Yes, that's true. I'm not saying that the core gameplay loop was negatively affected by Sarkeesian et al
So were the trained fighters that Nate killed 1v1 in earlier games. So were the private armies that have been after him in every game.
We'll never know. Maybe they fired the set-piece guy (or gal) in favor of a "diversity consultant".
1) We weren't "awake" to the threat back then.
2) What games did you have in mind?
As I said before, gaming has long had a problem of non-gamers being in charge. Publishers, execs, and the like. I also said before that gaming was just one battleground in a much larger cultural shift. Put the two together, and you have people who ill-understand the hobby making executive decisions to hire people ill-suited for the hobby. Diversity consultants, and the like. They have been convinced, somehow, that they need to market to "a new audience", because they're an untapped goldmine waiting out there. Time will tell if this strategy pays off for them.
The core gameplay loop staying the same is the core of what is wrong with TLOU2.
Like every action movie has a point where the hero loses a battle to up the stakes, it's a standard trope. Nate wins fights with grit vs skill throughout the series.
Then they rehired the set-piece person for The Lost Legacy (UC4 DLC)?
Like all the games with white dudes with short hair as protagonists? That "person" was way over represented. Aiden Pierce from Watch Dogs being the perfect example really.
The non-gamers in charge just care about making money, they don't care about cultural shifts.
You know how some companies are willing to take a hit to push their ideologies?
You think those Gillette "toxic masculinity" commercials helped them sell more razors?
Haha, no. That was never their intention.
It's about "social purpose".
It's about sounding like a good, ethical, green, socially-conscious, progressive brand.
Because someone sitting high up thinks that will work out better for them in the long-term. They see that it works for other companies, so why not them too?
because those companies already have a large part of that demographic already, (Dove and Nike, for example) which makes it easier for them to expand into that area
Look at how many companies came out with solemn black .jpgs in response to George Floyd. You think all those companies really care? Or are they just trying to get you to associate their brand with the right politics?
And if sales have to take a hit in the process, then those are acceptable losses.
2) `O'Sullivan's first law
3) Are regards the boots on the ground, to do the dirty work, what they really want to do is push an agenda. They don't actually care about the company, just like Sarkeesian doesn't really care about gaming. They're similar to religious zealots where the only thing that matters is the cause, and they'll burn down the companies they work for and martyr themselves in the process if that's what it takes. Kyle Gaddo is an example of this, with his clearly stated intentions of an ideological scrubbing.
Oh, that reminds me:
4) False conclusions from data that includes casual games like Candy Crush and Farmville have mislead executives into thinking that there's suddenly an explosion of girl gamers that they now need to snatch up.
Sure a company will try new marketing that may up sales. But they aren't going to keep it up if sales keep declining or staying steady. Each and every big game has a lot of pressure to perform and game publishers aren't just going to keep playing the "long game" to hopefully increase sales. If one or two games don't sell well enough for them, they will quickly change back to what was selling. It's the exact reason why female protagonists weren't allowed many times, they saw a game or two not sell well with a female lead and made developers stick to male leads. What makes you think that attitude has changed at all? What major gaming companies are taking financial hits over and over again because of influencers?
I think literally every female friend I have plays games and those games aren't stuff like Farmville and Candy Crush. There's quite a lot of female gamers that play what you'd consider male dominated games like online shooters. I was in 2 clans in Ghost Recon Future Soldier that were both lead by female players.
Each and every big game has a lot of pressure to perform and game publishers aren't just going to keep playing the "long game" to hopefully increase sales
And we'll see if Battlefield VI keeps the same cyborg-redhead-cricket-woman advertising, next time, if the series is still alive.
But actually, suits are notoriously bad at knowing exactly why their game underperformed. For example, the most recent Medal of Honor series. When that game failed, I remember reading in a Game Informer or something that some suit said "turns out players just aren't interested in realistic military action". Of course they are. Your game just sucked.
So who knows? Maybe they'll think "we didn't push radical feminist ideals hard enough!" Until they run out of money.
There's quite a lot of female gamers that play what you'd consider male dominated games like online shooters. I was in 2 clans in Ghost Recon Future Soldier that were both lead by female players.
And we'll see if Battlefield VI keeps the same cyborg-redhead-cricket-woman advertising, next time, if the series is still alive.
But actually, suits are notoriously bad at knowing exactly why their game underperformed. For example, the most recent Medal of Honor series. When that game failed, I remember reading in a Game Informer or something that some suit said "turns out players just aren't interested in realistic military action". Of course they are. Your game just sucked.
So who knows? Maybe they'll think "we didn't push radical feminist ideals hard enough!" Until they run out of money.
Clearly they were drawn to GRFS thanks to all the DIVERSITY and INCLUSION present in the marketing and narrative.
No? They weren't? You play as some faceless guy who shoots other faceless men the whole time?
Well then, I guess we don't need to change anything after all. Clearly there is no problem.
Speaking of Tom Clancy, Rainbow Six siege has a pretty diverse cast and nobody complains about that.
Diversity in gaming has never been a problem despite the propaganda otherwise. Some of the original video game heroes here women.
Samus, Croft, Terra, Zelda, Peach.
But they want you to think its a problem because there cant be outrage if there is no problem. Therefore they twist things to make it appear like there is a problem. And because these corporations dont remember their own products they believe that there is a problem and panic trying to fix a problem that that never there.
Remember when Ubisoft bragged that in Assassin's Creed: Odyssey you could be a female protagonist for the first time. Because they forgot that Eva in AC:Syndicate existed two entries earlier.
And we'll see if Battlefield VI keeps the same cyborg-redhead-cricket-woman advertising, next time, if the series is still alive.
But actually, suits are notoriously bad at knowing exactly why their game underperformed. For example, the most recent Medal of Honor series. When that game failed, I remember reading in a Game Informer or something that some suit said "turns out players just aren't interested in realistic military action". Of course they are. Your game just sucked.
So who knows? Maybe they'll think "we didn't push radical feminist ideals hard enough!" Until they run out of money.
Clearly they were drawn to GRFS thanks to all the DIVERSITY and INCLUSION present in the marketing and narrative.
No? They weren't? You play as some faceless guy who shoots other faceless men the whole time?
Well then, I guess we don't need to change anything after all. Clearly there is no problem.
Speaking of Tom Clancy, Rainbow Six siege has a pretty diverse cast and nobody complains about that.
If anything kills Battlefield, it'll be DICE. I don't get how they keep making the same game but worse. The last beta of BF that I tried the shooting was pretty bad, not to mention the glitches and horrible balance, Warhawk was a better BF last-gen IMO. MOH Warfighter's multiplayer was actually pretty great and the best online FPS of last-gen. That campaign sucked about as much ass as a campaign could. I got the trophies to prove I played it.
Or the company finds out that females like such and such game (and they didn't realize it) and now they try to be more exclusive in the marketing to pull in more female gamers (untapped market). I don't think you need to market COD/BF/etc to male gamers anymore after decades of marketing straight to them, the company "roped" them all in by now.
Where's the proof of these major gaming companies making less money over say the last 5 years or whatever because of the EssJayDubyas? The companies just chase money, that's their only motive really.
If anything kills Battlefield, it'll be DICE. I don't get how they keep making the same game but worse. The last beta of BF that I tried the shooting was pretty bad, not to mention the glitches and horrible balance, Warhawk was a better BF last-gen IMO. MOH Warfighter's multiplayer was actually pretty great and the best online FPS of last-gen. That campaign sucked about as much ass as a campaign could. I got the trophies to prove I played it.
Or the company finds out that females like such and such game (and they didn't realize it) and now they try to be more exclusive in the marketing to pull in more female gamers (untapped market). I don't think you need to market COD/BF/etc to male gamers anymore after decades of marketing straight to them, the company "roped" them all in by now.
Where's the proof of these major gaming companies making less money over say the last 5 years or whatever because of the EssJayDubyas? The companies just chase money, that's their only motive really.
Honestly i think it is burnout from DICE. They are forced to pump out BF games every damn year that i think they just get lazy and uninspired. Hard to make sure your game is good when you are just going through the motions every year.
I'd have to have access to their detailed financials for that.
But Mass Effect is almost certainly dead now. ME3 had a lot of problems with its ending not mattering, but you can see a gradual rise of "progressiveness" from ME1 to Andromeda, culminating in the ugly default female character that looks worse than her model (because sex-positivity is bad! Down with attractive females! We don't want those nasty men lusting over her! Her beauty will intimidate all the unattractive women playing our game!) and the trans character who deadnames herself as an introduction.
Again, those things aren't what "ruined" that series, but we can see a correlation between progressive ideologies and "ruination".
Bonus points for them saying the game was too hard on normal mode at a single point, thus they dropped it to easy and were saddened by the game being easy.
The right difficulty is a balance. It requires enough challenge to not be boring but not so much that the game just becomes frustrating. Neither easy mode nor normal mode struck the right balance for this writer.
Because the temptation is there always. Ya'll can say you don't wouldn't mind Souls having an easy mode because it wouldn't affect the way you play. And it is easy to say that on a forum. But when you are on your 50th death against Gwen, and easy mode is a click away, you are a liar if you say you wouldn't be tempted.
In strategy games like XCOM or CKII we have ironman modes, that disable savescumming and difficulty changing during a playthrough. Something like that could help here.
I'd have to have access to their detailed financials for that.
But Mass Effect is almost certainly dead now. ME3 had a lot of problems with its ending not mattering, but you can see a gradual rise of "progressiveness" from ME1 to Andromeda, culminating in the ugly default female character that looks worse than her model (because sex-positivity is bad! Down with attractive females! We don't want those nasty men lusting over her! Her beauty will intimidate all the unattractive women playing our game!) and the trans character who deadnames herself as an introduction.
Again, those things aren't what "ruined" that series, but we can see a correlation between progressive ideologies and "ruination".
So there's no proof publishers are making games that are less profitable or sell less overall?
ME3's ending being bad had nothing to do with "progressiveness". As a huge fan of Mass Effect, I had no interest in Andromeda because the premise of the plot was stupid and basically made ME's plot pointless in a multitude of ways. Also, they changed the game from streamlined RPG with basically no fluff to open world game with tons of fluff (plus just general franchise milking, glitches, and it being memed to death surely didn't help). Did Anthem fail because it was too progressive as well? Or was it the more logical explanation that the devs didn't even know what game they were making? Also, progressive in America and progressive many other high population places that also have pockets lined with money are two different things; a progressive American is basically center (or even towards conservative) in many other countries.
Mass Effect 3 was the most commercially successful game in the series. How did increased "progressiveness" ruin the series then? Again, the proof of this "conspiracy" causing companies to sell less / make less profit seems to be nonexistent or squarely against itself.
Well, we know that Battlefield V flopped, the only question is "why?"
We know that Mass Effect gradually got worse and worse, the only question is "why?"
We know that Gillette lost 8 billion due to their preachy commercial. I don't think anyone asks "why" here.
Just when I thought this thread could not get any dumber. Another thread that was already played out that is once again derailed. @Phoenixmgs don't bother wasting time talking to him. Houseman, I have 0 respect for you and you sound no different those jerks whining about Abby being too muscular (I think TLOU2 sucks.) in a zombie apocalypse. Or those cry baby boys complaining about Charlize Theron kicking grown men asses in Atomic Blonde. I'll drop this:
Don't bother responding with your conspiracy bullshit or how I am making up strawmen. I don't give a rat's ass. As far as I am concerned, you're just another person that does not know as much as you think you do. Good day. I won't respond with anything else.
I'd have to have access to their detailed financials for that.
But Mass Effect is almost certainly dead now. ME3 had a lot of problems with its ending not mattering, but you can see a gradual rise of "progressiveness" from ME1 to Andromeda, culminating in the ugly default female character that looks worse than her model (because sex-positivity is bad! Down with attractive females! We don't want those nasty men lusting over her! Her beauty will intimidate all the unattractive women playing our game!) and the trans character who deadnames herself as an introduction.
Again, those things aren't what "ruined" that series, but we can see a correlation between progressive ideologies and "ruination".
And again; Frostbite is a shitty engine for RPG character creation but just fine for professionally designed characters. Default Sarah Rider is plenty cute. So is Lexi T’Paro, Suvi and before you point at Peebee, she’s a roughneck who’s been around the traps and Cora’s only issues are her rather unfortunate (but probably regulation) haircut and the fact that she’s a whiner.
I like how 'Go Woke, Get Broke' types are VERY good at cherry picking results that comfirm their bias.
Eg. I heard ME:A wasnt very good so I waited for a sale. Progressiveness didn't factor into that equation
I know that some people are offended at women, and them having looks or jobs they don't like. So you dont buy it. You do you. Pretending everyone else didn't by it for the same reason is a bad assumption
I think we're kinda at a different sort of issue when complaints about Abby being built like a tank are conflated with complaints about women kicking asses.
I adore a myriad of shows and games and books where scrawny and cute women kick major ass, have godlike powers, transcend the laws of the universe, what have you. So clearly you don't find any objections from me on the front of women being powerful.
I just don't see it as a coherent component of the above fantasy to have the woman be built like a man in order to achieve these things. It's not like big brawny muscles will actually realistically make you any more capable of cleaving a mountain in half with your katana. So if we're already being unrealistic, I see it as halfheartedness to try to make women manly just to make it seem more believable that they'd do such a thing. It's still just as unbelievable as when you have a little girl do it.
Basically, there's two conflicting fantasies here. There's a very strong (not male dominated) view of beauty and cuteness and femininity, pushed to the extreme, as being empowering. Then there's the conflicting view of "masculine = good" which seeks to masculinize women as a method of empowering them or treating them equally.
Frankly, I think that is actually diminishing to women. It makes their inherent way of being, the one that is being exalted by the former fantasy, into a state of inferiority, and treats the exception as the ideal. The issue at heart is that the former way of female empowerment coincides to be something that also pleases men. That also takes into account men's opinions and views, and that is intolerable to some people. So it is those people to whom the latter fantasy is aimed.
Basically, there's no right or wrong here, just competing ideals. Let em compete for all I care. Just don't try to pretend one is superior to the other just because you agree with it.
I like how 'Go Woke, Get Broke' types are VERY good at cherry picking results that comfirm their bias.
Eg. I heard ME:A wasnt very good so I waited for a sale. Progressiveness didn't factor into that equation
I know that some people are offended at women, and them having looks or jobs they don't like. So you dont buy it. You do you. Pretending everyone else didn't by it for the same reason is a bad assumption
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
