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

[Spacehost]

Not everything has to conform to FF agenda and nobody thinks the level of violence in Doom is normal.

So you're saying Doom is abnormally violent, by videogame standards? I wouldn't go that far myself, I think it's pretty typical, especially given the genre's history, and that's the problem, the level of violence in videogames that's considered normal is approximately the same as an average Arnold Swarzenegger movie marathon. The medium has a problem presenting players with problems that aren't solved by shooting things and blowing them up.

[SMD]

Just show them this:

is that a seal?

[Alex W.]

I thought this article gave a counterpoint to concerns about Doom 4, to wit a bit of ridiculousness is probably healthy.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/23/8832431/e3-2015-violence-storytelling

The closer something edges to our own experiences, the harder it becomes to think of it as just a game — and I’m going to keep poking fun whenever Nathan Drake destroys an entire village in the happy-go-lucky Uncharted franchise. But applying a protective coat of soul-searching, realism, and self-loathing can sometimes only make things worse. If E3 this year taught me anything, it’s that taking violence less seriously might be the best way to let cyberdemons coexist with yarn dolls.

[Spacehost]

Plenty of games present players with problems that aren't solved by shooting things and blowing them up, and violence is prevalent in many mediums other than videogames. Doom is historically one of the most violent videogames alongside Mortal Kombat, (the latter I kind of feel uneasy about some of the fatalities), but the choice is either we censor these games or produce alternative games and problems to players. I'm not cool with the former, I'd hope this forum wouldn't support it and the latter is already happening. So really what is the issue?

i) FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, no one is advocating censorship! Jesus fucking Christ. Can I be permitted, for once, to discuss the content of a game from a broader perspective than pure gameplay and art direction without being accused of supporting censorship? Please? That okay with you? Good.

ii) I am abundantly aware that there are videogames with no violence at all in them, and there's a broad spectrum of games with all manner of content, but I can't discuss general trends in videogame design without generalising, and there is a trend in popular videogames towards titles with fairly preposterous amounts of violence. I'm not advocating any solutions to this, it's just an observation that the games industry probably has a bit of a violence problem.

[Spacehost]

I think diverisfying and offering alternative gameplay experiences is the answer to the complaint but there is room for games with excessive violence and there'll probably always be a market for that. I wonder what FemFreq's solution would be.

Isn't that exactly what FemFreq have been going on about?

[NEG]

Isn't that exactly what FemFreq have been going on about?

This level of extreme violence shouldnt be considered normal. It's not an excuse to say its expected because DOOM. Thats the problem #BE3

^---

[Rev]

^---

That doesn't say "there shouldn't be games like this", does it?

[Spacehost]

I haven't seen a quote from them to suggests they want a compromise or balance with existing norms. They highlight what they consider wrong and campaign against it. It's not like their end goal is to reduce gender discrimination to an acceptable level, quite rightly they wish to eliminate it as much as possible, I assume the same extends to other problems they choose to highlight.

It's a pretty big assumption. It's pretty safe to say they think the norms need to move so that games aren't predominantly focussed around shooting things in the face, but I don't see why you'd have to assume that means they want specific games like Doom to disappear or be less violent.

[NEG]

That doesn't say "there shouldn't be games like this", does it?

Perhaps, but it does imply something's wrong about it (that level of violence). Do horror movies still get the same critic after a hundred years on being 'too' violent? Is the complaint justified in any manner today?

Edit: I'm not a fan of gore and exploding eyeballs. Like Shrew mentioned the latest Mortal Kombat was a bit too much from what I saw, but if that's what they want to release then let them. It has an 18 on it for a reason. All it's meant is I'll be sticking to MK9 instead.

[Spacehost]

Perhaps, but it does imply something's wrong about it (that level of violence being considered the normal level).

Corrected that for you. As for horror movies, the whole Saw/ Hostel gore-porn thing a few years back wound up being constantly criticised for being little more than gorey violence for the sake of it, and the Human Centipede movies and A Serbian Movie have been pilloried for the same. The reason horror movies as a whole don't get complaints that they're too violent is because in general they aren't; there's some outliers but for the most part it's actually about the fear of violence than the depiction of violent acts.

Most games with any sort of violence in the at all are stuck at a level where if you don't kill the equivalent of Arnie's entire bodycount in eight hours it's becuase you're in a stealth game.

[Scribblor]

How do you interpret that? What do you think she's calling for there?

Edit: sorry, took too long to press 'post'. You'd already answered this.

Critique, not critic!

[Spacehost]

but if that's what they want to release then let them

And now we're back to the assumption that criticism is a cry for censorship. STOP DOING THIS.

[NEG]

Corrected that for you. As for horror movies, the whole Saw/ Hostel gore-porn thing a few years back wound up being constantly criticised for being little more than gorey violence for the sake of it, and the Human Centipede movies and A Serbian Movie have been pilloried for the same.

That's a fair correction, but not all shooters are to the same level of Doom in blood and gore are they? Are they increasingly getting to that level? Interesting.

[Spacehost]

Until they actually state what their solution is I think we're both making assumptions. Determining which is 'pretty safe' is down to subjective bias.

Well they don't want the norm to stay the same, and they don't want the norm to be more violent, so by deduction I think they're probably wanting the norm for violence in videogames to be less violent.

[Spacehost]

That's a fair correction, but not all shooters are to the same level of Doom in blood and gore are they? Are they increasingly getting to that level? Interesting.

Are we talking violence or are we talking gore? Because the gore in the new Doom is probably a high-water mark alongside Fallout 4's Bloody Mess, but I don't think the level of violence is.

[matt0]

That's their goal.

Is their solution more games with less violence, or less games with violence (pretty much censorship) or a combination of the two? We can only make assumption in lieu of evidence.

Their solution appears to be making a series of videos on the internet highlighting issues that while at first glance seem obvious are sometimes more pervasive than we realise.

They are going about this by making a series of videos on the internet highlighting issues that while at first glance seem obvious are sometimes more pervasive than we realise.

[Spacehost]

That's their goal.

Is their solution more games with less violence, or less games with violence (censorship) or a combination of the two? We can only make assumptions in lieu of evidence.

Well seeing as one of their recurring messages across all their games videos it that games need to get more diverse and they've never said once that they think games should be banned I'm going to go with the thing that they've actually said rather than the assumption of villainy.

[NEG]

Are we talking violence or are we talking gore? Because the gore in the new Doom is probably a high-water mark alongside Fallout 4's Bloody Mess, but I don't think the level of violence is.

General violence and gore had to have increased to make the statement of 'not every shooter/game should be on the same level of DOOM' no?

[b00dles]

I think one of the main solutions is make games that are generally more appealing to more people and welcome more people into games, as both players and makers.

GG and the like seem intent on keeping it as some sort of weird 'teenage boys club' which it isn't and shouldn't be. Incidentally, this is also what all those 'Gamers are Dead' articles are about too.

I don't understand why this isn't welcomed, it fries my brain.

[matt0]

That's their goal.

Is their solution more games with less violence, or less games with violence (censorship) or a combination of the two? We can only make assumptions in lieu of evidence.

Actually, while I'm at it. No, less games with violence wouldn't be censorship if it was a case of more developers going down that route after having the case for doing so successfully put across to them.

Not everything is [spooky voice] Ceennsssorrshippp! [/spooky voice]

[Spacehost]

I can agree with that but I still don't think the violence in Doom is problematic. I think bad writing and immature characterisation are more problematic. Doom is just rampant violence for the heck of it. It's a stress reliever.

It's also perilously close to

which the forum has had plenty of mileage mocking. Turns out the Edge Doom review was right!

She wasn't talking about the violence in Doom being problematic, she was talking about the violence in Doom being considered normal being problematic.

[b00dles]

Ok I'll give you this, I even found a quote to support you:

I can agree with that but I still don't think the violence in Doom is problematic. I think bad writing and immature characterisation are more problematic. Doom is just rampant violence for the heck of it. It's a stress reliever.

It's also perilously close to

which the forum has had plenty of mileage mocking. Turns out the Edge Doom review was right!

Not sure if you're joking but 'you'll give him that'? It's been their fucking point ever since the inception, it's been misunderstanding and fear of not being an insular little gang anymore that has taken it as meaning anything but things like that!

[ZOK]

Until they actually state what their solution is I think we're both making assumptions. Determining which is 'pretty safe' is down to subjective bias.

Why do you think they need to offer a solution anyway?

They are presenting an analysis. That is an end in itself.

[matt0]

And something else just occurred to me. Notice how NEG has gone out of his way to not actually watch the FF videos that actually talk about videogames and focused on Anita Sarkessian's personality? Notice how Sir Shrew is intent on talking about "agendas" and "goals" and "solutions" and keeps coming back to the theme of censorship as if there's somehow more to the story than what's stated in the videos. Constantly implying a darker side to videos that seem so eminently reasonable?

What if you realised that Anita Sarkessian - despite your initial standpoint that she's some kind of puritanical devil and inherently suspect and nasty - was just an ordinary woman talking about things she thinks are bad in gaming and how she thinks things could be improved. Just like we all do from time to time on a forum like this one. How would that feel if you'd invested emotional and mental energy in the idea that she's somehow a terrible person? Probably pretty shitty.

Best not to think too much about that then.

[b00dles]

As matt0 just said, it's not like every time anyone of us males on here make some comment about this game or that game being shit or sometimes even far more OTT outbursts than anything on TvVG, we don't need to prove that we're gamers or not out to censor everything and burn all games to the floor.

Why is it not possible that a woman (and other women) might just make comments about games like other blokes everywhere do?

Does Jim Sterling continually get called an unattractive fat bloke after every video and is assumed to want to end all games?

It's got FUCK ALL to do with 'wanting to know who the person is' and 'what their general views on x anad y are' because that doesn't happen to anyone on here or pretty much every bloke ever on the internet. If in fact it turned out that every video criticizing games (and those with much harsher terms than femfreq) was written by a woman but just presented by a man, then what do you do?

Obviously this would defeat the object if it happened like this but I reckon if I went and re-recorded those TvVG vids as me as the presenter, I'd probably get some level of grief on the net because of general arseholes but it would be generally no more than 'I don't agree with him' in essence, there wouldn't be continual calls for me to be raped / skullfucked / SWAT'd/ DDOS's/ etc etc.

Does that not seem a bit odd?

[matt0]

Why would I feel pretty shitty? What a weird thing to think.

Why would you attribute some nebulous agenda of censorship to someone making youtube commentary videos and consistently ignore the fact that there's no evidence for it? What a weird thing to do.

[RubberJohnny]

It comes down to "can you ever find a statement Anita has made advocating censorship", and GG spent a lot of time combing through everything and came up with "no".

[b00dles]

That is really not the difference in any way, shape or form but you keep telling yourself that.

[RubberJohnny]

Well also Jim Sterling didn't have 40,000 gamers trying to boot him from the industry as part of a hate crusade, so those people wouldn't be joining in on that. Context is important.

And I think joining in on ill-founded attacks on someone's character is a bit different to not liking their output.

[NEG]

And something else just occurred to me. Notice how NEG has gone out of his way to not actually watch the FF videos that actually talk about videogames and focused on Anita Sarkessian's personality? Notice how Sir Shrew is intent on talking about "agendas" and "goals" and "solutions" and keeps coming back to the theme of censorship as if there's somehow more to the story than what's stated in the videos. Constantly implying a darker side to videos that seem so eminently reasonable?

What if you realised that Anita Sarkessian - despite your initial standpoint that she's some kind of puritanical devil and inherently suspect and nasty - was just an ordinary woman talking about things she thinks are bad in gaming and how she thinks things could be improved. Just like we all do from time to time on a forum like this one. How would that feel if you'd invested emotional and mental energy in the idea that she's somehow a terrible person? Probably pretty shitty.

Best not to think too much about that then.

I'm getting around to it!

And I figure it's pretty clear I don't think Anita is bad by now, nor the general topic of the history (and on-going) misrepresentation of women in video games, sexism towards devs and female gamers, and all that jazz.

Jim Sterling is funny. He is also fat. I wish I kept my Pogs collection.