Jimquisition: Neutered

[Ken_J]

Does Miniature Fantasy Willem Defoe have a new friend? What's there name?

 

[Mangod]

So, let me see if I get the argument correctly... *clears throat*

"If the homogenised AAA industry has to include women, it'll become, gasp, homogenised! Our CoD clones will become even more derivative! Our Duke Nukem Forevers will become even bigger piles of machismo schlock! And our Soul Caliburs will, gasp, have to include women with bodytypes other than this:

What is the world of gaming coming too?"

/sarcasm

 

[JohnHayne]

What I don't get is why, oh, why, people who complaint about this or that type of game just ignore them and invest more time and money on games they like?

Isn't "Because the industry don't make them" a bad excuse??

If I was a game designer and someone told me that my game is this or that, I would say: "Yeah, it is... This is how I made it... Do I force you play and like my games? So don't try to impose your view into my work".

The solution to the lack of certain content in game is resolved by creating new content, not trying to change other peoples work.

 

[aba1]

Asking artists to break away from tired, stereotypical ideas and accept harder challenges leads to originality? This is baseless pseudo-science.

Ya I agree. I generally agree with Jim but not this week. This sorta movement will just force guidelines and stifle creativity. If the creator wants to do things a certain way than they should be able too simple as that. Saints row wanted to be have crazy customization but just because they wanted it doesn't mean everyone should be forced to have it. If someone wanted a all female cast I say go for it for all I care they just shouldn't be forced to do it.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

One of the best things about SR is that well the character is very customizable they also come with a lot of character. The boss is defined she has traits and flaws. With 3 games under her belt she even has a rather impressive back story. It's not like in TES where you make a character with no backstory or any personality then what you imagine. SR gives you a character with backstory and personality then lets you fill in the aesthetic. That is just a little aside about SR.

That's the thing though, in the continuity of Saint's Row, the characters gender, ethnicity etc. are irrelevant since the story permits it.

What if Red Dead Redemption had an option that let you swap John Marston's ethnicity or gender and not even a single line of dialog was changed, don't you think the game would become a little more jarring given the setting?

It would be much more jarring. It would also be much more interesting. The dissidence is a part of the fun in SR. (It can be quite jarring in SR don't forget, all the lines about stripper poles don't go away and the fight animations don't change either.)

You might say that such dissidence wouldn't fit in a "realistic" game like RDR and I guess your right. Character swapping isn't for every game. On the other hand, there is no reason that Jane Marston couldn't of had RDR all to herself.

 

[crimson sickle2]

Being more inclusive "when done right" - as was mentioned several times - does indeed encourage creativity.

However, a "checklist" of positive representations or vetoing potentially negative representations DOES stifle creativity.

With GTA-V the complaint is there isn't a female character... the question to the response is "Why should there have to be?" because is there some quota that is not being met somewhere? I am not aware of it.

A game designer should ask "Why should there have to be _?", but they should also ask "What would a _ bring to the story?". If the story is a well-made story that feels complete from the given perspectives then, post-release, everything should be fine because it's a good game, barring stupid idiots complaining for the sake of complaining. If not, then they might've needed more representative characters or portrayed the ones they have better.

Picking apart individual games for industry trends is, for all intents and purposes, a dick move. It's essentially the same as "making an example" where in some criminal cases an individual will be handed a far harsher sentencing than would otherwise be deserved in an effort to "send a message" to other would-be criminals. While one can see the appeal in the attempt to fight a growing trend... what of the sentenced individual? They just caught a rap far in excess of the actual "crime", their punishment was compounded for reasons outside of their control and because they just happened to be the unlucky schmuck who got the attention of the judge or social group who want to make a name for themselves.

If we don't use specific examples by singling out games then how can we expect to have any kind of argument at all. We'd be stuck talking in vague terms about how some games from a genre tend to do something that someone dislikes. Making an example of a game isn't anything like making an example of a criminal, we're not punishing it for doing something bad or disagreeable. The only potential problem (for publishers) with making an example of a game would be if some viewers decide to not buy the game because the evaluated problem is a deal breaker for them, and that's a good thing, or else someone walks away an unhappy customer and takes to forum boards to vent. To make use of your law analogy, making an example of a game is more like using a court case as an example, it's an example about how the public treated this idea and how it's still true.

 

[Something Amyss]

I love the "creativity" argument as it pertains to a game that is called a rehash, a throwback, and an homage. Is there really anything new to Dragon's Crown?

And hey, I've said it before: in itself, there's nothing wrong with "more of the same." Especially if it's good. But if we're making a creativity argument, then at least part of that goes out the window. Even parodies are often not very creative, and they're more than simple retreads under the guise of tribute. Or, at least, they should be.

I'm glad Jim brings up SR in this video. Amidst a ton of other controversies in gaming, Saints Row the Third managed to avoid pretty much all of them. It's not because it's tame but because of the way it approaches....

Well, everything. Dildo bats, nutshots, streaking (even a mandatory mission where you're nude and drugged) and all from a series where the last game allowed you to spray shit on people for money. Not only hasn't it been stifled, but it's escaped the ire of the people who complained about Tomb Raider and Hitman. I wonder how....

I'm rambling. Gaming's creativity is not what's being threatened.

 

[Teoes]

Jim I must say, you were looking rather handsome today. I found it hard to concentrate on your point.

Point! HURRHURR I made a penus joke!!

I don't understand the point of this episode.
(To be honest I don't understand the point of a lot of episodes)

I usually find my self thinking: That needed to be said? People don't understand that?
But this one is off the chart.

The adage is "Limitation breeds creativity"
The less freedom you have the more you have to think about what you're doing, the more you think the better the outcome.

That's basic, on a core level
Infinite possibilities just leads to paralysis, and more often than not leads to a regurgitation of the same stuff you're comfortable with. (Especially form a writing perspective)

I'm glad this episode exists because people SHOULD KNOW THAT STUFF!

Yes, that's generally it. Minds are blown that this sort of thing needs to be spelled out (time and time again).

 

[Pink Gregory]

Did...did I just see a flash frame of Biffo the Bear?

 

[MB202]

For some reason, it feels like this week's Jimquisition reminds me of something I've been getting into a lot lately... see, I got this forum for a particularly popular animated series, and the people there are torn between what happened during season 3 of that series, as well as a movie spin-off of that series. What's worse, people who liked or didn't like these things seem to be totally condescending towards the other group. People who hated season 3 and the movie think that anyone who likes them purposefully turns off their brains and has poor taste, while people who liked season 3 says anyone who hates them is ignorant and close-minded. It really sucks, because up until that point, the forum and the fandom as a whole was pretty cool, despite what others may have thought about them, but now it's a completely broken base.

 

[Vegosiux]

Now, this might be just weeks of stress and overworkendess, but...what's your bloody point today, Jim?

That people should stop reading too much into stuff and getting offended and defensive the moment someone says or does something they don't like; and that more of the same tends to get bland&boring?

Cause that's the point I can relate to.

Anyway, vacation time!

 

[webkilla]

That dongbat

I want one

 

[Anoson]

We pansexuals don't often get referenced. Jimquistion is being very inclusive this week.

 

[Falseprophet]

Asking artists to break away from tired, stereotypical ideas and accept harder challenges leads to originality? This is baseless pseudo-science.

It's long established by many creators in all artistic endeavours that restrictions and constraints actually spur creativity. You can't really have the opportunity to "think outside the box" if there's no box. I really don't understand what science or pseudo-science have to do with creativity.

I do also believe that saints row is a great example where we can have our cake and eat it too unlike some other games where its just about: Lets pander to this demographic, or, Lets try and not offend this particular group so lets remove this and this and this.

You realize the reason 90%+ of AAA game protagonists are standard-issue white straight dudes is because of the industry perception that white straight dudes would be offended if they had to play as anything else? I can't imagine where the industry gets that idea. Could it be all the butthurt white straight guys on every gaming site and forum who validate that perception?

 

[Jamash]

I don't think Saints Row is the best example of inclusiveness as you can't really play as a female character.

The Boss, the character you play in all 4 games, is still the same person they were in the first Saints Row game, who was a man, a man who only achieves an optional female appearance through cosmetic surgery, making a female Boss a Transsexual.

Regardless of how you surgically alter their physical appearance and how you choose to dress them, they still act and behave like the same psychotic man they were in the first Saints Row game, there's very little plot or dialogue change to indicate an actual change in character. They're still a male character, written by men, who acts and behaves like a man, irrespective of their outwards appearance.

If the Saints Row really was as inclusive as it's held up to be, then at the beginning of Saints Row 2, when you chose The Boss's gender, you would either choose to continue playing as the same Boss from Saints Row, or through some plot contrivance you would choose to play as a new character, a woman with her own background and distinct personality who would act slightly differently from the Boss of the first game, despite following the same plot.

It seems to me that holding the Boss in Saints Row up as an good example of a female protagonist is like giving Mrs Doubtfire an Emily Pankhurst award.

 

[Smurf McSmurfington]

Damnit, Jim, YOU LIED! In the beginning of the video, you LIED!
During the rest of the video you did the exact thing you promised never to do again.

 

[Lieju]

For example: Does the sorceress breasts somehow lower the quality of the game? No, no it does not. Only mechanics and actual faults with the game can lower a games overrall quality in my opinion, not subjective personal nonsense like the artstyle not being appealing or the music not being received well by some. Whether you like something or not, its not a valid reason to critique a game for.

"How dare someone make a game with an artstyle that i dont find personally appealing, this game sucks"

Bad art-style can directly influence your enjoyement of the game, though. True, it's subjective what kind of art you like, but if you can't tell the enemies from the environment or get lost because every place looks the same, those are valid criticisms.

And of course music can be repeatitive or just bad.

Art-style is a part of the experience.

The Boss, the character you play in all 4 games, is still the same person they were in the first Saints Row game, who was a man, a man who only achieves an optional female appearance through cosmetic surgery, making a female Boss a Transsexual.

What if she was a woman all along but was disguised as a man in the first game because she thought that was the only way to get in power in a violent gang-environment?

 

[Louzerman102]

Not only hasn't it been stifled, but it's escaped the ire of the people who complained about Tomb Raider and Hitman. I wonder how....

(In my opinion) Because saints row is so over the top an individual would have to be a moron to take it seriously. There is also the fact that Saints Row 1 was written off as a GTA clone. Saints Row 2, the so-called gem of the series, saw only modest success. Saints Row 3, the most successful and publicized of the series, is utterly ridiculous.

Dragon's Crown was revealed as a PlayStation Vita launch title. Videos of the game existed for two years before Jason Schreier of Kotaku saw the Sorceress and thought it promoted lolicon pornography.

 

[Madmonk12345]

Asking artists to break away from tired, stereotypical ideas and accept harder challenges leads to originality? This is baseless pseudo-science.

It's long established by many creators in all artistic endeavours that restrictions and constraints actually spur creativity. You can't really have the opportunity to "think outside the box" if there's no box. I really don't understand what science or pseudo-science have to do with creativity.

Umm... I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.

(Not that it isn't hard to tell when it comes to gender debates)

 

[Redd the Sock]

I both agree and disagree.

I agree with the point you are making, but at the same time you seem to be countering a point that doesn't seem to be exactly the one being made (at least from what I have really seen).

When I see people complain about games being restricted I don't see them meaning in the sense that they will have less creativity. They tend to mean that they will have less creative freedom. That by caving into people saying "This is bad" or "You shouldn't be doing that" they are paving the way for people to dictate what developers can and cannot do. That would be stopping developers from making the games that they want to make and they will end up only making games that the loudest people want made, so as not to get any backlash from it.

I suppose the Mass Effect 3 ending is a good example. They chose to make the ending as it was originally and people complained about it extremely vocally. So they released the extended cut. Many people argued that by caving into the people complaining the developers gave up their creativity, because they didn't make the ending that they thought the game should have, they gave in and created the ending that the complainers wanted.

I think the fear is that if enough people start complaining about certain features in games, it will become considered socially unacceptable to have those features at all. In some ways that is actually a valid point. If people complain non-stop about sexy female characters, then eventually they are going to stop being made at all, because developers don't want the constant outrage over it from tarnishing the games reputation and giving it negative press.

It is a similar point to the one you made last week in fact. Developers don't want their fans ruining their success by harping on at a single negative review, and likewise I sincerely doubt that the creators of something like Dragons Crown wanted people only going on about the female character designs. They put a lot more into the game than titillation (I am assuming here, I haven't played the game nor do I particularly want to) so by people only dragging down the discussions to complain about the boobs, they might be put off creating such designs in the future.

People often say they don't wish to stop these kinds of things being made, only to have more choices and variety when it comes to games. A much better way of doing this is to praise the ones you like, rather than rant and rave at the ones that you don't. If people who like buxom characters praise them, games will have them. Likewise if people prefer their female characters more reasonably proportioned, then they should be discussing them and praising developers when they do make them. This will encourage them to make more.

Which doesn't happen very often to be honest. Even when developers do make decent characters to appeal to a wider audience they still get complaints. Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us all got sexism complaints based around how they created their female characters, and how is that going to encourage more variety? It's just going to put people off and in many ways that does dampen creativity.

Holy Hell that post was a lot longer than I originally intended.

The only thing I'd really add to that is a fear of letting other complainers in. The parent's groups complaining about violence. The religious groups complaining about homosexuality. PETA for animal treatment. Political groups on values being presented. These are all things that have really been complained about, and no one wants to lend a lot of credibility to by setting a precedent that you must avoid offending people.