They can do it, but I won't be supporting it in most cases.

Because back then they simply did it because that was the market demographic back then.....now they are trying to get more people from the said groups they pander to who might not have otherwise bought their product to buy it.

i.e. they sold to who bought the games and media in the past(they didn't, for example, make too many games to get girls and women into gaming way back then to pander to them when they could've), and now they pander to some other groups to lure them into buying just because someone that looks like them is in the game.

============================== Ad hominems and possible strawman, plus putting words in his mouth/painting him a certain way.....i.e. bad faith debating.

Of course you seem to like doing that......maybe because you feel you cannot prove your point or convince people of what you say otherwise?

As I said, you should move to reset era....you'd be at home there, among the hivemind like users who all side with each other & plug their ears at opposing thought, and use the same debating tactics you yourself employ.

============================

Dude, i'd just ignore him....it is very likely he isn't trying to debate/discuss to learn more about opposing stances or to maybe see if there's any truth in opposing stances, but to boost his own ego and reinforce his own beliefs, and likely won't change his stances any time soon based on what we say.

(Also the circular discussions both of us are having are likely mostly a waste of our time as well)

(Edit: His method of "debate" reminds me of this one guy[vegan I think] who "debated" a YTer with the same tactics: Pointing out fallacies and gotchas, misrepresenting what the other party[the YTer] said or putting words in their mouths, using subtle mocking and jabs, not considering much[or at all] of what the YTer said, etc.

At one point the YTer saw the guy's mind was closed and he was being less than civil so he just cut the "debate" short and "walked away"....that's my advice here, as I said above...at least on this topic[It is POSSIBLE he might be more open on other topics])

Though feel free to keep trying to move the mountain by talking to it, if you want.....I gave up for the most part yesterday.

OR use ARCHIVE LINKS, which allows one to read such(if they wish) without giving them any money.


==============================

As I said, if everyone(or many) used archive links to read such and they didn't get much revenue they'd likely all start to fold like some others have as of late.

==================================

Yup...also ninja'd by another wise user. :)

============================

True, but imo it's no good to not show any emotional response to anything(or very little) either.

@GameRager
These will be some of my last replies to you, but I needed to reply as you basically attacked me for no reason in your latest reply.

Ok it seems like you don't have an inkling what

1) an ad hominem is
2) a strawman is
3) arguing in bad faith is

It boggles my mind you repeatedly accuse me/people of these things, yet you have no clue what they mean. At least learn about them, and THEN see if they are applicable (which by the way, they're not).

Clearly you've been hurt and burnt before by those damned libs in some forum place. I suggest instead of telling people to gtfo from vidya gaming forums for little reason, you seek some closure.

So you're basically accusing me of arguing in bad faith, even though you don't know what it is? Greeeeaaaat.

And if you must know, I happen to believe equality and social justice are some of the only topics that actually matter, hence why I'm so passionate about them.

I think you'll find you're the one constantly harping about logical fallacies (incorrectly so). In fact I've been trying to avoid pointing them out, as half of my post would consist of that with your comments, if I didn't.

Now that that's done, I will keeping on-topic a lot more (or at all) and ignoring your misguided attacks on me, and ignoring the fact you are just trying to derail this topic.

buh-bye

To be totally honest, this sounds like "How dare they try getting more people interested in games? I AM NOT SUPPORTING THEM IN THAT!"

As if "Barbie Racing" or "Nancy Drew Adventures" or "Pac-man" existing is somehow immoral. It sounds ridiculous to me. You say "pandering", but it is no more pandering than making games with big burly white men as a sort of power fantasy for teenage boys.

EDIT: I think I'll follow in rojimboo's footsteps. This conversation is turning into a debate again.

And to me it seems you're either quick to assume ill intent on my part(possibly due to your own stances and beliefs), or intentionally framing me a certain way to "win" the discussion.

(Because I OBVIOUSLY couldn't have good reason for thinking as I do...nope, it can "ONLY" be for bad reasons)

Didn't say or infer that, friend.

As I said before.....before they were just selling to who bought their games....now they are trying to lure more people in by putting x or y group into them as a lure.

========================================================= That is why I simply suggested you go to reset era or a similar site(NOT to leave here, just to maybe post such there, with people of like minded stance and beliefs) as they're more aligned with your "unique" POV. Attacks?

I merely suggested another site that would be more in tune with your "delightful" way of thinking, and also pointed out some fallacies I noted...that's about it.

Derailing?

Pot, meet kettle....you've been derailing quite a bit yourself.

(And speaking of that, to all: I agree i've contributed a bit more than I should to going slightly offtopic, so I will try to reign myself in after this)
--------------------------------------------------

According to Anita Sarkeesian, they are. Seriously, Dude! You should do your homework before bringing examples of SJW pandering. So you wouldn't instead pick the games that, quote "enforce harmful stereotypes".

You're right...also how did I forget about that(when replying to other earlier)?

One thing companies did back then was make all games "for girls and women" to be stuff like barbie and nancy drew....to pander to them and what they (stereotypically) thought girls and women would only like.....which proves such companies mostly do such not out of the milk of decency, but to make money.

(And before others say "what's wrong with making money? They're businesses!" or similar, I ask this: Should they do such because it's the right thing, or to make money?)

Ahoy mates. So i wont be banned if i comment in this topic?
This is kinda political debate anyway and we all know those are tolerated not much .

Btw it tells all about journos that a pigeon is smarter . Im with you dragon. I hate how they uglify women in games just to carter to an ideology.

Well this one is on gaming and gaming stuff is allowed(as an exception) if people stay ontopic and civil, and don't delve into pure politics.

I would say more like many of them, but yeah a pigeon might be smarter than some gaming journos.

This.....I am a man and as a man I like seeing some things in games, and because of pandering to certain groups some devs cut such out of most games nowadays...along with other un-pc things...to avoid bad PR or people up in arms(even some gaming "reporters") over them putting the "wrong" thing in their games.

Not really wanting to veer far into the "diversity" argument, but a few points...

As video games grow from niche to mainstream, the largest AAA game makers will search to recoup graduated development costs by trying to appeal to larger and larger audiences. While mechanics appeal to a small portion of the market (where they are debated and analyzed), the broader general market doesn't care about mechanics other than "is it cool?" But the broader general audience is interested ATM in "is it diverse?" For a growing number of taste-makers in the broad, general market, diversity has become a short-hand for quality. And while diversity is not inherently "bad," it doesn't automatically make a game "good" either. The quality of a game should be a synthesis of gameplay, story, and presentation... not whether a list of boxes were checked off.

There's plenty of room in entertainment for stories (and games) with diverse and even challenging characters, situations, and cultures. But at the same time, IMO simply checking off boxes to pander to more audiences (tokenism) feels inauthentic and as bad as the antithesis -- censorship.

IMO at this time in gaming -- as it grows into the largest entertainment genre -- there are many groups with many agendas that want to try and steer the trajectory of the market... but many of these groups aren't gamers... and they look at games (and gamers) in a very surface an stereotypical way. But not being fans of gaming, many of these groups will move along to other "battlegrounds" in time.

ps -- a final note... diversity in thought and representation can (and does) happen organically in the market as it changes. Entertainment responds to those who pay. Period. For instance: the growing number of games with female lead characters is not because of a few outspoken activists complaining... it's because a growing number of women are playing video games and spending money on them. That's the driver of change in a market.

And with that, I'll refrain from this issue.

I know you are bowing out, at least on this topic, but I felt a reply to such a well written reply was warranted:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Agreed....also some(even some in said groups like myself) see it as a slap in the face for them to just toss in a character or two or a bit of storyline to get us to buy....to some of us(me sometimes as well) it seems(and is likely the case) they often do it not because they care but to make money.

This(as I said above).

This...well said.

hope this is not allowed and will be removed
racists like this should not be tolerated here

Agree, they behave like authoritan parents and you the children . They know what is good for you and what isnt , they want to make all the decisions for you cause you are not capable to make your own choices and controll your own life.
hypocrite thats all with double standards

completly
i give 0 value to those reviews too bad many people/companies make decisions on review ratings
imho best is to read some longer reviews usually those are not fake and just watch for the wording if it is typical adv blabla it is fake