I have a question about Gamergate

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Rogerer was right that I posted that old review as something of a gag, but I did wanna point out that reviews absent of political slants are possible. It's the entirety of classic EGM's reviews, for instance. When you say games are growing up and thus new kinds of criticism are required, I kinda call bullshit on that. Games have been criticized well enough for years and has they evolved toward realism or alternative goals, so to did commentary change with them. Now I'm not saying you can't make a review that expresses your political rhetoric, but you have to remember these games aren't made to promote any political or social commentary. Judging them as such makes a monkey out of you. If you wanted to review a Tom Clancy game through the lens of political rhetoric that makes perfect sense. Even the Metal Gear games for all their military fantasy. I can see that. But it's unfair viewing a game through political lens when the creators didn't venture out for that kind of thing. It's a major missing the point as well as painting a developer/publisher in a corner they never prepared for. And I don't think they should start preparing for them. In my review I highlighted Ada as sexy and secretive, tropes of the Femme Fatale archetype. It is exactly the words you use to describe that kind of character. A women would write the same thing if she wanted to highlight her and the trope. The developers were very aware of the character type as well. It makes sense to mention that. I won't call Leon sexy not because I'm not gay - but because his character traits weren't made with that in mind. He was young and in over his head when he debuted in the series. That's not sexy at all. That's not any archetypes that include 'sexy'. Do you understand what I'm saying?

It doesn't matter if games are not made with the express purpose of making political or rhetorical statements if there are themes there-in that people still find problematic. I appreciate that Mark Kermode, the film reviewer I refer to, points out that Sex and the City has revolting capitalist/consumerist overtones with crudely-drawn, subservient, noble savage foreign characters and that Michael Bay films have vulgar, unnecessary objectification of women. I want to know these things because I know these things will annoy me, even if the only intention of the film maker was to rope in a certain demographic.

Similarly, if a reviewer or critic wants to highlight problematic issues in story-telling or imagery in games, that is fair game. That is what critique is about. The artist's intent is utterly irrelevant, to be honest, and, indeed, this is where games designers need to realise that part of having a wider audience is acknowledging that people will have problems with the things you do.

It's not really for you to say how a reviewer or critic interprets these things. You can either argue with them or ignore it. The point is that society informs art and art informs society. If games want to be seen as something enjoyed by people other than teenage boys in their dark bedrooms then with that comes different priorities in story-telling and imagery for different audiences. Furthermore, this encourages innovation in story-telling, which is important as games attempt to be more about an encompassing experience.

Games are also yet another media frontier in challenging sociological archetypes, because young and impressionable people play them. There is, again, nothing wrong with pointing this out. As an adult male who has played games all his life, I don't want to be embarrassed by the hobby.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto Games are also yet another media frontier in challenging sociological archetypes, because young and impressionable people play them.

This is just another way, a nicer way, of saying these things are toys. Everybody plays games. And "challenging sociological archetypes" is only an effort a dev should opt into, rather than the thinly veiled shaming if they choose to ignore that viewpoint ("young and impressionable kids play them, ergo..."). I'm against any idea that suggests art should be something other than what the artist intends.

As an adult male who has played games all his life, I don't want to be embarrassed by the hobby.

That has everything to do with you. Dead or Alive should not embarrass you anymore than Human Centipede should embarrass me as a horror movie fan. Things you don't like exist within a industries you love.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD This is just another way, a nicer way, of saying these things are toys. Everybody plays games. And "challenging sociological archetypes" is only an effort a dev should opt into, rather than the thinly veiled shaming if they choose to ignore that viewpoint ("young and impressionable kids play them, ergo..."). I'm against any idea that suggests art should be something other than what the artist intends.

No, it's not. It's saying that you have to bear in mind that media shapes society. If you wish to interpret it in such an insecure way, that is up to you. You being against that idea is also utterly irrelevant. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Some art is made with no explanation, which precludes the idea of an observer only "appreciating" it in the way the artist intends.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD That has everything to do with you. Dead or Alive should not embarrass you anymore than Human Centipede should embarrass me as a horror movie fan. Things you don't like exist within a industries you love.

Of course it has everything to do with me. Why are my priorities any less valid than yours?

Film critics regularly excoriate films like The Human Centipede and other torture porn films for being exploitative and crass, as well as just bad films. Do you have a problem with this?

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto No, it's not. It's saying that you have to bear in mind that media shapes society.

Art imitates life.

I'm gonna guess we won't meet halfway here.

Of course it has everything to do with me. Why are my priorities any less valid than yours?

My priorities make it so you can have the entertainment you want. Your priorities, at its logical conclusion, eventually limits art.

Film critics regularly excoriate films like The Human Centipede and other torture porn films for being exploitative and crass, as well as just bad films. Do you have a problem with this?

I don't like the movie and sub-genre so I would be in agreement with those critics. What I didn't see is them ascribing themes to those movies where they knew wasn't intended. Imagine making an observation in Saw 5 pertaining to how hospitals should widen admissions to mental health patients. Not a bad thought per se, but ridiculous when your subject is fucking Saw 5.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD I don't like the movie and sub-genre so I would be in agreement with those critics. What I didn't see is them ascribing themes to those movies where they knew wasn't intended. Imagine making an observation in Saw 5 pertaining to how hospitals should widen admissions to mental health patients. Not a bad thought per se, but ridiculous when your subject is fucking Saw 5.

Funny that you mention that, I did a course on mental illness in film. It analysed depictions of the mentally ill and mental health professions in film. That sort of thing is actually what I'm talking about, the idea being that films (and other media) reinforcing the same themes, stereotypes, tropes and cliches over and over again informs how people see reality. The implication being that films contribute to a fear of the mentally ill and to an out-dated view of the mental health profession.

Which is all very interesting and I like to hear people talk about it. If a reviewer feels subjects like that are important then they should talk about it. The artistic value of the work they talk about is largely irrelevant if people watch it.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto Funny that you mention that, I did a course on mental illness in film. It analysed depictions of the mentally ill and mental health professions in film. That sort of thing is actually what I'm talking about, the idea being that films (and other media) reinforcing the same themes, stereotypes, tropes and cliches over and over again informs how people see reality. The implication being that films contribute to a fear of the mentally ill and to an out-dated view of the mental health profession.

So who better to write a great script that challenges the public perception of the mentally ill than you. I would honestly 100% support you on that. I'm not being pandemic, either. You see an issue, you wanna see change, in a capitalistic entertainment market that's how you do it.

My nephew was recently concluded to have autism. We've never had an autistic family member, and I admit a great many things I didn't think seriously about came front and center. How hard is education going to be, how will he interact with other kids, where is he on the spectrum, etc.

If you think the mentally ill/handicapped can be better served in media, point me to the project and I'm yours - but I still don't agree that we should put any pressure on creators to do anything other what they wanna do.

If a reviewer feels subjects like that are important then they should talk about it.

Agreed.

The artistic value of the work they talk about is largely irrelevant if people watch it.

Care to rephrase this?

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD So who better to write a great script that challenges the public perception of the mentally ill than you. I would honestly 100% support you on that. I'm not being pandemic, either. You see an issue, you wanna see change, in a capitalistic entertainment market that's how you do it. My nephew was recently concluded to have autism. We've never had an autistic family member, and I admit a great many things I didn't think seriously about came front and center. How hard is education going to be, how will he interact with other kids, where is he on the spectrum, etc. If you think the mentally ill/handicapped can be better served in media, point me to the project and I'm yours - but I still don't agree that we should put any pressure on creators to do anything other what they wanna do.

Who better would be someone who can write good scripts. I'm not a script-writer or a film producer. I watch films and can appreciate good stories.

There is nothing wrong with highlighting the effect of art and media on society so that artists understand the potential consequences of their work. In this instance, for example, does your piece possibly further stigmatise the mentally ill? This is how criticism works, has always worked. It has never been just about saying "this is good, 8/10". Which is to say that games should be ready for that kind of criticism if the medium is to develop.

This is also how the free market/capitalism works. An amateur with no talent trying to make an issue piece is less helpful than informed criticism suggest artists consider the consequences of their work for people who may identify or be identified with the characters there-in. No one is forcing them to even listen, indeed, most don't unless the market they're marginalising is large enough to dent profits.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Care to rephrase this?

It's the same point said 3 different ways now. If people consume your work then you are influencing them, be it positively or negatively, so it still matters what you say with that work.