I have a question about Gamergate

[The Rogerer]

I think there's really deep, fundamental problems with the way you're looking at the relationship between creators, works and audience. I'm clocking out here, but that point is an empasse. I have to say it really doesn't make sense, especially when we are talking about commercially released, mass produced works. You're also inappropriately deifying creators when they are products of a culture that they are born of and shape themselves. Games are not Platonic Forms that are drawn out, they are every bit as subjective as these reviews. Of course unintended consequences are real and valid. Why on earth would you engage with an audience otherwise? You are practically saying that no one is allowed to disagree with an artists opinion. There's nothing magical about them.

Released games enter the culture. They are part of the culture, and therefore subject to it. They do this willingly. They are inviting our feelings and opinions. You don't get to cherry pick the good reactions and drop the bad.

[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]

An issue I have with what you're saying is identifying something as "problematic" versus saying you just don't like it.

I mean, in one breath you vilify sexuality in games as juvenile while also saying games need to grow up as an art form. I suspect you'll never see certain subjects in games as legit regardless of how far it can evolve as an art form.

But you do say that this is a business, which is funny. As a capitalistic industry, games will want to appeal to either a mass populace or at least the hardcore fanbase who will recoup costs of production. Money talks, and money says people care about games as they are. These things are either art or toys when you deem fit. They are business products or photographs of society's condition when you see fit.

But back to point; I stress that that not all opinions in reviews are equal, only that one as a right to one. There's a reason you're better pressed to read another game review by me over some random. I'm sure random would find things to critique on, too, but they wouldn't be the things a potential consumer would wanna hear about a game. I've spoken about this with my Camero scenario.

So again, somebody could well critique any facet of a game. I would never say otherwise. But while everyone an opinion, they are not all equal. Certain opinion are more informed than others with the industry/game/genre in context.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Originally Posted by The Rogerer If we must have this out, I went to DTTS's profile to view the 'View threads created by DTTS' link. Right below that I saw a verbose visitor message from you, which you can click to view the whole conversation in isolation. I'm not opposed to you having it, I imagine having a quasi-public discussion gives the same thrill as alleyway sex. And you're both quite entitled since I've had a go at both of you. I've even bent my own code of conduct a little in referring to you a couple of times in non related discussions, which was silly but not really disproprotionate in the whole scheme of things.

You had a go at me? When?

[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]

I didn't vilify the concept of sexuality in games as juvenile, I said "pretty much all attempts" have been juvenile, which is true. This completely fits in with the need for games designers to keep in mind a wider audience, not a teenage boy, if the medium is to mature.

Entertainment can be both mass-market and frivolous or it can be serious and life-defining. There's no contradiction in that. Anyone who watches films understands there are different types of film that be enjoyed equally as much in different ways. Indeed, the games I have enjoyed most recently have been the Souls games that have thrown all narrative and wider character motivation out the window and went for simple objective-chasing wrapped around a superb combat mechanic and a beautifully realised world, whereas I've found attempts like GTA V and Skyrim to be more encompassing to be off-putting and got bored of Bioshock Infinite before finishing it.

But this is speaking at cross-purposes. People can make games for whatever reason they want and their target audience can enjoy them for whatever reason they want. This does not preclude the legitimate critique of what a critic may consider problematic imagery or themes in games. This drives development and innovation.

And you're also wrong, because I do want to hear about these things. I want to hear about the gameplay, the game mechanics, the sound, the graphics, the level design etc. and I want to hear if there's off-putting themes in the game. I basically lost interest in single player GTA V after the torture scene, after tolerating the appalling yoga and strip-club scenes, because it was so crass and dull-witted. A horrific misstep from a game that has traditionally been very strong on satire.

[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?

[Swiss Ultimate]

O/T I hate how many people "liked" Human Centipede just to be shocking.

If we're going to compare video game reviewers to movie reviewers though, can we at least remember that Bikini Car Wash 3 didn't get reviewed by serious critics? Some films/games make the claim that they're something more than popcorn flicks or button-mashers and should be treated with the same level of seriousness as the fashion in which they are created.

Sonic and Mario games are a lot like harmlessly dumb CGI family films, Rockstar Games attempt to be a bit of everything and are usually called out on the juvenile aspects. Obviously the comparison could go on for a bit, but I'll stop there.

My only problem is when a "reviewer" has no interest in the medium and instead wants to force artists and schlock-writers/directors/game creators to stop making things that don't fit into their narrowly defined list of acceptable art. When a reviewer treats a dumb action film like it's cultural kryptonite because it doesn't attempt to display the confusion and pain of people with gender identity issues we can safely say that person is missing the point.

There are plenty of truly vile things out there to complain about though.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Who is forcing anyone to stop making anything?

A film also shouldn't get free rein to go uncriticised just because it is "supposed" to be stupid.

[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.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto Who is forcing anyone to stop making anything?

When you say something is "problematic" and go out of your way to remind us that "young and impressionable" kids are playing these games, where else is that road supposed to lead but regulation of creative freedom?

A film also shouldn't get free rein to go uncriticised just because it is "supposed" to be stupid.

We never said people aren't allowed to criticize. This is my second or third time saying this. Anybody can critique, but not all critiques are valid.

[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]

My approach to this is any company can make any game for anybody, and critics can have a ball after the fact.

Your viewpoint is art beholden to critics, where artists must adhere to creator whims. That is the difference between us.

Were I king of world who can allow or veto anything ever; creative freedom lives. Including garbage like Human Centipede and Hatred. You as king of the world, based on what you wrote here and in other threads, almost certainly sees the end of creative freedom.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD When you say something is "problematic" and go out of your way to remind us that "young and impressionable" kids are playing these games, where else is that road supposed to lead but regulation of creative freedom? We never said people aren't allowed to criticize. This is my second or third time saying this. Anybody can critique, but not all critiques are valid.

It leads to developers adapting to different audiences. Why would you assume it means banning anything? Are you arguing that we should ban critique to protect expression? No one is forced to listen to critics or the market if they do not want to, besides the financial imperative.

Who decides what is valid or not? Ultimately that's a personal decision.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD My approach to this is any company can make any game for anybody, and critics can have a ball after the fact. Your viewpoint is art beholden to critics, where artists must adhere to creator whims. That is the difference between us. Were I king of world who can allow or veto anything ever; creative freedom lives. Including garbage like Human Centipede and Hatred. You as king of the world, based on what you wrote here and in other threads, almost certainly sees the end of creative freedom.

What are you talking about? Where have I said these films should be banned or censored? Please don't put words in my mouth. Where have I said artists should be beholden to critics? What I have quite clearly argued is that criticism and analysis can inform consumption and in turn artistic direction.

Is the other thread you are talking about the anime child porn one?

[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?

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto It leads to developers adapting to different audiences. Why would you assume it means banning anything? Are you arguing that we should ban critique to protect expression? No one is forced to listen to critics or the market if they do not want to, besides the financial imperative. Who decides what is valid or not? Ultimately that's a personal decision.

You keep going back to me having a problem with people critiquing rather than the strength of their critique. For the last time: I have no problem with people analyzing art through any lens they like, but with industry context they have to be aware that not all opinions are valued equally.

Please read my Camero review scenario again where I explain more about the idea of legit, informed opinions vs people who miss the point.

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto What are you talking about? Where have I said these films should be banned or censored? Please don't put words in my mouth. Where have I said artists should be beholden to critics? What I have quite clearly argued is that criticism and analysis can inform consumption and in turn artistic direction.

None but the most strident would out and say they want something banned. Few people wanna be 'that guy'. So I'll just ask you directly:

Were you king of the earth, able to pass or deny anything; does GTA5 as it is right now exist? Does Dead or Alive 5 exist? Does Mortal Kombat exist?

Is the other thread you are talking about the anime child porn one?

Yessir.

[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.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD You keep going back to me having a problem with people critiquing rather than the strength of their critique. For the last time: I have no problem with people analyzing art through any lens they like, but with industry context they have to be aware that not all opinions are valued equally. Please read my Camero review scenario again where I explain more about the idea of legit, informed opinions vs people who miss the point.

That is a redundant statement. If your opinion is not valued then no one listens or responds to it. This is simple. That's why none of us read or watch everything written or recorded about the stuff we like. This is absolutely redundant.

However, Anita Sarkeesian to name one, is only a public persona now because of the response to her criticisms. So therefore what she says has been made valid by the debate that has ensued.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD None but the most strident would out and say they want something banned. Few people wanna be 'that guy'. So I'll just ask you directly: Were you king of the earth, able to pass or deny anything; does GTA5 as it is right now exist? Does Dead or Alive 5 exist? Does Mortal Kombat exist?

Considering that I've played GTA and Mortal Kombat since both original games were released, it would be a bit ludicrous for me to have them banned. I've loved both games over the years in their various iterations. But this is not to say that when a game like GTA V throws away the sharply-observed satire of previous incarnations, and almost becomes a version of what it used to parody, that I cannot point this out, nor that it should not be pointed out by critics. GTA IV just bored me, GTA V just turned me off single player with that segment (though I may pick it up again since my internet connection is so bad here to make online play basically impossible bar some Worms 2).

Trying to paint me as a prude is wide of the mark, rather than just someone who is dismayed by artistic laziness and crassness.

In regards to the other thread, that's a side issue. Since I've had to do a bit of work on child protection and recognising/preventing abuse, I'm coming to it from that angle. What I will say is that The Rogerer made the best point in that thread, in that the prosecutors and police involved have to look at all child porn and categorise it that they bring to court for any case, so it is not a case of prudes not understanding something. They have to sit through all that shit and go home to their families afterwards. If they brought that case and achieved a conviction, I would tend to believe they had a reason to do so because what they had seen demonstrated a possible threat to the public.

[Kalyx triaD]

An artist is not responsible for how people will take his work. That's not what he signed up for, and it's his freedom to opt in and consider what he wants to be absorbed by his potential audience.

Just now the JL8 thread got updated with something I think kids would be served well seeing. Yale knows his artwork and narrative tone could attract younger fans. He opts to plant a very important message concerning missing children, even under great fan service for us oldies. That was his decision and I support it. And then there's works that kids eat up that don't even bother with subtle PSAs. That's fine, too. These people are not your parents, counselors, teachers, or whatever else you think artists suddenly become because they're work is out there.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Actually they are responsible, they design it to influence people. But otherwise I'm not sure where I argued that anyone has any obligation to be influenced in turn by the response to their work?

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Here's another mental health example for you: it has been noted from studies that high profile reporting of suicide in the media causes a spike in suicides in the area in which it has been reported. Suicides are contagious in the media. Furthermore, media describing or depicting suicide techniques influences attempts in reality. This is why some newspapers have entered an agreement not to report suicide details. People are more psychologically malleable than any of us like to believe.

I'm not arguing the media is killing people. What I am arguing is that it is worth talking about the influence of art and media on society. Whether artists wish to let this influence their work or not depends on how much they value criticism, how much they value financial gain or how much they value their own artistic vision.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto However, Anita Sarkeesian to name one, is only a public persona now because of the response to her criticisms. So therefore what she says has been made valid by the debate that has ensued.

lol right

I wonder if you're consistent about this in other areas. "Backlash dignifies uninformed opinions."

Considering that I've played GTA and Mortal Kombat since both original games were released, it would be a bit ludicrous for me to have them banned. I've loved both games over the years in their various iterations. But this is not to say that when a game like GTA V throws away the sharply-observed satire of previous incarnations, and almost becomes a version of what it used to parody, that I cannot point this out, nor that it should not be pointed out by critics. GTA IV just bored me, GTA V just turned me off single player with that segment (though I may pick it up again since my internet connection is so bad here to make online play basically impossible bar some Worms 2).

So you are fine with GTA5 being out there? We're agreeing on that?

Trying to paint me as a prude is wide of the mark, rather than just someone who is dismayed by artistic laziness and crassness.

You call it whatever you like, I'm just worried that you feel it should change on your terms when you're not the creator.

In regards to the other thread, that's a side issue. Since I've had to do a bit of work on child protection and recognising/preventing abuse, I'm coming to it from that angle. What I will say is that The Rogerer made the best point in that thread, in that the prosecutors and police involved have to look at all child porn and categorise it that they bring to court for any case, so it is not a case of prudes not understanding something. They have to sit through all that shit and go home to their families afterwards. If they brought that case and achieved a conviction, I would tend to believe they had a reason to do so because what they had seen demonstrated a possible threat to the public.

I wish I was still that optimistic about our justice system.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto Actually they are responsible, they design it to influence people.

Really now?

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto Here's another mental health example for you: it has been noted from studies that high profile reporting of suicide in the media causes a spike in suicides in the area in which it has been reported. Suicides are contagious in the media. Furthermore, media describing or depicting suicide techniques influences attempts in reality. This is why some newspapers have entered an agreement not to report suicide details. People are more psychologically malleable than any of us like to believe.

Depressing but not the responsibility of artists.

I'm not arguing the media is killing people. What I am arguing is that it is worth talking about the influence of art and media on society. Whether artists wish to let this influence their work or not depends on how much they value criticism, how much they value financial gain or how much they value their own artistic vision.

They can actually do all three at once. You're constructing false choices.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD lol right I wonder if you're consistent about this in other areas. "Backlash dignifies uninformed opinions."

She would be a nobody if not for the reaction of gamers. This much is true.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD So you are fine with GTA5 being out there? We're agreeing on that?

In what way could I be clearer? I'd prefer it if it was a more enjoyable game since I spent money on it.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD You call it whatever you like, I'm just worried that you feel it should change on your terms when you're not the creator.

I hope you don't lose any sleep over it. I wonder, though, why you feel the criticism we've debating here is any less valid than debating criticism of other artistic decisions, such as plotting, dialogue etc.? It's almost as if you are arguing criticism should not exist.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD I wish I was still that optimistic about our justice system.

The case discussed in that thread took place in England so it's not your justice system.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Really now?

Yes. Of course. That is the point. To make people laugh/cry/think.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Depressing but not the responsibility of artists.

Some may feel it is and change their decisions based on it. That is their prerogative. Stanley Kubrick banned A Clockwork Orange himself because some youths in England kicked a tramp to death while singing Singin' in the Rain. Others may not be aware of the influence of art/media on behaviour. How they choose to work with that knowledge is up to them. Art is not so sacred that people cannot value things above an artist's conscience.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD They can actually do all three at once. You're constructing false choices.

Where did I say or even imply they were mutually exclusive?

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto She would be a nobody if not for the reaction of gamers. This much is true.

It is, but that says nothing of her rhetoric's validity.

I'd prefer it if it was a more enjoyable game since I spent money on it.

You mean you're gonna make sure it's enjoyable before you spend money.

I wonder, though, why you feel the criticism we've debating here is any less valid than debating criticism of other artistic decisions, such as plotting, dialogue etc.? It's almost as if you are arguing criticism should not exist.

I'm starting to think you're trolling me with this, after me saying multiple times criticism is fine.

Thoughts on plot and dialogue is perfectly fine, as they are elements the writer is giving unto you. What's I've been arguing is how certain art should be judged on the merits it sets out for, not what the reviewer posits onto it.

Consider that you've been arguing for a freedom of critique beyond freedom the art they're reviewing.

The case discussed in that thread took place in England so it's not your justice system.

I concede.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto Yes. Of course. That is the point. To make people laugh/cry/think.

I have a feeling you just backed off on another point but I'll go with this.

Where did I say or even imply they were mutually exclusive?

The use of 'or'.

[The Rogerer]

Let's not forget that a lot of the context of this is being used springboard to lash out at 'SJW's, criticise harrassment and other things that piss people off. If you want to act that way, knock yourself out, but it's annoying when the manifesto has fatal problems.

Everyone is invited to criticise the medium. The notion that developers and publishers shouldn't be subject to things they don't intend is a show of bias, which is only a problem when you're calling against bias. When I myself know how childish, materialistic and mercanary the games industry is, it isn't hard to connect the dots and see where these ideas are coming from. Gamers are having a hard time coming out of the treehouse, but it's better out there. You cannot hide behind your intent in this world. Imagine saying that about any other medium. Politics would be a wonderfully rosy place.

If I produce a game, and someone makes a judgement on what I presented, I would be a coward or an idiot to go "Actually, that's not fair, I didn't mean to do that, I'm special". Stories don't come from heaven, they bounce out of the collective culture. Especially when you're producing something where your express intent is mass appeal. You can't claim the precious artist defence when they are stacking them high and selling them low. They're stepping into the slings and arrows.

Come to think of it, I did produce a game at university where I was asked to change the subject matter because it was insensitive. It seems funny at the time because we were young and stupid, but it was clear that it wasn't the best idea. So we changed it. Oh, my artistic sprit died that day! Surely the angels will weep as the oppresive world kills things that are too beautiful to exist. Where was our freedom of speech? No, me, the artist, AN artist, was just being a stupid prick.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Games are games. It's not the artist's/creator's fault that you see something that isn't there. It might not even be your fault.

I remember in high-school we used to do those annoying essays about the meaning of works of literature. As long as we could make a persuasive case about what we thought the author MEANT, then we passed. It's bull-shit, basically and more so than a critique where you explain why you don't like it, it's purposely deluding yourself into thinking that you can change the meaning of something through analytic interpretation.

Maybe, the character went fishing because he liked to fish. Maybe it isn't a comment on how all men are abusive monsters attempting to lure in innocent women to gut and devour.

SJWs see meaning where there is none and ignore the obvious when it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of how the world works.

[The Rogerer]

This conversation is really a shoot off from a discussion about Bayonetta's sexuality, remember, if you're talking about seeing things that aren't there. If you can find an egrious example of complete freeballing reinterpretation, go on. That's not what the gamergaters I've spoken to talk about. They complain about games with intentional overt sexuality, having that aspect commented on. Namely Bayonetta 2 and Dragon's Crown. The sexuality is there because these mass produced commercial games products are aimed and marketed at a particular demographic.

You love persuasive cases though. You were complementing Kalyx on his quoque.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Kal wasn't making a "persuasive" or "emotional" case, you're incorrect.

I tend to actually agree with the sentiment expressed by sane feminists and culture critics that almost everything is overly sexualized, more specifically almost everything that has young children as a target demo (ie. Bratz, Monster High, Thomas the Train)

However, most of the critiques from these PC Police tend to be misplaced. "Why aren't more games helmed by female protagonists? Is it because gamers are all rapists?" Isn't too far off from how SJWs think about everything.

Here is an example from a industry where I actually know something about:

I want an end to the default of binary gender in science fiction stories. What do I mean by “post-binary gender”? It’s a term that has already been used to mean multiple things, so I will set out my definition: Post-binary gender in SF is the acknowledgement that gender is more complex than the Western cultural norm of two genders (female and male): that there are more genders than two, that gender can be fluid, that gender exists in many forms. People who do not fit comfortably into the gender binary exist in our present, have existed in our past, and will exist in our futures. So too do people who are binary-gendered but are often ignored, such as trans* people who identify as binary-gendered. I am not interested in discussions about the existence of these gender identities: we might as well discuss the existence of women or men. Gender complexity exists. SF that presents a rigid, unquestioned gender binary is false and absurd. I intend to use this column to examine post-binary SF texts, both positively and critically, as well as for discussions of points surrounding this subject. And I intend to use this column to go beyond Ursula K Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness. Kameron Hurley wrote several years ago about the frustration of The Left Hand of Darkness being the go-to book for mind-blowing gender in SF, despite being written in 1968. Nothing written in the decades since has got the same traction in mainstream SF discourse—and texts have been written. For a bit of context, 1968 is almost twenty years before I was born, and I’m hardly a child. One of the reasons Hurley considers for this situation (raised by someone on a mailing list she belonged to) is that: “...perhaps Le Guin’s book was so popular because it wasn’t actually as radical as we might think. It was very safe. The hetero male protagonist doesn’t have sex with any of the planet’s inhabitants, no matter their current gender. We go off on a boys’ own adventure story, on a planet entirely populated by people referred to as ‘he,’ no matter their gender. Le Guin is a natural storyteller, and she concentrates on the story. It’s not overly didactic. It’s engaging and entertaining.” The Left Hand of Darkness certainly has been radical, as Hurley says, in its time, in the subsequent years and in the present. I have spoken to several people who found The Left Hand of Darkness immensely important: it provided their first glimpse of the possibility of non-binary gender. The impact that it has had on people’s realisations about their own gender is not something I want to diminish, nor anyone else’s growth in understanding. However, I do think it can be very palatable for people who haven’t done a lot of thinking about gender. It is, as Hurley says earlier in her post, the kind of story that eases the reader in gently before dropping the gender bombs, and those bombs are not discomfiting for all readers. Of course they’re not. How can one text be expected to radicalise every reader? I don’t want to cast The Left Hand of Darkness aside. It’s an important part of this conversation. What I do want to do is demonstrate how big that conversation truly is. Other texts have been published besides The Left Hand of Darkness, many of them oft-overlooked—many of them out of print. Some of them are profoundly problematic, but still provide interesting questions. Some of them are incredible and deserve to be considered classics of the genre. Some of them are being published right now, in 2014. Amal El-Mohtar wrote a piece about the process of finding—having to find—a pioneering woman writer, Naomi Mitchison, and followed it up with a post where she said: “It breaks my heart that we are always rediscovering great women, excavating them from the relentless soil of homogenizing histories, seeing them forever as exceptions to a rule of sediment and placing them in museums, remarkable more for their gender than for their work.” It seems to me that there’s a similar process for post-binary texts: they exist, but each reader must discover them anew amid a narrative that says they are unusual, they are rare, they sit outside the standard set of stories. This, at least, has been my experience. I want to dismantle the sediment—to not only talk about post-binary texts and bring them to attention of more readers, but to do away with the default narrative. That process of (re)discovery is probably inescapable. A bookshop, a library or a friend’s/family member’s bookshelves can’t contain every book ever published, so new readers will always have to actively seek out stories beyond the first ones they encounter. What if, El-Mohtar wonders, the first books often included Naomi Mitchison? What if the first books often included multiple post-binary texts as well? Conversations about gender in SF have been taking place for a long time. I want to join in. I want more readers to be aware of texts old and new, and seek them out, and talk about them. I want more writers to stop defaulting to binary gender in their SF—I want to never again read entire anthologies of SF stories or large-cast novels where every character is binary-gendered. I want this conversation to be louder. To that end, I’ll be running this column: posting every two weeks, with discussions of books and short stories, as well as interviews and roundtables with other writers and readers of post-binary SF, because I strongly believe it’s important to hear multiple voices. I’m particularly interested in science fiction at the moment, but I expect I’ll cross genres as I run the column. I hope you’ll join me in making the default increasingly unstable.

If you take a moment to read this you'll see that the "critique" has nothing to do with actually making good science fiction. It is reveling in the idea of being politically correct and progressive and it is full of a singular intent to push people into group think.

[The Rogerer]

Some things put sexy women in them and on them in an attempt to grab attention and money from my stupid male brain. It is a mercenary act. I am of course immune to this thanks to wXe but I'm allowed to criticise the practice. Games do this a lot.

And science fiction is at it's best when it's a playground for breaking down and reconstructing human concepts. You've lost it. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face there.

[Kalyx triaD]

The point is rather than make a better product; these people are consumed by what they themselves decided to interpret it by. And even that would be fine on its own - except they go one step further in vilifying (directly or subtly) people who call them out or ignore them. It goes from 'personal opinion' to drawing a line, and then they fuss at people who choose the other side of the line.

Sci-Fi historically plays with conventions. That's cool. No problem with that. Some of the most progressive works ever stem from Sci-Fi. But here she comes conjuring up an issue where none existed, and then drew a line (creating a term 'post-binary sci-fi') that ironically forces a binary choice. I mean, she could have just simply wrote stories pertaining to her viewpoints. Instead it's about seeing who's down with the program and who's the 'old guard'.

They do this all the fucking time.

It's been observed that SJWs (and to a degree feminists) have a habit of making moves on certain industries after they've initially assimilated (or seem to have done so). They're there. Everything's gully. It would be some thing that unites people on common interests. And then BOOM; all of sudden somebody highlights an 'issue' nobody noticed. They create terms (ablist, etc) and then draw a line. It screwed with biology. It screwed with Atheism. It screwed with politics. It continues to fuck over universities. It made a mockery out of Occupy. It completely destroyed Tumblr (or made it hilarious depending on who you ask). It's slowly made moves on comics. And it's been pouring over the game industry this last generation.

And the biggest consistency is how in many of these groups/industries - they are almost NEVER the content makers or gears of that industry. If they were, they could simply subvert things on a legit scale. This is why GaymerX is great, but 'safe zones' at other conventions are insulting.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Some big sci fi writers already have plenty of LGBT style aliens and main characters. It's pretty common. Only an idiot from the outside would think the genre somehow is missing out.

Sci fi, like all other genres, is at its best when it's entertaining. If it does not entertain, then you're doing it wrong. Very simple concept.

[The Rogerer]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD The point is rather than make a better product;

Surely there's a page in the logical fallacy scrapbook devoted to this old chestnut? Zoe Quinn would come to mind as someone who was trying to make a better product. Otherwise, that sentiment is a meaningless platitude of "you do it". Me? I've developed small games, I can code. I've also criticised games. I don't have any special privilege to criticise games over anyone else. If I released one of my games, I'm not going to line up the people who talk about my game, pat them down for their credentials and disregard their views.

It's interesting that you paint this as a unified movement of people, and also that you refer to GamerGate in the first person plural. This really seems to be a front of two groups to you, rather than scattered individuals. I'll even grant that gamergate isn't a bunch of this or that. It's a snowball movement that people are desperate to get into. It operates via boards, where it's easy to get angry, but mostly via twitter, which is the most infuriating by design thing to enter the world since the automobile. I want it to stop because while it runs, it will activate people who need an excuse to attack. On top of all this, I don't think the movement is worth anything because, as I've said, it's demands are fatally flawed. The frontier of games has withstood criticism for a long time. Your notion of people infiltrating it doesn't work for me. There's nothing to infiltrate, unless you view gaming as a refuge, a closed society, a tree house. The shop front is open.

It was interesting to see DTTS say, 'PC Police' as a libertarian gent. Using a word that represents the authority of the state to describe the free speech of individual citizens. I am puzzled as to why none of this falls under free speech because it is absolutely that. The best thing is that the creator has openly invited people to evaluate and post their thoughts on the game. They'll even send people free copies in advance to do this! It is bizarre that here reviewers and commenters are being squashed from one side that they're not allowed to show corruption, bias or favouritism, and then are simultaneously being pushed back to erase all feelings and be objective.

DTTS, the guy has a passion and you've already got the baton out. What the fuck has he done to deserve you laying into him? He's written about a change he'd like to see, a socially progressive change, in the medum of sci-fi, which is not at it's best when it's describing the operational range of a phaser, but exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilisations. Sci-Fi has also been mostly a masculine treehouse for a long time too. Except Star Trek, in my experience. Space travel is taken for granted in a lot of sci-fi. Someone writes an article about transhumanism and you're offended. Read again how offended you got about an article that just existed to suggest a change. I'm emotional, what's your excuse?

I was trying to think about where this love of objectivity would come from. It's a bizarre thing to fetishise and I was a bit stuck. Then I remember that Ayn Rand was absolutely furious with most philosophers because they questioned the nature of everything and she had to put her foot down and say, "No, if I say I'm right then I'm right, A is A and I'm going to lay out the society for very smart people who are practicioners of alwaysrightism." I think she was wrong, objectivity is a bit silly, and in critical opinion it's ludicrous.

[Swiss Ultimate]

lol

Are you on drugs? Free speech means I support the right of people I disagree with to say disagreeable things. It does not mean I have to like it.

You must be absolutely out of your mind on drugs if you can't understand that the PC culture is one that attacks speech at every possible chance. They are anti-speech and anti-expression. This isn't quantum physics, this is basic basic fact. I oppose the agenda, not the utterance of said agenda.

I do not seek a government solution to put an end to speech I do not like. I do not make threats of violence toward these people. I just disagree with them.

Rewrite that entire poorly thought-out post if you want to engage me in a discussion.

[Swiss Ultimate]

TheRogerer made a game about rape simulation and someone complained it was too rapey. Now he makes games about consensual sex. What a sheep.



TheRogerer made a game about a 7 year old girl with super-powers fighting a multi-national corporation and someone complained that the girl was white and was not a Lesbian. He explained that she was 7 and far too young to really know what she preferred, but he agreed to change her race to appease the critics. He made her black, but did not change the dialogue or gender influence. The critics complained that her skin color did not reflect the expected cultural norms (ie. stereotypes) and told you how insulting it is to make black people too white. The proponents of child sexuality continued to complain that she wasn't able to express her desire or experiment with her body. TheRogerer then rewrote the dialogue with a black writer, but was adamant about how the 7 year old child should not have a "sexual identity". Now with a proper PC approved protagonist the critics complain that she uses violence to overcome her attackers who are predominately male, why not just teach men not to attack young women they ask? TheRogerer, being the good progressive that he is, redesigns the game from the ground up as a way to teach violent thugs not to rape, discriminate or judge anyone at anytime for any reason. Then he includes a masturbation mini-game. GamerMagazineonline gives the game 5 stars, but nobody aside from the niche enjoys it.

[Kalyx triaD]

The spin that we are the ones against free speech is innovative, I admit.

Your notion of people infiltrating it doesn't work for me. There's nothing to infiltrate, unless you view gaming as a refuge, a closed society, a tree house. The shop front is open.

Not just gaming, many other groups and industries. And yes, when outsiders who don't seem to share the common interests/goals of the collective make moves against the collective under guise of improving the collective - the collective has been 'infiltrated'. Sorry if it sounds malicious but that's what it is.

[The Rogerer]

Who is the collective? The developers or the audience? Because the audience is the world. How can you be an outsider to a mass produced product stacked at the door of Walmart? It is pop culture. It is multi million dollar advertising budgets. Is Arthur Gies somehow an outsider? Why is Anita Sarkeesian an outsider? She's an 18-35 tech savvy American. Am I an infiltrator?

Don't think I've seen DTTS break as much as this. He's acting like me. Polemic is everything. All the chess pieces go back in the same box.