Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread
Comments
-
Every gamer has certain biases. I get the sense that when people complain about biases and agendas it's more railing against a bias and agenda is not their own. Just a reminder that being vocally against politics in video games is a political position and agenda in and of itself. It's so bloody ironic that this was in response to a game (GTA) that wears its politics on its sleeve too.
Gamespot's rebuttal was amusing and really highlighted the absurdity of the whole situation:
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 30,336 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 29040
Hah, we're back to the outraged, alarmist JPEGs are we :pac:
You know what? Some of those comments are actually factually accurate. The GTA and studies ones seem like a big stretch, would prefer to see the context they were used in. But...
Violence is very often the only available way to interact with other characters or players. I really don't need to name any of the thousands of games where combat or tools to aid combat are the only game mechanics.
It's true that many characters would be disturbed and changed by what they see and do - take Nathan Drake as an example of a character who sees and does awful things, but the story distractingly fails to acknowledge the impact of his actions, creating an obvious dissonance between game and narrative. Spec Ops is a fascinating counterpoint to this.
Brutal violence is glamorised and celebrated in games. And if you question or comment on it? Well, the image above speaks for itself
For people so disgusted by 'moral guardians' and people 'trying to decide what people can enjoy', many members of the GamerGate crowd are incredibly quick to get morally outraged themselves. What I'd argue the real difference between a critic and a 'moral guardian' is is that one insidiously and narrow-mindedly takes action to try and restrict the freedom of everybody else based on their own code. A good critic may have some strong words and controversial readings of certain topics, but they'll also respect right to expression and freedom of speech and will not be in favour of bannings or censorship (perhaps extreme examples aside). They might call for a more inclusive environment for all and urge creators and players alike to actively consider certain issues, but to me there's a major difference between that and 'ban this sick filth!'0 -
-
-
-
-
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Hah, we're back to the outraged, alarmist JPEGs are we :pac:
You know what? Some of those comments are actually factually accurate. The GTA and studies ones seem like a big stretch, would prefer to see the context they were used in. But...
Violence is very often the only available way to interact with other characters or players. I really don't need to name any of the thousands of games where combat or tools to aid combat are the only game mechanics.
It's true that many characters would be disturbed and changed by what they see and do - take Nathan Drake as an example of a character who sees and does awful things, but the story distractingly fails to acknowledge the impact of his actions, creating an obvious dissonance between game and narrative. Spec Ops is a fascinating counterpoint to this.
Brutal violence is glamorised and celebrated in games. And if you question or comment on it? Well, the image above speaks for itself
The thing for me, and most others, playing games where I shoot the shít out of thousands of people are purely a flights of fantasy. Giving out that the protagonist would most likely be suffering from debilitating PTSD from their experiences is a bit daft imo - these games aren't being built to address those issues. I'm all for games being developed that explore something like that but I'll be honest, if I'm playing the likes of Bulletstorm I'm not worrying about the long term effects all the shooting is going to have on my character. I've never felt it was a distraction playing games, such as Bulletstorm or the Uncharted series, where the moral implications of the character's killing of others wasn't addressed because, for a lot of games like that, they're essentially fulfilling simple hero fantasies.
While Spec Ops and I think Last of Us tried to address some of those kinds of issues, lets face it, you were still killing hundreds of people in the games. That said, I'm looking forward to seeing more complex issues being worked through in games but I see it happening pretty much as it does in Hollywood where the big studios produce the balls to the walls no brainer blockbuster and the indie movies tackle the more esoteric material. My really big issues with gamergate is people being attacked for producing these more esoteric games and others being attacked for expressing views that aren't in line with gamergate groupthink©.
Someone mentioned a homogeny that is expected from a certain section of gamers in terms of games that are produced and how scores are applied for games and God forbid anyone that doesn't toe the partyline. The thing is, if those guys win, the world of gaming would be an utterly fúcking depressing place.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 29920
Every Western would leave the cowboys wracked with guilt and the Indians with PSTD. WWII films? Where is the shellshock? Why don't paintball places have medical tents???!!
Most forms of entertainment have us doing/seeing things that are far from the mundane. We don't want to buy Tax Accountant Simulator 4!! Or watch a film about a person with kids a suburban house and a job they hate.
As far as objective vs subjective reviews go, I prefer subjective passionate reviews. I will admit that I DONT like to find out that a reviewer has an undisclosed bias especially a financially bribed one. But yeah, if someone wants to put their opinion in front of me and makes a case for it, I'm capable of listening and accepting/rejecting it as I see fit. Mesh 10 such reviews from 10 difference sources and you get a pretty decent picture of what the game is like. Wisdom of masses etc
My only concern is that frequently movements like feminism critique something... and then the next step is to pressure it to be changed. My preference for games tends towards the strategic and/or more story-based but I am currently playing Shadows of Mordor which is essentially an Orc Murder Simulator
The whole Rad Fem thing feels like creeping censorship and I don't want to have quotas in my games (or anywhere else for that matter).
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/08/010 -
-
johnny_ultimate wrote: »I'd certainly love to see more people - critics and gamers - calling for and promoting more games that don't rely on violence as a shorthand, but I also think there's plenty of room for hero fantasies (and we should also be free to criticise games that we feel as individuals step over a line - Hatred, for example).
You know, I think a lot of it is down to shortcomings in design. Games can and sometimes will make people care about characters, there's quite a few examples of this, Final Fantasy VII being the obvious one, but just look at Portal for an extreme. The game made you care for an inanimate object more than most other games made you care for their entire cast of characters, and that's down to some brilliant writing and a cleverly designed game.
But in contrast, a game like Payday 2 (which I absolutely love!) cannot get you to stop shooting civilians in the face no matter how much the developers try, and that's down to civs existing merely as an obstacle, it's a problem with design. There are all sorts of incentives in the game to get you to NOT kill random bystanders, be it cash penalties for civilian casualties, or time delays in getting a player back who's in police custody, or that you might need hostages to trade, or crippling the amount of body bags you can carry, no matter what consequences there are, players almost can't help gunning down innocent people. Why? Because if you're trying to play stealthy, there's one thing that'll **** your game up completely, and that's a civilian alerting the police or bank staff hitting the alarm, etc.
Because no matter what the devs do, it's often the easiest and safest if you're spotted just to shoot the guy who spotted you in the face and throw the body in a dumpster. It's safer to shoot the bank tellers who are right by the alarms than to attempt to control and intimidate them, tell them to lie down on the ground and then cable tie them individually. And previously there was a problem that once you cable tied a civilian, they were stationary for the entire game and anyone who spots it would be alerted, but if you killed them you could bag their corpse and throw the body in a dumpster or somewhere else out of sight so that nobody gets alerted by it. They tried to fix this by limiting the number of body bags each player had, that didn't help. They tried to fix it by making it possible to move your hostages once they were cable tied, but thei AI pathing is horrid and sometimes they can get in the way, because if you're trying to cable tie a bunch of people you can end up commanding one of them to stand up by accident... The game makes you want to gun down a bank full of people because **** it, you really come to hate those annoying bastards and they're just going to get in your way, robbing this bank would go so much smoother if everyone is dead.
Game design. One game made me care about an inanimate object, another made me want to kill every innocent on the map. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 30,336 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 29040
Grumpypants wrote: »People mistake keeping ideology out of your work as removing passion.
Who said anything about ideology? Absolutely a critique can be ideological in nature (and so what if it is?), but not every subjective review is an ideological one - I reckon a tiny minority are. There can be small ideological and moral aspects, sure, but what's the harm in that, especially if it's clearly an important part of the player's response to a game? If a few lines about the portrayal of female characters in GTA is considered dangerously subjective and toxically ideological, one can see why much gaming writing remains in the proverbial ****ter.
When I wax lyrical about the poetry of Bayonetta's combat mechanics, I am being subjective and passionate. As soon as I start making a personal judgement on something it is subjective. You can be generally objective - the sort of typically dull consumer guide reviews you see everywhere (story, gameplay, UI, music, yawn, graphics, conclusion, score) - but as soon as you start offering an opinion, you're being subjective even if you're trying to be fair and balanced. The soundtrack you love could be a piece of **** to me - really, the only objective comment there is 'there is a soundtrack' and some facts about its creation and what it is.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
I think Links and Shiminay have made good points that the quality of writing and design in most of the games out there today is absolutely dire.
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time had two terrific protagonists, one of whom was female but avoided many of the stereotypes (and wore appropriate clothing!! ). You came to really like both of them over the course of the game. (unfortunately someone later decided to turn the prince into a brooding "badass" in the sequel and lo and behold, it was crap).
Or more recently take Brothers: A tale of two sons. Despite having the most unnecessary subtitle *ever*... it really let you get to know the two characters and grow to like them for their personalities...all without the use of voice acting (the characters speak only in cartoonish non-language). It made me more emotional than any game I've played to date.
Unforunately there are then the Call Of Duties and while it might seem lazy to pick on CoD, I watched my nephew play through it and the story was absolute tosh. It was horrendously basic and almost a parody of games writing.
So why is CoD the number 1 franchise in the world and Brothers is an indie "hit". Same reason that One Direction are huge. Why Friends out-ratings Black Mirror and why a Jennifer Anderson rom-com will smash box office records.
This isn't a fault of games... this is a fault in our basic education systems, nay our culture.0 -
Every Western would leave the cowboys wracked with guilt and the Indians with PSTD. WWII films? Where is the shellshock? Why don't paintball places have medical tents???!!
Most forms of entertainment have us doing/seeing things that are far from the mundane. We don't want to buy Tax Accountant Simulator 4!! Or watch a film about a person with kids a suburban house and a job they hate.
You might joke, but there's probably someone who's about to greenlight Tax Accountant Simulator 4 one of the days. There's already a Grass Simulator, and even a bread simulator called I Am Bread. And I'm pretty sure the movie you described probably exists as an oscar winner from the Coen Brothers
But there's a lot of games lately that are not your usual violent shooter that are absolutely fantastic, one that's had me unbelievably engrossed lately was Banished. It's sort of like Age of Empires without the war aspect, you have some settlers and you build a town, plant crops, manage resources, etc. There's no enemies, warring factions or anything like that at all, it's you against the elements and it's a hell of a challenge at times because you sometimes have natural disasters or disease or starvation, and when the idea is to get your town to survive, it can be seriously tough. It's one of the most engrossing games I've played in recent years, and it can definitely make you care about the lives of your villagers, when they start dying from something, you start to panic! It's nerve-wracking and tense at times.
But having these kinds of non-violent games doesn't take away from the mainstream or the violent ones. As buggy as it was sometimes, I thoroughly enjoyed decapitating people and hacking their limbs off in Chivalry. Variety and all. And if the whole indie game thing is bringing more things like FTL or Banished, then great.Or more recently take Brothers: A tale of two sons. Despite having the most unnecessary subtitle *ever*... it really let you get to know the two characters and grow to like them for their personalities...all without the use of voice acting (the characters speak only in cartoonish non-language). It made me more emotional than any game I've played to date.
Thanks for reminding me of another game on my backlog that I need to play!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 30,336 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 29040
Potatoeman wrote: »I generally dont care what sex the player characters in a games is but insisting on them seems a bit much. Isnt it the same as saying one of the woman from sex and the city should be a man to make it more appealing to men because some men watch it too.
Who's insisting?
The article merely addresses the point that the biggest franchise in gaming has never had a playable female lead (barely mentioning the concerns that have been raised about the way women are portrayed in the game generally - although, let's be honest, almost every character in GTA is a shallow, grotesque or faceless human being), and argues it would be nice to see Rockstar addressing the fact. Given the series starts with a near blank slate in terms of characters every game, it's not an entirely radical proposition - and here's some straightforward examples of how it could work in theory, given a lot of people seem to believe it wouldn't.
Is that really 'a bit much'? Articulating a preference or hope is not the same as a demand. I'd say it's a much more positive way of discussing these issues than campaigns to get the game withdrawn from shelves.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Who's insisting?
The article merely addresses the point that the biggest franchise in gaming has never had a playable female lead (barely mentioning the concerns that have been raised about the way women are portrayed in the game generally), and argues it would be nice to see Rockstar addressing the fact. Given the series starts with a near blank slate in terms of characters every game, it's not an entirely radical proposition - and here's some straightforward examples of how it could work in theory, given a lot of people seem to believe it wouldn't.
Is that really 'a bit much'? Articulating a preference or hope is not the same as a demand. I'd say it's a much more positive way of discussing these issues than campaigns to get the game withdrawn from shelves.
There has been a few articles on the topic. Im not trying to say that is what this one is about. It just seems like there is pressure on them to do it so they will shoehorn in something to try and please people. Its like the multi racial casts that are only there for diversity and have no character or depth.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W95xiSksIq0
Advertisement