Okay. Then I won't buy your games. Good luck with that whole food thing.JohnHayne said: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.
No, there's nothing directly in the narrative that references Marston being a moderately-sized person with a gruff, scar-ridden face wearing typical cowboy clothing, why would there? Or did I miss the part where the story shifts because you changed your clothing?Zachary Amaranth said:There's little that Marston's appearance impacts in terms of narrative.
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.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"
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...erttheking said: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.Silentpony said: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?
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.Silentpony said: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...erttheking said: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.Silentpony said: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?
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.uanime5 said: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.