DizzyChuggernaut said:
EternallyBored said:
At best, it is empty grandstanding, and at worst it is basically poorly done propaganda.
I'm curious to know what the "agenda" is if this is indeed propaganda. I'm not denying that it's questionably arranged but "propaganda"? Propaganda for what? Their "opposition" is claiming that they're trying to keep gaming a "boys' club" and that the games they enjoy contribute to the pervasive sexism in society (to a degree significant enough that it results in hysteria).
It's fairly common for propaganda pieces to create caricatures of a position in order to attack a more easily defeated argument or enemy. In this case it bears resemblance to a number of political propaganda tactics I have seen politicians utilize in U.S. elections, right down to the formatting.
Start with a scary or important sounding question, it doesn't matter if your opponent's stance is only sort of similar, or that the question is taken to an illogical extreme or simplified so much as to be useless, it needs to be pithy and punchy, something that will immediately grab attention. In this case, starting out with, "are games really sexist?", sure, nobody is actually arguing games in their entirety are sexist, but wording the question this way gives it more emotional oomph, it makes those that like videogames feel like the question is antagonistic and targeting everyone rather than anything specific. It creates an image of an opponent that is generalizing your whole hobby
Then, at the bottom, an authoritative statement, doesn't matter that the image itself doesn't actually answer the question, the answer is irrelevant, you are answering it for them. Start with an authoritative "No." with its own period and everything, it gives you a commanding voice, people are psychologically more likely to believe things they read if they are stated with authority and assurance. Then you answer the question for them, another commanding statement telling them the answer to the question asked up top. And finally, a little self-advertisement to top it all off, to let the reader know where they need to go if they want to hear more, all good politicians know that their name, or website, or link to how to donate to their PAC is essential. In this case, a pithy little hashtag telling you exactly who brought this little picture to you, and summing up just what they are supposedly fighting against.
Now, was the image created as actual propaganda? Eh, hard to tell, maybe, maybe not. It's just as likely the image was a genuine attempt at someone trying to present information rather than specifically advertising for a group or cause. It could have just been someone caught up in the flamewars and in an emotional state didn't bother to think the image through very well, or it could have been someone in a hurry who just wanted something punchy and easy to grasp that they could throw out against a particular opponent or sentiment. propaganda is kind of a loaded term, so I am loathe to throw it out for a movement as spastic and unorganized as this one.
Also I think the lack of female characters and the homogeneity of male characters is more the publishers' faults rather than developers or the gaming audience. Because of this I think a lot of the criticism is very misguided. I'm sure loads of devs would LOVE to put women, non-whites and LGBT characters in their games but when budgets increase, the room for risk-taking decreases.
I rarely see anyone blame developers more than publishers, if anything the publishers are pretty much the go-to scapegoat for any sort of criticism in mainstream gaming: DLC, microtransactions, review score inflation, youtube takedowns, content cutting, tacked-on multiplayer. It's easy to blame the publishers, they are just shady businessmen who don't play video games, they aren't the developers who are often gamers themselves and make the games we love, and they aren't our fellow gamers.
Though, given that in the AAA industry publishers are the ones holding the pursestrings, they likely do hold the lion's share of the blame for these types of decisions, this does not, however, mean that developers and audiences are completely blameless either.
Developers that see male protagonists as favorable or the default can exist without any publisher influence or developers who self-censor themselves to pander to a desired demographic, and publishers hold the beliefs they do in part because the audience (gamers) support these decisions with their money and feedback. That does not mean that developers, publishers, or gamers are evil and must be attacked for this, but neither can we point our fingers at just a bunch of shadowy publisher investors as a convenient scapegoat to avoid turning the mirror on ourselves or the developers who create the games we love. The current situation is not some grave human rights violation, it should be able to be discussed rationally by adults without thinking one side is either raging misogynists or rampant man-haters.
They should cut gamers some slack.
Gamers should cut other gamers slack? It's gamers attacking other gamers for the most part, it's like kids on the playground who grab another kids arm and use it to hit him while saying "why are you hitting yourself?" except there is no second kid, it's just the one kid hitting himself genuinely wondering why he is beating himself up.
