Posted November 23, 2013
Telika
Registered: Apr 2012
From Switzerland
@('_')@
Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2012
From United States
Kennethor
Old user
Kennethor Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Mar 2013
From Sweden
Posted November 23, 2013
Kennethor: 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.
WBGhiro: 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)
Why did'nt someone in the development team say "hey, is'nt this a little offensive", I am mostly talking about the black woman that apparently is called monkey.
Psyringe
Vagabond
Psyringe Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2011
From Germany
Posted November 23, 2013
Quick reply (since I'm about to fall asleep, I hope my thoughts are coherent enough despite being tired):
It happens often that a journalist is asking a question that would be detrimental for the interviewee to answer. One of our local football managers once answered one of those notorious "Are the rumors true that your are interested in signing player X?" questions like this: "I will never comment on such questions. If we are in negotiations and I confirm them, then it would make such negotiations harder. If we aren't, and I tell you so, then you will take the lack of a denial as a proof of such rumors in all following cases where I don't deny anything explicitly. I will not confirm or deny any such rumors - if we have something to announce, we will notify you." That's fair, I think - he did not _evade_ the question, he took it serious, and he explained (and gave logical reasons) why he would not comment.
If Browder did not want to engage the issues that that the interviewer put forward, then he could have declined comment, and explained the reasons for doing so. Of course, it might have been difficult to find reasons that would be deemed acceptable - but then again, that might be an indication that not engaging the issue simply isn't a very good strategy in this case.
Good assessment of the situation, I think. :)
Brasas: 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.
Well, in case of the latter, I can at least explain why I won't tell that person that I love them. Likewise, in case of the former, the interviewee could have explained why he did not want to engage on that level. 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.
It happens often that a journalist is asking a question that would be detrimental for the interviewee to answer. One of our local football managers once answered one of those notorious "Are the rumors true that your are interested in signing player X?" questions like this: "I will never comment on such questions. If we are in negotiations and I confirm them, then it would make such negotiations harder. If we aren't, and I tell you so, then you will take the lack of a denial as a proof of such rumors in all following cases where I don't deny anything explicitly. I will not confirm or deny any such rumors - if we have something to announce, we will notify you." That's fair, I think - he did not _evade_ the question, he took it serious, and he explained (and gave logical reasons) why he would not comment.
If Browder did not want to engage the issues that that the interviewer put forward, then he could have declined comment, and explained the reasons for doing so. Of course, it might have been difficult to find reasons that would be deemed acceptable - but then again, that might be an indication that not engaging the issue simply isn't a very good strategy in this case.
Brasas: Should he lie that he will do something to resolve it? :) - we probably both agree he shouldn't, cos honesty is a fine virtue.
Exactly. ;) Brasas: 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. ;)
I can understand that he doesn't _want_ to answer questions that could lead into a moral minefield, but with him being the game's "director", I believe he should have a better way of dealing with such a question even though it might be unwanted. Either address it, or explain why you won't, and if you can't find a good way of doing the latter, then re-evaluate your stance on the former. Brasas: 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.
I think I know what you're referring to. I've found myself many times in situations where I agreed with the goals of a movement, but not with the means of some of its proponents. I will typically speak my mind in such situations, but I've also come to accept that every beneficial or necessary movement will have people who are overdoing it. On one hand, that may be detrimental to the movement - extremists make for great straw puppets when the opposing side is looking for targets, and why should one even fight people if they can be won over? On the other hand, even though I don't like it, I found that extremists often seem to be necessary to put things in motion on a bigger scale. Good assessment of the situation, I think. :)
Kennethor
Old user
Kennethor Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Mar 2013
From Sweden
Posted November 23, 2013
Kennethor: I am a white male, who am I to tell what is right or wrong when I can't understand how it is to be anything else?
stoicsentry: 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?
You don't know much about what it means to a feminist do you? You better look that up.
If people could think logically and see themselves in other peoples shoes the world would not be as it is.
Telika
Registered: Apr 2012
From Switzerland
Posted November 23, 2013
IT IS FUN. it is a great game, you reproach someone to answer questions with questions, and it's a very theme of that game, and it makes that game amusing, and anyone having played it would have gone "haha" at this post, and i have no idea wheher someone would have taken it seriously enough to actually gift it, and if they did it is still a game that would probably amuse you, including the question-for-question thingy in it. Sheesh !
Potzato
Village Resident
Potzato Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2008
From Spain
Posted November 23, 2013
I think the topic of 'enabling mysoginy/sexism through videogames' is a thing that should be discussed thoroughly, it's nowhere solved. People complaining that it seems everybody is onto it nowadays should know that's what happens when things are bottled up way too long.
I don't particularly like RPS but they do ask questions and lay (?) valid problematics.
I don't particularly like RPS but they do ask questions and lay (?) valid problematics.
@('_')@
Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2012
From United States
Posted November 23, 2013
Telika: IT IS FUN. it is a great game, you reproach someone to answer questions with questions, and it's a very theme of that game, and it makes that game amusing, and anyone having played it would have gone "haha" at this post, and i have no idea wheher someone would have taken it seriously enough to actually gift it, and if they did it is still a game that would probably amuse you, including the question-for-question thingy in it. Sheesh !
Your post just shows how different two people can be. The game sounds like torture for me... A lot of people consider answering a question with a question, rude behavior or at least adversarial where I come from.
Post edited November 23, 2013 by monkeydelarge
Spinorial
Ninja who say Ni
Spinorial Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2011
From Canada
Posted November 23, 2013
Next time on "PR F#@&-ups" XD
Yeah, I've got no issue with Nathan or RPS. If Browder hadn't put his foot in his mouth, there would have been a simple, dry, non-committal answer, and everyone would roll their eyes and move along.
But Browder did put his foot in his mouth, and we all got some unpleasant Blizzard frankness out of it. It's one thing to offload the entire hyper-sexualisation issue on your fan-base, quite another to admit you're mostly fine with it. Yeah, sure, the money flows and you're fine, but PR exists so that you don't have to say it like that, ideally until you don't have to say it at all! Because you should be working to eliminate it, not live with it!
That's all nothing new, for me and for most other people, but I'm all for bad press in Blizzard's direction. They've been riding on goodwill for over a decade, and it shows in their games. Ironically, the hyper-sexualisation issue didn't really exist with them in the 90s. Never had any issues with StarCraft, or Warcraft, or even Diablo - the amazon might have looked sexy, but she never pranced around on high heels! Now, Kerrigan actually evolved the things! o.O
The really disturbing part, though, is that the increased sexualisation in Blizzard coincided with the increased immaturity, both in artistic style and in storytelling. It started with Warcraft 3, but one couldn't call it a trend back then. When I recently watched a WoW cutscene - the end of Pandaria, I think - my first thought was "Why is everyone speaking like they're drunk?" The inanity of the dialogue aside, there seemed to be a pause every three words, as if the director feared the audience wouldn't be able to follow otherwise. Mayhaps he was right?
And is that the Blizzard audience now? Lewd pre-teen boys? I doubt it, given the hefty load of subscription fees it generates. How could Metzen and Didier get it so wrong! Can't even blame Activision, since Blizzard has had absolute creative freedom throughout. In fact, at this point, a hefty dose of corporate oversight might do them good. Sadly, there still seems to be some gameplay-design talent in there, judging by the success of Hearthstone, and that will probably be stomped out, too. On the other hand, it seems to be suppressed already, if we're to judge by SC2 and D3; and with Titan down the drain, it's unlikely that it would have seen manifestation anyway. So yes, changes would probably be best. Big ones.
Yeah, I've got no issue with Nathan or RPS. If Browder hadn't put his foot in his mouth, there would have been a simple, dry, non-committal answer, and everyone would roll their eyes and move along.
But Browder did put his foot in his mouth, and we all got some unpleasant Blizzard frankness out of it. It's one thing to offload the entire hyper-sexualisation issue on your fan-base, quite another to admit you're mostly fine with it. Yeah, sure, the money flows and you're fine, but PR exists so that you don't have to say it like that, ideally until you don't have to say it at all! Because you should be working to eliminate it, not live with it!
That's all nothing new, for me and for most other people, but I'm all for bad press in Blizzard's direction. They've been riding on goodwill for over a decade, and it shows in their games. Ironically, the hyper-sexualisation issue didn't really exist with them in the 90s. Never had any issues with StarCraft, or Warcraft, or even Diablo - the amazon might have looked sexy, but she never pranced around on high heels! Now, Kerrigan actually evolved the things! o.O
The really disturbing part, though, is that the increased sexualisation in Blizzard coincided with the increased immaturity, both in artistic style and in storytelling. It started with Warcraft 3, but one couldn't call it a trend back then. When I recently watched a WoW cutscene - the end of Pandaria, I think - my first thought was "Why is everyone speaking like they're drunk?" The inanity of the dialogue aside, there seemed to be a pause every three words, as if the director feared the audience wouldn't be able to follow otherwise. Mayhaps he was right?
And is that the Blizzard audience now? Lewd pre-teen boys? I doubt it, given the hefty load of subscription fees it generates. How could Metzen and Didier get it so wrong! Can't even blame Activision, since Blizzard has had absolute creative freedom throughout. In fact, at this point, a hefty dose of corporate oversight might do them good. Sadly, there still seems to be some gameplay-design talent in there, judging by the success of Hearthstone, and that will probably be stomped out, too. On the other hand, it seems to be suppressed already, if we're to judge by SC2 and D3; and with Titan down the drain, it's unlikely that it would have seen manifestation anyway. So yes, changes would probably be best. Big ones.
Telika
Registered: Apr 2012
From Switzerland
Posted November 23, 2013
Telika: IT IS FUN. it is a great game, you reproach someone to answer questions with questions, and it's a very theme of that game, and it makes that game amusing, and anyone having played it would have gone "haha" at this post, and i have no idea wheher someone would have taken it seriously enough to actually gift it, and if they did it is still a game that would probably amuse you, including the question-for-question thingy in it. Sheesh !
monkeydelarge: Your post just shows how different two people can be. A lot of people consider answering a question with a question, rude behavior or at least adversarial where I come from. Post edited November 23, 2013 by Telika
WBGhiro
New User
WBGhiro Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2008
From Germany
Posted November 23, 2013
Kennethor: So you mean that I as a white male know exactly how it is to be a black woman and how it feels to be violated in different ways by the society? Are you serious?
So you mean that she as a black woman knows exactly how it is to be a white male and how it feels to be violated in different ways by the society? Are you serious? I mean, what's the big deal about being black a woman, or both in today's society? A black man is president of the USA and a woman is the chancellor of germany. There' black celebrities, actors and surgeons, and the same goes for women. If there's a time in history were being born as a white male doesn't at all mean automatically win the gentic lottery (which it never did in the first place) it's now.
Being a woman or black means to be completely equal to everyone in today's society. Yet somehow people (and it's mostly not even the supposed victims) make it out as being the most terrible thing to happen, gee I wonder if we aren't a bit racist or misogynistic in supposing such a thing.
Post edited November 23, 2013 by WBGhiro
Nalkoden
Lichy lich
Nalkoden Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Mar 2009
From Croatia
Posted November 23, 2013
Nalkoden: That's just it. RPS is not digging deeper. They are scratching the surface and they are using a sledgehammer to do it.
VanishedOne: Games journalists on gender/ethnicity/etc. representation tend to remind me of general news journalists on gaming: out of their intellectual depth without realising it. I think it would be unfortunate if only people with related scholarly credentials got to pontificate about the matter; but I don't think interviewees are obliged to respond to clumsy leading questions.
Nalkoden: That's just it. RPS is not digging deeper. They are scratching the surface and they are using a sledgehammer to do it.
aymerict: In my opinion, it is deeper than refusing any discussion. Many gamers think they know it all and are right, as comments like "not again", "here we go again" suggest. I want video-games to be more mature than that. Example, DOTA game characters (male and female) can be exaggerated because of context. I mean, why isn't anybody complaining about poor marginalised minions that get slaughtered by the thousands? :)
Post edited November 23, 2013 by Nalkoden
Kennethor
Old user
Kennethor Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Mar 2013
From Sweden
Posted November 23, 2013
Kennethor: So you mean that I as a white male know exactly how it is to be a black woman and how it feels to be violated in different ways by the society? Are you serious?
WBGhiro: So you mean that she as a black woman knows exactly how it is to be a white male and how it feels to be violated in different ways by the society? Are you serious? Are black women oppressing white males in any way? Give me an example. I don't even know why I aswered this childish comment.
Post edited November 23, 2013 by Kennethor
WBGhiro
New User
WBGhiro Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2008
From Germany
Kennethor
Old user
Kennethor Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Mar 2013
From Sweden