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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
stifling that creativity by bringing outside moralistic agendas in that curtail those ethical decisions can only harm the hobby imo.

Except what the GGers are working against is not a stiffing of creativity, it is about changing what the norm is. There is always going to be creativity, and there is always going to be a norm. Now if we could get the norm at the right place, it would be much better.
Putting a boob-plate or a metal bikini is about as far as one can get from creativity.

And a bunch of homogeneous looking npcs in full plate is creative?
I would think taking away a design aspect is still stifling creativity, no? It may not be favorable, but it is still a tool.

Also, who determines what is the right norm? Wouldn't be more beneficial to not have a norm?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
And a bunch of homogeneous looking npcs in full plate is creative?

We are in a sad place place where, yeah, it is going to make your game stand out as different.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I would think taking away a design aspect is still stifling creativity, no?

No, actually. Imposing on yourself rules to avoid the most common cliche and tropes is a great way to force yourself to be more creative. Because you cannot rely on lazy shortcuts anymore.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Also, who determines what is the right norm?

I do. My will is law. All must submit before me.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wouldn't be more beneficial to not have a norm?

Not only is it not realistic, I also am not sure it would be in any way beneficial. Games (and books or movies, for that matter) benefits from having some specific, unusual aspects, but not also having a common ground for many different games will just make having to decide (for the writers) and learn (for the audience) EVERYTHING about the new setting tedious. There is nothing wrong with sharing some good and efficient parts.

Imposing rules on yourself allows for creativity, but a Caged Bird always remembers the open sky.

Do you mean that many game developers are dreaming of featuring huge-boobed women wearing only high heels, tongs and nipple pasties, but they are unjustly prevented from doing so, and that is why they stick to slightly less boob and slightly more covering outfits, instead of doing different, more interesting, more varied stuff, Slarg? Because that is the only way I see to interpret your comment.

What makes you assume the boobplate is automatically a lazy shortcut? What if there is indeed a thematic element behind it other than "lol, tits?"
To me putting everything in full plate is just as lazy.

There is indeed nothing wrong with sharing aspects. But there is something wrong with saying "no, you can't do that, that won't be successful / won't sell / won't fly well with the public", which is what the norm is.

To me the norm limits creativity, as it makes people afraid to try new things. Better to ignore it and experiment.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Do you mean that many game developers are dreaming of featuring huge-boobed women wearing only high heels, tongs and nipple pasties, but they are unjustly prevented from doing so, and that is why they stick to slightly less boob and slightly more covering outfits, instead of doing different, more interesting, more varied stuff, Slarg? Because that is the only way I see to interpret your comment.

No, he means that it's ok for a developer to put restrictions on himself in order to acquire different results and challenge himself/herself (think playing XCOM without plasma weapons), but restrictions from an outside presence would just hurt him/her.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What makes you assume the boobplate is automatically a lazy shortcut?

Not always, only most of the time. That is why it needs to stop begin the default, and start becoming a rare exception justified by stuff on a few specific characters.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
To me putting everything in full plate is just as lazy.

Maybe, but at least it is honest, good-looking, sensible lazy .

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
No, he means that it's ok for a developer to put restrictions on himself in order to acquire different results and challenge himself/herself (think playing XCOM without plasma weapons)

That is not a relevant example. We are talking about designing characters and settings.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
No, he means that it's ok for a developer to put restrictions on himself in order to acquire different results and challenge himself/herself (think playing XCOM without plasma weapons)

That is not a relevant example. We are talking about designing characters and settings.

It is relevant. It provides a challenge.

This what you typed

No, actually. Imposing on yourself rules to avoid the most common cliche and tropes is a great way to force yourself to be more creative. Because you cannot rely on lazy shortcuts anymore.

Sounds like you want devs to challenge themselves.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is relevant. It provides a challenge.

It is not about creating something. The end result will not be a better story or a better character because there will be no end result. It is as relevant as speaking about someone taking a huge bag while he goes on a trek to increase the challenge.

Still a challenge.
Just bear with me, I'm terrible with analogies.

Just not one that will make the outcome better for other people, because there is no outcome for other peoples .
The aim here is not in the challenge. The aim is in the betterment of the result. The challenge is just a mean to this end.

But what is better? Better for who?
Please define this better in an objective fashion.

Better: something I like more.
See this for reference:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Actually, there is art that appeals to my tastes, and disgusting mediocrity that should have never seen the face of the earth .

But seriously, I have read many times about artists that put constraint on themselves to get an end result they themselves like more.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

But seriously, I have read many times about artists that put constraint on themselves to get an end result they themselves like more.

Ah, now that's a version of better I can get behind.

Some more good articles today.

Also this:

Just another clickbait article by Cracked, someone who actively is a social justice warrior, and what seems to be alot of developers (If those are actually female developers) who have been mislead about gamersgate through the slander of the common media considering some of them seem to actively believe that only gamergate is causing harassment...

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
someone who actively is a social justice warrior

In other words "I get mad at people who talk about social issues, especially ones involving a desire for equal treatment and/or complaining about discrimination".

 Cheesecat wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
someone who actively is a social justice warrior

In other words "I get mad at people who talk about social issues, especially ones involving a desire for equal treatment and/or complaining about discrimination".

Words that never were implied or spoken, and shows one doesn't understand what a Social Justice Warrior is.

A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of.

There is a difference between those who actively fight for Justice for equality.

Talk is cheap, are you actually caring and wanting to be involved in the fight for equality between the sex's, the gender's, and those who need equal treatment? Or are you using it to try in an attempt to raise your "Internet Status". That is the crux of the issue.

Right of reply to the Social Justice Viv article about The Fine Young Capitalists:

http://thefineyoungcapitalists.tumblr.com/post/98422490495/a-response-to-social-justice-viv

Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.

Funny. That's what SJW do. They yell and scream and shut down debate with name calling.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Right of reply to the Social Justice Viv article about The Fine Young Capitalists:

http://thefineyoungcapitalists.tumblr.com/post/98422490495/a-response-to-social-justice-viv

I enjoyed that. Very well written.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.

Funny. That's what SJW do. They yell and scream and shut down debate with name calling.

Not this fething thing again...

Yes, by their original definition, SJWs are bad and don't really contribute meaningfully.

The term is also, however, used far too readily at the moment as a means of going "well you're just an SJW so be quiet" or just to simply dismiss what someone is saying without addressing their argument.

You are both correct.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.

Funny. That's what SJW do. They yell and scream and shut down debate with name calling.

So the appropriate response to posts with little substance is to be just as obnoxious?

Calling someone a SJW isn't even on the same level as yelling and screaming. Name calling yes but not yelling and screaming.

Also, not all debates are worthwhile. As an example of what I mean, I find there's little to no use in 'debating' things with a person who thinks they're right and only posts when they're right. Not only is it a waste of my time, but in general, it just leaves me with a 'bleh' kind of feeling at the end of it. So nope, not going to do it

Supposedly the escapist is putting up an article with more balanced dev representation on the GamerGate topic soon. I look forward to it, though the escapist have at least been largely neutral, the previous article was extremely slanted against GamerGate, whether by intent or just unintentional selection of the "in-crowd" which is so much the problem we're arguing against.

Side note: One great thing about Gamergate for me is it's had me looking into two things: gender equality in general, and the "crazies" on my (left/liberal) side. This discourse however heated and radical it has been has led me to find a number of great speakers on these issues and actually given me a better perspective on what "the right" sees when they look at "the left". We can't ask them to control their crazies if we don't do the same for ours. Promoting speakers like Sommers and Bharaj as what we see as the right way is very important, in contrast to the Sarkeesians, Quinns, Suey Parks and radical feminism in general shutting down discussion or warping it into hate mongering.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.

Funny. That's what SJW do. They yell and scream and shut down debate with name calling.

TotalBiscuit called for us to try to stop using such terms if possible. I can sort of see why - they're short hand to represent a group of people that definitely exist, but others get caught in the crossfire. I'm not sure on the better way to do it other than to keep saying "their side" like that... but it's a complex issue no doubt. Stereotypes exist for a reason, we just need to make sure we don't misuse them perhaps.

Sining wrote:
Calling someone a SJW isn't even on the same level as yelling and screaming. Name calling yes but not yelling and screaming.

Agreed, to suggest so is disingenuous. As is to suggest that a random GG supporter (or anti-gg supporter) going off the handle on twitter is the same as a "journalist" writing a hit piece on gamers, gaming, individuals and so on, or for a known and (previously at least) respected developer to throw those same insults.

The way things are going, if GG supporters were to suddenly come up with a mass number of articles claiming Game Journalists are dead, Kotaku would write an article about how Gamergate is threatening Game Journalists with death threats -_-

 Yonan wrote:
Side note: One great thing about Gamergate for me is it's had me looking into two things: gender equality in general, and the "crazies" on my (left/liberal) side. This discourse however heated and radical it has been has led me to find a number of great speakers on these issues and actually given me a better perspective on what "the right" sees when they look at "the left". We can't ask them to control their crazies if we don't do the same for ours. Promoting speakers like Sommers and Bharaj as what we see as the right way is very important, in contrast to the Sarkeesians, Quinns, Suey Parks and radical feminism in general shutting down discussion or warping it into hate mongering.

If some elements of the right decide to strike while the iron is hot (a la Milo Yiannopoulos) and join this on the side of GamerGate then a lot of gamers might become more right wing out of simple gratitude.

Which I believe would be the opposite of what the GameJournoPros and various other pundits want.

Just a theory.

A theory worth entertaining, but I don't think this is making me more right wing, so much as more aware of flaws in the extreme left wing. And also, more aware of the presence of less extreme right wingers (potentially) which is a good thing. Such things are more evident in the US than in Aus however... our right wing (ironically called Liberals) have rarely been too extreme in social policy, though their extreme fiscal conservatism and current extreme social policy (see sig ; /) are... not ideal.

I guess you could say we're becoming more right wing in that we're shifting further from extreme left as we distance ourselves from them. Still left, just not as far left ; ) Certainly not neutral either. And yeah, that would be the opposite of what the extreme left wants - they don't realize how counter productive their methods are.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
If some elements of the right decide to strike while the iron is hot (a la Milo Yiannopoulos) and join this on the side of GamerGate then a lot of gamers might become more right wing out of simple gratitude.

That would mean that gamers are idiots, and I don't think that gamers are that stupid. If you're choosing your political positions based on who is nicer to your hobby then please just stay home, don't ever vote, and don't participate in political discussions. That kind of attitude is no better than the idiots who vote for someone based on who looks prettier on TV.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Talk is cheap, are you actually caring and wanting to be involved in the fight for equality between the sex's, the gender's, and those who need equal treatment? Or are you using it to try in an attempt to raise your "Internet Status". That is the crux of the issue.

This is a ridiculous question to be asking. Nobody throwing around the "SJW" label has any clue about what the people they're talking about do outside of talking on the internet, or what their motives for choosing a side might be. It's nothing more than an accusation of bad faith made without any justification at all, simply because it's easier to dismiss people as "SJWs" than to address the substance of their arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:
Promoting speakers like Sommers and Bharaj as what we see as the right way is very important, in contrast to the Sarkeesians, Quinns, Suey Parks and radical feminism in general shutting down discussion or warping it into hate mongering.

Sorry, but calling Sarkeesian a "radical feminist" or "extremist" has got to be a joke. She might say things that make you uncomfortable, but all of the issues she's talking about are fairly mainstream ones. And I don't think anyone should be promoting Sommers, no matter what side of the debate they're on. By her own admission she isn't a gamer and has no interest in the subject beyond its usefulness in continuing her "feminists hate men and ruin everything" crusade. She's a useful tool for certain politicians who want to win votes with the "feminist" label while being reassured that everything they're doing is fine and never having to confront any awkward questions, but that's it.

 Peregrine wrote:
If you're choosing your political positions based on who is nicer to your hobby then please just stay home, don't ever vote, and don't participate in political discussions. That kind of attitude is no better than the idiots who vote for someone based on who looks prettier on TV.

Wait, was that a royal "you" or directed at me? Because my political position is based on my worldview (as I'd hope everyone's is) and my votes are decided by policies released leading up to elections

But assuming some gamers wouldn't rebel and re-think their political views over this is very immature. People like being respected, and being shown respect by the 'other side' might lead them to think more generously of the 'other side'.

Also, you might have assumed that I thought my theory was a good outcome. If that's the case, please quote where I said that