To this day, I still don't know what gamer gate really is, and the fact that if I google it and the second result is a definition in "know your meme" tells me enough. Its blown out of proportion.
If you believe that gaming companies are making strategic decisions and changing the contents of their games and their original plans based on some angry gamers on Twitter, who they fundamentally disagree with but feel like their hands are tied over, then I suppose we just have to agree to disagree.
I think you have no idea. Of course they do this. Just like H&M did remove their "Coolest Monkey in the Jungle" photo. Social Media has become the most powerful too for censorship. Creating a shitstorm is pretty easy these days when you have a large following it will go very fast as well. And both sides are using these tactics.
I think you have no idea. Of course they do this. Just like H&M did remove their "Coolest Monkey in the Jungle" photo. Social Media has become the most powerful too for censorship. Creating a shitstorm is pretty easy these days when you have a large following it will go very fast as well. And both sides are using these tactics.
The top game on that list is a war game set during the biggest geopolitical event of the last 200 years. That's pretty political to me.
Show me where they're adding token things just to pander to people, you're adding this negative cynical intent to an action when you simply don't know if that's the case.
Andromeda was bad because it was bad. It's political message had nothing to do with all the bugs and horrible writing.
(as a disclaimer, I'm not a fan of overt political correctness and do very much believe in artistic freedom - at the same time, I try to avoid being a dick and it's something I expect of other people too)Writing off everything as “SJW nonsense is a mistake and unfair.
You don't think there's a possibility that the H&M executives (to use your example) listened to the feedback, agreed with it, and decided to stop selling it of their own accord?
I'm not sure you know what censorship really means. Even caving to public pressure against one's own beliefs/wishes wouldn't be censorship. It's the free market at work. You don't like what a company is doing? You're free to take your business elsewhere.
The government is not coming in and forcing H&M to stop selling that shirt.
IT is still censorship if you want it or not,Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
The problem here is that it has become way too easy to start shitstorms on social media which then have lead to a change in a Produkt or the item completely removed from the shelf. When you combine words like sexist and racist its pretty easy to censor these days because Companies do not want to take the image lost even if its not true. Look at nolan Bushnell for example. He had no other choice then the message he has sent otherwise it would have been over for him.Under that umbrella, it would be censorship any time a corporation makes a profit-based decision resulting from politicial or moral sentiment (either popular or from a vocal minority). As in, catering to their customers.
That’s not really the type of “censorship” I’d be concerned with, but maybe it’s the type you were referring to, in which case that part of my response no longer applies. The rest still does, though.
Don't be daft. If you want to go by the setting as a test for a game being political then so is Sim City.
Tho, CoD:WW2 was laughably politicized for silly reasons. Female soldiers in multiplayer. Black Nazis. Then again, this is also a game that includes giant WW2 robots and zombies. Still, their inclusion wasn't overly intrusive so it didn't make too many waves or affect the sales of the game. It is fantasy entertainment.
You don't think there's a possibility that the H&M executives (to use your example) listened to the feedback, agreed with it, and decided to stop selling it of their own accord?
I'm not sure you know what censorship really means. Even caving to public pressure against one's own beliefs/wishes wouldn't be censorship. It's the free market at work. You don't like what a company is doing? You're free to take your business elsewhere.
The government is not coming in and forcing H&M to stop selling that shirt.
Like it is literally some people’s job to be upset about something.
It sure is nice to want things, but there's nothing games should be. Everybody's free to lobby for shit.Games should be whatever gamers (IE the people paying and playing) want it to be.
There is no fucking war.There’s plenty of blame to go around, but I always have to come back to the occurrences of gaming press treating game players like total shit, as if players are leagues beneath them. Then things exploded, and, well— the war rages on, years later.
Truth.I think simply people can't differentiate between trolls and people who have legit opinions and grievances, trolls are an unfortunate constant of the internet and people need to learn to ignore them.
If a developer wants to react to feedback, that's up to them.games are about whatever the creator of the game wants them to be about
any "movement" that cannot accept that is trash
if a developer wants to censor their game, that's up to them.
if a developer wants to diversify its cast, that's up to them.
if a developer wants to make a political statement through their game, that's up to them.
if a developer wants to make a violent & sexist game, that's up to them.
That's on you.It's also the way she phrases it. She could've just said "I would really like to see game developers experiment more with non-violent mechanics" and the vast majority of people here would probably agree. I certainly would. But the way she frames this opinion of hers, with surveys of the amount of violent games, putting it in graphs, stating how disappointed she is that there isn't much improvement compared to last year, and then saying game developers are basically lazy to rely on that same old violence, just rubs me the wrong way.
You don't have to part with your money.And it is worth noting, that at the end of the day, developers are indeed working for us "gamers". We are the ones who ultimately have to part with our hard earned money, exchanging it for their product.
Might as well be describing GG there.its a bunch of losers without hobbies waiting to be angry at something, anything over the internet.
They apologized and stopped selling the shirt on day 1. That apology was not accepted, as people called for a boycott and started trashing H&M stores, stating the company is racist. The child model who wore the sweater and his family have since been moved to a secret locations because of threats. The mother didn't think the sweater was racist, and thought the outrage was overblown. I think in the end H&M apologized for the insensitive photo three or four times, and they hired a "diversity leader" who has to make sure their clothes are inclusive.You don't think there's a possibility that the H&M executives (to use your example) listened to the feedback, agreed with it, and decided to stop selling it of their own accord?
Such a dismissive phrase. Would you say the same to gay couples who want legislation of gay marriage?It sure is nice to want things
Some people call it culture war therefore also the definition of social justice WarriorIt sure is nice to want things, but there's nothing games should be. Everybody's free to lobby for shit.
There is no fucking war.
I think there's a clear connection between her keeping score of how many violent games are shown at E3 (a rather specific thing to keep track of) and her statements on what she thinks of violent games. Ms. Sarkeesian's arguments and videos were covered widely by websites and newspapers, she was brought on TV-shows to talk about her work and she was even on Time's 2015 list of 100 most influential people. We're not talking about just some lady posting her opinions on youtube. She was given a platform by journalists who, as already stated in this thread, seem to hate their audience.
I don't want to keep bringing up Ms. Sarkeesian, because this thread's not about her. She's just a well-known example of a feminist critiquing games with very obvious ulterior motives. I guess you don't see that, and there's not much I can do about that. If you're truly interested, you should look her up yourself. I think most people in this thread would agree however, that what she's doing is definitely pushing an agenda. A feminist, social justice agenda that aims for equity.
The problem here is that it has become way too easy to start shitstorms on social media which then have lead to a change in a Produkt or the item completely removed from the shelf. When you combine words like sexist and racist its pretty easy to censor these days because Companies do not want to take the image lost even if its not true. Look at nolan Bushnell for example. He had no other choice then the message he has sent otherwise it would have been over for him.
I think some people still totally misjudge the power social media has today in good and bad things.
Social media is just another outlet for customers to express their feedback and opinions. It’s just a lot louder and larger than what came before it. It’s not the only source of customer sentiment that companies turn to to gather information and research.
There’s nothing wrong with companies changing their minds or adjusting their product based on customer feedback.
What would be bad is if a vocal minority was forcing a company to make a decision that the company truly believed would make sales worse and/or make the game’s a average reviews/reception worse. Have any gaming company devs or execs come out and admitted that?
The reason why Dead or Alive extreme 3 was not sold here was the fear of this kind of backlash therefore they have lost sales in this regard. Other Japanese developers also thought the same and did not bought several titles to the west. So yes this already did happen.
You are free to take your business elsewhere, but not free to ransack and loot their stores because some dipshit on twitter told you to be offended.
The company feared less sales because of these pressure groups and that is exactly want you wanted to hear. How is this still not enough? These are facts if they have lied or not would be in your corner now to show me evidence for it. Why should I not believe these companies who are way often more honest then big AAA studios? If this is not acceptable for you as evidence. I honestly do not know what else to show you.And how many people might’ve boycotted the company’s other releases here if there was that much outrage over the game, resulting in a net loss? How much would the negative PR had cost them?
What-ifs in situations like this don’t tell us much. There are too many variables. I trust the company has a hell of a lot more data and makes smarter decisions about their business than you or I ever could in terms of maximizing their profits.
Correct.
Apples and oranges.Such a dismissive phrase. Would you say the same to gay couples who want legislation of gay marriage?
That's a tricky one. Sarkeesian is of the mind that violence is a characteristically male conflict resolution and feminine ones were non-violent.Also violence in video games has nothing to do with feminism or equality, so I don't know how that pushes any agenda aside from her personal taste.
The company feared less sales because of these pressure groups and that is exactly want you wanted to hear. How is this still not enough? These are facts if they have lied or not would be in your corner now to show me evidence for it. Why should I not believe these companies who are way often more honest then big AAA studios? If this is not acceptable for you as evidence. I honestly do not know what else to show you.
A game that is set during a real-life war, and has you play as characters participating in that war. Yes, that is political. Real-life places and battles are being illustrated here.
Her asking for more games she likes isn't an attack on your games. You're assuming that she wants to cut out the games you like instead of just encouraging more games that she does like. If we subbed out the words "violent" with multiplayer games she'd just be any video game forum poster. Also violence in video games has nothing to do with feminism or equality, so I don't know how that pushes any agenda aside from her personal taste.
Media’s influence is subtle and helps to shape our attitudes, beliefs and values for better and for worse. Media can inspire greatness and challenge the status quo or sadly, more often, it can demoralize and reinforce systems of power and privilege and oppression.
“At least half of the options should be women and, really, it would be great if it was more than half the options were women, and I know some people think I’m completely loony when I say that.”
If you are going to a Call of Duty game for accurate historical commentary on the politics involved in WW2, then you probably are also going to Transformers for ethical discussion on living mechanical alien-human relations....
Nahh, she doesn't have any kind of political agenda she's pushing for in the video game industry. She just doesn't like certain things, calling them gross, problematic, harmful, depressing and troubling, whereas the things she does like can be used to achieve greatness and push forward the medium and society! Just remember to be critical of the more problematic aspects (as she points them out) of the media you love, listen to and believe women, and be aware of the privileges you have as a white male gamer!
We're talking about if it is present, it is clearly present. I don't know how the Transformers quips have anything to do with the matter, but hey, at least they sound cool. Transformers isn't about an "ethical discussion on living mechanical alien-human relations", Call of Duty WW2 is clearly about that war, that is the one and only subject of that game.
You are on a video game board, and suggesting that calling a game without mechanics crap, is shitty thought that warrants being denied respect or the opportunity to be heard. So um, what exactly is the standard for determining when a game should not be criticized over its game play or lack thereof?Diversity of thought does not inherently give value to shitty thought. After all, people are not entitled to be heard or respected for what they say.
Good for her.About that Sarkesian, I truly believe she is a fake and very cunning woman, she does this for the drama and money and fame, She could not care less for the actual problems,
Good for her.
It's nobody's business what her real motives were.
She didn't deserve any of the shit she got, even if all the accusations were true.
Yes, and we all know the Third Reich raised an undead army and launched a last ditch counteroffensive upon the living.
It's set in WW2, but that doesn't make it political. It is entertainment for the lowest common denominator. So is Transformers. That's my point. It's fun, mindless, forgettable popcorn entertainment. It doesn't exist for anything more than that and that is OK>
You are on a video game board, and suggesting that calling a game without mechanics crap, is shitty thought that warrants being denied respect or the opportunity to be heard. So um, what exactly is the standard for determining when a game should not be criticized over its game play or lack thereof?
She is an awful person - a true snake oil salesman. But good for her for being successful at it. But if you peddle snake oil, be prepared for unhappy customers.
"I want my 20 minutes back"?She is an awful person - a true snake oil salesman. But good for her for being successful at it. But if you peddle snake oil, be prepared for unhappy customers.
Yes, and we all know the Third Reich raised an undead army and launched a last ditch counteroffensive upon the living.
It's set in WW2, but that doesn't make it political. It is entertainment for the lowest common denominator. So is Transformers. That's my point. It's fun, mindless, forgettable popcorn entertainment. It doesn't exist for anything more than that and that is OK>
Come on, this game does have a campaign.
I'm not saying it isn't consumed in a shallow way by some people, but when your game is all about depicting war and main characters are sent to concentration camps, it's difficult for me to call it not extremely political just like Battlefield 1 is extremely political.
Battlefield 1 was extremely political?
What does political mean to you? Because Battlefield 1 is pretty much all implicit and explicit political messaging about the nature of war and what it does to people.
Yeah I had a good laugh about that too. Let's all invite Zoe and just have a little Gamergate sit down tea chat.With the amount of SJW bashing that is en vogue now on GAF, Quinn must have had a good laugh at the idea of showing up.
The free market doesn't work with ghetto studios.I actually prefer if all minorities and women formed their own studios and started making games they desire. That's how the free market works.
That is political?
After a quick google search it appears that game took serious flack for being a little too inaccurate historically and disrespectful. Black German soldiers? That's political. Then again, it is a war fought 100 years ago, unless they were going for an accurate historical retelling of events then I don't think it's a big deal. WW1 era Europe is almost as much a fantasy world compared to modern Europe as Middle Earth is.
Band of Brothers wasn't a political show either. It told the story of the horrors of war and how it affects people.
Now if they had taken the Band of Brother's cast and made them all black women fighting on the front lines of WW2, that would have been a political statement, because again, it would be completely out of place for what the setting and tone of the story is.
Indeed, here's a clip of Sargon saying the alt-right is his enemy in a somewhat petty squabble with someone else around 2m20: