drdrslashvohaul

There's also the issue that if 1,000,000 video games have been made, and 1% have strong female leads, one should be able to find 10,000 examples. Doesn't mean there isn't a gross imbalance.

Right. Again... I'm failing to see the issue here. Explain to me what the problem is of someone demanding change. The developer is under no obligation to acquiesce. Whatever the accuser's moral position, there's no need for the developer to agree. I'm struggling here. I think the only way to ever have a debate is to try to understand the other side of the argument, but I'm really struggling to see what the point is.

To clarify (since we were writing at the same time), the "anti-PC bore" stuff came primarily from what you said. And the whole point of this latest exchange has been to try and understand why you believe you aren't an "anti-PC bore", and to try to understand where you're coming from. And the "conservative" part again is in inferred from the things you've said. But I don't mean as in you're a Republican voter, religious or somehow a typical right-wing person; rather that in the specific world of computer gaming you seem to imply that there was a better time and that recent changes (including the gender equality stuff) has ruined that - and that you appear to be resisting that change. I think we're way past the point that you'll ever accept any of the "PC brigade" points as valid; what I want to understand is why you have such an angry, visceral reaction to it. It doesn't make any sense to me; so I want to understand what mindset drives it.

OK. We're veering away now from what I'm trying to get at, so let's go with this. Fine - you think there was artistic merit to Hotline Miami 2. For argument's sake, let's say you're right (and since I haven't played the game, that seems reasonable). And let's just say for argument's sake that the reviewer was "wrong" - either because you disagree with her stance, or feel that she's "missed the point" (both reasonable objections). This just brings us back to an earlier point - that people are free to criticise, and game makers (and fans) should be able to justify their editorial decisions. If they can, and it's a good product, it will stand up. So... again. What is your issue here? A person criticises a game. You find that criticism invalid, and criticise it in turn. And... well... what? What is your problem?

Except the point is not to ban or criminalise these games. It's to criticise them. And, hopefully, make sure that ones in the future aren't as bad. You're right about sincerity and manipulation not being mutually exclusive, and about Mrs Lovejoy. However, there is a massive difference between hysterical wailing and a reasoned argument. The rhetorical flourish about 1 in 5 victims is meant as a reminder that these issues aren't trivial, not a blanket statement that 1 in 5 women will have a problem with the game. It's called rhetoric. Anyway, I suppose this is what I'm trying to get at here. You make wide-sweeping analogies that don't actually seem to fit. Or, at the base level, do you just dislike anyone who tries to campaign to make the world (as they see it) a better place? Be they reactionary (like the people trying to restrict access to the internet) or progressive? (And by the way, I'm using the political meaning of those words - you, of course, don't need to see gender equality as a sign of absolute "progress".) Same could be said of movies, tv shows, musicals and so on (if you change the 100% to 99%). But it's the 1% we hold out for. And, more to the point - fine. If it's escapism for you, or should be no more than escapism, fine. If you want something more from a computer game, fine. But when you want a higher level of complexity and depth you're going to get more complex and deep criticisms of the subject matter and the way it's rendered. If the gaming industry is garbage, it's not because people have started demanding more complex female characters. It's that lazy writers have exhausted their colour-by-numbers scripts and have nothing more to contribute. I believe this analogy was made earlier tin the thread re: situational comedies. But once again - THE AUTHOR IS NOT CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP. She's expressing her belief that it shouldn't happen (morally, not legally). That's her prerogative. This idea that criticism is "censorship" is absolutely ludicrous. I'd love to know what it stems from. Self-reflexivity is, of course, a good thing. Getting an emotional reaction out of people is something to encourage. But you can get those base emotions out of a snuff movie too. It doesn't necessarily make them right. And, again, the author doesn't say the game should be banned. She says she doesn't like it, it made her feel uncomfortable because of her politics, and (by extension) maybe it ought to be avoided by people who think similarly to her. But that isn't censorship. That's debate. Judging by the comments on the article, she didn't convince that many people to go along with her. So... what's the issue? The Gabriel Knight series in general has never interested me, for reasons that are not necessarily rational. It just never has. I've never been actively recommended that I should try it by people close to me, so I've never gone near it. Indeed, I haven't played a huge amount of adventure games in general, certainly when compared to many of the people on this site. With the adventure genre I've tended to play the handful of games that I've had in great depth rather than spreading over lots of different titles. So I haven't ever really "sought out" those games. I'll have to confess ignorance on this one as to whether GK is or isn't sexist. Since you were talking hypothetically, however, I think my point stands. Maybe I ought to play it? Are you recommending? :D

Which is fair enough. I can only base on assumptions when I have little to go on. This is how your arguments came across. I'll await your reply. I haven't played it. But my decision to do so is based mainly on not tending to play those sort of games and a lack of interest rather than any reviews or attitudes towards it. A lot of people told me Sim City was a DRM shitfest. So, despite being a fan, I didn't buy it. It seems that was the right call, as a lot of people who did buy it and whose opinion I respect also felt it was a waste of money and time. The question is whether the accusations against Gabriel Knight were baseless or malicious. I wouldn't ever buy/not buy a game on the basis of a single review. However, if someone I respected said that it was sexist dross, I'd be inclined to believe them. That's sort of how making an informed choice about a product works. So, it's neither helpful or non-helpful. It just is. In the same way I would listen to a feminist critique of a game, I assume you wouldn't. So... what changes here? We get our information from trusted sources and make an educated decision. a) she never claims to be a spokesperson. B) if she's a woman with either personal experience of rape or experience of working with rape victims that's bound to influence her world view c) since women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic and sexual violence, it's no wonder many women educate themselves on these issues and become advocates d) there is nothing wrong with wanting to be an ally or repressed groups - that's sort of how women got the vote and black people stopped being slaves e) if you don't like that sort of critique, don't listen to it. "Cheap manipulation tactic" - there's the rub. You cannot see how that piece was sincere? It might be garbage (it isn't), and you might disagree with it (fair enough). But "cheap manipulation"? C'mon fella.

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.

So this. And if you don't want to record your voice, send me the questions and I'll Pete Tolemanify them.

We're delving into the irony circle of doom, here, but it does seem (as JimmyTwoBucks amusingly put it) as if people defending the game makers are being accused of dismissing criticism as a way of blindly dismissing their criticism of the criticism. And, again, the internet sustains its heroic level of lack of self-awareness and the cycle continues. I do believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion. In some circumstances expert opinion (i.e. those with professional experience of this or similar projects) is preferable in arriving at a judgemet; in others, fan opinion (i.e. those with expertise in playing and enjoying finished products) is preferable. And sometimes, just plain old ranting can expose deeper issues. There is nothing inherently wrong with criticising the devs for delays, or for the direction the game is going in; but when it's built on faulty premises - or does not appear to take into account other factors - people should enter into a debate and explain why they might be wrong. Of course, it's always easy to see more substantive points when you agree with someone. Everyone who disagrees must be a "hater", or must simply be "dismissing criticism". I'm all for people disagreeing with people who disagree with people who disagree. But let's lose the faux outrage about the faux outrage about the faux outrage.

But it's FAUX outrage, Frede! Stop being so fucking obtuse! People find things to get pissy about for the sake of it. It's impossible to have a sincere thought on the internet.

To avoid making people bored, or so the Two Guys can avoid communication with people who are boring?

a ) All the recordings are done separately. b ) It isn't the job of the podcast to "grill" the Two Guys & Pope. That's the job of the gaming press. I'd like answers to those questions too, but I wouldn't expect it from a semi-official outlet. Perhaps Pete Toleman should interview him and get to the bottom of just why they suck so hard. ;)

< insert Pete Tole comment about immigrants > I've been playing strategy games mostly, as there seem to be quite a lot of "Theme Park"-inspired games from indie developers that are really quite complex and well-thought-out. I suppose the relatively modular design pattern makes it the kind of thing that one or two guys (British gender-neutral usage) in a virtual office can hook up reasonably quickly to a working standard, and then build up from there. The graphics can be more than a bit simplistic, but they do a job. In that vein: Prison Architect (Alpha, in the Steam sale) - a brilliant prison sim, where you have to balance rehabilitation and humane living conditions with safety and riot control. Gangsters (GOG, Win95) - the original version from the 1990s, a very deep simulation though a bit overwhelming and with a very dated interface. Total Extreme Wrestling (Greydog Games) - in which adolescent boys relive the fantasies of running the WWE in 1998... Spacebase DF-9 (Alpha, Steam) - haven't played this in a while because it's a bit of a resource hog on my creaky old laptop, but it gets better with every alpha. Dwarf Fortress (Bay13) - the daddy of the "let's model supply and demand of kangaroo biscuits" sim. It's ridiculous the amount of detail in this, and even more ridiculous that it uses and ASCII character set to represent the gameworld. MENTAL. Oh. And it's free. Even more mental. Really want to look at Xenonauts, Rimworld (no, that's not a Pete Tole creation either), and FTL. But I'm waiting for my new job to start and it's associated pay cheques before getting a new PC and some of these games to... er... test it out. Yes. That will convince the wife... Anyway, if you like strategy games at all, definitely look at Prison Architect. If you like them but have no money, download Dwarf Fortress.

Better art quality than this, any road.

Someone from British Columbia with a cold.

Soccer is better than life itself. The rioting is just the garnish that makes it so damn tasty. It's also good having a "world" champion that, you know, actually includes the rest of the world (and no, letting Candians play doesn't count).

I think what we're all forgetting here is that the World Cup starts on Thursday. We don't have time to play a computer game.

Aren't mea culpa and pro bono pretty common phrases? Like rendez-vous, coup d'etat and schedenfreude? Though to be fair, the person I've seen using them most is Fred, who's European like me. Perhaps it's a Eurotrash thing. One thing I am seeing in the Kickstarter comments are some reasonably legitimate points about deadlines and wasted time (even if they do come wrapped in bile and insult). In that sense, I think it's a good thing that the latest update has admitted to making mistakes (without needing to go into them and inviting more uninformed crap), and then set out a broad road map for what's likely to happen over the next 12 months. What I'm hoping is that this proves that, yes, with Ken Williams' money and whip you get your games "on time"; but with time and patience you get a much more rounded gaming experience.

First off, that poster is fucking hilarious. Props. Second, I don't think people are being "hyper defensive" as you claim. If anything... well, we've had this discussion about irony before. Criticism of a criticism is not intended to silence debate. It continues it. Some of the phrasing could have been better, perhaps, but come on. If you want the freedom to disagree with people, you've got to afford them the same courtesy.

"Listening" is a very different concept to "doing exactly as people want", though. If you have faith in something, you should be willing to put your balls on the line for it. Some pretty important people have been plain wrong on a number of things. :) I'm not saying that's specifically the case with regard to swiping (I also didn't care for it), but developers have a much better overarching view of what the game does, what it's supposed to do, and where it's going. There were loads of bugs and problems with the original demo, the fixing of which might make swiping a pretty cool addition feature. Then again, it might not. :P The only experience I have with getting anywhere near close to game developers in the past concerned a soccer simulation in the UK. They were constantly bombarded with requests for certain features and to remove things from their forums. They listened, they refined, but ultimately they stuck with it. A number of years on, the game is much, much better than if they'd simply capitulated to the people who shouted the loudest. At the same time, it's also because they were very, very good at filtering out banal rambling from insightful, well-articulated critique. As a counterpoint, therefore, I'd like to say that I appreciate the informal tone of the updates. I can see how they could come off as insincere, but given the podcasts and other interactions with fans, I don't think that's the case with Chris. (The Troels interview being a perfect example). Perhaps rein it in a little - and proof read! - but otherwise, I'd prefer any tone that's genuine than trying to fit into what you're "supposed" to sound like. Also, I don't feel like being "in the dark", but I do feel like nothing ever gets said in the Kickstarter e-mails. I'm happy with that, knowing what I do through the forums and from reassuring morsels from Troels, PCJ et al. But I can imagine for others that lack of information is becoming worrisome. But, one of the very refreshing things throughout has been the way that failures and problems have been owned up to. The PR failure of the prototypes for example. Cool little gimmicks, but clearly confusing for people who didn't spend their lives on the forums having it all explained. More of that would be welcome, especially as it's clear that development is well below what was originally planned. I'm afraid, PurpleTenticle, I don't see relentless positivity, but then if you were only getting your updates through the Kickstarter update e-mails, I can see where that perception might stem from. So yeah, as Collector says, "pay attention", but don't sacrifice whatever your overarching image is for the sake of short-term PR wins. If you think it's a good idea, go ahead and do it. Just ask yourselves the same questions we ask you, and if you still come to the conclusion your pig-headed, terrible idea is a good one, go for it. ;)

Well, personally I think it's very telling that there are no black or female faces on those posters. I DEMAND THEY BE SCRUBBED FROM TEH INTERNETZ.

Blazing Saddles (like The Producers) works because it sends up the racists - it uses racist language and images to show just how fucked up we are as a species, and how idiotic humanity is. It is a diatribe against racism, and this is why it works. It isn't politically correct, and is one of the reasons why I would also not consider myself as part of this caricature of "the PC police". I love things like South Park and Mel Brooks' works that attack our idiocy through exposing it in parody. If a piece of art, a computer game, a movie, or whatever else can do that and make a legitimate point, then it is doing exactly what all good art should do. If it's just using racist, sexist or generally stereotypical tropes as a lazy device to avoid story telling, then it's a damaging. It simply reinforces latent prejudice. That's why people like me ask people to have a quick think before they act. That's it. Critique is not censorship. And critique does not immediately lead to calls for certain thoughts to be banned. You do realise the superb irony that you're doing EXACTLY this by using the term "political correctness", don't you? I think the people who have made rational arguments in this thread have moved beyond name-calling, and explained why something might be construed as offensive. We're all hypocrites, brother. It's about being self-reflexive enough to see it. I'd like to think I have been. If not, do feel free to show me where I'm wrong. That's what this whole thing is supposed to be about. Indeed. But the problem is we don't have equality, do we? And while we don't, those people who have disproportionately more power need to be a little mindful of how they act and think. It won't be solved over night, but it will be solved if, as a species, we learn to respect difference. Equality isn't about treating everyone the same - it's about giving everyone equality of opportunity by ensuring that people can be who they want to be without fear of insults, denial of opportunity and outright discrimination. As Frede put it brilliantly, you cannot see every single criticism as the worst excessive caricature of feminism. Those idiotic feminists calling for castration, or some sort of punishment for men based on their Y chromosome are arseholes (I'd say dick, but that would be sexist. ;)). But engaging in a debate needn't be that stupid. In a lot of cases it isn't. Just like calling for the de-criminalisation in homosexuality didn't lead to baby rape and bestiality (and, yes, when we had this debate in England in the 60s, people genuinely thought this would happen). South Park? Family Guy? Modern Family? Will and Grace? Coupling (UK version)? The Office? Men Behaving Badly (UK)? Two things happened. One, sitcoms were told that resting on lazy ethnic and gender tropes was unacceptable. (We had loads of shows cancelled here on the same basis). It took a few years for TV to work out what was and wasn't acceptable. And in the mean time, other types of show became popular, relegating the sitcom even lower. Things change. As a historian I don't believe in absolute progress, but I do believe we gain and lose in the process. Hopefully, it's a better world today for black lesbians than it was in 1975. In the end, abusive humour is fine PROVIDING THERE'S A POINT TO IT. Providing it doesn't simply take away someone's humanity for the sake of it. What is the deeper point? "We'll give land to the niggers and the chinks, but I'll be damned if we'll give it to the Irish" is, out of context, incredibly offensive. But it works in the context of the film - a film written by a Jew, not long after the second world war, showing us all how barbaric and intolerant we are as a species. And how arbitrary some of our grudges are. I'll raise a glass to Mel Brooks, and hope the film is still going for another 30 years. Cheers!

First off, at least I was trying to be civil. Second, I am not "the PC police." Third, my issue is over the idea that women OR men are "expected" to behave in a certain way. I agree with most of what you say about psychopaths and manipulators. My point is that there's no need for it to be about gender. My points about male behaviour were a request to think about it, not an assertion that men should or shouldn't do anything. Beatrice is a bad PERSON, not a bad woman. A simple idea. A simple request. One which you're more than welcome to ignore, if that floats your particular boat. But we've had these discussions elsewhere, and I'm frankly tired of them. You're looking to take offence, which I find deliciously ironic.