The Big Picture: Everything Means Something

[gargantual]

I think what people are primarily afraid of is that possibility of games needing a "checklist" of ethnic or social minorities that you HAVE to include in your game in order for your game to be considered "progressive", and if it's not "progressive" then it won't get good scores or attention. In other words, it stops becoming about how good someone's game is, but rather about how many external issues that game tries to push on the player. I'm all for more inclusion in games, but I don't want "checklists" that the "progressive" gaming media tries to push.

And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.

Youve literally encapsulated what MANY frustrated gamers, film goers etc have been trying to argue against hyper progressive culture police. People just want the freedom to seperate wheat from fat for themselves. You can read media direct and oppositionally to come to a balanced opinion of media value rather than presume cultural malintent. Some trends in storytelling were just rooted in our history. The way "pernicious" has been thrown around though implies perhaps more than creator intent or patterns of thought rooted in human history and culture.

South Park's Scrotie Mc Boogerballs ep should also be taken into consideration, as a warning in judging the cultural impact of media.

Great post!

 

[Therumancer]

When China, Japan, etc... make games and movies they really don't give a crap about the whites, blacks, Spanish, etc... that live there, they don't go out of their way to be inclusive.

That's a pretty glaring false equivalency. East Asian countries tend to be extremely racially homogeneous, many people have not even seen or worked with a racial minority outside of news media and television. If the US had 98% racial dominance, then no one would have to go out of their way to pander to anyone. Really there aren't a whole lot of countries which are so homogeneous.

However, around 35-40% of the US can be considered some sort of ethnic minority. When the media likes to pretend that only the majority exists in such a situation, it could be considered problematic. Not that western media is quite THAT bad.

The answer here is to encourage and empower these various underrepresented groups to make their own material.

Not really, a minority group is a minority group when you get down to it.

I'm not really arguing with you about all the other stuff. But comparing minorities in Japan to minorities in the US is a false equivalency and a fallacy due to the sheer disparity. A minority which takes up less than 1% of the population should not expect to be treated the same as a minority which takes up 20% of the population.

You shouldn't try to build arguments based on logical fallacies.

The thing is it's not given that the whole point of liberalism is the argument that a minority, no matter how small, is entitled to representation. To put things into perspective gays represent a minority very close to the ratio of minorities in some of these countries, despite some attempts to exaggerate the numbers. Yet it's one of the more vocal and extreme groups demanding this kind of representation, and one of the groups guilty white liberals make the biggest deal about championing. The exact numbers of the minority do not matter according to the principles I'm pushing.

I think you sort of misunderstand my point in that I'm pointing out the problems in the logic behind American minority representation. Which leads into my other point that as a general rule the big minorities in the US, who could make a sort of "common sense" argument on their own, are not pushing for these things in any great numbers. You see guilty white guys doing it. You'll for example see groups like the NAACP occasionally get political or social rallies going over the music industry when rap music is under attack, or acting as a sort of unofficial watchdog during sports investigations, but you don't see the NAACP pushing for black super heroes, or working to encourage black youth specifically go into fields related to geekdom to become creators and increase representation. I'm sure SOME of the major minorities do believe in these things but it's not a major push, and the actual minorities involved are outnumbered by white SJWs who are under the illusion that they speak for people who for whatever reason can't speak for themselves (and they can, very loudly in fact). The big minority in the US that DOES care about video games, the Asian population, has plenty of representation especially seeing as we import games with Asian leads and such in massive quantities, "JRPGS" for example are an entirely well known genera within the US.

Pushing the issue the way we see it now is a gigantic joke, the argument is the need for diversity for the sake of diversity whether people demand representation or not... and as I pointed out white countries are the only ones that seem to pursue something this dumb. The most vocal current minority that is speaking for itself and making progress (gays) is as tiny as racial minorities in these other countries... and again, you do not seem to see China or other countries even there going "you know, we really need to ensure gay people are more universally represented despite their tiny numbers". Indeed gay rights is mostly a first world issue to begin with, as most of the world is anti-gay and oddly enough it actually hampers global relations as it's one of the things nations that promote a strong code of conduct put down as a black mark against the US (to say The Middle East it's part of what makes us "the Great Satan"). It's largely a first world, white, issue, along with most stuff about inclusiveness.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm actually not pushing for some KKK-like purge of all non white "paragons" from the media. I have no problem with inclusiveness if that's what a creator wants to do. I do however think as a political position and something people feel needs to be forced it's kind of ridiculous. As long as free speech exists and continues to be promoted that's all we really need, and as time goes on if minorities with substantial enough numbers to demand a fair representation want to be represented they will be. After all if say Black America decides it really want to see more blacks in comics, movies, video games, etc... they will start entering into game design course, art and writing courses, and flooding the drama clubs and guilds in greater numbers than ever before, and in the end they will eventually break in due to sheer inertia because while there are going to be thousands and thousands of failures, sheer persistence means a few will get through and that's all it really takes (and how anyone gets involved in anything). Unless the laws in the USA become outright racist this is a basic fact, there is no need for SJW arguments in geekdom, which is one of the more open things in the USA to begin with. If you really want to join us and be a huge nerd, it's there for the asking, by all means, the major minorities like blacks and latinos should put down the rap music, drugs, guns, and racist gangsta culture, flood the sci-fi clubs instead of the dance clubs, and pick up comics, video games, and RPGs... carry a D20 instead of a Glock, trade their killer sound systems for gaming PCs, etc.... if they did that, or large numbers of them did, I can virtually guarantee there would be plenty of representation.

 

[CaitSeith]

I think what people are primarily afraid of is that possibility of games needing a "checklist" of ethnic or social minorities that you HAVE to include in your game in order for your game to be considered "progressive", and if it's not "progressive" then it won't get good scores or attention. In other words, it stops becoming about how good someone's game is, but rather about how many external issues that game tries to push on the player. I'm all for more inclusion in games, but I don't want "checklists" that the "progressive" gaming media tries to push.

And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.

Youve literally encapsulated what MANY frustrated gamers, film goers etc have been trying to argue against hyper progressive culture police. People just want the freedom to seperate wheat from fat for themselves. You can read media direct and oppositionally to come to a balanced opinion of media value rather than presume cultural malintent. Some trends in storytelling were just rooted in our history. The way "pernicious" has been thrown around though implies perhaps more than creator intent or patterns of thought rooted in human history and culture.

South Park's Scrotie Mc Boogerballs ep should also be taken into consideration, as a warning in judging the cultural impact of media.

Unless you are the creator, publisher or store; why do you have to care about scores or attention from the media to your favorite game?

 

[Dolf Volkoff]

Reading above posts I thought: it's funny that the country that brags about giving equal rights to minorities, actually trying to give them more rights, which leads to further alienating them from the rest.

Feminists don't really talk about giving equal rights to everyone, they're especially saying that women should have more rights, even if men don't actually have them (even their "organization's" name implies that). And if a woman can sue a guy, implying that by holding a door so she could pass he was sexually harassing her, that's some sick laws.

And it's very hard to believe that there's no difference between white and black people and that they have equal rights, when every next phrase you hear from americans is "black people this" or "white people that". And the fact that black people can actually sue an employer, if they thought he didn't give them job just because they're black, doesn't speak about equality either.

And America's beloved gays: they're asking for the right to go on central TV channel and say that they are gay, which literally means that "a man f*cks a man", "a woman f*cks a woman". Not the nicest thought when you watch the TV at the dinner table, eh? Even if a straight guy would say "I f*ck my wife, and it feels good" on TV, that would be disgusting and he would automatically be the worst piece of human waste. So what rights did they want again?

The right to go naked to their parades? On the street? Where there can be children walking? Saying above mentioned phrases?
Do I even need to tell you how perverted that is?
Equality - we can't (not to mention, won't and wouldn't) do that? Why should they?

 

[CaitSeith]

Most people do not have a problem with analysis of games and how it may relate to cultural/political landscape like in GTA, Bayonetta or MLP. Actually a lot of enjoy that stuff. Some people will always piss and moan and just say give us an X/10 score.

I think what a lot of people have a problem with is the pretentious bullshit and crazy conspiracy theories like saving Princess Peach is encouraging domestic violence.

The big conspiracy theory is the feminist concept of patriarchy (as opposed to real patriarchy).

The concept that my life is easier because I am a man despite the fact I am a poor person in Detroit with schizophrenia struggling to find a way to get treatment for said illness. It does not matter that I have been discriminated against and ostracized for mental illness I am straight and cis gendered. Yeah those whiny bitches from the upper-middle class have it so hard and I should not even be allowed to speak on the subject if I disagree with any part. After all why should I be allowed to speak I am "crazy".

Pretty bad example. It uses an exception as if it was the average case, and it ignores the fact that poor schizophrenic women have a bad time with stigmas too.

 

[CaitSeith]

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.

I think the main questions should be:
[ol]
[li]What (or who) are we trying to represent?[/li]
[li]With what purpose?[/li]
[/ol]
Then we would use the adequate questions for the character.

 

[immortalfrieza]

snip

Spoiler: Spoilering these to make them easier to read and divided by subject. This one is about the meanings in fiction.

You aren't, everything you said is very true.

As a matter of fact, unless it's implicit or stated by the creator, most of what's in any works doesn't have any meaning whatsoever, very little of anything in a work has meaning beyond the creator going "I thought this up, it sounds good, I'll put it in."

When it comes to a work, everything doesn't and doesn't have to mean anything. What's actually happening is people that analyze are projecting their own biases and agendas onto a work and thus attach a meaning to things in it whether it's actually supposed to be there or not. For instance, in a page in a book a character that happens to be a man shooting another character that happens to be a woman doesn't indicate misogyny on the part of the author, the story, the male character, or anything else unless the author puts something in that states it like the man say "fucking bitches" afterwards or before or says so themselves later, but there's always going to be a bunch of feminists somewhere that are going to analyze it and interpret the man shooting the woman as misogynistic. Even worse, there will always be a bunch of feminists out there which will raise holy hell over it, even if the misogyny doesn't actually exist or if it does no matter how little it actually matters.

As an aside, in my experience it seems that especially with negative responses the less explicit and more insignificant the event is, the less reasonable and extreme the response to it is. No matter who you are, a reasonable response to something like the above scenario is to go "huh" at the most, turn the page, and get on with the book. This is especially ridiculous with fiction as not only are things to complain about being outright made up in many cases, but even if true the fact that it's fiction means that by default there's not anything happening that affecting anyone's lives in any real manner and those few that are being affected to a level worth raising hell over (for example a black actor not getting the part in a movie because the writers saw no need to put a black guy in the plot) are microscopic in their numbers compared to those that aren't affected if they exist at all. I mean, it's not like there's there's people all over the U.S. being lynched because the latest military shooter doesn't have any black guys in it or a TV show has some chick obsessing over a guy, but you'd never know it from the reactions that so many tend to give about things like that. It's an extreme example I know, but it gets right to the point and the less extreme examples are not really any less ridiculous. In short, the reactions to a slightly offensive events in fiction if it exists in the first place are pretty much universally EXTREMELY petty.

Snip

Spoiler: About Inclusiveness

I don't know about everybody else, but my issue with the demand for "inclusiveness" is how fiction in general tends to royally botch almost all attempts at said inclusiveness.

For instance, let's say a developer is making a shooter and wants to be inclusive, so they put a black guy on the player's squad. In my experience the way fiction almost always goes about this and similar situations is in one of 2 ways:

1. The black guy's race is not referenced in any way whatsoever except maybe at the most a token line about it or 2 at the most, to the point the writers could have slotted a white guy in his spot without having to change anything whatsoever. This kind of thing is most frequent when it comes to games with player customization options. This isn't even getting into when said black guy ends up dead 10 minutes into the story. This happens because writers are trying far too hard to not offend anyone at all but miss the point in the process or just don't know enough about that race to write much. It defeats the entire point of having said black guy in the game for the sake of "inclusiveness" when his race doesn't matter as black people aren't being represented, and even if small it takes time and resources away from other things when they could just as well have not bothered.

2. The direct opposite, the writers feel the need to point out the black guy's race at every available opportunity so they make EVERYTHING said black guy says and does has something to do with his race, frequently to an stereotypical and excessive degree, to the point that the black guy becomes a caricature. For instance, this is the kind of black guy that says things along the lines of "YO DAWG! I'm going to show these bastards how we get down in DA HOOD!" for a good deal of his lines the entire game if not all of them. What's worse is they actually aren't doing this deliberately most of the time, they actually think that's what black people are like and/or what they want to see. This isn't even getting into when they're actually trying to parody black people. Obviously, this is so insulting and embarrassing to any black person (and even many of other races) that it would be hard to find any black person that would want to be represented like this, and even if they did it's just not an enjoyable character besides.

These kinds of things seems to happen with fiction to just about every minority and gender out there. Actually balanced diversity characters that make what makes them diverse matter by talking about and/or showing off some behaviors indicative of that diversity but not to a really stereotypical and excessive degree to the point that that's all their character is are rare.

In short, fiction is far from the point where the vast majority of writers are willing or able to write other and even their own minority or gender in a good and balanced manner, so people that are calling for inclusiveness are basically asking for the above sort of characters to appear all over fiction whether they realize it or not.

Again, I don't know about everybody else, but as much as I'd like to see something inclusive and thus different I'd much prefer that writers (and there's plenty of writers from every walk of life, gender, and minority that still do this so that's not the problem) not bother that much and focus all their efforts on making everything else for the most part up until the point that inclusive writing is the norm rather than the exception. I know somebody is probably going to respond with the argument that actually doing that would mean that the good inclusive writing becoming the norm would never happen, but it would, slowly and steadily the same way minority and gender issues themselves gradually disappear bit by bit because there would still be writers trying to do this, just ones that do it because they want to rather than out of some feeling of obligation, and even if that was true it would be more than worth it to keep the mountains of bad crap out of existence.

Snip

Spoiler: Stuff about Batman

Very true. Batman isn't some thug in any sense of the word nor does he dress up like a bat and spend his nights beating up criminals because he's crazy in any sense. Bruce Wayne hates crime and thus does everything humanly possible to stop it, both on the streets and off it. People that claim that he doesn't build factories or start up charities and instead runs around beating criminals up to feel like he's doing something are outright wrong because he DOES do that, in addition to running around beating criminals up. Bruce has funded as many charities and supported as many job creating functions as he can afford to, as well as funding prisons like Arkham Asylum and Blackgate specifically to curb crime and psychotics on that front as much as possible. He also runs around beating up criminals to deal with things in a more direct manner whenever he's not busy doing the former plus the bare minimum of sleeping or eating he needs to do. Bruce also dresses up like a bat not because he's crazy (unless you count being extremely driven to a goal as "crazy") but it's the most effective way he's found to be able to fight crime on the streets. Sure, beating criminals up has something to do with Bruce trying to work through his dead parent issues and he is the first to admit that, but he'd much rather not have to and he's the first to admit that too.

The problem is the universe itself conspires to ensure that even all that one man plus as many allies as Bruce can get to help could possibly accomplish never does any good in the end.

No matter how much money he throws at poverty Gotham is still filled with homeless and poor.
No matter how much money he puts into the police department they're all still as incompetent and/or corrupt as they were when he started.
No matter how many jobs Wayne Enterprises generates there's still countless criminals stealing and committing crimes.
No matter how much money he gives to running Arkham neither does psychotics like the Joker ever be genuinely cured nor does it's security measures and staff do any good at keeping any of them from breaking out.
No matter how many thugs and psychotics he beats up or how many times he sends them to jail there's still more and more and they never end up getting executed for their crimes.

and so on. It's not that Batman isn't effective or competent, it's that with what he's up against his effectiveness can't be anything but minimal at best.

 

[4rch1m3d35]

Most people do not have a problem with analysis of games and how it may relate to cultural/political landscape like in GTA, Bayonetta or MLP. Actually a lot of enjoy that stuff. Some people will always piss and moan and just say give us an X/10 score.

I think what a lot of people have a problem with is the pretentious bullshit and crazy conspiracy theories like saving Princess Peach is encouraging domestic violence.

The big conspiracy theory is the feminist concept of patriarchy (as opposed to real patriarchy).

The concept that my life is easier because I am a man despite the fact I am a poor person in Detroit with schizophrenia struggling to find a way to get treatment for said illness. It does not matter that I have been discriminated against and ostracized for mental illness I am straight and cis gendered. Yeah those whiny bitches from the upper-middle class have it so hard and I should not even be allowed to speak on the subject if I disagree with any part. After all why should I be allowed to speak I am "crazy".

Pretty bad example. It uses an exception as if it was the average case, and it ignores the fact that poor schizophrenic women have a bad time with stigmas too.

I never said they didn't. That is a mischaracterization of what I said.

 

[gargantual]

I think what people are primarily afraid of is that possibility of games needing a "checklist" of ethnic or social minorities that you HAVE to include in your game in order for your game to be considered "progressive", and if it's not "progressive" then it won't get good scores or attention. In other words, it stops becoming about how good someone's game is, but rather about how many external issues that game tries to push on the player. I'm all for more inclusion in games, but I don't want "checklists" that the "progressive" gaming media tries to push.

And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.

Youve literally encapsulated what MANY frustrated gamers, film goers etc have been trying to argue against hyper progressive culture police. People just want the freedom to seperate wheat from fat for themselves. You can read media direct and oppositionally to come to a balanced opinion of media value rather than presume cultural malintent. Some trends in storytelling were just rooted in our history. The way "pernicious" has been thrown around though implies perhaps more than creator intent or patterns of thought rooted in human history and culture.

South Park's Scrotie Mc Boogerballs ep should also be taken into consideration, as a warning in judging the cultural impact of media.

Unless you are the creator, publisher or store; why do you have to care about scores or attention from the media to your favorite game?

fair enuff, nothing'll stop me from playing something I like but that question goes a long way. why come to an enthusiast site around your favorite medium to share your joys? Cant we keep them to ourselves? or hold parties celebrating a sports team or athletes victory in any form of outward expression? they've accomplished their feat and did so without external support factoring that heavily right? Theres no human economical need for one to bask in the reflected glory of a great experience...

but we still do as humans and we do it heavily. artists and performers of many stripes appreciate that feedback. it is natural for us to share our enthusiasm and solidarity. We can make it part of our identity when other cultural identifiers dont appeal to us. Some more brazenly than others. We all read differently into media and it can be fun to reanalyze stuff if not to question, than to articulate and discern on a mechanical level why it appeals to us or works so well. Like opening up a machine to discover its bells and whistles and even learn more about ourselves. (im sorry, im on a tangent...)

This is a connection between creators and people who are willing to invest in what they want to make. If we didn't care we wouldn't be here.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Reading above posts I thought: it's funny that the country that brags about giving equal rights to minorities, actually trying to give them more rights, which leads to further alienating them from the rest.

Feminists don't really talk about giving equal rights to everyone, they're especially saying that women should have more rights, even if men don't actually have them (even their "organization's" name implies that). And if a woman can sue a guy, implying that by holding a door so she could pass he was sexually harassing her, that's some sick laws.

And it's very hard to believe that there's no difference between white and black people and that they have equal rights, when every next phrase you hear from americans is "black people this" or "white people that". And the fact that black people can actually sue an employer, if they thought he didn't give them job just because they're black, doesn't speak about equality either.

And America's beloved gays: they're asking for the right to go on central TV channel and say that they are gay, which literally means that "a man f*cks a man", "a woman f*cks a woman". Not the nicest thought when you watch the TV at the dinner table, eh? Even if a straight guy would say "I f*ck my wife, and it feels good" on TV, that would be disgusting and he would automatically be the worst piece of human waste. So what rights did they want again?

The right to go naked to their parades? On the street? Where there can be children walking? Saying above mentioned phrases?
Do I even need to tell you how perverted that is?
Equality - we can't (not to mention, won't and wouldn't) do that? Why should they?

Do you have an actual court case or file in which a woman successfully sued a guy on charges of sexual harassment for holding a door or anything along lines?

Think about it this way, how many cases of black people suing employers for discrimination actually succeed? and how many are there actually? this is starting to look flimsy

and now you go into WTF territory, "Gay" while associated with sex in the most base term means attraction to men on both emotional and physical levels. So they aren't saying "I f*ck guys", they are saying I like guys, a far more innocent line

What homosexuals actually advocate is not to prance about on the streets naked (ignoring the fact that the vast majority of gays are well adjusted and you probably won't know who they are unless stated) but to not be bullied, assaulted in public, or denied opportunities based on their sexuality if everything else is equal.

 

[CaitSeith]

I think what people are primarily afraid of is that possibility of games needing a "checklist" of ethnic or social minorities that you HAVE to include in your game in order for your game to be considered "progressive", and if it's not "progressive" then it won't get good scores or attention. In other words, it stops becoming about how good someone's game is, but rather about how many external issues that game tries to push on the player. I'm all for more inclusion in games, but I don't want "checklists" that the "progressive" gaming media tries to push.

And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.

Youve literally encapsulated what MANY frustrated gamers, film goers etc have been trying to argue against hyper progressive culture police. People just want the freedom to seperate wheat from fat for themselves. You can read media direct and oppositionally to come to a balanced opinion of media value rather than presume cultural malintent. Some trends in storytelling were just rooted in our history. The way "pernicious" has been thrown around though implies perhaps more than creator intent or patterns of thought rooted in human history and culture.

South Park's Scrotie Mc Boogerballs ep should also be taken into consideration, as a warning in judging the cultural impact of media.

Unless you are the creator, publisher or store; why do you have to care about scores or attention from the media to your favorite game?

fair enuff, nothing'll stop me from playing something I like but that question goes a long way. why come to an enthusiast site around your favorite medium to share your joys? Cant we keep them to ourselves? or hold parties celebrating a sports team or athletes victory in any form of outward expression? they've accomplished their feat and did so without external support factoring that heavily right? Theres no human economical need for one to bask in the reflected glory of a great experience...

but we still do as humans and we do it heavily. artists and performers of many stripes appreciate that feedback. it is natural for us to share our enthusiasm and solidarity. We can make it part of our identity when other cultural identifiers dont appeal to us. Some more brazenly than others. We all read differently into media and it can be fun to reanalyze stuff if not to question, than to articulate and discern on a mechanical level why it appeals to us or works so well. Like opening up a machine to discover its bells and whistles and even learn more about ourselves. (im sorry, im on a tangent...)

This is a connection between creators and people who are willing to invest in what they want to make. If we didn't care we wouldn't be here.

A lot of that implies positiviness, and that's great. But what about the negativeness? Would they have accomplished their feat if they had external opposition instead of support? The answer is yes. Because the other team's support is their external opposition...

You know what? I just relaized that this doesn't show even half of the picture. Add those who just want to enjoy watching the competitions, and you only got the equivalent of the console wars.

 

[gargantual]

I think what people are primarily afraid of is that possibility of games needing a "checklist" of ethnic or social minorities that you HAVE to include in your game in order for your game to be considered "progressive", and if it's not "progressive" then it won't get good scores or attention. In other words, it stops becoming about how good someone's game is, but rather about how many external issues that game tries to push on the player. I'm all for more inclusion in games, but I don't want "checklists" that the "progressive" gaming media tries to push.

And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.

Youve literally encapsulated what MANY frustrated gamers, film goers etc have been trying to argue against hyper progressive culture police. People just want the freedom to seperate wheat from fat for themselves. You can read media direct and oppositionally to come to a balanced opinion of media value rather than presume cultural malintent. Some trends in storytelling were just rooted in our history. The way "pernicious" has been thrown around though implies perhaps more than creator intent or patterns of thought rooted in human history and culture.

South Park's Scrotie Mc Boogerballs ep should also be taken into consideration, as a warning in judging the cultural impact of media.

Unless you are the creator, publisher or store; why do you have to care about scores or attention from the media to your favorite game?

fair enuff, nothing'll stop me from playing something I like but that question goes a long way. why come to an enthusiast site around your favorite medium to share your joys? Cant we keep them to ourselves? or hold parties celebrating a sports team or athletes victory in any form of outward expression? they've accomplished their feat and did so without external support factoring that heavily right? Theres no human economical need for one to bask in the reflected glory of a great experience...

but we still do as humans and we do it heavily. artists and performers of many stripes appreciate that feedback. it is natural for us to share our enthusiasm and solidarity. We can make it part of our identity when other cultural identifiers dont appeal to us. Some more brazenly than others. We all read differently into media and it can be fun to reanalyze stuff if not to question, than to articulate and discern on a mechanical level why it appeals to us or works so well. Like opening up a machine to discover its bells and whistles and even learn more about ourselves. (im sorry, im on a tangent...)

This is a connection between creators and people who are willing to invest in what they want to make. If we didn't care we wouldn't be here.

A lot of that implies positiviness, and that's great. But what about the negativeness? Would they have accomplished their feat if they had external opposition instead of support? The answer is yes. Because the other team's support is their external opposition...

You know what? I just relaized that this doesn't show even half of the picture. Add those who just want to enjoy watching the competitions, and you only got the equivalent of the console wars.

Perhaps so. Theyfocused on the game. Others are celbrating for themselves. To feel something. In and of itself, that's legit. and for all its bad aspects the existence of such purchase value is inevitable. MS and Sony know it. Outside the conferences they're all homeboys. You can only mitigate negative aspects of fandom one aspect at time, to let people know there should remain neighborly, but to socially engineer and nanny their temprament enmasse as a means of dealing with negativity. That they're all docile? Impossible. Treat adults like adults. You ask for a big audience, it comes with the package. Some fans love harder than others. People are different we expect most to act like adults in any scenario even outside of fandom and some humans choose not to. I've seen supposedly civil people lose their shit over the most inconsequential petty life incidents outside of gaming. Its the human condition . What more can I tell ya?

 

[CaitSeith]

Here's a tough one to examine in the lights of politics: Pokemon (the game, TV show not included.) Sure you have Fascist Giovanni and his Team Rocket, radical environmentalists in Team Magma/Team, unethical scientific corporations in Team Galactic representing a totalitarian philosophy (with scientists being portrayed in a generally positive light with all of the pokemon professors and such over several games,) Team Plasma with overwhelming religious undertones and morality based strong-arming, and Team Flare as a critique of capitalistic Objectivism, but the question isn't what does it oppose.

I always related Team Plasma to PETA (specially after watching Bob's episode about PETA). And someone in the Internet casually compared the death of the Team Flare's leader with Hitler's.

The question is, what does pokemon support? The closest thing to government shown are the gym leaders and occasional police officers, ineffective at best. The social structure promotes friendship, but friendship with your pokemon above other humans. They're always with you, but you kinda force them to be, out of hundreds that you catch... but that's if you see pokemon as having human-level awareness. It says to treat your pokemon with kindness, but that could be as simple as "Don't kick that dog." The lack of anything solid on what is good at a large scale, as opposed to what is bad has several possible implications. Is there nothing good beyond a general pattern of small communities with shops and hospitals? Is there nothing that can be good but the individual? Do the pokemon secretly run the world and the humans within mere pawns of their hyper-intelligent overlords? Can a political body other than a senatorial representation of gym leaders be right in the world?

How about this: Society follows the idiology that those with better skills (specially in battles) inherently deserve more prestige, power and money. Each time you defeat another trainer, you get money (their money); and if you get defeated, you lose money. With a few exceptions, the only other way to get money is to sell stuff you have gathered on your trip.

So Pokemon has a meritocratic society and posibly a capitalist economy (althrough I can't be certain, as we don't know who owns the Pokemon Centers, the stores, the factories, the laboratories or the means of production and distribution).

Now, if you excuse me, I have to go out and examine my life choices.

 

[ace_of_something]

I'd vote Haggar. he gets things done. #standwithhaggar

people kind of already did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura

and truth be told people were pretty damn pleased with him for the most part.

 

[Darth_Payn]

It's just like the Scrotey McBoogerballs episode of South Park. It's not so much as people deciphering the meaning the author put into a work, but crowbarring their own opinions/beliefs/hang-ups INTO it. The kind of people who do that and really get my goat are those who go and say THEIR interpretation of a movie/show/game/what-have-you is the only correct one and telling you "STOP ENJOYING THIS THING! I FOUND HOW DEPRESSING IT IS!" They have to lighten the fuck up.

 

[Seldon2639]

I would wager that a large part of the problem is that the "deeper meaning" stuff tends to exist primarily as an issue of "do you want there to be a deeper meaning?" Do you want Fallout New Vegas to be sexist (because women exist as prostitutes or victims of crime, or because of Caesar's Legion)? Or do you want it to be feminist because it represents the myriad roles women could willingly take in that society, including being the protagonist?

Do you want Game of Thrones to be sexist because women get raped and murdered? Or do you want it to be feminist because there are strong women who occupy positions of authority (even if that involves using sexual wiles or outright evil tactics)?

And if you do happen to be Anita Sarkeesian and want to view The Legend of Zelda as implicitly sexist, does that make it unassailable fact? Or is there room for discussion?

 

[SkepticalHat]

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.

I think the main questions should be:
[ol]
[li]What (or who) are we trying to represent?[/li]
[li]With what purpose?[/li]
[/ol]
Then we would use the adequate questions for the character.

The questions I posed are meant to be for a more general discussion of how certain mechanics and features of video games affect representation. Video Games are a different medium they ultimately have different conventions than film or literature. Just like film has different devices than literature. How video games interact with their audience on a different level than other art forms changes how ideas can be shared. I think it is entirely likely that each case the same question(s) will end up being discussed repeatedly. Your questions are better for a case by case basis in the sense that they can set up a hypothetical example. Your questions are good however I think a better discussion could be had by discussing the more general questions and occasionally using hypothetical cases/real examples to explore or illustrate a point. For example take the question Is having the option to do something the same as encouraging that you do it? This can lead to discussion on the relation between game mechanics and ethics in situations where it isn't just an immediate good or bad ethical decision. It can lead to other questions such as how would a system that uses point bonuses and deductions influence this? Are equal point deductions and bonus for similar but oppositely reinforced actions sufficient negative and positive reinforcement or does there need to be a strong leaning in either direction? etc ect. Now are there questions that can mainly be answered by an it depends on the situation? definitely. The biggest issue I have with your proposed main questions is purpose. Purpose and intent of an author, producer, or game designer is ultimately forgotten in favor of the critics interpretation of the work. People have brought up the example of "The curtains were blue." where the English teacher decides that the author had intended some greater metaphor about depression. Whereas the author was just describing the curtains. The original purpose of a person place or thing in fiction is often left by the wayside. See Death of the Author.
TlR Your questions are better suited for specific discussion, and mine are better suited for general discussion. Both are equally valid just different.

 

[Dolf Volkoff]

Do you have an actual court case or file in which a woman

successfully sued a guy on charges of sexual harassment for holding a door or anything along lines?

Think about it this way, how many cases of black people suing employers for discrimination actually succeed?

and how many are there actually?

The point was:
if a white male would be dumb enough to go to the court with some nonsense like that, would there also be some "white-male-rights-protecting" organization to help him get things his way? Otherwise, it doesn't seem very equal.

What homosexuals actually advocate is not to prance about on the

streets naked

Even when they tried to get permission to do that on the streets of Moscow, and americans (surprise, surprise) were so offended when they weren't allowed?

they are saying I like guys, a far more innocent line

If that is innocent and fine (and not creepy), where is the line when it stops being fine? How long 'till

America becomes another Netherlands, where it's okay to be a pedophile?

 

[F.Dubois]

If that is innocent and fine (and not creepy), where is the line when it stops being fine? How long 'till

America becomes another Netherlands, where it's okay to be a pedophile?

The presence of one extremist group doesn't mean anything in relation to the cultural state of mind in the overall population. Pedosexual activities are illegal in the Netherlands. Or does the existence of Память prove that all Russians are anti-semitic? That last comment was just Putin making a jab out of the fact that his political opponents internationally are as authoritarian and morally corrupt as they make him out to be and it wasn't a very good one either considering what he has to work with.