Fistful of Ebola said:
In other words, exactly what I just said? There's being contrarian then there's just rephrasing my own points to make it look like you're disagreeing.
And than there is being very bad at expressing yourself. What i said is totally different from what you said.
" Do you think and alternate version of Wolfenstein where you play as a Nazi is so widely played by neo-Nazis because it makes them neo-Nazis or because it reinforces their neo-Nazism?" =/= playing as a neo nazi because you're one to begin with (which doesn't imply either a transformation or a reinforcement).
We do not "shrug" it off, an investigation is done and it's determined that the accidental killer was not negligent and the killing occurred due to reasons beyond his/her control then he's exonerated.
If there was criminal negligence it starts getting into involuntary manslaughter territory. Once the killing has been determined to be accidental it's being shrugged off.
Make issues out of such issues? So it's already an issue but we shouldn't take it as such? Sounds like the issue is that you don't want the dominant paradigm challenged. Regardless, you really can't throw my argument back in my face in this instance, because I never claimed the hegemonic discourse is always correct. I'm pointing out that the hypothetical "dystopia" you refer to already exists depending on who you are. Racists and misogynists can't operate as openly today as they could sixty years ago, you can't slap your secretary on the ass then lynch a black boy for whistling at a white woman anymore. And that's really your complaint here, you don't want to have to be held accountable for your own bad behavior.
What I obviously meant was: making a big issue out of one which is barely one to begin with. I guess you could call swatting a fly animal abuse but crying murder over it surely is taking things out of proportion? That's my point.
And it's not a manner of how you cannot operate. It is about how we would operate. By making a huge deal of non-issues (or barely issues) and often relying on creative thinking to actually get there the only logical solution is to adopt scientific paper like standards to everything that is being communicated. Otherwise "offense" will continue being caused. And since obviously that's "wrong" why beat around the bush? Let's just go there straight away. And if it's not the ultimate goal than maybe some complaints need to be revised.
How exactly do you maintain a healthy, happy relationship despite being unhappy?
If the reason you'd make yourself happy is for a relationship i'd say you have a bigger problem than a unhappy relationship. Being happy is what you do for yourself. You do it regardless of your "relationship status". As such I don't see how that is "investing in the relationship", at least not in a direct manner.
Character development is always key to the story, if you're writing a good story anyway. How the plot changes your character and your character changes the plot is integral, but if you have multiple characters with conflicting goals then the plot surges forward regardless of how it changes. To go back on the GRRM analogies, the plot of ASOIAF is constantly changing and moving forward. An assassination might happen here, a character might have a change of heart and fundamentally alter the course there, a character might do something and change it back, but its moving forward regardless and the gorram Others aren't waiting for anyone.
This is the problem with the romance subplots of Mass Effect et al, they occur outside the main plot, whether you fall in love with Morrigan or Leliana, Liara or Ashley does. not. matter. And because it doesn't matter your courtship does. not. matter.
The fact the romance stories didn't actually matter. That's a valid complaint for sure. Now off course i personally don't care that much because in my experience usually when romance drives a plot it does so in boring ways and usually the plot suffers in quality. But that's me and my opinion.
No, it doesn't! If thirty out of thirty-one people expect to be served a steaming pile of cow shit at a restaurant that doesn't change it to fillet mignon.
No but it does justify why the restaurant serves a steaming pile of shit and suggests that perhaps filet mignon is not as good as you make it out to be. (considering taste is 100% subjective, I personally think cheese is close to be on par with a steaming pile of crap but i know a lot of people don't agree)
Food critics don't have to sit on their hands and ignore it when that restaurant serves more cow shit despite claiming to serve the finest foods. It's the same damn principle here; Bioware is serving up a platter of bad slashfic and calling it "tasteful and mature", we're not obligated to ignore the bullshit there. The fact that bad slashfic is what the fans of Mass Effect are expecting doesn't absolve Bioware from criticism.
And what determines what is fine food? If people prefer crap isn't it the critics who may have the crappy taste?
How is he interpreting it in the worst way? It is what it is; Bioware and Quantic Dream have a history of making very shallow romance subplots and presenting them as artsy. Jim found commonalities in their presentation with how a worrisome element of the male population views relationships. Calling out two video game developers is not a condemnation of gaming as a whole. Interestingly, the person who is being hyper-sensitive and interpreting things in the worst possible way is you. There's an article I want you to read that sums up your problem, that privilege views any surrender of ground as an attack [http://www.overthinkingit.com/2012/07/18/video-games-political-correctness/].
The found commonalities are based on the most negative interpretation possible of what is presented, that's how.
I'm guessing you're new to criticism of art in any form; critics often ground their criticism in existing social concerns and trends.
And I've found many critics to be really bad at what they do. So i guess that explains that.
So our only options are shallow love scenes or spousal abuse? Yeah, that's not a false dilemma in the slightest...
game mechanics wise yes. Gameplay is based on scripted reactions to actions. If the idea a woman has sex as a result of the gamer giving positive inputs is bad the only way out of that is by having him giving negative inputs. Remember we're talking about romance as part of the gameplay here.
Oh for fuck's sake, read this wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machine] and come back to me before continuing to use the slot machine analogy. I will say it again, a slot machine is not an action followed by a scripted reaction. Repeating that multiple times doesn't make each subsequent iteration more true.
Euhm, maybe you need to call up Jim than. He clearly used it as follow "as long as you put enough emotional coins in it you will get sex" (well i'm paraphrasing because i really don't feel like going through his bad video to have the exact words). This suggest a fixed reaction as a consequence of an input (as if it was, *gasp* scripted). Which is INEVITABLE in games when gameplay is involved.
Yet games have somehow managed complex and interesting interactions between characters before, somehow because Bioware and Quantic Dreams can't make an interesting romance subplot this means gaming as a medium can't do it.
Only possible if it doesn't involve gameplay. The limitations to game mechanics will always reduce the "complexity" of interactions between characters.
I can't possibly facepalm at this enough, the response to bad storytelling is not to head-canon a better story into existence.
Who said bad? All i said is "has blanks". All stories have blanks. And I'd say stories which don't are probably horribly boring.
See, I don't even think you have a clue what the fuck you're talking about. You criticize romance subplots for existing; then criticize people for criticizing Bioware/Quantic Dream's romance subplots because good ones would be be too long and uninteresting, then cite Metal Gear Solid and its hour long cutscences vomiting exposition all over the player as good storytelling. You don't have a consistent, logical point to make. You're just here complaining about complaining and utterly failing to see how it relates to your own complaints. There's no point in even continuing this conversation because the entirety of your dialogue is just blasé contrarianism.
Good ones? Again, who used the word "good"? All i'm talking about is that I find it weird that someone needs all details in order to avoid the worst possible interpretations because if something isn't there than there's nothing there. After all we all know all stories are 100% complete. We always follow all characters 24/7 and know exactly what they do and think at any given moment.