Cactuarman
Banned
A lot to respond to so apologies for the length:
Within the spectrum you mention I'd say grey areas would be the specific lines-in-the-sand that would push someone from "I'm fine with this" to "I'm not fine with this" - is the issue that the women are too young? Are the women too busty? Is the armor to impractical? Are the characters too one-dimensional? Is it just fan service in general? etc etc
What I tried to call out in my original example though is that even within all those examples, the extra element that would concern me is: "but do they want to then ban it?" I understand someone saying "I don't like that Doom is so violent" but what I will never get behind is "you shouldn't be able to purchase Doom because I think it's too violent".
The comment I responded to asked for a suggestion for "how we could deal with content existing that a certain group hates to the point they want to reduce its prevalence as much as possible?"
I'd only suggest you do "nothing" if that group isn't interested in actually engaging with you, and only wants to tell you how terrible a thing is (my example was those religious people who seem to be outside of every convention). Not saying you can't shout back at them or whatever but ultimately you probably wont make much headway with that group. However, if someone wants to talk about an issue then yeah, hopefully one could get into a nice dialogue about it.
What I think everyone can and should do, regardless of if some person/group/organization/whatever only cares about telling you how terrible your video game is, is vote with your wallet. Dragon's Crown selling and reviewing well got us PS3, Vita, and PS4 versions (I own them all because that game is amazing), regardless of some group is shitting on the Sorceress. And there are probably even people who wish they toned her down a bit BUT also still played the hell out of that game.
You're right for the most part here - I just think that "change" means different things to different groups. Fuck anyone wanting content to be removed from existence. BUT, I personally think that there is a big difference between someone saying "DOA Xtreme is gross and should be banned" and someone saying "yeah maybe we don't need another game where a hero saves a princess".
Personally, I really don't agree with that first group but I am open to seeing what that second group does. Frankly I think the idea of playing a Zelda game as Zelda sounds pretty cool (maybe a weird example but that's the first thing I thought of).
That's a fair statement, but it applies to a lot of places/forums/etc. That said I think there are already a lot of great members here - some I agree with and some I don't. And in general I like having these debates here because it isn't as much of an echo chamber as Era. But yeah, I'm not a fan of people jumping into these threads and just throwing out strawmans or hyperbolic generalizations or whatever. If a thread is inviting discussion, let's have a nice discussion. If a thread is just for ranting then I'll move on to another thread. So no, I don't really go elsewhere because this is the place I want to be.
I think it would be really interesting to talk about where people's specific lines are. Instead it seems like a lot of this thread is more of an "us vs them" kind of deal, which doesn't really get at the thread's question.
Thanks for the clarification. I mean yeah I think we kind of agree on the co-opting thing. However, I don't think your Tomb Raider example is co-opting. Crystal Dynamics started on Tomb Raider with Legend in 2006 and then also handled the reboot in 2013. The developer swap came between Angel of Darkness (Core Design) and Legend because Angel wasn't very good. Eidos gave the series to Crystal Dynamics (and I think Core even folded as a studio).
Pretty sure that the representation discussion isn't what sunk Andromeda
Could you explain that spectrum? Give some examples of the gradients between "I'm fine with certain content existing" and "I'm not fine with certain content sexisting" ?
Within the spectrum you mention I'd say grey areas would be the specific lines-in-the-sand that would push someone from "I'm fine with this" to "I'm not fine with this" - is the issue that the women are too young? Are the women too busty? Is the armor to impractical? Are the characters too one-dimensional? Is it just fan service in general? etc etc
What I tried to call out in my original example though is that even within all those examples, the extra element that would concern me is: "but do they want to then ban it?" I understand someone saying "I don't like that Doom is so violent" but what I will never get behind is "you shouldn't be able to purchase Doom because I think it's too violent".
I'm afraid I don't quite understand your hypothetical. If someone said to me they didn't like violent games I'd just do... nothing? I don't have to convince them of the greatness of violent games or whatever. There's plenty of violent games I don't like so I don't play 'em. Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had in such a case.
The comment I responded to asked for a suggestion for "how we could deal with content existing that a certain group hates to the point they want to reduce its prevalence as much as possible?"
I'd only suggest you do "nothing" if that group isn't interested in actually engaging with you, and only wants to tell you how terrible a thing is (my example was those religious people who seem to be outside of every convention). Not saying you can't shout back at them or whatever but ultimately you probably wont make much headway with that group. However, if someone wants to talk about an issue then yeah, hopefully one could get into a nice dialogue about it.
What I think everyone can and should do, regardless of if some person/group/organization/whatever only cares about telling you how terrible your video game is, is vote with your wallet. Dragon's Crown selling and reviewing well got us PS3, Vita, and PS4 versions (I own them all because that game is amazing), regardless of some group is shitting on the Sorceress. And there are probably even people who wish they toned her down a bit BUT also still played the hell out of that game.
In my view, this discussion is only happening because people have expressed the desire for games to change in a big way. And that change would mean greatly reducing or even leaving behind aspects of games we currently enjoy. The people who didn't advocate for that change... There's nothing much to discuss with them.
You're right for the most part here - I just think that "change" means different things to different groups. Fuck anyone wanting content to be removed from existence. BUT, I personally think that there is a big difference between someone saying "DOA Xtreme is gross and should be banned" and someone saying "yeah maybe we don't need another game where a hero saves a princess".
Personally, I really don't agree with that first group but I am open to seeing what that second group does. Frankly I think the idea of playing a Zelda game as Zelda sounds pretty cool (maybe a weird example but that's the first thing I thought of).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember you expressing your disappointment before with how discussions on controversial subjects are going on this forum, and I wonder if you do the same elsewhere. Maybe you just have a very high opinion on GAF and want its members to do even better?
That's a fair statement, but it applies to a lot of places/forums/etc. That said I think there are already a lot of great members here - some I agree with and some I don't. And in general I like having these debates here because it isn't as much of an echo chamber as Era. But yeah, I'm not a fan of people jumping into these threads and just throwing out strawmans or hyperbolic generalizations or whatever. If a thread is inviting discussion, let's have a nice discussion. If a thread is just for ranting then I'll move on to another thread. So no, I don't really go elsewhere because this is the place I want to be.
I think it would be really interesting to talk about where people's specific lines are. Instead it seems like a lot of this thread is more of an "us vs them" kind of deal, which doesn't really get at the thread's question.
I think I should have worded it better, so let me do that, please.
Also, I am an alpha playtester for a card game that will be released via kickstarter at around this Spring, but I can't tell more about it, my apologies.
What I meant with my statement is that when a creator or a creative team(s) create a medium, they usually have a specific group(s) in mind that target and cater to, now those people that I mentioned above, the censorers and co-opters don't wish to go through the process of creating something from scratch, they wish to be given creative direction of an ongoin/oblated creation, so they would shape it in their own way to cater to them, most often than not, in the distinct dismay of the intended/targeted audience.
People who created Go Home and Dream Daddy Simulator are creating their own venues. People who were given creative administration to Tomb Raider ever since the 00's co-opted a creation.
Thanks for the clarification. I mean yeah I think we kind of agree on the co-opting thing. However, I don't think your Tomb Raider example is co-opting. Crystal Dynamics started on Tomb Raider with Legend in 2006 and then also handled the reboot in 2013. The developer swap came between Angel of Darkness (Core Design) and Legend because Angel wasn't very good. Eidos gave the series to Crystal Dynamics (and I think Core even folded as a studio).
The question is is it worth to listen to these people or not. Right now it seems it is not. AKA Andromedaas huge example
Pretty sure that the representation discussion isn't what sunk Andromeda