Why are we afraid of criticism?

[Netrigan]

In pure numbers, they're growing; but percentages matter.

If in a ten year period the white population drops from 69% to 63%, then that's going to have an affect. The Hispanic demographic has been rising in percentages, bypassing the black population as the largest minority group, so you see more focus there. China is an emerging market, so everyone is looking to bust in there and we'll probably be seeing more Asian leads in the near future. And female gamers are on the rise and they're absolutely dominating casual gaming.

And partly I'm trying to explain the anger I see on this board which doesn't fall back on racism or sexism. While I don't think any of us (regardless of race or gender) is free of it, I don't find most people explicitly think that way. We're blind to our bullshit... that's just human nature. We do have a lot of folks who have grown up with the gaming industry and I think they feel like they're being fobbed off... and trying to poke under the hood and figure out what's actually going on is far more constructive than just telling them to get over themselves... and I've not always been good at not saying something horribly similar to that.

If the original Doom was released today, you'd probably be able to pick your Doom Guy/Gal. I think we're going to be seeing a whole lot more of that. We'll be seeing more gay romance options in RPGs. I'd bet money the next time Assassin's Creed does the Co-Op thing, it won't be a Clone Army... although to be fair, they had originally planned for more diverse options, which is part of why people got pissed the promised diversity didn't happen. For more scripted fair, I think we'll see more Borderlands style multi-character options. Way more Create Your Hero options.

There's money in diversity and I think the pressure is on to provide it.

 

[Melaphont]

There's money in diversity and I think the pressure is on to provide it.

Sure, I'd say there is money in diversity, and I think minorities or women jumping into the industry to make games would be great addition to more breadth of games. However, until we see more true productive interests in other groups getting into game design the perceived money in diversity is going to sit there, I think.

 

[Fireaxe]

People don't want to talk about this sort of thing because the internet can't have a civil debate on this kind of issue, and in the end it's all pointless anyway (major companies are going to release games that make money).

It all inevitably ends in mud slinging between the "it's political correctness gone mad and I'm going to use this as my excuse to carry on being a c***" crowd and the "straight white able bodied guys with short brown hair being the majority of protagonists in games is " crowd. Usually with a side of people who think anonymous internet death threats are serious business.

 

[Netrigan]

But you tried to play the "they don't care about equality, we care about equality" card and you're support a clearly unequal system.

No I didn't. I just pointed out that anyone who criticizes SJWs or is on the side of Gamergate gets called misogynist or sexist, even when they aren't.

You're talking about people whom, when they are challenged, respond by calling people misogynists and terrorists and lump them in with trolls, even when those people are clearly coming from an equalist perspective.

Okay, maybe not you exactly. But the "equalist perspective" just struck me as pretty damn disingenuous, so I threw down a pointed dig.

Again, this is more #GamerGate stuff, but the piece of advice I'd give them. Totally sincere "I hope they follow it" advice. BTW, I'm using this post to talk past you, so this isn't necessarily directed at you.

Figure out exactly what you believe in. Not buzz words. Words like equality, journalistic ethics, etc. don't really mean anything unless you sit down and work out *exactly* what those words mean to you. I know the great bulk of #GamerGate aren't bad people. Many of them are smart and funny and probably devastating sexy. These guys need to step up and take a leadership role, blog like you've never blogged before. Don't be the Occupy Movement which never learned to focus its rage into a viable platform.

Don't define your movement by your opponents. Feminism is often a Reactionary philosophy and reacting against a reactionary agenda ends up increasingly useless, especially when there's misunderstanding. It becomes a game of telephone where they react to something, misunderstanding a portion of it, then you react to their reaction and misunderstand it even more, and the result ends up being more and more divorced from reality. My post right here is an example of that. I misunderstood something and went to fucking town... I think I spun it into some reasonably cool ideas, confronted my own worse nature, tried to build some sort of understanding with my would-be political opponents, who I probably agree with more than the Feminists I happily defend here (but oppose on Doctor Who sites where they're horribly wrong and misinformed, because REASONS!!!!).

Here's a blog idea (one I'm half-planning to try myself): "Why The Brown-Haired White Male Hero Matters". Without mentioning Feminists or SJW or any enemy, perceived or real, lay out why he's important. Find cool stories within your culture, explore the emotional realities, explore the concept of power fantasies. Create an entirely positive piece which includes as many of your core beliefs as you can work in. Glorify the fuck out of this maligned character trope. Try to convince people that this guy on the cover isn't a reason to roll your eyes and say "him again." We can make this guy cool again. This guy could be the fucking rock star of the video game world. Don't compare him to anyone else, just revel in this mad bastard who only wants to kick ass and look cool doing it.

And, you know, try to write well-reasoned, well-researched blog entries about more political issues as they present themselves. There's no reason for All-Anita-All-The-Time because most folks are bored fucking rigid by that, so establish your gamer cred, make publications like The Escapists say "Who is this delightfully funny and informative writer who has a unique and important opinion and why isn't he on our pay-roll?"

Make people forget the Feminists, not because you mindlessly hack away at their every argument, but because you present a much cooler and sexier reality.

 

[Netrigan]

I was channeling way too much Grant Morrison with that last post. How many times did I use the word "sexy"?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I was channeling way too much Grant Morrison with that last post. How many times did I use the word "sexy"?

You used the word sexy sixty-three times.

No I didn't. I just pointed out that anyone who criticizes SJWs or is on the side of Gamergate gets called misogynist or sexist, even when they aren't.

Just stop using "SJWs" as terminology. Stop throwing a blanket over a perceived group and labeling them. It's as productive as someone referring to a cross section of gamers as neckbeards (regardless of whether or not their neck sports a stunning beard).

And if the next words of your mouth are a permutation of THEY CALL US NAMES WHY CAN'T WE CALL THEM NAMES, I must remind you that A) they started it isn't an excuse past the age of five, and B) you can't control what other people do, you can only control yourself. Demonstrate that you want civil discourse by engaging in civil discourse. Actually listen and try to understand where the people across the aisle are coming from, and you might find you are listened to and understood in turn.

Because the second you start in with labeling and shit-talking, I can guarantee you that you are simply going to reap what you sow. Even your user name makes it apparent you're spoiling for a fight on this subject.

 

[aliengmr]

I honestly think this comes from the insecurities gamers faced during the crusade against games in the 90's and early 00's. Back then, "Their coming to get your games." and "censorship" were very real possibilities. And back then, gamers united against any outside threat, imagined or otherwise, and rightly so.

Today is different, much different. Something I almost never see mentioned is the fact that video games are protected speech (speaking of the US). That alone has made them pretty much impossible to "censor", beyond the few "standards" in place for the larger games market. Indies have much more freedom in that respect. I mean, we are talking about challenging a decision the Supreme Court ruled on, you need a little more than some videos about tropes or a blog to take that on.

Now if that were the only obstacle to any sort of "censorship", I'd say games are pretty safe, but we also have the giant multi-billion video game industry to back that up.

On that front, the idea that anyone could force censorship of anything in a game, we are safe, safer than we've ever been.

I believe another part is, which has been mentioned, is that criticism, particularly of a "social" nature, is taken as a personal insult. For me personally this is a foreign concept, and it has led me to be somewhat insensitive to those who feel that way. I don't take what someone like Anita Sarkeesian says about my hobby personally. Nor do I feel ashamed for liking those games even if I agreed to some of her points. Its her opinion and I'm free to agree or disagree as I chose. Nobody should be ashamed for liking a game someone has said was "sexist", "racist", or whatever.

Criticism is just that, criticism. In and of itself it has no real power. The real power is with the developers/publishers and ultimately gamers. That's it. You don't buy a game or kickstart a game, game doesn't get made. This is even more clearly defined with indie games, where the target audience is really the only thing that matters beyond the developer's own creative decisions. They aren't under any real pressure to cater to an audience that has no interest in the game.

If we "gamers" believe we are mature enough to handle serious games we really need to start adjusting how we take criticism. Our games are safe, WE WON! And coming from someone who was very afraid that my game choices would be limited to "Barney and Friends", that feels really good. Say what you want about my hobby, I don't care, in fact I welcome it. If Anita Sarkeesian's videos (or really any other person with an opinion) inspires some developer to try something new or possibly give attention to an under developed character, great, we need this, games need this. Just like they need a developer to say "Yea, that's great, I'm going for boobies and bikini armor, thanks for the input." opinions be damned.

Movies, books, TV, all have had to deal with this and they are still around probably offending someone. Games have just reached that status. Which is what we always wanted. Its time we powered down the shields and allowed games to be taken seriously instead of trying to root out certain types of criticism. As long as games attempt to tackle social issues (of various forms) then that is going to be talked about, just like the other forms of mass media.

I can't stress it enough, criticism is so vital to video games, all forms of it. You can and should continue liking and playing your games despite what criticism is leveled against them. You are not a misogynist for liking The Witcher and the criticism of the "sex cards" produced, what I believe, was a far better way to present the sexual content in The Witcher 2. That's why I welcome this criticism, It challenges developers to do something or solidify why they should not do something different. Both are important.

TL;DR
I understand some of the reactions to criticism, but trying to get rid of it scares me.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Hey, you know what...

This is a funny read to me. Who is afraid? I encounter the criticisms, and I'm unafraid. I point out the faults that I believe said criticism holds, and I'm met with a volley of off-point, distracting shaming language. Glass houses...

What's funny is that my views are actually fairly moderate. Have we considered that maybe the negative reaction to certain ideologically driven criticism is at least somewhat based on the quality of said criticism? Is that a possibility? There are certainly some who behave as though it's unassailable truth.

I'd be interested in talking earnestly with people about a given topic, providing they can refrain from insults and smugness. Nobody need take someones self-assigned-superiority seriously, and it's best kept to yourself.

Ah, fuck it. Let's continue with the amateur grade information warfare. Who wants to take the first crack at misrepresenting me? Oh, I actually think the OP did. That's good, there's no time to waste.

Your post utterly fails to account for the people screaming that those criticizing want censorship etc. They're the most obvious reason to say some are afraid of criticism. But of course if you acknowledged they exist you couldn't take personal offense and call ot a strawman of you...

"Screaming", are they? Yeh, I'm sure they are... It's fucking type, mate. If it's too loud for you, there's not much that can be done. Can you turn down the volume in your head, somehow? This looks an awful lot like a half-arsed attempt at misrepresentation, our word of the day!!!

Dammit!... I forgot to load the balloons and confetti into the trapdoor.

Considering it's typing I'd expect most people to infer it wasn't meant to be literal. It's about demeanor and the irrationality of leaping from criticism to a specific call for action that was never made.

Are you sure that it's "fear" that's driving these people? Are you sure it's not annoyance? To me it feels a lot like I'm annoyed. I don't want to play amateur psychologist for everyone else... But I can't say I've seen much I'd describe as "fearful".

Nothing rational is connecting the criticism received to a call for censorship. Pretty sure it isn't annoyance either.

And worrying about things never said sure seems to lean towards the fearful. When someone is worried people are gonna censor their games based off nothing that comes off as paranoid and a tad fearful

I'm not sure you're being fair there. I don't think the claims are as crazy as people are insisting.

People have been taking videogames head on in this regard for a long time, most definitely directly calling for censorship... And they've all failed.

http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-overbytes-dont-censor-me

I think Bob briefly hints at the problem here... In far too simple terms... Before dismissing it entirely. What he refers to as "soft-censorship".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Bob is a valuable resource or anything. Hell, he uses a thoroughly debunked model of the wage gap as a reinforcing point in that very video.

What irks me about Bob's representation here, is that he behaves as though the "conversations" or "discussions" being had, and the ideas within all live-or-die based on their merits. I don't think that's true. It might be true if not for the manipulative nature of media coverage, and inherent ideological biases that keep becoming evident. I don't believe this is a simple clash of ideas, "may the best ones win", I believe this is information warfare, and that untruths are valid if they allow you to win. We're in a situation where critics of the criticism are being characterized as "extreme" despite being relatively apolitical and centralist. Does that make sense? Fuck no, it doesn't. Is it effective? Sadly, yes.

The media coverage isn't just being manipulated by outside sources, it's readily being skewed by those reporting. It's thoroughly fucked. Not only ethically, but also in what it can achieve. Combined with easily led people on social-media propagating what might not be entirely correct views/opinions(read:regurgitating what they're told) and it becomes a big slippery mess of a slope.

I don't know what you call this exactly. I'm pretty sure it wasn't foreseen when "censorship" was being defined in any region. They couldn't have known social-media would arise, increase and potentially weaponise social-power... No "force" necessary.

"The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is
largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient
facts kept dark, without the need for any offcial ban."
George Orwell - proposed, unpublished preface to Animal Farm

Voluntary censorship, that might work. Or "voluntary" censorship might be more appropriate. A situation where deviating views are untenable by way of social pressure and job security.

 

[renegade7]

Ultimately, people fear criticism because anything we care about becomes a part of our identity, and we have an emotional "investment" in it. The human psyche will always try to defend changes to its identity, that is, it doesn't want to risk losing its investment.

Basically, it's because there is an inherent bias towards your identity not changing and thinking that it's perfect as it is, and therefore the only reason anyone could criticize something you care about is seen as an attempt to change your identity. So to respond to the perceived threat, the psyche activates a defense mechanism to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from having to change that identity.

So the fact that someone might became furious at a social critique of video games indicates that video games are a substantial part of their identity, and that said identity doesn't contain much else to care about. It's basically why "Dude, seriously, get a life" (or "get laid" if you're feeling snarky) is the basic response to someone who becomes enraged due to a bad LoL game.

 

[blalien]

What gets me even more is the selective skepticism.

Anita Sarkeesian claims she contacted the police about the harassment: "Nuh uh, some guy on Twitter said he called some policeman in one particular department and the guy said he didn't know anything. What a lying *****!"

Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend claims she slept with five guys in the video games industry: "No guy has ever lied about their ex-girlfriend before! What a cheating whore!"

 

[FoolKiller]

Reason 2: They feel that criticism of the game is criticism of them as a person.

Person A enjoys Call of Duty. Person B says that Call of Duty carries a lot of racist undertones. Person A takes that as meaning "you're racist for enjoying it".

In all fairness to Person A, all too often Person B wants Person A to take it that way.

 

[generals3]

snip

Personally I don't see how something being a creative production changes anything in regards to whether or not criticism should be "relevant" or not. I also don't see how the existence of relevant criticism validates irrelevant one either. And i'd argue games have just as much a connection to sociology and politics as games. Their connection being that the creators are influenced by society as well as the consumers. Now you could use games to push for political agendas (probably harder with GPU's) and that could be an added connection, but since that's not what games are made for that connection isn't there. At least not here and now, and i'd rather like for it stay like that. For political agendas we have activism, propaganda, etc.

One part i have quite a problem with is this one:

Fair points. Except one - I strongly disagree that the criticism is that these games "don't push a certain social agenda". And I think it's an issue with how this criticism is being received. I would say criticising under-representation of women (to take a simplified example) is not pushing an agenda, it's claiming that the medium itself is already pushing an agenda, albeit unwittingly.

I'm sorry but asking games to specifically have standards of representation for an other sake but fun is pushing a social agenda. So yes asking for games to have an equal representation is arguing games push an agenda (the agenda in question depends on what you specifically mean with "equal representation"). And i'm quite astounded by the concept of "unwittingly" pushing an agenda. If you're not aware of it how can there be an agenda? If i accidentally harm someone am i unwittingly pushing an agenda to harm that person? An agenda clearly requires intent.

 

[Netrigan]

Is it reasonable to compare people who offer social commentary to ISIS?

Can we all agree to leave MovieBob alone? The man thought Sucker Punch was a profound feminist commentary. We've all got our cross to bear and that one's a big one

 

[Netrigan]

No I didn't. I just pointed out that anyone who criticizes SJWs or is on the side of Gamergate gets called misogynist or sexist, even when they aren't.

You complain about people using terms to attack and dismiss criticism by using a derogatory term that is used to attack and dismiss criticism...

I didn't dismiss anything. I just pointed out a contradiction in the OPs thinking. What's wrong with using the term SJW? Is it insulting? It just seems like easy shorthand, so people know what I'm talking about. What do you prefer? Rainbow Sparkley Horses of Pop Culture Criticism? RPHPCCs?

I prefer Super Sexy Feminist Assassins.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Why? It's a decent enough shorthand for the group I'm talking about. Everyone knows who I am talking about, and it's not particularly rude, and it doesn't have a definition that has been diluted by overuse like misogynist or feminist.

My point is just that some people who might hold one position or another (referred to as SJW), will hurl all sorts of insults at people who are offering criticism of their positions.

I mean, am I wrong? Is it reasonable to compare people who offer social commentary to ISIS?

Yeah, exactly. It's a short-handed label intended to allow you to apply a prejudicial set of implied characteristics to a wide variety of individuals. Much like "Neckbeard". It's intended to insult, and it's bandied about freely by people who claim they're tired of hearing insults. The hypocrisy is astonishing.