I've read the Deponia review and I agree completely with the reviewer, the first game had some hints at this but the third seems to stink of it. A game made by teenage boys with old values.
Everyone is complaining that RPS is only doing this to sell but what about Deadalic? Why do you think they show Goal with as little clothes as possible on the cover?
I own the first Deponia but I am not going to by the other pieces of dung.

What is wrong with old values?

Having now finished the game, I can agree that the game crosses the line of good taste a few times, but it's definitely not as bad as Mr "White Knight" Walker implies ;)
For some other perspective:
http://www.adventuregamers.com/articles/view/25607
http://www.indiegamemag.com/goodbye-deponia-review/
Both reviews written by women, if that makes any difference for you.

I don't get this, what values? It's a humorous point and click adventure, it's funny at least i had some really good laughs with it. It doesn't have a serious anti-women message in it, it's making fun of the entire "the princess falls in love with the charming prince" trope.

If you want values try out a New Beginning (Spoilers: The devs don't actually hate women, aren't racist and don't endorse animal abuse)

Thanks for the effort, let me follow up and summarize.

On expectations from public servants you understood correctly, and the takeaway I see is that you are quite direct and value honesty. Great start.
This RPS interview excerpt is an example of what I referred next - the interviewer wants to engage at a certain level, the interviewee does not - for whatever reason, be it of intentions or capabilities.
Another rhetorical example would be where someone wants you to tell them you love them - but you - being honest ;) - don't, won't or can't.

The follow ups:
What is the issue that is being evaded? - it's rhetorical, we both know what it is, you named it.
Should he lie that he will do something to resolve it? :) - we probably both agree he shouldn't, cos honesty is a fine virtue.
Should he want to want to address that issue? - This is where it gets tricky :) Because even if we agree on the social good from him (from anyone) having those wishes, this is like trying to convince someone to love you. ;)

Soapbox time, since you also were open enough to share more on your personal views.

The radical side in this debate wants to change outcomes through causing very deep behavioral change, and is using overtly psychological and social pressure to achieve that. I think this approach is a fool's errand even if I agree with many of the movement's goals. I also consider such means as borderline coercive.

If sexism is an actual rights violation (female mutilation, forced marriage, sexual slavery), then I'd agree with such means, and more. But the sexism we are all taking about (and isn't that tragic) is equality of outcomes, not of rights. And that's when it gets that far... (freedom of expression, bad or good taste - distractions mostly)

The conservative side wants to maintain the status quo, and has the advantage of established position. Whether I consider this to be fair or not is irrelevant, the power differential is such that direct confrontation in this topic is completely counterproductive - the way these threads go is evidence, but it's obvious many of the radicals are in denial in terms of seeing the implications.

For me the implications (and threat) are obvious, if someone can prepare the battlefield so that some higher coercive element comes into play... like state regulations and implied threat of physical police violence, then we have a whole different game, a whole different leverage. The impossible starts looking possible.

But what's the cost? We think that's wrong don't we? Shouldn't we? ;) We even call this totalitarianism I believe, or social engineering if you're more charitable. This of course is my political pet peeve as I'm ideologically liberal in the classical sense - any such coercion, even for positive intentions is a big no, no. Laissez faire, blah blah...

The question is if we aren't already there, in particular in the US some of the legal changes in terms of rape definitions, or sexual discrimination I think clearly cross the line - these ends don't justify such means.

And now the ironic kicker - the debate around this in gaming I find reflects biological gender differences to a very high degree. A lot of the social roles established for the typical sexes follow directly from the same kind of "power" differential at a micro level. The interesting thing to me, is that the confrontational radical approach to this macro topic is so "masculine".

Sorry for the provocations throughout, trust we are at a level where agreements and agreements to disagree are crystal clear. :)

You see the interviewer as being justifiably aggressive, whereas I see him as slightly abusive. You see the interviewee as slightly dishonest, whereas I see him as justifiably defensive.

I think we can sum this up quite nicely: sex sells. Game developers are interested in one thing, and that's selling units. Personally, I'm bored with females wearing skimpy outfits and ignore any title that uses them in their marketing; your going to have to do better than that if you want my money.

I liked all the pictures of beautiful women in scantily clad armor in the old RPG books. Being a gamer of tabletop RPG's however, I recognized how silly the idea of "Bikini Plate" was in actual gameplay. People would argue why there armor class wasn't higher with more of the same material protecting more layers of body. Pretty quickly Bikini Plate wasn't part of the game (maybe barring extremely light armor that was magically enhanced which was a rare find). That being said, I don't think art in any medium should be censored at all. If developers want "Bikini Plate", they should be allowed to have at.

One factor that might be in place as to why a lot of female characters are scantily clad is because sexuality sells. I imagine there would have to be some games that were successful in the RPG fantasy genre that espoused a more realistic approach to female battle wear. I think the Elder Scrolls series in the last two games did a good job of that. I think Borderlands 1 and 2 for all the crass humor also doesn't have a ton of scantily clad women (barring Moxi). On top of that society (at least mines in the US) would have to become less sex obsessive (ie not so much uninterested in sex, but rather being seen as not being some super be all end all major event).

In conclusion I just wouldn't buy the game that had something that offended me so in it. In a sense you vote with your money to not support that kind of art.

I'd rather not live in a world where your skin color and gender determines how "right" or "wrong" you are about a given situation. Oddly enough, one would think that would be the world that feminists are trying to create but apparently not.

Anyway, we are all able to use logic, reason, compassion and critical thinking regardless of our skin color or gender. Why not do so?

Because its how a society can work and exist ? Unless you want chaos and destruction all the way every time someone disagrees with your empowered self.

So if some people don't get what they want in PC games, there will be chaos and destruction? Society has been working like this(winners and losers, no middle ground) since the beginning of time. Society is like this right now. I see no chaos and destruction when I look out of my window.

Ok, most feminists strive for equality, not female dominance but my point is, it is impossible to satisfy everyone. If there is a game, most feminists are happy with, then there will be some feminists who wont be satisfied and there will probably be some males who wont be satisfied due to the lack of sexed up females etc. There is a battle and some people are going to have to lose. Sure, it's possible for the majority of gamers to win but there will still be people who will lose and won't get their way. Victory will probably go to the side with the most numbers because they will be able to offer publishers and devs, the most $$$.

Blizzard's stance is it's just a game. And that is cool. I might not agree with it, but that is their personal opinion.

RPS's stance is that the game has larger implications in a social context. And that is also cool. I might not agree with it, but that is their personal opinion.

If you feel that it is just a game then play the game. If you have an issue with it then don't.
Similarly if you feel that RPS has put greater emphasis on social issues and you find that interesting, then read it. If you dislike the emphasis then don't.

I honestly am not seeing the conflict here.

Blizzard has a right to make games as they please. RPS has a right to discuss them as they please.

I am frankly confused by the disapproval voiced towards RPS. RPS has their own website, they pay for it, they run it. They have the same rights as anyone else to voice their opinions. Was RPS different in the past? Sure, but just like everyone else they have the right to change what things they talk about and in what quantities. Not many things remain static in the world.



I generally like the PA Report. http://penny-arcade.com/report/

Are you a libertarian? I'm curious.

Is the PA Report libertarian?