My post doesn't seem to go through. I'll remove one level of quotes and split it up into several parts. Prepare for wall of text.
Neobr10: Oh, c'mon, you can't be serious. That's a big strawman right there. I used dog as an example. It could be anything else. How many games give players the task of saving a man? Is anyone complaining that you have to rescue Mario in Luigi's Mansion? Is anyone saying that it "objectifies" men? Oh please.
In almost every game you have to "save" something or someone, even a whole race (like saving humanity). Saving women is just ONE of the plot devices. Why is rescuing other men fine, but women isn't? That's just some double standards right there.
You're very close to quoting Anita verbatim here. I'll see if I can find that part of her video later, but I might not have the time as I have a Blood Bowl match tonight.
Reversing the trope is not a "solution" (as far as a solution is needed).
Neobr10: The discussion doesn't make me angry. What makes me angry is the amount of BS journalists come up with to push this agenda.
What agenda? To have women portrayed differently in at least some more games? To be aware of how they are portrayed now?
Neobr10: But they are NOT what Anita claims they are. That's the point. Games often try to make player emotionally attached to the objective by making you fight for something you care about. It could be saving humanity, saving your dog, your father, your brother, your girlfriend, your boyfriend, it doesn't matter. When you have to rescue male characters, it's fine, when you have to rescue female characters it's misogyny.
On one hand you say nearly the exact things Anita says, on the other hand I wonder if you watched her videos...
Again: Reversing the behaviour - portraying men in video games as women are portrayed now - is not a solution and it's nothing that anybody wants or has demanded as far as I know.
Neobr10: Read my post. I'm not saying players can't complain about it. What i complained about was how much
the gaming press (NOT players) turned a frivolous game design decision into fucking World War 3 by pushing their political agenda even further. My point is that even a simple design decision is seen as "misogyny", which is just ridiculous.
World War 3? Right.
Do yo really think that the gaming press has an interest in alienating their main audience? With what they are writing now, they are risking a lot. They are risking loosing customers. (In addition to the apparently "normal" threats against themselves and their families.)
Why would they do that? Do they really have a "political agenda" of wanting to change how women are portrayed in video games? Why should they care?
And that's exactly the question: Why should they care?
As long as you don't have an idea as to why they do what they do will, of course, appear as bullshit to you.
Neobr10: "OHHH, how do you dare to make a game without women as playable characters? You misogynist prick".
Give me a break. Game developers and publishers are being accused of everything because of their design choices.
The thing is, I haven't actually heard people say things like you put in quotation marks. I have the feeling that it is more like something people think is being said.
Do you mean the discussion about a female character in AC? Even that was not going in that direction as far as I know.
Neobr10: It isn't, that was a poor choice of words from my part and for that i apologize. That was a mistake, english is not my first language and i couldn't find a better word when i was typing.
Still, doesn't make my point invalid.
And please, don't *sigh* me. I'm being respectful with you and i would like the same treatment. It was a mistake, it was not intentional.
I take my sigh back although I have problems believing that such a blunder was not intentional. And English is not my first language either.
But you're right , the sigh was a sign of disrespect because you lost a bit of my respect at that moment.
Neobr10: And why should developers and publishers be FORCED to have all those attributes? I'm not saying developers shouldn't make games with more choices, what i'm saying is that they shouldn't be FORCED to. Do you understand the difference now?
As long as there isn't a law forcing them in place, as long as people are buying their games there is nothing forcing them.
Neobr10: Again, read my post. My post was never addressed at players' complaints. Players complain about a bunch of things, some of them i agree with, others i don't. What i'm critizing in my post is the gaming press and how much they turn everything into a political debate. And sometimes, they have personal reasons to do so, like that Kotaku writer who had personal relationships with Zoe Quinn.
Yeah, she had sex with several of them. But I don't think that's the reason they are picking up this topic now. The sex was already many moths ago at least.
From my point of view your wording of "personal relationship" is the better term to describe what troubles me. The gaming press has always tried to be close to developers and publishers. To befriend them. Just go to any aftershow party at a gaming convention to see how much they want to get "in".
Maybe in the hope of getting insider information they can use in their articles, maybe because they just want to be "part" of it all.
This "befriending", being friends with devs and publishers and then writing articles about them has been going on for more than a decade now, but suddenly now, when sex comes into play (or at least somebody writes about the sex that is going on, I'm sure this wasn't the first time) it is seen as a problem. Why not before? Why is this Zoe Quinn case causing the outrage? That's something I don't understand.
I understand the criticism, gaming journalism shouldn't be so close to the subjects they write about because it may lead to nepotism. But that's the way it has been for such a long time now. Why do people blow up so much about Zoe Quinn (and a game that is free to play)?
Neobr10: First, i'm treating you with respect and i expect the same treatment. I'm not treating you like a kid, so, please, stop. If you can't engage in a civilized discussion without resorting to personal attacks and being disrespectful, then please, don't.
I didn't mean that as disrespectful, I mean it in the same line as the people reminding us that is just games we're talking about.
Neobr10: Stop pulling a strawman on me. I never said anything about these kind of games not being made anymore. I'm strictly criticizing the gaming press and its attitude. I'm on a gaming forum and i have a right to criticize what i think is wrong. It's my personal opinion.
Nobody is taking that right away from you, just like nobody is forcing the gaming industry to change their games.
But I like the comparison with porn.
Porn was also very often attacked for its portrayal of women.
And what happened? Some studios made movies aimed more at women, other focused on other customer groups. But the same porn movies that were criticized continue to be made, because they still get bought.
And I think the same thing will happen to gaming. We'll have some more games that try to avoid the tropes, we'll have some more games aimed at niche audiences, and everybody will be a bit happier because nobody actually lost anything.
And yes, most people know that they storylines of porn movies don't really represent the real world.
Neobr10: They can, just like i can criticize them for doing so, which is exactly what I'm doing and apparently you have a problem with it.
You post in a forum. I disagree. I answer.
