for entertainment, relaxation, to relieve stress or escape the boredom of the mundane world.  In a game I am the most powerful being there.  I am the hero, the saviour of the world or just an adventurer who landed in a sticky situation.  I have played D&D games where women lost a couple of points of strength but gained some bonus points to dexterity.  Had no problem with that.  I do like my melee fighters dressed in proper armour but have women friends who like the sexy armour for their character.  I have never played Witchers but have female friends who love it.  I like looking at attractive women and attractive men.  Who wants a bunch of hags in their games as the main character?  In a game I can be young, beautiful and powerful. 

 

My opinion of these women and the men who support who have the audacity to call themselves feminists is that they are femitrolls.  Playing a power game and that they are being discriminatory and sexist themselves.  They want to take all the fun out of life.  Guess they are so miserable they want the rest of us to be miserable.

 

If I offend anyone here I do not apologize as that is my strongly held opinion.

 

Don't worry, it's just your internalized misogyny speaking for your agency, m'lady. Now don't you worry now. I am a very nice guy, not unlike those other nerds, and i will now escort you and your fragile body to our HugBox 2014-convention, entrance-fee only 1450$ a-piece. No, no, it's not at all my priviledge, it's entirely yours. You have now control of your own body. 

 

Just sit down, and listen & believe.

[Blarghagh]

 

 

Its hard to relate to modern art because it has moved away from the notions of beauty that are easier to admire. I understand why it has done so, but I am too, rarely impressed by what I see. However, once you get into the depth of drawing and painting, you come to appreciate how difficult it is to "do more with less". Representing things in as few lines and colors as possible and keeping it all in balance and beautiful is a huge and very difficult juggling act. 

 

As far as games are concerned, they aren't art. A dog biting on your ass will provoke an emotional response, that does not make the act artistic. To be art games need to contribute something valuable to the human condition as in the great works of literature, or be exceedingly beautiful as great works of art, or sometimes both, as film can do (rarely).

 

So far, that hasn't been happening.

 

 

Although the likes of Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld and Planescape Torment are the ones that I consider having "artistic value".

 

Interesting definition. How would you quantify "contributed something to the human condition"? Because that sounds like a bunch of floaty mumbo jumbo to me (no offense, I really am interested in how you quantify it). I suppose I could add "cultural impact" to my list of things I recognize over "art", but it's hard to gouge and a lot of things that aren't "art" have cultural impact. As for modern art that actually does such things as you describe, that can fall under craftmanship or self-expression. Like I said, you can recognize what people call the amorphous blob "art" as different things and remove the debate because art has become a silly word with no meaning anyway, a dumb emotional construct. If people would appreciate craftmanship or evocativeness or any of the other things I mentioned in my post rather than dumping it all into "art" it would be a lot easier. I mean, look at what Wikipedia has to say about Art: "Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities." It's bloody nonsense, that's what it is. As a game designer, I recognize a lot of craftmanship goes into video games. There's no debate to be had there, so why are we debating whether it falls under "the products of a diverse range of human activities".

 

 

As aluminiumtrioxid said. You will find the inevitable "what is art" discussion on the first page of any art history book and while it is recognized that the question can't be answered fully because art is subject to change and reinterpretation you can still train yourself to appreciate partly by knowledge, and partly by intuition.

 

Craftsmanship and evocativeness are both insufficient traits.  A masterful craftsman can paint a photo-realistic portrait, but that portrait can still be of low artistic value. A B-movie poster can be very evocative, but also be utter kitsch at the same time.

 

I have an interest in art although my knowledge of the subject is limited. I don't see what the great works of literature, art, architecture have in games. At best, they imitate them without offering anything new and of lasting value. At worst they're nothing more than a time waster.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of classic, not art. "A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic

 

This is why I reject the notion of art, it's a nebulous term that's "subject to change" and "can't be answered fully" - i.e. it's nonsense. I can respect a classic, I can respect lasting value, I can respect emotional representation and self-expression. But "art" is just a catch-all term that really doesn't mean anything and causes endless debate because people keep insisting it does. I can respect a lot of things that people can consider "art" but the term itself needs to fade away like anything else that has no use.

[kirottu]

[Keyrock]

I am a woman, an older one who was around in the late Sixties and Sevnties when women did struggle for equal rights.   I believe in equal rights.  That does not mean I believe that men and women are the same, they aren't.

 

I play games for entertainment, relaxation, to relieve stress or escape the boredom of the mundane world.  In a game I am the most powerful being there.  I am the hero, the saviour of the world or just an adventurer who landed in a sticky situation.  I have played D&D games where women lost a couple of points of strength but gained some bonus points to dexterity.  Had no problem with that.  I do like my melee fighters dressed in proper armour but have women friends who like the sexy armour for their character.  I have never played Witchers but have female friends who love it.  I like looking at attractive women and attractive men.  Who wants a bunch of hags in their games as the main character?  In a game I can be young, beautiful and powerful. 

 

My opinion of these women and the men who support who have the audacity to call themselves feminists is that they are femitrolls.  Playing a power game and that they are being discriminatory and sexist themselves.  They want to take all the fun out of life.  Guess they are so miserable they want the rest of us to be miserable.

 

If I offend anyone here I do not apologize as that is my strongly held opinion.

This post is Bak Mei approved

[Chilloutman]

 

You have to love C&C just for music

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

This is why I reject the notion of art, it's a nebulous term that's "subject to change" and "can't be answered fully" - i.e. it's nonsense. I can respect a classic, I can respect lasting value, I can respect emotional representation and self-expression. But "art" is just a catch-all term that really doesn't mean anything and causes endless debate because people keep insisting it does. I can respect a lot of things that people can consider "art" but the term itself needs to fade away like anything else that has no use.

 

 

Well, that would certainly spare us from having to do the "are games ART yet?" discussion over and over and over again anytime some pretentious bull**** pops up on Steam.

Edited November 21, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

Its hard to relate to modern art because it has moved away from the notions of beauty that are easier to admire. I understand why it has done so, but I am too, rarely impressed by what I see. However, once you get into the depth of drawing and painting, you come to appreciate how difficult it is to "do more with less". Representing things in as few lines and colors as possible and keeping it all in balance and beautiful is a huge and very difficult juggling act. 

 

As far as games are concerned, they aren't art. A dog biting on your ass will provoke an emotional response, that does not make the act artistic. To be art games need to contribute something valuable to the human condition as in the great works of literature, or be exceedingly beautiful as great works of art, or sometimes both, as film can do (rarely).

 

So far, that hasn't been happening.

 

 

Although the likes of Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld and Planescape Torment are the ones that I consider having "artistic value".

 

Interesting definition. How would you quantify "contributed something to the human condition"? Because that sounds like a bunch of floaty mumbo jumbo to me (no offense, I really am interested in how you quantify it). I suppose I could add "cultural impact" to my list of things I recognize over "art", but it's hard to gouge and a lot of things that aren't "art" have cultural impact. As for modern art that actually does such things as you describe, that can fall under craftmanship or self-expression. Like I said, you can recognize what people call the amorphous blob "art" as different things and remove the debate because art has become a silly word with no meaning anyway, a dumb emotional construct. If people would appreciate craftmanship or evocativeness or any of the other things I mentioned in my post rather than dumping it all into "art" it would be a lot easier. I mean, look at what Wikipedia has to say about Art: "Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities." It's bloody nonsense, that's what it is. As a game designer, I recognize a lot of craftmanship goes into video games. There's no debate to be had there, so why are we debating whether it falls under "the products of a diverse range of human activities".

 

 

As aluminiumtrioxid said. You will find the inevitable "what is art" discussion on the first page of any art history book and while it is recognized that the question can't be answered fully because art is subject to change and reinterpretation you can still train yourself to appreciate partly by knowledge, and partly by intuition.

 

Craftsmanship and evocativeness are both insufficient traits.  A masterful craftsman can paint a photo-realistic portrait, but that portrait can still be of low artistic value. A B-movie poster can be very evocative, but also be utter kitsch at the same time.

 

I have an interest in art although my knowledge of the subject is limited. I don't see what the great works of literature, art, architecture have in games. At best, they imitate them without offering anything new and of lasting value. At worst they're nothing more than a time waster.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of classic, not art. "A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic

 

This is why I reject the notion of art, it's a nebulous term that's "subject to change" and "can't be answered fully" - i.e. it's nonsense. I can respect a classic, I can respect lasting value, I can respect emotional representation and self-expression. But "art" is just a catch-all term that really doesn't mean anything and causes endless debate because people keep insisting it does. I can respect a lot of things that people can consider "art" but the term itself needs to fade away like anything else that has no use.

 

 

In every place you wrote art you could just as easily write "religion", argue how it causes endless debates and needs to fade away because its old and has no use and then be faced with the reality that most of the world is comprised of people who believe in some religion or other and be proven wrong.

 

Creating art is a fundamental part of being human and the concept of something being art, and something else not qualifying has served the world well for a long time.  

[Longknife]

 

 

While that may or may not be true for feminism as a whole, I don't believe that opinion is the type of opinion we're dealing with HERE with GamerGate. Take Bayonetta for example. She's hardly "just eye candy" as she's the main character, the protagonist and the character with more detail and backstory than anyone else in the entire series, and yet she's being given **** for the sexualized outfits. That's my point: the feminism GG is dealing with seems quid pro quo, where yes the women who want knights-in-shining-armor with vaginas would be quite pleased, but the women who consider sex empowering would not be pleased. I would be all for both co-existing, but I do not get the vibe that that's what the people of Polygon, SilverString media and others want to see happen. 

 

 

 

I think you fundamentally misunderstand their point: the problem is that "knights-in-shining-armor with vaginas" (wouldn't it have been easier to just call them "female fighters in reasonable armor"?) are currently not represented in gaming, or at least not nearly to the extent sexualized female characters are.

 

If you could provide links with actual quotes - quotes that mean the same thing in the wider context of the source, if possible - where they're asking for all sexualized female depictions to be immediately replaced with chaste nuns/vaginas in a tin can/whatever, I'd be more than happy to admit that I've been proven wrong.

 

 

 

I suggested a pregnant woman completely alone in a wild and hostile environment probably wasn't a good idea, thus some protection is of value. I would cite the same fact of biology as being the cause for most early armies being composed of men: because they are capable of reproducing while remaining strong and physically intimidating.

 

 

 

And as I have pointed out, the theory has a solid foundation in the fact that pregnant women are comparatively vulnerable, but "pregnant women need protection, men won't give protection to pregnant women if they're not absolutely sure that said woman is carrying their genetic material, therefore ****-shaming is biologically determined" is a hypothesis that can't be considered to prove anything not just because it's making a few logical jumps I find questionable, but because there is no way of setting up an experiment where it can be scientifically tested.

 

 

 

 

Just quoting these two cause to your first, my point was more or less that I don't think such an obscure website and it's definitions are fantastic reference material and I think we can all agree on this, cause EVERYONE within the thread here seemed to find the site odd. Likewise - and I could be mistaken - but I do believe the redpill terminology is something various people toss around with varying definitions, as I've seen it from both sides now (albeit just in random comments and such, but at least shows some degree of variance).

 

 

And to the last point about studies, my point was more that my last experience of a debate involving two studies that contradicted each other simply resulted in both sides clinging to the study that supported their views while pointing at the other and saying "no ur wrong." It turns into a situation where neither one of us is able to prove the other wrong and just becomes a stupid "stalemate."  Having said that:

 

 

 

I think you fundamentally misunderstand their point: the problem is that "knights-in-shining-armor with vaginas" (wouldn't it have been easier to just call them "female fighters in reasonable armor"?) are currently not represented in gaming, or at least not nearly to the extent sexualized female characters are.

 

If you could provide links with actual quotes - quotes that mean the same thing in the wider context of the source, if possible - where they're asking for all sexualized female depictions to be immediately replaced with chaste nuns/vaginas in a tin can/whatever, I'd be more than happy to admit that I've been proven wrong.

 

 

This would be a tad difficult as admittedly a lot of the context involved with that point is basically articles throughout the years or even little twitter snippets from the same groups of people. Also difficult when I'm boycotting some of the websites that would likely voice such opinions.

 

 

For an example of what I mean by "difficult," my gut instinct was to google "Zero Suit Samus sexist," "Metroid Other M sexist" or "Lara Croft sexist" and see what came up.

 

As examples I get these, but I don't know who these guys are. They only suggest the controversy was real:

 

http://dispatches.cheatcc.com/855

http://www.apixelatedview.com/zero-suit-samus-sexist/

 

There also seems to be a kotaku article complaining about Samus' heels in the new Smash Bros by Kotaku. I don't really archive often but give this link a try: https://archive.today/GgrqO

 

There's also the coverage of Bayonetta 2: https://archive.today/UGKCS

 

Give it a read, there's a point where they just rant about how the camera can provide the player with cleavage shots or ass shots.

 

And another article to reinforce that complaints about sexualized female protagonists exist, here's a Forbes article that acknowledges long-standing criticism about Lara Croft as a sex object: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2013/03/12/a-feminist-reviews-tomb-raiders-lara-croft/2/  (yes not directly from the innermost industry, but simply linked to show this idea that sexualized female protagonists are seen as controversial is not new)

 

Another game that comes to mind....the name escapes me atm. It was some hack and slash game where you could play as like a witch, a paladin, an archer or...something else, a mage? The female witch character (the main character, I believe, though I'm unsure) had outrageously large...back problems. Wish I knew her name or the name of the game atm but I don't. Sorry to say I've had a lot on my plate lately. But if anyone knows the game I'm talking about, I'm sure you could find plenty of comments on that with a google search of the title and "sexist."

 

 

Now yes, to be fair none of these are proof that they are 100% opposed to sexualized female protagonists, and if you disagree there then fair enough. But I hope you'd also agree there is at least decent reason to suspect the more gender-neutral and conservative female look is the one that'd get the most praise, that'd get the most promotion and is the one such websites wish to see. After all, the complaints about Bayonetta and Samus would be void if they never wore revealing attire. Sexualized female protagonists still come under scrutiny, even when the sexualization is nothing beyond an outfit. And I believe that were this little feminist clique to run the show, we would eventually see the sexualized versions of these characters disappear completely. Mind you I personally don't consider that a terrible loss, but I simply name that because the fact is there are women who actually like that kind of look, so ultimately it's just opinion vs. opinion, and as I said both existing would be for the best.

   I mean great example? Surely we all know about the questions surrounding boobplate or chainmail bikinis in Pillars of Eternity. They said they'd skip that, but once again this acknowledges the long-standing issue, and I funded the game with my only commentary on that matter being "include one set of chainmail bikini armor that gives an additional +200% sexiness while making the character take 400% extra damage" for an easter egg.

 

 

I don't mind either way, I just mind when one opinion seems geared towards drowning another out.  And on that note let me again clarify I'm not against, for example (and I've said this before) Anita has a very basic and kinda cliche video game story idea on her channel (which I actually hear has been done before) and I think it'd be great if she just made the damned thing. In an ideal world everyone would just make games that suit their opinions and let's see what gets popular. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case, and it seems as though we have an industry that will first complain about no female protagonists and then complain about the appearance of female protagonists.

 

 

 

And as I have pointed out, the theory has a solid foundation in the fact that pregnant women are comparatively vulnerable, but "pregnant women need protection, men won't give protection to pregnant women if they're not absolutely sure that said woman is carrying their genetic material, therefore ****-shaming is biologically determined" is a hypothesis that can't be considered to prove anything not just because it's making a few logical jumps I find questionable, but because there is no way of setting up an experiment where it can be scientifically tested.

 

 

 

Merely wanted to clarify that what seems interesting is that you seem to be citing a different study from the one I saw altogether, as you seem to be implying the Selfish Gene theory (believe that's it's name?) played a role in the study you saw, whereas it didn't in mine. Mine simply stated sex was a form of bartering and in that sense could be used in exchange for added protection during the pregnancy, but fell through when the area had a ****.

 

 

And while we cannot prove or disprove it and science is constantly correcting itself, I merely meant to name it as an example of how some things are not going to be as simple as "changing the culture" for various reasons, in this case instinct. Even without that argument though and for argument's sake if we disproved that study tomorrow without a shadow of a doubt, there's still the issue of overcoming thousands of years of history and art with a clear gender bias. The initial discussion here was that I consider feminism to be a pipe dream even IF we were all in agreement it needs to happen, because there's a number of things that would make changing the culture difficult, from art to history to potentially instinct. Hell, it's still kind of difficult to argue instinct doesn't play a role as it's not so farfetched of an idea for **** shaming to be instinctual (women have superior hearing for certain decibels as well as better eyesight (colorblindness) for reasons tracing back to caveman times, iirc) and while we both agree claiming every woman is submissive is ludicrous, there's also no real denying that the majority of the female population is.

 

On a side note, since you study biology and quite frankly I'm VERY busy lately, it'd be quicker just to ask you: I could be mistaken but is there not some form of instinctual mechanic still in place to a degree where women can feel attraction after a "power display?" I'm hesitant to word it that way cause lord knows every guy who's ever tried to impress a girl by drinking too much, getting into an unneccesary fight or by having a fancy car has blatantly missed the picture, but I do think I recall there being some truth to a hormone in place that encourages attraction after a display of power.

 

  I also tried googling for this just on the off-chance I'd hit something. Not quite but did find this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/14/women-sexual-preference-ovulation/5434071/

 

I'd be interested in your opinions on it (and sorry in advance if I'm slow to respond in the future) but yeah, overall my point with that was more or less that I consider it very very naive to try and rework gender roles when there's elements of history, art and biology all at place to make that all the more difficult.

 

 Things like pay equality or equal rights across the board are more common sense and I struggle to name anyone who'd oppose those, but when I hear a feminist claiming that we need just as many stories of women saving men or that society is what's keeping women from being physicists...that's about the point when I start to find it very naive.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Longknife

[Chilloutman]

Well I think that many games can be considered 'art' in same way as movies can be considered 'art'. If they have some academic value or even if they will ever became 'classic' is other question

[Longknife]

This is why I reject the notion of art, it's a nebulous term that's "subject to change" and "can't be answered fully" - i.e. it's nonsense. I can respect a classic, I can respect lasting value, I can respect emotional representation and self-expression. But "art" is just a catch-all term that really doesn't mean anything and causes endless debate because people keep insisting it does. I can respect a lot of things that people can consider "art" but the term itself needs to fade away like anything else that has no use.

 

 

 

Personally when I say "art," I consider that "a form of expression, typically one where the creator felt so passionate about something or a part of life that they wanted to dedicate a work to it" and this at the very least usually does wonders to seperate good art from "bad" art. Good art makes me think and reflect on life in new ways or have a deeper understanding of habits and my lifestyle as it already was, bad art often comes off as pretentious or like it's trying too hard to feel important, OR it's obvious the creator was interested in money, not expression.

 

 

  Basic example, I consider New Vegas art because the themes and motifs of war, of moving on but respecting history and various other little side-issues the game touches on? Those ring true and can be seen repeatedly throughout every step of gameplay.

  Skyrim by contrast? It's riding on the efforts of a series that was art before it arrived, but that chapter itself is nothing but pandering to the biggest cash cow audience for the sake of profit. It makes little to no effort to express itself in any particular way and just provides content for the sake of content. There's also obvious cash cows like Call of Duty that have no interest in artistic expression, they just wanna make a buck.

  Ironically, many of the games that aim to be art...? I consider them pretty weak, because oftentimes it just feels like the person made a movie...but instead it was a game. In that sense, it being a game serves absolutely zero purpose, other than the creator doing it to be edgy or for "shock value" (wrong word but you get the idea).

Edited November 21, 2014 by Longknife

[Longknife]

Oh, before I forget. This is largely fluff and meaningless, it's just something that caught my eye and felt worth mentioning as something odd/funny.

 

 

A while back I posted a video of Roundabout:

 

 

 

I posted it to point out how, because of the whole SJW clique in the gaming media and particularly amongst indie devs, I was now questioning if a female lead with a lesbian relationship (if you can call it that since the game is odd and never acknowledges Georgio's gender) was an initial choice of the creators or one they felt inclined to make due to the situation of things. I believe TrueNeutral pointed it out as a good point but said he thought it was unlikely to be the case since the game was made by the SomethingAwful crowd and they just screw around. Fast forward, I believe I've heard a number of things about Zoe Quinn once being involved with SomethingAwful, as well as SomethingAwful posting a youtube vid passively mocking Gamergate (I could find it I think if someone wants).

 

   Likewise when Anita appeared on Colbert? Something caught my eye: the actress who played Georgio was estatic and excited for Anita, being one of the first to respond when Anita tweeted a picture of herself in Colbert's seat.

 

 

Again fast forward, one of Ubisoft's writers has been ****ting all over GamerGate and calling it a terrorist group. Far Cry 4 releases and I watch Vinny play it AS I WAIT FOR ANOTHER TOMODACHI LIFE EPISODE COME THE **** ON VINNY I WANNA KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO WALRUS AND TWO-FACED, and something again catches my eye. One of the first instances of NPC dialog involves an NPC telling Vinny that a prominent member of the game's "Golden Path" faction made it so that women can serve in their militia, which was a controversial decision at the time. The name of the woman who made that choice? Amita. This is also interesting because it would appear much of Far Cry 4 is recycled assets from Far Cry 3, yet Far Cry 3 lacked female enemies or fighters period. This would mean somewhere in development they decided having female militia was a worthwhile effort. In contrast to that, let's be clear Amita is an actual Hindi (think it was Hindi...?) name and not just something lazily made up. But yeah it jumped out at me because likewise, Far Cry's writers have always seemed pretentious. as. f**k. to me, with the writer for 3 trying to explain it like it was some complex work of art (it was god awful ****) and if you look up the endings to Far Cry 4, one of the endings is noticeably very very boring compared to the others as if they were trying to make some kind of artistic statement. Just seemed like the kind of attitude I'd expect from SilverString media or something.

 

 

 

 

As I said, none of this can be proven or anything and I know it can sound a little conspiracy-theory-esque, I just find it all kind of funny because...well let's say I'm noticing things that AREN'T just coincidences, then this would show just how deep the Kool-Aid bowl is. Too bad we can never know, cause I'd be curious to know if such design decisions were on the initiative of the developers themselves or by request of this very same clique of thought.

 

 

 

No idea if anyone is interested in the above post or gives a damn, but again before I forget:

 

 

 

"Ubisoft flew me and some others out to San Francisco to play an early build of their game."

 

 

At the risk of sounding tin-foil hat-ish I really am beginning to wonder if Ubi does not have some deeper connections with someone like Silverstring media. :D

[Blarghagh]

In every place you wrote art you could just as easily write "religion", argue how it causes endless debates and needs to fade away because its old and has no use and then be faced with the reality that most of the world is comprised of people who believe in some religion or other and be proven wrong.

 

Creating art is a fundamental part of being human and the concept of something being art, and something else not qualifying has served the world well for a long time.  

 

Except you can't, you literally cherry picked the only instance in all my posts on the subject where that would make sense and this isn't mad libs. Religion has a clear meaning, definition. When you say religion, nobody is going to ask "psh what is religion anyway" and not look like an idiot. Nobody is going to say "religion" is a nebulous term. The word has a purpose. The word "art" does not.

 

A lot of the things that people qualify as art, such as expression, emotion, imagination, passion, representation, craftmanship, appreciation, creativity, innovation, sentiment, self-expression, beauty, value and evocativenes, etc. are a fundemental parts of being human but "art" itself is just a dumb word with no meaning other than pretentiousness that devalues all of those things by throwing them together with a catch-all term and it needs to go away. I'm fine with people doing what you consider "making art", but that's not really what they're doing because art is not a thing. It's a void of meaning. It doesn't exist in any way, shape or form and it never will.

[Drowsy Emperor]

...I'm still waiting for my art history books to dematerialize before my eyes and return to the void.

 

Seriously, if you want to games to gain the status of art among serious people make something worthwhile. Insisting on the opposite, that art stops being a thing is Quixotic "flailing at the windmills" and won't help in any way.

 

I'm on your side in this. With enough money and expertise I'd try to make a game that would stand the test of time. And by that I don't mean what passes for time the world of electronic entertainment.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Orogun01]

...I'm still waiting for my art history books to dematerialize before my eyes and return to the void.

 

Seriously, if you want to games to gain the status of art among serious people make something worthwhile. Insisting on the opposite, that art stops being a thing is Quixotic "flailing at the windmills" and won't help in any way.

 

I'm on your side in this. With enough money and expertise I'd try to make a game that would stand the test of time. And by that I don't mean what passes for time the world of electronic entertainment.

I think we already have games that stand the test of time, Tetris being the one that pops to mind. The problem is that most people saying that games are art are doing it because of the visuals or the story, is never about the rules and mechanics; you know, the game bits.

[Blarghagh]

I don't care whether or not someone considers games art because I don't think art exists. I'd love to see a game that stands the test of time, that leaves lasting impressions and changes the zeitgeist. It'd be a classic. Would it be art? Nope, because that's not a thing.

 

As for "art history", the books and classes I've had on the subject generally ended up being specific. Chronology of painting styles and their users, for example. It was never really about "art" as a grand subject, it was always about specific things and I felt calling it "art" instead of using specific definitions cheapened it. It might say "art history" on the cover as a label but that doesn't give the word "art" any more of a meaning.

[Keyrock]

I'd say that Super Mario Bros. stands the test of time.  That game is almost 30 years old and has influenced pretty much every culture around the world and continues to do so.  Obviously, that's a short period of time in the grand scheme of things, but I fully expect that 200 years from now the impression that game left on the world will still be felt to some degree.

[Meshugger]

I'd say that Super Mario Bros. stands the test of time.  That game is almost 30 years old and has influenced pretty much every culture around the world and continues to do so.  Obviously, that's a short period of time in the grand scheme of things, but I fully expect that 200 years from now the impression that game left on the world will still be felt to some degree.

 

In the dystopian future this game will feature a stamp of "questionable content" as the story of Mario & Pals contain tropes that might not be suitable for the justiceunawares.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Meshugger

[Meshugger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj6jREPcp10

Edited November 21, 2014 by Meshugger

[Blarghagh]

 

I'd say that Super Mario Bros. stands the test of time.  That game is almost 30 years old and has influenced pretty much every culture around the world and continues to do so.  Obviously, that's a short period of time in the grand scheme of things, but I fully expect that 200 years from now the impression that game left on the world will still be felt to some degree.

 

In the dystopian future this game will feature a stamp of "questionable content" as the story of Mario & Pals contain tropes that might not be suitable for the justiceunawares.

 

 

It's already got that. Damsel in distress, remember?

[Meshugger]

 

 

I'd say that Super Mario Bros. stands the test of time.  That game is almost 30 years old and has influenced pretty much every culture around the world and continues to do so.  Obviously, that's a short period of time in the grand scheme of things, but I fully expect that 200 years from now the impression that game left on the world will still be felt to some degree.

 

In the dystopian future this game will feature a stamp of "questionable content" as the story of Mario & Pals contain tropes that might not be suitable for the justiceunawares.

 

 

It's already got that. Damsel in distress, remember?

 

 

Me dumb, me don't follow.

[Orogun01]

I'd say that Super Mario Bros. stands the test of time.  That game is almost 30 years old and has influenced pretty much every culture around the world and continues to do so.  Obviously, that's a short period of time in the grand scheme of things, but I fully expect that 200 years from now the impression that game left on the world will still be felt to some degree.

Funny, I fully expect that 200 years from now Nintendo will still be making Mario games...and Zelda games.