But how much do you actually study into games? Do you only care for the technical aspects, or have you looked into the theory? If I mentioned "Marshall McLuhan" to you, does that ring any (important) bells?
No, I will admit I had to look him up. My course only briefly mentioned him as I studied the production of games. My design philosophies are more backedup by my own research into things by Eric Zimmerman and Greg Costikyan, which are more recent.
So do I. But I also believe that we cannot allow ourselves to stuff all over principles because of the moral messages of the game. If you don't like the morals, make your own games or make a critique, but don't take other people's money and don't make stuff games about it.
I am confused as to this statement. Are you angry at people for selling phiolosophical games that people have to pay for?
I'm guessing you were completely deaf when they announced Assassin's Creed Unity, and a boycott was called thanks to Anita because there were "no females".
I did not in fact here about that.
Thank you. See, this is one of those "facts" I was so hoping for in this debate.
I do not believe she should have called for such a boycott, no, I believe though that it is important to address how many games are like this.
For many people their view of the world is influenced by their media and if their are being bombarded with media consisting only of active males, and passive females, they are going to assume this is how the world works.
I hear none of that, because nobody cares. The gamers suck because they won't try new things that don't consist of $10,000,000,000 budgets, and the moral minority sucks because they don't care about games.
People are scared because other people intend to change the medium to suit their own agendas, and to hell with gaming staples. I actually don't like shooters, but I would never in a million years ask for the entire genre to be killed off because it purports bad stereotypes.
Again I don't know where I remember people saying this is actually what people want. I just remember saying this is what the fearful retractors believe.
There seems to be this stupid belief that everyone in the industry needs to be the next Jesus, and only make games that fit some moral criteria. I want to make games that teach and help people in their real lives, but that's my own personal goal. Every game designer should be allowed to do as they please in terms of design,
yay
and it is up to the gaming community to decide what they want, not some group of Tumblr-queens.
There is not a singled out gaming community. If there still exists a hardcore gamer then sure, they can dictate their own demographic.
As games have become a more social medium, one of which everyone participates in, the idea of the solitary gamer breaks away.
You hardly hear anyone identify themselves as a "moviegoer" now as something intrinsic to them, yet those who do you can understand that this media is more pertaining to them, as such there are generally movies more targeted towards "moviebuffs" and those more targeted towards the "general public".
What these people hope to do is make sure the image the games purport to the general public doesn't negatively impact people's societal expentencies.
[/quote]
You are loving mental.
Ok I dont want to go into an economics lesson too much so I will just break down the principle of positive feedback thisway:
MakerCo makes a blue ball with some red stripes and some blue balls with more greenstripes. People buy more of the balls with the green stripes. The maker sees this trend and tries introducing a half-green ball into the market. More people purchase this ball. The maker then decides to make an entirely green ball, and they continue to sell. The red striped balls stopped being produced by this company because they specialize in green balls. Time passes and a new group of people want the red balls, but they cannot buy it, and the market has interperted the people to want green balls and because they continue to purchase the green balls, they assume thats what people continue to want. The intrinsic value of the fun of the ball has nothing to do with the feedback system. The way they created the product and the amount of product sold is what they counted
Look at the indie scene. There are these games being created. It's because of these stupid movements and actions of people, that the mainstream gamers want to ignore indie developers who are actually trying to make a damn good difference.
I don't understand the argument here sorry: I take it as you are trying to say that progressive movements are interfering with the production and acceptance of progressive games? To that I counter it is more the fear of the progressivism itself. So yes it is in part the fault of the progressivists for being so loud, but after how long this has been going on, its hard to blame them.
her twitter account
her videos
recorded footage of her
did i not say i based it off of stuff she has done
An interpretation of events is not a source, it is an opinion.
The events themselves of which you have brought up I have already addressed. Of course correct me if you feel I am wrong as I know you'd want to.
If that is abuse and a normal reaction then Dong Nguyen and Jack Thompson should be hidden in a bunker in Nevada by now defended by the FBI and about 7 other anti-terrorist organizations or something.
Not to mention that I should also hide under my sheets and ask mamma to smooch my hed cuz a 7 year old screamed "IMA KILL U" at me in chat. I feel legitimately threathened because of that.
Pls help.
Yes you should feel threatened. You do not know who is on the other side of that screen. They may be seven or they may be a thirty year old psycopath who really feels its their duty to end your life. There are stories of gamers getting killed because someone was sore about the outcome of an online match.
No but seriously, Anita is cancer. Complaining about loveism in the industry is only creating more problems for it since it hasn't been a issue in years
There are alot of testimonials about the abuse women recieve in the industry, some I have even heard accounted first hand, if you would like I can start digging up links about how bad it gets, but that completely ignores how:
and nobody commended things like GTA SA for it that much as they would if it was released today,
Or such comments were disregaurded on account of wanting money, see my abouve explanation of economics
and if it did, it wouldn't live to begin with because of "muh mysoginy" complaints, it wouldn't ever possibly be the same game. Nor POSTAL 2, or other similar games. Heck, even Saints Row.
If the developers wanted to make the games, they could, market forces would then dictate it is not a good idea to however.
However, it's not the issue of loveism itself, it's what the (what has become rather handicapped definition of) "feminist movement" does in order to breakfix games that were not meant for them, the devs should not even give a single forget about them or their complaints since there are other thousands of games that can be played by them.
You are absolutely correct, the developer shouldn't have to care about what people playing their game think about their game, especially if they know they do not want to target this demographic. If your personal developer is so headset on loveist ideals, I am sure you will continue to see your loveist games, dont fret
AND even so, some males play female games and nobody complains because it's simply not the meant demographic.
You have not been one of those ridiculed for liking things of an opposite gender I see, and thus have not recieved the strew of insults associated with such behavior, so I can understand you having this opinion.
If a developer publicly announces a game for both the male and female audience strictly then "feminists" have all the right to complain about loveism in it because at that point it becomes a moral issue.
I mean come loving on she addressed Princess Peach of being a (in similar terms) "maiden in distress" in the series, oh so fragile and powerless. What the forget man, how can you defend that?
Why should you have to. It is a trope throughout history of placing a women as a goal in a story. Just because you are pointing it out shouldnt lead to all the hate.
Also if you inform yourself from Kotaku/Gamesutra/Polygon you are part of the issue. Kotaku has never brought any benefits to gaming journalism. It just brings more crap to the table.
I even read the occasional article on fox news. I have mentioned before and I shall say it again, I like to have a varied source of media to inform myself of the general opinion. I apologize for not tuning out media outlets I do not agree with.
If you want to hear an actual, serious feminist talk about what is "loveism in videogames" see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w
I do not have a stable enough internet connection to view youtube links.
If that is the democrat feminist from wherever saying games arnt loveist, thats a good way to use one random unrelated opinion from the group to represent your own views of the group or what it "should be" let alone the argument of even trying to define who or what is femminist or not.
The casual consumer literally does not give a forget what game is developed if it's not for it's demographic, the existence of irrelevant games for males (ala Barbie and Baby simulation or other such games) does not even go through the head of those people.
Meanwhile, there is Feminist Frequency and "feminists" which aggressively try to combat this crap that is not an issue in gaming, and if it was indeed an issue, they should simply plain out ignore the game as it's whole as it's outside their demographic.
Except for where that games influence people's perceptions of society and you have situations like the dude who shotup a beach of ladies this summer cause he couldnt get laid and felt women "owed" it to him. By purporting equal rights in media, you are welll on your way to obtaining equal rights in society.
The previous state of industry did not have limits for creative content in games. As far as it goes forward, this creates limitations.
Limitations breed creativity, imagine how many new and interesting stories we could have if developers were thought outside of the box more. Maybe it would help that whole games-as-art debate.
I don't see your point or how the heck can you defend this as a game developer yourself. Maybe you don't want to make games with girls with huge hooters but who gives a stuff about that, someone else may, will, and has.
Yup
Saying that you defend creative content but at the same time defend people who input limitations on things you oppose since they're simply outside of your interest is as self-centered as it can go.
Errr what? I am saying they have a right to speech as much as anyone else. People should be allowed to say "hey I don't like this game" without getting death threats. People should be allowed to play a game without feeling demeaned. People should be allowed their own opinions and perspectives so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I thought there was like a john locke essay about this or something.
