runic knight said:
You'll have to excuse the slow reply, when you didn't quote my name, never got the message I was quoted.
What a game "needs" is a poor point of argument to begin with. You bring up examples where the traits you compare are what the work is remembered for or noteworthy of. That is an even more unfit comparison then worthless gimmicks in gameplay being compared to worthless gimmicks in art direction. What you think a game needs doesn't matter, and while you are quite right they don't need it, there is a lot that doesn't define a game from gimmicks to gameplay, that they do not need either. Games have what they have for a variety of factors, but need isn't it for a lot of it.
So, you seemed to miss my point entirely. Arguing that a game doesn't need something doesn't matter when "need" was never the reason for it being included in the first place. My car doesn't need to be the color it is painted, yet it is painted because that color is more likely to appeal then, say, a neon green with yellow highlights. Arguing need in this manner is just a waste of effort I'm afraid. Need was never the reason they choose that ascetic in the first place, so what does it matter if it is not needed?
What are you arguing against, exactly? We're not asking about what the color on Ivy's thong is. We're talking about the thong itself.
Over-saturated, I'll agree there. Though, that does that mean it has to change in and of itself? Obviously there is an audience there, a demand strong enough to warrant the continued use of the ascetic to the people actually paying to make the games. So, while I would agree it would be nice if they did offer more variety, do they have to? Just because there is a lot of something (I could argue that it isn't but that is a waste of effort on my part tiring to play devil's advocate on that too) does that alone mean things should change, especially when it is profitable? After all, movies markets eventually bust on their own when oversaturated, game genre do as well. Ascetic designs should be no exception. If they are over-saturating the market to the point it is hazardous to the market itself, the trend will bust, with it changing to a niche thing while another ascetic reins for a while. As the general flow of market patterns would dictate.
The purpose of criticism isn't to wait until a market bursts on its own. The purpose is to give an opinion on what one would like to see, or what may or may not improve the art form. It's fine to not agree, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the opinion should be expressed.
I get the feeling you are trying to confuse the issue of developers butting heads with publishers with design decisions of certain ascetics as some tied together thing to combat.
Because it is? Publishers and marketing tell developers what to put in the game before the game ever gets made. Marketing has as much influence on game content as the developer's creative decision. Marketing, however, is not always interested in making a "better" product. See the current microtransactions problem.
In this case, though, I wasn't even talking about the content of the game itself. I was talking about the self-perpetuating sexism of the industry as a whole.
Never said you didn't have a right to complain, and have actively said before anyone can. What I am arguing here is no one is excluded. I see, since you have no rebuttal to that point, that you agree, no one is excluded, and we can move on to the next point here. Not only is no one excluded, but the games you want, the food you want, has been offered, is being offered and will be offered again in order to feel out the people demanding it.
Then you have a different idea of what "exclusion" means than I do. Don't know what definition you're using. I'm using the social justice definition which, summarized, basically means any action, system, or institution which makes it difficult for a group of people to enjoy the same things as another group of people. A person who wishes to be a consumer, but feels that the product is ignoring their wishes is very much excluded, insofar as their wishes are not being met while someone else's are. Exclusion does not mean complete lack of choice, and can mean an unbalanced choice.
For example, microtransactions are a good example of exclusion that doesn't completely remove choice. You can choose not to pay extra for more content, but you will not have access to the same game that someone who is willing to pay does.
And more then likely it will fail the same as it always does because the people demanding it don't actually buy it. Games from Beyond Good and Evil to Remember Me are commercial flops. You complain that all there is to buy is Soul Food, yet the only reason it is so predominant (not all there is mind you, if you actually looked a little) is because people steadily bought that stuff and companies continued to sell what sold. At the end of the day, no matter what you complain about, it boils down to those two facts. No one is excluded from buying a product and guiding the direction the product is going, No one bought the products they released to test the waters before bigger releases.
Complaining about having to drive farther when you didn't support what they tried to offer, and still try to offer because it too isn't perfect is just entitled. Your right to complain about it sure, just don't expect that to lead to any changes.
And that is false. One of the very signs of "exclusion" is when something doesn't work and the producer assumes that it "gave the consumers what it wanted" and that it was the consumer's fault for its failure. There are lots of factors that determine commercial success, and not the least of which is timing. BGaE was released at a very bad time. What you're arguing is like opening a new restaurant that doesn't sell Soul Food, advertising it very poorly, and then claiming it failed because people didn't want it. Similarly, poor marketing is cited as one of the reasons BGaE didn't sell well.
Marketing is to tell you to like the product, developing is to make one that they will like. Game industry is part both. Though what does that have to do with my point that games don't exclude anyone I don't know.
As I said, marketing in a AAA industry TELLS developers what game to make. It's less about making the game people want and more about telling them what game they want. In an older episode, Jim Sterling has given a good example in how focus groups are often used only to bias confirm what the marketing group already wanted to assume.
Again, not saying it is wise, merely describing what they are doing. Comic book industry of the 90's did the same... and DC seems to be doing it again. Hell, I have regularly argued that Nintendo is probably the only one of the big three with any sense as they aren't nearly as obsessed with the 15-30 male demographic as the other two seem to be and instead make games more evenly to all paying demographics.
But feel free to try to tell the companies getting fat and lazy as they milk their reliable cash cow that they are doing it wrong. I'm sure they have never heard that before every time they agree to make a Remember Me.
Glad we seem to agree here, then.
-Which is exactly how profitability was affected, as the growing African-American consumer spending their money elsewhere was the fear of lost potential profits. That in relation to gaming requires the people making the product feeling there is a consumer out there their behavior is scaring off, which has not been shown well when games made to order of the demands for more female protagonists or better defined characters have traditionally failed. Even great games have failed, and while you may argue it was because they weren't supported enough, there are so many examples out there of indie titles not supported at all selling huge that the people selling the games will probably go "well, obviously if game that looks like crap and is simple as dirt like minecraft makes boatloads out of demand and word of mouth alone, if the current Remember Me can't sell enough to cover its cost, it must mean there is not enough demand. Meanwhile we do have reliable demand for skimpy bikini babes, and it doesn't drive away enough people to make not using it a hazard to profit, so why stop?"
You can keep arguing that making it more inclusive is good, and I will keep nodding my head and going "yeah, I agree, I know, most people know, but the people making the games and the people publishing the games don't fucking care what we think is good in the long haul, as their actions have shown countless times". Thus arguing that point over and over is pointless. Instead, understand why arguing those points is a waste of time, understand what their motivations actually are and go after those if you want change.
I'm not sure what you're even disagreeing with, here. We
are going after their motivations--by talking to other consumers about it. This topic isn't complaining to the publisher itself, it's talking to other players about a problem and opening discussion about it. We, and game journalists like MovieBob, Jim Sterling, and the Extra Credits guys, are trying to get consumers to make wiser and more informed decisions.
And part of that means not buying a game
just because it has a female protagonist in it. Remember Me had its own problems despite the gender choice of the protagonist which contributed to its dismal performance. Consumers aren't obligated to play a bad game despite it having one good thing they like. Using your restaurant analogy from before, that would be like eating at a new restaurant even if the food (different though it may be) tastes terrible and the kitchen is unsanitary.
Likewise, I personally don't like QTE games like Beyond: Two Souls. I'm still willing to buy a game that has female protagonists, but not just because it has one over all other factors. The fact that I have to choose between a game I want (GTA, for example) INSTEAD OF a game with a female protagonist is part of what I'm talking about. If we had more variety of games with female protagonists (like, say, if one of the three GTA V protagonists were female), this wouldn't be a problem.
Which means nothing if the companies in question shows no inclination to believe or follow that policy of business, as they have shown since they flooded the market with platformers in the 90's, music games in the early 00's, and brown dirty chest high wall shooters.
Rationally, they should want to increase their market and maintain the pool of customers by increasing that pool by at least the amount lost. But I don't know if you haven't notice, but they don't care that much. For some reason, their pool has grown and grown in spite of their actions, so argue all you like about the bubble phenomenon, in their eyes I can't see them questioning their business decisions until it bites them in the ass. Don't look at what they should be doing, look at what they are when trying to figure this stuff out. Has really any of their behavior suggested they care too much about being inclusive rather then cashing in on what currently sells?
Yes, again, I'm glad we agree. The only point that has been made is that this is a problem, which you acknowledge. Again, I don't see your point here otherwise.
No, you should not like and buy from the triple A part of gaming, then get out of that relatively small portion of gaming, explore the indie and kickstarter side of things, maybe drive down to a part of town you ignore and find a nice vegetarian resturant that has been there the whole time, struggling because instead of people supporting that little guy, they instead rail about how the big guys aren't giving them what they want.
Or we can do both. There's nothing stopping people from railing at the big guys
and buying alternative titles.
The games you want are out there, either in form or at least in the creative will of people willing to make them. Find them, support them. That is the only way you will get what you want. You wont change the current Triple A industry from the beast is has become by complaining at it. And you shouldn't hope to either. They all started small and grew because they provided something that people wanted to buy and did it well enough. The games we have now in those big companies are the successors of that legacy. And while they may eventually change to what you wish it could be, that will be on their own choice, in their own time, regardless how much you complain about it now. Better to show them there actually IS an audience willing to pay for the product. Better to give them some data contrary to the massive pile they keep looking at every time there is an argument about putting a female character on the cover, because like it or not, they make those stupid decisions based on practicality. And justify it how you want, at the end of the day, when the data says "female protagonists don't sell as well as males", that affects decisions. Prove that shit wrong, show the demand is there, show the profit is there waiting to be had, and watch them chase it like they chased mario, rockband and CoD.
Yes, that is what's being done. But, when it IS done, it's dismissed as not "real" gaming or whatever such nonsense. It becomes a classic exercise in Moving the Goalposts thinking.
Except, as said before, it is hard to tell someone who is succeeding that they are doing it wrong and expect to be taken seriously. especially when what you are telling them has a bad track record. It doesn't matter if you are right in the end, when the data now shows that to be wrong, and their current path is working.
You are not a paying customer, your opinion is already less then those that are, trying to use what little ear they give you to try to tell them that the sky is really red is not going to work. You are arguing that they need to be inclusive and support the market and have more variety, and damn if I don't agree with that sentiment, I really do, but they don't care because it is the best time in the world to be doing what they do the way they do it. They are making money hand over fist, the games are guaranteed sellers before they are even made, DLC means even more profits and you can run your company like a ship full of chimps and still make bank. You come off like you are trying to nag and shame them into fixing things when from their perspective, it works better then they ever saw in their life and that is on top of the question of why would the listen to someone who doesn't buy their products anyways? And then there is the shareholder aspect, where any care about quality goes out the window in pursuit of profit to them, and they have a tight hold of the reins at times. It is like watching someone bashing their head against a mountain in hopes the person living at the top will come down and help you take it down rock by rock and move it out of your way.
That is the very definition of a "bubble", which you don't seem to disagree with. So again, where is the argument here?
Furthermore, according to what you're saying, being a paying customer actually doesn't help.
Hell, you want an example of something I did earlier to help things? I heard about a lovely game called Pixel Piracy or something close where the creators themselves are giving a torrent link so people can pirate it for free because they would rather people not get viruses. They hate DRM and trust gamers enough that they think gamers will still support them even if they don't have to. And you know what? They are damned right. This gamer will buy their game just because of that action. I hate DRM and the way the industry has grown to embrace it so fully, so a company making a stand against it is something I want to support. I may not like the game at all, yet I am fine with that. I didn't like a lot of games I bought for the NES as a kid, so losing out on a title here and there isn't something I am not used to. And it supports the direction I want to see gaming go, away from DRM and the like. And I know I am not the only one who will help support that too. I know many will pirate it too, what happens when you offer something free after all, but even still I think the company earned my money for their stance and their product and I hope other people as well. And I plan to use word of mouth to advertise for them as well, to help increase the odds that it is seen as something good. What have you done to help support gaming to go in the direction you wish it to go? Have you funded projects you might not have fully liked or believed would succeed? It is wishful thinking, I know, but if no one gets off their ass and risks a little, the current beast sure as hell wont.
Again, this has nothing to do with this topic. There is no reason that people can't do both. And in fact, topics like this are exactly WHY this sort of thing should be talked about, in order to point out WHY people should support games outside of the industry.
You aren't making a case against discussing this problem in a forum. If your argument is that discussion is not enough, I agree. But if your argument is that people should do that INSTEAD of discussing, I think you're missing the point.
