Snacks the sober sea lion
Member
Rock Paper Shotgun acted really unprofessionally. We know there's a point to be made and trying to trap somebody into giving a condemning interview is a shitty, kotaku-esque way of doing it.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Dustin Browder apologizes for the RPS interview
- Thread starter Dawg
- Start date
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Easy:
Any other easy questions?
Fucking lol.
Ahh I see, if a girl is pretty she needs to be covered up. If she's ugly cleavage is perfectly fine. Got it...
Also
Just thought this funny
diffusionx
Gold Member
RPS is what happens when video game writers fall in love with the smell of their own farts, like that South Park episode. Awful.
backseat modding is against the rules too
e: but what about backseat meta-modding ohgod
A Link to the Past
Banned
Well, that's an entirely and intentionally shitty way to sum up the points. Is it possible that people are pointing out how nearly every popular female in video games is a certain type (AKA "look at my tits")?
Why isn't the opposite true? Why aren't you saying that women must show cleavage?
Not sure what in your post led me to locate this again (maybe it was your exhaustive list that made me go search for another thing that had a list that had something to do with this subject), since it might not have much to do with this post, but Doug Walker (Nostalgia Critic) was a fan of Anita Sarkeesian before her third video, and in a Facebook post, he explained why:
Doug Walker said:
I don't think he's touched on her fourth one, but there you go.
How's that for a list?
SousedLouse
Member
Doc Holliday's just super tired of dealing with dozens upon dozens of people who think like that. What, you expect the good doctor to read the post? That's for chumps.
A Link to the Past
Banned
It's an impressive list. Would you like me to dwarf it further? To note, I used only Wikipedia's category for male video game characters as reference.
To analyze the list, I see a number of non-playable female characters. Is it really worth listing Alyx Vance and Elena Fisher (who had a sparing number of playable segments but never on the same level as Nathan) when I could list in turn dozens of other characters in response?
So you think that just because they are NPC's, they are insignificant or aren't strong female characters that can handle themselves? Are you shitting me right now?
The point was being made about playable, preferably main characters. And as they are all made up, make believe, invented and therefore not real, they can only "handle themselves" exactly as their creators wrote them.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Well, actually, no, that's not what I think. What I think right now is two-fold:
1. That people who intend to misrepresent their opposition would have made the interpretation you just made;
2. That my point was that if you didn't like to PLAY as Marcus Fenix, you had a massive selection of characters who don't look or act like him; and
3. That if we are going to make a list of ALL males and ALL females, then I will quite handily match every female on your list with three males on mine.
Ahh I see, if a girl is pretty she needs to be covered up. If she's ugly cleavage is perfectly fine. Got it...
Also
Just thought this funny
he didn't say that at all and the username thing isn't very funny, well done
like whats the point of that image of daenerys?
Blizzard's art design for female characters, at least for WoW, is the most anatomy-crushing stuff I've ever seen come out of a AAA studio.
If they're going for a "comic book style" they've landed somewhere in the proximity of Rob Liefeld.
So they're actually producing worse, less visually appealing art in order to accommodate the tits and asses.
That isn't even from WoW, wasn't created by a Blizzard artist, and in no way, shape, or form looks anything like the playable characters you can create in game. It's amazing how many of you guys bitch and moan about WoW art design and have obviously never even played the game or seen how females in the game actually look.
If you want to be taken seriously about this issue, starting off using WoW as your example is probably one of the worst ways to go about it.
sixtyfivedays
Neo Member
I thought the bit from RPS about overly-sexualized characters was really unwarranted. Blizzard has had some very strong females in their games but they (RPS) is going to throw a fit over, I'm assuming, Kerrigan?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone brought up romance novels in these threads...
Romance novels account for ~16% of fiction sales (the biggest segment of fiction, but still just a segment).
While I don't think there's a study on how many videogames are designed to appeal to straight males as a demographic (with sexy characters and such) (I wish there was such a study), my guess is that it's higher than 16%.
I think the more salient point is that people seem to think that pointing at romance novels and saying "see? y'all do it, too!" is ignoring that romance novels are just one genre of an entire medium (literary fiction). Also, romance novels alone sell in the hundreds of millions of units a year, too, like videogames...except that's all of videogames (including casual games on phones), vs one section of the book store.
Unlike videogames, literary fiction caters to many different audiences without controversies about who books are 'actually' meant for. That's the meat of the "problem" that people nowadays are commenting on about videogames; and it's a multi-faceted problem that's about more than social justice.
The idea that people have to defend the overuse of sexualization in videogames by comparing it to ONE specific genre of fiction (and one particular type, as the binary is "sexy art in videogames is for boys, romance novels with fabio are for girls", as if no one writes any other kinds of romance/erotica) really only speaks about how narrow-minded the cult of videogames is as a creative medium at this point in time.
EdibleKnife
Member
Honestly, I thought in terms of viewing the interview as some sort of furthering of the conversation on sexism and problematic character design, it really balked it. The whole time it seemed RPS was priming him in a way that put Browder in a head space to talk about the game singly (The heroes, its place among other MOBAs etc.). Then in the last, few moments of their interview, supposedly when the PR guy was tapping his watch, the interviewer tosses in the topic of problematic character design as the final questions? Did you really not expect Browder to stumble with such a switch up? The topic of sexism and sexualized character design seems like it would need a bit more care to address than that.
How about actually calling Browder up and telling him you specifically want to discuss this? Drop the PR guy, drop the HotS hype, and come ready to talk about Blizzard's art, character design, and the big issue at hand (Sure they might have refused but no interview would have done about as much as the interview we got did.) You both come well prepared, sit and discuss your points. Each of you makes reasonable and well thought out considerations from both sides. You both learn a little bit hopefully and maybe Browder takes something back with him that he can use to better Blizzard in the future.
Instead it seems like both parties came away unsuccessful and nothing was really gained. RPS doesn't get an meaningful answer from Browder, Browder comes away looking like he's insensitive on the issue. Good on Browder for the apology but I wouldn't count this as a success for RPS. Just my two cents on this whole debacle. Somebody's probably gonna throw those pennies back in my face most likely.
How about actually calling Browder up and telling him you specifically want to discuss this? Drop the PR guy, drop the HotS hype, and come ready to talk about Blizzard's art, character design, and the big issue at hand (Sure they might have refused but no interview would have done about as much as the interview we got did.) You both come well prepared, sit and discuss your points. Each of you makes reasonable and well thought out considerations from both sides. You both learn a little bit hopefully and maybe Browder takes something back with him that he can use to better Blizzard in the future.
Instead it seems like both parties came away unsuccessful and nothing was really gained. RPS doesn't get an meaningful answer from Browder, Browder comes away looking like he's insensitive on the issue. Good on Browder for the apology but I wouldn't count this as a success for RPS. Just my two cents on this whole debacle. Somebody's probably gonna throw those pennies back in my face most likely.
Tiresomeness is irrelevant to the merits of the argument.
Remember, I was not defending sexualization of women in games, as I said no less than three times in my posts. I was critiquing the incomplete reasoning behind jumping from "women are sexualized much more than men in videogames" to "This is a problem that should be fixed." I actually agree that the sexualization is a problem that should be fixed, but I don't arrive at that conclusion by way of egalitarianism, like most of the reasoning I see in these threads. The reasoning I see put forward so often is either flawed or incomplete. I'm critiquing these specific arguments supporting the conclusion, not the conclusion itself. Trying to ascribe some ulterior, defensive motive to me is not only irrelevant to the merits of the argument, but it is also flat-out wrong.
As for romance novels, I think I addressed pretty much all of your concerns already:
Considering 50% of "gamers" are female, and they largely gravitate toward social and mobile games, while males largely gravitate toward console, retail "hardcore" games, obviously with some unknown quantity of overlap between the two, it's probably around 50%, give or take a big chunk. Yes, it's more than 16%. I'm not sure how that's material. Is there some big change that happens between 16% and 50%? If so, what, and why?
I very specifically addressed the fact that it's a genre of books, while you're using "video games" as if it means ONLY violent, "hardcore" video games, which is also a genre. It's as if I were claiming "novels" only consisted of romance novels. Yes, 16% vs 50% of their respective mediums, but neither is a high enough number to move them out from the "genre" category and into representing the entire medium. So the comparison survives, as we're talking about the violent, "hardcore" genre of video games which caters toward men, and comparing it to the romance novel genre of books. Both are genres within a medium, both have sub-genres, and both have audiences that consist mostly of a single gender, and mostly cater to that gender, with non-catering material being in the minority.
A controversy or an allegation is not self-justifying. You (meaning the general, nonspecific "you") can't outcry about a wrong you're alleging, and then say, "But look at all the outcry; that means our arguments have merit." Yes, there's something to be said for the number of people outcrying, and the level at which they're doing so; it could potentially be a somewhat supporting point to a much stronger argument. But if the only material distinguishment you can find between romance novels and violent video games is the outcry you're participating in, that controversy will not be self-justifying. Again, I AGREE with you that there's a problem; but the reasoning used here to conclude such is flawed.
Again, ascribing to me (I assume, since you're responding to my post) a motive of defending overused sexualization is both irrelevant and wrong, as I also want to bring down the over-sexualization of women in games. And as I described above, you're correctly noting that novels catering to women and oversexualizing men is contained in one genre, but you're failing to note that the same is true for oversexualized women in video games. In social media games, mobile games, family-friendly games like Mario, etc., you don't see the overt oversexualization of women that you do in violent video games. It's not even close to the same level. So you're correct that books catering to one gender are largely contained in a genre containing subgenres, and you're incorrect to think the same is not true for video games catering to one gender.
Kadayi
Banned
indeed. This is pretty amusing: -
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/25/take-a-bow-ms-male-character-explored/
a posting about Anita Sarkeesian latest Tropes Vs Women in Videogames episode, but not only are comments off on the youtube video, but comments are also off in the thread, because the subject isn't up for discussion apparently. Instead we're treated to a lot of rather limited second guessing.
The irony of denying people a voice is apparently lost on Walker it seems.
A Link to the Past
Banned
lolokay. You're right, it's such a shame that all of the people who TOTALLY were using the YouTube comments to say anything besides explaining why Anita was a cunt lesbian bitch.
Kadayi
Banned
I don't doubt abuse was piled on, however in this life if you're going to put yourself and your opinions out there then you have to take the rough with the smooth. Without openness to criticism one can't refine ones thinking. A good argument is one that's tempered like a sword. The denial of any right to criticism of the work is a mistake and an assumption of finality by the author.
EdibleKnife
Member
The thing is people have always called her that. People called her that when she showed up on the scene. People call her that now. If someday, she wins the Nobel prize, despite what ways our society might change, there will most likely be people who will continue to call her that. The hope is though that with every one of these articles or videos, someone, somewhere is willing to dig through the muck and find a conversation with someone worth having (or start said conversation) and two or even one person coming out of it having learned something that changes their perspective in a way that makes it worthwhile. Closing down the comments assures that doesn't happen at all. No people will see it, watch or read, stew in their crap and then move on to something else without the chance to change by gaining perspective from someone reasonable. Two areas where people could have civil discourse about the video even a small, small group of people are now closed. That's kinda messed up.
And I won't say I didn't think the same thing at one point. A video review of '12 Years a Slave' completely devolved on YouTube. I thought the best thing for the vid was to close down the comments but after looking through them (specifically through ones that weren't Top Voted) I found people who genuinely were affected by the movie. Heck, even in the topics where people where being complete racists, I found people (a lot of people) giving thoughtful rebuttals to the stonewallers that may not have affected them but probably and hopefully affected someone else who might/or might not have commented
Sometimes there are thoughtful comments, but the vitriol that gets thrown around harms discussion more than those thoughtful things help it.
Look at the study cited by Popular Science when they closed down their comments section. When comments sections go to shit, they polarize people even further. They don't deepen our understanding, and they distract from whatever points the original work might be trying to tell.
I like commenting on things, or I wouldn't be on NeoGAF. But it always frustrates me how easy it is for discussions to go wrong, or to spend time focusing on digressions, or on beating up on something people disagree with instead of being constructive. It's something I wish I knew how to solve. But until that solution appears, I can't blame people for turning off comments sometimes.
Kadayi
Banned
I think it's fine and dandy that Popular Science feel it suits them to remove comments, but ultimately a lot of what they're dealing with is factual in terms of subject matter, the same shoe doesn't necessarily fit every foot though.
What I have learned from this is that Rockpapershotgun is a sex negative 'slut shaming' website and I'm only half joking here.
There is nothing wrong with what Blizzard is doing, the only problem with videogames as a medium is that there isn't enough diversity. Books have trashy dime store novels, Films have frat boy comedies, Television has every damn sitcom that's like Two and a Half men that are all worse than that alternate skin of Nova. It's just that they have a WHOLE LOT OF EVERYTHING ELSE as well including plenty of male objectifying stuff like Harlequin romances and One Direction to keep everything in perspective.
And the lack of diversity has far more to do with how damn hard videogames are to make compared to other mediums and so there is less output (and that concentrates on the most profitable young male demographic, just like novels concentrate on the female demographic). We've started seeing more diversity as cheaper to create indie games have gotten more established but they remain incredibly complicated and difficult to create and just due to their nature will continue to be more challenging than books, music or film.
Edit: And all of this misses the only real problem with all of this. The negative body image that these characters can cause in young people and especially young girls as they're bombarded with it from everywhere (and games are small fry compared to the influence glamour magazines/fashion industry has on that anyway).
There is nothing wrong with what Blizzard is doing, the only problem with videogames as a medium is that there isn't enough diversity. Books have trashy dime store novels, Films have frat boy comedies, Television has every damn sitcom that's like Two and a Half men that are all worse than that alternate skin of Nova. It's just that they have a WHOLE LOT OF EVERYTHING ELSE as well including plenty of male objectifying stuff like Harlequin romances and One Direction to keep everything in perspective.
And the lack of diversity has far more to do with how damn hard videogames are to make compared to other mediums and so there is less output (and that concentrates on the most profitable young male demographic, just like novels concentrate on the female demographic). We've started seeing more diversity as cheaper to create indie games have gotten more established but they remain incredibly complicated and difficult to create and just due to their nature will continue to be more challenging than books, music or film.
Edit: And all of this misses the only real problem with all of this. The negative body image that these characters can cause in young people and especially young girls as they're bombarded with it from everywhere (and games are small fry compared to the influence glamour magazines/fashion industry has on that anyway).
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Thanks for telling me to fuck off. Welcome to my blacklist.
edit: no wait, I'd rather watch yourself trainwreck.
I am not saying that things must not change but for perspective, how many years literature and the movie industry has? A lot, we can see a lot of evolution in graphics and gameplay, but some details like better diversity and more options so more people can play VGs will take some time like other advances with movies and books had.
But I agree that games need better writers...going back to lurking now.
But I agree that games need better writers...going back to lurking now.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Do you want to present your argument? Hell, let's even assume for argument's sake that you ARE right, and these power-based characters are actually designed for sex appeal. The reason why that WOULDN'T be a problem is because female characters designed for sex appeal are such a common occurrence that it becomes hard to find a half decent character to play as who isn't that. As I argued earlier - you don't want to be a muscle-bound roid head? Well good news, that's not the norm.
A Link to the Past
Banned
People on more well-reasoned forums lose their shit over these videos. Wherein lies the value of having an open discussion on YouTube, quite possibly the worst popular website on which to have a conversation?
Tom Chick from Quarter To Three came out hard against RPS:
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2013/11/27/speaking-unspoken-truth-gender-inequality-videogames/
I don't think he needed to parody them so completely to make his point as that just puts people back up and makes them defensive (much like hostile leading questions in interviews do) but I am far more in agreement with him than with the RPS guys.
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2013/11/27/speaking-unspoken-truth-gender-inequality-videogames/
I don't think he needed to parody them so completely to make his point as that just puts people back up and makes them defensive (much like hostile leading questions in interviews do) but I am far more in agreement with him than with the RPS guys.
They HAVE presented their arguments. Millions of times now. You just refuse to just debate them and resort to vitriol to get whatever point you want to get across across, all the while trying to justify the most inane of circumstances like Patricia Hernandez. I don't know if you're just trying to get people to pop over the way you're saying things or not, but bottom line is that you can't really blame them for getting upset. It's not necessarily what you're bringing up, but HOW you're doing it. They're just asking you be more civil! Not too hard to do. I know I haven't been the most perfect person towards this kind of stuff, but at least I've TRIED to stay civil.
And here the main disconnect you're having about that whole issue. How fair is it when someone who has a civil but strong case against her credibility and examples is lumped into those that resorted to vitriol? Those that are on "more well-reasoned forums" (which I had to reread seeing as how at first I thought you were taking a swing against Neogaf) aren't exactly the ones being less than civil. Most of this debate has become like many others in the gaming world right now: full of toxicity because people cannot learn how to conduct themselves like adults. Like I said, I haven't been perfect, either, but who has been.
Again, how fair is it when people who criticize people like Anita, RPS, Patricia, etc., are lumped into the same group as those that told Anita to "get raped" or something like that? I'll call out her cred until she can prove to me that she is because I think there's a fair case against it, but that doesn't mean I've ever told her to "get raped"! There's a stark difference between "I think you're not the right person to debate these issues because you have baggage that prevents me from taking your evidence at face value" and "I hope your entire family dies in a house fire while you catch cancer". I think most of the people who have questioned the cred of Anita, Hernandez, and RPS on Neogaf, Giant Bomb, N4G, etc., are in the former crowd, and none of them should be lumped into the latter. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to assume that one side is guilty of engaging in the toxic vitriol while the other side never has, and that just because you don't agree with one particular public figurehead's way of substantiating the claims that many share, it doesn't mean you're any less sensitive to the issue or that you're oblivious to an obvious problem.
I know that's a lot to take in, but hopefully you get it now.
Kadayi
Banned
I'm not on about Youtube, I'm on about RPS. Sure Youtube is a den of depravity but RPS comments not so much. Yet apparently any degree of open discussion on the subject is off the table as far as they are concerned. I'd be a bit more comfortable with that if I felt that what was being put forward was reasoned and level headed, but in truth a lot of the time it's not. Have a look at this piece: -
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/
And then cites some since removed Machinema video & some random tech site. Neither of which actually seem to be part of the 'games industry' at all, and then having felt that's all required to stake a claim proceeds to tell everyone how terrible things are.
Now I'm not saying that the games industry isn't sexist, I'm fairly sure certain parts are (and the Asian development scene isn't helping matters either). However if someones actually going to write an article about it you do kind of expect them to actually come up with some pertinent & games industry relevant examples rather than largely extraneous and nebulous ones. What's next? Holding Sony to account for that drunk dude stripping his wife on PS4 streaming?
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
That article essentially boils down to (and pardon me if you consider this a strawman): It's getting better, don't complain! There are grey areas, see?
I'd argue that poking holes in a movement that tries to further inclusiveness isn't beneficial.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Sorry, darkpower, but quite frankly, I'm not going to reply to you if you're intent on ignoring my point about the two lists. Since we compared male playables to female anything in video games, would you like me to modify the criteria to show the male to female ratio with respect to quality characters?
Perfectly stated. It's been about 2 or 3 months since I checked RPS of my own accord, but catching wind of that interview really reinforced my reasons for backing away from them. I'm in this hobby to have fun, I have zero agenda.
Kadayi
Banned
Not a huge fan of The Chick, but I think it brings some balance to the debate because lets face it representation has gotten better. Sure it might not be as perfect as Mr Grayson wants, but it isn't getting worse. The feeling I get at times is the ideal RPS female character dresses something like this: -
Because god forbid she wear anything that could even vaguely be construed as sexist or pandering to a male audience (see outrage over the cyberpunk 2077 CG trailer for instance).
SousedLouse
Member
This post sounds like a lot of concern trolling to me. Why don't you do everyone else a favor and just listen to the real message of the article? By needlessly focusing on the details, you're completely undermining a valid teaching moment, and you're really only hurting yourself by not taking the gist of the article to heart. But it's OK. There's nothing stopping you from joining the 21st Century once you learn how to listen to an enlightened point of view.
A Link to the Past
Banned
It doesn't mean that we should not discuss it.
Kadayi
Banned
How is writing an article claiming the gaming industry is sexist and then not actually providing any viable evidence to support said claim not an actual concern? Simply because you may support an issue at heart doesn't mean you should be blind sided by the actual value of the evidence presented.
But not at RPS apparently.....
A Link to the Past
Banned
Not a huge fan of The Chick, but I think it brings some balance to the debate because lets face it representation has gotten better. Sure it might not be as perfect as Mr Grayson wants, but it isn't getting worse. The feeling I get at times is the ideal RPS female character dresses something like this: -
Because god forbid she wear anything that could even vaguely be construed as sexist or pandering to a male audience (see outrage over the cyberpunk 2077 CG trailer for instance).
Fair point. For example, your ideal woman is
So long as we're making arguments that one would only use out of stupidity or trolling, anyway. At what point is it possible that perhaps the RPG interviewer wanted LESS females who are designed for the sake of sex appeal?
Christ, we really need to have a Godwin's law for burkas. Anyone who tries to characterize a person's opinion on the matter as "well you just want women to dress in burkas" should just get the fuck out of the thread, because they clearly bring nothing to the conversation.
thesolidshark
Member
I was sort of interested in this list myself, but who gets to determine what a quality character is?
A Link to the Past
Banned
It's not so much quality but rather variety I suppose. While there are plenty of female characters (not as many playable) that aren't just sex appeal, there are many, many male characters that are defined in many more ways and avoid being a muscle-bound roid-head.
Kadayi
Banned
Actually I'm quite happy with the way things are going with The Shepards, & the Lara crofts tbh. But still feel free to think otherwise.
Who defines sex appeal exactly? What's offensive for one person may be totally acceptable to another. Where's the line drawn as to what's beyond the pale? Like a fair few people in this thread already I'm completely no plussed about the Nova design. Yet Mr Grayson was moved to tears? Who gets to decide whats acceptable? The critics or you the consumer?
I'm enjoying these little tantrums tbh. Do carry on.
A Link to the Past
Banned
It's pretty clear by your burka comment that you are either too stupid to participate, or you are intentionally trying to make people mad in order to prevent any proper discussion from happening. I'll let you decide whether you're an idiot or an asshole.
A Link to the Past
Banned
In the end though, the most alarming thing in this thread is a person who equates forcing human beings to wear burkas to people criticizing men for designing women in a sexualized way. Which amounts to equating the value of human females to that of their digital counterparts.
Kadayi
Banned
How about dropping the incessant labeling and hysterical accusations (in every sense), and address the actual question I posed instead?: -
A Link to the Past
Banned
Sorry, I guess when I saw you claim that your opposition was in favour of oppression based on sex, I figured that labeling people was okay. I forgot that it's only okay when Kadayi decides it to be so.
To answer your question: No one? That's what fucking discussions are for. Not for "lolburkas" or "lolfeminism", but discussing the actual nature of the situation in the medium. Grayson certainly did nothing more than express HIS dislike for how the characters are being designed. He did not force it on anyone besides the interviewer, who was in a just-fine position to have anything related to his game forced upon him.
Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: is your burka comparison made because you're stupid, or because you're a troll?
holy fuck this is vile