Jimquisition: Neutered

[wulf3n]

As Cheap Trick once sang, "I want you to want me" or in this case "I want you to want to be inclusive".

This is the issue some seem to forget (or ignore). It's not that we don't want games to be inclusive, It's that we don't want games to have to be inclusive.

 

[Talvrae]

Good video Jim, once again i find my self in agreement with you... wich is not that often

 

[I.Muir]

So long as it is indeed new things being brought and not the old things being censored.

"Tropes" seems to be a dangerous word nowadays because of a certain video series. I'm as sure of said video series disapproving of Saints Row four as I am of it disproving of everything else. Don't make the mistake of having thrown your support behind such an unsubstantiated opinion and call it "academic" like some others on the escapist. It's this video series that people are concerned about because it appears to call for the censoring of just about anything it discusses rather than calling for inclusion.

Also if video games are to travel down new paths towards a hopefully bright and varied future it will undoubtedly make a few blunders along the way that may temporarily discourage creativity. As earlier featured - creativity for the sake of creativity on an already different from the norm franchise such as metroid perhaps can alienate existing fans. It was too much change too soon and most do not like to see their beloved protagonist so weak and so human considering the positively inhuman feats they must pull off.

When it comes to publishers all wanting that call of duty audience, well change could not occur there fast enough.

 

[bluepotatosack]

You've ignored that Dragon Crown's score was lowered because of what some female characters looked like, not because of the art or graphics. I suspect you did this because you lack a real argument.

Art should only score badly because it makes the game harder to play, not because a bigot doesn't like the way certain characters look.

What the characters look like IS part of art direction. So yes, that score was lowered because of the art.

I just disagree with you on a fundamental level on this one. Games are multimedia. That means the audio, visuals, and mechanics of a game all come together to form a whole. Any one part can add or detract from the finished product. Saying you can't criticize a game because of it's art direction is like saying you can't criticize a play or movie because of it's set or costume design.

 

[JudgeGame]

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.

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.

I was attempting sarcasm. Actually, I'm re-reading my original post and I'm certain it was text-book sarcasm.

 

[Rabidkitten]

What if Saint's Row had a giant purple floppy vagina give away that had a real game equivalent?

 

[barbzilla]

The only problem I have with using Saints Row as an example is the fact that the Player Character is a Customisable Avatar. While fine for RPGS, Sandbox Games and other games with a custom PC, it doesn't really say much about games like Red Dead Redemption or GTA V where the characters/story are written specifically to the one intended vision of the designers for those characters.

This may be irrational of me, but given the current mentality to design and events like Retake Mass Effect, isn't there a risk of a precedent that will only result in another set of checkboxes for developers to make their games 'acceptable'? Don't think I disagree with the spirit of your argument, I just think there needs to be a caveat about this being for encouragement of new ideas and not to be interpreted as something to be expected from the get go of a games inception.


Did any of what I said make sense?

Pretty sure I catch your meaning. You are trying to say that you are afraid that if we change the current status quo that we may end up with an entirely new checklist for publishers to "broaden the appeal".

As an example:
A current publisher might demand that the game have:
1 Male Protagonist
2 Multiplayer
3 RPG elements
4 Big Boobs on a stick figure

But if we change their targets we might end up with

1 Female Protagonist
2 Social Options
3 Beating up men larger than Protagonist
4 Big wankers in tight pants
(note: None of this is to be indicative of what I think the average woman wants, I am just pointing out how stupid publishers are)

So by demanding certain things of people who have shown that they are needlessly anal about obtaining previously demanded project features, we could end up just curtailing creativity for the same reasons all over again. Well, you are in luck, because I have a solution!

From now on, no publisher shall have any say in how a game is made. The publisher will only be allowed to know a game's name before they invest in it, and that is all. They will have no further say in the creative process, and will be given their initial investment +15% once the game has made enough. All other proceeds will go to the developer, who will skip the silly store things and distribute straight from their own websites. (intended as sarcasm... or am I...?)

 

[barbzilla]

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.

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.

I was attempting sarcasm. Actually, I'm re-reading my original post and I'm certain it was text-book sarcasm.

Don't worry m8, I think most of us understood your meaning. Though for future reference you should put some form of [/s] or something after your sarcastic remarks, or you end up with people like this quoting and arguing the point you are agreeing with.

OT: I mostly agree with Jim, but there are cases where it will neuter creativity. That isn't to say that it won't increase creativity much more often, because it will, but in terms of "The boobs on this chick make me sick, let them be gone (not saying that everyone is saying that, but there are some), it will destroy that artistic choice. If you destroy any form of choice, you are stifling creativity. What we need is to encourage more diversity and vibrancy in our games, but it is a difficult line to walk to generate such encouragement without resorting to A: rampant complaints/lawsuits/ect or B: trying to rely on people to vote with their wallets (though voting with your wallet is your strongest option currently, so I do encourage people to do so).

 

[Rabidkitten]

What if Saint's Row had a giant purple floppy vagina give away that had a real game equivalent?

I am almost, almost afraid to ask how one would use a "giant purple floppy vagina" in the game as a weapon...

Use your imagination.

 

[freaper]

Nice haircut Jim!
It makes your face look more slim.
I had to type this on a whim,
or I might get the banhammer..err..

 

[Wulfsten]

I don't know about this one, Jim. Normally I think you're absolutely spot on with almost all your observations on games, and I get your broad point here, but I also think that people have reason to be defensive, anxious and cautious.

We've had some extremely shrill and baseless criticisms of the way games (and gamers) treat women, and we've also had a lot of fair comments. The problem is that a lot of people are nervous about the games industry deciding that the risk of offending anyone is too great, and that as a result, they should stick to extremely "safe", tried and true and placidly inoffensive material.

That's the opposite of the bold risk-taking in the quest to include new demographics that you seem to be calling for in your video. I guarantee that freakouts over the boobs in Dragon's Crown or the all-male cast in GTA V are not going to push devs, or executives, to "think outside the box", or take creative risks. Far, far, far from it.

Why would they? That's not how risk-aversion works. Instead, they're going to meticulously filter out anything that could cause any offence to anyone, leaving behind a bland paste.

You constantly reference Saint's Row in this video - do you honestly think there aren't shrill harridans who don't find that game exceedingly offensive? How about all the people who are really upset and get a real boo boo at the idea of being able to increase your penis size, or dick punch someone, or smack someone with a dildo, or view killing innocent bystanders as funny and rewarding? Saint's Row is not your "neutered" game. It's massively offensive, except for one aspect: it's expansive character creation engine.

So your argument that game makers being desperate not to offend actually increases creativity rather than stunting it falls over on two counts: first, the drive not to offend will result in more risk-averse game design, gravitating to things you KNOW won't offend because you've done them a million times before, rather than trying new things that could offend demographics you hadn't even considered.

Second, your example of Saint's Row is a poor one. Saint's Row is not what happens when game designers get together to try to include every demographic. It's self-evidently a game that does its best to try to offend a wide array of people, but it laudably doesn't seem to care, and it also laudably has an inclusive character creation toolkit.

Those are my thoughts, anyways. I think you're doing great work, obviously. I think you may have gotten a little carried away in this one instance, though. I get that you're frustrated at how excessively defensive a lot of gamers are about legitimate criticism, but in this case, they do also have a point.

 

[hentropy]

I think it's just a bunch of people over-analyzing what's really in front of them. Those much-maligned supreme feminist council don't want "checklists" for inclusitivity- they just don't want EVERY game having at least one ridiculous looking booby monster in order for a publisher to greenlight it. The issue with this is how a lot of games choose to tell their stories, but forcing the player to play as certain pre-defined character and have no choice as to the interactions with NPCs. This is the kind of linear storytelling that books and movies and most other forms of entertainment follow, and it's not really inherently bad, but also limits the player's experience to what the developers and storytellers designing the game wanted them to experience. In such a case, the story they want to tell better be pretty damned good.

In such a situation, I'd say that many females feel left out as they can't play as or interact with anyone who isn't either a male NPC or stereotypical female plot device, which is what women get with most games.

There's a reason why many of the very best games in the gaming history has the player either controlling an everyman/non-human protagonist or allows you to design your own character. It's simply a matter of fairness. The reason why the SR series is a good example of this is because you can control every aspect of your character's looks (besides height, annoyingly enough) with no bias. You can create a grotesque booby clown if you want or a completely flat and modest woman with short brown hair. It doesn't force you into a box like other mediums and makes you play as a pre-determined character, not just an empty shell of a Link or Gordon Freeman even a woman has little trouble relating to, but an actual character where they game's creators have decided your personality and motivations for you.

Even if you're a dude, you might find it hard to really relate to or like Nico Bellic, what with all the whining and melodrama. My own brother refused to play San Andreas because, you guessed it, he didn't like idea of playing as a thuggish black guy (at least in the beginning). He might be racist and have a minority opinion, but it still goes to show you that whenever you force the player into your "vision", you risk alienating them.

So really I think the answer to this riddle- the riddle of trying to create inclusive characters without also having quotas to fill- is to simply make it so that the player, not the developers, are empowered enough to create characters to craft their own stories and at least assume the roles that they want to play, while also adding NPCs who aren't all boring or lazy caricatures.

 

[Jeffrey Beyerl]

I couldn't agree more. Your reference to your own old episodes is wonderful! I was one of the many people asking you to stop the cussing during your earlier episodes and only later decided to watch a newer one and fell in love with your new use of creative language.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

There's also the fact that, as Jim pointed out in another video, that acknowledging these criticisms doesn't necessarily mean anything is going to change. So perhaps we should be a little (read: a lot) less reactionary.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I agree. Videogames need more restraint...

...Especially when it comes to Dragon's Crown boobs. I mean, I'm a straight guy and even I find those things grotesque! Honestly, if I had to stare at those things all game, I'd find them off-putting as well. At the very least, I have zero problems with the reviewer using the art style as a criticism. Or saying that it's an "adolescent fantasy".

If I had a criticism of the... well... criticism, I'd say that it would be better described as pandering to a very specific idea of a demographic that I'm not really sure exists. I mean, is there REALLY anybody out there, adolescent or not, who finds the idea of a woman with breasts twice the size of her head sexy? (Bear in mind that I don't know how much of this was intended as a parody of female images in videogames; although even if it was intended that way, it seems like a very odd thing to try and stuff into a RPG-brawler.)

I think that Jim's point that creativity and inclusivity are not opposing forces is a great one, but I'd even add to it. If you make games more inclusive, they'll get a more diverse audience. And when they get a more diverse audience, you'll get a more diverse group of people who are actually inclined to design and make the games. Leading to a much deeper pool of creative brains.

So making videogames more inclusive encourages more diversity among the people MAKING, not just playing, the games.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Actually I'm gonna repost that last point for emphasis, since it kinda got lost in the post.

- If you make videogames more welcoming and inclusive, you attract a greater diversity of gamers.
- Some of those gamers will become game developers (actually, are there any developers who AREN'T gamers?)
- Therefore you will get a greater and more diverse group of brains to design the games, leading to greater variety and a more healthy environment in which new and creative ideas can flourish.

Sound good?

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Huzzah! Jim's said the point I've been trying to make for years! Not necessarily on this site, but still! Thank god for Jim!

Games being inclusive, and welcoming won't be the deathknell of gaming! It'll create more variety! Hell, it might actually SAVE the gaming industry by, you know, getting in more customers. Customers that might have been turned off by the rampant sexualization of women, and very rare idealization of women.
Not every game needs to be inclusive, but there's needs to be a lot more than there are now!

Are people trying to take away the big boobies? No, not really. We're just trying to get variety!

Character customization, while really damn nice, isn't the end all, and be all, though. A variety of protagonists is, though.

Honestly, if you wanna see the people that Jim is talking to/about, those defenders of gaming regardless of anything, look in youtube where his vids are posted a week later, and look to the threads about feminism, sexism, female representation, and the vids he's put up, and the threads about them. These people exist, minority, or not.
These threads aren't reaching 10+ pages because everyone's agreeing with eachother. There's people who blindly defend, or don't give a damn about what games do.

 

[MercurySteam]

When I saw the Title "Neutered" and a picture of Saints Row I assumed this episode would be able the recent censoring of Saints Row IV in Aus. Still, another cracking episode.