Why are we afraid of criticism?

[Six Ways]

Not really. I guess that i may have made an overstatement myself a bit earlier but technically VG's don't have to be about one particular thing, but the ones which are criticized are. For instance there is such a thing as "serious games", their purpose is not solely fun, there are serious games used for medical rehabilitation and off course for those games the latter criteria matters and criticism on its rehabilitating capabilities is relevant. Now to take the latest wave of criticism, which is that the games don't push a certain social agenda, let me ask you is that what the games in question are going for? No. You may criticize the idea there is no "social agenda pushing" VG market, but criticizing the "fun" segment because it goes for "fun" strikes as quite odd.

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 do ultimately, however, disagree with your opinion that things should be criticised in a functional manner. I think it's valid and useful to examine the larger context outside a work and how it interacts with said context. Which is a large part of criticism of art in general, and I do see games as art. I don't think we'll find much common ground on that though, and I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that.

Actually i'd say yes. To take your previous GPU example, if someone where to start something called "GPU-throwing", would that make criticism towards the GPU's "throwability" any more relevant? Or to make it worse what if Tech Websites were to actually use that criteria to judge GPU's? (Which is similar to VG websites using social agenda as a criteria for fun-oriented VG's) Or what if some people were to start a thing called "GPU-interpretation" where they go look for social criticism in the design of GPU's, would that make criticism based on that valid?

To take that apart a bit - I do actually think there's a difference there. Ultimately GPUs are not a creative endeavour in the same sense as a game. I'm not claiming there's a solid line between 'creative' and 'functional' - in fact I think the opposite. But I think there's a gradient, and how meaningful any given criticism of something is slides along the same gradient. I'd suggest that even if you view all things as being ultimately functional, 'creativity' or 'artistry' or whatever can still be a gradient.

The other point however would be that the existence of people reviewing GPUs based upon throwability does not preclude the existence of people reviewing them in their intended role. And in practice, since GPUs are very much to one end of the functional-creative scale, the large majority of criticism will always be on their function. Games on the other hand are more central, and will therefore invite criticism of multiple kinds, none of which are 'wrong' IMO. They have a function, but they also have a meaningful connection to sociology, politics, etc etc. And those criticisms will themselves be on a scale - some will look only at the mechanics, some only the politics, some half and half. None of these precludes or diminishes the existence of the others.

One final final point (I know that's got a bit long and philosophical) - the validity (or importance) of a criticism may also depend on its impact, coupled to that creativity gradient thingy. E.g. GPUs don't really have many social aspects to them, but if they're being made with slave labour, that should really cancel out their 'functionality' score.

 

[Panda Pandemic]

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...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Snip

Snip

Alright you two. According to the internet, there are about 1800 of you left in the entire world, and you two can't be assed to get along? Come on.

PS - You should probably be breeding.

 

[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.

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".

The "strawman" you refer to was ill-advised in type on my part. But, it's self-aware... #humour No offence taken.

Snip

Snip

Alright you two. According to the internet, there are about 1800 of you left in the entire world, and you two can't be assed to get along? Come on.

PS - You should probably be breeding.

I need more than survival imperative to get me in the mood.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I need more than survival imperative to get me in the mood.

I hear you. I've got you covered buddy.

Spoiler

 

[Panda Pandemic]

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

 

[Panda Pandemic]

Snip

Snip

Alright you two. According to the internet, there are about 1800 of you left in the entire world, and you two can't be assed to get along? Come on.

PS - You should probably be breeding.

*cough* If that's what they've been trying I think I see why our numbers are down. I do believe we're both male.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

*cough* If that's what they've been trying I think I see why our numbers are down. I do believe we're both male.

Now now. I'm quite certain that when animals are low in population some of them spontaneously change gender in order to procreate. I saw it on that episode of Jurassic Park. The one with the guy from The Omen in it.

 

[Netrigan]

Who is it that is afraid of criticism? 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.

So you recommend that all races and genders get representative treatment in media. One in three games lead by white males, one in three by white females, one in six by a female of color, one in six by a man of color.


Well, can't say I agree but at least you want equality.

Dude. No. Equalist like, when you think that a person's race/gender/orientation/etc is irrelevant, and the gameplay/writing/game design of the person is what matters. So, like, the most free market that you can be.

So the kind of equality that has nothing really to do with equality. Gotcha.

The free market is not without its flaws. It can be stupidly short-sighted (see banks engaging in short-term profit taking by buying and selling defaulted debt... which crashed when no one actually paid off their bad debt). Its frequently blind to opportunties. It can be manipulated by monopolies. Its only as good and decent as the people within it. Its most ardent supporters call it the worst system ever created by man... except all the others.

The free market does not, nor has it ever, cared about equality in any form. It is not good nor evil. Just nor unjust. Its about the facilitation of commerce.

 

[Melaphont]

Who is it that is afraid of criticism? 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.

So you recommend that all races and genders get representative treatment in media. One in three games lead by white males, one in three by white females, one in six by a female of color, one in six by a man of color.


Well, can't say I agree but at least you want equality.

Dude. No. Equalist like, when you think that a person's race/gender/orientation/etc is irrelevant, and the gameplay/writing/game design of the person is what matters. So, like, the most free market that you can be.

So the kind of equality that has nothing really to do with equality. Gotcha.

The free market is not without its flaws. It can be stupidly short-sighted (see banks engaging in short-term profit taking by buying and selling defaulted debt... which crashed when no one actually paid off their bad debt). Its frequently blind to opportunties. It can be manipulated by monopolies. Its only as good and decent as the people within it. Its most ardent supporters call it the worst system ever created by man... except all the others.

The free market does not, nor has it ever, cared about equality in any form. It is not good nor evil. Just nor unjust. Its about the facilitation of commerce.

The "free market" isn't that simple, dude. The market is capitalist and most of Europe and the America's are capitalist, but very few of them are straight up free markets. Also, no dictionary definition of a monopoly has existed without government help(or criminal activity) in some fashion. Microsoft was, according to a judge, having monopolistic powers, but it wasn't literally a monopoly, at least in the most rational sense. Economic markets are far from simple and putting the problem on the "free" market is a blind spot, I think.

 

[Netrigan]

Who is it that is afraid of criticism? 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.

So you recommend that all races and genders get representative treatment in media. One in three games lead by white males, one in three by white females, one in six by a female of color, one in six by a man of color.


Well, can't say I agree but at least you want equality.

Dude. No. Equalist like, when you think that a person's race/gender/orientation/etc is irrelevant, and the gameplay/writing/game design of the person is what matters. So, like, the most free market that you can be.

So the kind of equality that has nothing really to do with equality. Gotcha.

The free market is not without its flaws. It can be stupidly short-sighted (see banks engaging in short-term profit taking by buying and selling defaulted debt... which crashed when no one actually paid off their bad debt). Its frequently blind to opportunties. It can be manipulated by monopolies. Its only as good and decent as the people within it. Its most ardent supporters call it the worst system ever created by man... except all the others.

The free market does not, nor has it ever, cared about equality in any form. It is not good nor evil. Just nor unjust. Its about the facilitation of commerce.

Uh. . . . okay. You must have just started taking intro to economics. Good job!

I was talking about how the SJW side is the side that is afraid of criticism. I'm not really interested in how the markets are affected by whatever it is you are talking about.

Twenty odd years ago and quite a bit of this comes from Rush Limbaugh, Ayn Rand, Richard Nixon. Back when the Conservatives were a much more on an intellectual tip, the idea that the free market was a perfect system was pretty much a laughable one. I think it was George Will who used to say if you can find one positive thing Adam Smith says about the Free Market system then you're not reading him right. And let's not forget Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican icon, who gave Big Business a big kick up the ass when it needed a good kicking. I don't believe in heavy regulation, but a heaping dose of vigilance isn't uncalled for. Plenty of people will happily sell you up the river if they thought there was a dollar in it for them. Plenty of people will happily sell out future generations because they "got mine". Stupid people can wreck an economy. It's the worst economic system ever... except for all the others.

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. This is not a compelling argument. Don't play the liberal game. Don't try to run to the left of them. You just look like a particularly awful liar. The best you can come up with is the Republican dodge, "equality of opportunity", which at least makes you look like a sexier and better educated liar

 

[Netrigan]

Who is it that is afraid of criticism? 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.

So you recommend that all races and genders get representative treatment in media. One in three games lead by white males, one in three by white females, one in six by a female of color, one in six by a man of color.


Well, can't say I agree but at least you want equality.

Dude. No. Equalist like, when you think that a person's race/gender/orientation/etc is irrelevant, and the gameplay/writing/game design of the person is what matters. So, like, the most free market that you can be.

So the kind of equality that has nothing really to do with equality. Gotcha.

The free market is not without its flaws. It can be stupidly short-sighted (see banks engaging in short-term profit taking by buying and selling defaulted debt... which crashed when no one actually paid off their bad debt). Its frequently blind to opportunties. It can be manipulated by monopolies. Its only as good and decent as the people within it. Its most ardent supporters call it the worst system ever created by man... except all the others.

The free market does not, nor has it ever, cared about equality in any form. It is not good nor evil. Just nor unjust. Its about the facilitation of commerce.

The "free market" isn't that simple, dude. The market is capitalist and most of Europe and the America's are capitalist, but very few of them are straight up free markets. Also, no dictionary definition of a monopoly has existed without government help(or criminal activity) in some fashion. Microsoft was, according to a judge, having monopolistic powers, but it wasn't literally a monopoly, at least in the most rational sense. Economic markets are far from simple and putting the problem on the "free" market is a blind spot, I think.

Oh, it's insanely complicated. The financial side of things is half smoke and mirrors and I went cross-eyed when they tried to explain that shit to me in college.

But on a simple level, white male gamers were so highly valued for so long because they were, by far, the largest market for video games. This is changing. Not only are female gamers coming on (a demographic potentially as big), but the white percentage of the population is steadily falling (69% to 63% between Censuses), which means every year the traditional base is valued less and less, especially when we factor in the foreign markets.

And perhaps this isn't the best thread for this observation, but so much of the anger likely stems from people realizing this. Not sexism or racist (at least not directly), but because they're taken for granted, that everyone is scrambling to grab the growing markets, while their influence continues to fall. They are still highly valued, but no longer sought after. No one says, "this is for white gamer boyz", they're more likely to say "enough of these white gamer boyz"... and they express that frustration with the worst possible wording.

And I think there's a reality check in here. We white male gamers are still the most highly desired demographic on the planet. That influence may be waning, but it ain't going anywhere anytime soon. But with whites set to become a minority in the not too distant future, we're going to have to get used to sharing the lime-light with others. We can still justify our bigger cut of the pie through Free Market economies, but that cut is going to get smaller and smaller as other demographics get larger and larger... because Free Market economies.

 

[QuietlyListening]

The Free Market doesn't have a sense of morality. Only utility. Unless you're a hardcore utilitarian, where that is morality...


Also, I object to the idea that certain criticisms are invalid because they're based on an ideology or political viewpoint. It may very well be true that they are, but so are the things they are criticizing. It just so happens that the latter viewpoint is internalized to the degree that it is considered "normal."

A game which portrays men as grizzled handsome straight white males and women as sexually attractive potential partners most certainly represents a political viewpoint. It's a power fantasy that has been reinforced for generations that instructs the audience as to what the "normal" ideal is for each gender. For men, an idol. For women, an object.

 

[Melaphont]

The Free Market doesn't have a sense of morality. Only utility. Unless you're a hardcore utilitarian, where that is morality...


Also, I object to the idea that certain criticisms are invalid because they're based on an ideology or political viewpoint. It may very well be true that they are, but so are the things they are criticizing. It just so happens that the latter viewpoint is internalized to the degree that it is considered "normal."

A game which portrays men as grizzled handsome straight white males and women as sexually attractive potential partners most certainly represents a political viewpoint. It's a power fantasy that has been reinforced for generations that instructs the audience as to what the "normal" ideal is for each gender. For men, an idol. For women, an object.

Assuming this was true(I'd say there are tons of video games where you dont play as a "power fantasy" in the strictest gender role sense) there is nothing to show inherent damage from playing a fantasy of your persona. Pretending you are superman is not a bad thing(or a good thing, it is entertainment it doesn't need to be "clean"). Also, I dont think it is as simple as women are just objects. I mean just read Elle magazine, most of them fit the same fantasy that video games do, so it isnt as simple as women are not idealized based on perceptions of women by men, based on how other women depict women in pop culture.

Men in most games are as much an object a lot of the time as women are. The difference is range of games where women are the protag, but I'd say that is more a reflection of the content creators more then it is about a specific social moral issue with developers. That said, yes all of it is open to criticism, and with all forms of criticism comes debate and discourse.

 

[Melaphont]

And I think there's a reality check in here. We white male gamers are still the most highly desired demographic on the planet. That influence may be waning, but it ain't going anywhere anytime soon. But with whites set to become a minority in the not too distant future, we're going to have to get used to sharing the lime-light with others. We can still justify our bigger cut of the pie through Free Market economies, but that cut is going to get smaller and smaller as other demographics get larger and larger... because Free Market economies.

I dunno why you added white only in the mix, black and hispanic people have been in the mix for a very long time(and some reports seem to infer they play games more, per capita, then white people). I'd say the console/realistic AAA games wont make a concerted change until there is real money changing purchasing patterns. Until men stop spending the most amount of money on video games, they will be catered to, specially when the large majority of developers are male.

I'd say this idea that there is a huge(or even a relatively noticeable one) shift coming to be relatively baseless. I think most games will appeal to a mass audience, and how that happens will vary from game to game and genre to genre.

 

[Netrigan]

And I think there's a reality check in here. We white male gamers are still the most highly desired demographic on the planet. That influence may be waning, but it ain't going anywhere anytime soon. But with whites set to become a minority in the not too distant future, we're going to have to get used to sharing the lime-light with others. We can still justify our bigger cut of the pie through Free Market economies, but that cut is going to get smaller and smaller as other demographics get larger and larger... because Free Market economies.

I dunno why you added white only in the mix, black and hispanic people have been in the mix for a very long time(and some reports seem to infer they play games more, per capita, then white people). I'd say the console/realistic AAA games wont make a concerted change until there is real money changing purchasing patterns. Until men stop spending the most amount of money on video games, they will be catered to, specially when the large majority of developers are male.

I'd say this idea that there is a huge shift coming to be relatively baseless. I think most games will appeal to a mass audience, and how the happens will vary from game to game and genre to genre.

The white male demographic is the most over-represented (perhaps the only over-represented in America, but I'd need a lot more stats before I'll commit to that); this is why I focused on them.

And I'm sliding way off topic here, so we're getting more in the #GamerGate stuff instead of talking about criticism. The brown-haired straight white male hero is the only one that you can say "stop giving us that" without evoking cries of racism/sexism/homophobia... largely because, well, he is over-represented in terms of population. Not so much in the Free Market, where that's still your gaming bread and butter, but the days where you get an all-white cast in a non-historical is probably at an end. Diversity is simply too big of a money maker to be able to only play to one demographic.

Anyway, point being is the demographic is shrinking. I think everyone senses that it's shrinking. Whether it be emerging demographics which are seizing upon a new marketplace to increase their representation to tradition gamers sensing an erosion of their influence, some of whom resent it. Not so much that they look at the upcoming Borderlands game and say "only one male character out of four... this is bullshit", but they feel like they're being treated as disposable.

Now, obviously, some of these folks are on the Dark Side. They're straight up racists and sexists and homophobic. Hopefully, this is a tiny minority and I'll not throw any of those words at anyone without damn good cause. And a whole lot of people really need to examine the language they're using and NOT throw insults at one another. I cringe every time I hear Feminists tossing around misogyny or patriarchy and I cringe every time I hear the SJW tossed at someone who clearly isn't an extremist. While I'm a Progressive Republican, most of the time I feel like I'm to the right of #GamerGate and all sorts of SJW Capitalized Insults gets thrown at me and it takes a lot of self-control not to call the person a fucking idiot. Buzz words don't mean anything. They just piss people off.

I think there was more of a point here, but I'm kind of trailing off so some sort of a wrap-up fitting with this thread. This is way less of a Us Vs. Them as it is a bunch of people who could very easily be allies on one issue, but opponents on another. I'm a steadfast defender of Free Speech (even that Kane-looking idjit) so I'm going to support the right of any Social Critique to exist and join you against any censor who makes a serious play. I'll happily endorse a need for better Journalistic Ethics, but if you want #GamerGate voices to be heard, then get your best writers and thinkers to become the next generation of Game Journalists, don't expect MovieBob to include your point of view in his opinion pieces. Jim Sterling will continue to go shrieking at any target he thinks deserving of his ire, including many all of us agree with (just not the same ones). We're all criticizing one another and it's okay.

 

[Melaphont]

I dont think the demographic is really shrinking, personally, I think the other demographics have been here for quite a long time I just think you are seeing a over all increase to people playing games(across the board). I think it's all about the game developers still mainly being men, particularly white men, so the content is going to reflect this, on the whole. I think the assassins creeds already proved you dont have to be strictly white, to sell your game, so this infers it has less to do with anything other then the people behind the games fitting the proverbial mold.

Beyond that, there are a plethora of games where you dont have to be the "white guy", so it seems you might be referring to the very specific subset of realistic action games and more specifically in the AAA realm. And if that is your criteria for change, if we use the movie industry as a parallel as what needs to be used to draw money, I dont think the race/sex play a part in what actually sells.