Frede

Yeap, I have to comment. I love how a comic strip that might've been able to make a point once throws it away at the last panel by implying that "rape" is a word that women like to blurt out when they lose a discussion. I'm not against using the word or the act for a bit of raunchy black humour, but honestly, this is a crock of shit.
 
Unless it's some sort of clever meta-comment, but I don't buy that. Looking at that comic, I smell fratboy scrotum sweat and not pipe smoke.

Well, we can at least agree that Kim Jong-un is an asshole and that his hairdresser ought to be in one of his internment camps.
 
I'm off to start a "Do you support Israel or Palestine?"-thread with a poll. See you in a bit!

This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.

In that comic strip, shouldn't it be "Lara Croft" and not "Laura"?
 
I hear that "Laura Croft" is the name of a nude model, apparently, according to some, allegedly.
 
I mean I haven't been researching it for the past 45 mins or anything, that's just something
I heard through the grapevine.

Nah, that was just my own hyperbolical way to say that as far as I‘m concerned the thread has run its course. I for one don‘t really have anything else of substance to contribute and I think that both Gareth and I will agree that we‘re just running in circles now. And yeah, while it‘s nice to have the last word, I don‘t think I‘ve done a good enough job at getting my point across so far for me to warrant keeping the discussion going any further. At this point, the thread just frustrates the hell out of me.

Gareth already answered for himself regarding the intention of him calling you "conservative", so I'm going to stay out of that. As for the suggestion - humorous as it is - that we nuke the thread, I do hope you realise the superb irony in you calling out for censorship of a discussion you've helped start and keep alive. 
 
I must confess I've personally given up on the discussion. I find myself unable to come up with anything worthwhile. Gareth has just about said it all. Even if it's partially my fault we got it going again. But I will say that I would've stopped poking you long ago if it wasn't for the "There shall be PC brigade outrage!"-statement you seem to want to slip in every time a particular game - currently the Gabriel Knight remake - is being discussed. You could always argue that I should've looked away to begin with, but there's no reason to post stuff in public if you don't want it to be read (into).
 
I find it curious and more than a bit hypocritical that as soon as you don't get to have the last word, you call for the discussion to be shut down. Which may eventually happen till you bring up another game you think will send the "politically correct" players reeling. I don't really think anyone here gets to have that prerogative; if you don't feel like being challenged for your controversial opinions (which I get, because some discussions just never fucking end), don't flaunt them at every given chance when you know the end result. This is the third or fourth time this escalates.
 
That's just a piece of advice, btw. Not an order for you to shut up. I like to think we're all still getting along despite the obvious differences.

What I'm saying is that not all games need to cater strictly to the adolescent white male demographic.  If I my hypothetical daughter and she comes to me asking for games that have a female protagonist because she wants to play as a woman, I could probably count on my fingers the number of modern mainstream games which I could give her.  I would not have this problem if my hypothetical son asked for a game with a male protagonist.  I'd have an even harder time if either of them were LGBTQ and wanted a protagonist to relate to.
 
It's fine if we still have games that cater to adolescent white males.  But variety is the spice of life, and that is what part of the community is asking for.
 
 
(emphasis added in previous quote) And there's one of the reasons people are asking for change.  Some of us don't want ham-fisted stories or commentary.  If you have commentary to make, do it right.  Don't fall back on lazy tropes or stereotypes for plots and characters.

Obscure? Okay, now it's personal.

Odd, the link works fine for me. Maybe try this instead? If that doesn't work either, go to youtube, search for "VIDEODROME (1983) Interviews with David Cronenberg, James Woods, Rick Baker and Deborah Harry", skip to 6:54 and listen to the King of Venereal Horror's words of wisdom.
 
Ahh, the "Broken" movie! Not exactly what I'd call snuff (Doc probably had something more akin to "Saudi Candid Camera" in mind), but a nice bit of transgressive nastiness indeed. The soundtrack of my youth! I remember once showing the "Closer" video in a music lesson (couldn't bring myself to show "Happiness in Slavery" and didn't have access to the internet for the full "Broken" bootleg, unfortunately), out of pure spite for our music teacher, who would always, every single time, nag about what shitty music the students brought along to play. Sure enough, he hated "Closer" and turned the DVD off after about three minutes, talking some shit about "S&M symbolism" and "Who's that supposed to appeal to?". Instead of quietly taking the abuse, I retaliated full force, with stuff along the lines of "This is one of the most important bands of the Nineties!", "Have you ever even HEARD of industrial rock?!", "This is ART, you're just an illiterate if you can't see that!" After some back and forth between me and the teacher, some other students, who've had their favourite songs shat upon during previous lessons, started chiming in "You always hate the music we bring along! You don't even give it a chance!" It led to complete chaos for the rest of the lesson, it was glorious! Those were the days!

Apologies in advance if my post comes off like I'm firing from both barrels without warning.  Because this has been irking me all day and I wanted to chime in.
Yup.  The article Fronzel linked points that out later on: "The sexual violence at the end of that tutorial will single out a fifth of the female audience who have experienced sexual violence".  There's also this October 2013 report from the World Health Organization which shows that number jumps up to 35% on a worldwide scale for general sexual violence.
 
Look Fronzel, this isn't some sort of moral panic like the ones you're equating it to.  No one is saying people need to stop making these games because bad things will happen if they don't.  People want the industry to shift away from a very entrenched worldview.  This isn't a hobby that is the domain of only adolescent white males these days.  There are other people playing games, and they are all minorities who are very underrepresented by the medium.  You say "It's 100% pure escapism".  How is it escapism for women if the majority of the time they're forced to play as a male character?  How is it escapism for a person of color when the vast majority of game characters are white?  Or LGBTQ players who want to have a non-heterosexual relationship option in a game but the developers didn't think to include one?
 
This isn't the gestapo coming by and saying we need to burn these games.  This is criticism.  This is a reviewer doing her job and saying that she had a very negative reaction to a specific scene in a game that she didn't think was handled properly by the developers.  This is a reviewer who clearly enjoyed the previous game and is pointing out to the developer and the community that she thinks a specific scene weakens the product and will likely negatively impact other players too.  Criticism allows people to have a dialogue about issues.  Censorship does not.  Shouting down people who bring up valid points is not how you have a dialogue such as this follow-up interview with Dennaton on RPS.  What Cara's doing is no different than someone pointing out they didn't think the voice acting was good on a specific character, or something in the story doesn't make sense.  She's not doing it because she hates the game, she's doing it because she wants this to be a good experience for anyone who plays it.  People don't get better at making things unless people are willing to explain the faults in their work.  And considering rape isn't usually handled well in a lot of fiction, it's a good criticism to levy because it can encourage the authors to revisit their work and see if they can handle it better or use a different scene to convey the same information (see the above interview).
 
She's also doing other people a favor by highlighting content that might be problematic for them.  With 1 out of every 5 women having suffered from rape (and the real statistic is probably higher because it's an underreported crime for various reasons) there's real reason to let victims who might not be aware of the content in the game (especially considering the previous game didn't have any sexual violence in it).  Rape victims often suffer from something akin to PTSD like soldiers (and this is true of other abuse victims as well) and stuff like this can cause a very physical response for them.  That's being an empathic human being and looking out for others.
 
No one is saying you can't enjoy these things.  I enjoyed the Larry games because I found them funny, but I also acknowledge there's some problematic bits in them as well (and a lot of this is due to the age in which the games were made).  I also like Game of Thrones which is also problematic in spots.  Does people pointing out the problematic bits diminsh my enjoyment of them?  Not really, but I also don't think people shouldn't voice their opinions and criticisms when there's something problematic going on.
 
As for why it seems like this is all you see about games these days... Well it's a combination of factors.  The main one is that there's a lot more gamers out there from all walks of life and it's no longer the 80's or 90's where many of the minorities were unwilling to speak up.  The Internet has given a lot of groups their own safe spaces to gather and discuss issues without fear of retaliation.  Some of these people are now writing for game publications, running their own sites, or just being vocal on social media.  So a lot of opinions that were being kept underground before are now out in the open and finding there's an audience of likeminded people.  There's also the fact that a lot of people are dissastisfied with the current stagnation in the market and encouraging developers to write for different demographics is one way of addressing this.  And some people are growing older and looking around and noticing that "hey, there's very few games with good female characters for my daughter to look up to".  (Great post here by Jeff Vogel of Spiderweb Software if anyone's interested)
 
I'm 31 and have been gaming since I was 5.  I know I'd much rather live in a world where more people feel empowered by games because they can find characters to relate to other than buff macho white guy with a gun.  I love games and I want more people to enjoy them.  I also want to live in a world where hopefully my offspring will be able to enjoy a large variety of games regardless of their gender (or sexual orientation, or religious beliefs, or ethnicity, etc.).
 
So I ask you, Fronzel, what the fuck gives you the right to air question another person's opinion in such a callous manner?

Nobody with half a brain thinks that they'll change the world by criticising computer games. What they do believe is that if discrimination is challenged in video games, tv, film, art, politics, the work place, etc. etc., that winning small battles over time will cause more widespread and more meaningful change.
 
Because the point is there is no "the" man. It's a cultural thing we're all a part of. However, some benefit more from that status quo than others, and have a vested interest in conserving that world.
 
But that's by the by. I'm a little confused by what you think "political correctness" is, the methods employed, or the goals in mind.
 
So let's get down to the nub of why this seems to get you so angry. Because I genuinely want to understand it. As I see it, there's two things at play.
 
If I understand you correctly, the first is, you want to defend the right of games makers to take risks, and you're worried if people listen too much to criticism they will be unwilling to take those risks. On this front, I agree with the initial principle. The fear of litigation or bad publicity has forced so many areas of public life into lockdown. Everything requires a safety label, nobody will say or do something out of the ordinary. The blame for that isn't with individuals fighting for employment rights, health and safety and gender equality, though. It's public and private institutions and their lawyers refusing to do anything on the theoretical possibility of being sued - an issue for which they have a much lower risk tolerance than they did 40 years ago.
 
So, while this seems like a fair enough suggestion, it doesn't seem to be what's actually going on. The arts continue to take risk, and clearly, there are still plenty of games being made which are "edgy" enough to wind people up. And by the same token, there is plenty of art in all media that continues to be "edgy" and gets a very good reception. The multi-award winning Book of Mormon, for example, is set in an African village, involves jokes about child rape, religion, sex, female genital mutilation and AIDS. In no way PC - but so brilliantly done that it's come in for almost universal acclaim.
 
Actually, a clarification - the GOOD ART continues to take risks. The stuff that gets criticised is actually the games that lean on pathetic stereotypes at the expense of actually developing a plot or a nuanced story arc. That's true for those that lean on lazy race or gender tropes as much as it is lazy revenge/romance/horror/etc. tropes. Stories that have been done a thousand times are just dull. I think this is why adventure games seem unusually targeted for this - because any game where the USP is the story, it ought to be something good. When you've stopped creating good puzzles or engaging game play, expect to be critiqued just like a piece of literature or film. Especially when a growing proportion of your audience is female.
 
The reason gender and race get picked out is the belief - which you can of course challenge - that these tropes are more damaging because they re-enforce the power of established groups. Because these tropes are so omnipresent (and are so rarely challenged), black people see that they can never be the heroes, and women see they can only ever be the wife, never the protagonist. That perhaps this isn't a good message to send out. And people, for whatever reason, feel like they should articulate that opinion.
 
So, the second thing is you want to defend the right for games makers to rely on common tropes. Which again, is fine. Just don't expect people to be silent about it. Again, no campaigner worth their salt would ever deny the legal right to do those things. Just so long as they're willing to be called out for it.
 
I find it quite amusing, actually. The typical argument by the supposed "anti-censorship" brigade is "let the market decide". Which is weird. Because if the market starts articulating its opinion (necessary in any market to ensure reputation and to protect consumers from buying products they don't want/need), it's accused of "bullying". Given that these games keep getting made, the bullies are doing a TERRIBLE job.
 
So... I just don't really know what the issue is here, really. I don't understand why "the PC brigade" gets you so riled up. I mean, I don't even really see how your caricature of "the PC brigade" gets you so riled up.
 
Well, I sort of do. It's typical conservatism. That is, the desire to resist change. Which is a legitimate position. Just explain to me what's so great about the world you're defending.

No, not really. Not played the game, don't care either way. Don't care if you don't find Mobius sexist, don't care if you don't find anything sexist quite frankly. 
Simply a bit bored of the idea that those who DO find such things problematic are immediately dismissed as "faux". Criticise them for being hyper douchebags all you want, but I just don't understand why you can't understand how they might sincerely hold those beliefs.
 
I think the clear answer to all these problems is just to ban opinions. They do nobody any good, and it makes it very hard for those in charge to do their jobs if we keep insisting on questioning the world around is. That way nobody can (pretend to) get offended, and nobody has to react to them.

Hmm, I don't like this way of criticizing the dismissing of criticism. If someone wants to dismiss criticism, I think we should let them.   Then again, maybe you are within your rights to criticize any dismissal of criticism as you see fit. Maybe I am in the wrong, with my criticism of your criticism of criticism dismissal.   Something to think about.

Hey, kids! Long time no speaky.
 
Just wanted to drop in and let you guys know that season 2 of my silly little podcast is up and running. This first episode I've got Bob Siebenberg, James Mulvale and Jess Morrissette in the house. And if you don't listen I will continue to speak in wildly inappropriate 90's white rapper lingo until you do.
 
Linky linky: http://spacequesthistorian.com/2014/07/09/episode-13-fandom-through-the-ages/
 
Or just search for the show on iTunes.
 
Oh, and, thanks to a kind soul on Twitter, I've put in an application to get this joint on Stitcher, too. I had no idea that existed but, hey, now I do.
 
As always, feedback is welcome, good and bad, and if you have anything you want me to read on the air, this is as good a place to throw it at me as any!

Bit more complex than that; that's only if you get the "Papers, Please: Denmark"-DLC  ;)

I need to buy that at some point. It looks fun, and they deserve credit for what they did to counter piracy.
 
Apart from playing the waiting game after finishing The Last Door (the next episode is coming soon), I've been playing quite a bit of Papers, Please. Which is arguably more entertaining than it should be. Quite thought-provoking too.

How so? You just deny everyone, right? ;)

UPDATE!!!
 
I was bored an afternoon last week so I decided to make the Aluminum Mallard in Lego. It is complete with turnable engines, openable hatches and interior access. Here it is : https://www.flickr.com/photos/106016985@N05/sets/72157644860948499/ Enjoy!
 
BlockMaster

I just saw a screenshot of a location in the game that puts the "ugh, why no details?" argument to shame. This thing is packed. Worry ye not, gents.

I might follow the World Cup. Considering the current body count, I think it's gonna be a doozy. Probably closer to Counter-Strike than usual, too.
 
Yeah, the PC Police is currently on a strike. Budget cuts.
 
Jokes about the World Cup aside, Corey Cole just posted a damn interesting comment with some fascinating historial information on the Kickstarter page. I realise the "If only it had been Ken Williams producing this..."-argument hasn't really cropped up here, but I still wanted to share this bit of insight.
 
Adding that to Troels' post above, I guess the morale of all this is "Shit happens". With an optional "Deal with it" postfixed ;)

I might follow the World Cup. Considering the current body count, I think it's gonna be a doozy. Probably closer to Counter-Strike than usual, too.
 
Yeah, the PC Police is currently on a strike. Budget cuts.
 
Jokes about the World Cup aside, Corey Cole just posted a damn interesting comment with some fascinating historial information on the Kickstarter page. I realise the "If only it had been Ken Williams producing this..."-argument hasn't really cropped up here, but I still wanted to share this bit of insight.
 
Adding that to Troels' post above, I guess the morale of all this is "Shit happens". With an optional "Deal with it" postfixed ;)

I might follow the World Cup. Considering the current body count, I think it's gonna be a doozy. Probably closer to Counter-Strike than usual, too.
 
Yeah, the PC Police is currently on a strike. Budget cuts.
 
Jokes about the World Cup aside, Corey Cole just posted a damn interesting comment with some fascinating historial information on the Kickstarter page. I realise the "If only it had been Ken Williams producing this..."-argument hasn't really cropped up here, but I still wanted to share this bit of insight.
 
Adding that to Troels' post above, I guess the morale of all this is "Shit happens". With an optional "Deal with it" postfixed ;)

I just wanted to chime in unhelpfully and thank those guys'n'gals (you know who you are) who have stepped in to bring some much needed balance to the criticisms in the latest Kickstarter update.
 
It's not that criticism isn't valued. I know the Space Pope reads every single thing and the team are having regular meetings to discuss these as well as game matters. No one's opinions are being ignored. But there's also something to be said for keeping your heads down and staying true to your vision, which is exactly what the Guys are doing.
 
To unnecessarily reiterate, sliding/motion puzzles will NOT be the bread and butter for this game. The demo is NOT to be taken as indication of the final product. The demo was a gift to us backers to show what was going on AT THAT TIME. Anyone who has been involved in a creative process knows how unnerving it is to show a work-in-progress that may have little to no bearing on what the finished product might be -- you hope that people will look at the elements individually and realize it's not a cohesive package yet, and this was exactly the case with the backer alpha demo.
 
Delays in projects are annoying and it's understandable that people are frustrated. Sitting on the sidelines making easy snide comments about what should and shouldn't have been anticipated is just that: easy -- and not helping anything or anyone. Everyone's hindsight is always 20/20. Real life just has a way of never turning out exactly how you planned.

For me, it's a bit hard to take argumentation seriously because we've only seen a fraction of the game. Probably a fraction of the third that's been completed, too. Of course, they're not gonna show off all the good stuff right now. Pope has written countless of times that Mark, especially, doesn't want to spoil anything major. Judging from that, we can probably conclude that anything released prior to the game that is Mark Crowe-approved will be fairly innocuous.
 
I think you're acting like you instantly know how the entire game is going to be just by looking at backgrounds (without characters and, presumably, objects you can interact with) and critiquing an early build which didn't even contain the complete script for the section it showcased. It comes off as more than a bit arrogant. The guy who was pretty much forced to take over as lead programmer on the game (pcj) has stated, like, two or three times that you're only really stirring the pot here. That your fears are unfounded. I don't know what else you want. A piece of paper going "SpaceVenture will NOT be what you fear!" signed by the entire team? 
 
In that light, it becomes more than a little bit annoying to read "Yes, but here's a[n] [hyperbolic adjective] worry of mine that would [hyperbolic verb] the entire game for me!" And to me, it honestly doesn't seem like you're interested in a discussion that goes beyond "Well, yes, Fronzel, you could very well be right". I am trying to reply in a serious fashion, you know. Not just put down your arguments for the fuck of it. You could be right, but in my view, chances are you're not.
 
Ultimately, I suppose it's a "glass half-full, glass half-empty"-type thing. I just choose to be optimistic. Fair enough that some people have become pessimistic due to the delays and their reactions towards the material they've seen, but just remember that:
 
1) It's a crowdfunded game, so it's literally based on goodwill.
 
2) It was pitched as the Guys from Andromeda doing their thing in 2014. Not as Guys from Andromeda pulling a Tim Schafer, Guys from Andromeda looking over the shoulders of Telltale or the AAA companies, or Guys from Andromeda asking the community for advice when every design decision has to be made.
 
Even if it's been 2+ years, I personally pledged to give them a chance. Till they either give up or release the game, that's still my goal. And yes, dammit, I will be popping in here regularly to dish out a bit of vitriol to ensure that people do not forget the two points above.

For me, it's a bit hard to take argumentation seriously because we've only seen a fraction of the game. Probably a fraction of the third that's been completed, too. Of course, they're not gonna show off all the good stuff right now. Pope has written countless of times that Mark, especially, doesn't want to spoil anything major. Judging from that, we can probably conclude that anything released prior to the game that is Mark Crowe-approved will be fairly innocuous.
 
I think you're acting like you instantly know how the entire game is going to be just by looking at backgrounds (without characters and, presumably, objects you can interact with) and critiquing an early build which didn't even contain the complete script for the section it showcased. It comes off as more than a bit arrogant. The guy who was pretty much forced to take over as lead programmer on the game (pcj) has stated, like, two or three times that you're only really stirring the pot here. That your fears are unfounded. I don't know what else you want. A piece of paper going "SpaceVenture will NOT be what you fear!" signed by the entire team? 
 
In that light, it becomes more than a little bit annoying to read "Yes, but here's a[n] [hyperbolic adjective] worry of mine that would [hyperbolic verb] the entire game for me!" And to me, it honestly doesn't seem like you're interested in a discussion that goes beyond "Well, yes, Fronzel, you could very well be right". I am trying to reply in a serious fashion, you know. Not just put down your arguments for the fuck of it. You could be right, but in my view, chances are you're not.
 
Ultimately, I suppose it's a "glass half-full, glass half-empty"-type thing. I just choose to be optimistic. Fair enough that some people have become pessimistic due to the delays and their reactions towards the material they've seen, but just remember that:
 
1) It's a crowdfunded game, so it's literally based on goodwill.
 
2) It was pitched as the Guys from Andromeda doing their thing in 2014. Not as Guys from Andromeda pulling a Tim Schafer, Guys from Andromeda looking over the shoulders of Telltale or the AAA companies, or Guys from Andromeda asking the community for advice when every design decision has to be made.
 
Even if it's been 2+ years, I personally pledged to give them a chance. Till they either give up or release the game, that's still my goal. And yes, dammit, I will be popping in here regularly to dish out a bit of vitriol to ensure that people do not forget the two points above.