Issues in Video Games and Entertainment - Lounge

Happymeal

Applerill wrote:

To be blunt, if people can't handle social criticism that is already given to every other medium, how is it supposed to exist and intellectually grow? That's why it was so egregious that the gamergators were against Depression Quest and Gone Home as opposed to the new Call of Duty. At their very best, they simply want to remain babies.

That is such a strawman about gamergators. No one was complaining about depression quest. They were complaining about how the creator Zoey quinn possessed several sexual relationships with different journalist who subsequently promoted the game. That was the issue. I don't care for the game myself, but I think if others enjoyed the game, good for them. However, when a consumer views media, it should not be controlled by conflicts of interest.

(I apologize permafrost if me replying makes my "extremely tired" comment seems disingenuous, but I am; it's just that internet tends to keep me up for about another 30 - 45 min)

EDIT: forgot to mention gone home. Here's a reddit post about it that explains the issue http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/...n_gone_hom e_nepotism/.

Puncture Repair

SquishypuffDave wrote:

I think sexism should be opposed in every situation, and if videogames are sexist then they're not benign. I'm not a fan of the whole "focus on prejudice when it's big and obvious" attitude. Things like sexism and racism are systemic and a lot of the time it's unconscious. Just because something is subtle doesn't mean it's less real. It still makes a big impact that might not be immediately visible.

No I totally agree. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be aware about sexism in video games, and there shouldn't be any effort made from the consumer or the developers because of bigger issues. We can't put the same amount of energy and time into everything, and when such a fuss is raised over a topic as (at least in my bias eyes) inoffensive as video games, it seems to me like that could have been spent elsewhere.

Applerill wrote:

I never said it wasn't an artform. I just said I couldn't take it seriously as one.

To be blunt, if people can't handle social criticism that is already given to every other medium, how is it supposed to exist and intellectually grow? That's why it was so egregious that the gamergators were against Depression Quest and Gone Home as opposed to the new Call of Duty. At their very best, they simply want to remain babies.

Almost every release of Call of Duty from the last five years has received backlash for being a simple formulaic cash grab and undeserving of the reviews it received. The difference is that there just isn't any clear evidence that the developers are buying these reviews from the journalists.

Satie

Puncture Repair wrote:

No I totally agree. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be aware about sexism in video games, and there shouldn't be any effort made from the consumer or the developers because of bigger issues. We can't put the same amount of energy and time into everything, and when such a fuss is raised over a topic as (at least in my bias eyes) inoffensive as video games, it seems to me like that could have been spent elsewhere.

Well I think in particular that video games need a bit of a dressing down over these issues because the medium is the only mass entertainment/art form that has such unbelievably skewed representation of women from the consumer, to the critic, to the creator. This is worrisome because video games have a huge amount of sway over young people and will likely become the next cross-generational entertainment/art form following films. Note that when I say sway, I don't mean to say that people are completely conditioned by video games, nor do I mean to say that the tropes shown by video games are necessarily the cause of wider systemic issues, so much as a symptom. I certainly don't mean to say that all video game consumers, critics, and creators are completely ignorant of these issues or unable to intelligently engage with video games that are individually sexist or have sexist elements without being complete misogynists.

HOWEVER video games uniquely refuse, across the boards, to engage with those who point out the harms that they perpetuate and reflect. When a film expresses a sexist viewpoint, the creators are taken to task, and consumers are asked why they find pleasure in hurtful stereotypes or grisly actions taken against female characters. Of course, film is far from perfect, as the incredible amount of sexist and racist bile that tops weekend box office lists goes to show, but for every joke Adam Sandler makes about American Indians or black people or women, there is a Slate or Salon article to ask why he did that, a movie reviewer panning the film, consumers expressing discontent, and creators making films that don't do that same thing. The balance between filth and truly edifying art that doesn't hurt or belittle other people is much more skewed in video games, and that's because pioneering critics (either of games on an individual scoring basis or of the medium as a whole) who seek to point out (not censor, as Gamergators seem to assert without much evidence or understanding) these problems are shouted down, threatened, and largely set up as enemies of the state, only able to be financially and emotionally supported by people outside of gaming culture (again, reductively referred to here as a monolith for convenience's sake). Creators also are severely lacking here, because the cost to make an indie game is high and the consumer base doesn't yet exist for strong video games in resistance a la independent films that counterbalance the artistic and ethical/political dearth in Hollywood writ large. EDIT: To clarify before you jump down my throat that we are in a golden age of indie gaming, I acknowledge this, but I mean specifically with regard to politically and philosophically subversive pieces of art, something that is lacking in the indie games put forward to day that painting with a broad brush tend to focus more on subverting the medium as a medium, not as a political entity, e.g. by using creative control or graphic approaches.

As much as Gamergators like to wax poetic about their own shunning from wider conversations about video games, people who come from the outside to the incredibly insular community that is online video gamers are routinely harassed, seen as a "them" to the "us" of gamers, and never allowed a seat at the table. Anita Sarkeesian is one particularly vocal example, and it seems to be a weird paranoia. Anita has never demanded censorship of sexist games. She has never asked for the heads of certain game journalists or creators. She has never called for a boycott of sexist video games. She has merely set out to educate about problematic elements in games that she first and foremost discloses that she likes (and some that she, as anyone with an individual taste in pieces from an art form does, dislikes). The response has been threats of rape and death online but also real life threats of violence (see: her speaking opportunity at the University of Utah that resulted in threats of gun violence to university police). If this really is "just an Internet thing," why is it not seen as weird that ethic supporters in video games uniquely threaten violence on college campuses? Palestine supporters, black nationalists, radical feminists, and LGBT rights activists, who all have much more serious issues to contend with, don't have a massive reputation in the present moment for threatening school officials with mass shootings should speakers be invited to speak, and when they dislike a speaker, they engage through democratic channels to get that speaker dis-invited if they feel the need to, but this is largely a student momentum building tactic that is beyond the scope of this discussion and one that I'll reserve my opinion on for another time.

tl;dr: Sure, but...

bongritsu
电子人 ( ｃｙｂｏｒｇ)

Location: bog

women make shit games because there is no biological incentive for them to hone their craft.

Also gamer.gate is a symptom of a problem. Should not really be looked into in any great detail.
_________________
Alt Right meme game on point

I FEEL DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AS A PERSON OF JUDGEMENT.

Wombi

bong, buddy, you really need to break this narrow minded thinking that ancient biological instincts and archaic societal constructs still have great bearing on individual existence today (even if I do agree that biological impulses do influence unless checked). Mostly for your own good because any of our opinions don't affect the larger scale of society all that much but also for those on here because your poorly thought out opinions (however facetious) can be often be extremely degrading.

benpaco
Who's gonna watch you die?

Age: 27
Location: California

bongritsu wrote:

women make shit games because there is no biological incentive for them to hone their craft.

1 Portal and Gone Home would like a word with you.

2 Frog Fractions and Quantum Conundrum are not amused.

3 Centipede and Journey are puzzled.

4 Zineth isn't even out yet and it' is fairly certain you're wrong.[EDIT: Zineth is out, Hover : Revolt of Gamers is not]

5 And men do have biological incentive to ... Make video games? All of human evolution was designed so that we would design video games?
_________________

. . . 2016 . . . 2015 . . .

Things I Make

Last edited by benpaco on 05/22/2015 01:53; edited 1 time in total

Satie

bong, i feel like there's a certain biological imperative you might not be fulfilling if you talk that way in the real world too much.

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Happymeal wrote:

Video games are "sexist", but not because people purposefully want them to be.

Those guys that did minstrel shows in blackface back in the day probably didn't think they were racist. So what? They were just following consumer demand?

Happymeal wrote:

This means that the ones creating the product within the industry just so happen to cater more to males in those particular types of games which is why you see a male perspective so often. It's just a by product of capitalism is all, which you can still argue that you want to see more of X! That's the point! Demand is what brings the product to light.

That's only half of the equation. Consumers don't make decisions in a vacuum. Preferences are shaped by what you're exposed to. For a comparison in literature, publishers used to think you couldn't sell novels with female protagonists to boys, then Hunger Games came out and showed everyone how wrong that line of thinking was. This didn't happen because boys were demanding female protagonists, it happened because the book found its way into their hands. You're also assuming developers are logical and that they have a functional concept of consumer demand. Most of the sexist shit in games has nothing to do with what their demographic is explicitly asking for, it's just there because the writers have absorbed the sexism that exists in other media and aren't making conscientious decisions.

Happymeal wrote:

As for her tropes videos, I don't disagree with what she's saying necessarily, but none of it happens because of misogyny or sexism which is where a lot of people are taking issue. When you're being accused of being a bigot solely for your hobby and the media is demonizing you all the while, it makes sense why some people would be belligerent about this.

This all comes across as super defensive and immature. Let's use the blackface example again.

"I'm not doing this because I'm racist, it's not my intention to offend anyone, stop demonizing me."
*continues to wear blackface*

Intention is relevant, but it's not the only factor.

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

bongritsu wrote:

women make shit games because there is no biological incentive for them to hone their craft.

Two things:

1. Subjectivity. Women might make games that are shit when they're inside your head, but not inside other heads.
2. Emily Short and Porpentine are my favourite game designers. Both of them are women. One of them biologically.

Happymeal

Quote:

Those guys that did minstrel shows in blackface back in the day probably didn't think they were racist. So what? They were just following consumer demand?

There's a huge distinction here that you're not wiilling to make. Most video games don't actually discriminate against women. Bring some examples and then maybe this portion of the discussion can continue, but until then I'm calling bullshit. I can comprehend the complaint that video games don't commonly cater to the female audience. That's a perfectly fine complaint because it's true and it'd be fine for more developers to create games from a female perspective, but comparing video games to blackface is knowingly obscuring the truth.

Quote:

Consumers don't make decisions in a vacuum. Preferences are shaped by what you're exposed to. For a comparison in literature, publishers used to think you couldn't sell novels with female protagonists to boys, then Hunger Games came out and showed everyone how wrong that line of thinking was. This didn't happen because boys were demanding female protagonists

I'll concede that influence and exposure creates preference, but video games have had female protagonists since its inception (OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration. Video games have had female protagonists since the mid/early 80's though). Just study the history of female protagonists in video games.

Quote:

You're also assuming developers are logical and that they have a functional concept of consumer demand. Most of the sexist shit in games has nothing to do with what their demographic is explicitly asking for, it's just there because the writers have absorbed the sexism that exists in other media and aren't making conscientious decisions.

Lol, yeah right. People creating a product want to make money so, yes, the assumption that a creator caters to a certain demographic makes perfect sense. Provide evidence that the developers aren't making conscientious decisions and not catering towards a majority and when I say evidence, I mean evidence of a large portion of game developers doing this, not just one or two.

EDIT: I want to clarify that I'm not taking into account here influence from other works. For example, if someone wants to create a game like psychonauts in regards to mechanics or design or whatever. That's a portion of the creation, but the point isn't that creators solely cater to demographics, but that these are all conscious decisions based upon creating the product. None of it happens because someone didn't make a choice.

EDIT2: I also want to state that there are people not catering towards the majority, but the statement was phrased improperly. I mean that provide evidence that people are not making conscientious while they are concurrently catering towards a majority.

Quote:

This all comes across as super defensive and immature. Let's use the blackface example again.

"I'm not doing this because I'm racist, it's not my intention to offend anyone, stop demonizing me."
*continues to wear blackface*

Intention is relevant, but it's not the only factor.

Yes, but you have yet to provide evidence that video games are actually sexist, which they aren't. I agree that video games tend to cater towards the majority, but that doesn't make them fucking blackface.

Quote:

I think that this sort of dismissive "It's only the Internet" response from Gamergators (I decided I prefer this spelling) is why wider media doesn't want to engage with them. You're too busy insisting that these people are just making up problems out of thin air that you understand to be unfounded concerns to hear out that this is a genuinely difficult position to be placed in

No, that's not it. That's a strawman. The problem is that often these people utilize masks to hide their location, identity, etc. and it's extremely difficult to trace. I'm not stating that there shouldn't be enforced law about this, there should as it's irksome at best and horrifying at worst, but most people don't put in the effort to stop almost impossible to trace trolls because they are almost impossible for the general person to trace and most of the threats almost never come into fruition. There's a thing called cost - benefit and the cost to attempt to cease this behavior is significantly more than the benefit. If someone is extremely affected by this sort of behavior, then they should definitely do whatever it is in their power to stop this behavior, but most people brush it off.

Quote:

but the most widely reported threats in this movement in particular and the thing that is the point of discussion here is the body of threats made against women, who make up a minority in this industry and in this conversation at present.

First off, provide evidence for this. You make the assertion, you need to provide the evidence. Now, I'll assume that the most widely reported threats are against women to make this argument regardless of whether it's true or not. There's a huge distinction between how many people report the threats and how many people actually receive threats. Yes, if this is true, then it's not good, but there is evidence which suggests that, on twtter, men receive more abuse than women (source here: http://demos.co.uk/press_releases/demos...rthanwomen ). This is a very difficult thing to quantify, but it's bullshit to say that this problem mainly affects women especially when evidence suggests it happens to men more often than women. I want to remind you that this is a very difficult thing to quantify which is why I don't make assumptions, but harrassment, threats, and abuse are across the board on the internet and it's not a women majority receiving them. Saying that the majority of people receiving the threats is women is ignorant at best.