Why are we afraid of criticism?

[QuietlyListening]

Ultimately the aim of criticism is to bring more care and thought into the creation of art. I don't think devs by and large intend to include elements that are racist or sexist. They don't intend to exclude certain groups or reinforce negative stereotypes. However, either through laziness or through innocent ignorance, that happens. If we decide that social criticism is not necessary, then we decide that the medium is vapid, devoid of meaning. We don't even decide that it's not art. We decide that it isn't part of culture at all.

I like fun games. I also like serious games. And sad games. And silly games. And challenging games. And easy games. But no matter the game, I want it to be made as the best possible version of what it can be. So, I criticize. It's a painful process, but if no one speaks up, no one changes.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

What's that? Move it to politics? These are pieces as presented by conservative think tanks? They are.

It's a twitter conversation and a clip from an old debate that's being hosted by someone who doesn't seem to own it. You're reaching...


"Dude, if you want your right-wing think tank links considered and commented on, just move them to the OTHER FORUM ON THIS WEBSITE set aside for that."

See, this is part of my objection here. Are you honestly telling me that "right-wing think tank links" wasn't meant to be at all flippant? If you wanted to reference the links, you need only have said "links" but you felt the need to add some spice. I know language that is designed to be derisive when I see it. It doesn't even represent the content in any accurate or meaningful way... It's just a shit response, mate. Sorry, but it is.

"This isn't the place" might have some merit to it. I don't know. I'd really be more interested to know from a mod whether I overstepped.

Have a nice life.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

See, this is part of my objection here. Are you honestly telling me that "right-wing think tank links" wasn't meant to be at all flippant? If you wanted to reference the links, you need only have said "links" but you felt the need to add some spice.

I'm...not sure why that is spice. One of them self-describes as a neo-conservative Think Tank (hence, right wing), and the other is a website dedicated to "attacking the left". I thought that was pretty much calling a spade a spade. I'm sorry if you find those terms charged, but I didn't choose them.

Have a nice life.

Okay Panda you too.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

See, this is part of my objection here. Are you honestly telling me that "right-wing think tank links" wasn't meant to be at all flippant? If you wanted to reference the links, you need only have said "links" but you felt the need to add some spice.

I'm...not sure why that is spice. One of them self-describes as a neo-conservative Think Tank (hence, right wing), and the other is a website dedicated to "attacking the left". I thought that was pretty much calling a spade a spade. I'm sorry if you find those terms charged, but I didn't choose them.

Have a nice life.

Okay Panda you too.

Are you serious? I mean... Are you actually serious? The spice is that it was a passive aggressive jab, and you know it. There were a million less inflammatory ways to communicate that my post was inappropriate for the subforum it was in, and you chose none of them for a reason.

For the last time. It's a twitter conversation where the instigating comment is from a Jezebel writer (hardly right-leaning) who is trying to say someone has an extreme position, but only outs her own relatively extreme position in the process. CHS is involved to the extent that she was being attacked, that's it...

The other is a clip from an old debate that is only being hosted by a youtube channel owned by a right-leaning organisation. They could host a My-Little-Pony clip, it wouldn't make My-Little-Pony right-wing. I have to assume that you misunderstand on purpose at this point.

The links you're making are bogus, and frankly... Slimy.

And with that, I am done with you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The links you're making are bogus, and frankly... Slimy.

And with that, I am done with you.

Geez. And just one post ago you were wishing me a nice life, and now look at this.

I'm sorry you think I'm being "slimy" Panda, although for a guy who is apparently very sensitive to perceived "inflammatory" language it's unfortunate you've resorted to slinging insults.

Sommers had already been posted about in gaming chat, and it was relocated to Religion and Politics (and you referenced her twice). The clip you referred to is entitled "Thomas Sowell Dismantles Feminism", hosted by a website that by its own description is dedicated to "attacking the left". If you don't see that as potentially inflammatory, then there is small wonder we don't see eye to eye on this, and that your presumption is that I'm...I have no idea. Aside from being "slimy" you haven't really made it clear what it is you thought I was trying to do.

 

[Lightknight]

Do you have a point to make here or are we just going to ***** about whether I was being sarcastic vs pejorative when I've already stated that my intention was exactly as you thought? Is there something additional that you want from me? Do I need ten hyperbolic lashes and five hyperbolic hail Mary's to proceed or do you think maybe we can just leave it at me not thinking very much of her argument and believing that she likely spent six figures on vacations with money that people who actually trusted her premise gave her with the understanding that she was going to give it a decent effort for what should have been a good cause?

No that's fine, I made it pretty clear to what degree I think hyperbole of that nature helps the discourse. If you don't give a shit about the quality of the discourse, than naturally you're going to shrug and say "so?".

Because the reasons that she gave are outright lies that could have been figured out by anyone with a dictionary, there are only so many conclusions to come to.

1. She is an idiot who thought the grammatical definition of object was the same as the separate word objectification.
2. She purposefully misled the viewers to either sound like she had a case or just for whatever reason she could gain from making up imaginary things.
3. The trope makes her unhappy and she couldn't find an adequate reason to explain why that's bad so she grasped for reasons as hard as she could.

In my esteem, number three is the least slanderous so I don't see what you're complaint is. Oh no, I was mean to Anita. Someone who will never see anything I ever say, ever, because I am trivial in the matter.

Sure, where porn is the most extreme example then its permissibility is relevant to lesser extremes regarding the same theme. People can complain about it all they want, what they can't do is prove that it is somehow unethical or even necessarily a bad portrayal of women.

So this demands proof, then? As in measurable proof? What metric would you use to determine that? Do we apply the same demand for objective proof in other areas of media criticism? If I called a film's cinematography pedestrian, would you demand "proof"?

Actually, what I said is that they can't provide proof. They are unable to because it comes from a subjective moral position rather than one of the generally accepted socially and/or mandated moral positions. For example, murder being bad is a socially and legally mandated. Liking skimpily clad women is not and depicting them isn't either.

So again, if someone has a problem with too much skin, it is prudishness. Mere subjective opinion which is fully appropriate but does not necessitate change.

Now, what this would constitute is that there is a demand for female characters that are portrayed less seductively. If the demand is sufficient in size in relation to the rest of the consumer market that would be unhappy without those elements to constitute altering the game, then by all means do that. I just don't think it should be an automatic just because some people are prudish about it. Like I said, I'm not unhappy that romance novels have a steel chested stud muffin of a man with a flowing mane roaming a field of flowers on his steed. That doesn't make me mad or want to demand that the covers be changed to look more like a fat guy in front of a monitor so I'll feel more at home when I look at the covers in my next book store trip.

Thanks tips. I'll ask again...show me where someone said "You're bad for enjoying this". Or shall I assume this is another case of whimsical hyperbole and leave it be?

Again, if something is "bad", the indication is that it's wrong to enjoy or produce it.

Do you actually disagree with this concept? Are there examples where you can generally see exceptions to that rule? Do you believe that saying an object is sexist is not equivalent to saying that the object should not be made sexist and should not be consumed because it is bad? That if you enjoy it then you're enjoying a sexist object and are ergo being bad by enjoying something that is bad or insulting?

The rambling bit about objectification wherein you state women are universally physically weaker than men? That one? That's the argument you want me to address? Seems like a sloppy generalization to me.

That's cute, but I didn't say universally. I made a generality. I said that one gender suffers from a power disparity. That women are a physically weaker gender.

I did not say that all women are weaker than all men and you know that full well. But an average woman is naturally as much as 50% weaker in upper body than her male counterpart and is as much as 30% weaker in lower body than her male counterpart. This is fact. Not sexism. Women also bear children. That's also fact and not sexism.

We're simply a sexually dimorphic species which generally has genetic specialization and males got the physical strength component.

Honestly, this is why we have the problem we do with things like rape and kidnapping of females and children. Anytime that humans have a power disparity over other humans we see abuse of said power. Sure, some women are trained fighters and can kick the holy hell out of the average guy. But to pretend like that's anywhere close to the norm is silly and every bit as sexist as it would be racist to assume that all Chinese people know karate just because Mr. Miyagi did in the Karate Kid.

You don't owe me explanations because I'm not a moderator and I'm not your mother.

Well, I wouldn't owe a moderator or my mother an explanation either. It's not breaking a rule or any of my mother's business.

I have a particular viewpoint on this whole furor, and it's the most moderate position I can bring myself to assume. And that position is that people need to settle the fuck down and talk to the individual human beings on either side of the debate, learn their position, and at least try to come to a friendly understanding if not an agreement. Hyperbolic slings and arrows do nothing to accomplish that, and attitude polarization has poisoned the discourse.

But hey, I like using hyperbole for comic effect too, especially when I don't like something, so it's not like I don't know where you're coming from.

I'd say the biggest complaint I have with Anita is that she makes feminists look bad. She shows up as the face of feminism in gaming and then spews absolute horseshit like it's fact when a high-schooler with a dictionary could prove her wrong. I really wish any other woman had won that ambassador award. Not someone who lies to her constituents and pretends like she's been gaming all her life when she herself said she didn't before the kickstarter (aka, when her making a profit depended on her being a gamer). Go ahead and give this a watch if you didn't the first time. It's 50 seconds. I apologize for it being Sargon if you don't like him but this is an incredibly succinct account of it in her words.

<youtube=FW-69xXD734>

I think feminist gamers who want a legitimate shot at getting catered to need an honest and up front icon to lead their cause. I do think there are legitimate female gamers and a viable market there. I do think they as consumers deserve to be heard. My wife loves COD and was quite happy when Ghosts showed up with female skins. I want them to get what they want as long as it doesn't cost me anything on my end. What do I care if someone gets to play as a warrior with two bumps in the breastplate as long as I don't have to? Why would I care if some dude gets to bump uglies with another dude in game as long as I don't have to?

But Anita, I have a problem with her because of how she has gone about this. I think I'd have had a significantly smaller problem if she hadn't lied about being a gamer all her life only after it suited her to say it. I would have had a problem with the glaring flaws in her argument but at least I wouldn't generally think of her as an SJW as in someone who doesn't really believe in the cause and is using it for personal gain. Feminists? I'll back them up all day long. But this? This is something else. I think she tricked people into giving her money for a cause she was in no way prepared to take up. And that's a shame. Shame on her for that. I really hope a prominent female gamer comes out of this. I also hope that through this project that Anita has become a fan of gaming.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Because the reasons that she gave are outright lies that could have been figured out by anyone with a dictionary, there are only so many conclusions to come to.

1. She is an idiot who thought the grammatical definition of object was the same as the separate word objectification.

I think part of the issue here is there are a lot of words of this stripe, most particularly the seemingly ubiquitous applied "sexism", that carry a number of both formal and colloquial meanings. I think it was Total Biscuit the other day who put out a plea for specific definitions for words. I'm not sure he was referring to this debate in particular, but there is significant obfuscation of understanding that occurs when two people are looking at the same word very differently. For what's it's worth, I've also used "objectification" in terms that raised ire.

Actually, what I said is that they can't provide proof. They are unable to because it comes from a subjective moral position rather than one of the generally accepted socially and/or mandated moral positions.

As it is a form of media criticism, I'd say it's entirely subjective, yes. It's not like lives are at stake, we're discussing the merit of pieces of entertainment software. "Subjective" is somewhat damning (you've proven nothing!) but also a shield (you can't prove me wrong!). Yet all I ever hear about is how people have "debunked" her subjective opinions on a subject.

So again, if someone has a problem with too much skin, it is prudishness. Mere subjective opinion which is fully appropriate but does not necessitate change.

Eh, I disagree. I can occasionally think X or Y is too revealing or tawdry, but I am in no sense a prude. You're going to have to take my word for that, I'm not about to share credentials on the subject but...I am most certainly not a prude. Just because I like something doesn't mean I like it in all situations, without reserve. There's a time and a place. Obviously, again, subjective, but criticism of this nature is inherently subjective. "Prude" is a value judgment. Specifically...

a person who is easily shocked or offended by things that do not shock or offend other people

Seems like reasons for objection could be multifaceted, and not always boil down to "prudishness".

That doesn't make me mad or want to demand that the covers be changed to look more like a fat guy in front of a monitor so I'll feel more at home when I look at the covers in my next book store trip.

Heh.

Again, if something is "bad", the indication is that it's wrong to enjoy or produce it.

I disagree completely. "Bad", for one, is a subjective judgment. What's bad for me might be wonderful for someone else. There's also a far leap between "bad" and "must no longer exist".

Do you actually disagree with this concept?

Yes.

Are there examples where you can generally see exceptions to that rule?

Pretty much everything I've ever called bad? Celine Dion is bad. Has every right to exist. Michael Bay is bad. Has every right to exist. Braveheart is TERRIBLE but actually kind of a guilty pleasure. Kraft Dinner is bad but I enjoy it anyway. So much is bad. Bad =/= must be smote from the earth.

Do you believe that saying an object is sexist is not equivalent to saying that the object should not be made sexist and should not be consumed because it is bad? That if you enjoy it then you're enjoying a sexist object and are ergo being bad by enjoying something that is bad or insulting?

Not at all. I thought the Witcher 1 was rampantly (if unintentionally) sexist, and still purchased, played and enjoyed it. There is plenty of music, plenty of films, plenty of books, etc, etc, etc, that could be argued to be sexist, but that doesn't make it BAD. Nothing is ever just one thing. Something would need to be disgustingly, overtly, ragingly sexist and offensive before I'd start leveling value judgments at the people enjoying it. And even then I'd want to know WHY they enjoyed it first. Some people just enjoy shocking things because they like being shocked.

That's cute, but I didn't say universally. I made a generality.

You did, which I criticized. I'm a pedant, I know.

We're simply a sexually dimorphic species which generally has genetic specialization and males got the physical strength component.

That's fine, I don't disagree with any of this. I still don't think it necessitates that it bleeds into our fantasy fiction. We were none of us born with super powers or magic or ESP or Jessica Alba's physique, either. Doesn't stop us from thinking about it in our creative flights of fancy.

...it would be racist to assume that all Chinese people know karate just because Mr. Miyagi did in the Karate Kid.

You racist monster! Mr. Miyagi was JAPANESE. =P

I'd say the biggest complaint I have with Anita is that she makes feminists look bad.

I have to disagree. When Anita Sarkeesian screws up, she makes Anita Sarkeesian look bad. "Feminists" is way too broad a term for one person to figurehead the movement and for that movement to be reflected in everything she does or says. And for the record, I feel the same way about "Gamers".

I think feminist gamers who want a legitimate shot at getting catered to need an honest and up front icon to lead their cause.

I consider MYSELF a "feminist gamer", insomuch as I am both a feminist and a gamer. I could just as easily call myself a "tall gamer" for all the two things have to do with one another, but there it is. And I feel reasonably well represented. As I continually tell my girlfriend when she gets angry about some boy's club event in game space, things have gotten DRAMATICALLY better over the last decade, and I expect that to continue. Yeah there's a lot of really seedy, ugly bullshit getting a light shone on it, but that's internet drama. The games? The games are improving.

What do I care if someone gets to play as a warrior with two bumps in the breastplate

Apparently those bumps are functionally ridiculous and would actually crack the sternum of the person wearing it the first time they got hit or fell down, and possibly kill them in the process. I'm used to Boob Armor too but it is kind of funny when you think about it.

I also hope that through this project that Anita has become a fan of gaming.

I think it's probably pretty likely she hates it now even if she didn't before. =\

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Go ahead and give this a watch if you didn't the first time. It's 50 seconds. I apologize for it being Sargon if you don't like him but this is an incredibly succinct account of it in her words.

Oh right, forgot this.

Yeah I've seen this before. As I said WAAAAY back at the time, there's a number of possibilities.

1. Anita was using imprecise language in one or both situations.
2. Anita was pandering to one or both audiences.
3. Anita did not consider herself a fan at one point and did at another.
4. Anita was lying.

Any of those are realistic possibilities. Without knowing her, I cannot even BEGIN to speculate about which is the reality. I could pretend I knew, but I would be projecting.

 

[Erttheking]

How is that not true? I've seen tons of critics saying 'stop doing X, stop doing Y'. X and Y might be things people enjoy.

If that's your standard, why are you not raging at Yahtzee?

At this point, you've basically cast the net so widely I wonder why SJWs even appear on your map.

Oh criticizing them is raging, by your book? Man you just have like a million different ways of dismissing people you don't like. Still waiting for you to show my track record for not having good discourse or whatever.

And you seriously don't see the difference between a request and a demand? Between "I don't like this" and "this is misogynist" or "this causes sexism" or whatever.

I've yet to see Yahtzee demand an end to fighting games or games he doesn't like.

Please pull up any source or article where a feminist demanded an end to anything. If you do, I'll join you in condemning it.

 

[Lightknight]

How is that not true? I've seen tons of critics saying 'stop doing X, stop doing Y'. X and Y might be things people enjoy.

If that's your standard, why are you not raging at Yahtzee?

At this point, you've basically cast the net so widely I wonder why SJWs even appear on your map.

Oh criticizing them is raging, by your book? Man you just have like a million different ways of dismissing people you don't like. Still waiting for you to show my track record for not having good discourse or whatever.

And you seriously don't see the difference between a request and a demand? Between "I don't like this" and "this is misogynist" or "this causes sexism" or whatever.

I've yet to see Yahtzee demand an end to fighting games or games he doesn't like.

Please pull up any source or article where a feminist demanded an end to anything. If you do, I'll join you in condemning it.

By Anita calling damseling females pernicious and harmful to society (she claims it makes us more sexist), she is saying that it needs to stop. She is to sexism as Jack Thompson is to violence where video games are concerned. The difference is that people are backing her up whereas they mocked and flamed Jack.

Anita will occasionally source people at the end of her videos. One such example would be the "The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships: Womens? narratives of love and violence by Julia T. Wood"

Seriously, when you start to say that video games are harmful to the REAL world you are making an argument for damage control rather than merely commenting on how you don't like one form of art and would prefer it take a different form.

I completely understand women wanting games that cater more to them. I am completely against them saying that our games are somehow harmful because they aren't what they want. I will fight against Anita on this point the same way I fought against Jack Thompson when he claimed that my COD's and GTA's were making me into a violent murderer.

 

[Lightknight]

Go ahead and give this a watch if you didn't the first time. It's 50 seconds. I apologize for it being Sargon if you don't like him but this is an incredibly succinct account of it in her words.

Oh right, forgot this.

Yeah I've seen this before. As I said WAAAAY back at the time, there's a number of possibilities.

1. Anita was using imprecise language in one or both situations.
2. Anita was pandering to one or both audiences.
3. Anita did not consider herself a fan at one point and did at another.
4. Anita was lying.

Any of those are realistic possibilities. Without knowing her, I cannot even BEGIN to speculate about which is the reality. I could pretend I knew, but I would be projecting.

Actually, when receiving the ambassador award she said she'd been a fan of games all her life and then showed a picture of herself playing a super Nintendo as a child as apparent evidence that she'd continued doing so the whole time. So all of these numbers except for 1 is lying. As for #1, the language was pretty damn precise the first time in that class video. "I'm not a fan of video games" followed by reasons why she doesn't like them it.

Look, if I admit fully that this lie does not impact her argument's validity in any way, shape, or form, can you admit that this is almost certainly her lying for personal gain? I mean, that's the easiest and most plausible explanation any way you look at it. In fact, I'd say due to the nature of her saying what she is and then explaining WHY she's not a fan that she was absolutely caught lying, smoking gun. There is clear motive for her to pretend like she's always been a fan of gaming. Like she's an expert on them. The only reason I can think that people would defend this statement is if they fear that it makes the rest of her argument invalid. But it just calls her character into question. It doesn't make her points that are true somehow false. It does make me suspect that the mistakes she made were on purpose to deceive. But the mistakes being made aren't false because she's a liar, they're false because they're wrong.

Because the reasons that she gave are outright lies that could have been figured out by anyone with a dictionary, there are only so many conclusions to come to.

1. She is an idiot who thought the grammatical definition of object was the same as the separate word objectification.

I think part of the issue here is there are a lot of words of this stripe, most particularly the seemingly ubiquitous applied "sexism", that carry a number of both formal and colloquial meanings. I think it was Total Biscuit the other day who put out a plea for specific definitions for words. I'm not sure he was referring to this debate in particular, but there is significant obfuscation of understanding that occurs when two people are looking at the same word very differently. For what's it's worth, I've also used "objectification" in terms that raised ire.

Eh, semantics are fun.

As it is a form of media criticism, I'd say it's entirely subjective, yes. It's not like lives are at stake, we're discussing the merit of pieces of entertainment software. "Subjective" is somewhat damning (you've proven nothing!) but also a shield (you can't prove me wrong!). Yet all I ever hear about is how people have "debunked" her subjective opinions on a subject.

Actually, I've haven't said anything about her opinion being wrong. I have only addressed her facts and explained why her facts are wrong. The only reason why you're responding to me now is because I've pointed out that her only remaining arguments are subjective. That doesn't require proof and can't be disproven anymore than it can be proven. So we agree that it's silly to try to "debunk" opinions. But this, again, is why I used the term "sad" in that way. Because her objective elements are outright lies or huge mistakes, then the only thing left in my opinion is her feelings. Her opinions.

Eh, I disagree. I can occasionally think X or Y is too revealing or tawdry, but I am in no sense a prude. You're going to have to take my word for that, I'm not about to share credentials on the subject but...I am most certainly not a prude. Just because I like something doesn't mean I like it in all situations, without reserve. There's a time and a place. Obviously, again, subjective, but criticism of this nature is inherently subjective. "Prude" is a value judgment. Specifically...

You can be a prude or not be a prude. Your degree of prudishness does not change the discussion. The core point is that it comes down to individual opinion rather than anything that is actually mandatory or imperative. I get that romance novels exploit men. I'm ok with that, I'm just not going to read them because of that but they aren't bad for existing. They have a viable market and have every right to exist. Games with sexy women are every bit as valid as all the movies with sexy women. We don't generally demand that Megan Fox cover up yet somehow we think it's ok to be upset with games doing that? Kind of a double standard. Do we demand people like Angelina Jolie or Scarlett Johansen be less sexy? Nope. Yet they were specifically cast in that role and everything from spraying oil on their bodies for "sexy sweat" to their costumes were every bit as planned and designed as a fake character with 1's and 0's.

Seems like reasons for objection could be multifaceted, and not always boil down to "prudishness".

Sure. There can be other things. But it all ultimately comes down to complaining about companies serving actual and real demands of other customers that conflict with their own demands. They want less sexy characters? Ok. We want sexy characters and are in larger numbers. Why do we lose? Why should horror movies be less scary to appeal to the non-horror fans who like movies? Why should romance movies have more action in them to appeal to action fans?

It's simply not supposed to work that way and Anita's desires are no less valid than ours but we ARE still the larger number. We don't occasionally give a republican a win in blue states just because they are smaller and we believe in equality. No, we believe in everyone counting as 1. 1 vote, 1 consumer, 1 whatever. Not more, not less. In the FPS and AAA games there is a tremendous gender disparity. In 2010 we knew it was only around of 18% of the total PS3/360 console owners that were female because 80% of all females that owned consoles owned the Wii as their primary whereas males had a much more equal distribution across consoles. That 18% is even with me assuming that women owned consoles at a similar rate as males and that was me accepting the ESA survey that year which was almost as inflated in favor of females as today's. So that

That doesn't make me mad or want to demand that the covers be changed to look more like a fat guy in front of a monitor so I'll feel more at home when I look at the covers in my next book store trip.

Heh.

Interestingly enough, I think that men are also sexualized in games. There's just a significant difference in how society views attractiveness in males vs females. Females have easily exaggeratable traits like breasts, legs, butt, hips and eyes. Men have muscles and face but extreme muscles typically aren't attractive and a lack of muscles aren't either. So the exaggeration usually takes place in how chisled and toned they are. Then the face is either ruggedly handsome or boyishly handsome.

We do have the occasional bulk-muscle guy. But for as much as people argue that isn't attractive I'm going to have to call the subjective taste card on them for two reasons.

1. I am quite muscular. I've done the whole gym thing, I have lifted four digits in weight on the leg press, etc. Some women absolutely dig muscles. My wife included. That being said, I personally would prefer to be toned rather than bulked, but genetics have quite firmly made it so that I'll only ever be more on the Kratos side of thing than Nathan Drake.

2. Again, I've seen romance novels. Fabio isn't toned. Sully from "Dr. Quinn Medicine Women" wasn't toned. Those people are full-on bulked and were absolutely sex icons. I know if I were gay I'd totally be into some Fabio hugging. Mmm... that long flowing mane.... tee hee.

I'm of the opinion that if males had more exaggerate-able features that were desirable then they'd be just as exaggerated in games as a woman's breast is. For example, let's say we were giant crab people and males had a larger right-claw. I would fully anticipate games with a massive right-claw to indicate sexual desirability.

But as is, it is not appropriate to depict a giant swinging dick in games that aren't adult so we're left with muscles (includes toned ass) and face (kissable lips, dreamy eyes, etc) as the only things that are left. This is a product of society's preferences, not developers. We see similar trends in movies and TV (and, like I said, Books).

So I get that women's sexualization is more overt, but I disagree that games don't have generally attractive characters on both sides. I also think men have a lot more leeway on attractiveness with toughness also being a desirable trait (again, my apologies to women who don't dig that but it turns out that beauty is wholly subjective and your (royal you) tastes aren't universal. I do take offense to women who insist that certain body types are universally ugly when we see clear examples that they aren't perceived that way). Honestly, I want my avatars handsome. Women generally want their avatars to be attractive too. Same way we like our movies. Same reason some women will actually undergo surgical procedures to look more attractive in their eyes.

I disagree completely. "Bad", for one, is a subjective judgment. What's bad for me might be wonderful for someone else. There's also a far leap between "bad" and "must no longer exist".

No, she makes the argument that these tropes are harmful to society. Not just "bad" as in an opinion. But something that actively reinforces stereotypes and makes people more sexist against women.

Pretty much everything I've ever called bad? Celine Dion is bad. Has every right to exist. Michael Bay is bad. Has every right to exist. Braveheart is TERRIBLE but actually kind of a guilty pleasure. Kraft Dinner is bad but I enjoy it anyway. So much is bad. Bad =/= must be smote from the earth.

Sure, bad as in something that does not conform to my tastes. But bad as in something that is evil or harmful?

Aren't you the one that was playing semantics police just moments ago? Is there any particular reason why you assumed the "bad" I was talking about was on the subjective side when Anita's argument has pretty consistently been on the 'pernicious' nature of these tropes?

That's cute, but I didn't say universally. I made a generality.

You did, which I criticized. I'm a pedant, I know.

No, I didn't. I at no point said that all women are weaker than men. I said that a characteristic of the female gender is that it is significantly weaker than the male counterpart. How you extrapolated that this meant all females are weaker than all males is on you, not me. If you're going to be a pedant, at least be right.

I have to disagree. When Anita Sarkeesian screws up, she makes Anita Sarkeesian look bad.

Sure, to you or me. If you're anything like me then you like to view individuals on their own merits and the facts are separate. But to gamers in general? To people in general? Anyone who is the "face" of a cause can impact that cause's credibility. Catholic Priests molesting children? That looks bad on the Catholic Church because they are its face. It's simply what happens.

I consider MYSELF a "feminist gamer", insomuch as I am both a feminist and a gamer. I could just as easily call myself a "tall gamer" for all the two things have to do with one another, but there it is. And I feel reasonably well represented. As I continually tell my girlfriend when she gets angry about some boy's club event in game space, things have gotten DRAMATICALLY better over the last decade, and I expect that to continue. Yeah there's a lot of really seedy, ugly bullshit getting a light shone on it, but that's internet drama. The games? The games are improving.

I'd say that games are "improving" roughly at the same rate that the consumer demographics are changing.

Apparently those bumps are functionally ridiculous and would actually crack the sternum of the person wearing it the first time they got hit or fell down, and possibly kill them in the process. I'm used to Boob Armor too but it is kind of funny when you think about it.

I found surprising that those actually did exist even for males.

I also hope that through this project that Anita has become a fan of gaming.

I think it's probably pretty likely she hates it now even if she didn't before. =\

Well, since most of her videos of games were directly stolen from other people's let's play videos then maybe she hasn't given them a chance yet either?

Oh, missed this I guess

In what way do you propose? If you were going to shake up the damsel trope, how would you do it in a new way?

There's lots of ways.

1. Direct subversion. A woman is rescuing a man. Kind of boring though, and painfully on the nose.
2. Indirect subversion. Turns out she didn't need rescuing, or it was a trap and she was behind it, or there was never a girl in the first place and the hero is hallucinating, etc, etc.
3. Don't put a human in the role of a MacGuffin in the first place. Give your humans motives, agendas, personalities, etc, etc.

All been done before, multiple times. I thought you were talking about doing things in a new way?

Have you considered that we want to save people and subverting it takes away an actual desire we have?

And you're right. Criticizing overuse of something is a valid criticism. However, Anita isn't just doing that. In fact, she says it's fine to do it to men when discussing spleunky (some game with cave diving in which you can swap out the damsel).

Because of #1. It's a direct subversion. I think it's a bit boring and on point though.

Either it's objectification or it isn't. Is she saying that it's ok to objectify men?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Look, if I admit fully that this lie does not impact her argument's validity in any way, shape, or form, can you admit that this is almost certainly her lying for personal gain? I mean, that's the easiest and most plausible explanation any way you look at it.

Given the number of times I've heard someone use sloppy, imprecise language, or present one way one day and another way on another day, no...I cannot "admit" that it is "almost a certainty" that she is lying. It's plausible. People lie all the time.

The only reason I can think that people would defend this statement is if they fear that it makes the rest of her argument invalid.

No, I fear projecting and leaping to conclusions about the internal mental state and motivations of someone I don't know. What I would say is "She's said contradictory things about her enthusiasm for gaming at various points in time" and ask her for clarification. Has anyone ever done that? What was her reply? If she continued to be evasive on the subject, the likelihood that prevarication was involved would rise, but never be completely confirmed, because someone's enthusiasm for a hobby isn't something you can measure.

Eh, semantics are fun.

The number of people I've heard hand-wave semantics whenever their use of language causes them to be misunderstood on an issue confounds me.

Sure. There can be other things. But it all ultimately comes down to complaining about companies serving actual and real demands of other customers that conflict with their own demands. They want less sexy characters? Ok. We want sexy characters and are in larger numbers. Why do we lose? Why should horror movies be less scary to appeal to the non-horror fans who like movies? Why should romance movies have more action in them to appeal to action fans?

This isn't a great analogy. "Horror" is rather central to a horror movie, and removing it would be akin to removing "shooting" from shooters. What game type do we have where hugely sexualized female characters is central to the genre? Sex games? I would join you in arguing that removing the sex from sex games would defeat the purpose. As for toning it down in other games, I'd say it's the exact same kind of criticism we make all the time. As gamers, we're always asking for more of X or less of Y, and no one bats an eye.

It's simply not supposed to work that way and Anita's desires are no less valid than ours but we ARE still the larger number.

Who is the "we" here? I'm a guy, and as far as "sexy girls in games" go I don't feel that my tastes are being particularly well catered to.

We don't occasionally give a republican a win in blue states just because they are smaller and we believe in equality. No, we believe in everyone counting as 1. 1 vote, 1 consumer, 1 whatever. Not more, not less.

You say this as if the electoral college didn't exist.

In the FPS and AAA games there is a tremendous gender disparity. In 2010 we knew it was only around of 18% of the total PS3/360 console owners that were female because 80% of all females that owned consoles owned the Wii as their primary whereas males had a much more equal distribution across consoles.

The obvious argument is that if you have a genre or industry that panders heavily to a certain demographic, that demographic will be disproportionately represented. The rebuttal to that is "Game makers are chasing the money, they're just making games for the people their research says will buy them". If that's the case, and that's how the industry operates, why are we remotely concerned about anyone lobbying the industry? They're clearly just identifying themselves as a new market.

Interestingly enough, I think that men are also sexualized in games. There's just a significant difference in how society views attractiveness in males vs females. Females have easily exaggeratable traits like breasts, legs, butt, hips and eyes. Men have muscles and face but extreme muscles typically aren't attractive and a lack of muscles aren't either. So the exaggeration usually takes place in how chisled and toned they are. Then the face is either ruggedly handsome or boyishly handsome.

I'm generally in the "men are primarily idealized, not sexualized" camp. I'm familiar with the arguments. I know there are women who like muscles, I know there are women who like rugged, generic brunettes. I'd never claim video game protagonists are not primarily attractive. But attractive =/= sexualized. Jade is an attractive female who has many of the qualities we consider conventionally "sexy", but no one has ever accused her of being "sexualized".

No, she makes the argument that these tropes are harmful to society. Not just "bad" as in an opinion. But something that actively reinforces stereotypes and makes people more sexist against women.

I think you CAN make the argument that sexist tropes are harmful to society. I also think said sexist tropes can and do appear in games. I also think those games can be good in spite of them, and worth playing. As I said, nothing is ever just one thing.

Aren't you the one that was playing semantics police just moments ago? Is there any particular reason why you assumed the "bad" I was talking about was on the subjective side when Anita's argument has pretty consistently been on the 'pernicious' nature of these tropes?

Because "bad" is a fundamentally subjective term. Unless you've developed a metric that measures "badness". In which case I salute you.

I said that a characteristic of the female gender is that it is significantly weaker than the male counterpart. How you extrapolated that this meant all females are weaker than all males is on you, not me. If you're going to be a pedant, at least be right.

I went back and checked. You used somewhat generalized language, but it was more carefully chosen than I'd recalled. So I retract my criticism.

Sure, to you or me. If you're anything like me then you like to view individuals on their own merits and the facts are separate.

Should this not be business as usual? I don't think we should view it as a highly individualized trait to judge people as individuals. Prejudice shouldn't be an assumed quality.

I'd say that games are "improving" roughly at the same rate that the consumer demographics are changing.

I think as it gains validity as an art form, it'll attract more talent. Same thing happened with television post Sopranos. Gaming just needs its watershed equivalent, if it can't be said to have already had it.

All been done before, multiple times. I thought you were talking about doing things in a new way?

Didn't we just have a discussion about the fact that "it's all been done before"? If you want me to come up with an idea that has never been seen in fiction before you're rather setting me up to fail, aren't you?

Have you considered that we want to save people and subverting it takes away an actual desire we have?

Of course we do. We have a desire for a lot of things, such as the aforementioned Monomyth. Doesn't mean it can't get boring to trip over it every fucking time.

Either it's objectification or it isn't. Is she saying that it's ok to objectify men?

As a man, I haven't spent my life viewing my gender as sexualized or objectified in media, so it's not something I've developed a sensitivity to. Gamers, for example, or "nerds" are used to being marginalized or made fun of, so they tend to be sensitive to perceived criticisms, such as "neckbeards" or "man children". If I were to call a bunch of well celebrated athletes "man children" I suspect it would be water off a duck's back.

So no, I don't think it's entirely black and white. Neither do I think rescuing a woman in a video game is automatically objectification of women, either, I just think you can make an argument that it is without being completely outrageous.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

i wonder how this can be considered art, let alone one of the greatest films in american history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

i guess that kind of contradicts your argument doesnt it?

Out of curiosity, what argument did he make that you feel this "contradicts"? Unless it was your intention to evoke Godwin's Law, I honestly have no idea what referencing Birth of a Nation has to do with media criticism.

that intolerant messages can reduce the quality of a piece of art

im not agaisnt criticism, im simply arguing that criticism that isnt aimed at improving the subject as a piece of art, is not valid in my opinion, it just shows what appeals or doesnt appeal to you

What improves or does not improve the subject as a piece of art is subjective. In other words, it is "what appeals or doesn't appeal to you".

not entirely, a realistic painting with terrible body proportions, a sculpture with too many fissures or errors, a movie with bad actors, a game with awful controls

some things make a piece of art worse, and message is not that

the one thing ive condemned time and time again here is, harassment, insulting and public shaming

If someone conveys their criticism like an asshole, by attacking or demeaning the creator, it means that person is behaving like an asshole. It doesn't invalidate the criticism. You address the way they present their criticism, you don't deny their ability to make it.

I mean, we have stuff like this: http://www.angelfire.com/nc/grungefairy/satan.html

...and I'm quite sure we all just find it faintly amusing, including the subject of the piece. If you're going to present works and put them in a public space for public consumption, you're going to face criticism. Sometimes that criticism will be rude, sometimes it will be accusatory. The creator needs to decide for themselves which criticisms to take to heart, and which to disregard.

well i dont consider that valid criticism, they are just the taste of the people consuming the piece of work, which doesnt mean the artist cant consider that for his/her next work

so yes, im not saying you cant express your opinion, im not even saying it should always be ignored, but i dont think it makes a piece of art overall better

And I'm not championing being a prick in personal discourse, either. Show me a game with sexist overtones, and I'll say "That game has sexist overtones". Show me someone saying "THIS GAME IS SEXIST AND THAT MEANS THE PERSON WHO MADE IT IS A SEXIST" and I will tell that person they are leaping to unfounded conclusions.

This isn't hard, really.

well, while to me things that are considered "sexist" are just all over the place and beyond subjective nowadays, i appreciate that just because you consider a piece of art sexist you dont consider the creator a sexist, thats a mistake some people in this thread have made

i think we are saying more or less the exact same thing

 

[Lightknight]

Look, if I admit fully that this lie does not impact her argument's validity in any way, shape, or form, can you admit that this is almost certainly her lying for personal gain? I mean, that's the easiest and most plausible explanation any way you look at it.

Given the number of times I've heard someone use sloppy, imprecise language, or present one way one day and another way on another day, no...I cannot "admit" that it is "almost a certainty" that she is lying. It's plausible. People lie all the time.

Then perhaps you can explain in what way her language could be imprecise? She said that she's not a fan of video games and then went on to explain why she doesn't like them.

By all means, please elaborate for me how your vague "imprecise language" bit could be the case here.

The number of people I've heard hand-wave semantics whenever their use of language causes them to be misunderstood on an issue confounds me.

If you call people out on semantics then you're going to see a lot of people hand-wave semantics. I said what I said and meant what I meant. When you spoke out about it I thought that you can take it or leave it but get your hands off my word choice. It was purposeful. Still is.

This isn't a great analogy. "Horror" is rather central to a horror movie, and removing it would be akin to removing "shooting" from shooters. What game type do we have where hugely sexualized female characters is central to the genre? Sex games? I would join you in arguing that removing the sex from sex games would defeat the purpose. As for toning it down in other games, I'd say it's the exact same kind of criticism we make all the time. As gamers, we're always asking for more of X or less of Y, and no one bats an eye.

I'd say that many of these games are specifically aimed at males. Ergo, sexy females is an element of it. Not as central as horror in general, but let's say it's lessening jump scares in a horror movie because it makes you feel icky when the response is that the movie wasn't made just for you and some people like jump scares.

Who is the "we" here? I'm a guy, and as far as "sexy girls in games" go I don't feel that my tastes are being particularly well catered to.

And yet you buy those games that aren't catering to you?

In business, we vote with dollars. There is a corresponding increase in profit when sex is involved. Because, you may remember, sex sells. This won't become false no matter how loudly people scream about it.

We don't occasionally give a republican a win in blue states just because they are smaller and we believe in equality. No, we believe in everyone counting as 1. 1 vote, 1 consumer, 1 whatever. Not more, not less.

You say this as if the electoral college didn't exist.

Oh ho ho! I like you. Didn't think I would from the start of this conversation but sure enough, you're fun to talk with. The electoral college, giant middle finger to the proletariat from the founding fathers.

In the FPS and AAA games there is a tremendous gender disparity. In 2010 we knew it was only around of 18% of the total PS3/360 console owners that were female because 80% of all females that owned consoles owned the Wii as their primary whereas males had a much more equal distribution across consoles.

The obvious argument is that if you have a genre or industry that panders heavily to a certain demographic, that demographic will be disproportionately represented. The rebuttal to that is "Game makers are chasing the money, they're just making games for the people their research says will buy them". If that's the case, and that's how the industry operates, why are we remotely concerned about anyone lobbying the industry? They're clearly just identifying themselves as a new market.

Actually, we see distinct gender preferences amongst all other forms of media like movies, TV and literature that follows similar lines as gaming.

Catering to women as a group may not take the form of better representation in FPS games. It may take the form of casual games or figuring out how to make games that specifically meet women's needs in a way that is reasonable in gaming as a medium. So, in film women usually go for drama and romance while actively disliking action films. Maybe we need to start seeing games that lean more on drama and romance then? The problem is that gaming lends itself really well to action games but has a lot of difficulty with just telling romance or drama stories with little or no action.

I thought it was pretty interesting when that developmeer mentioned the ability to skip the action should be made available the same way skipping cut scenes is. I thought that was a great idea, why not? It was pretty weird to see the response to her.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women don't like FPS games. My wife and I play COD all the time, or Destiny as of late. But that's not typical if studies are to be trusted. That may change, but that change isn't apparent in other industries either so we've got to ask ourselves why we assume that gaming is going to show a drastic difference from other mediums. Especially when the numbers show otherwise.

I'm generally in the "men are primarily idealized, not sexualized" camp. I'm familiar with the arguments. I know there are women who like muscles, I know there are women who like rugged, generic brunettes. I'd never claim video game protagonists are not primarily attractive. But attractive =/= sexualized. Jade is an attractive female who has many of the qualities we consider conventionally "sexy", but no one has ever accused her of being "sexualized".

That's fair. But I'd say this is a difference in how culture treats the two. Women don't generally look at men the same way that men look at women. When describing attractive ass-sets (tee-hee) that women prefer we do get the ol' toned ass and such but the real focus is generally on the face. Men are all over the body parts. I'd actually be fascinated to find out of gay men also focus on male attributes or if their preferences differ from the standard? Never considered that before.

So I'd say the sexualization is proportionate to societies. We do have the boy-faced, bar-chested types and all other sorts. Everything short of a bulging trouser snake I'd say.

I think you CAN make the argument that sexist tropes are harmful to society. I also think said sexist tropes can and do appear in games. I also think those games can be good in spite of them, and worth playing. As I said, nothing is ever just one thing.

In what way are they harmful to society? Keep in mind that your response may be something that can be interchangeable Jack Thompson's claim that games make us violent.

I think she drifts off into unfounded data territory here and that many people perpetuate it as a problem but without data.

What's more is that saying females are typically weaker than males is a known fact. It isn't sexist if it's true. Testosterone is a hell of a steroid.

I went back and checked. You used somewhat generalized language, but it was more carefully chosen than I'd recalled. So I retract my criticism.

Holy crap in a candy store. I owe you a beer.

I'll admit it. I misjudged you.

Should this not be business as usual? I don't think we should view it as a highly individualized trait to judge people as individuals. Prejudice shouldn't be an assumed quality.

Idealist!

I think as it gains validity as an art form, it'll attract more talent. Same thing happened with television post Sopranos. Gaming just needs its watershed equivalent, if it can't be said to have already had it.

I do think it's already happened. I'm not sure what it was or if it is only one thing. The 7th generation of consoles was absolutely crazy with a huge expansion of the whole market particularly with the Wii. Smart phones in our pockets may also be to blame.

As I said though, just because things get better won't mean that genders are magically going to start liking various game genres equally when they haven't done so in any other media.

Didn't we just have a discussion about the fact that "it's all been done before"? If you want me to come up with an idea that has never been seen in fiction before you're rather setting me up to fail, aren't you?

I am, yes. And demanding that game writers do it is no less unfair. Here's a sad truth, the more you've seen and enjoyed, the less of a chance you will ever run into a new theme. You may have already reached maximum capacity.

We're just going to see the same themes mixed around in an epic shell game but the truth will always be that if we take a careful look at it, all those plot mechanisms are likely thousands of years old or older.

Of course we do. We have a desire for a lot of things, such as the aforementioned Monomyth. Doesn't mean it can't get boring to trip over it every fucking time.

But we don't. We have a shit-ton of games from all kinds of genres. The Damsel in distress one is just the most common. The issue comes down to there being even fewer forms of motivation than there are generes/themes. Greed/lust, love, power/fame, religion, revenge, fun, charity (the desire to do something good like helping someone with no chance of return) and malice (the desire to do something bad like graffiti or murder a village).

The problem is that some of those things don't translate easily into games. It's hard to make a player care about money or religion and several other things (power, charity, fun, malice) can't easily stand by themselves as a plot mechanic but can exist as a game mechanic. As an interesting aside, casual games can rely on game mechanics and disregard plot mechanics.

But the one easy thing is to give us a person to care about. Even if we don't know anything specifically about them we can project qualities of people we would care about for motivation. Some games start out with our family getting wiped out, ok, we can understand that and it plays extremely well into games.

Also, modern games often use multiple motivations at the same time. Uncharted has the damsel, greed, fame, power and other motivations all in one. So we see a lot of damseling as a side quest and not THE motivation, you know?

As a man, I haven't spent my life viewing my gender as sexualized or objectified in media, so it's not something I've developed a sensitivity to. Gamers, for example, or "nerds" are used to being marginalized or made fun of, so they tend to be sensitive to perceived criticisms, such as "neckbeards" or "man children". If I were to call a bunch of well celebrated athletes "man children" I suspect it would be water off a duck's back.

You mean water off a duck's back that was from the splashing you make as the athletes drown you in a nearby river? An insult is an insult. So I disagree. Call them a sissy while you're at it and see how many hits you get on the youtube video of you getting hit.

So no, I don't think it's entirely black and white. Neither do I think rescuing a woman in a video game is automatically objectification of women, either, I just think you can make an argument that it is without being completely outrageous.

Either objectification is bad, or it isn't.

I don't think rescuing anyone is objectification. As stated, that was a bullshit false definition on Anita's part. Frankly, I'm not sure that you can objectify a fictional character as they are not people and do not have a dignity that you can respect or disrespect. At least in a movie the actors are real people who are having to act out what the writers write, so you can argue that the actresses are being objectified while portraying a character that is objectified. But an assembly of 1's and 0's? That's like complaining that someone objectified the ball when their response only needs be, "But it's an object... so?"

What do you think, can non-persons be objectified? Do you believe playing these games have made you think of women as inferior or objects?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

whats stopping me from saying all your posts have the underlying message that im 100% right then?

Well you'd have to show on what you based this little tidbit on. Go on, give it a try.

it doesnt matter, i can make up any insanely stupid explanation, i dont need your explicit approval, the idea doesnt even have to be inside your head, according to your logic, if i perceive someone said something between the lines, they did

as i showed you there is no such thing an unintentional comunication, there are MISUNDERSTANDING, but comunication is by definition a deliberate act

So what would me, due to a lack of skill in public speaking, shifting my weight looking down a lot and stuttering be considered for you? I'd consider it as me unintentionally communicating my lack of skill in public speaking to everyone, because I know damn well that I'm not trying to look like an awkward idiot during a presentation.

thats like saying a crumbling bridge is communicating its lack of structural integrity, despite the fact your know, its not sentient

there are things you can notice, they are not the same things you communicate

and i think thats the only type of comunication because thats the definition, that isnt even up to debate

That's one definition that you found and that you're holding up as the one true definition and that any other definition is wrong forever and ever. Forgive me for not just deciding that I'm going to change my vocabulary because you are obstinate in your use of a word you don't understand.

all of your definition come from the principle that a message is a deliberate act of communication, that start with an idea or intent, there is no such thing as non-delibera communication

Being able to criticize things you don't like without having a bunch of people run up and tell me how I'm forcing someone to censor themselves sounds pretty free to me though.

the problem is not you critizing, (which this isnt btw) the problem is you slandering people, that leads to self-censorship

Just decided that you're not going to answer for your previous lies or... what?

yes im going to ignore that because it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, but if you want my official answer here it is

"i made a mistake, you arent rallying for the rights of fictional beings, you are just insulting everyone that mistreads or misrepresents fictional beings"

It's not very difficult to call someone a sexist without personally knowing them. After all, if they not only depict women as sex objects first and competent fighters second, but get pissy when you tell them not to I feel pretty secure in my criticism. And, since any accusation of sexism from me will likely come with a reasoning behind it, I consider it criticism of their work or actions.

"you dont have to know people personally to comment on their political views"

great

btw i wonder, is Mari Shimazaki a sexist? the designer of the sexualized character bayonetta, that would be quite hilarious considering she is a woman

but hey, like you said, i dont need to know someone to draw conclusions on their political views, they dont need to think about something to communicate, basically, i can draw my own conclusions about anybody without even caring who they are and what they think, they could very well be feminist advocates, you know, like Joss Whedons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57tXyqPCOCM

I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd be insulted if I told them their art was shit too.

sure but you dont get alienated by being told your art is shit

By itself, it's an insult. With context like a reasoning as to why it's being used I'd consider it criticism. If they consider it insulting and shaming than I guess I advocate insulting and shaming them. Again, since it's fun to use, grow a thicker skin.

"grow a thicker skin"

and new personal relationships, and new job opportunities as well, because you know, those kind of accusations do get you fired

I'm confused how saying that depicting all women in your work as weak and helpless makes your game kind of sexist is me saying sexism is a zero sum equation. My understanding of zero sum game is that if one person in the game gains, another loses so I'm not seeing how it applies here. I mean, I guess people who want all women depicted as weak and helpless lose, but, quite honestly, fuck those people.

like a zero sum equation, you are arguing that if there are no strong women characters in a game, it cant possibly be non-sexist, regardless of context (because aparently context only matters when you want)

If they consider criticism of their sexist creations slander and shaming, no, I probably can't.

its not just the creation, you are calling the creators sexists as well

Oh, I'm sorry, did they not get a massive amount of attention from accusing Zoe Quinn of wronging them? Did they not then get a massive amount of support from people wanting to spite Zoe Quinn and give GamerGate a PR boost?

accussing them? dont you mean proving so?, or is it zoe the only person that can speak entirely out of their butt and not be questioned?

and its not like they didnt bring up proof with them, and zoe's tweets of the event PROVE she knew what she was doing and she didnt care when she DDOS'd em

you remind me of this guy

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/828/859/843.png

also spitefunding the fine young capitalists is bad, but spitefunding zoe quinn and anita is good? i mean i dont see you complaining about one of them riding a wave of hate towards greelight approval and the other riding a wave of hate towards kickstarter success

When did I ever say they couldn't?

when you said insulting and slandering the people who make games you dont want is ok

Yep, I'm advocating intolerance of sexism and am criticizing (read: evil slanderous censorship shaming insults) those who create sexist content. I am a bringer of horrible injustice upon the world.

yes you are, you admited the person creating the work of art doesnt have to believe in sexist, you dont even have to know em to accuse em of being sexist

No because that's a rather insurmountable wall of data collecting. That said, why the hell should I care what someone else wants? I want this. If some minority wants it too that's great and I'll support them. If they don't, good for them; they can wallow in the status quo of sameness like they have been.

"You're acting like there's some reason men don't want diversity..."

"...an environment that's not exactly friendly and inviting to that gender."

yes you care about what everyone else thinks, until you dont

also you are drawing conclusions without any data to back it up

In the instance of Divinity did the majority rise up and say that they not only wanted dumb stripper armor, but that they wouldn't buy the game if it wasn't included? Since they didn't, that left the minority's opinion known and their patronage at risk, whereas the majority was, as it always is, secured. Since changing the armor garnered the minority's support and lost seemingly none of the majority, they lost nothing. They didn't listen to the minority over the majority, because the majority didn't speak.

or maybe they didnt know what was actually happening, that is the compromising of the artist's vision

Except none of the definitions actually say that. None of them say "intent is necessary for something to be considered a message or communication." If you don't believe me, prove me wrong. Find something that says a message or communication cannot exist without intent behind it.

that wikipedia article

Well, like I said there's a difference between a realistic depiction and a video game being unrealistic. You can not like a realistic portrait all you want, but you can't really consider it a bad portrait if it depicts the person rather well.

but you can consider a video game bad if it doesnt protray the message you want?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Then perhaps you can explain in what way her language could be imprecise? She said that she's not a fan of video games and then went on to explain why she doesn't like them.

I can think of numerous times in my life where I've said "I don't care for X" or "I don't like X" or even "I hate X", only to turn around and like it as quickly as a few months later. Melted Cheese leaps most immediately to mind as something I have at various times in my life both loathed and adored. People speak off the cuff. People will affect certain personas in front of certain audiences, sometimes without even realizing it, in order to appeal more to them.

I can tell you what I THINK. I think she has gamed, but probably not very much. I think when she said "I'm not a gamer" in that video, she meant it...she didn't consider herself a gamer and probably didn't have a very positive attitude towards them based on the research she was doing and the conclusions she was aiming to reach. When later she said "I've been a gamer all my life" she was probably reflecting on how she'd been around games since the time she was a kid, and probably touched them here and there, and thought "Huh, yeah, I've been around games and played games. I'm a gamer!". People like to think of themselves as correct and justified in their opinions. We can tell ourselves a lot of stories about how right we are, and completely believe them.

Or, she could've been willfully lying, in an attempt to dupe people into believing an elaborate ruse.

I honestly have NO IDEA though. This is all just me playing armchair psychologist. If I like Anita, I'm going to default to assuming she's honest. If I dislike her, I'm going to default to assuming she's a liar. I'd really rather make NO assumptions.

...get your hands off my word choice.

Spoiler

...leaped immediately to mind.

I'd say that many of these games are specifically aimed at males. Ergo, sexy females is an element of it. Not as central as horror in general, but let's say it's lessening jump scares in a horror movie because it makes you feel icky when the response is that the movie wasn't made just for you and some people like jump scares.

I still don't think removing "jump scares" from a scary movie is a good analogy. A much better analogy would be to remove "sexy girls" from a scary movie. After all, "sexy girls" in scary movies is kind of a tradition of the genre, isn't it? So, what happens when we take them out? Have we violated the core of the scary movie? Is it less of a scary movie without sexy girls in it?

And yet you buy those games that aren't catering to you?

I buy games for a variety of reasons. I have never bought a game because of a perceived "sexiness" quotient, and I have never NOT bought a game for that reason, either. However, I am most certainly not the target for the standard issue titillation that most frequently gets criticized. I find it lamentably juvenile. I'm not even sure it would've appealed to teenage me.

There is a corresponding increase in profit when sex is involved. Because, you may remember, sex sells. This won't become false no matter how loudly people scream about it.

Yes, that's an old marketing maxim, but I'd like to see actual figures on that. Off hand, if I'm looking at some of the top selling games of all time, there aren't a lot of sex-heavy titles in the list, unless you count ERP in World of Warcraft or woo-hoo in The Sims, and no one has ever accused The Sims of being sexist (to my knowledge...never say never I guess).

Oh ho ho! I like you. Didn't think I would from the start of this conversation but sure enough, you're fun to talk with. The electoral college, giant middle finger to the proletariat from the founding fathers.

I'm not even American. I'm Canadian, where we voted to overturn proportional representation because too many people didn't understand what it meant, and voted "no".

Actually, we see distinct gender preferences amongst all other forms of media like movies, TV and literature that follows similar lines as gaming.

I've never seen anyone argue that film, or television, or novels pander to a single gender the way we generally acknowledge that video games pander to men. We consider our medium on par or at least competitive with those others as entertainment. Why is ours so mono-gender? Is there something fundamental to gaming that only men can enjoy? It seems evident to me that there's plenty of room for the industry to grow.

Catering to women as a group may not take the form of better representation in FPS games. It may take the form of casual games or figuring out how to make games that specifically meet women's needs in a way that is reasonable in gaming as a medium. So, in film women usually go for drama and romance while actively disliking action films. Maybe we need to start seeing games that lean more on drama and romance then? The problem is that gaming lends itself really well to action games but has a lot of difficulty with just telling romance or drama stories with little or no action.

I'd love to see that, but just a little catering to women can actually make them pretty happy. My girlfriend is more or less delighted to just have a female protagonist option. Like a great many men who simply cannot fathom playing as the opposite sex in a video game, she'll hesitate before playing a Brodudes Only game, and thus it greatly limits her options. I prefer a female protagonist too, it's just not a show stopper for me. Clearly there are going to be limitations...no one sane is going to ask for a female Nameless One or testicular Lara Croft, but where the option exists it seems rather short sighted not to take advantage.

I thought it was pretty interesting when that developmeer mentioned the ability to skip the action should be made available the same way skipping cut scenes is. I thought that was a great idea, why not? It was pretty weird to see the response to her.

That was Hepler, one of Bioware's writers. I believe she actually went on to make a game that was pretty much exactly like that, but I cannot remember the name of it offhand.

Notably, even though that was an ENTIRELY non-controversial thing to say, and story heavy/game play light games like The Walking Dead would go on to earn huge acclaim, she was met by an OCEAN of hatred for that.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women don't like FPS games. My wife and I play COD all the time, or Destiny as of late. But that's not typical if studies are to be trusted. That may change, but that change isn't apparent in other industries either so we've got to ask ourselves why we assume that gaming is going to show a drastic difference from other mediums. Especially when the numbers show otherwise.

My girlfriend doesn't mind a shooter, but she dislikes the CoD series reflexively, believing it to be a Boys Only club full of machismo and Very Serious War Faces. She liked the Bioshocks, and she enjoyed playing Borderlands with me. Even though she kept insisting on driving and couldn't drive a lick. Her favorites are the Bioware games, Bethesda RPGs, and the Saints Row series.

In what way are they harmful to society? Keep in mind that your response may be something that can be interchangeable Jack Thompson's claim that games make us violent.

Let's imagine a black man in, I dunno, 1930's America. Let's imagine he's reading books and watching shows. And in all those books and shows, he sees Black Men as slaves, and servants, and criminals. That's the cultural narrative he absorbs. "This is what you are, these are the things you can be".

Now let's imagine a girl today. She buys magazines, she watches television, she plays video games. Perpetually, her gender is HEAVILY sexualized, and viewed as prizes for men or objects of lust. You can internalize that. Guys can internalize it too. It can effect how they see the opposite sex.

Now, Jack Thompson was arguing that if I watch a lot of violent movies or play a lot of violent games, I'm going to go and fucking kill someone, because FUCK YEAH VIOLENCE. And I think that was a pretty stupid argument to make. If Jack Thompson had instead chosen to make the argument that constant exposure to portrayals of violence could potentially normalize violence as a concept and blunt its impact on us, that would be one thing. Turning a peaceful person into a violent loving maniac? Significantly bigger leap.

There's also the problem where portrayals of violence and the reality of violence are pretty different. I don't know how much violence you've been exposed to, but there's a SHOCKING difference between shooting at demons in Doom and, I dunno, being in the area when a mass shooting breaks out, or having someone mug you, or just being involved in violence in any capacity. Whereas someone can pretty easily carry a slightly warped concept of sex and human relationships out of gaming or media or porn into relationships, and it could lead to issues.

NONE of this is to say that if person A plays sexist game that person A is now sexist. People are responsible for thinking critically about the things they consume, and you don't get to blame media for your shitty behavior. But neither do I think the idea that media can help shape or guide societal attitudes is completely out of left field. I think it behooves creators to think about what they're doing, and what kind of message they want to send. Maybe they REALLY WANT to keep their T&A and what not intact, and if so, so be it. But there's nothing wrong with reflection, either.

I'll admit it. I misjudged you.

I refuse to believe I ever came across as anything other than charming and delightful.

I do think it's already happened. I'm not sure what it was or if it is only one thing. The 7th generation of consoles was absolutely crazy with a huge expansion of the whole market particularly with the Wii. Smart phones in our pockets may also be to blame.

It very well might have. I know that prior to Sopranos, being on television was seen as a catastrophic artistic failure. David Chase would actually go out of his way to try and GET HIS OWN SERIES cancelled because he viewed his career as a television writer as an embarrassment, and thought he deserved to be in film. Now, we have people like Soderbergh or Kevin Spacey actually CHOOSING television as a medium. It's a valid artistic choice for A list talent.

I am, yes. And demanding that game writers do it is no less unfair. Here's a sad truth, the more you've seen and enjoyed, the less of a chance you will ever run into a new theme. You may have already reached maximum capacity.

We're just going to see the same themes mixed around in an epic shell game but the truth will always be that if we take a careful look at it, all those plot mechanisms are likely thousands of years old or older.

All I'd like to see is diversity in the medium. I like fantasy novels, but I don't want every single one of them to involve the same epic journey. I loved World of Warcraft, I'm tired of other games aping it. The Wire was the best show in the history of television, but I don't need other cop shows trying to be The Wire and failing. It's a creative medium. People should be creative. There's way too much me-tooism and aping of popular concepts in gaming, much as there is in film. I don't care how many boots up the ass the industry takes, or from how many sources. It's merited.

But we don't. We have a shit-ton of games from all kinds of genres. The Damsel in distress one is just the most common. The issue comes down to there being even fewer forms of motivation than there are generes/themes. Greed/lust, love, power/fame, religion, revenge, fun, charity (the desire to do something good like helping someone with no chance of return) and malice (the desire to do something bad like graffiti or murder a village).

Look at a game like Stanley Parable. Isn't even much of a game, but can you name another one like it? Or Portal. Or To The Moon.

Now look at Dragon Age. Can you name another game with a story like that? I bet you could name FIFTY.

Also, modern games often use multiple motivations at the same time. Uncharted has the damsel, greed, fame, power and other motivations all in one. So we see a lot of damseling as a side quest and not THE motivation, you know?

Alas, I have never played Uncharted. I even own a PS3 now, but I've only used it to play The Last of Us, which I yelled at a lot, and NHL hockey, which I am obligated to own and play because Canada.

You mean water off a duck's back that was from the splashing you make as the athletes drown you in a nearby river? An insult is an insult. So I disagree. Call them a sissy while you're at it and see how many hits you get on the youtube video of you getting hit.

I mean it wouldn't affect them at ALL, emotionally, because that's not their emotional sore spot. Everyone has a weak spot. Everyone has areas that are sensitive to them, but possibly not to someone else. Something you or I laugh off might be devastating to someone else.

I don't think rescuing anyone is objectification. As stated, that was a bullshit false definition on Anita's part. Frankly, I'm not sure that you can objectify a fictional character as they are not people and do not have a dignity that you can respect or disrespect. At least in a movie the actors are real people who are having to act out what the writers write, so you can argue that the actresses are being objectified while portraying a character that is objectified. But an assembly of 1's and 0's? That's like complaining that someone objectified the ball when their response only needs be, "But it's an object... so?"

What do you think, can non-persons be objectified? Do you believe playing these games have made you think of women as inferior or objects?

I'm not sure if it was you I was talking to, but I made the point that in reducing a character to an item to be rescued, you've made them an object, yeah. They're no different than questing after a sword or a magic stone at that point. You've removed agency and volition. So if you're a woman, and you've become accustomed to seeing this as regards your gender, maybe it's extra irritating. As a guy, who is NOT used to seeing that, it doesn't affect me.

I can see why someone might make the argument that a recurring narrative wherein women are prizes to be rescued and then "won" could be viewed as problematic on a level. It wouldn't send me speeding off to ban a bunch of games, but I might say "Yeah I see where you're coming from".

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

are we going to ignore that self-censorship is a thing now? that people are getting publicly shamed and insulted by their artistic choices?

People have been insulted for their artistic choices since people began making artistic choices. If they choose to self-censor in response to criticism the responsibility for that lies entirely with them. It's called having volition.

Honestly whining about feeling "forced" into self-censorship has to be one of the leading candidates for the boo-hoo Olympics in the history of the world, up with the woman who called 911 because Burger King wouldn't prepare her hamburger the way she wanted it. It's called "self" censorship because it was voluntary.

If you're this concerned about the concept, you should cease to criticize those who are criticizing media. What if they felt shamed by your criticism, and self-censored themselves into silence? Oh the vicious cycle you'd have birthed! Oh the humanity!

isnt criticism something simply because its not made the way you wanted it also a candidates for the boo-hoo Olympics?

also i wouldnt really call these arguments art

finally "people get insulted all the time, its ok" then WHY are you complaining about sexism in the first place?

That's really all you think artistic criticism is? Just whining about how the artist didn't make the art the way the critic wanted it? Jeez, it's no wonder you're ticked off....

I guess that point is moot since it sounds like you don't consider games to be art.

i wonder how this can be considered art, let alone one of the greatest films in american history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

i guess that kind of contradicts your argument doesnt it?

im not agaisnt criticism, im simply arguing that criticism that isnt aimed at improving the subject as a piece of art, is not valid in my opinion, it just shows what appeals or doesnt appeal to you

that being said im not agaisnt people expressing what appeals to them either, the one thing ive condemned time and time again here is, harassment, insulting and public shaming

Yeah, it really doesn't contradict my argument. It actually emboldens it. Birth of a Nation was the product of its time. A racist time. It's still considered -- and rightfully so -- a hallmark of cinema. A work of art can be more than one thing, like I said in my first post.

Again, the quote Ta-Nehisi Coates: ""Birth Of A Nation" is a revolutionary film which anyone aspiring to the genre must see. It's also fucking racist."

https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/508350539386851328

And second, to your point about criticism....is that what Sarkeesian, as an example, is doing? Arguing that games can be better, and that developers can improve how women are protrayed? Do you really see that as public shaming and -- gulp -- harassment?!?!

actually birth of a nation was considered racist even for its time, to the point the director had to make an anti-racism film after that one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerance_(film)

the problem i have with anita is that from what ive seen almost all if not all her argument are based on half-truths and even outright lies, she is a slanderer, publicly shaming devs and gamers, accusing those of playing "sexist" games of being more likely to be rape apologists

if their complains were more grounded on reality, you can be sure i wouldnt complain about her

that being said, I DONT SUPPORT ANY OF THE HARASSMENT (if true) SHE HAS RECEIVED

 

[zedcavalry]

[SNIP]

OT: I don't know if you've seen this video, but I think it's a great way to objectively see what her videos actually do. But, it is true that the reaction that she's having to deal with is extreme and absolutely unacceptable.
Click here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI]

Anyway, back onto criticism, it seems that developers tend to act adversely to criticism because of the fact that as humans, we inherently take any judgement of our work personally. I mean, yeas, criticism is the way to making games better and better, but we also need developers willing to listen and say "OK, if this is bad, what can be do to fix it in the future?" If we only have one, then we end up with either overly pessimistic views on games, or just bad games overall.

A perfect example of this is the Day One: Garry's Incident fiasco. Although I don't condone the action they took, I must admit that I sympathized with the basic human trait of defensiveness against criticism. Someone spoke badly of their baby, and they took action to take them down. It wasn't that the developer was being insulted for being horrible people, it was just that the game they released was not up to standard.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

They did, according to you. According to everyone else, you're a person with a thought, which is why you'd have to find something to support it to convince others to agree with you.

all of this defending you do is a desperate attempt at hiding the fact you are wrong, the more you defend yourself, the more you prove i am right

...

theres my absolutely insane explanation, now its beyond clear that message hasnt crossed your mind, but according to you, it doesnt has to cross your mind, i simply have to perceive the message in order to make it real

so just like a person can be sexist, without actually believing in sexism in the slightest, as long as someone thinks hes sexist

you can be wrong as long as theres one person who believes you are wrong

Prove it. Find where, in those definitions, it says "must be deliberate/intentional/whatever." Your so confident in the idea that your singular definition is the only possible one that could ever exist so you should at least be able to show me why.

"an underlying theme or idea" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/message] (funny how you ignored 4 other definitions that prove me right in this page alone, but im the one cherry picking right?)

extain to me how can something have an idea, if this idea is not inside someone's mind, in fact, the definition of idea states

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idea

"1) a thought, plan, or suggestion about what to do

2) an opinion or belief"

so, the artist may not have a sexist opinion/belief, he might not have a sexist thought/plan, but his work can still have a sexist message?

hah, no

"the point, moral, or meaning of a gesture, utterance, novel, motion picture, etc." [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/message] (again you ignored the mayority of definitions that support my argument)

lets look at the meaning of... well meaning

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning?s=t

"what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification;" - how is the author not the one authority that should be able to indicate what the meaning of his work is? what the INTENDED moral is?

"the end, purpose, or significance of something" - again if the artist isnt the one to establish this, who is?

"an implicit meaning or moral, as in a work of art" [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/message] (again ignoring all results to explicitly support whta im saying in order to pick one definition that maybe if you squint kind of resembles what you are saying)

i already spoke about meaning so theres no point in repeating myself

a message requires INTENT or THOUGHT

Slander requires what I say to be false. And for it to be baseless. And for it not to be valid criticism as judged by someone who doesn't think any criticism they don't agree with is invalid.

you accuse people of being sexist without any proof other than your own interpretation of other people's work

your criticism does not make a work of art better or worse, is worthless

Well, now we know you have no qualms about lying, which is always nice to have. And still misrepresenting what I've said. I'm criticizing people who create certain kinds of fictional beings within a certain context.

holy... i said i made a mistake, its not the same thing as lying, now are you making a mistake here or are you lying?

Why would I have to personally know someone to comment upon their speech and actions? If, for an extreme example, I see someone on TV dressed up like a Klansman talking about lynching black people, should I be forbidden from coming to the conclusion that they might be racist? I mean, I don't personally know the guy, but it seems safe to say they're racist.

now has any of these devs talked about lynching women? or been caught discrimination agaisnt REAL women? i think your comparison might be deeply flawed

And I fail to see why being a woman makes someone incapable of being sexist. Women are not infallible. That said, I wouldn't comment on Mari Shimazaki because I am not actually familiar with her or her work in any real way. Haven't played it and know very little about it.

that hasnt stopped you before from drawing conclusions, why start now?

You do if you throw a whiny hissy fit because someone criticized you. And I also doubt everyone is instantaneously ostracized the moment a single person calls them sexist.

of course not, that never happ.. OOPS

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/821/241/794.png

but yeah, spreading false information about somebody is perfectly fine right?

Are those firings based solely off of the accusation? As in all it took for that person to be fired was someone going up to their boss and saying They're sexist"? Maybe they lose job opportunities and friends because people tend to not like having sexist employees and friends.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/815/524/a91.png

receiving false accusations of sexism is a serious issue

TFYC's initially got sabotaged because a certain someone made some stupid claims about them being transphobic

Well you never gave context for when it would seemingly be okay. If you just provide me a hypothetical of "game with only weak women" I'm going to say that yeah it's probably a bit sexist.

i was very clear, MGS3 where boss, arguably the only strong female character in the game, is a man, the only other major female character in the game is EVA, and she is portrayed as weak and sexualized, but its something that is 100% justified within the game

So this proof was available the exact moment people started bandying around the fact that Zoe Quinn did a bunch of horrible things to TFYC? Because I remember awhile back when I was in one of those threads asking for proof, and they provided nothing. I don't honestly care if they got proof after the fact, people pretended it was 100% fact the moment they made the accusation.

haha, ok, let me get this straight, you are either arguing

"the people i asked once about proof about X didnt provide proof about X, therefore X is false"

or

"i didnt get proof of X exactly when i wanted it, therefore X is false"

both horrible argument but just to enlighten you, heres a few tweets zoe posted when she DDOS'd TFYCs

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/817/991/58b.jpg

she was damn well aware of what she was doing

Well I never said it was bad or good to spitefund, I just implied that I didn't want to support something that built its very foundations out of people wanting to spite "SJWs" and get good PR, especially when they don't actually need to money. Funny thing is, I didn't support Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn either.

well anita isnt going to bring any new game to this industry will she? FTYC's will, made by women, isnt that what you want?

I don't see what my criticism of people has to do with their ability to want and buy things. Considering that all these people get the games they want on a massive scale that will likely not disappear for quite a while if at all, I'm not really concerned for their ability to buy the games they want.

calling someone a sexist isnt criticism, understand that once and for all

and something like that is the cause of self-censorship, which can potentially retrict the kind of games we can play

Unintentional sexism doesn't really make it okay. It might make it slightly better that you're not intentionally being an ass, but slightly better is not the same thing as good. And look above to see why I don't have to personally know someone to comment upon them.

so the fact that you misinterpreted someone else's work as sexist is somehow the artist's fault?

So are you saying that men don't want diversity? None of them? At all? Because that was my assertion, one I based off of several people who I believe are men on this website seemingly wanting diversity. And quote mining is never a good way to prove a point, especially when I can go back and actually give the context to show that I never said I cared what everyone else thought.

im saying "you are drawing conclusions without any data to back it up"

i couldnt be any more clear, dont draw conclusions without any data to back it up, you cant speak about men wanting YOUR kind of diversity without any data to back it up

im all for equality and diversity and all that jazz, but i dont want devs to compromise their artistic vision

the moment you show a survey showing most men, or atleast a very significant amount of them want exactly what you want when it comes to diversity, then you can talk about men wanting diversity

You'll notice that women's opinions in this context was only brought up as a possible explanation for their low percentage, not as an influence in my opinion.

well i could draw my own conclusions, and talk about what i perceived when i read your message, but im going to take your word for it, because pretending i know what your message means when the things i say didnt even cross your mind is completely absurd

very well, ill buy your story that you just care about yourself and nobody else, thats fine, im not asking you to think different, im asking you to stop insulting devs calling them sexist and such, because people get fucking alineated for that kind of shit

First off, anyone who wouldn't buy a game if it involved compromising some artist's vision would be limiting themselves to indie games, and that's only if the only compromise they're concerned with is one involving other people and not, for example, having to compromise your artistic vision because you can't afford it or make it work properly. I'd doubt that the majority, if not the rest, of video games involve an artist having to compromise their vision. Bosses tell them to change something. Publishers tell them to change something. Focus groups tell them to change something.

you are AWARE that divinity original sin is an indie game right?

and i repeat, just because artist sometimes have to compromise some of their integrity, it doesnt mean they have to compromise all of their integrity all the time

Possibly.

nice double standards