Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AdeptSister wrote:
It's also "more women in the industry" means that you are putting the onus on those women to solve those issues, which is not fair. That they have to not only make a great game, but have to solve societies ills is a lot of pressure. Why don't other designers work on going out of their comfort zone? Sure, failures can happen, but hopefully one learns from the experience. If they are open to criticism.

I could point you to several

Tell Tale Games (made the walking dead video game series)
Naughty Dog (Last of Us)
Uri (Who made several horror games)
Yager Development (Made Specs Ops: The Line, approached very dark subject matter)
Ubisoft (With the tomb raider series)


I mean it is changing and it gradually will, but this is because of balanced staffing and less reliance on the publishers. The companies slowly start to become bigger and better.

Much in a similar vein to how pixar slowly became what it is today, or even dreamworks.

They slowly started to add different opinions and viewpoints in and that changed how they made their games.

The more opinions and more points of view on a game. The better the game will be.

And I will bring up Spec Ops: The Line AGAIN.

Because it was multinational. Taking its staff from around the globe. Some americans, middle eastern peeps, europeans, asians, africans, australians. The team was created to make a new view point. And see the world from a universal point of view.

This is the power of multiple points of view. As they constantly begin to grown and become something better.

With the addition of many different view points we will see change in the industry.

If you haven't seen the rapid maturation of games from now and a few years ago. You can see a lot of changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yes I hear having black guys in police stations and paper pushing jobs and the White House has just solved all of the equality problems blacks face in the US. Good thing they got those positions of power so they could just snap their fingers and make all the problems go away eh?

I didn't say they would magically make it better,

But it would be a gradual effect.

It's a painful thing to watch, but it doesn't look like it's just the gamergate side. BOTH sides appear to be screaming about things in sweeping generalizations and absolutes while stamping huge "YOU'RE WRONG AND A BAD PERSON" stamps on each other the moment there is any dissent. They (the feminist/industry/whatever label you want to use for them) even ate their own RE: that one feminist who actually did say that it wasn't a big deal.

I mean, I stopped listening in to the whole thing when it became TMZ for gamers, so I'm not sure I'm currently well informed, but there was rampant silencing of people even tangentially talking about gamergate on a user basis on major social media sites.

Combined all this with the weird and ever-present SJW angle (different than feminists because feminists can be rational) who want to be the Mary Whitehouse/Tipper Gore of the gaming industry and freak out about a vampire sucking the blood of a woman in a video game because she decides that's too much like real life assault, and calls for the company to self-censor the scene.

I've been dwelling on a line of thought that's been slowly forming in my head though. It's generally been regarded that the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, and that people have been progressively getting more tolerant of each other. I'm not sure either of these things are true.

I agree. Completely. Both sides of the debate are quite jaded and hit each other with stones.

THE SJWs have slowly started to become a bigger issue as they think their opinion matters more and that they see more issue with a certain part of a game and judge it because of that.

I mean the last time that happened that was to mass effect 1 where they called it a porn simulator because of 1 2 minute sex scene.

If you judge a game soley on that scene you deserved to be mocked.

But if it is the entire game...... Then thats a different matter.
*cough* propaganda games *cough* Call of Juarez *cough*

I didn't say they would magically make it better,

But it would be a gradual effect.

50 years and not seeing much progress (if any actually).

Still not that simple.

And I haven't even gotten to the issue that "add more women" is basically a cop out for addressing the prejudices of everyone else already in the industry, as if they shouldn't have to work on their own issues but just ignore them and rely on someone else to fix it for them.

 LordofHats wrote:

I didn't say they would magically make it better,

But it would be a gradual effect.

50 years and not seeing much progress (if any actually).

Still not that simple.

And I haven't even gotten to the issue that "add more women" is basically a cop out for addressing the prejudices of everyone else already in the industry, as if they shouldn't have to work on their own issues but just ignore them and rely on someone else to fix it for them.

Ah I see your point.

But adding more opinions to the mix.

And gradual effects does wonders though

Any time someone tries to argue for a gradual change, I think of MLK: "Justice delayed is justice denied." While the issue here is not a "major" as back then, the same logic still applies. It shouldn't be the job of an undeprrivileged minority to adapt to the needs of the overprivileged majority. That, quite frankly, is just plain bullgak.

 Melissia wrote:
Any time someone tries to argue for a gradual change, I think of MLK: "Justice delayed is justice denied." While the issue here is not a "major" as back then, the same logic still applies. It shouldn't be the job of an undeprrivileged minority to adapt to the needs of the overprivileged majority. That, quite frankly, is just plain bullgak.

I think both work.

But I think ignoring the progress is quite a big issue.

Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth and nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.

 LordofHats wrote:
Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.

And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful...

And to say nothing else of the dozens of other examples I've seen, like the stink about how producers exclude women from focus groups from last year...

Can we please drop the use of SJW and MRA? At least for this thread. I don't see how using such terms actually helps discussion.

 Melissia wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.

And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful....

Plus Rockstar happens to invest a fair amount into their own publishing work. Basically, they couldn't get partners to go 'halfsies' on box art.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Can we please drop the use of SJW and MRA? At least for this thread. I don't see how using such terms actually helps discussion.

The problem is that they denote something for which I don't readily have another term for. The things I'm thinking of are really not the things you want to lump in with feminism.

What terms would you rather use?

What progress has there been? I can think of something. When BLTPS was rumored, I didn't believe it because the rumor called for two female player characters, one male and clap trap.. I though no way that is true. AAA gaming would eat it's shoes before allowing the number of female PCs to outnumber the male PCs. It was true though and I'm happy about that.

 daedalus wrote:


What terms would you rather use?

<insert issue> Advocate.

Why do you even need a term?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.

And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful....

Plus Rockstar happens to invest a fair amount into their own publishing work. Basically, they couldn't get partners to go 'halfsies' on box art.

What game are you talking about?

The Walking Dead, I think.

nomotog wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.

And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful....

Plus Rockstar happens to invest a fair amount into their own publishing work. Basically, they couldn't get partners to go 'halfsies' on box art.

What game are you talking about?

The Last of Us.

There was a big stink leading to it's release about how Take 2 didn't want Ellie on the game's Box Art.

 LordofHats wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.

And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful....

Plus Rockstar happens to invest a fair amount into their own publishing work. Basically, they couldn't get partners to go 'halfsies' on box art.

What game are you talking about?

The Last of Us.

There was a big stink leading to it's release about how Take 2 didn't want Ellie on the game's Box Art.

Naughty dog not rock star. Rockstar doesn't really do female characters in their games.

Ah, my mistake then XD

Ah. I just assumed cause that was the one I thought of.

Doesn't "troll" cover both for the behavior you are talking about? I don't know. The terms seem so toxic that there usage seems to cans problems themselves. Right now they are basically used as a slur to attack a group that thinks differently. Both represent minorities, but the terms are used to color a broad stripe of people. Which can shut down dialog.

*Shrug*

 LordofHats wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


What terms would you rather use?

<insert issue> Advocate.

That causes some levels of near tautology, but lets try it:

Myself wrote:
It's a painful thing to watch, but it doesn't look like it's just the gamergate side. BOTH sides appear to be screaming about things in sweeping generalizations and absolutes while stamping huge "YOU'RE WRONG AND A BAD PERSON" stamps on each other the moment there is any dissent. They (the feminist/industry/whatever label you want to use for them) even ate their own RE: that one feminist who actually did say that it wasn't a big deal.

I mean, I stopped listening in to the whole thing when it became TMZ for gamers, so I'm not sure I'm currently well informed, but there was rampant silencing of people even tangentially talking about gamergate on a user basis on major social media sites.

Combine all this with the weird and ever-present uh... sexual abuse advocates who want to be the Mary Whitehouse/Tipper Gore of the gaming industry like the one who freaked out about a vampire sucking the blood of a woman in a video game because she decides that's too much like real life assault, and calls for the company to self-censor the scene.

I've been dwelling on a line of thought that's been slowly forming in my head though. It's generally been regarded that the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, and that people have been progressively getting more tolerant of each other. I'm not sure either of these things are true.

I mean, when you say it like that, it just seems like it's sort of a "Person who spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about X sees X everywhere. News at 11." kind of thing. That's not inherently bad, I suppose, but I don't know if she IS a advocate against sexual abuse, at least beyond the theme of the article.

If you think enough about these issues then ya there is a bit of the see it everywhere thing because it is bloody bloody common.

Refusing to see things because you're afraid you'll start seeing it everywhere is the same as putting blinders on and willfully being ignorant. I mean, "I refuse to notice grass, otherwise I'll be seeing grass everywhere!" is pretty damn silly.

 Melissia wrote:
Why do you even need a term?

Well, thinking about it, the reason why we seem to consolidate ideas and definitions into terms we use during conversation is to prevent needing to preamble a simple thought with a lengthy description of the thing we are trying to actually talk about when the emphasis of what we really want to talk about isn't the inherent nature of the the thing itself, but the behavior of it.

I mean, get rid of "feminist". Now every time you talk about a feminist, you need to talk about "a living sapient being who is for the promotion of the social issues and awareness of the hardships of living sapient beings who are physically of the female reproductive gender and identify as such".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Refusing to see things because you're afraid you'll start seeing it everywhere is the same as putting blinders on and willfully being ignorant.

I'm confused. Are you saying that you see violently and parasitically draining something of blood for your own sustenance as a strong allusion to sexual assault? Because, like, I never said anything about refusing to see anything, and stuff. I just don't see it. I mean, of all the various things the many versions of vampires are classically reputed to do to members of the opposite sex, killing them via exsanguination is probably the last one that shows up in my mind as sexual assault.

I think the issue could be that so much of that sort of debate is based on nuance with individual peoples thoughts being on some multidimensional spectrum matrix thing that can't even be easily pinned down...

Except at the extremes at the ends (with there not even just being 2 ends...)

However, discussing the nuances is just so incredibly difficult, especially when they can be so subtle going down to the personal level that it's far more achievable to point at the extremities and discuss them.

Personally, for example, I'd be happy with a Lost Girl style situation in games. Have the cheesecake - and beefcake - heck, even have it define the character if you want. Just not every character, or most characters and let there be more to them too, pretty please.

Tangent Warning:

 AdeptSister wrote:
That is too much of a stretch. American culture is not basically European. Since its inception, it has diverted enough due to the mixtures of cultures. Americans are considered Western, but act sufficiently different than Europe with different sensibilities (The importance of the gun, Individualism, the belief that "anyone can succeed with hard work").

Do you believe that every European country has the same culture? Yes, there are particularities in the U.S., but there are in every European countries.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Also non-European descendants have had a serious influence of America culture.

Which ones?

 Asherian Command wrote:
But I think those who see games like Skull Girls as sexists because of what the characters wear is just dumb. AS simple research will tell you that the artist who made them was a female.

Wikipedia says:
Alex Ahad
Mariel Kinuko
Cartwright
Richard Suh
I wonder which one is Zone .

 Asherian Command wrote:
And that is real life. And you have to deal with it.'

I thought we were speaking about video games, that are definitely NOT real life.

 Asherian Command wrote:
(As long as they are educated about games and not trying to actively destroy gaming)

Very few people are actively trying to destroy gaming. I mean, apart from that guy the GG movement love to quote that actually believe games turn people into killers, I have no idea who would .

 AdeptSister wrote:
Can we please drop the use of SJW and MRA? At least for this thread. I don't see how using such terms actually helps discussion.

I would gladly drop the use of MRA, but I have not seen anyone using it on the whole thread. Might be wrong, but certainly it is nowhere near the copious amount of SJW we get.

 daedalus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Refusing to see things because you're afraid you'll start seeing it everywhere is the same as putting blinders on and willfully being ignorant.

I'm confused. Are you saying that you see violently and parasitically draining something of blood for your own sustenance as a strong allusion to sexual assault? Because, like, I never said anything about refusing to see anything, and stuff. I just don't see it. I mean, of all the various things the many versions of vampires are classically reputed to do to members of the opposite sex, killing them via exsanguination is probably the last one that shows up in my mind as sexual assault.

Your saying that vampires aren't a metaphor sexual assault? I thought this was kind of a well known thing.

nomotog wrote:

Your saying that vampires aren't a metaphor sexual assault? I thought this was kind of a well known thing.

Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and it's in a game where you want to move it to the next screen to hurt the other characters in there, so that you can move the screen again to do it all over for 7 hours.

If vampires are just a metaphor for sexual assault, why do we glamorize them and plaster them in media everywhere and then the moment we put one in a game someone flips out because it's doing the things that vampires do? The person in question wasn't having an issue with it because vampires are "a metaphor for sexual assault", she had a problem with it because Dracula attacked a family to drink blood to sustain itself, which, if you're going to dissect the elements of a vampire, is like one of least assaulty things it does.

 daedalus wrote:
If vampires are just a metaphor for sexual assault, why do we glamorize them and plaster them in media everywhere and then the moment

Because it's edgy.

Do you dispute that the essence of Alien was a story about male rape? Sure, symbols are malleable, and they don't mean just 1 thing, but there's a reason vampires are so sexualized. Ever since Dracula, there's always been an undercurrent of sexuality in vampires. There's not much ease to find in the relationship between the Count and Mina Harker. Jonathan Harker's imprisonment at the hands of the Brides is itself overtly about sexual assault.

There's other things there too, like the uncertainty of people in the present about the future when faced with the past, and human selfishness, but metaphorical rape is a major theme for vampires in the same way that baser human desires/liberation from civilization are a major theme for werewolves.

we put one in a game someone flips out because it's doing the things that vampires do?

When did this happen?

 daedalus wrote:

nomotog wrote:

Your saying that vampires aren't a metaphor sexual assault? I thought this was kind of a well known thing.

Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and it's in a game where you want to move it to the next screen to hurt the other characters in there, so that you can move the screen again to do it all over for 7 hours.

If vampires are just a metaphor for sexual assault, why do we glamorize them and plaster them in media everywhere and then the moment we put one in a game someone flips out because it's doing the things that vampires do? The person in question wasn't having an issue with it because vampires are "a metaphor for sexual assault", she had a problem with it because Dracula attacked a family to drink blood to sustain itself, which, if you're going to dissect the elements of a vampire, is like one of least assaulty things it does.

Because life would be far too easy if everything was clear and concise. Vampires are very closely related to sex. Some times it's the sexual assult angle, sometimes it's related to the dangers of sex like aids or sexually transmuted disease. In the past, they were even used as a symbol for homosexuality with some rather poor implications attached. Some times they just sexy.

Though I think the example you are referencing is CASTLEVANIA: LORDS OF SHADOW 2. I never played that game myself and I believe the controversy was based off a preview that ended up changing. I don't recall exactly though.