Jimquisition: Neutered

[xPixelatedx]

My problem with the Dragon's crown review has nothing to do with the way it depicts women or any fear it might "change things" to be more inclusive... I honestly wouldn't care if every protagonist in every game was replaced with a completely normal (real human) woman. The problem has to do with the fact that it couldn't have been more obvious the review actually deducted points for critique of the art style. If this game was a painting or even an anime, I could understand. I might just be another random internet user with no notoriety to back up my opinions and reviews, but if I used such a scale to review games, I'd give most games 5's out of 10s and under. I don't like the "style" most games are depicted in now, especially 2.5D. I think 2.5D is lazy as shit, and a testament to how much effort the industry clearly doesn't want to put in. It's just another 3D game with a fixed camera angle... All to save on the workload and effort it would take to actually makes sprites, or make a real 3D game. I also hate gimmicky styles like Kirby's Epic Yarn. I honestly think this is poisoning gaming, that is my real opinion.
However, if I were reviewing games professionally, I would at least have the decency to not deduct points for that. I realize that games aren't there for just me to enjoy, and while I would need to review them, I have to also get past my obvious bias and be a bit more professional, especially if the game is pretty decent or good. Sure, I could judge a game based by art style, the political beliefs of it's creators or any other large controversial thing I could find "under the hood", but I don't think I would be a very good reviewer for doing that, and I don't think many people would trust me after, nor should they.

Also yeah, it would be more original to not have women who are big breasted or otherwise unrealistically depicted. They have been done to death, but if Hollywood has taught as anything, they'll always be around (especially now that the game industry wants to emulate Hollywood as much as possible). Sure, you can still complain about it and it's right to do so, but if you complain about all the 'movies' that use women as eyecandy (like Transformers) and deduct points specifically for that, then you aren't going to have much to see at the end of the day. Everything will upset you.

 

[Hagi]

I have to say, I'm getting a bit tired of discussions like this. Not because Jim isn't making good points, he is. But rather because like almost all points being made in this discussion it's countering a point that doesn't really seem to exist outside of a few crazies.

We've got one side making the completely valid and good point that not all games should cater to the same niche audience and that there should be much more variety and difference available than what we're seeing now.

We've got the other side making the completely valid and good point that games that do cater to that niche audience have every right to exist and aren't inherently evil.

And then people start arguing with each other as if these two points are in opposition to each other, throwing strawmen around as if it's some sort of agricultural festival.

I mean seriously, is there anyone who actually believes that gaming shouldn't be more varied, that what we have now is all there should ever be, or that what we have now shouldn't be there at all and shouldn't be made ever again.

 

[Shjade]

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"

It's a completely fair criticism, actually. If a game is visually unappealing it's less fun to play since, even if the mechanics are great, you have to watch crap to use those mechanics. This is more important to some people than others, but it's important.

For instance, even if I were a fan of platformers (I'm not particulary), I'd pass on all the Bit.Trip games simply because I really don't like the super-retro thing. It's fugly. Not interested. Does this mean I miss out on some otherwise great games? Probably. Do I care? Not really. When the screenshots alone are enough to turn me off to a game, that's the art style being a detriment to a game.

 

[Ukomba]

Creativity is fine, but the more you try to jam every possible view point, fetish, race, creed, religion, ext, ext, ext limits the story you can tell with that character. They no longer have a set personality to drive the narrative with so can only be treated like an amorphous blob while the story goes on around them. You can point at bad games all you want, but how about good ones like Walking Dead? If you could select your gender, and race the game would have lost a lot since you can't write for all those possible variations. Look at Dragon Age, once your past the opening story, your race and gender are practically meaningless. Your other choices really only give you a token scene or two as well.

Traits for a character should be chosen based on the story they are trying to tell, not to please marketing or the PC whiners. If you can put some element of choice into the character generation, that's all well and good as long as it isn't to the detriment of the story.

The thing with slider bars is they really are only skin deep. Fiddle with them all you want, but the game is just going to ignore your choices in the end. In SWTOR the game can't tell if I'm a naked, fat, white cyborg covered in scars and sporting a mo-hock, or a slender stylish Asian looking guy, the interactions don't change. You can call that inclusive if you want, I call it meaningless.

 

[lord.jeff]

I can't fully agree that forcing inclusion would encourage creativity but even if developers do get forced into making games that go outside of the box, it would be no worse then what we have now, where publishers snare at games that don't have a male dominating it. It's so bad that Dontnod had to fight to get Remember Me pushed forward with it's lead not suffering a gender swap. I don't believe we have to force developers to be more creative we just have to force out those that believe you can't sell anything but middle aged grizzled men or heaving mountains of bosom.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I don't get how you can have it both ways. How you can say include everyone but don't appeal to a wider audience. Jim has always been a fan of niche games, horror being his favorite genre, but when Dead Space 3 came out, a game designed to be an inoffensive and inclusive as possible, he hated it. Didn't he say in a lot of videos that if a game has a small but loyal fanbase, that's awesome? Well how about now?! If you defend a game that has a small fanbase, by implication not appealing to a wider audience, AND rant and rave against the homogenization of games to appeal to a wider audience, how can you do a video saying the exact opposite?

He flat out said that there was a difference between being more inclusive and appealing to a wider audience. And let's face facts when people say "we want to appeal to a wider audience" they mean "We want Call of Duty fans" That is what Jim criticizes.

Right, no, I got that. He DID say there was a difference. My question is what? What is the difference? How are they different? Just saying there is one isn't the same...

 

[2xDouble]

Hey Jim... that's not what "neutered" means. Don't get me wrong - I agree with more or less everything you said here - but "neutering" a game, at least in my vernacular, refers to the reduction of gender and gender issues to irrelevance. The Saints Row series (particularly 3 and 4) is a perfect example of neutering a game explicitly for the sake of inclusiveness. You can be/do/love whatever/whoever you want because it doesn't mean anything at all. It's no different than Fable; the characters are interchangeable, semi-randomized dolls that all react the same way, with slightly different voices.

Should gender have meaning or carry weight in a video game? Some would argue that it should, while others (myself included) couldn't care less. I think the real question is: CAN gender have meaning or carry weight in a game without being restrictive to any "side" or playing into stereotypes? or must it always be denigrated to surface fluff in the name of "fairness"?

 

[Erttheking]

I don't get how you can have it both ways. How you can say include everyone but don't appeal to a wider audience. Jim has always been a fan of niche games, horror being his favorite genre, but when Dead Space 3 came out, a game designed to be an inoffensive and inclusive as possible, he hated it. Didn't he say in a lot of videos that if a game has a small but loyal fanbase, that's awesome? Well how about now?! If you defend a game that has a small fanbase, by implication not appealing to a wider audience, AND rant and rave against the homogenization of games to appeal to a wider audience, how can you do a video saying the exact opposite?

He flat out said that there was a difference between being more inclusive and appealing to a wider audience. And let's face facts when people say "we want to appeal to a wider audience" they mean "We want Call of Duty fans" That is what Jim criticizes.

Right, no, I got that. He DID say there was a difference. My question is what? What is the difference? How are they different? Just saying there is one isn't the same...

Because frankly more games designed to reel in COD gamers are really just more of the same. More first person shooters, more two weapon slot limits, more games with Americans killing foreigners and the same tired formula just getting retreated over and over again. Jim is asking for games to be more inclusive, and by that he means trying new things and stepping out of our comfort zones. In reality, he's asking for the exact opposite.

 

[SkulduggeryPelican]

Every call for more variety, ever:

A: New X has Y in it.
B: More X with Z should be created.
C: WRY YOU WANT TO TAKEAWAY MY Y??!!
B: *facepalm*

 

[Bruce]

The problem with Jim's Saint's Row example is that a game can only be inclusive when it allows the player to chose whether their character is male, female, cis, trans, gay, straight, and gives them a huge variety of skin colours. But as soon as the designer wants to make a game with a predefined character who can't be modded in every conceivable way it becomes almost impossible to make the game "inclusive" because it won't appeal to people who want a particular character (such as an empowered female protagonist) or who don't want a particular character (I've read comments from racists who hated the Witcher because Geralt wasn't black). So trying to make games inclusive will stifle creativity because it only truly be implemented in triple A games as only they have a budget large enough to create games that allow such a wide degree of character creation.

Also the same archetypes have been used for centuries, if not millenniums, because they've been proven time and time again to be the elements of a good story. The fact that Jim doesn't like that women always have the same role will not change this.

Inclusive does not necessarily go down to how you make your protagonist, and in fact a game can end up excluding people if that is all you do.

The trick is to give something for other people to be interested in. Game of Thrones is chock full of tits in some of the least titillating scenes I have ever seen (and I like tits) but it also has great character development and an approach to sexism which actually shows the impact of it on believable characters in a believable way.

That makes it pretty well loved amongst a lot of feminists, for actually showing women as strong characters.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Another good point made, Jim.

Its a shame Vanillaware felt the need to push pandering crap in their game, because all gamers are males who'll get a laugh out of it, aren't they? No, that's not true. Indeed, big boobs might still be a funny thing in Japan, but the most of the rest of the world is well over such jokes or lame representations. Dead or Alive and Soul Calibur were also cool games that could have done without such lameness too.

Kudos to Saints Row (and earlier THQ now Deep Silver) for seeing that there was little point in trying to be GTA's second similar distant cousin, when they could just go bat shit insane with it and be their own thing. That takes guts and self belief. Looking forward to SRIV.

 

[Gameguy20100]

Darwin's beard Jim control yourself.

You enjoy playing with that thing way to much.

 

[animeh1star1a]

Just goes to support what I've always said.
The day every game has a character creator, will be a great day for us all.

I disagree. Being focused can created fantastic experiences, while being versatile can very well do the same. Not every game should have a character creator, just as not all books should be first-person-prospective-choose-your-own-adventure books. For example, would the walking dead have been a better game if you could have changed Clementine or Lee's gender, age, height, and skin color? Character Creators definitely have their place, but so too does static, unchanging, predesignated characters.

 

[Irridium]

Still wish Saints Row had the gender slider from Saints Row 2, instead of just a standard male/female selector. Probably did it since male/female have different skeletons/walking/standing animations, but why not let the player pick which walking/idle animations they want like in Saints Row 2?

Just a thing I'm sad about.

 

[Slash2x]

Great video again sir I agree COMPLETELY. Instead of taking things out of my games I want to see publishers add things in. If they want to appeal to everyone MORE choices is definitely the route to go. As a hetero male I am not going to lie I LIKE THE BIG BOOBS! Why? Because it is what appeals to me as my wife will testify.

That said I am not scared of seeing things that do not appeal to me in my games. So there is an option in SR4 to be a gay man with giant pants bulge. Good for all the people who want to play like that male or female, not my personal interest, but look I can play a woman with large breasts. I have a friend of mine who is completely gay, he has ZERO interest in women and a bouncy female lead does nothing for him. We can both play the same game and enjoy it because we are BOTH included in the game. Instead of JUST pandering to my interest as a straight man, everyone can be included in what the game has to offer.

If a game only has a play style that does not appeal to your life choices.... Do not buy it.... Seriously, publishers only pay attention to the amount of money coming in. Why do you thing so many games are starting to include hetero and homo options for the main character? Because people spend money on things that appeal to them.

 

[The Funslinger]

you are all arguing about insignificant things the world is coming to an end cant you see who cares about the problems presented by dragons crown or if some people think one game is neutering creativity all these video games are just made to reprogram your brain for the coming apocalypse because the illuminati is on the brick of toppling over into our world and open rule the new world order has 4.6 billion degradable bodybags prepared guess what they plan to do with it that's right to those who survive good luck ill see you out there on the wasteland I hope you pack a lunch thank god for jim also hail satan

Punctuation wouldn't happen to be the Illuminati's hypnotic Morse code, would it?

 

[Lightknight]

Yes, giving the individuals massive customizeability within a game largely resolves the unrelateable protagonist issue.

Now, onto games like Dragon Crown. How do you think this would apply to more closed-circuit story-based titles that aren't so open world and only have a handful of characters? Games like Uncharted or Halo or Mario where the characters are somewhat stable and the voice acting is paid for them. Is your example just to give an example where it can be done without constricting the game? If so, you're of course right. But not every game will or even should have such a diverse customisation range as to give everyone what they want. Over-customization and inclusiveness can detract from a specific story. Not every game should be a platform where you can simply be anything, go anywhere, do anything you want. Some need to be a story about specific people doing specific things. That's going to be exclusive and will need to be done right too to be enjoyed. Sometimes you're going to be an older man leading a younger lady through dangerous terrain and that's simply going to be it. You don't get to be a brawny young man, you don't get to be an agile woman, just a middle-aged man and that's it. Even in games like Dragon Crown though, they are criticized for even having the option to choose characters that are one way or another. Dragon Age would have actually been less criticized for being more constricting and only having three characters.

Perhaps guys want to ensure that games are created that are still mainstream and still tailored to them. The same way movies, books, and practically every other form of art/media does. It is somewhat interesting to see that video games are where this demand is taking place albeit this being the most expensive forms of media to make more inclusive (aka more options/objects) engines. If I don't want horror movies, I don't demand that they have less scary bits in them so I can enjoy them more, I just go see the films with the things I like in them instead. If enough people want and will pay for horror movies, they'll keep getting made and so hopefully will the types I like if not horror.

But perhaps I'm missing what this group wants. I personally couldn't care less. Big jugs and a thin waistline has never improved any game for me. Maybe when I was a teenager I cared about seeing it but even then it didn't make the game better somehow. So I'm not sure how switching things up a bit would harm a game's tone.

 

[jamesbrown]

Its really only neutering in some cases in the sense that: Oh, we dont get to have a G-cupped playable character in this game, OH NOES MY CREATIVITY.

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"

But if that person personally thinks that artstyle is a very significant part of the game, then who are you to say otherwise; people are allowed to like and dislike whatever they want for whatever reason they want. Just because it is a game doesn't mean anything, games are not in some special place where the only criticism that is valid is the interactive bits and broken pieces. something can work beautifully and have the best mechanics ever, but if the artstyle is bad, sound design is terrible, story nonsensical, then I personally don't think it is a good game; you are not in any position to validate one opinion or another. All opinions are just that opinions, and you have no right to invalidate that just because you think they are doing it wrong.

TL;DR There is no right way to do opinions, if someone determines a game based on artstyle; no one can say that they aren't allowed to do that and that they are invalid because it is how they personally do it.

 

[Rad Party God]

Hmmmm... I kinda see your point Jim and I both agree and disagree with it at the same time.

I wouldn't use Saints Row as an example, but to each his own, I see that games that let you create your own character are great and all and as much as I enjoy all of Bethesda's RPGs, Spiderweb's RPGs ('been addicted to Avernum lately, it's seriously awesome) and many other RPG's and MMOs, there are games that need a well written character that would otherwise simply hinder the experience if it wouldn't.

 

[m19]

Remember when Jim criticized Resident Evil 6 for trying to appeal to everyone at once?

Yeah... Same thing can apply here. Gaming in general should be inclusive. An individual game doesn't have to be and often is better off not being for everyone. And there is certainly no excuse for labelling people as misogynists because they are men making things that appeal to other men.

Ask for what you want, don't point fingers at other people.