Jump to content
rllmuk
Unofficial Who

Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)

Recommended Posts

I'm working on a mod for Left 4 Dead 2 where all the special infected are replaced by prominent SJW figureheads. I feel this will accurately portray the struggle of today's gamer.

Let's Patreon that shit right now. If that isn't worth $10K of idiot money, I don't know what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no truck whatsoever with people wanting to protect this game somehow out of some modified Niemoller argument; it's the complete wrong tree to bark up.

Oh gosh, well that's that settled then.

By the way this isn't just something that's been latched onto by GGs, unless you're accusing several people over the last page here and in the other thread of being GGs.

Others are interested in the issue too. Not all of us are prepared to abandon free speech and creative expression in some misguided attempt to create a better society through suppression of views we don't like, and that doesn't make any of us GG's.

That said I do know that your side of the debate are found of chucking slurs around like so much confetti, so perhaps that is how you feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh gosh, well that's that settled then.

By the way this isn't just something that's been latched onto by GGs, unless you're accusing several people over the last page here and in the other thread of being GGs.

Others are interested in the issue too. Not all of us are prepared to abandon free speech and creative expression in some misguided attempt to create a better society through suppression of views we don't like, and that doesn't make any of us GG's.

That said I do know that your side of the debate are found of chucking slurs around like so much confetti, so perhaps that is how you feel.

I'm not accusing you of being a gamergater. Or indeed anyone still posting in this thread, even Nap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm making a mod for Papers, Please, where the player is the gamergatekeeper. Any women or ethnics or ethnic women trying to encroach into gaming and the manosphere must prove their non-SJW credentials to the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the obvious answer to "why is this discussion in this thread?" is "we've had the you're-imposing-social-justice-values-on-me discussion several times already".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not accusing you of being a gamergater. Or indeed anyone still posting in this thread, even Nap.

...Ok. Ok man. Good. I'm sorry about the jibe about slurs, I feel a bit tense about this subject because of how I've been treated. I'm also quite quick to anger, as everyone knows. That's just me at this point.

Anyway I'm glad that you feel that way because I think that telling a woman who makes a video expressing her opinion about videogames she needs to be raped with a broken bottle, and any other of the thousands of examples you could name, is disgusting and you can bet your last penny I bristle at the suggestion that I would sit with such people ever.

And yet it's deployed again and again. There are big real issues here, there are terrible awful people out there with tiny minds and hatred in their heart but some people involved in this discussion sometimes seem like they want us all to start seeing enemies everywhere and turn on each other. That was my point with the McCarthyite point the other week. We have to keep our heads on and not get hysterical. I think GG are mostly wankers and broadcast their wankerdom with their every pronouncement, but in fighting back against them I think we have to be careful about imposing some intellectual feminist-based orthodoxy which it is unacceptable to disagree with any aspect of.

I mean, god, if there's one things feminists seem to do out on social media it's vehemently disagree with and criticise each other (it seems to be permanent game of one-up-woman-ship), so I don't know why some people seem to want to pretend in here that there's one acceptable set of views on the matter. If you believe in female equality, hell in HUMAN equality, then you shouldn't really feel that you're always a line or two away from being accused of holding the opposite view and much worse besides.

I don't mind if GGs support this game. I support things on first principles and one of them is Voltaire's famous statement. In the past I expressed a view that the BNP should never be allowed a platform anywhere, and I defended that position strongly. This was in stark contrast to my views on free speech otherwise. Now I feel like it was a mistake because I feel people should be able to say whatever and hang themselves with their own rope. It was big error in judgement and uncharacteristic of me.

But briefly for a while I was scared and, well, full of righteous anger I suppose and I didn't want them to be given any chance. That was a diversion though and i'm back to recognising that their ideas need to be defeated in the cold light of day. Because if there is any social backing to their views then we can't win anyway by attempting to suppress them - forces beyond our control would envelop us. If we take them on honestly however maybe we can show people just how stupid they are. I think that happened with the BNP.

Anyway, I'd better stop before I digress into talking about fucking UKIP.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no truck whatsoever with people wanting to protect this game somehow out of some modified Niemoller argument; it's the complete wrong tree to bark up.

I think the problem here - and of the 'SJW side' in general as we now use that name as a term of endearment - is that this particular game is being politicised and about to be sacrificed on the altar of good taste as warning to others. While in my opinion, based on the stuff I read and saw so far, this is just a game that takes a bit of a controversial angle at the shooting genre and which might be good puerile fun. Or complete shit. Whatever. The fact that one or two people on the development team have 'liked' an organisation that may have less favourable political views from the perspective of our cushioned western european ivory tower doesn't really come in to it as far as I'm concerned, unless there really is a 'nigger hunt' or 'fag frag' mode in the game or something, but I don't think we've seen anything like that. So based on a trailer, some media hyperbole about said trailer and a few developer quotes and Facebook screengrabs there's now a reverse 'consumer revolt' going on, which is not unlike GamerGate but from the other side of the fence. I'd be happier if we judge the game on its own merits instead of treating it as some political manifesto or an unfavourable voice that needs to be shut up before it even had a say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm making a version of Guess Who? where all the characters are feminazi cultural marxist censors, called "Literally Who?"

I saw Richard from Guess Who? In the office the other day, and experienced the same involuntary stab of excitement as when I see a celebrity. Maybe not a Paul McCartney level celebrity, someone like David Tennant perhaps.

vlcsnap-2011-04-22-00h31m23s49.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem here - and of the 'SJW side' in general as we now use that name as a term of endearment - is that this particular game is being politicised and about to be sacrificed on the altar of good taste as warning to others.

1) It was always politicised. You can't make a game about going on a rampage and say "look, there's no meaning here" unless it's, like, Smash TV or something really alienated. Stuff like Hotline Miami has things to say - intentionally or not - about violence.

2) Is there really some SJW campaign against the game? All I've seen is the game getting submitted to Steam and pulled in about a day which is about as much press coverage as it has received since it was announced. Let's not make some convenient equivalency narrative just because Gamergate happens to have happened.

Edit - In particular let's not start viewing every gaming issue in some weird SJW vs Gamergate lens like they're both actual things. If we do that partisan bullshit has won.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not accusing you of being a gamergater. Or indeed anyone still posting in this thread, even Nap.

That would be pretty foolish too. I think Joey's Quest For His Sexual Identity and Transgender Stock Car Racing have as much right to exist as Call of Brofist 38.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it's appropriately age-restricted then as far as I'm concerned you can put whatever you want in a game. Same as with a book or a film. It's up to the publisher whether they want to publish it, a distributor has the same choice, and people can self-publish and self-distribute if they want. That's my tuppence worth.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather suspect that Valve decided that being seen to green light/release a game in which you go on a murderous rampage a few hours after someone had gone on a murderous rampage in Sydney was probably a mainstream media shitstorm they wanted to avoid

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer my 2) up there it looks like there is a fair amount of discussion about whether the game is some sort of right-wing fantasy which I would've known earlier if I'd read the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It was always politicised. You can't make a game about going on a rampage and say "look, there's no meaning here" unless it's, like, Smash TV or something really alienated. Stuff like Hotline Miami has things to say - intentionally or not - about violence.

2) Is there really some SJW campaign against the game? All I've seen is the game getting submitted to Steam and pulled in about a day which is about as much press coverage as it has received since it was announced. Let's not make some convenient equivalency narrative just because Gamergate happens to have happened.

Edit - In particular let's not start viewing every gaming issue in some weird SJW vs Gamergate lens like they're both actual things. If we do that partisan bullshit has won.

What's Smash TV if it's not a dual commentary on mass media and the consumerist society? It's very Modern in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made this for a bit of a lol but yeah, it's interesting. I'm sure recent events (well, since the launch of GTAV) have made Rockstar aware of the problems. I'm pretty sure that this was a factor in putting this image together for promotion. Gives me hope. It's cool, women's faces are rarely covered in games (or have scars etc). Yet here it just works perfectly and even makes sense.

B4_tTCYCcAAQTw5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... The fact that one or two people on the development team have 'liked' an organisation that may have less favourable political views from the perspective of our cushioned western european ivory tower ...

yeah, what do Western European ivory tower academics know about the suffering of Poland's ubermensch, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, those people come under 'liberals' who frequently find themselves being the enablers of actual fascists through application of their high ideals. Complete unrestricted freedom of speech is what allows fascists to organise and create support networks and cause direct harm to others. Hatred is obviously not on the same level as something like the Pegido march that's happening in Germany right now but it's being made by people whose politics are vile as an extension of those politics and is in fact being latched on to by gamergate types who are demanding that the developers add on levels where you can mow down 'SJWs' in addition to immigrants and whatever else. I have no truck whatsoever with people wanting to protect this game somehow out of some modified Niemoller argument; it's the complete wrong tree to bark up.

Oh, and with relation to my views on free speech in general, I'll gladly take some hypothetical future comeuppance over white supremacists and racists being allowed to spread their ideals and cause the deaths of innocents right now, which is the verifiable consequence of allowing fascists to organise under the umbrella of free speech.

:unsure:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, I recall when Game removed Manhunt from sale over the hysteria about that. Hysteria based on ignorance and terrible reporting.

The attitude of the public, the majority, could change again towards games and we could find ourselves in the position of needing to defend stuff we individually care about.

Then people who feel this complex issue (of supporting creative expression, even where we don't like it) can be dismissed it by saying it's not a Niemellor issue as with Rudi (well that's that debate over I guess!) - those people efforts to defend that stuff are going to have their words look a bit empty I think.

I think it's important to defend stuff you don't care for. Because their stuff can become our stuff. You don't want to make arguments that give ammunition to silly ideas about games. Everytime you darkly imply that some game you don't like might make people go nuts or encourages X you are making a rod for gaming's back.

I don't care much whether the attacks on games, intentional or not, come from Jack Thompsons on the right or Jack Thompsons on the left.

I'm not super concerned about this move at the moment, but it can be argued against, and certainly like Alex W I regard it with caution. If more retailers take up their right to deny adults products we have a problem on our hands.

I think that's it's true that if they come for Hatred than one day they might for that violent game you like that. It doesn't matter if you feel it has value, it's about how others feel about it. That was my point with Salo.

Not to say Hatred is some great work like Salo (received wisdom, I haven't seen the film) but that Salo can and has been attacked as disgusting filth.

I was concerned about the Target decision on GTA. That worries me. It's a minority group getting what they want over a majority of adults who'd rather decide for themselves. No i don't care that some sex workers wanted it pulled - I don't consider them arbiters of adult consumption.

I watch developments with interest.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slippery slope isn't always a fallacy.

Some of the people opposing the UK government's plans to filter extreme porn from the internet weren't concerned they would no longer be able to jerk off to extreme porn, they (rightly, as it turns out) feared other things would be filtered out including political speech and inoffensive things like Childline (yes, Childline the counselling service for children and young people, which was at one point filtered by O2).

Assuming you don't want what might be at the bottom of the slope it is wise to keep an eye on things like that and consider them carefully, even if you wouldn't go so far as Voltaire in being prepared to die for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a pretty massive leap between government-enforced restrictions and retailers choosing not to distribute/publishers deciding not to publish things.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't intend to suggest otherwise (although I wouldn't use the word leap).

But the coalition's filter wasn't conceived of internally, a very vocal, tiny minority persuaded the coalition to make ISPs deploy filters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And getting back on topic for the sociologists out there A Man in Black has a neat piece on how Chan style Gamergating is less about sexism and more about tribalism and culture clash.

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/how-chan-style-anonymous-culture-shapes-gamergate

and further discussion here

http://www.metafilter.com/145383/Everyone-is-poised-to-attack-anyone-But-its-all-a-joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As pointed out here http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/12/16/hatred-removed-from-steam/#more-258097 (and probably better discussed in the Hatred thread unless Hatred suddenly has a sub level involving killing women for fun) Valve sell other violent games and are a near monopoly. So it's still effectivly censorship.

Except it's not about them selling it, it's about them publishing it; and they're not a near monopoly, so it's not.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a pretty massive leap between government-enforced restrictions and retailers choosing not to distribute/publishers deciding not to publish things.

Aren't they two sides of the same coin? In both cases it's a matter of people in a position of power denying you access to something they deem inappropriate for you to see. I'd rather make up my own mind, thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.