Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Agree so much with the end of the video about how you can talk about a part of a game being shitty without calling the entire game shit. Not just about the isms, but about ANYTHING. Point out that any game isn't perfect even though you really like it, and there's always a legion of fanboys waiting to pounce on you with the tired old bullshit "Go back to CoD" or the like. Example, I really like my PS3, but Sony and many aspects about the PS3 are far far FAR from perfect. Call out the things that should be improved though (for example, the new Playstation Store is an abomination, a complete downgrade from the previous store in every way. the store itself has its own patches like games do now, the load times are horrendous, and the store is organized so poorly that the specific games section is filled with avatars and going to the "new this week" section doesn't show you everything that came out this week just to name a couple of massive problems that piss me off every time I go on there), and all the Sony fanboys care to say is "get the fuck out here you 360 fanboy". Because, you know, anyone who points out anything wrong with the PS3 can only be an evil 360 lover out to make the PS3 look bad. I hate fanboys so much.
Then why did you come to a thread for a video that's saying it's okay to talk about when games do something wrong? In fact, you're not even discussing the video at all. You're just pointlessly derailing the thread, which is another thing the people of this forum do far too often.erttheking said:
I find it particularly sad when people take criticism at a game or a film as a personal criticism. Like, they completely identify with that thing and are prepared to proclaim "This is who I am."the Dept of Science said:
That's sad. You are a complete human being with millions of thoughts, emotions and opinions. You aren't a videogame. You are much more complex than that and as a developed mind you can identify things about you in a videogame and things not about you. Don't let the side down, please.
Attractive is aesthetically pleasing.JudgeGame said:
A waterfall can be attractive. An abstract statue can be attractive. A man can be attractive. A woman can be attractive.
Sexualized means, to me, arousing.
As I'm personally straight I've thus far only found women to be arousing.
The entire zombie genre dehumanizes people. Literally. It's horror, it's kind of the point. If you think all but a very few men actually get off on this then maybe you are the sick one.JudgeGame said:I have a hard time convincing myself this question even deserves an answer.
Intent is important.
Bravo. Then tell me, what is the intent of the large breasts?m19 said:The entire zombie genre dehumanizes people. Literally. It's horror, it's kind of the point. If you think all but a very few men actually get off on this then maybe you are the sick one.JudgeGame said:I have a hard time convincing myself this question even deserves an answer.
Intent is important.
I didn't know other developers had spoken and they were against this, glad to see this was the ramblings of one person. It is still pretty bad that he spoke for the game at one point.erttheking said:
From what can be seen in this trailer it does look more like sexual assault and she repels the attacker. But still, I have to ask is this the only way to make us care about the character? Since this version of Lara is not the ridiculous version of the past, with gravity defying boobs and playboy poses, couldn't they find other ways that we saw how difficult her journey is? Must it always be sexual?erttheking said:
I have to stand corrected and will stop using this as an example of sexism and exploitation, but I still think it looks like they could think of something better than just having her assaulted.
Well, if she's so competent, why was she captured? I guess we can only answer this after playing the game.erttheking said:
This really sheds some light on the subject, thanks. I'm really looking forward to this game, I'm just afraid they went too quickly to the T&A option in some parts of it.erttheking said:
(This assumes the majority of people silencing others are American or British)
This is a sociological issue. American and British culture, compared to other cultures is highly individualist. The "Free Market" and fighting among brands has created a culture based around competition and distrust of things that are different.
When someone has a problem, the people bred with individualism and brand loyalty instantly get defensive for 2 reasons, first, they didn't personally find X thing offensive, so selfishly they declare X is not offensive. Anyone who finds X offensive is a potential enemy and threat to X, so that's why they silence the competition.
The contrary point, finding everything upsetting and offensive is a creation of Hugboxes, mostly on the Internet and best exemplified by Tumblr SJ and Fandom culture. This pampers people into believing X thing is wrong if they didn't like it a 100% or when they interpret it wrong, and while rarely they want X censored or removed they should understand that they may be attacking is not as serious as it is or may even not exist at all. Case in point, people attacking ATLUS for P4's Naoto when it was revealed she was not a trans* character, and how dare ATLUS not make her trans*, well she never was intended to be that.
Strangely enough, most silencers on the Internet have both of these aspects.
This is known as being a narrow-minded prick fanboy.
This is a sociological issue. American and British culture, compared to other cultures is highly individualist. The "Free Market" and fighting among brands has created a culture based around competition and distrust of things that are different.
When someone has a problem, the people bred with individualism and brand loyalty instantly get defensive for 2 reasons, first, they didn't personally find X thing offensive, so selfishly they declare X is not offensive. Anyone who finds X offensive is a potential enemy and threat to X, so that's why they silence the competition.
The contrary point, finding everything upsetting and offensive is a creation of Hugboxes, mostly on the Internet and best exemplified by Tumblr SJ and Fandom culture. This pampers people into believing X thing is wrong if they didn't like it a 100% or when they interpret it wrong, and while rarely they want X censored or removed they should understand that they may be attacking is not as serious as it is or may even not exist at all. Case in point, people attacking ATLUS for P4's Naoto when it was revealed she was not a trans* character, and how dare ATLUS not make her trans*, well she never was intended to be that.
Strangely enough, most silencers on the Internet have both of these aspects.
This is known as being a narrow-minded prick fanboy.
What M19 said:JudgeGame said:
Exactly! This isn't Mario... Horror is supposed to be horrible. Do you know how many 'offensive' things I've seen on the Walking Dead TV show? But they were supposed to be offensive. Horror isn't there to elicit feelings of goodwill and comfort, if it does then it's failed the genre. Considering how campy, over-the-top and silly the zombie side of the horror genre can get. A mutilated torso in a bikini is exactly on par with what I would expect from it; whether it be a product from a game, movie or just a novelty in Spenser's Gifts at the mall.m19 said:
Saying that someone does not see an issue in something does not necessary translate into stating that there is no issue at all, as Jim painfully points out.
It is a matter of that person's opinion that they are not offended by the "ism" on hand, however, they might have not spent breath or ink in acknowledging that said "ism" may be offensive to others.
If we go that path, then everything we say must be accompanied by some sort of disclaimer: "hey, I love avocadoes, but I recognise that their cold slimyness may be insulting to someone else's tastebuds"; that is a ridiculous situation and one that oversimplifies that person's intent and strips it off the other elements. On the internet we may need to take things at face value, if someone does not see a problem with a female zombie torso he must have a problem acknowledging social "isms", but that is plain wrong in real life.
For the record, I do not see a problem with said zombie torso, large tits or no, I have never played Dead Island and I don't think I ever will, but that does not preclude my ability to recognise that the torso may offend people (for whatever reason they might find offensive) and that does not make me a douchebag.
It is a matter of that person's opinion that they are not offended by the "ism" on hand, however, they might have not spent breath or ink in acknowledging that said "ism" may be offensive to others.
If we go that path, then everything we say must be accompanied by some sort of disclaimer: "hey, I love avocadoes, but I recognise that their cold slimyness may be insulting to someone else's tastebuds"; that is a ridiculous situation and one that oversimplifies that person's intent and strips it off the other elements. On the internet we may need to take things at face value, if someone does not see a problem with a female zombie torso he must have a problem acknowledging social "isms", but that is plain wrong in real life.
For the record, I do not see a problem with said zombie torso, large tits or no, I have never played Dead Island and I don't think I ever will, but that does not preclude my ability to recognise that the torso may offend people (for whatever reason they might find offensive) and that does not make me a douchebag.
I think there's another cravat to this discussion which people forget: Developers are people too.
Developers, like everybody else, make mistakes. They screw up.
They put a slut-shaming side-quest in their game.
They use the titillation of beating up kinky nuns for promotion.
They allow their strong, independent female heroine to be threatened with rape.
They package their special edition with a lump of plastic with breasts attached.
...
And you know what? That's perfectly okay, so long as they acknowledge the mistake, apologize and, most importantly, don't do it again. Just because a developer includes questionable content, doesn't mean that they support it's contextualization, nor does it mean the rest of the game is rife with the -ism.
We've bred this all-or-nothing-culture: If we're not defending a developer with our very last breath, were sending them death threats and bombing all of their efforts on Metacritic. Why? To what end is this exactly?
Like Jim said in the video, no middle ground. No ability to recognize where a game has merits, no realization of where it has flaws. It's either the patron saint of video games, or it's the digital holocaust.
Herd mentality. That's all I have to say.
Developers, like everybody else, make mistakes. They screw up.
They put a slut-shaming side-quest in their game.
They use the titillation of beating up kinky nuns for promotion.
They allow their strong, independent female heroine to be threatened with rape.
They package their special edition with a lump of plastic with breasts attached.
...
And you know what? That's perfectly okay, so long as they acknowledge the mistake, apologize and, most importantly, don't do it again. Just because a developer includes questionable content, doesn't mean that they support it's contextualization, nor does it mean the rest of the game is rife with the -ism.
We've bred this all-or-nothing-culture: If we're not defending a developer with our very last breath, were sending them death threats and bombing all of their efforts on Metacritic. Why? To what end is this exactly?
Like Jim said in the video, no middle ground. No ability to recognize where a game has merits, no realization of where it has flaws. It's either the patron saint of video games, or it's the digital holocaust.
Herd mentality. That's all I have to say.
It seems I've been successfully avoiding bad sites, because no matter where I look, these ism's are always pointed out and discussed to their fullest. The gaming industry does seem to address these issues properly, with only a vocal minority screaming murder and denying everything.
Not a mistake when looked at while keeping in mind the right context and not really sexist either. Emphasizing that the event shaped an already existing (although already extremely sexist) female heroine and spouting nonsense like "You're going to want to protect her" is where the sexism popped up and this influenced the view of that scene. The rest of the list you mentioned is just full-blown sexist though.SecsNoises said:
It's not challenging to offend someone. It doesn't take any skill or cunning, pretty much anyone could do it if they wanted to. Just because it's someone's intention to offend doesn't make it a worthy goal. You can't defend something merely on the grounds that "that's what they intended to do". A racist certainly intends to offend people when he shouts slurs.xPixelatedx said:
It's not Mario, but then again, it ain't exactly the MoMA either. Some of the issues being raised with these debates are very touchy, but they are being tackled with very little tact, insight or thought. You can't defend the torso on grounds such as "it's challenging our sensibilities" like it's something by Damien Hirst. It's not like Triumph of the Will or Birth of a Nation, where you can distance yourself from the message and admire the skill that went into producing them.
Compare and contrast it with Silent Hill 2, which featured the sexy nurses. Noone is complaining about them. Why? Because they are important if you consider their role within the context of the game. They have a good reason to be there, the game would be lesser without them. I don't think anyone was offended by them, because they weren't there for titillation or meaningless shock tactics.
Horror is meant to unsettle us, but there is no reason that we need to alienate a particular group of people while doing so.