Jimquisition: Neutered

[Legion]

http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/

'Sleeping Dogs, in its later stages developed at United Front Games and eventually published by Square-Enix, originally began life at Activision as "Black Lotus", an open-world crime game with a female protagonist. However, under the belief that their predominantly male target audience would not play such a game starring a woman, management demanded that the protagonist be replaced with a man, and further tied the previously-unrelated game into the then-abandoned True Crime franchise. '

Well that is just idiotic. I'd have much preferred that idea. Although "Black Lotus" would have been a terrible name. In Command and Conquer: Generals the special unit for China was a female hacker called Black Lotus so that'd be pretty unoriginal.

Then again, it doesn't surprise me considering it's Activision.

And in remember me's case, many publishers refused to publish it because they had a female lead character.

No, when it came to remember me, the developers had to actually fight to make the main character female. Some publishers refused to go with it because of the female character.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/18/4120694/remember-me-publishers-balked-at-female-lead-character

So they weren't denied it, they made the game anyway. Nobody was forced to stop making a game with a female protagonist.

I was responding to a post claiming 'inclusivity' will stifle creatively. I was making the point that the OPPOSITE, that people seem to be championing, is already stifling creativity, not encouraging it.

Which is incorrect, because publishers are considered "Enemy Number 1" on here. Very few people supported the fact that publishers have been reluctant to support female protagonists. The most people have said is that they have "the right" to, not that they condone it.

The claim that people are "championing" publishers who don't want female protagonists is being melodramatic. You will be very hard pressed to find people on here who don't blame publishers for pretty much everything that is wrong with gaming today.

Yes, but the problem is that more often than not we get plenty of male fantasies, but barely any female fantasies.

You realise that is sexist don't you?

That's the equivalent of saying girls don't like action figures.

 

[mike1921]

For example: Does the sorceress breasts somehow lower the quality of the game?

To me it does , for the exact opposite reason it would for a normal person, to me the sorceress is just So oversexualized it's plain boner-killingly unappealing. At some point the boobs just move around so much and look so damned fake that it just turns me off of the game itself. Like, literally everything else meant to be titillating they show is appealing to me.

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.

Games are a multimedia medium, the sound design, art design, and anything else in the game is a valid reason to critique it. 2001 a space Odyssey is pretty much liked only because of its cinematography (and HAL but he's by no means the majority of the film), the way it looks. If you don't want the art to be judged than you're stuck with text-based games, because as long as games have art it's a valid point to critique.

 

[Undeadpool]

Jimmothy MacSterling, I could NOT agree more. The same logic that makes people say "If we change anything about the core of games, we risk stifling creativity!" IS the exact same logic that makes people say things like "I am so against censorship, I think this videogame review should be censored!!"

It's called cognitive dissonance, and it is one of the greatest enemies of critical thought.

 

[m19]

Yes, but the problem is that more often than not we get plenty of male fantasies, but barely any female fantasies. That's the developers staying in their comfort zones.

Yes. And that's worthy of talking about, why that happens.

But I'm getting annoyed when people find malice in individual products. If I wake up tomorrow and decide to write a story about a knight saving a sexy looking princess -- because I'm a guy and that's what I like. Yes it is unfortunate that I'm doing what everyone else is doing yet again, but I'm not a sexist or a misogynist. My comfort zone is not a crime.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Yeah, but the fact that some publishers flat out refused to publish a game with a female main character should tell you that the gaming industry has some pretty damn big problems.

 

[Erttheking]

Yes, but the problem is that more often than not we get plenty of male fantasies, but barely any female fantasies. That's the developers staying in their comfort zones.

Yes. And that's worthy of talking about, why that happens.

But I'm getting annoyed when people find malice in individual products. If I wake up tomorrow and decide to write a story about a knight saving a sexy looking princess -- because I'm a guy and that's what I like. Yes it is unfortunate that I'm doing what everyone else is doing yet again, but I'm not a sexist or a misogynist. My comfort zone is not a crime.

The problem with a story like that is that it just delves into boring and tired cliches that as I guy even I am tired of. Not because it's sexist, but because it's boring and shallow. Everything that that story has to offer has been done by other people and has been done better. Your comfort zone isn't a crime. But it's not right for your comfort zone to envelop everything.

 

[PunkRex]

I guess ultimately, my love for the idea of games that push and expand the boundaries doesn't push as far as suggesting that every game should have to do so, or that games that don't are always deserving of criticism simply because they could have used their place in the spotlight to push a more progressive agenda and failed to do so. Shakespeare used plenty of plot lines that were borrowed from fairy tales and Greek and Roman theater, tropes that were hundreds or even thousands of years old even as he re-immortalized them. I'll happily cheer a game that make me feel like their unconventional transgender multiracial protagonist stakes their claim as if they've always been there, and leads a terrific game that fills me with joy to play. But I'm not necessarily going to ***** and moan (yes, I'm aware of the word choice) if an otherwise great game fails to supply a female protagonist.

What was it Jim said about "innovation", before?

This is a good paragraph, pushing ones boundries is the only way to improve but if you don't get a solid footing you'll proberly slip. People shouldn't be scarred though, they should do what makes them happy.

 

[ConanThe3rd]

Being reasonable in (and asking the same of) a den of rabid fools (on both sides) is madness.

You're asking for inclusion and leeway in a field that has had a game's point (Castle Doctrine) completely thrown out of the window in favour of pushing a bunch of ultra-feminist bullshit that, I'd hope to the heavens, embarsses any person in thier right mind regardless of gender.

I mean, gee, Jim, why not just yell at the tide? You'd probably get somewhere with that.

Besides that, I'm sure as shit that Saint's Row hasn't got it's nose (or any orifice for that matter) clean and free from the gaze of certain so and sos, regardless of how inclusive it may or may not be.

 

[Legion]

Snip

Yeah, but the fact that some publishers flat out refused to publish a game with a female main character should tell you that the gaming industry has some pretty damn big problems.

Yes.

That publishers are greedy. They only think in terms of profits, they don't give a damn about creativity. I thought this was well established back during the micro-transaction rage.

Publishers don't see games as art or as entertainment, they seem them in terms of profit and loss, like all top level businessmen. That is their world, not the development world. It says absolutely nothing about game development, which is the part we experience when we actually play the games.

 

[WindKnight]

I was responding to a post claiming 'inclusivity' will stifle creatively. I was making the point that the OPPOSITE, that people seem to be championing, is already stifling creativity, not encouraging it.

Which is incorrect, because publishers are considered "Enemy Number 1" on here. Very few people supported the fact that publishers have been reluctant to support female protagonists. The most people have said is that they have "the right" to, not that they condone it.

The claim that people are "championing" publishers who don't want female protagonists is being melodramatic. You will be very hard pressed to find people on here who don't blame publishers for pretty much everything that is wrong with gaming today.

Again, when there was coverage of the Remember Me problems and the Last of Us (both the attempts to remove Ellie from the cover and the fact no female focus testing was implemmented from the get go), and Jim did his video on the cull of female protagonists plenty of posters chimed in to defend the publishers as they 'did the market research' and 'knew what they were doing'. Then again, said publisher were showing an exclusive, boys club mentality and maybe that's what was being defended.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Yeah, but the fact that some publishers flat out refused to publish a game with a female main character should tell you that the gaming industry has some pretty damn big problems.

Yes.

That publishers are greedy. They only think in terms of profits, they don't give a damn about creativity. I thought this was well established back during the micro-transaction rage.

Publishers don't see games as art or as entertainment, they seem them in terms of profit and loss, like all top level businessmen. That is their world, not the development world. It says absolutely nothing about game development, which is the part we experience when we actually play the games.

Does it? I don't think so. I think it's safe to say that the greed of publishers has effected the development of games, see what EA did to Command and Conquer 4, Mercenaries 2, Mass Effect 3, Fuse, and so on and so forth.

 

[Screamarie]

The only thing I got out of this episode is that I should get Saints Row 4. The footage he was showing looked all kinds of insane.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Too bad I am dirt poor right now cause I really want to play that.

Anyways, as to the original topic, gotta agree with you Jim. I don't care if overly-sexualized characters exist, just as long as there's some normal ones too...and some really wierd ones...and some gross ones...and some transgender ones...and some bad ones...and some gay ones...and some old ones...Just MORE of everything would be really cool...save maybe the big-titties because there's plenty of that already so that can stay on the same level.

 

[JimB]

Excellent video, Mr. Sterling, as usual, and though it's taken me a while to come around, your new glasses suit you.

 

[Legion]

I was responding to a post claiming 'inclusivity' will stifle creatively. I was making the point that the OPPOSITE, that people seem to be championing, is already stifling creativity, not encouraging it.

Which is incorrect, because publishers are considered "Enemy Number 1" on here. Very few people supported the fact that publishers have been reluctant to support female protagonists. The most people have said is that they have "the right" to, not that they condone it.

The claim that people are "championing" publishers who don't want female protagonists is being melodramatic. You will be very hard pressed to find people on here who don't blame publishers for pretty much everything that is wrong with gaming today.

Again, when there was coverage of the Remember Me problems and the Last of Us (both the attempts to remove Ellie from the cover and the fact no female focus testing was implemmented from the get go), and Jim did his video on the cull of female protagonists plenty of posters chimed in to defend the publishers as they 'did the market research' and 'knew what they were doing'. Then again, said publisher were showing an exclusive, boys club mentality and maybe that's what was being defended.

I am sure there were. Out of a forum of thousands there are naturally going to be a handful who hold bizarre views like that. But the general forum consensus is that publishers are money grubbing bastards who only care about statistics, not games. If you are holding out for a worldwide consensus on such matters you will be waiting your entire life.

Does it? I don't think so. I think it's safe to say that the greed of publishers has effected the development of games, see what EA did to Command and Conquer 4, Mercenaries 2, Mass Effect 3, Fuse, and so on and so forth.

That is because EA owns the companies that made those games. They are effectively both the developer and the publisher when it comes down to it. They may be called "Bioware" employees and such, but it is EA who is their boss.

I do not deny that publishers can have an influence, but that is still the problem with the publishers and not the developers. Unless you object to developers sometimes caving in to them (like Bioshock Infinite with it's godawful box art). But when they have hundreds of people who need paying, sometimes they have to make a deal with the devil.

That is the unfortunate nature of games being a profitable business.

 

[Erttheking]

I was responding to a post claiming 'inclusivity' will stifle creatively. I was making the point that the OPPOSITE, that people seem to be championing, is already stifling creativity, not encouraging it.

Which is incorrect, because publishers are considered "Enemy Number 1" on here. Very few people supported the fact that publishers have been reluctant to support female protagonists. The most people have said is that they have "the right" to, not that they condone it.

The claim that people are "championing" publishers who don't want female protagonists is being melodramatic. You will be very hard pressed to find people on here who don't blame publishers for pretty much everything that is wrong with gaming today.

Again, when there was coverage of the Remember Me problems and the Last of Us (both the attempts to remove Ellie from the cover and the fact no female focus testing was implemmented from the get go), and Jim did his video on the cull of female protagonists plenty of posters chimed in to defend the publishers as they 'did the market research' and 'knew what they were doing'. Then again, said publisher were showing an exclusive, boys club mentality and maybe that's what was being defended.

I am sure there were. Out of a forum of thousands there are naturally going to be a handful who hold bizarre views like that. But the general forum consensus is that publishers are money grubbing bastards who only care about statistics, not games. If you are holding out for a worldwide consensus on such matters you will be waiting your entire life.

Does it? I don't think so. I think it's safe to say that the greed of publishers has effected the development of games, see what EA did to Command and Conquer 4, Mercenaries 2, Mass Effect 3, Fuse, and so on and so forth.

That is because EA owns the companies that made those games. They are effectively both the developer and the publisher when it comes down to it. They may be called "Bioware" employees and such, but it is EA who is their boss.

I do not deny that publishers can have an influence, but that is still the problem with the publishers and not the developers. Unless you object to developers sometimes caving in to them (like Bioshock Infinite with it's godawful box art).

Well then, I think we've got something that the both of us can agree on.

Though I think that the fact that Irrational Games felt that they had to appeal to the gunbros of gaming in order to make Infinite succeed kind of tells me that the industry is in a very bad mindset that we need to get the Hell out of.

 

[Dansrage]

Give 'em an inch they take a mile.

The problem with feminism in gaming, and in a lot of media and society as a whole, is that these changes are not being requested for the benefit of self-appointed victim groups, they're being made to the detriment of an existing, established group. It's all about emasculation, and as crazy as it may sound not a lot of men are not okay with that. Look at radical feminists in Sweden demanding that men be made to sit down to pee, and taking pictures of private citizens on buses and trains alleging that they are sexually harassing female passengers by sitting in 'masculine' positions. Is that comparable to complaining about large breasts? I think so, because when there are no more problems left to complain about these people manufacture new ones, because they rely on their victimhood and perpetual outrage to get what they want.

I game for escapism, for a release from social expectations and requirements. In an online game I can brutally murder another person by chainsawing them in half or disintegrating them, I can be violent and aggressive and competitive in a structured, safe environment with no real-life consequences. I can then go out into the world as a completely passive and cooperative person because I have a safe outlet for my frustrations or whatever anger I may encounter in my day to day life.

I already have to step on eggshells, be careful about what I say and think incase someone somewhere takes offense to any unpopular or socially unacceptable opinions I may have, I have to censor myself daily on the off chance some perpetual victim will take umbrage. I live in a world where I could be fired for expressing an opinion people don't like, or thinking the wrong thing. Completely benign or unrelated comments can be twisted into hate crimes based simply on how the 'victim' is feeling that day.

I won't see my hobby politicized, I won't see my hobby modified to suit extremists, I won't see creativity censored to keep unreasonable people quiet. These people didn't care about gaming until it became popular, back when only nerds and geeks played games nobody could care less if the portrayal of women was sexist or otherwise, if the player was male or female, or if cis-gendered males oppressed Womyn through their sexist male power fantasies. Now that it's a larger medium with a wider audience suddenly it needs to be politicized, people use it as a platform to get their extremist views across and, yet again, force free-thinking people to bow to bullying and chastisement.

All of the so called journalists rallying around extremist feminists for page views are cowards, and traitors to their medium. They have no integrity and cater to whatever political correctness dictates at the time of writing.

Every gaming community I can name reacts violently to outspoken feminists, and that reassures me that they have no foothold, despite how much the media panders to them, poor, inoffensive victims that they are.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

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 gain power in a violent gang-environment?

That's the way I see it and justify it....I wanted a female character in Saints Row but as has been said it wasn't an option so I decided that when SR2 came out that the boss's true gender is finally revealed when the bandages came off. For that reason I thoroughly reject any nonsensical ideas of transgender bosses that get bandied about when it come up when the SR franchise is discussed.

 

[zerragonoss]

You aren't in any position to determine whether or not someone's opinion is invalid on something that isn't fact-based like whether or not you like a game.

Yes I am. If an opinion isn't based on a valid reason then it's clearly invalid.

If someone determines a game based on artstyle, that is their opinion; and it is a valid opinion because that is how they judge their games and you don't have to agree with the opinion, but that doesn't invalidate it.

An opinion is only valid if it is logical. I could have an opinion that feminists cause cancer but that doesn't make it a valid opinion.

Yes but logic is also based on things, its not some unifying all perfect force. It is a awesome tool that lets you take base assumptions, and beliefs and find the best way to apply. If you change a base assumption good logical will give you a different answer. Just like any equation, different input equals different output. You base assumption is that the only thing that matters to a game is the gameplay. Opinions that have a different assumptions like art style matter, are invalid to you, but this does not make the illogical or invalid in general.

On topic The developers working form check boxes are not the ones I would care about the creativity of, so having the check boxes be at a more inclusive medium sounds nice.

Edit: some grammar changes+ a p.s.
Also for people that think discussing this further is point less and we should just stop I would point out that I avoided sexism threads for months because I was tired of the discussion and upon coming back their were more reasonable well argued people on both sides.

 

[m19]

The problem with a story like that is that it just delves into boring and tired cliches that as I guy even I am tired of. Not because it's sexist, but because it's boring and shallow. Everything that that story has to offer has been done by other people and has been done better. Your comfort zone isn't a crime. But it's not right for your comfort zone to envelop everything.

Yeah it is cliché, that was the point. I'm tired of it too. But it is your problem not a problem for the people voting with their wallets. And people do call sexism over this, which is my problem.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

There is nothing creative about Saints Row. Just because Saints Row devs have a lot of creative freedom doesn't mean jack shit. Creative freedom without a focus isn't creativity. It's cheap tricks. There's nothing creative in accepting every stupid idea someone has and putting it in the game. Look at Saints Row 3. The story was shit, the characters were shit, the missions were shit, the city was boring and empty, the NPC's were hardly more interesting than trees and because of all this gameplay got old after 15 minutes. And SR4 looks like more of the same. They focused more on what they can put in the game, than what makes sense and how to refine the things that are in so they could be fun. There is a name for that. It's called bad game design!

On the other hand, look at GTA V. They may not have the crazy shit that SR has, but they don't need it. They don't need to rely on cheap tricks. Everything in that world makes sense. Nothing is there "just because". They have a clear focus. Big city that resembles Los Angeles. Story is set in the events after the economic crash. 3 criminals with lives of their own working on a series of heists together. You get to play as the protagonist and the antagonist in the same story. That's creativity. That's useful innovation.