drdrslashvohaul

Was going to draft a full reply, but then I saw this. You've clearly never watch South Park, or at the very least haven't seen it in the past 10 years. Possibly the best satire on TV at the moment. I'm a university lecturer and use it as a teaching aid. If you haven't seen it recently, I'd urge you to do so. If you have and still think it's fart jokes, then it's clearly gone straight over your head. 
I'm not asking for stuff to be banned, either, which undermines that point you made.
 
So... meh. Boring argument is becoming even more boring. Time to bow out.

Was going to draft a full reply, but then I saw this. You've clearly never watch South Park, or at the very least haven't seen it in the past 10 years. Possibly the best satire on TV at the moment. I'm a university lecturer and use it as a teaching aid. If you haven't seen it recently, I'd urge you to do so. If you have and still think it's fart jokes, then it's clearly gone straight over your head. 
I'm not asking for stuff to be banned, either, which undermines that point you made.
 
So... meh. Boring argument is becoming even more boring. Time to bow out.

Was going to draft a full reply, but then I saw this. You've clearly never watch South Park, or at the very least haven't seen it in the past 10 years. Possibly the best satire on TV at the moment. I'm a university lecturer and use it as a teaching aid. If you haven't seen it recently, I'd urge you to do so. If you have and still think it's fart jokes, then it's clearly gone straight over your head. 
I'm not asking for stuff to be banned, either, which undermines that point you made.
 
So... meh. Boring argument is becoming even more boring. Time to bow out.

This is why I have continuing love/hate affair with the adventure community. Because going from text adventure, to parser, to point 'n click was somehow fine. But that's also it. "I only want to play point 'n click games from now on. And I can deal with graphics that have a resolution higher than 640x480, but I am probably still going to mention that I long for 'the good old days'." If Sierra On-Line had to deal with that shitty attitude whenever they started using a new engine, they'd have folded in the early 90's.
 
What makes a game an "adventure" is the focus on exploration and storytelling over action.  Every single time someone can't get that through his/her thick skull, a legendary adventure game designer has to pee a shard of glass. Screw the mouse and the parser. Just use whatever you need to make the game world and the story come alive. Give me something I want to explore every inch of and fawn over. Supposedly, only the 1990's wield that power. If you want to make a tradiotional game, cool with me. If you want to take the genre to new places, you're only really doing what's been done since it was first invented, up until the early 2000's.
 
If The Odd Gentlemen can make a different approach work, I say we let 'em. Technologically, we're in a different place than we were back when GK3 and KQ8 were forced to become low-polygon horrors. Cut them some slack.

Trying to imagine Roger Wilco being played by Robin Williams ... wow.
 
I wonder how many other actors were considered for the role? Both in the realm of possibility (who they auditioned) and impossibility (who they imagined playing the part).
 
If PCJ isn't just making this up in bad taste (huh? well, he might! have you ever had a conversation with the man?), I'm definitely going to slide this in the next show.

Maybe my opinion is affected by the tragedy of the man dying, but: what a bummer. That could have been absolutely spectacular.
 
For the love of all potentially existing deities out there, Troels, please mention this on the podcast.

Fun fact, just yesterday Scott was telling me that they were trying to get Robin Williams to play Roger in SQ4 and that Robin had wanted to, being an avid fan of video games, but that he had a prior commitment to do Hook, and so was unable to do SQ4.

If that's a joke, it's a damn good one.
 
If not, someone should introduce them to Mr. Trowe before it gets awkward.

This is either an epic troll, or... God forbid they're actually serious about this
 
https://twitter.com/sierra_games/status/498850248115355648
 

Meh. There's a difference between talking about SpaceVenture and bringing up political correctness and feminism all the time. Or going "Wow, this guy sucks!" in your first post. And I was mainly referring to those.
 
No one is saying "don't talk about SpaceVenture" as far as I can tell. But several of us are asking that those who are critical of the game consider listening to what the development team representatives here might have to say before going "Yes, but..."

This is the internet.  Sadly, people are going to debate you on their terms, which usually come from beyond the seventh level of hell - unlimited virtual depravity and doom are fun to touch because there's no "real" consequence to them.  People can be a shitchuggingdicklord on the internet, then sign off and still run down to the store and buy a Coke and whistle "Tubthumping" like nothing ever happened because, hey, it's the internet!
 
Which, of course, is a shitty way to behave.
 
 
Bt

I've sort of said this on the twitters, but there's not enough room there for nuance, so forgive me.
 
I don't think that episodic anything really works unless one starts the project from the outset to be so. There may be natural breathing points where one could end a "chapter", but if a story arc is supposed to be in one piece it takes an awful lot of work to make it fit to two or more pieces.
 
A game like Space Quest III, for example, couldn't be episodic. The whole exploration thing simply wouldn't work. You'd also have problems with SQ4 and SQ5. Sure, you could instigate insta-death if you go to a world you're not supposed to, or find some other clunky mechanic to get Roger back in his time pod, but I don't think it would really work.
 
Seeing as Spaceventure was - even if only implicitly - "sold" to us as, and no doubt originally intended to be, a "feature length" game, I personally would rather a vastly delayed full game than a still-delayed episodic version.
 
I would also be rather worried. If you're going episodic as an attempt to raise enough capital for the later parts, there's no guarantee that this will actually work. More to the point, if you need extra capital to finish those parts, I can't imagine that after investing in the equipment, coding, art assets, etc. that parts 2 and 3 cost that much compared to getting part 1 out in the first place. In short, I find it doubtful that if the company cannot afford to release all the parts together that it can afford to get out 1, fully-polished and well-crafted opening chapter.
 
However, Troels "devil's advocate" defence of episodic games, coupled with the fact that it was raised on the podcast makes me think that Scott and Mark are seriously considering doing this, if they haven't made that decision already. If that's the case, then I'm sure they'll do the best with what they've got to work with. I can't help but think, though, that something will be lost through such a compromise. And that will always taint the game for me. (Not a rational response, perhaps, but true.)
 
I could be talking out of my arse, here. But to me, it doesn't seem like it can really be justified from an artistic standpoint. Though the economic realities may dictate otherwise.

Absolutely you can criticize all you want; you can also expect criticism of you criticism from time to time.  There are certainly people with good and helpful criticism out there and some with advice that rivals "duck and cover" from the 50s.  Anyone should feel free to say what they feel; just know that there is the absolute possibility that your opinion, critisicm and suggestions may be absolutely, entirely and unequivocally wrong.
 
 
Bt

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have no control over the segments Pope sends me, or anyone else's segments for that matter. People send me shit and I put it on there. I actually try really hard to let people be autonomous with regards to what they want to say on the show; a privilege that Gareth in particular takes pleasure in abusing.
 
I would love to talk more about the game myself but, for kinda obvious reasons, I can't.
 
Pope does listen to criticism and he would address it if you asked him. Hey, here's a thought. Why don't you record your grievances, I'll send them to Pope, and I'll let the two of you duke it out on the show?