Gender of a protagonist

Sonics2k

Anyone else remember the days when video games were just for playing video games and having a bit of fun. Genres for everyone and gamers (in general) got along

nesf

I don't care

Sonics2k wrote: »

Anyone else remember the days when video games were just for playing video games and having a bit of fun. Genres for everyone and gamers (in general) got along

No, even in the 80s when I was little there was bitching and moaning in the games mags. Easier to ignore though, no such thing as Facebook. :P

Anyone else remember the "moral outrage" over the first Tomb Raider? :S

Shiminay

Atari Jaguar

I think that when someone says "vidya" and means games then they should be told to stop trying so hard to sound cool. That doesn't mean I'm going to add the word to the site's swear filter...

The opinion of ONE PERSON or even MANY PEOPLE does not mean that something is going to happen - I don't know what plane of existence you live on Aimead but that is not how this world works and it is never how this world will work and despite all the GooberGarts screaming about the sky falling, not one less game has been sold because of anything they have done and that freakishly sex negative cherry picking numpty Sarkeesian only continues to gain more popularity because people like you keep screaming about how she's "ruining vidya" :rolleyes:

Links234

I don't care

nesf wrote: »

Anyone else remember the "moral outrage" over the first Tomb Raider? :S

I remember the moral outrage over Mortal Kombat, damn I feel old

nesf

I don't care

Shiminay wrote: »

and that freakishly sex negative cherry picking numpty Sarkeesian only continues to gain more popularity because people like you keep screaming about how she's "ruining vidya" :rolleyes:

Shush now! You're spoiling his outrage privilege! Or abusing yours. Or something.

Links234 wrote: »

I remember the moral outrage over Mortal Kombat, damn I feel old

Mmm, never was I happier to have a Mega Drive.

Robert ninja

I'm just gonna continue saying 'vidya' because it seems to trigger everyone. Who knew boardsies were this meta-hipster.

johnny_ultimate

Sonics2k wrote: »

Anyone else remember the days when video games were just for playing video games and having a bit of fun. Genres for everyone and gamers (in general) got along

Mediums splinter and diversify as they grow up, this is not something to be feared. There are still plenty of games that are 'just a bit of fun', but there is already more and more complex, difficult and, well, divisive titles that deserve a little more thought. To me it's an exciting time to like video games, because it's evolving into an artistic medium in ways it has never has done before.

And honestly there's going to be an awkward transitionary period. One could easily argue it's happening already, and certainly not helped by the fact it's really the first medium to grow up in the wonderful, awful world of the Internet. We need to start developing more intellectually involved and critical language to talk about games, because games increasingly demand it. Alas, that's happening slowly - take the fact that somebody offering a (sub?) undergrad-level feminist analysis of video games has caused such an unholy ****storm. But it's happening, and frankly it's only going to get better. And yeah, it's going to split the 'community' such that it is, but that's a natural, welcome consequence of a maturing art form, and will lead to more developers, players and critics alike challenging traditional wisdom and exploring new areas.

We've gotten past the point of all games just being a bit of fun, and I for one warmly welcome that - I couldn't play and appreciate games like Papers, Please or Three Fourths Home or Proteus or The Path or The Magic Circle or The Sailor's Dream if games were just for fun. People are trying to engage with games on a deeper level, and one only has to look at some of the great, insightful writing on games out there to see the benefits of that. There have been stumbles along the way, and safe to say there'll be more than a few more. They're growing pains along the way to a medium that deserves to be taken more seriously.

Links234

I don't care

Robert ninja wrote: »

I'm just gonna continue saying 'vidya' because it seems to trigger everyone. Who knew boardsies were this meta-hipster.

It 'triggers' my cringe response, if that's what you mean :pac:

nesf

I don't care

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Alas, that's happening slowly - take the fact that somebody offering a (sub?) undergrad-level feminist analysis of video games has caused such an unholy ****storm.

This is an aspect of a much broader internet problem. We are in the age of the amateur pundit who can amass a following of millions without any curation or validation of their views. Pick any controversial topic and you'll find plenty of heavily shared opinions that are woefully flawed to anyone with an understanding of the area.

This is why democracy is so ****ing scary when you stop and think about it.

Robert ninja

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Mediums splinter and diversify as they grow up, this is not something to be feared. There are still plenty of games that are 'just a bit of fun', but there is already more and more complex, difficult and, well, divisive titles that deserve a little more thought. To me it's an exciting time to like video games, because it's evolving into an artistic medium in ways it has never has done before.

You think games are evolving now more than they used to be? Honestly, some of the most ambitious games in terms of story, narrative and characters are either old, odd or offend too many people and slip under the radar so people don't talk or know about them.

Video games to me haven't been as brain-dead as you make them out to be.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And honestly there's going to be an awkward transitionary period. One could easily argue it's happening already,

The only thing transitioning is the narrative a lot of people are getting swept up in that video games have a default unfavorable, 'problematic' posture, gamers themselves are similar... and things need to change. This has been the view of a lot of non-gamers for a long time but is now sad to see it being beaten into the players' heads themselves.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

and certainly not helped by the fact it's really the first medium to grow up in the wonderful, awful world of the Internet.

Oh of course, how awful that they've forever been influenced by almost every country, attitude and culture from around the world with comparatively minimum censor to both the content and the critique of it.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

We've gotten past the point of all games just being a bit of fun

And when was this? Back in 2004 when I discovered the very real friendships one can form over the mutual struggle with Monster Hunter and Outbreak online? How about 2003 with Silent Hill 3, which when stripped down is really just the story of a lonely girl who can't escape a nightmare created by people she wants nothing to do with. A compelling, disturbing and unforgettable story experience matched with skin-crawling gameplay.

Or we can go even further back.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

and frankly it's only going to get better

I somehow doubt video games are going to get any better because of this. They will and have always been getting better no matter how many people complain about tits or violence. When it comes to story telling I think video games have taken a dip, actually... in the grand scheme of things anyway.

Unless you meant there's going to be MORE people saying how the next hitman game is sexist? Please just shoot me now if that's our future.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

, and I for one warmly welcome that - I couldn't play and appreciate games like Papers, Please or Three Fourths Home or Proteus or The Path or The Magic Circle or The Sailor's Dream if games were just for fun.

Um, ok. But I also couldn't play or appreciate games like Super Hexagon if people tried design it so that the lines were representative of the male patriarchy and the dot on the screen is actually a woman's struggle to escape and be herself in a twisting, confusing world of colours (races!) and sick music.

I get it, it would be nice if some games had more substance. But there are more than a handful of games around with such crappy writing I wish they'd drop it and go the Painkiller route and say feck it, you're here to do X gameplay element and we're gonna invest all our time and money into that so you can actually enjoy a good GAME and not some political, feminist or gay-rights message with #depth.

It also encourages you to use your imagination when there's minimal plot element which are the times when I've had the most of fun with certain games.

Anyway, I'm going to get back to the cat lady. This game is incredible so far.

Sonics2k

Links234 wrote: »

I remember the moral outrage over Mortal Kombat, damn I feel old

I remember it too, but I also remember the gaming community pointing and laughing at the whole idea because we knew the idea that games make people violet was nonsense, just like the idea that games make people sexist is nonsense.

Could games have more female protagonists, absolutely. Are games inherently sexist, absolutely not.

Maximus Alexander

I don't care

Sonics2k wrote: »

I remember it too, but I also remember the gaming community pointing and laughing at the whole idea because we knew the idea that games make people violet was nonsense, just like the idea that games make people sexist is nonsense.

Could games have more female protagonists, absolutely. Are games inherently sexist, absolutely not.

The question of whether or not games make people sexist is completely separate from the question of whether or not they are sexist.

You can be a thing without making others into that thing. This is fairly self evident.

Aimead

I don't care

Links234 wrote: »

Expressing and opinion about LGBT people is a different thing entirely than actively making efforts to ban same sex marriage, one is not a direct logical consequence of the other, it's absurd to suggest otherwise.

This is one of two blatant strawmen you have introduced here. I’ll describe them here.

The first was when you said this: “Likewise, Anita saying that this level of violence shouldn't be considered normal, the sensible response is that of course it shouldn't be considered normal! The very point of it is that it is extraordinary, that it is abnormal, that it is ridiculous violence turned up to 11.” If this were what was expressed then it would amount to little more than a tautology – that a fantasy game isn’t reflective of reality. But that isn’t what was expressed. It was that both the game, and that an audience would derive enjoyment from it, were being branded as ‘not normal’. Your distortion above is even more contradicted when, in the original utterance, this very reasoning was banded “the problem”.

There is a world of difference between branding a game as ‘not normal’, because it is unreflective of reality, and branding a game as ‘not normal’ (and, by extension its audience), because an audience might derive enjoyment from it. The former, which you used, is a gross distortion of the latter. Using a gross distortion, and then using it as a basis for argumentation, is the textbook definition of a strawman.

The second strawman is in the LGBT quote above. The proper analogy would go like this:
Person 1: “No one is calling for a ban on SSM.”
Person 2: “Really? What about that person over there who says it is unnatural and evil?”
Person 3: “There is a difference between expressing an opinion and actively making efforts of ban SSM.”
Person 2: “…???? WTF does that have to do with what I actually said????”

<There Are Only Four Lights.jpg>

---

Shiminay wrote: »

The opinion of ONE PERSON or even MANY PEOPLE does not mean that something is going to happen…..

Where did I say otherwise????
If someone says “quert’s do not exist” then all I have to do is point to a quert as a disproof. The nature of querts, what influence they do or do not have, whether they should be taken seriously or not, etc. etc. etc. has no bearing whatsoever on pointing to one. Why Links234, and no you, have decided to make responses to a whole litany of **** I have never said nor implied is baffling to me.

Real Fan: “There is no such thing as huffy footballers.”
Me: “What about Ronaldo?”
Football Fan: “I don't know what plane of existence you live on but that is not how football works and it is never how football will work and despite all the Ronaldo Haters screaming about the sky falling, not one football game has been played because of anything Ronaldo has done and he continues to gain more popularity because people like you keep screaming about how he's "ruining football"”
Me: *Backs away slowly from the crazy person*

---

Shiminay wrote: »

This seems relevant to this discussion[/url] - let me pluck the most relevant bullet point:Â

Seems that this survey was…well…I’ll let the author speak for themselves:
Rosalindwiseman . com/response-to-time-article/

(Remove the spaces around the dot)

When this was posted earlier I thought both the results and the quotes given were completely unrepresentative of kids around that age-group that I knew. It seems that the only reason this admission (and that’s what it is) was posted was because it was had become clear that the survey (not the results, the actual survey with a call to participate) had being passed around Twitter and Facebook.

Congratulations OP. If the Time article and survey debacle is anything to go by then you can claim to have done some legitimate scientific research the standards seem to be so low (well, in Sociology and similar fields at least).

---

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

… take the fact that somebody offering a (sub?) undergrad-level feminist analysis of video games has caused such an unholy ****storm.

Srsly? It’s not my intention to be passive aggressive, I just don’t want to totally drag the thread off topic with a massive rant and I just wanted to note that I think you’ve…shall say…not represented the situation to its fullest.

I couldn't play and appreciate games like Papers, Please ….. if games were just for fun.

But Papers, Please is for fun. At the core of that game is a rather ingenious little puzzler that manages to exercise skills that very few other games require. Attention to detail, meticulousness, clerical speed and accuracy, etc. – I genuinely struggle off the top of my head to think of any other game that tests these skills to the level Papers, Please does. The dystopian setting adds to the game, but certainly doesn’t make it.

If Papers, Please didn’t have that core addictive puzzle mechanic then I wouldn’t have played it for more than five minutes. For some reason I don’t think I’m strange or in the minority of gamers when I say that.

---

Robert ninja wrote: »

And when was this? Back in 2004 …...

Or we can go even further back.

Final Fantasy 6, with multiple female leads btw, was one hell of a yarn all the way back in the mid-90’s. Pace, tension, deep plot, and all topped off with a wicked sense of humour. Despite the cartoony graphics it managed to deal with topics like despair and loss with a level of class and substance that is rarely seen. The dev’s managed to use the medium to explore these topics in ways that books or films could not, and the result was a rich engaging masterpiece that I haven’t seen bettered yet.

And it was also huge fun to play.