Support NeoGAF

[Dark Octave]

Getting embarrassed?

His wife must have walked in the room.

This is like Michael Bay showing up to tell Mike Myers how to make the next Austin Powers film more like the Bourne Identity.

Exactly what I've been trying to say like twelve pages ago.

But I'm still confused. From what I know of Cliff, it seems like SR3 would be right up his alley and before this, I couldn't see him doing it any differently, if he was going for that style of game with humor.

But I obviously don't know the man so...

 

[Jenga]

SR2 was saints row with out that shit so no.

i'd say SR4 should get gary coleman, but he's gone like the wind

rip little buddy

 

[Aske]

Some people think it's funny, for sure, but a significant number of people find it tasteless and tacky. I don't give a shit either way, but I think he's right about it holding the series back.

Many would say the same thing about South Park, et al. Not everything has to appeal to everyone.

It's not like "Saints Row should try harder to be more GTA and less immature." is a new idea; we had a gigantic thread about it when the whole Rubin/Crecente embarassing interview happened. Person with industry experience gets on Twitter soapbox and implies video game people like should become something else to sell to more people->people who like current game for what it is talk about it. Given the franchise is now totally changing hands, and what's gone down recently with Tomb Raider and DMC, multiple responses are inevitable.

Absolutely agree - great post. People are sensitive about beloved franchises losing their identity as publishers chase greater sales, and Cliff's tweets essentially advocate this.

 

[BadAss2961]

Better to slow down Cliff. One man against half a forum...not gonna work.

For, or against?

sr2 is where it's at..sr3 had no balance, and killing johnny gat off camera was some bullshit.

I know right... I was like wait, what? Johnny died? Where was I when that happened?

He'll obviously be back, but they should've made a bigger deal about it.

 

[Tiu Neo]

Hey Cliff, a serious game with Saint's Row engine COULD be awesome, just... Don't call it Saints Row. The thing that makes SR unique is its over the top humor, without it it's just another GTA clone - even if a good one. SR has it's niche, keep it that way.

Can people stop quoting the dildo tweet?

Yeah, what if your wife walks on the room and see you posting on a thread with dildo bats and gimp suits?

 

[faceless007]

I fail to see why pointing out the deficiencies in his argument by pointing out the ridiculously immature content of the signature franchise for which he bore creative responsibility is "uncivil" in the least.

It is a completely valid line of debate and if he cannot appreciate that, then perhaps he should not seek to engage in the debate.

Tu quoque (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented,[2] whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

.

 

[Vazra]

I think you can have a discussion with people over something but simply don't expect everyone to agree and expect some people to be A-holes. I've seen decent arguments from both sides but things people tend to highlights it the over the top comments or douchey posts. Not surprising since it seems neither side can't defend their post properly without resorting to shaming each side. I'll stay and watch the mess.

 

[Violater]

Getting embarrassed?

I wouldn't consider it SFW would you?

 

[SlasherJPC]

I don't have a problem with criticism but taking away the humor and whatnot from a franchise built around it just seems like a absurd idea. Make the story a bit more serious? Maybe?? Make it totally serious just doesn't sound right and it's obvious many people feel the same way. It's not about not being able to take constructive criticism. Showing someone their weaknesses and how to improve is rather contructive no matter how hard it hurts...but if I was majoring in chemistry, loving it, and damn good at it and my teacher told me I should try majoring in theather arts instead. I'd tell them to fuck off. Just saying.

Volition is good at what there doing with Saints Row. Sure they had some misteps with 3, but it still rocked and the series stands out among the crowd for doing what it does best imo.

 

[Backfoggen]

Yeah, what if your wife walks on the room and see you posting on a thread with dildo bats and gimp suits?

GAF should lose the dildo tweet quotes to beat Gamefaqs.

 

[rdrr gnr]

There are logical fallacies that have real-world utility -- and have been used successfully. But, you're right, debating him on the merits of his argument is the most fair.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I fail to see why pointing out the deficiencies in his argument by pointing out the ridiculously immature content of the signature franchise for which he bore creative responsibility is "uncivil" in the least.

It is a completely valid line of debate and if he cannot appreciate that, then perhaps he should not seek to engage in the debate.

I kind of get his unwillingness to engage with the point. If he says "yes Gears is a franchise which is loaded with immaturity and I think we need to move on from that kind of thing as an industry just as much as dildos and gimp suits" then he's just burned bridges with a studio he happily worked at for 20 years.

 

[28 Posts Later]

I fail to see why pointing out the deficiencies in his argument by pointing out the ridiculously immature content of the signature franchise for which he bore creative responsibility is "uncivil" in the least.

It is a completely valid line of debate and if he cannot appreciate that, then perhaps he should not seek to engage in the debate.

I'm not going to get into a larger debate on the subject but the use of Tu quoque in a fallacious manner is hardly a "valid line of debate" - you're just attempting to discredit the argument without actually doing so.

 

[Incendiary]

I fail to see why pointing out the deficiencies in his argument by pointing out the ridiculously immature content of the signature franchise for which he bore creative responsibility is "uncivil" in the least.

It is a completely valid line of debate and if he cannot appreciate that, then perhaps he should not seek to engage in the debate.

But his work is completely irrelevant to what he's saying.

Now if he said something like "I, Cliffy B, someone whose games are very mature and dramatic and have never make a poop joke in my life, think Saints Row games shouldn't have dildos" it'd be fair to go and say "hey, dude, Gears of War much?" But that's not what he's doing here.

 

[NightmareTrigger]

I wouldn't consider it SFW would you?

Do you visit a dildo forum at work?

 

[Hawkian]

OK, thanks for clearing that up.


It might not qualify as personal shit-throwing but there's a whole lot of "Says the guy who..." which is a stupid point to make. (There's even a fallacy name for it.) It would be better to discuss the actual criticism, but I guess that's too hard.

The advice is bad. It's also hypocritical. And if you look at my first post in this thread you'll see that these critcisms occurred to me in that order and I posted them in that order.

But his work is completely irrelevant to what he's saying.

Now if he said something like "I, Cliffy B, someone whose games are very mature and dramatic and have never make a poop joke in my life, think Saints Row games shouldn't have dildos" it'd be fair to go and say "hey, dude, Gears of War much?" But that's not what he's doing here.

That's absolutely absurd. Invoking tu quoque is fair in that being hypocritical doesn't invalidate his argument outright. But he is being hypocritical, and to say it's completely irrelevant, and that it only would be relevant if he had made some blanket statement asserting himself to only make mature games, is ridiculous.

He's making a bad argument informed by hypocrisy. Pointing out the hypocrisy doesn't show why the argument is bad on its own, but it's still relevant.

 

[JABEE]

I think Cliff is right if you want to talk about making Saints Row a bigger mainstream series. I think SR can do it at this point, because the IP and the name is pretty big now. The only worry is alienating yourself from the people who came in for the immaturity. It may have been a mistake to devote an advertising campaign to the dildos, but I think dildos deserve a place in the game if that was their vision for SR3.

You can balance seriousness with off-the-wall humor. Tarantino does this in a lot of his films. Look at Pulp-Fiction, Django, and Inglorious Basterds. I think the franchise is big enough that they could take more risks. It's a legitimate criticism to make, but I still believe there is room for both.

I don't think criticizing SR3 for holding back the industry is a fair criticism. This is the industry. GTA is the biggest series in gaming. It is not above this. It made it's bones freaking mainstream America out. Video Games still shock the mainstream. It's like Rock N' Roll. Eventually the antics will become cliche. SR ratchets up the cliche to humongous levels.

Cliff points shouldn't be invalidated, because he made Gears of War, but his criticism as it pertains to holding back the industry falls flat. Unless he believes Gears held back the industry as well. The bloody chainsaw kills and viciousness of Gears of War were supposed to elicit shock from games. I think you could make an argument that SR did the same thing.

 

[Tzeentch]

There's about a million and three ways to make a fun game with humor, dildos, gimp suits and all that is the cheapest and most boring way.

Pretty much exactly this. The game isn't just about these things, but Volition certainly went out of their way to make sure their puerile humor was front and center.

 

[LiK]

Pretty much exactly this. The game isn't just about these things, but Volition certainly went out of their way to make sure their puerile humor was front and center.

Loved it

 

[Sorcerer Supreme]

Also, Jason Rubin has redeemed himself:

I've always liked Rubin for a reason.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

.

Except that it's being used as an example of how his perspective is based upon a cultural difference which only exists in the US, one which he himself has brought into the discussion.

 

[MormaPope]

Gears of War. Keep the crazy action and game mechanics. Lose the chainsaws and the sawed off shotgun and roid raged bodies.

 

[PowderedToast]

telling an open world game to become a michael mann pastiche, how insightful and original..

who even is this guy

 

[CambriaRising]

I wouldn't consider it SFW would you?

Maybe don't read a thread about Dildos at work?

 

[sflufan]

That's absolutely absurd. Invoking tu quoque is fair in that being hypocritical doesn't invalidate his argument outright. But he is being hypocritical, and to say it's completely irrelevant, and that it only would be relevant if he had made some blanket statement asserting himself to only make mature games, is ridiculous.

He's making a bad argument informed by hypocrisy. Pointing out the hypocrisy doesn't show why the argument is bad on its own, but it's still relevant.

Thank you, sir!

 

[Hawkian]

Maybe don't read a thread about Dildos at work?

Describing this thread as "about dildos" is like saying Gears of War is "about the human condition."

 

[faceless007]

Except that it's being used as an example of how his perspective is based upon a cultural difference which only exists in the US, one which he himself has brought into the discussion.

That's quite a stretch.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Y'know I distinctly that last time this happened Cliffy ended up going like "it was all a joke, gotcha "

Maybe he's going for gold this time and we've all been played, again.

 

[Omegasquash]

It might not qualify as personal shit-throwing but there's a whole lot of "Says the guy who..." which is a stupid point to make. (There's even a fallacy name for it.) It would be better to discuss the actual criticism, but I guess that's too hard.

Guilty, but it's still a matter of one person's opinion. I assert that there's less of a problem with a wacky dildo than murder-death-kill.

 

[Circle Jerk]

am i the only one that cant get over the idea that dildos are okay for weddings but not for videogames

am i a prude for thinking it would be the opposite?!

 

[GAMERG0D]

SR will never be on the same level as GTA.

 

[rdrr gnr]

That's quite a stretch.

Dismissing a point outright because it falls into an established fallacy is, in part, a fallacy itself. It's not the best argument but it's not irrelevant.

 

[sflufan]

I'm not going to get into a larger debate on the subject but the use of Tu quoque in a fallacious manner is hardly a "valid line of debate" - you're just attempting to discredit the argument without actually doing so.

The argument is pretty much self-discrediting, no real assistance necessary from me.

 

[VARIA]

For starters, you leveled a criticism at another gorup of designers; specifically that their immaturity is holding back the industry. Pointing out the hypocrisy in that statement, especially how it applies to the ways in which moral judgments differ outside the US is absolutely relevant. Attempting to dismiss that point rather than engaging with it is a big part of the reason that the US is bass-ackwards when it comes to this stuff.

Secondly, it's not constructive at all. It's narrow minded and jingoistic, in that there is an implication inherent in your comments that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. I'd rather the messed up American morality not be exported to my country, thanks. You are, as anyone is, absolutely entitled to your opinion but free speech doesn't mean immunity from criticism.

...If you feel that your previous games were immature male power fantasies, and that you would like to engage with more sophisticated subject-matter which doesn't primarily revolve around violence, then that's a far more constructive and interesting discussion than "dude, dildos are bad!"

Just wanted to quote these posts by jim-jam, since they weren't addressed and they bring up great points.

 

[Sethos]

I'm not saying dildos aren't a "cheap" form of adding humour but he also said to make it more like heat and other serious crime films. That's the thing that sticks out to me. I don't play SR to experience a serious crime story. I can go play GTA or Mafia for that.

Yeah, that I agree with. SR has carved a niche being just over the top and it should stay that way. We have quite a few sandbox games now that cater for its own segment.

Also to the point of "Making the game appeal to the majority preference will make it more popular" is exactly what you don't want. That is the lame Call of Duty effect we're currently seeing where everyone wants to copy that recipe because it sells. Games are allowed to cater for a smaller segment on purpose because that's where they want to be.

However as to my previous point on SR, over the top yes but it could do without the cheap marketing blows to get attention.

 

[szaromir]

SR will never be on the same level as GTA.

Agreed, it'll never sink that low.

 

[sflufan]

Just wanted to quote these posts by jim-jam, since they weren't addressed and they bring up great points.

jim-jam's statements should have been addressed by CliffyB.

 

[Dark Octave]

This has been a fun thread. I do think that Cliff is being a bit of a prude on this issue and I still have a hard time believing that he even agrees with what he is saying 100% but I need to get some work done before I get in trouble.

I still think that if he was to make SR4 it would be hilarious.

 

[Neuromancer]

I guess my wife is awesome. She's not embarrassed at all by anything in the Saints Row games. She might find some of it dumb, and she certainly gets tired of watching me play them all the time, but never embarrassed.

 

[elektrixx]

While I think he's right I don't think it would make a better game.

 

[Sethos]

Agreed, it'll never sink that low.

I really don't get these comments. Is this a strained attempt at being funny, at trying to take a dig at GTA with no sense behind it?

 

[Ferrio]

am i the only one that cant get over the idea that dildos are okay for weddings but not for videogames

am i a prude for thinking it would be the opposite?!

What will the other kids in the schoolyard think of us!

SR is a spectacle, it is what it is. No one has every held it aloft as the ambassador of gaming.

 

[SmokyDave]

I find it amusing that when I actually show up to the thread the biggest trolls suddenly vanish.

Come at me, bro.

I feel like the 'spirit' of Saints Row: The Third has sailed clean over your head. You seem to think it wants to be an 'adult' game and I think that's only true if the adult in question is being deliberately boisterous and immature.

You're right that it would still be a great game with the puerile humour stripped out. Thing is, it's a greater game with it left in. Saints Row does what Saints Row does better than any other game out there. It provides phenomenal action alongside genuine belly laughs and in the world of increasingly homogenous sandbox games, it's a breath of fresh air.

There are plenty of games doing what you're looking for, but there's only one Saints Row.

 

[Coxswain]

I fail to see why pointing out the deficiencies in his argument by pointing out the ridiculously immature content of the signature franchise for which he bore creative responsibility is "uncivil" in the least.

It is a completely valid line of debate and if he cannot appreciate that, then perhaps he should not seek to engage in the debate.

But it's not a deficiency in his argument. His argument is his argument; it isn't any more or less valid if it comes from him, me, you, or a giant purple dildo that has achieved sentience and is posting on NeoGAF.

It's not a valid line of debate, because it only really serves to try to shut down the debate. If the question is "Should the Saint's Row franchise abandon the crass humour that now characterizes its story and aesthetic in favour of becoming a serious crime drama?", then there's simply no reasonable connection between that and "Oh yeah, well what about Gears of War, huh?!?"


I don't agree at all with his opinion on what should happen to the franchise, but he's not making a totally unreasonable argument and trying to paint him as a villain, hypocrite, or idiot adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

And those of you who like to try to invalidate my opinion by citing my prior work, in all sincerity, blow me. Next time your opinion generates a 15 page debate on GAF call me.

Love,

Cliff

You know, I was right with you until that line. Seriously, gtfo of here with that shit.

Love,

Nobody

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Hey I'm not the only person he's ignoring. I think it's a little disingenous to claim that you want to start a discussion then ignore half the posts.

That's quite a stretch.

No it's actually not. I don't want to live in a world where Gears is advertised on prime time TV but Saints Row: The Third isn't because the former is being deemed morally acceptable despite the horrendously violent subject matter while the latter is deemed unacceptable because it has a dildo in it.

 

[MormaPope]

Yeah, that I agree with. SR has carved a niche being just over the top and it should stay that way. We have quite a few sandbox games now that cater for its own segment.

Also to the point of "Making the game appeal to the majority preference will make it more popular" is exactly what you don't want. That is the lame Call of Duty effect we're currently seeing where everyone wants to copy that recipe because it sells. Games are allowed to cater for a smaller segment on purpose because that's where they want to be.

However as to my previous point on SR, over the top yes but it could do without the cheap marketing blows to get attention.

And that's what exactly happened with the open world genre this gen. Saints Row 3, Just Cause 2, and Red Faction Guerrilla were all successful. They each had their own identity and design that made them stand out. Variety is needed in this genre.

 

[RooMHM]

Cliff being clueless and trying arrogantly to "teach" others their trade with stupid ideas?

News at 11

 

[kinggroin]

I feel like the 'spirit' of Saints Row: The Third has sailed clean over your head. You seem to think it wants to be an 'adult' game and I think that's only true if the adult in question is being deliberately boisterous and immature.

You're right that it would still be a great game with the puerile humour stripped out. Thing is, it's a greater game with it left in. Saints Row does what Saints Row does better than any other game out there. It provides phenomenal action alongside genuine belly laughs and in the world of increasingly homogenous sandbox games, it's a breath of fresh air.

There are plenty of games doing what you're looking for, but there's only one Saints Row.

Brofist you limey son of a bitch

 

[Pro from Dover]

Less dildo, more Cowbell!