Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Rant: SJWs & Censorship

ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
edited December 2015 in Off-Topic
I want to vent my frustration and anger on something that is becoming worse and poisoning art, especially video games.

This is rant about recent events on censorship and the "fad" of SJWs and their fascistic dictating of what is allowed or not, based on zero evidence or research.

Short version: I am sick and tired of seeing everyone get OFFENDED by the smallest thing. And having people with no proof or reason, dictate what is wrong and what is right and demanding change based on arbitrary reasons.

Long version: Have you noticed how the "Social Justice Warriors" gather and decide on what is right, wrong, acceptable or not in media, label it and demonize it, which in turn, censors it?

I am a reasonable and logical person. If something is moderated based on objective, reasonable and proven arguments, then I can support it.
What I don't support is opinions and beliefs that try to pass as reality and facts.

This is one reason I am an atheist, but this is another can of worms I'd rather not open here.
It's just where I am coming from and how I view things.

Some decades ago we had people say: "Violent video games are problematic and should be banned, because people are influenced by them."
That didn't happen. People haven't gone on a killing spree and aren't influenced by them.

Now we have similar people say: "Sexist/Sexualized video games/characters are problematic and should be banned/censored/changed because it makes people sexist and influences them." Or similar stuff.

Art shouldn't be censored. Sure, developers targeting different audiences would make different games.
My problem is when SJWs target video game characters and go "this character is sexualized, it should change."
It's the same exact argument with "this is too violent, it should change" we had a couple decades ago with Doom or Mortal Kombat.

Yes, a character with big breasts and perfect features in games is sexualized. SO?
What about the countless muscular, tall and impossibly handsome male characters?
And why should artists bend backwards to the INSECURITIES of some people and not make the game they want?

A realistic game would have realistic-looking characters.
A non-realistic game wouldn't have realistic-looking characters.
And both are fine. None of them are "problematic" because some people don't like it and try to demonize it.

If I was a developer and I would make the game -I- wanted and not care what people might find "offensive" or not.
You choose to be offended. It's a reaction of the mind, usually based on insecurities. A defense mechanism.

What I have a huge problem with, is the organized mob that whines about some things and tries to censor based on OPINIONS and BELIEFS, instead of reasonable objective facts. This is fascism.

Some other examples are Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 and Street Fighter V.
I don't care for either games.
What bothers me is that developers are censoring themselves because they had enough of the SJWs whining and calling everything sexist and problematic.

And to quote Anita Sarkeesian: "Everything is racist, sexist, problematic."
I'm sorry Anita, this is a fallacy where you declare everything wrong and you present your OPINION as right so you auto-win any argument.

"We believe this is problematic, because we say so" is an opinion. Nothing more.
"We know this is problematic because research and facts" is a logical argument.

TL;DR: "I don't like this, therefore it must be censored and changed based on my arbitrary opinion."


I am making this thread to vent and point at the unreasonable whining and censorship in the name of "justice" that is becoming more and more apparent in the media.
Its point is not to troll or flamebait.
I'm trying to say "hey, this is happening and this madness needs to be pointed at, made aware of and stop".
Not that such people aren't imploding in their own arguments.

I have more to say, but this will suffice for now. And I know that I am not alone in this.

Here's an example of what I mean:


Post edited by Archaos on
GodKaiserHellsemiticgodSquireAwong124FlashburnWandering_Minstrel

Comments

  • GodKaiserHellGodKaiserHell Member Posts: 398
    Sorry to say, but you choose a bad forum/site to say that. Maybe you want to check this closed thread:

    https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/35138/anita-sarkeesian-your-thoughts-no-flaming-please/p1

    You can also seach "sjw" to see some interesting results.

  • SkaroseSkarose Member Posts: 247
    Sighs...

    I appreciate that you are concerned about this issue, but I think this topic is best reserved for REDDIT. A great many do not agree with your perspective and a great many do, but at this point this issue has atrophied into partisanship where neither side listens to each other and just ends up yelling over each other .

    I think there are enough statements/arguments/videos/articles on this issue for those who are interested, there is no need for more this divisive issue to be brought into this forum.

    I wish you all peace.

    FlashburnSCARY_WIZARD
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    His point, though, is that pressure groups are putting pressure on game designers to change this content because they've taken it upon themselves to decide what everybody should be offended by.

    I don't know enough about these games to form an opinion (I tend to not play the games that are affected by it - and also these things just aren't important enough for me to get worked up over), but I've seen a lot of videos regarding this, from both sides of the debate, and I've come to the conclusion that the whole debate is ridiculous. One side starts rattling their sabres, the other side reacts, and before we know it we have a war-of-words between them.

    Trouble with the internet is, it's made experts of us all. Now people can make money and become celebrities by talking to a webcam about stuff. This can be a good thing as well as a bad thing...there are a few vbloggers that I do follow (mostly ones who talk about European historical martial arts and weapons), but there are also some videos that make me facepalm. But we can choose what we watch. If the SJW Brigade carries any clout, it's because people listen to them.

    As an aside: you know, a lot of flamewars could easily be averted if people would just be rational and sensible about things, and not get so worked up about things that, ultimately, don't matter. Who cares if someone you don't know and will never meet has a different opinion to you about stuff? Surely we're a forum full of sensible, rational people, right? :) I personally think it's a shame that we can't have rational discussions about certain topics because flamebait, because preventing the discussion from happening is how certain views can continue to go unchallenged. But then, I've become quite cynical about such things in my old age. ;) It takes a lot to offend me, and people whom I dont know saying things that aren't true just isn't going to cut it.

    Archaos
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    Squire said:

    His point, though, is that pressure groups are putting pressure on game designers to change this content because they've taken it upon themselves to decide what everybody should be offended by.

    And what I'm saying is simply this: that point is a bald-faced lie.

    You know how I know that? Because every time someone directly asks a developer if they made a certain "objectionable" choice due to pressure, they go on at length to explain their reasons for making those choices, in spite of the backlash. Nobody forced Activision to put a gay character in Mortal Kombat X, or somehow influenced Bethesda to have same-sex romances in Fallout 4 - it happened because that's what the designers wanted to put in their games.

    The reason the "pressure group" myth keeps popping up is because anti-SJWs don't have the stones to directly attack triple-A publishers like EA, Ubisoft or Square-Enix, as they're perfectly aware those corporations would laugh them off the Internet. It's the same reason they don't go after vets like IGA for putting a female lead in Bloodstained, because these are people with reputations spanning decades and nobody makes them do anything they don't want to do.

    It's much easier to prop up a phantom group that supposedly has power over game developers - because, naturally, people with that power would rather use it to shrink Samus Aran's breasts than lower game prices, cut out microtransactions, stop invasive DRMs or prevent massively-bugged launches like Arkham Knight or EA's SimCity.

    It's a lie they use to attack people who don't have power or influence: Anita Sarkeesian is their Great Satan, and she has influenced precisely zero games.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    shawne said:

    Activision to put a gay character in Mortal Kombat X, or somehow influenced Bethesda to have same-sex romances in Fallout 4 - it happened because that's what the designers wanted to put in their games.

    You know this how exactly?

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    Feel free to substitute producers/executive producers/vice presidents/presidents for designers as the situation warrants.

    I'm also just going to put this here, because the word gets bandied about a lot on the internet and I don't think a lot of people know what it actually means:
    Censor
    trans. verb

    1. to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable, i.e. to censor the news
    2. to suppress or delete as objectionable, i.e. to censor out indecent passages
    One last thing: regardless of what else is going on on the internet, our site rules remain: respect the other members of the community, don't troll or flame, and keep it PG-13. (also no spam, no advertising, blah blah blah.) There's a whole lot of disagreeing you can do without making it personal.

    elminstersemiticgod
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    edited December 2015

    You know this how exactly?

    Because Google is free, and staying informed and educated is worth ten minutes of my day. Feel free to look up Todd Howard's Fallout 4 presentation at QuakeCon, and Dominic Cianciolo's tweets on Kung Jin in MKX. These are people who are happy with the choices they made, and will explicitly defend those choices to anyone who objects.

    Better yet, as long as we're having this discussion on this particular board: hey, @Dee! The people deserve to know the truth: how did those crafty SJWs pressure Beamdog into making Dorn bisexual?

    SCARY_WIZARD
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    @shawne You might want to change your tone a bit if you want to keep the discussin civil. References would be nice if you're going to mention people's comments.

    I'm not saying you're not right, I'm just saying you can't say they wanted to put X in their games without proof.

    Archaossemiticgod
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    edited December 2015
    @shawne

    There are countless articles and videos of SJWs complaining and demonizing the smallest thing.
    From the content, to the image of characters, to all sorts of things they don't agree with.
    And of course their supporters which are even more vocal and extreme on social media.

    These are facts. I can provide countless pictures, videos and articles that attack the design of such games.
    They're not some fantastical group that is in our imagination.

    I also have no problem with including bisexual or gay characters in EE or any games.
    On the contrary, I would prefer if a couple of characters in the original games were at least bi, such as Viconia and Haer'dalis.

    My problem is with people that attack games they don't like and demonizing some of their aspects, such as character design or gameplay or animation or dialogue.

    Self-censoring to cater to a vocal minority, is still censorship.
    Was there a reason for SFV's animations to be changed in the West? None.
    Was there a reason for DOAX3 not coming to the West? None. Money is money.

    What about GTA5 and people complaining that you can kill prostitutes and calling it sexist?
    Or calling the Witcher games sexist?
    Are those countless videos and articles part of our fantasy?

    Or videos such as these:

    [SPOILER]
    [/SPOILER]

    Articles such as these:

    [SPOILER]
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/06/01/feminist-critics-attack-the-witcher-3-over-depiction-of-women-in-fantasy-video-game/ [/SPOILER]

    Or these:
    [SPOILER]
    http://www.dailydot.com/geek/steven-universe-fanartist-bullied-controversy/ [/SPOILER]

    Apparently this is some kind of illusion.

    To make it clearer: This isn't about bisexual or gay/lesbian characters. I have zero issue with that.
    Nowhere in my OP did I mention or comment about this topic. You are putting words in my mouth and it's abundantly clear.

    My issue is with demonizing art, especially video games, either for its violence or for sexualized characters or whatever.
    Art is art. It shouldn't be (self)censored because people are insecure with some of its aspects that depicts fantasy characters, in a fantasy world, violence or sexualization.

    Not being realistic is not bad. That's the whole point of fantasy.
    Neither violence nor sexualization in video games has been proven to have any negative effects.

    Post edited by Archaos on
    Flashburn
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    Some important information: there are a lot of feminists and self-titled "social justice warriors" who frequent these forums. The respect rule cuts both ways: be aware of the rhetoric you use and its effect on the people who will read it.

    Sarcasm is fine as long as it stays on this side of personal attacks.

    I'll try to respond to @shawne's question when I have a bit more time.

    SCARY_WIZARD
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    edited December 2015
    @FinneousPJ: I find it a bit peculiar that you need proof to support the fairly basic claim that developers put what they want in their games, but not for SJWs' "fascistic dictating of what is allowed or no". That, you seem to take on faith - why is it your default assumption?

    @Archaos: If you have a problem with the fact that DoAX3 isn't coming to the West, your issue is with Koei-Tecmo, not SJWs. If you have a problem with SFV's animations being changed, the address for those complaints is Capcom. But you're not complaining to them, because you know they don't give half a brown Crayola what you (or any individual gamers) think. You'd rather buy into the ridiculous notion that it's somehow Anita Sarkeesian's fault because she has an opinion about video games.

    And what you don't understand - what you really, really need to understand - is that if you stick with this logic, you lose either way. If SJWs really do have that kind of power and influence, then you're already screwed because game companies are clearly deciding to follow that lead. And if they don't, and those same companies are acting of their own accord, you're still not going to get what you want.

  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    edited December 2015
    @shawne

    So when one side gets bullied with "sexist/misogynistic/sexualized/problematic" and such remarks that is becoming more and more prominent in the last couple of years and decides that they don't want to deal with it, it's ONLY their fault? Kind of a flawed logic.

    Here's an analogy:
    If a person X bully's person Y into not coming to school, then it's only Y's fault that he's not coming to school?

    Here's the reality. Both are at fault. Both the bully that attacks and harasses that person and that person for being afraid and caves in because of them.

    And about your last comment. Well, if I'm screwed either way I have every right to call it out and fight back against nonsense accusations that aren't based on reality.
    You know, just like gamers fought against a similar "war" a couple of decades ago with people whining about the violence in games and demanding similar self-censoring.

    "This game is too violent, here's a petition to ban it or censor it."
    Did people forget about Jack Thompson and similar people?

    You like SJWs deciding what is right or wrong in art without any evidence or facts, based on arbitrary reasons? Go ahead.

    I don't, and NOTHING will stop me from calling out such bullying and nonsense tactics.

    I have the right to make the most violent, gory, sexist and sexualized game I wish. As long as it's not illegal.
    You don't like it? Don't buy it. Freedom of expression and freedom of art.

    This has been true for decades for movies, comics, books, music etc. And still is.
    But when it comes to gaming, we use a different standard of what is right or wrong, instead of treating it like any other art media.

    Post edited by Archaos on
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    shawne said:

    @FinneousPJ: I find it a bit peculiar that you need proof to support the fairly basic claim that developers put what they want in their games, but not for SJWs' "fascistic dictating of what is allowed or no". That, you seem to take on faith - why is it your default assumption?

    It isn't. Where did I say that? Why do you think it's either 1) the developers put only what they want in games or 2) developers put what SJWs tell them to? I'm referring here to options 3 to infinity.

  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,600
    edited December 2015
    This thread made me think of this comic:

    image

    As for the topic, I don't feel terribly strongly either way. I've watched both Anita Sarkeesian's videos, and Thunderf00t's answers to them. I see huge logical fallacies and lots of ad hominem and straw man argumentation in both of them. Thunderf00t repeats himself a lot. I've watched him say the same thing over and over for more than ten minutes in some of his videos.

    I think Sarkeesian has a right to point out something that she sees as a problem and wants to draw attention to, to publish papers about it, and to make videos about it. People with opposing views have a right to ridicule her ideas as ridiculous if that's their opinion. It's called free speech.

    I found it inappropriate that some feminists tried to bring the Sarkeesian-Thunderf00t war into real life by writing a letter to his employer to try to get him fired. I'm glad their ploy didn't work. Since a lot of their accusations were blatantly false, Thunderf00t has every right to sue them for slander if he wants, but he seems satisfied just to post a video taunting them on their ineffectiveness.

    Notice that I used the phrase "tried to bring (it) into real life" in the paragraph above. I think internet posters have an exaggerated sense of the importance and effect of their posts on real life. As in, forums and video blogs are not real life. I find them interesting and entertaining to follow, good places to vent, and a way to get a sense of what people in general are thinking in culture.

    But, various groups of similar interests tend to congregate together on the internet, and that gives us a very skewed perspective on relative minorities and majorities of opinion, and on what is going on in the world at large. Misinformation abounds. People pull "facts" out of their arses as a matter of routine. I take everything I read or see on the internet with a grain of salt.

    So, I don't agree with the OP that groups involved in internet controversies have any significant effect at all on game designers or any other kinds of corporations or politicians.

    I believe the term "SJW" refers to someone who sits around and posts about social issues and problems on the internet without ever getting out and actually having a real, measurable effect on any of those issues or problems, and is doing it for entertainment without even necessarily caring that much about the issues or problems. Ineffectiveness is part of the definition of the term. The OP is practically invalidating his own argument by using the term "SJW" in his complaint.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    Okay, I've got a few minutes. Let's break this down.

    [spoiler=shawne]
    shawne said:

    Better yet, as long as we're having this discussion on this particular board: hey, @Dee! The people deserve to know the truth: how did those crafty SJWs pressure Beamdog into making Dorn bisexual?

    As far as I know, Beamdog received no outside pressure when the character of Dorn was being designed. The writers wanted Dorn's sexual preferences to not be restricted by gender, so that's how they wrote him. Hexxat was designed in a similar way, as is all of our content.

    The writers may have chosen specific stories to tell and characters to create because they wanted to offer a broader representation of sexuality or gender identity than is often seen in video games, but it's not like Trent got an email from Anita Sarkeesian saying "Do this or you're going to jail." The game did not pass through a feminist censor panel where they took lines of dialogue and removed or altered them to fit an agenda.

    If a developer decides to bring in a specialist like Anita Sarkeesian (and I'm not saying she's necessarily the best person to bring in) to talk about feminist issues, they do so as part of the development process because it's something the studio or its publisher cares about. They may care about it for different reasons, and those reasons may be selfish, but the decision to bring someone in is theirs alone.[/spoiler]

    [spoiler=Archaos]
    Archaos said:


    My problem is with people that attack games they don't like and demonizing some of their aspects, such as character design or gameplay or animation or dialogue.

    Does this also include things like DLC, DRM, patch cycles, hardware requirements, console exclusivity, pre-order bonuses, price points, bad endings, revised endings that are still bad, lack of player agency...?

    It's the internet. People are going to talk about the things they care about. For some people, it's DRM. For others, it's the trend in video games to represent women as sex objects.
    Self-censoring to cater to a vocal minority, is still censorship.
    Was there a reason for SFV's animations to be changed in the West? None.
    Was there a reason for DOAX3 not coming to the West? None. Money is money.
    None of those things are censorship. What you're describing is marketing. Koei knows that a game with highly sexualized characters won't sell as well in the West as it will in Japan, so they change the Western release accordingly. It's not censorship to try and maximize your company's profits.
    What about GTA5 and people complaining that you can kill prostitutes and calling it sexist?
    Or calling the Witcher games sexist?
    Are those countless videos and articles part of our fantasy?
    Still not censorship. What you're describing here is criticism and editorial. The same thing happens in book reviews, movie reviews, and reviews of sculpture and paintings. If it's art, people are going to have an opinion about it. It's not censorship to express that opinion.
    Art is art. It shouldn't be (self)censored because people are insecure with some of its aspects that depicts fantasy characters, in a fantasy world, violence or sexualization.
    Actually, it should be designed to cater to your target audience's feedback, if that's something you care about as an artist. Again, this isn't censorship.
    Not being realistic is not bad. That's the whole point of fantasy.
    Neither violence nor sexualization in video games has been proven to have any negative effects.
    It sounds like you're talking less about the idea of censorship, and more about the specific argument being made about violence and sexualization in video games. And that's fine, it's definitely worth debating and discussing (in a civil manner), but let's be absolutely clear: it isn't a censorship issue until the feminists actually take the script from the writer and change it without the writer's permission.[/spoiler]

    [spoiler=Archaos, Pt. 2]
    Archaos said:

    @shawne

    So when one side gets bullied with "sexist/misogynistic/sexualized/problematic" and such remarks that is becoming more and more prominent in the last couple of years and decides that they don't want to deal with it, it's ONLY their fault? Kind of a flawed logic.

    Here's an analogy:
    If a person X bully's person Y into not coming to school, then it's only Y's fault that he's not coming to school?

    Here's the reality. Both are at fault. Both the bully that attacks and harasses that person and that person for being afraid and caves in because of them.

    Here's a better analogy:

    Person A calls Person B a sexist name.
    Person B complains about it, and calls Person A sexist.
    Person C defends Person A's use of that sexist name.
    Person B calls Person C sexist too for defending Person A's sexist remark.

    Person A is at fault for being sexist. Person C is at fault for defending Person A's sexism. Person B is at fault for (maybe incorrectly) lumping Person C in with Person A, when maybe Person C didn't have all the information.

    It's not censorship for Person B to not want to be called a sexist name.

    And about your last comment. Well, if I'm screwed either way I have every right to call it out and fight back against nonsense accusations that aren't based on reality.
    You know, just like gamers fought against a similar "war" a couple of decades ago with people whining about the violence in games and demanding similar self-censoring.

    "This game is too violent, here's a petition to ban it or censor it."
    Did people forget about Jack Thompson and similar people?

    You like SJWs deciding what is right or wrong in art without any evidence or facts, based on arbitrary reasons? Go ahead.

    I don't, and NOTHING will stop me from calling out such bullying and nonsense tactics.

    I have the right to make the most violent, gory, sexist and sexualized game I wish. As long as it's not illegal.
    You don't like it? Don't buy it. Freedom of expression and freedom of art.

    This has been true for decades for movies, comics, books, music etc. And still is.
    But when it comes to gaming, we use a different standard of what is right or wrong, instead of treating it like any other art media.
    Everything here is just incorrect, except for these three statements:
    I don't, and NOTHING will stop me from calling out such [...] tactics.

    I have the right to make the most violent, gory, sexist and sexualized game I wish. As long as it's not illegal.
    You don't like it? Don't buy it. Freedom of expression and freedom of art.

    This has been true for decades for movies, comics, books, music etc. And still is.
    Yes, you can do exactly that. But when you make that violent, gory, sexist game, it's the public's right to criticize you for it. This, too, has been true for decades for movies, comics, books, music etc. And it still is.[/spoiler]

    [spoiler=FinneousPJ]

    shawne said:

    @FinneousPJ: I find it a bit peculiar that you need proof to support the fairly basic claim that developers put what they want in their games, but not for SJWs' "fascistic dictating of what is allowed or no". That, you seem to take on faith - why is it your default assumption?

    It isn't. Where did I say that? Why do you think it's either 1) the developers put only what they want in games or 2) developers put what SJWs tell them to? I'm referring here to options 3 to infinity.
    I think @shawne is pointing out that your post presents a bit of a double-standard, asking him to provide proof that designers aren't beholden to feminists, while at the same time not asking @Archaos to provide proof that they are.[/spoiler]

    [spoiler=BelgarathMTH]



    I believe the term "SJW" refers to someone who sits around and posts about social issues and problems on the internet without ever getting out and actually having a real, measurable effect on any of those issues or problems, and is doing it for entertainment without even necessarily caring that much about the issues or problems. Ineffectiveness is part of the definition of the term. The OP is practically invalidating his own argument by using the term "SJW" in his complaint.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW

    Sort of. A number of feminists style themselves as Social Justice Warriors, considering it their calling to actively promote social justice. A number of people on the internet have used the acronym "SJW" as a pejorative to refer to any person who speaks out in favor of social justice, usually feminists, usually women.

    It doesn't quite cross the line into inflammatory language in every context, but it does have the effect of marginalizing a group of people who are trying to enact positive change, making its use in intelligent discussions like this one highly problematic, in the same way that "Rethuglicans" is a terrible way to talk about conservative politicians if you want to engage in formal debate.[/spoiler]

    And one last time, for good measure: It's not censorship to say "I don't like this" or "This offends me", nor is it censorship to provide a critical analysis of what you don't like or why it offends you, even if that analysis is flawed. It's also not censorship if an artist sees your analysis and lets it inform their future work.

    You're free to disagree with that analysis, or with that artist's decision, but that doesn't make the analysis wrong or the artist a coward.

    BelgarathMTHkillerrabbitNonnahswritersemiticgod
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,047
    edited December 2015
    Archaos said:

    @shawne

    There are countless articles and videos of SJWs complaining and demonizing the smallest thing.
    From the content, to the image of characters, to all sorts of things they don't agree with.
    And of course their supporters which are even more vocal and extreme on social media.

    These are facts. I can provide countless pictures, videos and articles that attack the design of such games.
    They're not some fantastical group that is in our imagination.

    I also have no problem with including bisexual or gay characters in EE or any games.
    On the contrary, I would prefer if a couple of characters in the original games were at least bi, such as Viconia and Haer'dalis.

    My problem is with people that attack games they don't like and demonizing some of their aspects, such as character design or gameplay or animation or dialogue.

    Self-censoring to cater to a vocal minority, is still censorship.
    Was there a reason for SFV's animations to be changed in the West? None.
    Was there a reason for DOAX3 not coming to the West? None. Money is money.

    What about GTA5 and people complaining that you can kill prostitutes and calling it sexist?
    Or calling the Witcher games sexist?
    Are those countless videos and articles part of our fantasy?

    The thing is just because someone (or a group of people) complain(s) about something in a game doesn't mean their opinion made any difference on a games development. The publisher of Street fighter V for instance probably would have had some kind of market research and for all we know their research came to the conclusion that purchasers with x socioeconomic/demographic characteristics (a group they particularly wanted to expand their sales with) were less likely to buy the game for themselves or others. Their focus groups found this group objected to (or didn't like) this, this, and this in the game. After analyzing how likely other players were to still purchase the game, even when such and such was removed (covering a butt in this case) they believe any backlash they face makes it worthwhile (could also be a decision more for the long term when it comes to the franchise).

    So basically you haven't really established a connection between these complaints and these changes.

    Post edited by elminster on
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    Dee said:


    [spoiler=FinneousPJ]

    shawne said:

    @FinneousPJ: I find it a bit peculiar that you need proof to support the fairly basic claim that developers put what they want in their games, but not for SJWs' "fascistic dictating of what is allowed or no". That, you seem to take on faith - why is it your default assumption?

    It isn't. Where did I say that? Why do you think it's either 1) the developers put only what they want in games or 2) developers put what SJWs tell them to? I'm referring here to options 3 to infinity.
    I think @shawne is pointing out that your post presents a bit of a double-standard, asking him to provide proof that designers aren't beholden to feminists, while at the same time not asking @Archaos to provide proof that they are.[/spoiler]
    No, that isn't what I said. @shawne claimed to see inside the mind of the developers and know what they *want* or don't want to put in their games. I object to this sentiment without proof. @Archaos ' argument is irrelevant to this claim.

  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402
    Wading in where devas fear to tread . . .

    I think the reason so many devs have embraced Sarkeesian is that the video game market / culture was forcing devs to make games they didn't like. It was no longer enough to have one dead, naked hooker -- you need piles of them to make the game seem edgy. Even if the NPC was a no-nonsense, tough-as-nail solider the artists felt obligated to give her a wasp waist, a cup size of J and a penchant for wearing thongs. The devs weren't making the games they wanted to make, they were conforming.

    The other reason is filthy lucre -- developers want to sell more games to women and, for some women, the sexualizing of every NPC prevents immersion. It's just hard to believe that the warrior with J cup held in by a sweat band is so good at kung fu -- just as I would have a hard time role playing the charname of 'priapic warrior: size queen edition'. Watch out for those axes.

    Literally no one is saying that the avatars can't look like a track and field event at the Olympics -- and if they start saying that I'll agree with you. But I think Sarkeesian and co are fighting against obligatory, conformist content.


    TL;DR devs are responding to Sarkeesian because she is freeing them from obligations, not because she is imposing new restrictions on them.

    semiticgod
  • NonnahswriterNonnahswriter Member Posts: 2,520
    The thing with the Mika censorship: it does literally nothing to address the problems brought up by SJWs. A lot of feminists and SJWs have concerns about hyper-sexualized female characters, because it's a tired trope that is seen repeatedly in video games (among other art forms) that objectifies and belittles a woman's value on society.



    This is Mika. She's a rough-and-tough wrestler who's not afraid to flaunt herself and crush skulls between her thighs (Zangief anyone?) at the same time. Naturally, people who are tired of seeing hyper-sexualized women in games would object.

    But the "censor" provided by Capcom doesn't change Mika's character. She's still as sexy and powerful and fan-service-y as she was before. Except now, the camera doesn't capture her slapping her butt. Even though she's still slapping it and you can hear the slap off-screen. We just don't see it.

    This kind of change to the camera just doesn't do anything meaningful. Mika is still Mika. SJWs are still going to complain about her. All Capcom succeeded in doing is stir the pot of fan outrage. (Which probably didn't do too bad for their sales, since now people can't stop talking about SF5... Hmmmm...)

    Point being: if this so-called censor was all about catering to SJWs or feminists, they would've done something more. They would have taken Mika out completely (except they wouldn't, because she's an established character that a lot of people like more than hate) or given her a full redesign (which they also wouldn't do because she's an established character that a lot of people like more than hate).

    The censor is stupid and pointless. But I put more blame on Capcom implementing it than I do on SJWs complaints. Obviously, Capcom wasn't actually thinking about them when they made the choice.

    Now let's talk about Cammy's so-called censor. This one I feel a little different about.

    As Cammy leaps onto the battlefield, she does some awesome flips and kicks, and lands on the ground. Knees bent, legs far apart, so that she doesn't lose her balance.

    In the previous version, as Cammy was landing, we saw this:

    image

    Oh my. Is that--yup. Yup it is. That is a camera pointed straight up into Cammy's nether regions.

    As a woman watching this, I feel violated. I feel violated for Cammy. To think that a bunch of mostly-male game designers thought that displaying to us a woman's most sensitive, most intimate part of her body on a battlefield was a good idea... The notion disgusts me. It's not sexy. It has nothing to do with Cammy as a character.

    And it was easily changed.

    image

    Now, the camera shows us Cammy's legs and thighs. We get a better look at her face. Admittedly, the camera angle is still awfully awkward, but it's better than what we had.

    In this case, I tip my hat off to Capcom. This is a good example of what can be done when a company properly addresses criticism and makes changes. As in, not in the BS-way they did with Mika.

    The only real problem I have with this change is that it's not universal. Mika's and Cammy's changes are limited to only the U.S. audience, not to the Japanese or European. Which makes me think, this isn't about making the game better suited to a feminist audience--it's about pleasing an American audience.

    Once again, if they're number one concern was pleasing SJWs, they would have made the change universal. They didn't.

    Another example I can think of is part of the Fire Emblem: Awakening DLC.

    http://fireemblem.wikia.com/wiki/Summer_Scramble

    It's a DLC scenario that panders to fanservice in the best way it can: put the most loved Fire Emblem characters in swimsuits on the beach. (Chrom in swim trunks!? *squee!*) But for some reason, Nintendo decided that for the American audience, one of the screenshots of our swimsuit characters needed to be changed.

    image

    The above image is that of the European and Japanese screenshot of Tharja in a swimsuit. The bottom is what the American version got--instead of seeing her tuck in her bikini, a mysterious cape is blocking the view. Not only does this completely fail to retain any of Tharja's dignity--she's still in a swimsuit!--but now, it looks even more suggestive than before. Where is this cape coming from? Is Tharja still wearing anything under that? Naughty questions ensue...

    Mind you, they didn't make any kind of change to the other characters.

    image

    We still get Chrom, Gaius, and Cordelia looking embarrassed and sexy.

    And all I can think is: WHY? Why would you do that to Tharja? If you were really serious about giving back a female character's dignity and addressing some sexism, why would you ever think THAT was the solution? I'd have rather let Tharja wear her bikini without shame than see it covered in such a not-productive way.

    Bad Nintendo. That's the same BS that Capcom pulled with Mika. Superficial censorship that does nothing to address the problems an SJW would point out--and in this instance, only made the situation worse.

    My point being:

    Japanese game companies have this irrational fear that American gamers are afraid of butts.

    I mean.

    At the end of the day, it's entirely up to you, as a creator, to determine how you handle criticism--be it from SJWs, feminists, or angry neckbeards. You are the one who determines what criticism has value and what does not. You are the one who decides what to do about it. You can handle it well, the way Capcom did with Cammy, or handle it poorly, like Nintendo did with Tharja's swimsuit. Or you could do nothing. People can scream all they want, but if you're a huge company like Capcom or Nintendo, with a vast and loyal fanbase, you're still bound to make a profit no matter what. They can't do much to stop you.

    That's the process of creation: make something, receive feedback, and improve accordingly. Or not. It's your choice.

    (As for DoAX3, I don't have much opinion on that, as I don't know much about it. But I'm not a stranger to not getting games I want localized in the West. I'm still mourning the loss of Tales of Innocence R.)

    BillyYankkillerrabbitBelgarathMTHVallmyr
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    What I don't understand is why do people feel the need to dictate what is appropriate entertainment for other people. If you don't like a video game, don't buy it. But don't go on a crusade to ban it or whatever.

    Awong124ArchaosXzar
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,769
    @Nonnahswriter Something tells me that the change to Cammy's camera angle was less about female dignity and more about not freaking out the moms.

    VallmyrNonnahswriter
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    edited December 2015
    In the case like SFV, if the developers didn't want to have hyper-sexualized females or controversial themes in their games, they wouldn't have created them in the first place. The way I see it, having that content seems to be their original vision and intent, then depending on how much of a stink is brought up by SJWs they'll dial it back in hopes that they'll shut up. Though, unless they're trying to get the game into a lower ESRB rating, I don't understand why they'd bother. The SJWs causing the fuss aren't going to buy their game regardless, so why not just flip them the bird and call it a day?

    Flashburn
  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402
    edited December 2015
    Awong124 said:

    In the case like SFV, if the developers didn't want to have hyper-sexualized females or controversial themes in their games, they wouldn't have created them in the first place. The way I see it, having that content seems to be their original vision and intent,

    In a marketplace, employees produce things the don't like all. the. time. House painters would like to paint colors other than brown, light brown and grey, authors would like to produce novels that no one would read and musicians would like to write songs no one would buy. Every. day.

    Btw, I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that you can't have sexy characters in a video games -- but when every character has to be (hyper) sexual, that suggests pressure to conform and not authentic expression of interest.

    semiticgodNonnahswriter
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    edited December 2015

    Awong124 said:

    In the case like SFV, if the developers didn't want to have hyper-sexualized females or controversial themes in their games, they wouldn't have created them in the first place. The way I see it, having that content seems to be their original vision and intent,

    In a marketplace, employees produce things the don't like all. the. time. House painters would like to paint colors other than brown, light brown and grey, authors would like to produce novels that no one would read and musicians would like to write songs no one would buy. Every. day.

    Btw, I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that you can't have sexy characters in a video games -- but when every character has to be (hyper) sexual, that suggests pressure to conform and not authentic expression of interest.
    It makes no sense to create something they didn't want to only to remove it at a later date. If they only created it for sales, then they wouldn't have changed it after. Your point only makes sense if they created something they didn't want to because of pressure for sales, and actually stuck to it.

    And also, when I say their original vision and intent, I don't only mean artistic intent. I also mean their design with the intent of sales. So if they had to remove content to appease SJWs, then it's still changing their original vision and intent due to outside pressure. The individual game designers might not have particularly wanted to hyper-sexualize the characters (or maybe they did, who knows), but the company as a whole probably did as a conscious decision, whether it's for sales, brand image, or something else. I am not making that distinction. By developer, I refer to the company as a whole.

    Post edited by Awong124 on
  • NonnahswriterNonnahswriter Member Posts: 2,520
    BillyYank said:

    Something tells me that the change to Cammy's camera angle was less about female dignity and more about not freaking out the moms.

    Quite possibly. I don't claim to know what they were thinking. :P
    Flashburn said:

    For those reasons and more, I hate SJWs as well. And please note, that term was what they called themselves long before the acronym was turned on its head last year and used to reveal their unscrupulous behavior. Some still call themselves SJWs, but when someone uses it as a pejorative, they get mad. Classic double-think.

    I'm just gonna quote this and then quote this from Dee as a reminder...
    Dee said:

    Some important information: there are a lot of feminists and self-titled "social justice warriors" who frequent these forums. The respect rule cuts both ways: be aware of the rhetoric you use and its effect on the people who will read it.

    Sarcasm is fine as long as it stays on this side of personal attacks.

This discussion has been closed.