Jimquisition: Neutered

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
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!
 

Ninjamedic

New member
Dec 8, 2009
2,569
0
0
nomotog said:
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?
 

Ninjamedic

New member
Dec 8, 2009
2,569
0
0
Legion said:
Holy Hell that post was a lot longer than I originally intended.
And it express my view far greater than mine. Good show sir, you have thoroughly bested me. *tips top hat*
 

Bocaj2000

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,082
0
0
Monxeroth said:
Then again on the other hand in some cases it does have a fair point to dismiss the criticism when its not relevant in any way to the actual game.
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"
I couldn't disagree more. Interactive media is more than mechanics alone. It is the art style, the the plot, the sound, the camera angle, the pacing, etc. as well as the mechanics. It's called "Gesamtkunstwerk".

Here's Mr.BTongue explaining why:
 

Ken_J

New member
Jun 4, 2009
891
0
0
Does Miniature Fantasy Willem Defoe have a new friend? What's there name?
 

Mangod

New member
Feb 20, 2011
829
0
0
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

New member
Apr 28, 2013
28
0
0
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

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
JudgeGame said:
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

New member
Jun 21, 2013
909
0
0
Ninjamedic said:
nomotog said:
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

New member
Sep 30, 2009
568
0
0
Abomination said:
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.
Abomination said:
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

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
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

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
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!!

Mikeyfell said:
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).
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
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

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
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!
 

Anoson

New member
Dec 10, 2010
3
0
0
We pansexuals don't often get referenced. Jimquistion is being very inclusive this week.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
JudgeGame said:
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.

Monxeroth said:
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

Top Todger
Jun 25, 2008
3,641
0
0
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.