Jimquisition: Gamer Entitlement

[kklawm]

Gotta admit, I thought Jim and anyone who agreed with his argument that Steam should better police what games they let into their shop as being very entitled. I mostly agree with Jim's opinion but that one seemed very wrong to me. That 'only GOOD or what I consider complete games should be on steam' is forcing your opinion on Steam but more importantly the consumers who appreciate having the good, the bad and the ugly fairly represented in a market, so they can make their own decision what they wish to purchase.

Pretty much all the comments agreed with Jim, I didn't bring it up then but I find that to be a very entitled opinion. It's steams choice what they display in the store, and you don't go up to a cake store and say 'why do you have Strawberry cake? Get rid of it from your shelves, it doesn't have icing like your proper cakes - me and the people I know all hate that cake' like the cake is an affront to your being because you might have tried it and disliked it.

It's worth posting here because Jim... Was that being vigilant? No doubt you have a much different outlook on the issue.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

That's a fair statement to make. Except I'm not sure when Anita ever called Samus a damsel. Unless it was Metroid Other M, in which case it was probably justified.

No. Samus acted as a soldier would, as a dormer soldier, and complied with the idea that Ridley destroyed her homeworld, and killed her family.

She became a bounty hunter, freelance, the people there, regardless of former association with the Galactic Federation, had every reason to distrust her, so requiring her to follow orders or turn on her would be entirely necessity.

I am here to help you, could be the words of an employer since she is is now freelance.

Other M is not sexist, it follows military standard. You are freelance? You follow orders.

I don't care if it follows military procedure, what I care about is that it completely defiled the character of Samus Aran. Her whining about the baby metroid doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you remember that she willingly handed it over to the Federation to be experimented on. Yeah it thought she was its mother and it did save her life, but while she didn't want to kill it, she clearly didn't think of it as her child. Also following orders to the point of utter absurdity is not something I think of when I think of Samus Aran. She can't turn on any of her suit functions unless Adam gives her the thumbs up because he doesn't want to cause unneeded damage? Ok, not the worst explanation, except it kinda falls apart when Samus has to run through an area that causes her damage because Adam didn't give her the thumbs up for the Varia Suit, which has no function beyond that of a hazard shield and better armor depending on the game. That is beyond simply following orders, this is Adam being an incompetent commander and Samus being blind in her devotion to him. Heck, Fusion had her taking orders from Adam when he was a computer after the events of Other M and while she did follow his orders, she went against them when she had to and outright told him to piss off when he told her to leave the parasites of the game for the Federation to experiment on. So really, her being so subservient to him is kinda OOC.

I would possibly buy Samus locking up at Ridley if this was the first chronological game in the Metroid series, but it isn't, its the next to last. Which means that when Samus meets Ridley in Other M, she has fought him, beaten him and KILLED him twice by this point, five if you count the Prime Trilogy. As such, I don't see how its realistic at all that she would lock up on seeing him when she didn't have any trouble fighting him anytime before this, she didn't have any trouble fighting him in Metroid Fusion, and really there is no precedent for this in the Metroid universe. With the possible exception of the Metroid manga, and even then she gets over her fear of Ridley by the end of it. Yeah, her fear of Ridley might be a realistic take on PTSD but it was a realistic take that didn't fit in with established canon and the writing was just kinda lousy overall.

But the main problem with Metroid Other M is this. The writing is just kinda shit overall. And yes it is sexist, it is very sexist because it took one of the most iconic female characters of gaming and turned her into a spineless wimp. I'm all for a game where an established hero has moments of weakness, but I'd prefer if it didn't happen to a well known, liked, and established character who doesn't act anything like that, and if you need to, I'd rather her be a badass with moments of weakness and not a wimp with moments of badass.

You say this as though Samus has any character at all beforehand. As if she is not still badass. I question the idea you actually having played the game.

You are blatantly ignoring military standard, she however follows it and disobeys it, but coming to a military operation as freelance. you follow what the CO says.

You are calling it sexist when ignoring military ideals entirely making you wrong.

Edit: You blatantly ignore the purpose of absurdly following orders. Yes their Varia suit is absurd, it was NOT intent to follow otders it was intent to challenge the player. Playing it off as sexism by people like you is sad.

She DID. She didn't speak but she managed to get a lot said through her actions. I can tell a lot from a person if they save an entire race by killing the species that drove them to the brink of extinction and when they are all bowing to her, she just idly waves as she walks away, or when she sits and quietly contemplates her fallen comrades. Heck, she DID speak in Fusion, the game that canonically comes after Other M, and her mindset there was "Screw the Rules I'm Doing What's Right." And yes she still had her badass moments, but her core character of being a bounty hunter who blew up entire planets whenever she got sent to take care of something and took it with stride got assassinated.

I'm sorry, if I was to join the military and I was in a radioactive zone and my commander hadn't given me authorization to use a hazard shield against it, I'd tell him to fuck off and activate it.

Well then the game designers were failing to meld story and gameplay. And don't talk down to me like that. That's far from the only reason Other M is considered sexist, it's sexist because Samus has no spine, whines internally the entire story, clamped up upon fighting the enemy that she killed five times by this point and in reality he should be scared of her, has that bit where there was symbolism of her being the larva Metroid's mother, which as I have established makes no sense when you consider her actions in the previous games, oh yeah and Adam shot her in the back to stop her from making things worse when he...you know...could've just told her to stop.

 

[Isengrim]

I agree that customers have a right to be entitlement, but what occurs to me that everything has a line of breaking - when it comes to legitemate flaws in games.
Sticking with a theme, Mass Effect 3 - game that has been under fire from every damn aspect of it - story, graphics, characters, presentation and polish - if the game was any good in a first place, it wouldn't be hated that much, as gamers ( counting in it myself ) are, quite visibly willing to overlook a lot.
Example, Witcher 1 to 2, save-import relative irrelevance to the W2's plot - You would imagine that would be a big thing in game centered at consequences, that Shani ( one of LIs in W1 ) waifu fanboys would cry out loud for lack of her apperance in Witcher 2, you would imagine that it would make "Lack of consequence in game of consequence" a complaint of the day - did it?
No, you get distracted by other thigns, you forget about it, overlook it. But when the game annoys you too much - there when real nitpicking starts, and in fact it can show to you that a bad game, is ever worse than it looks.

That's of course, my experience and my opinion, but that's what I noticed. I know it's poor practice to seek proof on metacritic, but look there, look at user reviews. Sure, some is unreasonable fanboyism, some is illogical rage, that happens, but look at the rest.
Basically, there is a reason to everything.

Also that brings me to the other thing, the entire "I am right, always" of misused entitlement accusation - maybe the issue is that I would say almost every damn sane person that looks at reviews ( for ease using metacritic, steam reviews ) - something is wrong, fishy, quite unbelivable.

ME3-Critic Reviews:
10/10 given by CDAction ( I read the entire review in original polish, it avoids flaws of the game in every aspect ), no negative or mixed reviews.
ME3-User Reviews: 1097 negative, 202 mixed, and 711 positive.

That's quite a diversity, that's quite a lot of ppl being very much in disagreement with "critics".

Who is right/wrong? I would belive the reasonable ground would be somewhere in the middle, however it's not hard to notice that there is quite a leap between the two.

Skyrim: Unniversal acclaim, both sides, some negative user reviews, but not a huge thing.

Witcher 2: Positive and mixed critic reviews, positive user reviews.

Dragon Age: Origins : Positive with only 1 mixed from critics, overall positive user scores.

Rome II: Critics - 49 positive, 15 mixed, 7 negative; Users - 352 positive, 145 mixed, 1125 negative. - again something to notice, a leap from genetally positive Critics, to pretty damn negative users.

The matter is that I find the reasons behind gamers going into a "darkzone" of the Entitlement are in what I just presented. Leaps, lack of agreement between gamers and critics in "controversial" matters, lack of very public and very rough negative overviews of games.
It's not a matter a customer saying to a reviewer "you are wrong, because I say so" - more like "You are wrong, because there are too many of you saying the same bloody thing of how is this game great".

It's not making it just but at least it has a reasoning behind it.
What is really sad, is that reviewers are supposed to be there to protect the customers, to be nitpicky, to be... well, critical.
What you see is that the "big ones" like IGN, are basically to comfortable in their privilieged seats of exclusive content and add revenue, that it almost seems like they try to scam you into a always positive attitude towards a product.

Yes, in the "darkzone" of entitlement, it's a matter of who screams the loudest is the hardest... Not fair, but sometimes necessary.

Also that entire thing basically explains the popularity of youtube reviewers and critics, people looking for a solid, honest, even if simple, logical critique that is far away from the entitlement... or is it? Not really, if we really want to stretch the term to it. However some limits must be put, and I say where reason starts there the "darkzone" of entitlement ends.

Of course, it's all just my opinion, my observation and my experience.

 

[Lightknight]

How about when the women in the game who get "distressed", but happen to be one of those rare cases of being arguably more powerful than even the male lead?

I'm not sure if that would breach any moral ground. The only real feminism issue is if it makes the female gender out to be helpless or dumb which your scenario would not make it that way. Getting captured doesn't necessarily make a person weak. Let me make this clear, games also REGULARLY have us going to save male characters too. How many sergeants or other military guys have you had to wade through the bodies of enemies to get to? Halo, various RTS games, Killzone. Happens all the time. They're not weaker overall necessarily, they've just been captured and you haven't been. Making a distinction based on gender and saying that the mere portrayal of the person needing rescue as female is somehow sexist is instead being the sexist one itself. Unless it has valid reasons for the claim outside of it simply being a female in trouble.

Like Peach and Zelda?
Both are suppose to be the people needed to put things all back in order in their game worlds (hence why Mario and Link got to go get them), and are actually fairly strong, physically, and mystically.

Are they stronger than Mario or Link? If they are, then it's likely a more recent development. Don't forget, Bowser and Gannon can kill either hero too. It ends up coming down more to player skill with the character's power rather than the character itself. Also, they have multiple lives. How many lives or hearts do the princesses have?

I mean Zelda is a great archer, has holy magic, and can turn into a freaking ninja. Can ya think of a class combo that sounds more OP than that?

Yes, you are indeed showing me how Nintendo has drastically altered their characters. Do you know how Gannon captured that particular iteration of Zelda? When Link showed up, was she not really captured? Please remember, every Zelda game is basically a reincarnation of the characters and not a reappearance of the same ones.

And while Peach normally does almost nothing in a lot of the main Mario games, Nintendo has showed off her skills in other games, and the comic they had in Nintendo power, where she actually turns out to be pretty freaking awesome.
[sub]<.< Granted. This was when she was still called Princess Toadstool. So maybe that's why.[/sub]

Not sure how that would apply. But, to be fair, Maro's ability is basically just to jump. Though he is able to take in copious amounts of mushroom and "plants" without dying.

So the whole "well women are just weaker, generally", thing doesn't really hold water for me, as an excuse for why it happens so often in games.

Because you have some examples of female video game characters that you feel are powerful than the hero you reject my statement that women being weaker physically in real life is why this mechanic shows up so often? I'm not sure how a comment on any particular game would necessarily extent outside of said game. What does Zelda have to do with say, Uncharted? Where the women are just women and the villain is usually a powerful man with tons of mercenaries at his disposal. But then again, men and women are routinely getting kidnapped in those games like it's a Robin audition or something.

Women being physically weaker than most men, by a significant margin (the average male is 40-50% stronger than the average female in upper body strength and 20-30% lower body. Males have denser bones, a narrower pelvic angle that allows faster movement and better distribution of weight, a greater hand grip, larger organs and bigger frame that assists in reach and leverage), this isn't necessarily why female characters in games are captured but it is why the damsel in distress has been such a common game mechanic throughout human history. Men took what they want and there was little to stop them unless another man stepped in. A king having 100 concubines wasn't even a display of sexism so much as an abuse of power.

Heck, in one Zelda game she's a badass pirate queen, then she gets found out to be the princess, is told to stay away from the fight, and then is immediately captured. Out of no where.
[sub][sub]Though, I guess you could spin that as a jab at the hole "keep the women folk out of the fight", but it just seems like they had it happen simply because that's what always happens.[/sub][/sub]

If you want, you can argue that Nintendo games are sexist. I won't put up too much a fight. I'm mostly just defending the use of the damsel in distress as a mechanism. But I would still contend that them being strong or even stronger (meaning that you honestly think Zelda could defeat Link in a fight) does not make it somehow sexist that they were captured. If anything, doesn't it actually make it better that they aren't also helpless as characters?

Ya can't say it was just because she happened to be weak. (especially because it wasn't done with physical force)

Do you think my argument is that there are no examples where things are poorly done? I'm unsure why you're waving examples around when I haven't made any claim to the contrary.

That's what's so bad about the trope. It's not about them being weak, or dumb. Smart and strong women,(ones in the games that even outshine the men on occasion), get taken and locked away, and it just comes off as a lazy way to hike up the stakes.

Their greatest flaw is not being the protagonist. The fact that they are women is only something to encourage the notion of a romantic relationship. Let's not blow smoke here, the average AAA gamer is male. That 47%/53% female/male survey on changed so much from the 2010 study (40%/60%) because this one included iOS gaming and greatly broadened the term of gamer. In 2010, we found that 80% of the female demographic who owned a console owned a game as their primary console. The end combined target market of the AAA market that usually release games on the more powerful consoles then sees the male demographic as more than 80% of the gamers.

So, the protagonist is going to be male, the person in distress is going to be female if any kind of romantic interest is intended to be introduced. We see the same thing in other forms of media in genres that are predominently male-consumed. People often forget that women, whether out of biology or sociology (likely a combination thereof), express different instrests in media than males and vice versa. Don't get me wrong, my wife was one of the 9% of female console owners who had a ps3 and she loves COD. But we're talking averages here and if you're going to make a AAA action game with a AAA action game budget then you've got to consider who your audience is.

That being said, I don't personally have any problem playing a woman who is saving a man. I'm just not as personally invested in the payout.

It's been done to death, and it's not even needed a lot of the time.

That's a reasonable argument, but merely a subjective one. I, for one, enjoy saving people in my games. I like to rescue damsels in any form. It adds meaning to the experience like someone specific depends on me in addition to the vague "world" that needs saving. I generally find children in games and media to be annoying so I prefer family, friends, or a woman with the idea that she and my protagonist may live happily ever after.

Also, the women in games don't need to be perfect. Far from it.
They just need to be characters, instead of "that thing we got to go save".

It depends on if they play a role in the game itself. If they are just a token object to save then they are no different than the token soldier that got left behind that needs saving or has intel. It is morally neutral. However, the female character that actually has a role whose main asset is the ass then that's a major problem and terribly lazy writing.

In a lot of the damsel in distress trope stories, you could replace the girl/woman with some magical macguffin thing, and the story wouldn't change much.

The story wouldn't change, but I'd think that the gamer would rather save the girl than the magical macguffin. It's about motivation. Giving gravity to your actions.

Plus, I don't think we need games to teach us that beating/raping people is bad. It's kind of an obvious thing.

Actually, have you ever read up on the bystander effect? The notion that YOU need to step up and stop the evil is a valuable life lesson that humans do not naturally have in the presence of shared or diffused responsibility. Ten people may hear a women getting raped and stabbed to death in the distance and do nothing because they assume someone else will resolve it or has already moved to do so. A lone person or a couple of people are far more likely to act and act quickly because they know there's no one else. Games are often filled with characters who should be able to take down foes but don't. The impetus of the hero is what makes things happen. Games try to teach you to take your destiny into your own hands and program you to strive to do so. This is something that needs to continue to be taught. You and I may have a sea of games behind us but what of your children and your children's children. All these concepts that are cemented in our core being are new and fresh to them. I'm sorry, but what kind of media gets put out doesn't revolve around just us.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

*looks up at the comments regarding Other M* Yeesh...I must be one of the few who thought the game would have been good if it wasn't for the damn story and the craptastic MB battle. Of course, I'm probably one of the fewer still wondering if Ian "Potto" Flynn laughed his ass off when that game came out seeing as how his fancomic "Sonic - Other M" pretty much helped him get hired by Archie.

The thing that worries me the most about this entitlement thing are those fans who do cross that line. Mostly from the point of view that those are the fans that make the rest of the fandom look bad as a whole. I mean, heck...we all know what a pain the ass Genwunners are in the Pokémon franchise, but it's not their behavior that worries me, it's how I will look as a fan of Pokémon because of them. As a fanfiction writer, I know of the reputation fanfiction usually has...mostly due to the fact that there's a LOT of fanfiction out there and you usually have to wade through a crapton of subpar stories to find the few good ones. But even so, those who have written good stories and have managed to garner entire fan followings still have to deal with the stigma caused by the bad writers.

I think if anything, we as fans should be willing to police ourselves in this if this entitlement debacle is to go away. Basically: Have the fans call out other fans who cross the line before the industry can and then say "These idiots don't represent us", or something to that affect. Heck...I'd love to see this work in other regards. (Other Baptist churches suing Westboro Baptist for misrepresentation, news media calling out both MSNBC and Fox News for being too slanted, etc.)

 

[Atmos Duality]

The matter is that I find the reasons behind gamers going into a "darkzone" of the Entitlement are in what I just presented. Leaps, lack of agreement between gamers and critics in "controversial" matters, lack of very public and very rough negative overviews of games.
...
What is really sad, is that reviewers are supposed to be there to protect the customers, to be nitpicky, to be... well, critical.
What you see is that the "big ones" like IGN, are basically to comfortable in their privilieged seats of exclusive content and add revenue, that it almost seems like they try to scam you into a always positive attitude towards a product.

This is much closer to the truth than you know. (WARNING, THIS IS KINDA LONG)


1) BACK IN THE DAY...

Before the internet became as integrated into gaming as much as it has, our critical feedback came from magazines.
But right from the start, Publishers were trying to buy favorable opinions from these magazines (Acclaim pulled ads from EGM because EGM gave Total Recall an appropriately low score.)

It's been an industry standard practice for publishers to pay the critics of their games, for better and worse.
(And an endless source of debate)

2) THE RISE
I think more broadly, the gaming boom at the end of the 90s and early 2000s primed gamers for future disappointment.
Critical feedback, for once, was falling more in line with or exceeding gamers' expectations because the gaming tech was making advances by leaps and bounds every year, and the industry was trying SO MANY cool new things. It was an era of growth AND experimentation.

Grand Theft Auto was a highly NICHE game prior to GTA3. It's a household name today.

How many gamers knew of The Elder Scrolls before Morrowind? Not many.

Halo completely changed the direction of the shooter market by being the first truly mass-marketable console shooter since Goldeneye; to the point where I can point to its influence in the design of nearly every single mega-successful shooter of the last 13 years.

3) THE FALL
But no boom lasts forever.
These things have become standard. Normal. Routine.
What is Skyrim but a shinier Morrowind with dragons, yelling, and stupid internet memes?
What is Call of Duty 4 (or any CoD since 4), but a modern setting Halo with iron sights and some insta-win tech?
Grand Theft Auto 5 is the only game that's distanced itself at all from its Boom-Day GTA3 formula, and not by all that much.

We aren't as wowed anymore because these games, while "good" on their own merits and strong sellers, are routine.

4) DISSENT AND BACKLASH: TIDES OF THE INTERNET
By this point, the internet and gaming are so close as to be practically married. Even better (or worse), the internet is where any random person can get on a digital soapbox and express their opinion; we don't really need the old magazines anymore. We have sites like Metacritic, where we can access a small library of reviews on any game that matters.
The stage is set. Now we need an act.

While lots of gamers enjoy blockbuster the aforementioned titles, critics still hype them up like they're the most amazing, revolutionary thing to ever happen in gaming when they really aren't, because again, they're just routine entries.

And that dissonance more than anything, is dispelling this illusion of greatness that the major game critics have built up over the years for their publisher ad-partners.

Armed with a sense of disillusion and a public platform with which to express themselves, gamers started openly questioning the system. Years of pent up skepticism at the endless parade of one-sided inflated review scores were unleashed in a great reactionary wave.

Confused and threatened at this growing public response, publishers and their critic darlings responded in kind.
"Entitlement" is a 2nd wave response to dissent. One of many responses, in fact.

The market is slowly changing, but the big firms don't want to change with it because change is scary (which drives away investors) and costly. To them, it means a likely end to the easy money they've enjoyed for years.
In short, they're trying to marginalize and dismiss dissent to maintain the status quo; going so far as to try and trick the market into believing stupid shit like "entitlement".

Sadly, it seems to have worked for them thanks to the nature of the internet: the most vocal dissenters will exaggerate, troll and throw tantrums just to get attention (the "Darkzone" as you call it), making them an easy target to form some sort of moral argument against.

Said moral argument has since been thrown at everyone else as a convenient way to dismiss dissenting opinion.
It's using the exception to define the norm; it's scapegoating and exploitation of this "Darkzone", and it needs to stop.

There are many more factors to it than that and many notable exceptions, but that's my take as it describes mainstream gaming in general.

 

[Erttheking]

Yeah, her fear of Ridley might be a realistic take on PTSD but it was a realistic take that didn't fit in with established canon and the writing was just kinda lousy overall.

Samus' behaviour wasn't a even a realistic depiction of PTSD because PTSD doesn't cause people to suffer from panic attacks whenever the plot needs the character to be temporarily incapacitated. A realistic depiction would involve an emotionally numb Samus who was irritable, had flashbacks/nightmares about her trauma, and avoided anything that reminded her about this trauma.

Ah, thank you for pointing that out, I have a new point to bring up whenever talking about this game now.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: 0-o Must concentrate! Hold it all in the barrier!... (Lightknight)

:/ Sorry for not having it here, but I ran out of room....

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.842576.20735758

Spoiler: It's too big! D:

I'll try to address what I can.

I don't think Nintendo games are sexiest, at least not to a point of malevolent motive. Even in certain parts I think it's more of an unintentional thing, and overusing what has worked before than outright malicious intent.

That's one of the points Anita talked about as well. The issue isn't so much the trope itself, but the issue of laziness in writing when it's relied on too often.
Many others have talked about this as well in different ways. Going with the tried and proved method one to many times out of fear that trying something new will lead to failure.
Which can itself lead to stagnation in writing, and eventually failure as well.

I wasn't trying to say that because not every women who get's kidnapped isn't a weak, or unwise person, that means the trope makes no sense. I'm saying that because it seems to be used on characters who are both weak, strong, smart, and dumb, the notion that it's being used on one sex because they are physically weaker in real life doesn't quite hold up when they show off the character as powerful, but still have them depowered in this way.

Powerful people end up in trouble too. However, there's an obvious disproportion in the number of women who end up in such trouble, regardless if they are actually quite powerful.

So if it wasn't weakness, or foolish mistakes, what is one to believe when the only other thing they seem to have in common is their sex?

I see where your going with the examples of how men and women are different. That does give an advantage in some cases to men over women. However, like many things in our world, we have kind of countered that with our "tools".
Humans are pretty damn easy to kill when you get down to it. Our skin isn't much of a natural defence, and there are several places on our bodies that if damaged even just a little, will lead to our deaths. And we've made many weapons that can take done much more difficult targets, and most a readily available as well as easy to use.
No matter how strong a human can become, one shot to the head, or a good cut to the neck more often then not spells death for that person, no matter how healthy they were.

Plus, in games where we have pretty much everyone, male or female pushing the boundaries of what can be done by people(even in games like Uncharted where it's suppose to be "realistic"), the gap in power between the sexes seems much smaller (for the characters in the story when compared to one another).

The argument you made sounded like because women do have a disadvantage normally in real life, that is why it is shown in games as a reflection, in the from of D.I.D.
What I'm saying is that doesn't seem to mach a lot of the worlds where it happens. In some cases, because the women in distress seem to have ample power and skill, so it doesn't make sense that they just get captured regardless, or in more "realistic" settings, like the male lead, they seem to be on the far end of the scales of power to the point were it wouldn't seem like being a man or a woman would matter much anymore.

That said, the end goal is not to have NO games that use tropes. Rather, it's that there should be more variety. And there is more coming every day.
Heck Peach was once again a playable character in a "main" Mario game[sub](the story still involves trying to save a different princess, but hey. Baby steps)[/sub]

Using tropes is never going away just because people try new ways to tell stories, or deconstruct the tropes in question.
The much bigger danger of that would be not keeping a archive of gaming history, and total lose of backwards compatibility.

Even if we have tons of new games coming out not using the old stories, will still have quite a few still using them, and we'll have all that came before as long as we keep the data held safely. Thus, we need not fear that a change in trends will cause us to lose our "moral lessons", as long as we make sure they are safely stored. Plus, it's not like games are the only ones to ever use these tropes anyway. Even in the present.

As for the Male vs. Female demographic in gaming. I would say that looking at it from a stand point of "well not all of them are playing this or that game, on this or that system, so we don't need to worry about them." Is both a financial, and creative mistake.

As Bob put it a little while ago, it's better to not see those people as "non-gamers", but instead, as "Not yet gamers".
You can make a good game about pretty much anything. Heck, would you believe Papers Please, a game about paper work at a border, would have been as big as it got?
It's not that much of a leap to say that there's a game out there for everyone. Getting someone interested in your game is good not only because they may buy it, but because it could lead them to then explore the industry. Offering up even more sales, and ideas as it could lead them to become even more a part of it, and it's community.

I'm sorry for any offence, but saying you should only stick to people who are already buying your things is a little closed minded. That's not to say people shouldn't cater to their most loyal fans, or niche markets. But blowing off what amounts to over half the population [sub](and may soon be true of the total demographic as well)[/sub], just sounds a little too short sighted.
And from a creative perspective it blocks off so many different experiences we could be having in games, if all we can be is in the male viewpoint. It's not just women who want different kinds of women to play in games. The sides aren't one all men, and one all women.

That ALL said, I think things are vastly improving little by little in the industry. Soon, all players of video games will be able to have their cake and eat it too.
We may hit speed bumps on the way every now and again, but I think we'll make it.

 

[Varrdy]

Gamer Entitlement

Tackling the myths and misusage of so-called Entitlement in the gaming world.

Watch Video

Possibly the best episode you've ever done, Jim!

Personally I loved ME3...right up until you know what happened...or didn't happen, if you want to get technical. As pissed off as I was, I actually tried to stop people getting out the pitchforks and marching on EA and BioWare because I felt it wouldn't achieve anything. Somehow I didn't get flamed to death for that...

Did I demand that we got what we were promised and paid for? Yep, you betcha arse I did! While I took umbrage at the snooty, sneery attitude of those calling us "entitled", if someone liked the game and the ending, I couldn't work out why unless they were very easily impressed, but I did my best to disagree respectfully.

 

[Doug]

Oh nice, I missed Jim actually sticking up for the "gaming community" after however long of calling us children who need someone else to dictate what we're allowed to buy or not and insulting us for pointing out that we're not misogynists to people calling us misogynists.

Erm, what? Which episode did he say we couldn't decide what to buy? I recall episodes on Early Access, and Steam's woeful lack of quality control, but I don't recall him saying the gaming community where idiots in those; I recall him saying that the indie trend towards Early Access was a bubble that'll burst, and that Steam should try and sort itself out (and there have been a few cases of woeful games that shouldn't have gotten through any half-way ok quality control before being released on steam - Citadels and WarZ spring to mind).

Plus, any opportunity to shit on Mass Effect 3 ending three years after it stopped being relevant is an opportunity I'm going to fucking jump on, cuz holy shit fucking Mass Effect 3 ending was garbage.

Damn straight - actually replaying the whole Mass Effect trilogy at the moment - just got to 3, and I'm not looking forward to the finish because of the garbage ending, but the journey is grand (I so have a bro-mance with Garus; if ME 4 is coming and isn't junk, we need more Garrus). Looking forward to playing the Leviathan DLC (apparently I have it without buying it? Did Bioware/EA give it out to pre-orders over the ending?).

 

[Lotet]

No you did not read her thesis if that was your conclusion. Don't sit here and lie when there is factual evidence to back me up given her own words as you will be called out on such bull.

Her conclusion, much akin to barbie controversy and violent video game controversy is that all barbie does is give girls poor body image for simply being, all violent video games do is make people violent trained killers, and all games portraying women in the way she does not appreciate game makers portraying women makes men who play these games Misogynists.

That is her exact thesis.

Your issue with seeing that does not make you being truthful, that just makes you ignorant.

Edit: Here though Link us to her thesis paper, since you seem to have access to a different piece then the one I read and others read. Show us how we our wrong in our thinking.

The Thesis I read was I?ll Make a Man Out of You [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130661629/masters-thesis], as in, the first result I got when I googled "anita sarkeesian thesis" so I'm sorry that it's a different piece to the one you and others read.

Also, I don't see how I can show you that you're wrong. I suppose you could hit Ctrl-F and search for some keys words like "game" but that would never satisfy you. You're the person trying to prove that something happened. Maybe she did blame gamers, barbie or whatever but she didn't do it in this thesis.

So link me to where she actually said what you're talking about.

 

[isdestroyer]

What was that Mass Effect video? That wasn't in the game, was it?