Jimquisition: Tomopology Life

[Something Amyss]

What does the internet hate more?

Gay people being included in future games?
Or Anita?

Anita. Anita's so powerful even her name can bring forth a shitstorm of rape threats. Anita is Voldemort, "she who must not be named" and gay inclusion is but a death eater. Still feared but without the same gravitas.

Also, I hear if you say her name in the mirror at midnight, she will immediately appear and destroy all of your games because gaming is sexist.

Then the new groups show up and seem to not be given the same scorn.

....Are you serious? People wanting gay relationships in games have been routinely told to vote with their wallets, and it wasn't absent here.

That half assed internet nerds jumped on them because one of the things the game breaking bug did was allow for something resembling gay marriages.

If there's one thing I know about internet nerds, it's that we are full-assed. >.>

More to the point, even some of Nintendo's apologists admit that the reason they got jumped on had more to do with how they phrased the removal. And the real pouncing didn't happen until they further ut their foot in their mouths with this "social commentary" crap. Poorly worded or not, these are what really sparked the "pouncing."

Maybe Nintendo should just stop saying stupid things. I'm curious, though,. Did you defend the Xbone when Microsoft reps were saying stupid things, too?

But there's increasingly an idea in our culture that being fair to a culture means excluding whatever is currently considered the dominant force.

Oh, it's not increasing. It's always been there and in pretty much the same fashion. At least, in this culture. That's like arguing "kids these days." And it probably extends further. People tend to be more comfortable with and able to process binary choices. Coke or Pepsi. Sox or Yanks. Democrat or Republican. Gay or Straight. Black or White.

Uh, subtle blasphemy there, Jim. But I bet, god loves you nontheless, you magnificent bastard

Subtle?

 

[HalfTangible]

Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

The part about inclusivity being zero sum.

It still isn't zero sum to include the option to BE female, because you can still pick the male option if you prefer =/ And I can't even imagine a scenario where you don't have the time or funding to create more than one player character. It might not fit your particular game (see: Mario, Zelda, etc) but if you're making a game where male/female is even an option you're gonna have the time and the funding.

And that's ignoring the fact that this isn't an 'inclusive' scenario you're presenting, this is a scenario where you absolutely must exclude someone.

 

[Pogilrup]

Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

The part about inclusivity being zero sum.

It still isn't zero sum to include the option to BE female, because you can still pick the male option if you prefer =/ And I can't even imagine a scenario where you don't have the time or funding to create more than one player character. It might not fit your particular game (see: Mario, Zelda, etc) but if you're making a game where male/female is even an option you're gonna have the time and the funding.

And that's ignoring the fact that this isn't an 'inclusive' scenario you're presenting, this is a scenario where you absolutely must exclude someone.

Well if the plan was to include one and only one preset player character, there will be opportunity costs in fleshing out that character.

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

 

[Something Amyss]

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Except it falls flat in this case. There's a negligible issue in including gay characters cost-wise, because gay models look just like straight models. So on top of the already heavily-contrived scenario, you have to include the notion that there weren't just constraints, but razor-tight ones. An already unrealistic scenario becomes even moreso.

Besides, as already pointed out, this isn't an issue if inclusion but exclusion.

 

[atavax]

If there's one thing I know about internet nerds, it's that we are full-assed. >.>

More to the point, even some of Nintendo's apologists admit that the reason they got jumped on had more to do with how they phrased the removal. And the real pouncing didn't happen until they further ut their foot in their mouths with this "social commentary" crap. Poorly worded or not, these are what really sparked the "pouncing."

Maybe Nintendo should just stop saying stupid things. I'm curious, though,. Did you defend the Xbone when Microsoft reps were saying stupid things, too?

Or maybe if consumers want companies to speak to candidly consumers can't immediately interpret what they say in the worst way possible. Like when someone says they aren't trying to make social commentary interpreting it as them saying that the inclusion of same sex marriages can only be done through social commentary.

Reps typically say stupid things, so you're going to need to be more specific in terms of the Xbone. I defended the mandatory inclusion of the kinect but not the original DRM policy. I am almost exclusively a PC gamer and don't have strong loyalties to any console developer, i don't own a wii, xbone, ps4, or any handheld gaming console.

 

[Pogilrup]

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Except it falls flat in this case. There's a negligible issue in including gay characters cost-wise, because gay models look just like straight models. So on top of the already heavily-contrived scenario, you have to include the notion that there weren't just constraints, but razor-tight ones. An already unrealistic scenario becomes even moreso.

Besides, as already pointed out, this isn't an issue if inclusion but exclusion.

Ok perhaps that scenario isn't a good example, but I really want to talk about opportunity costs in creative decisions.

Opportunity costs is the cost of not receiving the benefits of the next best thing you that could've done. Basic economics concept.

Now remember GTA V's criticisms of lack of even a single female protagonists? There where three opportunities to include a female player character in the campaign, but all three were passed in favor of making three male player characters.

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

 

[HalfTangible]

Well if the plan was to include one and only one preset player character, there will be opportunity costs in fleshing out that character.

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

If there's only one preset character, then it's deliberately being exclusive. It is the exact OPPOSITE of 'inclusivity is a zero-sum game' because there's no inclusivity in the first place.

And it's a moot point in this case, since we're talking about a game where the whole point is to custom-build your own character from scratch.

Oh, it's not increasing. It's always been there and in pretty much the same fashion. At least, in this culture. That's like arguing "kids these days." And it probably extends further. People tend to be more comfortable with and able to process binary choices. Coke or Pepsi. Sox or Yanks. Democrat or Republican. Gay or Straight. Black or White.

Stop crushing what little hope for humanity I have left, please =(

 

[CloudAtlas]

Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

My God, are you in deep shit now. Prepare yourself for the attack that will ensue, because the things you feel (that you cannot change) are not allowed.

Whatever attack may ensue will be for other reasons (like the gay-murderer-analogy).

If you state openly that the idea of two men kissing, or, if I may be so frank, fucking each other in the ass, makes you feel icky, but are firmly against discrimination regardless because you think whatever minor personal discomfort you may sometimes face does not justify actually making the life of homosexuals significantly worse, I doubt you will get attacked a lot. On the contrary, you will see some gays applauding you. And rightly so, for admitting to know your own feelings are wrong, that takes some courage too, and supporting something that you believe is right even though it affects you personally negatively (or so you think), that's rather noble I'd say.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Except it falls flat in this case. There's a negligible issue in including gay characters cost-wise, because gay models look just like straight models. So on top of the already heavily-contrived scenario, you have to include the notion that there weren't just constraints, but razor-tight ones. An already unrealistic scenario becomes even moreso.

Besides, as already pointed out, this isn't an issue if inclusion but exclusion.

Ok perhaps that scenario isn't a good example, but I really want to talk about opportunity costs in creative decisions.

Opportunity costs is the cost of not receiving the benefits of the next best thing you that could've done. Basic economics concept.

Now remember GTA V's criticisms of lack of even a single female protagonists? There where three opportunities to include a female player character in the campaign, but all three were passed in favor of making three male player characters.

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

It is definitely hard to imagine that a significant number of potential male buyers would have been put off by making just one out of three main characters in GTA V a woman. But many female (and male) potential buyers would have very much welcomed it. Wether that female character would have been any good... well, given GTA's general attitudes towards women, that might have been a different question.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Thank you so much for this video. I'm so sick and tired of people believing that "no matter what" you should stick to an idea. This is probably one of the biggest problems in our society, not just gaming. Politicians and businesses here just constantly do whatever they want, without any consideration to analyze themselves or apologize. At best you get them saying, "oh no don't get us wrong we were heading this direction anyway" after finally backpedaling from some horrendously anti-humane or anti-consumer practice. At worst you get EA or most big banks, who absolutely refuse to budge and instead just slightly change their business model to screw you in a different way. You know, the predatory methods.

And even worse, yes the people who literally look down on a company for admitting they were wrong. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft did change, while having a shitty attitude about it, but they did change they're system to be more pro-consumer. But the people, oh my god, they people who literally believed Microsoft in saying, that they couldn't implement several features if they went back to the old system. *Sigh* There was nothing that they did with Always Online that they couldn't still do without it. You would just, you know, turn on the online when you do it, ta da, and then turn it off when not using it anymore. Microsoft just said all that to have a weapon to try and get people to buy back into their crap DRM.

Thank god for you, Jim.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

I'll be honest with you. I have a friend who plays Fable games. It bothers him to no end that he cannot kill kids in the game. He's no serial killer or anything. But he has a point. The game is about doing what you want. Being as good or as evil as you want. I mean you can basically become like a demon/devil in the game. And you can go on murdering sprees. So his point is not that he just randomly wants to kill children, but because by all logical means, if you are going to play a totally evil character, why would you magically exclude kids?

That being said it never bothered me, except one time in Assassin's Creed III. The Assassin's Creed series normally has some kind of annoying character who you either distract with money, push them away or kill them. Well in Assassin's Creed 3, knowing that they could get away with saying "We can't just allow kids to be killable," made it so that the annoying "gets in your way all the time" NPC's were always kids. That meant you couldn't push them, kill them or anything. You always had to stop the game to get out money and waste money to get them to go away. Again, I don't want to kill kids in a game, but that's just trolly of Ubisoft to make them kids knowing that that lessens options for the player against that particular obstacle.

 

[Abnaxis]

Alright, hear me out on this one for a sec, not completely sure what I think yet.

Whenever I run across the "homosexual option" in a game like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, much eye-rolling is usually had. The thought that immediately comes to mind is "token gay relationship ahoy!"

That's my instinctive problem with the issue: not the inclusive-ness, but the token-ness. The gay relationships aren't included because it makes sense with the narrative or the setting or the characters, but rather because the developers have a check-box to mark off, to stave off controversy.

Which to be perfectly fair, is a criticism that applies for most romance options offered in any recent title. Romance isn't included in any way that makes sense, it's just there because fans expect it (at least the vocal ones do). However, for some reason the shallowness always seems worse in the gay options--probably because the romance is already awkward and lacking in any nuance when it's written and developed by heteros, for heteros.

I think a lot of times, people just instinctively pick up on the shallow corporate cynicism involved in including a gay option for PR's sake, and it gets misconstrued as bigotry when they balk at it.

I don't understand this. The dialogue for the romance options in DAII is pretty much exactly the same, regardless of your gender. And yet, the homosexual options are more shallow? Does not compute, dude.

Captcha: "Like the dickens". Not me, personally, but everyone should be allowed to, whether in real life or in a video game.

As I said, both are mutually shallow. I mean, the fact that the dialog is exactly the same either way shows just how shallow it is to begin with. Whether you're in a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual relationship should actually make a difference if the game is interested in delivering a compelling romance narrative, but romances in DAII amount to "do the quest so we can bang before the final boss."

My point isn't that the gay option is more shallow, but that the shallowness is exacerbated by the fact that it was tacked on with a minimum amount of token effort, by people who don't have any artistic desire to add a homosexual option but included it because the corporate guys don't want a PR headache. It's transparently only paying lip service to the whole "inclusiveness" issue, which rubs people the wrong way. Angry fans then direct their ire at the people the marketing executives are trying to placate, and flames ensue.

 

[KiKiweaky]

Hahahahahahahahaha the use of Ted Haggard was very appropriate Jim

 

[Something Amyss]

My point isn't that the gay option is more shallow, but that the shallowness is exacerbated by the fact that it was tacked on with a minimum amount of token effort, by people who don't have any artistic desire to add a homosexual option but included it because the corporate guys don't want a PR headache.

How can you tell that's the intent? Bioware's shallow normally, and they've had gay characters in their games since before this became an internet kerfuffle.

I mean, if they wanted a PR headache, wouldn't Bioware have taken relationships out of the games after Mass Effect at the very least? That was a huge shitstorm. Why add a gay option when the path of least resistance would be removing relationships, not adding gays.

So tell me, how do you know so certainly that these are just to check a box?

 

[Something Amyss]

Or maybe if consumers want companies to speak to candidly consumers can't immediately interpret what they say in the worst way possible.

You understand that's a non-sequiter, right?

Like when someone says they aren't trying to make social commentary interpreting it as them saying that the inclusion of same sex marriages can only be done through social commentary.

Your alternative interpretation?

Reps typically say stupid things, so you're going to need to be more specific in terms of the Xbone. I defended the mandatory inclusion of the kinect but not the original DRM policy. I am almost exclusively a PC gamer and don't have strong loyalties to any console developer, i don't own a wii, xbone, ps4, or any handheld gaming console.

Actually, I was talking about the way Microsoft said stupid things to its fanbase in response to their dislike of these things. So it doesn't matter if you liked Kinect and hated DRM, it was their responses. Just like it doesn't matter if you wanted gay marriage in a Nintendo game or not.

Now remember GTA V's criticisms of lack of even a single female protagonists? There where three opportunities to include a female player character in the campaign, but all three were passed in favor of making three male player characters.

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

So are they...losing out? I'm unclear as this seems to be the exact opposite of your previous point.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Bravo Jim. Refusing to apologise when you're WRONG doesn't make you strong, it makes you a stupid douchebag. Too many people fail to understand that.

Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

Yes, maybe inclusivity will offend some bigots and homophobes and racists and those opposed to whichever group we're talking about at the time.

But you know what?

Fuck 'em.

Seriously, fuck 'em. You can't please fucking everybody and given the choice between pleasing people who just want to live their life their way and pleasing people who want to control how other people live their lives, the bigots can go and eat shit.

And saying you cheer for gay people because "the more they want men the more women are left for me" is like saying "I'm not racist I have black friends" because there's a black guy who works in the same office as you who you only tell black jokes about when his back is turned. And claiming you being unable to accept gays is the same as gays being unable to choose their sexuality is just another example of false equivalence. "Sexual orientation" and "opinion" are NOT the same thing. You WEREN'T "born that way", you were RAISED that way and that IS something you can change if you made an effort to not be so judgemental. But you won't, because it's easier to just insist that gays should just stay out of your way all the time.

 

[Pogilrup]

Now remember GTA V's criticisms of lack of even a single female protagonists? There where three opportunities to include a female player character in the campaign, but all three were passed in favor of making three male player characters.

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

So are they...losing out? I'm unclear as this seems to be the exact opposite of your previous point.

There those who argue against a sequel contain a female protagonist when the series featured male protagonists in past, a non-Caucasian in a series that feature mainly variations of Caucasians, or an openly gay player character in a series that never had a gay player character before.

My hypothesis on why those people argue is because they don't want to be the ones to be incurring the opportunity cost.

And unfortunately they know exactly what they would be missing on due to the fact that what they fear to lose in the new work already exists in past works.

EDIT: An apology or statement of commitment to change in the future means the company is willing to discontinue some of what is currently found in the existing work when they create a new work. To discontinue would be to incur an opportunity cost.

 

[Squeaky]

Bravo Jim. Refusing to apologise when you're WRONG doesn't make you strong, it makes you a stupid douchebag. Too many people fail to understand that.

Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

Yes, maybe inclusivity will offend some bigots and homophobes and racists and those opposed to whichever group we're talking about at the time.

But you know what?

Fuck 'em.

Seriously, fuck 'em. You can't please fucking everybody and given the choice between pleasing people who just want to live their life their way and pleasing people who want to control how other people live their lives, the bigots can go and eat shit.

And saying you cheer for gay people because "the more they want men the more women are left for me" is like saying "I'm not racist I have black friends" because there's a black guy who works in the same office as you who you only tell black jokes about when his back is turned. And claiming you being unable to accept gays is the same as gays being unable to choose their sexuality is just another example of false equivalence. "Sexual orientation" and "opinion" are NOT the same thing. You WEREN'T "born that way", you were RAISED that way and that IS something you can change if you made an effort to not be so judgemental. But you won't, because it's easier to just insist that gays should just stay out of your way all the time.

This is probably going to come off very convoluted but anyway. Your answer is "Fuck 'em" ? That is just as bigoted as someone who is homophobic regardless of how you spin it. The suppression of any opinion whether you agree or disagree with it, is still oppressing someones beliefs which in my eyes is the greatest crime any person can commit (Belief and acting on your thoughts are different). Everyone should be entitled to believe what they want wrong or right in each others eyes as no one is better than one another so what right do we have to judge the people around us? Sexual Orientation and opinion to me are the same (but please read on before you shot me down) as they all stem from our feelings and life experience.

People are not born murderers, public speakers, singers or artists? All our personal traits change as we grow either expanding or changing completely as we mature. You will probably go with well I guess you accept nazi's killing Jews is ok, no i don't the sooner everyone excepts that other people are different and have different opinions even gays excepting homo-phobics.

 

[Something Amyss]

And unfortunately they know exactly what they would be missing on due to the fact that what they fear to lose in the new work already exists in past works.

That may well be a basis, but it still becomes inane in a majority of instances. People complain about Call of Duty or GTA like they're going to be missing out by mere inclusion.

An apology or statement of commitment to change in the future means the company is willing to discontinue some of what is currently found in the existing work when they create a new work. To discontinue would be to incur an opportunity cost.

Except it's not necessarily an opportunity cost, because the additions or changes don't automatically mean they are at the expense of existing content. If a company believes there's a significant gain (and apparently, Nintendo felt there was a significant enough loss), additional resources can readily be employed to add content. More development time can be added, as need be.

IT also doesn't change the fact that such antipathy manifests even down to the indie level, when we're talking about single content producers or small teams who wouldn't even be making games were it not for their intent to make a specific game that involves or includes minorities or women.

It also doesn't particularly help that a lot of these cries come from people who express specific antipathy towards these groups. It's that I haven't considered this; rather, I've argued it before. However, it's not the full picture.

 

[dbenoy]

I think there could be just as big of an outcry from bigoted christians if they had gone the other way with this game from the beginning. They might have ended up having to make an apology to try to appease them.

Probably not, though. There wasn't an outcry about The Sims, it's true, but I still can't help but feel like Nintendo was between a rock and a hard place. Either way can be seen as social commentary by powerful special interests, and I think Nintendo is rightfully scared of both sides. I think the way it turned out was just Nintendo changing its mind about which group it's more scared of.

Personally I don't care. If there was a game out there that only allowed you to marry the type of person I'm not interested in, or only let me play as a woman or something, I'd just go with it, or maybe I wouldn't, and I'd just go find another game, so it's hard for me to empathize with people who freak out.

The whole issue of whether to allow gay relationships is so boring to me I probably wouldn't comment on it, but this issue of whether to capitulate to complainers is much more interesting. Normally I'd just say we should have more respect for the creative vision of the creators. Like it or don't, but don't demand that they change it. However, I don't know if Nintendo actually has a creative vision with this product. They seemed to just crank out some shovelware centered around their corporate image of 'quirky family friendly fun time' rather than actually produce something with artistic value.