Plenty of people have probably said it, but that Angry Birds bit was probably the best thing we've heard all week.
The Big Picture: Everything Means Something
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
If they take my writing to equal my political views, they will infer that violence is the answer.Orbot_Vectorman said:
I'm going to say that everything you said in this episode is true, untrue, dependent on your point of reference, and occasionally irrelevant. Everything means something, but not always what you think it means.
Some games are made explicitly to make a social or political statement, or are at least to contain such a message.
Some games(mostly indie, but AAA if there is a strong singular voice driving them) don't mean to, but unconsciously reflect the views of their maker.
Some games don't at all, being pure fantasy with no intended ties to real life issues(isn't this site called The Escapist?), but people can read anything in anything if they choose(Mario being kind of the flagship example of this).
The thing is, I almost never read any social or political messages in any of my games unless the writer wields said messages with the subtlety of a sledgehammer(at which point I mostly just get annoyed with the ham handed writing). It's fun occasionally to muse over such things out of context, but I don't play games to subject myself to other people's ideological rhetoric. I play games to have fun. To relax. To enjoy a good story(though I usually have to settle for a passable story). The vast majority of the stuff you brought up simply don't matter to me when I'm playing a game. It doesn't mean the topics themselves don't matter. If they didn't, people wouldn't be talking about them.
Now I'm fine, generally speaking, with discussion about social/political messages in gaming(or any other media). However, there is a point at which I draw a line. Authorial intent matters. When people start trying to dissect a game and harshly criticize it for stuff that was never intended by writer or game designer, I pretty much dismiss them as looking for a fight. The whole Mario thing again. Yeah, it's lazy, and yeah, I wouldn't want it to be the only kind of story out there, but it's kind of hard to fault people for using literary tools that have been sitting in the box since the Bible was written, and in the end, the game isn't about saving a princess; it's about jumping on sentient mushrooms and killer turtles.
Basically, everything means something, but that doesn't mean I should care.
Some games are made explicitly to make a social or political statement, or are at least to contain such a message.
Some games(mostly indie, but AAA if there is a strong singular voice driving them) don't mean to, but unconsciously reflect the views of their maker.
Some games don't at all, being pure fantasy with no intended ties to real life issues(isn't this site called The Escapist?), but people can read anything in anything if they choose(Mario being kind of the flagship example of this).
The thing is, I almost never read any social or political messages in any of my games unless the writer wields said messages with the subtlety of a sledgehammer(at which point I mostly just get annoyed with the ham handed writing). It's fun occasionally to muse over such things out of context, but I don't play games to subject myself to other people's ideological rhetoric. I play games to have fun. To relax. To enjoy a good story(though I usually have to settle for a passable story). The vast majority of the stuff you brought up simply don't matter to me when I'm playing a game. It doesn't mean the topics themselves don't matter. If they didn't, people wouldn't be talking about them.
Now I'm fine, generally speaking, with discussion about social/political messages in gaming(or any other media). However, there is a point at which I draw a line. Authorial intent matters. When people start trying to dissect a game and harshly criticize it for stuff that was never intended by writer or game designer, I pretty much dismiss them as looking for a fight. The whole Mario thing again. Yeah, it's lazy, and yeah, I wouldn't want it to be the only kind of story out there, but it's kind of hard to fault people for using literary tools that have been sitting in the box since the Bible was written, and in the end, the game isn't about saving a princess; it's about jumping on sentient mushrooms and killer turtles.
Basically, everything means something, but that doesn't mean I should care.
The discussion of representation in video games is a discussion that should be had. There are however more fundamental questions that need to be answered first. Questions such as:
What counts as encouraging an action in video games?
What counts as discouraging an action in video games?
Is having the option to do something the same as encouraging that you do it?
Where is the line drawn between sexy and sexualized?
Can we differentiate between sexy and sexual based solely on visuals?
Does a skimpy outfit negate actual character depth and development?
Does requesting or requiring assistance mean a character is weak?
What counts as a "strong character"?
How important are NPCs?
Does the fact that a female character is unplayable mean she is less important than the character you play as, even if she has her own narrative of equal significance?
ect. etc.
These questions if answered would clear up a lot of confusion and conflict regarding this discussion. I feel that even the discussion of these questions would lead to better results than the more specific discussion about whether a certain trope is good or bad.
What counts as encouraging an action in video games?
What counts as discouraging an action in video games?
Is having the option to do something the same as encouraging that you do it?
Where is the line drawn between sexy and sexualized?
Can we differentiate between sexy and sexual based solely on visuals?
Does a skimpy outfit negate actual character depth and development?
Does requesting or requiring assistance mean a character is weak?
What counts as a "strong character"?
How important are NPCs?
Does the fact that a female character is unplayable mean she is less important than the character you play as, even if she has her own narrative of equal significance?
ect. etc.
These questions if answered would clear up a lot of confusion and conflict regarding this discussion. I feel that even the discussion of these questions would lead to better results than the more specific discussion about whether a certain trope is good or bad.
He is considered gender neutral, so if I was in 1987 I might not expect a man/woman just that we are meeting up with someone, but its really hard for me to say with certainty because that is 27 years ago. If in a modern conversation I probably would expect a male person, but then it would be my fault again for I was putting my personal bias into the equation where the language itself allows for the use of the word to describe either gender.BigTuk said:
As far as the developer intentionally doing it to mislead people, I am not sure how that is the case considering it would have been done by marketing and not the developer.
One worrying trend I've been seeing in the past ten years, particularly on the Internet, is the practice of overanalyzing a piece of fiction and then projecting that analysis back onto the creator, especially if the creator happens to be someone they already dislike. See, there's a thing called "Death of the Author", which basically means "It doesn't matter what the creator meant to say; my interpretation could be more interesting!" And that detachment is crucial. What I'm seeing lately is more along the lines of "Look at this huge stretch of an analysis I've been able to wring out of this work. Surely this couldn't happen by accident; the creator must have meant it this way." And then they use that to "prove" that the author has a secret grudge against gays, or is a monarchist, or what have you. It's all rather disconcerting, and I hope this isn't the direction that "serious" media criticism is headed.
Great episode Bob, really enjoyed it.
Oh, and I'll be pocketing that Angry Birds bit too if you don't mind. That was awesome.
Oh, and I'll be pocketing that Angry Birds bit too if you don't mind. That was awesome.
Analysis itself is great. The only reason I started watching MovieBob was his critical review of SuckerPunch, which made me look at the film in a whole new light. (I still don't like it, but I learned something, and that's worth it.) Ultimately, the trouble isn't analysis. We have had feminist theory, critical theory, critical race theory and other analyses of gaming culture going back for decades.
What has changed, however, is the perception that analysis, and particularly political analysis, is now a threat. If Anita Sarkeesian were merely critiquing gamer culture, there wouldn't be much to care about.* But there is a concern--and I think it's a valid one--that the "analysis" has moved beyond mere commentary into becoming a platform for action. Over the last fifty years, the moral majority has become ever weaker: I don't really care whether Tipper Gore wants to label rock music or video games, because her form of censorship is so stale that her husband rarely referred to it when he was stumping back in 2000. On the other hand, gamers should have a real fear of the things they enjoy being labelled "politically incorrect." Fifteen years ago, thinking same-sex marriage was achievable seemed radical, while the concept that a baker would be fined thousands of dollars for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple was laughable. Now--thanks in part to the same movements that Sarkeesian promotes--we live in a different reality.
I'd love to live in a world where more of the people on my side of this issue were more civil, and capable of making an argument without using uncouth terms for female genitalia. That said, I'd also like to live in a world where there was sufficient live-and-let-live that those criticizing Sarkeesian didn't have (if you distill the invective from what they write) a bit of a point. I'd like to live in a world where games have guns and triggers, not labels and trigger warnings.
*For what it's worth, I wish more people would debate her on the merits of her points, because she's frankly a second-rate thinker, what you'd get if you put Robin West in a room with Grand Theft Auto IV for about three hours.
What has changed, however, is the perception that analysis, and particularly political analysis, is now a threat. If Anita Sarkeesian were merely critiquing gamer culture, there wouldn't be much to care about.* But there is a concern--and I think it's a valid one--that the "analysis" has moved beyond mere commentary into becoming a platform for action. Over the last fifty years, the moral majority has become ever weaker: I don't really care whether Tipper Gore wants to label rock music or video games, because her form of censorship is so stale that her husband rarely referred to it when he was stumping back in 2000. On the other hand, gamers should have a real fear of the things they enjoy being labelled "politically incorrect." Fifteen years ago, thinking same-sex marriage was achievable seemed radical, while the concept that a baker would be fined thousands of dollars for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple was laughable. Now--thanks in part to the same movements that Sarkeesian promotes--we live in a different reality.
I'd love to live in a world where more of the people on my side of this issue were more civil, and capable of making an argument without using uncouth terms for female genitalia. That said, I'd also like to live in a world where there was sufficient live-and-let-live that those criticizing Sarkeesian didn't have (if you distill the invective from what they write) a bit of a point. I'd like to live in a world where games have guns and triggers, not labels and trigger warnings.
*For what it's worth, I wish more people would debate her on the merits of her points, because she's frankly a second-rate thinker, what you'd get if you put Robin West in a room with Grand Theft Auto IV for about three hours.
It is really funny how you completely took my statement out of context and then make some uninformed opinions about me and miss represent what I said.schwegburt said:
1. I have never and will never put that I have schizophrenia on my resume. That would be stupid, I only put relevant information on there. People do find out I have schizophrenia in other ways. Also don't Throw the HR people under the bus , many of them have helped me in the workplace.
2. I never said that feminist were evil. I only stated that I think they are wrong and I think they are whiny.
3. Also, I never said they(feminist) were hold me down. I said they were dismissing anything I had to say because I am a man or due to the fact that I have schizophrenia.
4. I used "Those whiny bitches" in conjunction with the another qualifier upper-middle class. That is import to what I said.
5. You also an implied false dichotomy between man-children and feminists in the geek community there are other people.
6. The part that really highlight my point is the part of message you quoted.
"After all why should I be allowed to speak I am "crazy"."
And then you said:
"You could peg that to any group. Hey why should these professional guys allow me to speak? After all I'm "crazy"."
I don't think you even know how insulting that statement is.
I am a rational human being. I have problems but that should not discount my ideas.
This is the real problem. And this is the thing that enrages most people, the hypocrisy.
I used the crazy to make that very point. To try and pretend like the crazy has not been used as an insult to the mentally ill is truly ignorant and under handed.
You shifted the blame to society and then tried to act the very people I was being critical were not a part of it.
I suspect you are part of the problem especially look quickly you shifted the blame to HR workers, society, and even people you say are your friends.
I keep seeing people who have been helpful and kind to me constantly demonized by you and those "professional guys".
If you see anger in what I said that is the reason.
Critical analysis never ends only moves to more other and/or more abstract things. Want to stop critically analyzing media? Critically analyze your critical analysis.Mezahmay said:
On that, we can agree(ish). If I have criticisms for what I loath to call my 'side' in this debate (and I do), it's that we do a lot of preaching to the choir, and not enough trying to start an open and constructive discourse with those who are less convinced, or just less sure of our intent.SkepticalHat said:
Of course, I can also sympathise with people who feel that trying to do so in an environment such as these spaces have become is next to impossible.
I think. when someone says something in gaming is 'bad', no matter who it is saying it, then it should be taken as no more than exactly what it is, that one person's subjective opinion. Certainly, not as any kind of threat to those games, especially if the person in question is just a pundit who doesn't actually have any power to change anything on their own. They are entitled to their opinion, and you are entitled to disagree. That much can be left at that.
as for "... and you should feel bad", I agree that is a more serious matter. However, I also can't think of many instances where I've heard that explicitly said. Admittedly, I don't watch every single video or read every blog post around the subject. However, I do believe a lot of people in this debate go looking to take criticisms of things they enjoy personally, when that's not actually the intention of the critic.
I mean, I personally find the portrayal of female body image in Dead or Alive, Soul Calibre etc. ridiculous, but that doesn't mean I'm calling anyone who disagrees with me a pervert. Again, it all comes down to how, for all the people I've heard say "I don't like X" or "I think an over-abundance of X to the detriment of Y is exclusionary", I've never heard anyone make the leap to "X should be BANNED". At least, not from anyone who anyone else should be taking seriously.
While I can't actually comment on the quality of Gone Home or it's legitimacy as a game (because I've never played it), I do think it raises a point about the function of the gaming press in the current environment.hentropy said:
Big games, such as franchised releases by large publishers, don't really need the gaming press. The audience of their own marketing is already much larger than publication like The Escapist, or Kotaku, Destructoid or even IGN. Nobody who comes here needs to be told that there's a new Call of Duty or FIFA out this year, because of course there is. Beyond even that, I doubt anybody needed to be told that Destiny was a solid, good-looking shooter that's a bit derivative and up itself, because between the game's own marketing and the fact that it's made by Bungie, we all could have surmised as much. It's games make by people who can't afford to do their own marketing, that really rely on good reviews to get themselves out there.
Now, whether or not this is a healthy balance for the games industry and the gaming press to be in is a whole other discussion in and of itself. However, I'm just explaining why I don't really mind how much attention smaller, fringe games are getting from the press at the moment.
Ultimately, game journalists are still gamers, and I firmly believe the primary concern of any gamer when playing any game is "Am I enjoying this?". If they're not, then no amount of progressive themes is going to help the game's case. It's just a big bonus to some people if the game in question happens to strike a chord with the person playing it. I mean, it's not like there aren't also less conventional games that don't market themselves as being particularly progressive that become press darlings. For example, apart from QTE sequences (which many would label as gameplay only begrudgingly at best), how much conventional 'gameplay' does TellTale's The Walking Dead have? Not very much, in my opinion. You walk around, select conversation options, and every so often pick up specific objects to use in scripted actions. Not exactly epic, expansive, edge of the seat stuff.
The Walking Dead earned it's place as a critical darling not through pushing a line of having strong, complex, and diverse characters (although it does have them). It earned it's place because people enjoyed playing it, pure and simple. A lot of us want to see more diversity in gaming. So, when a game comes along that offers just that, that can't help but be in the game's favour; not because we feel it's necessary to support are agenda, but just because it's something we have an appetite for. However, if the game it's attached to isn't very engaging (such being entirely up to the personal tastes of the person playing it), then just ebing progressive won't magically turn it into a good game in the eyes of most people.
Wow, I'm surprised I actually liked this episode as much as I did. I've found myself growing at a distance from Bob but I think this episode was surprisingly good. I agree that while there really is a problem with overanalysing something (I'm reminded of an excerpt from the Criterion booklet for Being John Malkovich where Spike Jonze talks to a pop culture critic who makes these insane assumptions just from the headline on a newspaper in the first scene) however I do think that a lot of pop-culture should also be analysed to look at political and social justice issues related to the broader scope of it. I mean the Stallone film Cobra is a very dumb action movie on the surface. However, when examined, it's obvious that the film is pushing for a very un-regulated police force that can use anything to get their way. I also liked the allusion you made between Battlefield Hardline and Ferguson, because there's obviously going to be a lot of things in that game that can be connected to that tragedy in a bad way.
My only problem with the video is that your point got really muddled in you talking about analysis' of various other things, rather than explaining the dumb proposition of "keep you politics out of my games" (Especially when it's overtly political games like GTA V or something).
My only problem with the video is that your point got really muddled in you talking about analysis' of various other things, rather than explaining the dumb proposition of "keep you politics out of my games" (Especially when it's overtly political games like GTA V or something).
