Opinion: DOOM is Exactly as Violent and Bloody as It Should Be
- Thread starter Encaen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Have some more!Encaen said:Absolutely, and I applaud a healthy dose of skepticism! https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/610271596675117056Zachary Amaranth said:
"really troubling (and depressing) that audience is enthusiastically cheering..."
Which is exactly the same as "really troubling (and depressing) that audience [likes something I don't like]"
"troubling (and depressing)" suggests that the people who enjoy something that she doesn't enjoy is causing some kind of emotional trauma. Causing emotional trauma is universally recognized as a bad thing. Hence suggesting that people enjoying something she does not enjoy is a bad thing.
Good - "I'm not into this trailer. It's too violent for me."
Bad - "I'm not into this trailer, and other people enjoying it causes me emotional trauma."
I hope that makes sense, but even if you still disagree with my sentiment, I promise that I won't suggest that it causes me any kind of trauma.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as implying trauma or the like. On the other hand, this tweet and the others mean clearly that people by default shouldn't enjoy Doom, otherwise this wouldn't be troubling. I mean, when you say "it's troubling people enjoy watching snuff movies" or "it's troubling people enjoy gang-raping poor innocent kids", you obviously imply that "normal human beings" don't do this. Same here.Encaen said:
And really, all the Doom bogus criticism of violence was stupid already back in 1993. You butcher demons, not random innocent humans. Heck, Wolfenstein 3D should've been more "problematic" since you kill people - granted, evil Nazis, so the archetype of "bad guys". Still, killing demons in 2015 shouldn't be controversial, not when you have ISIS beheading real people on Youtube.
The question arises: do we need a DOOM anymore?
Violence isn't controversial unless you're trying to make it so.
DOOM itself seems to enjoy the smell of its own farts quite a bit.
We have other sources of ridiculous madness that move past it, like KF2.
Violence isn't controversial unless you're trying to make it so.
DOOM itself seems to enjoy the smell of its own farts quite a bit.
We have other sources of ridiculous madness that move past it, like KF2.
To be clear, your evidence for public responses, plural, seems to be one tweet which appears to need to be redefined to make the case. Are you saying this is the sum of the prominent public reactions (again, plural) to this effect?Encaen said:
In my opinion, logical analysis of a statement is not the same as redefining said statement, but you're welcome to your own opinion on the matter.Zachary Amaranth said:
As to additional examples, I hope this helps: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.877384-Opinion-DOOM-is-Exactly-as-Violent-and-Bloody-as-It-Should-Be?page=2#22088209
Well, I can certainly see the influences of Brutal Doom in that trailer (first time I've been able to watch it in full).
It...actually looks really good, IMO. Just hoping the mini-cutscenes aren't going to break the flow of the game too badly.
Aaaand in other news...the dynamic duo are right back at it again; this time feeling bold enough to drop the niceties and show their contempt for the audience directly. Whatever. They can wag their fingers and shake their heads all they want, what people play and enjoy is none of their fucking business.
The player shuts it down in Quake 2.
STEALTH EDIT:
It...actually looks really good, IMO. Just hoping the mini-cutscenes aren't going to break the flow of the game too badly.
Aaaand in other news...the dynamic duo are right back at it again; this time feeling bold enough to drop the niceties and show their contempt for the audience directly. Whatever. They can wag their fingers and shake their heads all they want, what people play and enjoy is none of their fucking business.
Actually, they have an entire facility for reprocessing the failures and other "spare meat".teh_Canape said:
The player shuts it down in Quake 2.
STEALTH EDIT:
I'm not even bothering to direct quote you; because you don't deserve it.
It's funny; that for all the babbling you make about respecting the opinions of others, you are more than eager to attack them relentlessly, despite how much you hate having your own challenged.
You nitpicked his article, then demanded more examples to justify the plurality of his claim.
This is a primer for "moving the goalposts".
Now you aren't looking for plural evidence, but are trying to dismiss the evidence via accusing him of changing the context of the quotes. (Prophecy stated, and fulfilled; you moved the goalposts)
I have a more important question: what's your criteria?
But lets put some actual fucking context on the table here: "Is McIntosh popular?"
This point is disingenous, because Feminist Frequency is two people, with McIntosh as the writer, and Sarkeesian more the public face.
Sarkeesian ALONE has had numerous public speaking engagements, run several rounds on National Television (MSNBC, Colbert, and more), has been published in Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and is one of the prominent public figures currently in the gaming industry (to the point where she has done work with one of the biggest companies in the the business: EA)
FUTURE EDIT: And was recently invited to the UNITED NATIONS as a guest. She is THAT GOOD of a professional victim.
So, given the context of this being a piece on a gaming news site for gamers, Encaen's claim of them being "popular" (that is, well known to the public) is more than justified here.
Assert otherwise all you want; you're fooling nobody but yourself.
No, don't sit there and assert, PROVE YOUR GODDAMN POINT ZACH, WHAT NEW MEANING IS THERE?
You invoke logic here, but are employing none yourself in your attempt to keep Encaen under the gun.
Since you never give us this new meaning he made, we can only assume it exists purely in your head, and thus is arbitrary.
So, to wit, he didn't add new meaning; Sarkeesian and McIntosh displayed obvious disdain for the gamers cheering a display of fantasy violence. He gave you the verbatim tweets IN CONTEXT.
Either you are being deliberately dishonest here to discredit Encaen's opinion, or you actually have no idea what the literal meanings of Sarkeesian/McIntosh's statements are in context.
In either case you are in no position to be dictating to anyone what is being said on this subject.
Oh get over yourself. You aren't the grand arbiter on this or any issue here.
You don't get to dictate what is or isn't a reasonable degree of outrage to form an opinion on.
The fact that someone else can point that out in an article while claiming to respect the opinions of others, IS NOT A MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THING. Because respecting someone's opinion is not the same as agreeing with it, a principle you like to espouse but in practice, violate almost fucking DAILY on this site.
In all of this, it's YOU are guilty of being unable to endure criticism for YOUR sacred cow (that woman in your profile picture).
The main difference, is that you think by never declaring your position that you can avoid confronting your own bias, even as you confront people with theirs.
It's a cheap, hypocritical tactic you invoke frequently, and goddamn it's high time someone called you out on it.
As for the rest, it's pure projection on your part and thus invalid by default.
Or can we add "basic concept of time" to the list of things you have no clue about too?
It's funny; that for all the babbling you make about respecting the opinions of others, you are more than eager to attack them relentlessly, despite how much you hate having your own challenged.
Nice loaded question and deflection of the original point.Zachary Amaranth said:
You nitpicked his article, then demanded more examples to justify the plurality of his claim.
This is a primer for "moving the goalposts".
And when he did just that, you ignore the evidence and change your argument with weaseling (the word "seems" denies any firm point you might have had).
Now you aren't looking for plural evidence, but are trying to dismiss the evidence via accusing him of changing the context of the quotes. (Prophecy stated, and fulfilled; you moved the goalposts)
I have a more important question: what's your criteria?
Nice entrapment scenario you've laid here; no matter what answer he gives you to justify his position, it won't matter because your own criteria is nebulous and arbitrary, and can be dismissed under any grounds you could invent.
But lets put some actual fucking context on the table here: "Is McIntosh popular?"
This point is disingenous, because Feminist Frequency is two people, with McIntosh as the writer, and Sarkeesian more the public face.
Sarkeesian ALONE has had numerous public speaking engagements, run several rounds on National Television (MSNBC, Colbert, and more), has been published in Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and is one of the prominent public figures currently in the gaming industry (to the point where she has done work with one of the biggest companies in the the business: EA)
FUTURE EDIT: And was recently invited to the UNITED NATIONS as a guest. She is THAT GOOD of a professional victim.
So, given the context of this being a piece on a gaming news site for gamers, Encaen's claim of them being "popular" (that is, well known to the public) is more than justified here.
Assert otherwise all you want; you're fooling nobody but yourself.
What new meaning did he add with the rephrasing?
No, don't sit there and assert, PROVE YOUR GODDAMN POINT ZACH, WHAT NEW MEANING IS THERE?
You invoke logic here, but are employing none yourself in your attempt to keep Encaen under the gun.
Since you never give us this new meaning he made, we can only assume it exists purely in your head, and thus is arbitrary.
So, to wit, he didn't add new meaning; Sarkeesian and McIntosh displayed obvious disdain for the gamers cheering a display of fantasy violence. He gave you the verbatim tweets IN CONTEXT.
Either you are being deliberately dishonest here to discredit Encaen's opinion, or you actually have no idea what the literal meanings of Sarkeesian/McIntosh's statements are in context.
In either case you are in no position to be dictating to anyone what is being said on this subject.
"Than it appears to be".
Oh get over yourself. You aren't the grand arbiter on this or any issue here.
You don't get to dictate what is or isn't a reasonable degree of outrage to form an opinion on.
Feminist Frequency, a well known (popular) game critic entourage came out and complained about gamers getting excited for ultra-violence in a game based on ultra-violence. That may be their opinion, but it's an opinion stemming from puritanical bullshit.
The fact that someone else can point that out in an article while claiming to respect the opinions of others, IS NOT A MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THING. Because respecting someone's opinion is not the same as agreeing with it, a principle you like to espouse but in practice, violate almost fucking DAILY on this site.
In all of this, it's YOU are guilty of being unable to endure criticism for YOUR sacred cow (that woman in your profile picture).
The main difference, is that you think by never declaring your position that you can avoid confronting your own bias, even as you confront people with theirs.
It's a cheap, hypocritical tactic you invoke frequently, and goddamn it's high time someone called you out on it.
And there you go with those weasel words again. "Seems". But I get why you do that, because the only other way to phrase those are in the expository stance "You are nationalists decrying outsiders", which is a blunt accusation.
As for the rest, it's pure projection on your part and thus invalid by default.
It helps if you actually ask the question before lamenting your lack of answers.
Or can we add "basic concept of time" to the list of things you have no clue about too?
heh and this is why devs dont show in game footage especially from a build a good half year from complete people jump on the graphics for being shit, because it doesnt look like the over polished unrealistic predictions the likes of watchdogs fed us. gj guys gj!
but actually doom never really got tagged as violent it was the satanic hell stuff the american moral minority were on a crusade against at this point , i still have some censored MTG cards from this era (unholy strength cards with the pentagrams removed).
this whole too violent argument suffers from the same base errors in reasoning that sexism in games does, there is no violence in any computer game, theres depictions of blood and gore sure, but as anyone who has had someone actually try to kill them in the real world can attest violence is nothing like its computer game depiction.
but actually doom never really got tagged as violent it was the satanic hell stuff the american moral minority were on a crusade against at this point , i still have some censored MTG cards from this era (unholy strength cards with the pentagrams removed).
this whole too violent argument suffers from the same base errors in reasoning that sexism in games does, there is no violence in any computer game, theres depictions of blood and gore sure, but as anyone who has had someone actually try to kill them in the real world can attest violence is nothing like its computer game depiction.
I'm not sure I get your meaning here. I wasn't trying to make a "case" for anything. I was offering specific examples of people who publicly shamed gamers who didn't share their personal opinions. This isn't them expressing an opinion. This is them vilifying those they disagree with. Saying that people who like DOOM are "troubling (and depressing)" and there must be "something deeply wrong" with them isn't a critique of the trailer. It's a condemnation of gamers who enjoy a different genre of game than they do.Dynast Brass said:
I'm not trying to suggest that everybody should like DOOM. It's certainly not a game for everybody, and some people will absolutely hate it. I'm still not going to go out and publicly shame people that don't like it. That's ridiculous.
We shouldn't even need to respond to these sorts of people. Doing so is only giving them what they want: undeserved attention.
I'm glad to see the escapist taking this position.
Lately I feel like we're on a backslide as far as gaming acceptance goes. This is some Jack Thompson level shit right here.
While I appreciate you respecting the other side, I don't think they hold the same opinion of you.
Lately I feel like we're on a backslide as far as gaming acceptance goes. This is some Jack Thompson level shit right here.
While I appreciate you respecting the other side, I don't think they hold the same opinion of you.
DOOM 2 remains my favorite game of all time.
I had a huge grin on my face throughout the entire DOOM reveal at Bethesda's press conference. Because the violence, blood, and gratuitous amounts of execution made me think of how I felt when I played DOOM for the first time. As the editorial said, it wouldn't have been the same if the reveal had even toned it down to DOOM 3 levels.
However, the subjectivity of art means that people have the right to disagree with something and be morally opposed to it. The new DOOM reveal just had blood, guts, and guns. People who had played Bethesda's recent Wolfenstien might have expected the new DOOM to follow a similar path, because W:TNO raised the bar for story based shooters. I can see why they might be upset, and see the new DOOM as a hyperviolent game with nothing else to offer, and been turned off and disapointed as a result.
But that's all I ever wanted from DOOM 4.
I had a huge grin on my face throughout the entire DOOM reveal at Bethesda's press conference. Because the violence, blood, and gratuitous amounts of execution made me think of how I felt when I played DOOM for the first time. As the editorial said, it wouldn't have been the same if the reveal had even toned it down to DOOM 3 levels.
However, the subjectivity of art means that people have the right to disagree with something and be morally opposed to it. The new DOOM reveal just had blood, guts, and guns. People who had played Bethesda's recent Wolfenstien might have expected the new DOOM to follow a similar path, because W:TNO raised the bar for story based shooters. I can see why they might be upset, and see the new DOOM as a hyperviolent game with nothing else to offer, and been turned off and disapointed as a result.
But that's all I ever wanted from DOOM 4.
There will always be people hell bent on seeing a problem where there probably is none. Even the idea that violence is as prolific in media is something that as an idea I can certainly sympathize with, but we've come to a point where there is really literally nothing positive that comes from the discussion. Anita Sarkeesian made a point to take on DOOM, but it's impossible to argue with her. Who has debates her? She is the most unapproachable figure we have in our industry and those around her are not much better. I understand that the cause of this is largely because of the harassment that was visited on her in reaction to her videos but intellectually speaking all bridges are burnt. In real life I fancy myself quite the feminist, not really a pacifist, but on the internet I feel like a Nazi.
From that perspective I feel like I wish I could say that I feel like I am happy to read this article, but much like politics, every argument has been made from every possible perspective at this point, and still nothing happens. This is because the people who don't already agree simply aren't listening. So I agree, but with the sinking deep feeling of lethargy that comes with knowing that it doesn't matter what I think.
From that perspective I feel like I wish I could say that I feel like I am happy to read this article, but much like politics, every argument has been made from every possible perspective at this point, and still nothing happens. This is because the people who don't already agree simply aren't listening. So I agree, but with the sinking deep feeling of lethargy that comes with knowing that it doesn't matter what I think.
"Welcome to the gaming industry." Feel free to find another 'existential threat' to rail against, Jonjon. Imagine how much of a buzzkill this sanctimonious ponce will be if (or when) VR gaming becomes the norm.LucBen999 said:Have some more!Encaen said:Absolutely, and I applaud a healthy dose of skepticism! https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/610271596675117056Zachary Amaranth said:
"really troubling (and depressing) that audience is enthusiastically cheering..."
Which is exactly the same as "really troubling (and depressing) that audience [likes something I don't like]"
"troubling (and depressing)" suggests that the people who enjoy something that she doesn't enjoy is causing some kind of emotional trauma. Causing emotional trauma is universally recognized as a bad thing. Hence suggesting that people enjoying something she does not enjoy is a bad thing.
Good - "I'm not into this trailer. It's too violent for me."
Bad - "I'm not into this trailer, and other people enjoying it causes me emotional trauma."
I hope that makes sense, but even if you still disagree with my sentiment, I promise that I won't suggest that it causes me any kind of trauma.
Do you really think rephrasing and adding new meaning counts as "logical analysis?"Encaen said:
Yes, astonishingly a forum users gave more information than the editor of a journalism site attempting to justify claims made in said publication.
But sure. Let's try this again: is this the sum total of your evidence? Is this what you're talking about? These two people, who are themselves colleagues, are the sum of the "popular" dissent that you're railing against? Why do you feel comments about the response validate your opinion piece about the game? Does McIntosh count as popular, with roughly the same followers as Rap Critic?
What about this do you feel makes the case of your piece?
I feel like our communication has broken down somewhere, and I apologize for any misunderstanding here.Zachary Amaranth said:
Rest assured, my opinion piece here is strictly a matter of my opinion. It is not meant to be an evidence-based investigative article. It is simply an expression of my thoughts on the matter.
I appreciate that you do not share my views. That's okay. I don't expect everybody to agree with everything I think or say. In fact, that's more or less my point. We've all got different views and opinions, and we should strive to keep it that way.
Anybody who thinks Doom 4 is excessively violent would have an aneurysm after seeing Brutal Doom.
One of the ways that we prevent this by happening is asking questions intended to clarify. It's also how we evaluate opinions to determine whether they are well-formulated and worth further examination. That you stopped answering questions intended to clarify how you got from point A to point B to me indicates that this is not such a case. And that's fine. You're not required to answer. But I do think this becomes especially problematic in a situation like this.Encaen said:
You seem to be aware that not all opinions are created equally, as you attempt to distinguish the two dissenters in your piece.
Opinion pieces are opinion. I understand that. But you made claims. When initially asked for evidence, you were happy to share. I am now addressing you on the merit of such evidence. At that point, it's no longer about your opinion piece. However, since the tweets in question do not seem to meet with your opinion piece, it is a valid question to ask how the claims you've made mesh, since you conflated the two in your posts here. Again, this goes to the basis and validity of your opinion. This is something I learned from working with journalists.
The opinion piece seems to be exactly for the opposite reason, since it calls out the opinions of others solely on the basis that they don't share your values. You didn't welcome criticism, you chastised it and made it out to be a bigger deal than it appears to be. Further, I was sent tweets where you say two such dissenters is too many (though said Tweets also appeared on The Escapist's "water cooler," so it was unnecessary). That sounds like the opposite of what you're saying.
Especially when you attempt to conflate this with "moral panic" and the actual "should not exists" of the original Doom.
Your words seem to be at odds with what you say they mean, and seem to be at odds with the very basis for your claim. I attempted to seek clarification, and was denied. In the absence of such answers, I can only conclude that there isn't a strong foundational basis.
I also find this new notion of criticism to be particularly odd, in that it places a higher standard on video games than any other form of art/entertainment. It seems almost nationalistic in nature, decrying outsiders who don't understand how things really work.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to be willing to answer me as to why games require a special standard under which to operate. One which is simultaneously much more strict to outsiders and much more forgiving to the group itself. That actually sounds more like pro wrestling than actual criticism.
So, wait. Are we just sitting here talking about an article created because two people who don't like violent games also didn't like Doom? I mean hell, Pikachu's gonna Thunderbolt, Doomgal's gonna chainsaw, Sarkeesian's gonna dislike violence. Demon Gibbing Simulator 2016 is gonna be just fine.
And I'll never use the chainsaw. It forgets the first part of "run and gun".
And I'll never use the chainsaw. It forgets the first part of "run and gun".
I for one am happy to finally see a media outlet countering the hogwash they peddle instead of uncritically repeating all their accusations and attacking dissenters.
Thank you Mr. Vanderwall.
The accusations leveled against Doom and its audience are not just a matter of taste, I started a topic about these issues last week:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/663.877106-Ideological-condemnation-political-pressure-is-not-artistic-criticism
Thank you Mr. Vanderwall.
The accusations leveled against Doom and its audience are not just a matter of taste, I started a topic about these issues last week:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/663.877106-Ideological-condemnation-political-pressure-is-not-artistic-criticism