drdrslashvohaul

If I were a SpaceVenture programmer, I would sprinkle random nonsense throughout the code to keep the fans of 20 years from now amused.
 
Oh wait...

And this is exactly why I'd prefer it if all the feminists that aren't batshit insane (again, I know lots who aren't) would unite under a different name than people such as Roseanne. Who obviously does seem to be affected by that particular affliction.
 
It is, of course, quite comforting that Roseanne isn't really in the limelight anymore. And I personally think part of the lack of an outcry can be attributed to that rather than just her gender. She's a bit of a nobody. And again, I think Gareth made an excellent point in that a person being an asshole has (and should have) nothing to do with gender. Roseanne is just an idiot and her views on men are idiotic.

You're gonna let the PCJ Police boss you around? ;)

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.

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.

I just finished it and I enjoyed it. Sure, it could use a bit of polish for all the reasons I've previously mentioned, but I've seen worse. And I noticed they've already pushed one patch out on Steam. I hope there'll be another one.
 
As for GK20, I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt for now. They've got time to take note of the feedback they're receiving now and that might make a difference.
 
I'm not gonna touch the PC-stuff because, frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of it. No, the world is not perfect. Lots of people feel entitled to be offended about any tiny little thing and yes, that does extend to gaming. But being an alarmist about it isn't going to help much either. If you meet the world with a frown, chances are you'll get frowned at.
 
I've seen 1-2 reviews that criticised "that puzzle" in Moebius and only one of them - again, the one by the oft-polemic John Walker - really went overboard. So I'm not honestly anticipating any of that in relation to GK20. It's not that I've seen anyone pull the "well, it was a different time"-card in regards to the original Gabriel Knight either and thanks to GOG, the game is widely available. For god's sake, it's still widely acclaimed - if Jane Jensen changed Dr. John's skin colour or internal decor, that's when we'd really see a shit storm. Okay, I kinda went ahead and touched the PC-stuff anyway.
 
Having read the book, however, I do hope we're spared the sight of Dr. John's alledgedly humongous genitalia. Not that I'm particularly offended by that, but there's a time and a place, right? Let's just say it's something I can live without. He's imposing enough already.

I want to change my mind on what I find most annoying. It's Fred's modesty. He's far more eloquent than most English speakers that I know.
 
Sorry, I'm slipping into Toleman again. I genuinely need help.

I want to change my mind on what I find most annoying. It's Fred's modesty. He's far more eloquent than most English speakers that I know.
 
Sorry, I'm slipping into Toleman again. I genuinely need help.

And I agree. But you can only get to that stage when people are genuinely equal. It suits those with a disproportionate amount of power to think their words are neutral, when they're anything but. Language is never neutral. But it's also a clumsy tool. What people mean, what they say and what people hear aren't necessarily the same thing, and that's not always the fault of the speaker. 
I believe that we should focus on the intent behind words, like George Carlin. But when someone gets offended (whether they are justified or not), all I would like is for people to reflect on how they may have been misinterpreted. That's all. So while I think the fact that some US politicians have had their careers ruined by using the word "niggardly" is patently absurd, I think it's shocking that someone like Dan Snyder refuses to even contemplate why "Redskins" might be offensive to some. (And no, I'm not saying the Redskins SHOULD change their name; just that the management isn't engaging in the discussion properly.)
 
We've got into this situation, in my opinion, because some idiots have screamed "RACIST!!!" for so long they've forgotten the deeper reason for why they're doing it. More importantly, they've failed to explain what they're trying to achieve. That's turned a lot of potential allies away because they don't feel like they can ever make the right compromises. By the same token, some people who fear change have used this as a crutch, and use it to excuse or even legitimise their behaviour. Both types of people need their skulls cracking.

Precisely, Troels.
 

I know. And I agree with you. The point is, if you're accused of such behaviour, make that very argument and move on.
 

Exactly. So, defend your editorial choices and move on. Simple. My point is that some people see it as an issue, some people don't. That debate shouldn't be stifled by either side.
 
I do agree, however, that the political left has cried wolf a fair few times. But just because they've made some stupid arguments doesn't invalidate all of them. And again, just because some editorial choices can be defended doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the overall culture in the games industry. That's why the debate continues, and should continue.
 

Which is a point I also made, and I agree with you. All I'm saying is, be aware that you will also alienate a lot of people by doing so.
 

Bullying is where a group or person with power picks on people smaller than them to silence or intimidate them. A small band of lefties protesting against a games company isn't that. Now, could an individual small company be irreversibly damaged by such a thing? Possibly, and I think this is a problem when unfair accusations are made. But the whole industry? The whole white-male dominated status quo? Come on.
 

This was a point I made in an earlier post, and I completely agree with you. It's the laziness of the cliches that annoys me.
 
***
 
What worries me most is that the rabid anti-PC brigade is as guilty as the PC brigade in using the term "political correctness" as a slur against campaigners. Thereby trying to silence or invalidate the debate as automatically some sort of conspiracy against men or against free speech. The lack of self awareness from both sides is actually rather amusing. But, as Akril says, the vitriol in it is distracting people from just going out and making good games.
 
All I want is for game makers (and everyone) to take a few seconds in their day to think "is what I'm doing discriminatory?" And if "yes", "is it justifiable?" That's all it ought to be. The automatic over-defensive posture of some gamers - like the pathetic rants against the suggestion that there ought to be female Kerbals in Kerbal Space Program - is as dangerous. Indeed, given the power of the games industry, stifling debate in such a way is probably more dangerous.
 
Don't fear debate. That goes for both sides. It's a good thing.

I want to change my mind on what I find most annoying. It's Fred's modesty. He's far more eloquent than most English speakers that I know.
 
Sorry, I'm slipping into Toleman again. I genuinely need help.

Frank Zappa said something similar in an infamous 1986 episode of Crossfire on the subject of censorship. I find myself agreeing with him here. He also often stated that he, in his songs, was a simple documentarist. He'd often find himself in the crosshairs of people who thought he treated women appallingly in his lyrics, but as he would bluntly put it, "women do fucking stupid things too". In the light of that (true) kind of equality, I think it's worth nothing that Larry Laffer is constantly made fun of in those games. He's not exactly a hero who gaineth a woman. He's a loser who is berated, tortured and laughed at for being completely out of step with reality. You could argue that the series would pretty much lose that subtext after the first three games. Certainly, I find the women in LSL5 to be objectified. But merely branding LSL as "sexist" and smugly submitting your review is, I think, a very black/white oversimplification of the issue.
 
Also, I think Gareth, Troels and Andrew have all covered what I think about this subject in a much more eloquent fashion than I ever could. I deplore the whole notion of censorship, but I would honestly prefer that over being subjected to the "opinions" of people who somehow find that freedom of speech is a licence to be an asshole. "Think before you talk" can go a long way without even coming close to the dreaded self-censorship.

I was seriously surprised by how well Lilly Looking Through and Detective Grimoire were and they got a so little money from their Kickstarters. And I've been testing Quest for Infamy and it's shaping up to be a great game, too. And each of these titles only took in five digits each. It's hard for me to see how much Double Fine got and still had money issues, plus releasing IMHO a mediocre game.

Exactly. George Carlin made the same point. Words are just words. It's the intent behind them that matters. If you say or write something that's gonna push people's buttons, they're going to want to know what your true feelings on the matter is. Therefore I think it's important to have self-reflection, especially in the creative arts -- because what you put in writing or other creative outlets IS going to outlive you, and thereby your means of personally defending or explaining it.

I'm going to quickly jump to drslash's defense here, because I think you guys may have missed his point somewhat. It was not a point of "you should censor your thoughts and deeds because it might be construed as sexist." It was a point of "if you're going to do or write something that could be perceived as sexist, look into yourself and ask if you are able to defend this decision intellectually."
 
I think a lot of this "cry wolf" mentality from both sides comes from a fear of change and fear of realizing that things might be more complex than they were in the 50's. "Holy shit, women are people, too? And not just the obedient door mat who fetches my slippers and cooks my dinner?" We have finally progressed to the point where we can make fun of these unfairly skewed gender dynamics, but some people who are stuck in this fear of change see that as an attack on their "values." Even though their "values" in this case basically amount to lazy misogynism because it's easier to treat a woman as a "wife" rather than a "person."
 
Also, fuck the 50's. At no point in modern history do I think contentment has been a shallow veneer masking our collective fears of change more than that hellish decade. "What, there are other races than white? What, women want to vote? Dear god, when will the atomic bomb turn us all into giant mutants? We are so fantastically dumb."

Don't confuse freedom of speech with freedom from consequences. You can say whatever you want, but be prepared to face the consequences when you say something deeply offensive to someone else. As for game developers, the makers of a commercial product have to bear in mind the affect on marketability if they alienate vast swaths of their potential customer base. If they do not mind losing half or more of their potential customers, then by all means, they can blow all of that development money by getting as nasty as they want towards a big chunk of the people to whom they hope to sell the end product. Remember, even if you do not find some name or term offensive does not mean that it is not deeply cutting and offensive to others.

And here's the hyperbole again. Game developers are more than welcome to disagree with the complaints they get. Just as those who want to see attitudes changed can make their demands. I don't see what the problem is. If the developers don't see themselves as sexist or racist, then they should be able to defend themselves pretty easily against any accusations. And conversely, those who think otherwise can know whether to steer clear of the product.
 
There is also a massive difference between "don't play Mario because the damsel trope is sexist" and "Mario is a good game, but it would be good if this trope could be avoided". 
 
But, of course, campaigning for a better world is "intimidation". Because the status quo is natural, normal, and people shouldn't be "forced" to change their behaviour. Except, is that really what women's groups are doing? FORCING you to change your behaviour? Or are they railing against a system which they see as unfair and unrepresentative. Given that the status quo seems to be pretty well entrenched, they're doing a pretty shitty job of enforcing censorship, wouldn't you say?
 
If games companies don't want to be seen as anti-women, then it's a pretty clear choice in a democratic, capitalist society. 1) Don't give a shit. 2) Explain why the editorial choice was made and stand by it. 3) Make sure they make plot decisions which minimise or remove perceived bias.
 
Personally, I'm in camp #2.
 
The real issue here is that some people have a really, really hard time understanding what "critique" is. It is perfectly possible to see problems in something and still enjoy it. It is perfectly possible to acknowledge that someone doesn't intend to be sexist or racist, but that their overall behaviour (individually or as part of a group) has unintended consequences. And it's perfectly possible to ask for changes in the way the games industry operates without "censorship". I genuinely don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp, or why so many people (mainly white, heterosexual men... hmmm....) get so angry every time they're asked to reflect upon their behaviour.
 
I love professional wrestling, for example. But I'd be an idiot if I ignored the way they play on national, racial and sexual stereotypes. Do I wish they would improve that sort of thing? Yes. I don't support companies that go too far with it. Do I have to reject everything that's great about it because of some of its darker side? No. The same is true of soccer (which I love). And certain video games (which I also love). One can criticise, and one can demand change without having to shit on everything it stands for. And, more importantly, labelling professional wrestling as "sexist" (it is) doesn't mean that the WWE should shut its doors tomorrow. Nor does it mean the WWE isn't entirely within its rights to tell me to go fuck myself (and no doubt it would... which is one of the reasons I'd keep watching! ;) ).
 
That's what the protests are about. Getting people in power to reflect on their actions and the deeper meaning behind some of the things they take for granted. Do they have to listen? No. Do they have to change their behaviour? No. But if enough people believe that the protesters have a point, that's when change gets "forced" either through peer pressure or the Darwinian nature of the market. Again - that's democracy. If it didn't exist, black people would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the vote. Indeed, the United States of America wouldn't even exist. George Washington - what a terrorist. :p
 
Your final line is great, by the way. I totally agree that developers could do this and win many new fans. They'd also alienate a lot of people. That, as I've already mentioned, my friend, is democracy. On that, at least, we can agree.

It's the melon puzzle that really crosses the line.

And given that LSL was always tongue in cheek (and in other places too), engaging with it might have uncovered some of the great humour in the series. It is worth noting the article was written by a Brit (I'm assuming you guys across the pond/Channel have zero clue who Rory McGrath is), and LSL is very hyper-American. It's a piss take on the US porn culture and a multitude of other things, most of which I'm not sure most of us Commie Limeys really "get". That said, a lot of the jokes the author makes in that article are pretty funny - and probably mean nothing to people younger than 25 living outside of England! :D
 
That said, I think the general criticism that the humour and gameplay mechanics were still stuck in the late-80s is somewhat fair, if clumsily made.
 
Anyway, back to the topic: this is why I hope SpaceVenture is a modernisation, not a rehash.

And given that LSL was always tongue in cheek (and in other places too), engaging with it might have uncovered some of the great humour in the series. It is worth noting the article was written by a Brit (I'm assuming you guys across the pond/Channel have zero clue who Rory McGrath is), and LSL is very hyper-American. It's a piss take on the US porn culture and a multitude of other things, most of which I'm not sure most of us Commie Limeys really "get". That said, a lot of the jokes the author makes in that article are pretty funny - and probably mean nothing to people younger than 25 living outside of England! :D
 
That said, I think the general criticism that the humour and gameplay mechanics were still stuck in the late-80s is somewhat fair, if clumsily made.
 
Anyway, back to the topic: this is why I hope SpaceVenture is a modernisation, not a rehash.

Corridor Quest 2015.
 
Sign me up.

To be fair, that Kickstopper campaign was started from within Replay Games fairly long ago. And it was so malicious, stupid and clumsy that it felt more like Curbstomper, if you ask me.
 
Overall, I agree with JimmyTwoBucks. Also, the Guys are trying to recapture the classic "Space Quest"-feeling, I guess. How many outright visually funny locales did SQ1 and SQ2 have? I can think of parts of Ulence Flats. The rest is pretty generic space ship/desert planet/jungle planet stuff. It's what unexpectedly transpires on in those serious-looking rooms that's funny.
 
Bringing in Josh Mandel isn't really fair. SQ6 had some brilliant jokes and gags and it's possibly the most outright funny game in the series. At times, it's also the least subtle, which in itself would make it very different from something penned by Scott Murphy.
 
I haven't lost confidence in the Guys. We just have to remember that they're carrying on from where they left in 1991 and not from where Josh left in 1995.

Sadly enough, that wouldn't be the first time somebody asked for a Sierra-related Kickstopper campaign.

This could be like an anti-Kickstarter, where people would pay to PREVENT a developer from making a game.  Kickstopper?