Its 'sensationalism' and we know it.

[gargantual]

I would've thought the witchhunting in action game tropes would be an internet battlefield that we all crossed in 2012-2013 and graduated from, but like TMZ or The Murdoch empire clamoring for the latest buzz and celebrity low moments to come out of their anuses every week, some of the press voices out there is becoming or has become 'The SUN'/'The Inquirer' when discussing social justice in video game themes. And some of us don't make it any better. What about justice in 'game design fundamentals? skill trees vs. paywalls (I.E. internet panhandling) and bad dlc pricing? That's not 'serious' enough anymore? We're still paying for those problems. Those latter mechanical and price issues are big issues that make a lot of games suffer and underperform.


But this 'cosmetic' crusades of video game themes is annoyingly reminiscent of the fake bohemia and fake activism that squandered underground hip hop and rock. The culture became a feather in the hat of 'enlightened' valley kids. who tossed the artform aside faster than psuedo earthers in the movie Biodome. Always stirring shit when its not that big, and looking for minions.

Its ridiculous that nothing can exist for its own fun and lunacy, but that it always it has to be some dumb 'symbol of oppresion' all the time. No wonder it gets so spoiled in gaming discussion, Whether the arguments made about a game's ASSUMED sociopolitics are right or wrong.

Representation issues may feel very real for some gamers out there, but the sheer volume of accusations of bigotry in action games is just stupid now and too flimsy to call it a valid movement. We read into shit too much.

This is how Occupy movement lost its luster, with all our 'knowledge' decsend into splintered mob wars making shit out of every little thing, instead of picking our battles, and learning from each other, and working effectively. I'm not crazy about the old testament, but on a large scale these fringe media fights make the community look like BABEL. as in we seriously dont understand each other, and if thats not a goal we're working for then the arguing should settle when it becomes pointless. To let things cool down eventually and have some thread progression with some LOLs and shared understanding, demonstrates our rationality. A largely uninvolved-enthusiast-game-machine like IGN.com shouldn't have to feel compelled to jump in on Far Cry 4 cries of racism to tell everyone to chill the hell out 'because its now become a business issue.

If that's not a CLEAR sign that these discussions, have become unproductive, then I don't know what is.


Its obessesive sensationalism picking at Far Cry 4, Zero Suit Samus, Mass Effect, even Mario Kart 8? about sexism and racism under some shallow hope that devs will be scared into from now on only making the safest archetypes and themes possible. These devs aren't bigots, they're people like us and it trivializes real world problems worse than hollywood-fake-cause movies ever could, and judges peoples' 3D art unecessarily. If those artists happen to have super fetishes that's them.


I'm of the opinion that if its a game that's mechanically supposed to allow for the fullest of individual, diverse expression and community like an MMO, and it denies it, then YES it can at times be a social and customer service issue.


But anything thats totally 'authored' by someone else with chosen characters with a beggining, middle and end is ultimately subjective. We have to go in with that disclaimer, not expecting that all themes and features were pre tailor-made to serve us completely. That is impossible. Because we're different people with different tastes, beliefs, emotional thresholds, and self image. and people at large are going to do or make whatever the hell they want to. Its part of why they got in this biz in the first place. They're not 60-100 hour workweek programmers, writers and 3D artists for shit they're not actively interested in making.

At some point, after lambasting action games, people gotta move on. Enough of this "if you're not 100 % agreement, you're against us." That attitude is antagonistic to free thought, and we know facists in history, or religionuts of the past have used the same words and sentiments to scare rational independent moderate people into their ranks. It doesn't matter what cause one stands for. People have to arrive there of their own mind and accord. No forum or twitter crusader is going to carry gamers and consumers to some stage of enlightenment. No REAL person is defined by an issue stance. We all have issues that we're left or right of center on and fiction is just fiction.

We can't have folks telling people how to think in such a free spirited, fantasy action loving community, and constantly hammering on players their genre of choice is socially horrendous. Thats Jack Thompson bs and inside our community too. The gamers ya'll disagree with arent idiots on the other end of an internet connection. They're also people, with their own responsibilities and groundings. We are told from the outset we are engaging in subjective fiction. Spin news, fake moral panics and tabloid click bait do not give such a disclaimer, but they can generate the wrong kinda followers.

I had to take a social-justice class yrs ago in college as part of a general social sci requirement, and man I seriously miss how 'mediation' 'agreeing to dissagree' and 'mutual understanding' were common themes in that class. Any student who tried to impose solutions on real world issues was taken down some notches, even if the professor knew their side was right. because pragmatists have a far better track record in solutions than 'crusaders', and for my final paper when everyone wanted to talk about Darfur, Terry Schiavo, North Korea, and Katrina etc, I remember choosing Media Sensationalism as the most dangerous SJ issue.



Clearly when multiplayer communities have dispelled the myths we form about each other, have bridged gaps, and we're still building these walls back up on clickbait. I can see I wasn't wrong.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Brilliant Post! Unfortunately, it's going to be "Too Long; Didn't Read" for the people who need to read this. Also, it lacked the "Who is the bad guy? Why should we hate them?" that "Social Justice" posts have.

What I've discovered with people who argue passionately about social justice issues, most of them are just doing it as an excuse to rage against an anonymous person. All the while feeling morally superior. It's like junk food for the soul. People doing it because it feels great, but it's really bad for them. More importantly, it's really bad for having honest, open discussion about important issues.

Once again, thanks for taking the time for making this thread. I appreciate it, but it will fly over head of most of the people you trying to reach with it.

 

[Uhura]

How about people stop throwing a fit every time someone mentions gender/race/orientation in relation to gaming? The current situation is that it's impossible to have any kind of moderate discussion about these topics, because a good portion of the community immediately sees red and goes on offence.

Mario Kart 8 discussion is a good example of this. The reviewer didn't call anyone racist.

Hating on "SJWs" is currently fashionable in this community.

(And the description SJW is applied very liberally to anyone who talks about race/gender/orientation etc. It doesn't seem to matter if they actually are radical in any way or not.)

 

[NeutralDrow]

about sexism and racism under some shallow hope that devs will be scared into from now on only making the safest archetypes and themes possible.

You had me until about here. If having more racially and sexually diverse characters in general and protagonists in particular was "safe," the developers would already be doing it. Safety lies in male and white, and it's self-perpetuating.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Why don't you ask the Hindu community why they had issues with Kali's original design in Smite?

Why don't you ask the Buddhist community why they thought the cover image for Far Cry 4 was racist?

Why don't you ask feminists why they find Zero Suit Samus offensive?

Why don't you ask that guy who brought up the issue of racial diversty, in regards to Mario Kart 8 and why he had a problem with Nintendo?

See, these in particular don't seem like actual problems. They're kind of really silly nitpicking that distracts from real problems and usually make people take social causes a little less seriously. Well, 3 of those at least.

Someone mind telling me what's the deal with Far Cry 4? I don't remember any Buddhist imagery from the cover, though it may just be faulty memory.

 

[josemlopes]

You didnt insult anyone, even if in some cases it isnt 100% correct there is no denying that there are more important issues that arent being looked at and that there are a lot of minor ones that are making headlines and forcing companies to make statements.

 

[Cowabungaa]

fiction is just fiction.

I think this is the bit I have the biggest trouble with. No, fiction is not 'just' fiction. Just take a crash-course in modern literature and you'll see how fiction is used to spread cultural ideals, how important fiction is in our cultural lives. Videogames are no different, especially among younger parts of our society they're filling that important role more and more.

And that alone makes videogames worthy of being a serious topic regarding social issues. They, as cultural bearers, can definitely perpetuate things that are morally wrong and that's a worthy thing to address.

Now of course, your other point still stands, that constantly getting up in red-faced arms isn't helping. The parable of the boy crying wolf fits pretty well here. Picking your battles, staying rational and being pragmatic will indeed deliver way better results in the long run. Sensationalism can indeed make many of us numb to these problems, only making us ignore them and thus not solve them.

I honestly can't blame some people for getting angry, I must say that as well, it's perfectly understandable considering many years of cultural suppression in certain cases. But I wish people would understand how it just doesn't get you all that far. Rationality is the guide to victory.

Who says? You? Do you fall into any one of those categories? Even if you did, you're just one person. How do you know how the collective thinks? It doesn't matter whether or not YOU see these issues as urgent, somebody obviously does, and I think the least you could is to try and at least understand the 'opposition,' and where they're coming from. It's a hell of a lot better than just getting pissed off and calling them 'irrational' if you ask me.

Dialogue as a tool for change seems to be pretty out of vogue right now.

 

[gargantual]

Nothing else to say really, except: 'follow your own advice.' How about, the next time somebody says something is racist/sexist/queerphobic/bigoted in any way really, you ask them why they feel that way? Because, here's the thing, you're right, we are all people. The people that DO have a problem are just as human as the people like you that don't have as much of a problem.

Why don't you ask the Hindu community why they had issues with Kali's original design in Smite?

Why don't you ask the Buddhist community why they thought the cover image for Far Cry 4 was racist?

Why don't you ask feminists why they find Zero Suit Samus offensive?

Why don't you ask that guy who brought up the issue of racial diversty, in regards to Mario Kart 8 and why he had a problem with Nintendo?

I think that would solve a lot more problems instead of just getting red in the face and calling all the supposed 'SJW's' (and believe me, I find it FUCKING HILARIOUS to see a dehumanizing abbreviation like that used by people who are arguing for others to 'stop generalizing') motherfuckers.

I acknowledge the humanity of people who may find offense in media just as much as those who don't. But deciding when a subject crosses the line has to ultimately be a personal one. To amplify responses in immediate assumption that the other doesnt understand, when they may clearly do but feel theres a flipside to the coin that's not being addressed, is hasty. People who take umbrage dedicate just as many paragraphs to why they take offense. But it's not glossing the front page of USA today's tech or Pop section. They're subjective criticisms. Some Japanese were wary of Kill Bill not all of them. An american making a film on Japanese culture? Yep. Was it a global cultural social issue? Nope. You can see from youtubers like Game Theory and GG even the threads here that Samus wasn't anything to get red on the ears over for other gamers considering her first pixelated unsuit reveal was her in a bra and undies. and Smite's godesses were careful considerations based on other historical, and less covered depictions of them. How many practicing buddhists devotedly play the Far Cry series and understand this new Vaas trend of depicting the villain front and center w/ protagonist in compromising position? Not to mention the villain doesn't look white up close, but more like a seriously westernized Nepalese dude imposing upon a local. I dont know the plot but I sense a 'homeland conflict' theme brewing not a blatant, 'lets shit upon buddhists, snuff poster' And Mario Kart? It's Mario Kart. Not all sitcom coffee shops look more diverse than Seinfeld, people poked fun at it but no one cared enough to make it a social issue. The Toadstool kingdom isn't earth in 2014. I'd rather judge creators on the standards they announce for themselves than society ones created for them. They should find their audience instead of being stuck with having to appeal to everyone.

But this stuff is going to get taken out of context by people who don't understand it. Do these clarifications weigh upon the discussion before article goes up or after? Nope Kotaku goes ahead and calls it an offensive depiction of a white man crushing buddha.

I simply believe that among those who don't see as much of a social issue with risque subject matter and game design that their opinions are equally valid. Some may not voice it in the healthiest of ways, but theres just as much an inherent truth under the surface. We have to weigh all these considerations in our discourse.

I think this is the bit I have the biggest trouble with. No, fiction is not 'just' fiction. Just take a crash-course in modern literature and you'll see how fiction is used to spread cultural ideals, how important fiction is in our cultural lives. Videogames are no different, especially among younger parts of our society they're filling that important role more and more.

And that alone makes videogames worthy of being a serious topic regarding social issues. They, as cultural bearers, can definitely perpetuate things that are morally wrong and that's a worthy thing to address.

Now of course, your other point still stands, that constantly getting up in red-faced arms isn't helping. The parable of the boy crying wolf fits pretty well here. Picking your battles, staying rational and being pragmatic will indeed deliver way better results in the long run. Sensationalism can indeed make many of us numb to these problems, only making us ignore them and thus not solve them.

I honestly can't blame some people for getting angry, I must say that as well, it's perfectly understandable considering many years of cultural suppression in certain cases. But I wish people would understand how it just doesn't get you all that far. Rationality is the guide to victory.

I understand people struggle with that point, but that statement embodies a viewer or player who has learned to fully discern what they listen to, play read and consume, to look beyond the surface and not impart what isn't necessary to their own life and struggles. Many demonstrate that ability in their thread critique. Remember in the past that readers grew up in social vaccum, where information was limited withchunts and moral panics consumed society. Look at the fearmongering of mccarthyism all up to the 90's and how easy misinformation was able to spread when we didn't have quick access to a vast body of free research to counter it. When I say fiction is just fiction, it means remembering one's own mental power to not be so taken in by every voice and rumor. reminds me of a quote from the game Parasite Eve where the concerned weapons lockup guy warns the our character detective Aya about the influence of weapons. he said " But remember, cops own guns for protection. Don't let the guns own you." A discerning mind is shaped far greater a multitude of things in life as well. Life experiences, corrections, changes are far more effecting than pervasive fiction. People indulge to unwind from the confusion of their real life, not to mainly to seek authoritative instruction on it. We have education, support systems, wise people for the latter.

So I think. When people make risque entertainment, their target market isn't the impressionable, but people who can understand their vision, and that at a certain point 'school' has to be out. Maybe I feel there are others who lose the ability to show interest when they hypothetically "go to the puppet show and they see all the strings." They can't get the level of Geppetto and enjoy stuff for what they are, but create so many illusory pedestals and perceptions.

 

[Savagezion]

We read into shit too much.

This right here sums up humanity's problem as a whole as far as I am concerned. We are all guilty of it too because we all want to know why other people do what they do. We seek the motivations behind the people who do things we don't understand. Personally, I really don't give a shit why people do what they do unless it somehow effects me directly or I am trying to help. I assume others are the same way. I try my best to refrain from thinking they do X because they are a bigot, stupid, crave attention, etc. However, what we fight against in our minds is the urge to look down on others, or more importantly the urge to feel superior. This is an urge present in all humans and strongly shows itself in human history as well as the present. The reason to want to cast shame on others is to feel righteous.

I love debate because I love perspectives. I love that no one sees the world the same. My reality is different from every person's reality that reads this. Common truths may hold but the overall perception is way different. Oranges and apples may hold scary memories for you so that if we both look at apples and oranges, we both see and feel two completely different things. Now, for me that means, I don't give a shit if someone gets offended. You are clearly viewing material that wasn't meant for you. Shall we banish oranges as a fruit because someone may have been molested with oranges and find their presence at the gas station offensive? How inconsiderate of us. Ah, but how inconsiderate of them to insist that everyone comply to what offends them, as well.

I am a strong liberal. As such, I hate that all this sexism/racism/etc. stuff is being assigned to liberals. I am VERY liberal. You want to be racist? Fine. I am a liberal, do what you do. I don't give a fuck. I ain't gonna tell you how to live your life. I ain't racist, but I don't give a shit if you are, just don't try to tell me how I need to live either. I am borderline anarchist. I don't believe anyone has any right to tell someone else how to live their life. You can say how you think they should, but don't get offended or self righteous when they tell you to 'piss off'. The problem I hold is that I see many people trying to tell other people how to live their life. Demanding it even. A non-racist demanding everyone be non-racist is no different than a racist demanding everyone be racist in my eyes.

Control, man, what a huge delusion the human mind creates. Manipulation is about the only real form of it that exists. Con artists make a living off of it. Marketing is based on it. However, manipulation isn't control. It's just influence, not control. Banning stuff isn't control, because people break the law. It's influence. It's all just influence. There is no control. I think that pisses off many people. That is why god forbid someone disagrees with you.

Your best bet is not to read into "why" people do things but seek out the actual perspective instead of assigning one. If you disagree with the actual perspective, attack it if you are so inclined. If the argument gets heated, I like to see insults as a game, not to be taken seriously. Insults don't add credibility to an argument but can be fun to slide back and forth. If sticks, stones, and words, hurt you - then don't sling them. If words can never hurt you, don't worry about it - its just a game.

That said, good post OP. I pretty much agree all around. I would like to see more diversity in game characters but probably won't get it because as soon as something other than a white male hits store shelves, here come people pissing a fit and complaining.

Its obessesive sensationalism picking at [games] about sexism and racism under some shallow hope that devs will be scared into from now on only making the safest archetypes and themes possible.

You had me until about here. If having more racially and sexually diverse characters in general and protagonists in particular was "safe," the developers would already be doing it. Safety lies in male and white, and it's self-perpetuating.

I think that is what the OP meant. The social networks are trying to make it look like minorities are a safe bet right now by raising hell and act like they are linging up to spend money on this and then when one gets released, throw a fit and complain about how they did it wrong - effectively making white males the only true 'safe bet'. Who is gonna side with white males about how white male stereotyping? Most white males won't even side with that. It's hard to get something right on your first try especially if it is unfamiliar territory and outside your paradigm. A woman wrote the new Tomb Raider which was close to her paradigm if not in it and people lined up to call it sexist for various reasons.

Who says? You? Do you fall into any one of those categories? Even if you did, you're just one person. How do you know how the collective thinks? It doesn't matter whether or not YOU see these issues as urgent, somebody obviously does, and I think the least you could is to try and at least understand the 'opposition,' and where they're coming from. It's a hell of a lot better than just getting pissed off and calling them 'irrational' if you ask me.

However, both sides are doing this. The offended people are going "How dare you depict X as Y" because you don't care about my views? Then the 'apologists' are saying "How dare you say you can't depict X as Y" because you don't care about my views? Then the first groups says "Your views don't matter" and then the other side gets offended by that and says How dare you say my views don't matter. Then the cycle continues. The original view usually isn't hard to understand. (For me at least) However, the offended perspective usually tends to act like the world revolves around them. People who ban stuff offend me because they ban it under the assumption that I (as part of society) can't handle it because I am too stupid to know the difference. The whole patriarch game and subliminal messages in media crapola. I am seriously offended people push that crap so hard. I am also constantly amazed people eat it up like its gospel.

Ugh, best example I got in my pocket right now is Anita. She came out and I ignored it other than saying it is stupid when it was brought up. I called her stupid the video series stupid and possibly anyone praising it as stupid. But, that's freedom of speech at work. I never said she didn't have the 'right' to make the video. She has the right to make a video and I have the right to call it all stupid. No one's rights were violated. No one was oppressed. The other complaints you listed I and others see as stupid or petty or whatever. It isn't about it being so complex that we can't understand it. I would guess most do understand the opposition, they just think its stupid and express such.

 

[1Life0Continues]

Here's the thing.

It's all well and good to say we should be focusing on 'real issues' instead of the ones in our entertainment. But is not our entertainment drawn from these issues, as well as a way to reinforce or challenge? And as such, does that not mean that by virtue of not challenging, they are reinforcing? So by that (admittedly simplistic logic) it stands to reason that any game (or book or movie or whatever) that does not change the status quo or even attempt to challenge it is, intentionally or not, reinforcing the already held view as the correct one.

By giving your female characters bikini armor, you reinforce the view that women are objects to be ogled. You reinforce the idea that looks are the only thing that counts. YOU MAY NOT MEAN TO, but that is how it is taken, subconsciously or otherwise. Because it's not different, it doesn't challenge the hundreds of other cases of the exact same thing, and it isn't attempting to. Does this mean they should stop doing it? To a degree, yes. There's nothing wrong with fan service or titillation, it's the manner in which it is done. A character like Bayonetta is amazingly sexual, but it's part of her character and there's more to her than that. She's a confident, sassy, highly intelligent witch with a pretty dark back story. This is a fleshed out characterisation that makes sense FOR THAT CHARACTER. However, there is NO VALID CHARACTER REASON for the Witch in Dragon's Crown to be a giant breasted freak of nature EXCEPT titillation. This is inherent sexism and it's time to face up to it. However, just because it is sexist, doesn't mean it has no right to exist. SO LONG AS we understand that the portrayal of the Witch is not how real women are, not how they act and that perhaps MAYBE it's not a good idea that all women should be portrayed this way.

In the case of Zero Suit Samus, the Power Armor *IS* Samus. Sure, a reward for 100% completion was a bikini shot, and I have a problem with that too. However, the Zero Suit is clearly for one thing only and that is to highlight the fact that Samus Aran is a woman and has a pair of tits and an arse. The suit makes no sense for combat because SHE HAS ONE FOR THAT! It's bad-ass and why isn't she wearing it? Because we want to see her tits and arse and we can't in the suit. ADMIT IT! But for the love of all that you hold dear, don't try to make out it isn't a terrible representation of Samus or women in general. Because by doing so, you are PERPETUATING the view that women are only to be ogled and stared at. Their abilities or intelligence mean nothing. YOU MIGHT NOT THINK THAT AT ALL, and the idea you do does insult you. But your beliefs don't matter, because by condoning or defending it, you reinforce it. Fact.

Let me tell you a secret, fellas. We, the feminists, we like titillation too. We enjoy a little fan-service. Sure, some of more extreme members may not, but there's a reason they are called 'extreme'. We don't want it to go away either. What we want, is for it to not be the only thing women are portrayed as. For there to be more women with more interesting features than just a great ass or rack. These games exist, they are small, but they are out there. For all the (justified) shit it gets for it's terrible gameplay, Beyond: Two Souls is a great example. More representation like that please. And hey, Beyond had titillation in it too. It can be done well AND fairly.

[Input from my wife who proofreads my stuff i.e a female perspective] And while on titillation, I feel you should be demanding to see MORE women. Like women with athletic forms and small breasts, or a dancer's form and a wicked smile, or plump forms with curves in all the right places. An overlooked and never formally discussed problem (though informally I, at least, hear complaints from men all the time) with the fantasy they sell is that they sell only ONE fantasy.

Many of these women, if you cover their faces and take away the pretty color schemes, are practically interchangeable--not something you can say about the men. They say they do it to please the fans, and yes, these cookie cutter women can be fun, but there's a world of different types of cheesecake out there, so why are the game makers force feeding their gamers just plain vanilla?

And the personalities are worse--barring some notable exceptions, most games have women all acting with basically the same three to foul stereotypical personalities (if any at all). When you go ga-ga for a girl in a book or movie or even one you make a date with, sure, her body may be the FIRST thing you see (secret; women are the same in that), but it's also her personality that draws you in. Imagine if the leading lady in your favorite action flick was a dead fish, or a shrill nag, or kept talking about sin. Would you like her as much?

There's millions of personalities a girl could have, one for every male cheesecake fantasy, and NONE of them are used in games. There are a small handful hinted at, but nothing to the breadth and scope that COULD be used. They sell the gamers cheesecake, but they sell only one type, and it barely has any flavor.

They sell, in essence, blow-up dolls.

And they expect men to LIKE it because marketers apparently think you're like animals; show you a sexy body and you'll buy with your dicks. These companies really think that low of you.

And then, after being given these one dimensional, big breasted babes, you FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP THEM, even when the type you're actually attracted to might be wildly different. You go to the wall to SUPPORT their crap opinions of you. And that baffles the HELL out of me.

Stand up for cheesecake all you want--I love me a little beefcake myself. But why the hell aren't you at least up in arms demanding more, to be treated and marketed to BETTER? It kills me how many men stand up for their right to be, essentially, "talked" down to. WHY???

Here's a hint--we feminist type people, we don't want to TAKE your cheesecake from you--most of us anyway (yes, we do have our fringe element, too). We want to EXPAND you sexy fantasy potential outside of merely "blow up doll." And you hate us for that??? Seriously??? WT bloody F, man?]

I reiterate. NO-ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR SEXY GIRLS AWAY FROM YOU! What we want is for the sexy girls to NOT be the majority representation of women. And you're kidding yourself if you think it's not.

My point in the end being that pointing out unfair representation (of anything) is NOT akin to sensationalism. Because if it didn't exist to someone, people wouldn't be complaining about it. New studies show that women are over 40% of gamers, yet the fair and equal representation is somewhere in the grounds of far less than that (probably in single digits, if we're being honest). You might not like what we have to say, and that's your prerogative. But so far, every justification for this viewpoint has been either pointing to the notable exceptions (ignoring that they are exceptions completely), keep pointing to Anita Sarkeesian (who has valid points made incredibly poorly) and screaming NAZI, or using the false equivalence of male objectification (without understanding that that too is primarily for MEN, NOT women. Power fantasy). No man has ever made a cogent argument for why women should remain under- or poorly represented in gaming outside of 'sex sells' or 'the market is made for men'. Yeah, it IS made for men, THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

So no, I disagree. And as I've said before, I'm not going to shut up about it. Because it needs to CHANGE.

 

[Something Amyss]

Its ridiculous that nothing can exist for its own fun and lunacy, but that it always it has to be some dumb 'symbol of oppresion' all the time.

So....I mean, if you don't mind me asking....where were the protests against Saints Row 2? 3? 4?

Like, if things can't exist just for the sake of fun and lunacy, they must surely have enraged these folks you're talking about.

We read into shit too much.

Yes, we do. Which is why people take something like asking for diversity and try and portray it like there's some massive outcry of racism/sexism/whatever.

This is how Occupy movement lost its luster, with all our 'knowledge' decsend into splintered mob wars making shit out of every little thing, instead of picking our battles, and learning from each other, and working effectively.

I'm sure the fact that it was constantly misrepresented in the media had nothing to do with it. I mean, it was portrayed more negatively than Cliven Bundy's buddies threatening to shoot feds.

I'm not crazy about the old testament, but on a large scale these fringe media fights make the community look like BABEL. as in we seriously dont understand each other, and if thats not a goal we're working for then the arguing should settle when it becomes pointless.

Everybody understanding is not necessary to reach most of the end goals being complained about. More women/minorities in games? You don't need the "other side" to understand. Hell, Nintendo listened to complaints about Tomodachi Life, potentially effecting change in the next game, and people are still complaining about how wrong gays are for wanting representation. If the end goal is reached, is it pointless?

The arguing does serve a purpose, as it perpetuates visibility. If we're not having this discussion/argument/fight/whatever, then it's easy to ignore.

I don't actually want to change other people. I can't speak for everyone, though.

To let things cool down eventually and have some thread progression with some LOLs and shared understanding, demonstrates our rationality.

Making a thread about the subject isn't a way to cool things down. It's a way to fire it up. Whether your intentions are noble or not, your actions are counterproductive in a way you just ascribed to others.

Its obessesive sensationalism picking at Far Cry 4, Zero Suit Samus, Mass Effect, even Mario Kart 8?

Mario Kart 8 became sensational because people got offended that someone asked for diversity and started accusing an author of calling Nintendo racist for page views. Yes, it is obsessive sensationalism, but not from the party you seem to be addressing. Discussions of sexism and racism aren't in themselves sensational.

under some shallow hope that devs will be scared into from now on only making the safest archetypes and themes possible.

I think you're inferring that which isn't there.

These devs aren't bigots, they're people like us and it trivializes real world problems worse than hollywood-fake-cause movies ever could, and judges peoples' 3D art unecessarily. If those artists happen to have super fetishes that's them.

Okay, I have to ask, can you categorically demonstrate they're not bigots?

I don't think they are, for the record. I know someone will quote mine that and try and turn me into a SJW or whatever, but that wasn't the point. The point isn't to say they are bigots, but to point out the inanity of the assumption or assertion that they're not.

However, the industry, devs, and publishers often demonstrate bigoted behaviour, which is the more important issue here.

Because we're different people with different tastes, beliefs, emotional thresholds, and self image. and people at large are going to do or make whatever the hell they want to.

That's a noble sentiment. Unfortunately, a lot of the diversity issue comes down to a very narrow group of tastes being satisfied and everyone else wondering why.

"if you're not 100 % agreement, you're against us."

Enough with the strawman arguments.

No REAL person is defined by an issue stance.

Then take. Your own. Advice.

Dialogue as a tool for change seems to be pretty out of vogue right now.

Except the OP makes a point of talking about communication without understanding being a bad thing.

Seems like the logical step IS to actually communicate instead of proseltyse.

It's getting to the stage where it would be like me saying "Twilight is terrible because we get to see Edward Cullen near nude but barely get to see any of Bella Swan's flesh." I'm not the demographic for Twilight.

Ah, yes, Twilight. A series of books and movies that led to millions of men losing their minds online because a group not normally pandered to (women) were getting attention and some major blockbuster movies. Well, that's kind of worth looking at.

The problem isn't so much that any one series is made without considering women/blacks/gays/whoever else as a demographic, but an overall trend of the media in general. The "I'm not the demographic" thing might as well be "well, of course girls shouldn't expect to find games appealing," as the trend in1 AAA gaming is to not consider them.

Twilight is a different beast. It's a movie aimed at tween/young adult girls in a part of the media that largely goes to tween/young adult boys. And even that small slice DID lead to the boys complaining. But let's just stick to the gaming example. Barring the possibility of some small group of people on Tumblr/Reddit/whatever it's in vogue to complain about, nobody's demanding that all games market to every demographic. Rather, the problem is that most games won't even consider another demographic.

To borrow from another poster:

NO-ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR SEXY GIRLS AWAY FROM YOU!

And to follow up, if games marketed at teen boys were roughly the percentage of the market that blockbusters like Twilight aimed at teen girls were, would it be an issue? Further, if the market was disproportionately skewed in favour of women, would you be so quick to play the "demographics" game?

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's not the issue being discussed so much as it's the place where it's being discussed I find.

The internet doesn't seem like the best venue for discussing sensitive topics like racism or sexism. Making a post, throwing it online, and waiting for a reply, hardly has the same common ground as sitting face to face and talking. The latter being where we regard the other person as... well, another person, and not a bunch of text with an avatar. There's a reason so many people say the stupidest stuff on Twitter that you would never imagine they'd say in real life. It isn't because they're idiots. Well maybe some are, but it's all too easy to forget your manners when typing on a keyboard, and realize that that which you're writing is being observed by others who will take it at face value.

I feel it's generally the lack of connection people have with eachother online that make these topics spin so violently out of control.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Spoiler: space saver

Here's the thing.

It's all well and good to say we should be focusing on 'real issues' instead of the ones in our entertainment. But is not our entertainment drawn from these issues, as well as a way to reinforce or challenge? And as such, does that not mean that by virtue of not challenging, they are reinforcing? So by that (admittedly simplistic logic) it stands to reason that any game (or book or movie or whatever) that does not change the status quo or even attempt to challenge it is, intentionally or not, reinforcing the already held view as the correct one.

By giving your female characters bikini armor, you reinforce the view that women are objects to be ogled. You reinforce the idea that looks are the only thing that counts. YOU MAY NOT MEAN TO, but that is how it is taken, subconsciously or otherwise. Because it's not different, it doesn't challenge the hundreds of other cases of the exact same thing, and it isn't attempting to. Does this mean they should stop doing it? To a degree, yes. There's nothing wrong with fan service or titillation, it's the manner in which it is done. A character like Bayonetta is amazingly sexual, but it's part of her character and there's more to her than that. She's a confident, sassy, highly intelligent witch with a pretty dark back story. This is a fleshed out characterisation that makes sense FOR THAT CHARACTER. However, there is NO VALID CHARACTER REASON for the Witch in Dragon's Crown to be a giant breasted freak of nature EXCEPT titillation. This is inherent sexism and it's time to face up to it. However, just because it is sexist, doesn't mean it has no right to exist. SO LONG AS we understand that the portrayal of the Witch is not how real women are, not how they act and that perhaps MAYBE it's not a good idea that all women should be portrayed this way.

In the case of Zero Suit Samus, the Power Armor *IS* Samus. Sure, a reward for 100% completion was a bikini shot, and I have a problem with that too. However, the Zero Suit is clearly for one thing only and that is to highlight the fact that Samus Aran is a woman and has a pair of tits and an arse. The suit makes no sense for combat because SHE HAS ONE FOR THAT! It's bad-ass and why isn't she wearing it? Because we want to see her tits and arse and we can't in the suit. ADMIT IT! But for the love of all that you hold dear, don't try to make out it isn't a terrible representation of Samus or women in general. Because by doing so, you are PERPETUATING the view that women are only to be ogled and stared at. Their abilities or intelligence mean nothing. YOU MIGHT NOT THINK THAT AT ALL, and the idea you do does insult you. But your beliefs don't matter, because by condoning or defending it, you reinforce it. Fact.

Let me tell you a secret, fellas. We, the feminists, we like titillation too. We enjoy a little fan-service. Sure, some of more extreme members may not, but there's a reason they are called 'extreme'. We don't want it to go away either. What we want, is for it to not be the only thing women are portrayed as. For there to be more women with more interesting features than just a great ass or rack. These games exist, they are small, but they are out there. For all the (justified) shit it gets for it's terrible gameplay, Beyond: Two Souls is a great example. More representation like that please. And hey, Beyond had titillation in it too. It can be done well AND fairly.

[Input from my wife who proofreads my stuff i.e a female perspective] And while on titillation, I feel you should be demanding to see MORE women. Like women with athletic forms and small breasts, or a dancer's form and a wicked smile, or plump forms with curves in all the right places. An overlooked and never formally discussed problem (though informally I, at least, hear complaints from men all the time) with the fantasy they sell is that they sell only ONE fantasy.

Many of these women, if you cover their faces and take away the pretty color schemes, are practically interchangeable--not something you can say about the men. They say they do it to please the fans, and yes, these cookie cutter women can be fun, but there's a world of different types of cheesecake out there, so why are the game makers force feeding their gamers just plain vanilla?

And the personalities are worse--barring some notable exceptions, most games have women all acting with basically the same three to foul stereotypical personalities (if any at all). When you go ga-ga for a girl in a book or movie or even one you make a date with, sure, her body may be the FIRST thing you see (secret; women are the same in that), but it's also her personality that draws you in. Imagine if the leading lady in your favorite action flick was a dead fish, or a shrill nag, or kept talking about sin. Would you like her as much?

There's millions of personalities a girl could have, one for every male cheesecake fantasy, and NONE of them are used in games. There are a small handful hinted at, but nothing to the breadth and scope that COULD be used. They sell the gamers cheesecake, but they sell only one type, and it barely has any flavor.

They sell, in essence, blow-up dolls.

And they expect men to LIKE it because marketers apparently think you're like animals; show you a sexy body and you'll buy with your dicks. These companies really think that low of you.

And then, after being given these one dimensional, big breasted babes, you FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP THEM, even when the type you're actually attracted to might be wildly different. You go to the wall to SUPPORT their crap opinions of you. And that baffles the HELL out of me.

Stand up for cheesecake all you want--I love me a little beefcake myself. But why the hell aren't you at least up in arms demanding more, to be treated and marketed to BETTER? It kills me how many men stand up for their right to be, essentially, "talked" down to. WHY???

Here's a hint--we feminist type people, we don't want to TAKE your cheesecake from you--most of us anyway (yes, we do have our fringe element, too). We want to EXPAND you sexy fantasy potential outside of merely "blow up doll." And you hate us for that??? Seriously??? WT bloody F, man?]

I reiterate. NO-ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR SEXY GIRLS AWAY FROM YOU! What we want is for the sexy girls to NOT be the majority representation of women. And you're kidding yourself if you think it's not.

My point in the end being that pointing out unfair representation (of anything) is NOT akin to sensationalism. Because if it didn't exist to someone, people wouldn't be complaining about it. New studies show that women are over 40% of gamers, yet the fair and equal representation is somewhere in the grounds of far less than that (probably in single digits, if we're being honest). You might not like what we have to say, and that's your prerogative. But so far, every justification for this viewpoint has been either pointing to the notable exceptions (ignoring that they are exceptions completely), keep pointing to Anita Sarkeesian (who has valid points made incredibly poorly) and screaming NAZI, or using the false equivalence of male objectification (without understanding that that too is primarily for MEN, NOT women. Power fantasy). No man has ever made a cogent argument for why women should remain under- or poorly represented in gaming outside of 'sex sells' or 'the market is made for men'. Yeah, it IS made for men, THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

So no, I disagree. And as I've said before, I'm not going to shut up about it. Because it needs to CHANGE.

I suppose that it's quite agreeable that we have an issue with women, hell I have another post somewhere that talks about it

"I want to be aroused by hot girls but I don't want to feel bad about it"

The only time there's something wrong with sexualized characters is when people try to justify their existence with bull shit. It's okay to be aroused by things stop feeling shamed by that. When you start trying to convince me eye candy is some deep statement on feminism or liberated women is when my 'this is the new 52 starfire bull again' alert starts going off.

Okay, it is possible that a fan servicey looking character is more than that, but for the purposes of video game and comics I'd wager you could count them all in one hand.

And that's the sad part about it, some characters are likable but a part of me also knows "this is not realistic and may be systematic of something"

Let me put this into context, Until I saw your post, I wasn't going to post because the person I would use as a reference is very debatable

Spoiler: Makoto Nanaya of Blazblue

Spoiler: Makoto out of combat

In game and supplemental side material, Makoto has been characterized as very upbeat with a deadpan streak around some people (cough, Kagura, cough), Extremely devoted to her friends, Smart enough to get into military academy on scholarship, strong enough to compete with an entire cast of insanely powerful people, and strong-willed enough to avoid losing her mind after being thrown into the void.

Issue is that I left out one thing that I think makes her somewhat popular in the fanfic community: she has been portrayed as a bisexual. Don't misunderstand, bisexuality is fine but a part of me is constantly thinking "my god, this is fetish bait" so i'm left between a rock and a hard place. One half says "this character is fun, lovable, and has a backstory that intrigues me", the other half is like "do I like this character for or despite of her kemonomini and underboob".

I really do not like this conversation because it can be so hard to justify why we like something but if we do, we may be seen as perverts

The issue with sexuality in games is that, no matter how much supplemental material or plot details are there to justify a specific character, The vast majority of women are still the fantasy of big tits and either a generic badass or generic wallflower personality. Hell, Makoto [http://blazblue.wikia.com/wiki/Makoto_Nanaya] here (link in case you know nothing about the games) even with all the details in the games is still probably the very fantasy that your wife says is too often used: fanservice with not a lot backing it up.

As for the Op, yes, the discussions have gotten to the point of confusion: I'm stuck trying to figure out whether I'm in the right or wrong for liking sexy characters and also in the web of "justifications and counter arguments". I would argue though that simply halting all dialogue on the issues will only make it worse and make it a very difficult slog to fix legitimate problems. Trying to stop sensationalism by muting everything will do more harm than good

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

It's not the issue being discussed so much as it's the place where it's being discussed I find.

The internet doesn't seem like the best venue for discussing sensitive topics like racism or sexism. Making a post, throwing it online, and waiting for a reply, hardly has the same common ground as sitting face to face and talking. The latter being where we regard the other person as... well, another person, and not a bunch of text with an avatar. There's a reason so many people say the stupidest stuff on Twitter that you would never imagine they'd say in real life. It isn't because they're idiots. Well maybe some are, but it's all too easy to forget your manners when typing on a keyboard, and realize that that which you're writing is being observed by others who will take it at face value.

I feel it's generally the lack of connection people have with each other online that make these topics spin so violently out of control.

At the same time, I highly doubt that the infrastructure necessary to impart the same accountability that Face-to-Face has on the internet will be ready anytime soon. I would bet the only way would be to have it so that people "dive" into the net so that the person that is communicating and being talked to is the actual human, not an avatar or facade.

As for what can be done now about these conversations, I tend to think that stepping back from a problem helps irl. In this case, the best thing would be for people to not reply instantly but let the issue sit in your head for a bit. I doubt that it will be possible to hold people to that standard but if nothing else, we could always have people do what they do in real life debates: citations, active moderators, correspondents, and the like

 

[SilverBullets000]

Mario Kart 8 discussion is a good example of this. The reviewer didn't call anyone racist.

No, but the OP insinuated that he did with his misleading thread title, which led to the waves of people calling the reviewer an idiot for something he didn't do. OP went back and fixed it, but he was too late.

And, from what I've seen in the article, the guy did a lot of beating around the bush. I don't have psychic powers or anything, but he might as well have said it. Then again, it's not like it was click-bait, right? I mean, we didn't have another issue about racism with another game just before then, right? Right?

Hating on "SJWs" is currently fashionable in this community.

(And the description SJW is applied very liberally to anyone who talks about race/gender/orientation etc. It doesn't seem to matter if they actually are radical in any way or not.)

I would hope so. They're generally reactionary prudes who overcompensate for their own insecurities, getting offended for others when the group in question had little to no problems with it in the first place. Most of the controversies kicked up by them are over petty grievances that make normal people scratch their head over the idea that someone was actually offended by it, trivializing the issue to the point that legitimate complaints are glazed over in favor of avoiding the SJWs in question.

Eh, I'm coming off as kind of an ass here, so I should bring up that at least the Mario 8 discussion brought up a couple of cool ideas to integrate ethnicities into the fold without shoe-horning them in. The black Toads and Delfino ideas in particular would work really well. They could argue that it wouldn't because they're a different species, but that would feel like even more stupid nitpicking to me.

But mostly, I'm just tired of the negativity of it all. They're fucking videogames. They won't appeal to everyone all the time. Yes, I agree that some should try, but trying to make them is the wrong way to go about it. Calling those that disagree racist or sexist is an even worse way to go about it. Especially in Mario Kart, where most of the drivers are either thinly veiled clones of other stereotyped human characters or fucking turtles. You know, something the reviewer didn't seem keen on bringing up.

OP: Yeah, I get what you're trying to say, but you might as well have said it to a vacuum. Those who agree will do so, and those that don't will completely ignore and pick apart your argument like it were a lego castle.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Its obessesive sensationalism picking at Far Cry 4, Zero Suit Samus, Mass Effect, even Mario Kart 8?

Mario Kart 8 became sensational because people got offended that someone asked for diversity and started accusing an author of calling Nintendo racist for page views. Yes, it is obsessive sensationalism, but not from the party you seem to be addressing. Discussions of sexism and racism aren't in themselves sensational.

Spot on. Unfortunately, this is the irony that seems to escape these folks:

These discussions only become controversial, they only attract as much much media attention because you make it so. And in the process, you achieve the exact opposite of what you want. You force publishers to react to a big debate instead of just sitting out a small one. You induce game developers to make their games more inclusive (which apparently is a bad thing) because they are not keen on generating similar backlashes. And you drive many people in the other camp because you make them think about what kind of people they want to be associated with.

At the end of the day, you're just playing into the hands of the people you dislike so much. In a way, you're the catalyst for the change you don't want to see happening.