Anyway, you, WarChiefZeke, used a MEME "I identify as an attack helicopter and I find the lack of my representation appalling" which is considered disrespectful to certain groups of people. Other users thought the joke had not been fun and asked you to stop. You reacted with "lol" which was disrespectful to people who had asked you to stop. Then it promted a full reply.
This won't go anywhere good if you persist.
Also, the thread is about David Gaider's article, and @Shandaxx , the OPer, has asked not to talk about Mizhena.
A lot of other media, such as television and movies have made a more gradual move away from women stereotypes. However, these medias are also older and had more time to find audiences when they do.
Think Rosanne from the 90s. In a world of polished superfluous sitcoms, the grit and humour, plus the fact the lead actors were models, allowed more people to relate to the show on a personal level.
Forgive me for asking, but how that is relevant to what I said before? I geniuely fail to see it.
@Buttercheese I am pretty sure as for now, that it is just about seeing yourself in the media, not about general deiversity in stories and among characters. Sorry, that's the impression you just gave.
No apologies needed. It may just me misunderstanding this post.
I grasped upon "in the media" from this post, and wanted to illustrate that other mediums have gotten away from stereotyped women characters more than games have and it started for them, sometime in the 90s IMO.
Video game diversity is still a problem, as games still sexualize women for "fan service." load up Mass Effect 3 and play as a lesbian Shepard, and then play as a Gay Male Shepard. The cut scenes are strikingly different and it is due to objectifying women still.
There needs to be positive reinforcement for all character types, which hasn't happened yet for women in videogames (it is heading in that direction though).
So she can see herself in other mediums (like TV) but not in videogames yet. The technology is there now, so that can't be the excuse anymore, there just has to be a will.
@deltago That still has nothing to do with what I was saying before. What I see in this topic time and time again is that people claim the diversity is good, because it adds to the storytelling, while what I mostly see here is that people just want to see themselves in the media. Apparently because such labeling traits as race, gender or sexuality are more important than any other trait of actual value. What's worse, it seems that at least to some extent they base their self-esteem around those - which is pretty bad for their general feeling of self-worth.
And, by the way, what I also see is people nearly preaching how there is nothing wrong with re-valuating oneself, how good it is for people to ask themselves questions, to be open minded and so on. That's of course true, but 1) that also applies to ones that make those arguments and 2) apparently "diversity" of thought/ideas is not very appreciated.
If my experiences with "fan service" is anything to go by is that people who complain about it often objectify the characters more than anyone else. If one scene makes you think of a character as an object, while ignoring anything else about said character, like backstory, personality, traits, accomplishemnt etc. then you are the problem here.
I took some time to watch the scenes in Mass Effect 3 (on YouTube, I never owned the game) and what I can say: first scene is set in totally different circumstances for lesbian/gay scene, therefore comparing it is pointless (and on that note, I didn't find the shower scene titillating due to character models and expression feeling off). Second scene, I'll give you here a point. And now I'll remind you of what happened after the social justice was implemented more into Mass Effect series: it didn't improve the series, nor even the romances. It gave us Mass Defect: Andromeda. Yay?
----
As long as she, or anyone else, will continue seeking reinforcements in media, with main requirement being literally able to see herself in media, her overall well-being won't improve. She could feel little better for the short ammount of time after "seeing" herself, but that's symptomatic therapy.
And just to note, I doubt TV/Videogames have many fat, talentless, lazy, anti-nihillistic cowards and pacifists like myself. Luckily, I don't want to build my feeling of self-worth around that.
@O_Bruce You took my comment completely wrong. Seeing myself personally represented in the media is not a requirement for me to like the piece of media. It's just a nice cherry on top. I brought up my own experiences from my childhood with the underrepresentation of women in gaming and the media as a whole as an example of how I can relate to people who see themselves equally or even more underrepresented in the medium today. It's the basis for my empathy.
The part about more diverse body types is the issue I see today in the medium, but one that is much much smaller than the lack of positive representation of queer and POC characters. It was simply in response to @Shandaxx question of how I currently feel about depiction of women in gaming today. He asked for my personal opinion on that specific topic and I gave it.
What I see in this topic time and time again is that people claim the diversity is good, because it adds to the storytelling, while what I mostly see here is that people just want to see themselves in the media. Apparently because such labeling traits as race, gender or sexuality are more important than any other trait of actual value. What's worse, it seems that at least to some extent they base their self-esteem around those - which is pretty bad for their general feeling of self-worth.
First of all, things always have as much value as we give them. A lot of people put a lot of value into race, gender, sex and sexuality, ergo these things are valuable, wether you personally feel the same or not. Also, the part about self-esteem is your personal assumption. There are many things about what makes a game (or any piece of media) appealing or disapealling to a person. It is always a larger sum of much smaller parts. And different people put different values into the different parts. When you find part of yourself repeadedly underrepresented and/or only represented negatively, you become sensitive to this aspect over time. That is why it's always such a big deal for many people when a character finally does positively represent that aspect over time. As soon as this becomes the norm, nobody will give a hoot anymore. And yes, seeing yourself badly/under-represented in the media you consume over and over again does have a bad impact on a person's self-worth. "You are what you eat." The things we consume have an impact on us. That in return means that it also forms our opinions about the things that are represented. The media and society are in constant exchange and reflection with each other. For the longest time (and to this date), trans-people (especially transwomen) have been depicted in the media as a joke, as gross and as undesirable. So people who consume that media will also start to believe that being a transwoman makes you a joke, gross and undiserable. Can you imagine what this does to a person's psyche and self-worth?
And, by the way, what I also see is people nearly preaching how there is nothing wrong with re-valuating oneself, how good it is for people to ask themselves questions, to be open minded and so on. That's of course true, but 1) that also applies to ones that make those arguments and 2) apparently "diversity" of thought/ideas is not very appreciated.
And by people, you clearly mean me, since I am the one who said that I am trying constantly to reevaluate my standpoint. I have been of basically the same basic opinion until just a few years ago where you are now. But I (painfully, mind you) learned. And I am convinced that if my stubborn ass can get to that point, anyone else can too.
If my experiences with "fan service" is anything to go by is that people who complain about it often objectify the characters more than anyone else. If one scene makes you think of a character as an object, while ignoring anything else about said character, like backstory, personality, traits, accomplishemnt etc. then you are the problem here.
Well, yes and no. Objectification can go both ways. When people put more value in certain traits than others, then those traits are at danger of becoming the sole purpose of interest and discussion. People are per definition not able to have objective opinions. Everything is subjective. That is why it's important to take the metaphorical step back and question your own initial opinion. And when the opinions in the end boil down to "I don't like it because I believe it's pandering" and "I like it because it's good for my soul" then I believe the latter opinion is more important.
As long as she, or anyone else, will continue seeking reinforcements in media, with main requirement being literally able to see herself in media, her overall well-being won't improve. She could feel little better for the short ammount of time after "seeing" herself, but that's symptomatic therapy.
Juuuust to make sure you get the message: Not what I said, not what I meant Also, I really don't like being talked about in such a way. Please stop doing that.
And just to note, I doubt TV/Videogames have many fat, talentless, lazy, anti-nihillistic cowards and pacifists like myself. Luckily, I don't want to build my feeling of self-worth around that.
It goes back to my first point as well. Diverse characters help different people relate to story being told. The more they relate, the more they invest and immerse themselves in the story.
Lets do this in reverse. Try to think of a game where you didnt like the protagonist in the story. How invested were you in the game? And think why didn't you like the protagonist/main character?
Positive relationship helps with immersion. Now there are two types of relationship immersion. The first is how I am describing it: People see traits of themselves in the characters. The second is people see traits they want to have in the characters.
So just because you personally do not invest in a game because of character relation, doesn't mean other people don't. This is also all on an subconscious level, so if you don't actively engage in thinking about it, you may not be aware of it. You just like it because you like it, which is fine.
Games are suppose to be an escape not to be critically torn apart unless you are looking for a way to expand your audience.
Now there are two types of relationship immersion. The first is how I am describing it: People see traits of themselves in the characters. The second is people see traits they want to have in the characters.
Actually, it's three. People who find themeselves attracted to that character, usually in a sexual context but also in a platonic way (like for example if the main character reminds you of your child, best friend or something).
Games are suppose to be an escape not to be critically torn apart unless you are looking for a way to expand your audience.
Either games are an art form and subject to criticism or they're not subject to criticism and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. If the latter is true we'd all probably be better off finding a hobby that actually matters.
Games are supossed to be whatever the people making them want them to be. They can be both escapism and commentary. Often they are both. Everything else is censorship which is poison for any art form.
First of all, things always have as much value as we give them. A lot of people put a lot of value into race, gender, sex and sexuality, ergo these things are valuable, wether you personally feel the same or not. Also, the part about self-esteem is your personal assumption.
First sentence is true. Second sentence is unfortunately also true. I say unfortunately, because the last sentence is frankly wrong. One of things that affects your self-esteem and overall feeling of well-being is tied to multiple factor, the sense of coherence and sense of control over your life among them. Now, let's say that your primary values are ALL those you can't controll or affect. You cling to them, use them to describe you, when in fact such values like sex, skin colour and so on can be used to describe MILIONS of other people, not yourself as an individual. Meanwhile, there are traits and skills that define you as a person that you don't seem to be so serious about. And some of these traits that are within your control I honestly admire.
Now, why do I think the last sentence was wrong? Because first of all, I studied it. I have a major for a reason. Second of all, I've been through a lot trying to improve my self-esteem and my self-worth. I still struggle with it, actually. And as result, I learned something about this topic.
And yes, seeing yourself badly/under-represented in the media you consume over and over again does have a bad impact on a person's self-worth. "You are what you eat." The things we consume have an impact on us. That in return means that it also forms our opinions about the things that are represented. The media and society are in constant exchange and reflection with each other. For the longest time (and to this date), trans-people (especially transwomen) have been depicted in the media as a joke, as gross and as undesirable. So people who consume that media will also start to believe that being a transwoman makes you a joke, gross and undiserable. Can you imagine what this does to a person's psyche and self-worth?
That is also true, but only partially. I do agree with the fact that media impacting us as an audience. But you're wrong on how much impact they make. If you, as an member of an audience, have critical thinking skills, this becomes much less of an issue. Think of it: what you see in media more often than not is not true. I think you know this. Advertisements more often than not are a lie, designed to awake a need in you to buy a product (or get to know the brand). Movies are mostly fiction, their characters too. How a fictional character is depicted in media has nothing to do with you. That character doesn't exist. You, on the other hand, do. You're flesh and blood. You're not stupid. You know that no mater how accurate and inaccurate character is depicted in media does not affect you, nor it describes you. Even if we wave the "fictional" element aside, ask yourself this question: is one member of a larger group a representative of said group? The answer is no. Claiming otherwise would be false. So, "misrepresented" character still doesn't represent you. It's only a non-existing drop in a heavy rain.
And by people, you clearly mean me, since I am the one who said that I am trying constantly to reevaluate my standpoint. I have been of basically the same basic opinion until just a few years ago where you are now. But I (painfully, mind you) learned. And I am convinced that if my stubborn ass can get to that point, anyone else can too.
How did you learning process looked like, if you don't mind me asking?
Well, yes and no. Objectification can go both ways. When people put more value in certain traits than others, then those traits are at danger of becoming the sole purpose of interest and discussion. People are per definition not able to have objective opinions. Everything is subjective. That is why it's important to take the metaphorical step back and question your own initial opinion.
You know, if I have to re-word what I said about this, here it is: it's people who value body as a sexual objects over anything else the problem, not authors who make the fanservice scenes happen in the first place. At least more often than not. You can make a tiltalling scene with a character, who still is well-written, has well-defined personality, goals, skill set, traits, relationships etc. If the viewer sees one fanservice scene and deemed that well-written character as an sex object, the viewer and his/her VALUES are the problem.
And when the opinions in the end boil down to "I don't like it because I believe it's pandering" and "I like it because it's good for my soul" then I believe the latter opinion is more important.
One, I don't think you quite get my intention with that. Second, please don't send me links to TVTropes. When I get on that site, I usually waste way too much time. And my time today was not especially well spend.
This thread made me remember a conversation I had with a five year old girl a couple of years back. Some of her friends were playing that they had a hospital and all that. She suddenly asked me if she should be a nurse or a patient in this game. I answered that she could also be a doctor. She just laughed (in a very condescending way) and told me that girls/women can't be doctors. And you know, she told me this as if it was the most natural thing in the world and I was a total idiot for not knowing it.
There are probably several reasons behind this, but I think better female representation would've prevented her from believing this so adamantly. And it just breaks my heart to see girls that haven't even lost their primary teeth believe that so many paths in life are closed to them for the sole reason that they are female. I worked at a preschool for several years and saw this too often. And I saw boys who were already so ashamed for showing feelings or being associated with "girly" stuff. And that's why I think representation is important. Because it can prevent kids like these from repressing positive parts of themselves.
@O_Bruce In the end I think things boil down to you believing that people are much more self-aware and self-loving than I believe they are. Right now I don't think I can add anything else to the discussion without repeating myself, really.
How did you learning process looked like, if you don't mind me asking?
Well, I started out with believing that labels don't matter and that people who put value into them are idiots. But upon speaking with many different people over the course of years about labels, often resulting in really heated and bad arguments, I went back and analysed what went wrong in each discussion and tried to find a way to more effectively emphathise with their point of views. That paired with seeing other people's thoughts on pieces of media like Xena, Sailor Moon, Revolutionary Girl Utena and other pieces of media like them that had an impact on me during my childhood, I realised that other people didn't even have that. I also saw a lot of really positive reactions to Steven Universe (a show I initially dispised because I found it too pandering, mind you [now it's one of my favourite cartoons]) and the Ghostbusters reboot from children and teenagers (I suggest watching the Nostalgia Critic's review on that movie for more insight).
And at some point it clicked with me that even though labels don't matter to me nearly as much as to other people, they do matter to a lot of people I wanna see happy and I finally understood just why exactly representation matters.
What a lot of people don't get is that it's not enough to just state your opinion to make other people agree with you. And attacking them over them - no matter how bigoted or mislead you may find them to be at first - only devides people further and makes them more hostile to each other. It's important to take the time and explain your point of view, to hear out the other person's point of view and then try to find some basic middle ground to start from. Everybody has prejudices. Even the most woke person on the planet has them.
@O_Bruce In the end I think things boil down to you believing that people are much more self-aware and self-loving than I believe they are. Right now I don't think I can add anything else to the discussion without repeating myself, really.
Fair enough. Just a small correction: I don't believe people are like that, just merely that people have resources/potential to be like that if they choose so.
I also thank you for answering my question. I'll think about it - it was worthy experience IMO. Also, I agree on your points regarding discussions in general.
It goes back to my first point as well. Diverse characters help different people relate to story being told. The more they relate, the more they invest and immerse themselves in the story.
Lets do this in reverse. Try to think of a game where you didnt like the protagonist in the story. How invested were you in the game? And think why didn't you like the protagonist/main character?
Positive relationship helps with immersion.
So just because you personally do not invest in a game because of character relation, doesn't mean other people don't. This is also all on an subconscious level, so if you don't actively engage in thinking about it, you may not be aware of it. You just like it because you like it, which is fine.
Games are suppose to be an escape not to be critically torn apart unless you are looking for a way to expand your audience.
I see what you mean, and were it that simple, to quote Cullen of DA:2 - and for you, it can be. But not for all.
To me, game-writing & gaming-joy are not fragile, thou possibly poor, in which case calling that out can only improve things.
My personal example is The Witcher series, as opposed to The Witcher 2 and Dethmold.
I hail The Witcher with DA:O as the harbinger of PC RPG renaissance - which took bloody long enough, after BG-series, NWN2, Morrowind.
In the same way I will always fancy DA:2 combat, I thought the PC-unto-console combat of The Witcher was one of the rare instances of innovation that felt fully cross-platform compatible. Like Hawke, Geralt of Rivia is well written, there is deep (if rather monochromatic) lore behind.
But I will never be able to play TW2 for a second time, because I could not tolerate what I thought was mean, demeaning and homophobic writing of Dethmold. I've given TW3 chance one it was discounted, and this is a great open world, even if the writing has not innovated or challenged any of the "this is a gritty world, so look at these lynched corpses and abused civilians" signalling.
I love The Witcher for the great service it render for the whole RPG genre, and I don't mind Geralt, even if I think he is not allowed to grow too interesting because of the "this is a gritty world" signalling thing. But I do most certainly mind Dethmold. While being a The Witcher fan.
This thread made me remember a conversation I had with a five year old girl a couple of years back. Some of her friends were playing that they had a hospital and all that. She suddenly asked me if she should be a nurse or a patient in this game. I answered that she could also be a doctor. She just laughed (in a very condescending way) and told me that girls/women can't be doctors. And you know, she told me this as if it was the most natural thing in the world and I was a total idiot for not knowing it.
There are probably several reasons behind this, but I think better female representation would've prevented her from believing this so adamantly.
May I ask, did you try and reason with her in any way? Or where do you come from, and are her parents terrible fallocrats?
Because in Scandi-nations, and most of EU-Europe probably too - a child that age shall have not lived without seeing a woman practitioner. In fact, it has tipped to be a female-dominated profession, because entry-criteria require academic merit (where females in Scandinavia tend to excel.)
This reminds me of DeviantArt contributor whom made a critical comic about making Isabela and Fenris sort of scandi-blond by modding. She made a point in the comments about a cousin thinking another cousin of theirs should aim at being a rapper or basket ball player, and not a doctor, because thou "half-white" that cousin looked "black.*
America - not unexpected, even if still wrong. This fantastic artist also quoted a study saying that when children watch telly, the only group coming out with self-worth unharmed are the white boys.
In Scandi-Europe, women do excel academically, such as entering the medical school. So now the discussion is about making the criteria more "male friendly" - as opposed to boys studying as comprehensively.
I just think that the underlying/true worth (of individuals/races etc) and inherited/perceived/de facto power worth are not aligned.
What a lot of people don't get is that it's not enough to just state your opinion to make other people agree with you. And attacking them over them - no matter how bigoted or mislead you may find them to be at first - only devides people further and makes them more hostile to each other. It's important to take the time and explain your point of view, to hear out the other person's point of view and then try to find some basic middle ground to start from. Everybody has prejudices. Even the most woke person on the planet has them.
This. If the aggressive "SJW" rhetoric has successfully driven me off from left to the center - me, a damn "pro-Gayropean libtard" as I occasionally hear spoken in my general direction (I'm Russian), - then you know the issue is with the rhetoric.
What a lot of people don't get is that it's not enough to just state your opinion to make other people agree with you. And attacking them over them - no matter how bigoted or mislead you may find them to be at first - only devides people further and makes them more hostile to each other. It's important to take the time and explain your point of view, to hear out the other person's point of view and then try to find some basic middle ground to start from. Everybody has prejudices. Even the most woke person on the planet has them.
This. If the aggressive SJW rhetoric has successfully driven me off from left to the center - me, a damn "pro-Gayropean libtard" as I occasionally hear spoken in my general direction (I'm Russian), - then you know the issue is with the rhetoric.
Except - my suspicion is that you are more nodding at what you perceive to be prejudices against your comfortable position; not that much challenging your own against those others, say, those "SJWs" and such like.
Because "left" seriously is surely about political opinion of social mobility, plurality, opportunity in life for most and taxation system - not some gaming immersion preference? Even if the leader of Socialists in Finland was a great Grand Theft Auto fan always killing the prostitutes for cash - I would not switch over to the religious right, or even rural center. I'd think, meanwhile, her gaming immersion was unpleasant.
And "SJW" is generally intended as an insult - so if you are free of malice and prejudice, why do you so choose to label some gamers? And may I assume: not those whom game away like you.
Prejudice, pray, Ardanis?
I recommend reading Harvard Business Review, and their interesting articles on behavioural studies. With humans, it tends to be that we like to attribute our own successes to us being excellent, and failures to the circumstances.
But this view quite reverses in how we tend to view others: if others fail, they were lazy and undeserving, and boy, did they get the sucker punch when they do better than us!
Not falling for that is in my view being self-aware, the oxygen that can transform the dank dumps of our mind into fruitful composts. I know I suffer from that bias. Hence I am leftist, notwithstanding any hypothetical GTA prostitute killing at Finnish political party leadership - and pay my taxes without grudge.
Going kinda off-topic here into an area I am sure most people don't wanna see me talking about, so I am putting this into a spoiler tag
Terms like these are generally coined by the actions of how the people using these terms to discribe themselves.
A SJW - a social justice warrior - is by definition an agressive thing. The goal is to literally fight for social justice. In reality this concept presented itself to deliberately spread antagonism and abuse, fighting bigotry with more bigotry, censorship of art, witch hunts and a whole truckload full of hypocrisy all under the guise of "for the greater good." And then victimising oneself. At least that is what I have personally witnessed, over the course of several years.
That doesn't mean that every person who calls themselves an SJW does stuff like that. But enough vocal people did to turn the term into something inherintly negative at this point.
If someone chooses to call themselves an SJW then they have to live with people pre-judging them as an antagonising, abusive, bigoted, censorship-spreading, witch hunting hypocrit.
Let's not forget: Prejudice is not inheritly a bad thing. It usually is bad, but at it's core prejudice just discribes things that we automatically associate with other things. For example, it's a prejudice to assume that trying to pet a wild fox will get you bitten and then rabies even though being a wild fox doesn't automatically mean having rabies. That is just self-preservation. The key is being able to judge when your prejudices are justified and helpful and when they are not.
Going kinda off-topic here into an area I am sure most people don't wanna see me talking about, so I am putting this into a spoiler tag
And that happy second day of Hanukkah to u, Buttercheese.
Compared to a notion like, say, "mithril" - "SJW" is just such an impotent word. From my experience - which you might just want to put down to "SJW sensibility" - it is an attempted insult to discredit discussion (that is too close to comfort), to signal some participants as silly, maybe a rallying cry for negative fora or social media behaviour to crowd them out. (By my ""SJW"" experience, only, of course)
I frankly could not care less if I am labelled as such, because if it is done with malice, I quite enjoy it.
At my earlier years, with Tolkien, I found his political stuff a bore. But I was amazed how he had the power to make "mithril" a universal concept, a word that became almost general.
But mithril never did crowd anything out. Joe Hill would be a social justice warrior in my books.
@Buttercheese: You're confusing the current reality with the origin of the term--and switching out the people who actually use the word "SJW."
SJW started out as an insult and its use today is almost universally an insult. The people who use the term are virtually always the anti-SJW folks, not the "SJWs" themselves. "Warrior" was chosen to mock people who thought they were fighting for justice, but were really just doing nothing. Social Justice Warrior is akin to "keyboard warrior." They don't call themselves warriors and mean it seriously; their opponents call them warriors and mean it sarcastically.
Saying SJWs have given themselves a bad name is a bit like saying rednecks have given themselves a bad name. In reality, "redneck" and "SJW" are just epithets invented by their enemies, and people have attached various stereotypes to each name over time.
SJW is more or less a synonym for libtard. They have the same origin, the same purpose, and the same meaning.
@Buttercheese: You're confusing the current reality with the origin of the term--and switching out the people who actually use the word "SJW."
SJW is more or less a synonym for libtard. They have the same origin, the same purpose, and the same meaning.
But you just liked Ardanis using it above:
"This. If the aggressive SJW rhetoric has successfully driven me off from left to the center - me, a damn "pro-Gayropean libtard" as I occasionally hear spoken in my general direction (I'm Russian), - then you know the issue is with the rhetoric."
@TStael: I think the word is stupid--I don't use it myself--but I do agree that some of my fellow liberals are too extreme in their rhetoric and too quick to assume that conservatives are stupid or racist or evil or all of the above.
But I've known a ton of liberals in my life, and only a single one, out of many, has been anything akin to the "SJW" stereotype. Stereotyping liberals as raging SJWs is just as ignorant as stereotyping conservatives as racist rednecks. Here's my thinking on the stereotype in a nutshell:
@TStael: I think the word is stupid--I don't use it myself--but I do agree that some of my fellow liberals are too extreme in their rhetoric and too quick to assume that conservatives are stupid or racist or evil or all of the above.
But I've known a ton of liberals in my life, and only a single one, out of many, has been anything akin to the "SJW" stereotype. Stereotyping liberals as raging SJWs is just as ignorant as stereotyping conservatives as racist rednecks. Here's my thinking on the stereotype in a nutshell:
When something is 1% true, it's 99% false.
I may see your position too idealistically, but I feel it wrong to endorse a member from your position, when the said fora member is, arguably, flippant, and at worst, unkind to fellow gamers.
"SJW" is an insult, at least by intent, is it not?
Maybe my "libtard" or "SWJ" fuzzing, when favoured by you has gotten similar response - but I cannot think it ever could be viewed as intentionally insulting, or implying some sort should not game, because they cramp a style.
This here bothers me. If you want to encourage more nuanced or open conversation - I just wish your proxy would be nice, and wanting everyone to game. Do u see why I am quite bothered?
I don't really know what a "libtard" or a "keyboard warrior" is, so I can't comment on that. And as far as anti-SJWs are concerned, I can't really comment on that either, since I don't hang around the parts of the internet that are generally anti-SJW. All I know is plenty of self-proclaimed SJWs who deliberately spread hate and discomfort for their own selfrightiousness, who believe that being part of a minority gives them free pass on being assholes. No matter what anyone tells me (and believe me, people have told me plenty on that in the past), I have seen to much bullshit with my own eyes.
And with that I'll be out of this part of the discussion, I don't feel like chewing this through over and over again, because people here rarely believe me anyway when I make my point about SJWs. Please don't @, blockquote or talk about me in this regard any further.
On the topic of diversity I would say that playing BG2 with mods added to my self-awareness. I regarded myself as being a fairly liberal type, who had never had a problem with working or partying with people from alternative ethnicities or sexual orientations. However, I still remember the first time when I installed a bunch of mods, accepted an innocuous looking npc into the party, only to be rather surprised when he hit on charname. They didn't stay in the party for very long after that. Not because of any particularly bad dialogue, or lack of skills, they just didn't 'fit' with my preconceptions. Briefly I was annoyed I think, that they and other non-hetro romances had not been marked off in the BiG World installation by some means. A pink star perhaps.
It took me a long time to realise that this might be a sign that I wasn't as tolerant of others as I thought. That while I wouldn't dream of being actively unkind to a person who was different to me... I might not necessarily want them around. I might not actively help them as quickly if they were in trouble, just because of these small differences between us. Just as I might not have bothered to do a quest ingame if it was to save someone's gay lover, rather than their child.
I don't claim to have become a new person in the intervening time- this is not a "what can change the nature of a man" comment. But I am vaguely grateful that my self-awareness increased a little because of an encounter with an unexpected slice of diversity, and happy that I still have the capacity for change. It is possible that the medium of video games affected me in this way as a book or a movie would not have, especially as it was somewhat unexpected. There are probably many other people who have been touched in this way, whether they are conscious of it or not.
Comments
Please use it to keep this constructive, and insightful conversation from degrading into personal attacks.
Anyway, you, WarChiefZeke, used a MEME "I identify as an attack helicopter and I find the lack of my representation appalling" which is considered disrespectful to certain groups of people. Other users thought the joke had not been fun and asked you to stop. You reacted with "lol" which was disrespectful to people who had asked you to stop. Then it promted a full reply.
This won't go anywhere good if you persist.
Also, the thread is about David Gaider's article, and @Shandaxx , the OPer, has asked not to talk about Mizhena.
I grasped upon "in the media" from this post, and wanted to illustrate that other mediums have gotten away from stereotyped women characters more than games have and it started for them, sometime in the 90s IMO.
Video game diversity is still a problem, as games still sexualize women for "fan service." load up Mass Effect 3 and play as a lesbian Shepard, and then play as a Gay Male Shepard. The cut scenes are strikingly different and it is due to objectifying women still.
There needs to be positive reinforcement for all character types, which hasn't happened yet for women in videogames (it is heading in that direction though).
So she can see herself in other mediums (like TV) but not in videogames yet. The technology is there now, so that can't be the excuse anymore, there just has to be a will.
That still has nothing to do with what I was saying before. What I see in this topic time and time again is that people claim the diversity is good, because it adds to the storytelling, while what I mostly see here is that people just want to see themselves in the media. Apparently because such labeling traits as race, gender or sexuality are more important than any other trait of actual value. What's worse, it seems that at least to some extent they base their self-esteem around those - which is pretty bad for their general feeling of self-worth.
And, by the way, what I also see is people nearly preaching how there is nothing wrong with re-valuating oneself, how good it is for people to ask themselves questions, to be open minded and so on. That's of course true, but 1) that also applies to ones that make those arguments and 2) apparently "diversity" of thought/ideas is not very appreciated.
If my experiences with "fan service" is anything to go by is that people who complain about it often objectify the characters more than anyone else. If one scene makes you think of a character as an object, while ignoring anything else about said character, like backstory, personality, traits, accomplishemnt etc. then you are the problem here.
I took some time to watch the scenes in Mass Effect 3 (on YouTube, I never owned the game) and what I can say: first scene is set in totally different circumstances for lesbian/gay scene, therefore comparing it is pointless (and on that note, I didn't find the shower scene titillating due to character models and expression feeling off). Second scene, I'll give you here a point. And now I'll remind you of what happened after the social justice was implemented more into Mass Effect series: it didn't improve the series, nor even the romances. It gave us Mass Defect: Andromeda. Yay?
----
As long as she, or anyone else, will continue seeking reinforcements in media, with main requirement being literally able to see herself in media, her overall well-being won't improve. She could feel little better for the short ammount of time after "seeing" herself, but that's symptomatic therapy.
And just to note, I doubt TV/Videogames have many fat, talentless, lazy, anti-nihillistic cowards and pacifists like myself. Luckily, I don't want to build my feeling of self-worth around that.
Seeing myself personally represented in the media is not a requirement for me to like the piece of media. It's just a nice cherry on top. I brought up my own experiences from my childhood with the underrepresentation of women in gaming and the media as a whole as an example of how I can relate to people who see themselves equally or even more underrepresented in the medium today.
It's the basis for my empathy.
The part about more diverse body types is the issue I see today in the medium, but one that is much much smaller than the lack of positive representation of queer and POC characters. It was simply in response to @Shandaxx question of how I currently feel about depiction of women in gaming today. He asked for my personal opinion on that specific topic and I gave it.
First of all, things always have as much value as we give them. A lot of people put a lot of value into race, gender, sex and sexuality, ergo these things are valuable, wether you personally feel the same or not.
Also, the part about self-esteem is your personal assumption. There are many things about what makes a game (or any piece of media) appealing or disapealling to a person. It is always a larger sum of much smaller parts. And different people put different values into the different parts.
When you find part of yourself repeadedly underrepresented and/or only represented negatively, you become sensitive to this aspect over time. That is why it's always such a big deal for many people when a character finally does positively represent that aspect over time. As soon as this becomes the norm, nobody will give a hoot anymore.
And yes, seeing yourself badly/under-represented in the media you consume over and over again does have a bad impact on a person's self-worth. "You are what you eat." The things we consume have an impact on us. That in return means that it also forms our opinions about the things that are represented. The media and society are in constant exchange and reflection with each other. For the longest time (and to this date), trans-people (especially transwomen) have been depicted in the media as a joke, as gross and as undesirable. So people who consume that media will also start to believe that being a transwoman makes you a joke, gross and undiserable. Can you imagine what this does to a person's psyche and self-worth?
And by people, you clearly mean me, since I am the one who said that
I am trying constantly to reevaluate my standpoint. I have been of basically the same basic opinion until just a few years ago where you are now. But I (painfully, mind you) learned. And I am convinced that if my stubborn ass can get to that point, anyone else can too.
Well, yes and no. Objectification can go both ways. When people put more value in certain traits than others, then those traits are at danger of becoming the sole purpose of interest and discussion. People are per definition not able to have objective opinions. Everything is subjective. That is why it's important to take the metaphorical step back and question your own initial opinion.
And when the opinions in the end boil down to "I don't like it because I believe it's pandering" and "I like it because it's good for my soul" then I believe the latter opinion is more important.
Juuuust to make sure you get the message: Not what I said, not what I meant
Also, I really don't like being talked about in such a way. Please stop doing that.
And yet, those guys are way more often the main character who saves the day and/or still get the girl.
Lets do this in reverse. Try to think of a game where you didnt like the protagonist in the story.
How invested were you in the game? And think why didn't you like the protagonist/main character?
Positive relationship helps with immersion. Now there are two types of relationship immersion. The first is how I am describing it: People see traits of themselves in the characters. The second is people see traits they want to have in the characters.
So just because you personally do not invest in a game because of character relation, doesn't mean other people don't. This is also all on an subconscious level, so if you don't actively engage in thinking about it, you may not be aware of it. You just like it because you like it, which is fine.
Games are suppose to be an escape not to be critically torn apart unless you are looking for a way to expand your audience.
They can be both escapism and commentary. Often they are both.
Everything else is censorship which is poison for any art form.
Now, why do I think the last sentence was wrong? Because first of all, I studied it. I have a major for a reason. Second of all, I've been through a lot trying to improve my self-esteem and my self-worth. I still struggle with it, actually. And as result, I learned something about this topic. That is also true, but only partially. I do agree with the fact that media impacting us as an audience. But you're wrong on how much impact they make. If you, as an member of an audience, have critical thinking skills, this becomes much less of an issue. Think of it: what you see in media more often than not is not true. I think you know this. Advertisements more often than not are a lie, designed to awake a need in you to buy a product (or get to know the brand). Movies are mostly fiction, their characters too. How a fictional character is depicted in media has nothing to do with you. That character doesn't exist. You, on the other hand, do. You're flesh and blood. You're not stupid. You know that no mater how accurate and inaccurate character is depicted in media does not affect you, nor it describes you. Even if we wave the "fictional" element aside, ask yourself this question: is one member of a larger group a representative of said group? The answer is no. Claiming otherwise would be false. So, "misrepresented" character still doesn't represent you. It's only a non-existing drop in a heavy rain. How did you learning process looked like, if you don't mind me asking? You know, if I have to re-word what I said about this, here it is: it's people who value body as a sexual objects over anything else the problem, not authors who make the fanservice scenes happen in the first place. At least more often than not. You can make a tiltalling scene with a character, who still is well-written, has well-defined personality, goals, skill set, traits, relationships etc. If the viewer sees one fanservice scene and deemed that well-written character as an sex object, the viewer and his/her VALUES are the problem. Fair enough. I honestly apologize.
One, I don't think you quite get my intention with that. Second, please don't send me links to TVTropes. When I get on that site, I usually waste way too much time. And my time today was not especially well spend.
There are probably several reasons behind this, but I think better female representation would've prevented her from believing this so adamantly. And it just breaks my heart to see girls that haven't even lost their primary teeth believe that so many paths in life are closed to them for the sole reason that they are female. I worked at a preschool for several years and saw this too often. And I saw boys who were already so ashamed for showing feelings or being associated with "girly" stuff. And that's why I think representation is important. Because it can prevent kids like these from repressing positive parts of themselves.
Well, I started out with believing that labels don't matter and that people who put value into them are idiots. But upon speaking with many different people over the course of years about labels, often resulting in really heated and bad arguments, I went back and analysed what went wrong in each discussion and tried to find a way to more effectively emphathise with their point of views. That paired with seeing other people's thoughts on pieces of media like Xena, Sailor Moon, Revolutionary Girl Utena and other pieces of media like them that had an impact on me during my childhood, I realised that other people didn't even have that. I also saw a lot of really positive reactions to Steven Universe (a show I initially dispised because I found it too pandering, mind you [now it's one of my favourite cartoons]) and the Ghostbusters reboot from children and teenagers (I suggest watching the Nostalgia Critic's review on that movie for more insight).
And at some point it clicked with me that even though labels don't matter to me nearly as much as to other people, they do matter to a lot of people I wanna see happy and I finally understood just why exactly representation matters.
What a lot of people don't get is that it's not enough to just state your opinion to make other people agree with you. And attacking them over them - no matter how bigoted or mislead you may find them to be at first - only devides people further and makes them more hostile to each other. It's important to take the time and explain your point of view, to hear out the other person's point of view and then try to find some basic middle ground to start from. Everybody has prejudices. Even the most woke person on the planet has them.
'Tis was my cleverly planted revenge! [Cue evil laughter] We are even now :B
I also thank you for answering my question. I'll think about it - it was worthy experience IMO. Also, I agree on your points regarding discussions in general.
And yes, you have your revenge. Now, be well.
To me, game-writing & gaming-joy are not fragile, thou possibly poor, in which case calling that out can only improve things.
My personal example is The Witcher series, as opposed to The Witcher 2 and Dethmold.
I hail The Witcher with DA:O as the harbinger of PC RPG renaissance - which took bloody long enough, after BG-series, NWN2, Morrowind.
In the same way I will always fancy DA:2 combat, I thought the PC-unto-console combat of The Witcher was one of the rare instances of innovation that felt fully cross-platform compatible. Like Hawke, Geralt of Rivia is well written, there is deep (if rather monochromatic) lore behind.
But I will never be able to play TW2 for a second time, because I could not tolerate what I thought was mean, demeaning and homophobic writing of Dethmold. I've given TW3 chance one it was discounted, and this is a great open world, even if the writing has not innovated or challenged any of the "this is a gritty world, so look at these lynched corpses and abused civilians" signalling.
I love The Witcher for the great service it render for the whole RPG genre, and I don't mind Geralt, even if I think he is not allowed to grow too interesting because of the "this is a gritty world" signalling thing. But I do most certainly mind Dethmold. While being a The Witcher fan.
Because in Scandi-nations, and most of EU-Europe probably too - a child that age shall have not lived without seeing a woman practitioner. In fact, it has tipped to be a female-dominated profession, because entry-criteria require academic merit (where females in Scandinavia tend to excel.)
This reminds me of DeviantArt contributor whom made a critical comic about making Isabela and Fenris sort of scandi-blond by modding. She made a point in the comments about a cousin thinking another cousin of theirs should aim at being a rapper or basket ball player, and not a doctor, because thou "half-white" that cousin looked "black.*
America - not unexpected, even if still wrong. This fantastic artist also quoted a study saying that when children watch telly, the only group coming out with self-worth unharmed are the white boys.
In Scandi-Europe, women do excel academically, such as entering the medical school. So now the discussion is about making the criteria more "male friendly" - as opposed to boys studying as comprehensively.
I just think that the underlying/true worth (of individuals/races etc) and inherited/perceived/de facto power worth are not aligned.
If the aggressive "SJW" rhetoric has successfully driven me off from left to the center - me, a damn "pro-Gayropean libtard" as I occasionally hear spoken in my general direction (I'm Russian), - then you know the issue is with the rhetoric.
EDIT Quoted the "SJW".
Because "left" seriously is surely about political opinion of social mobility, plurality, opportunity in life for most and taxation system - not some gaming immersion preference? Even if the leader of Socialists in Finland was a great Grand Theft Auto fan always killing the prostitutes for cash - I would not switch over to the religious right, or even rural center. I'd think, meanwhile, her gaming immersion was unpleasant.
And "SJW" is generally intended as an insult - so if you are free of malice and prejudice, why do you so choose to label some gamers? And may I assume: not those whom game away like you.
Prejudice, pray, Ardanis?
I recommend reading Harvard Business Review, and their interesting articles on behavioural studies. With humans, it tends to be that we like to attribute our own successes to us being excellent, and failures to the circumstances.
But this view quite reverses in how we tend to view others: if others fail, they were lazy and undeserving, and boy, did they get the sucker punch when they do better than us!
Not falling for that is in my view being self-aware, the oxygen that can transform the dank dumps of our mind into fruitful composts. I know I suffer from that bias. Hence I am leftist, notwithstanding any hypothetical GTA prostitute killing at Finnish political party leadership - and pay my taxes without grudge.
Going kinda off-topic here into an area I am sure most people don't wanna see me talking about,
so I am putting this into a spoiler tag
A SJW - a social justice warrior - is by definition an agressive thing. The goal is to literally fight for social justice. In reality this concept presented itself to deliberately spread antagonism and abuse, fighting bigotry with more bigotry, censorship of art, witch hunts and a whole truckload full of hypocrisy all under the guise of "for the greater good." And then victimising oneself. At least that is what I have personally witnessed, over the course of several years.
That doesn't mean that every person who calls themselves an SJW does stuff like that. But enough vocal people did to turn the term into something inherintly negative at this point.
If someone chooses to call themselves an SJW then they have to live with people pre-judging them as an antagonising, abusive, bigoted, censorship-spreading, witch hunting hypocrit.
Let's not forget: Prejudice is not inheritly a bad thing. It usually is bad, but at it's core prejudice just discribes things that we automatically associate with other things. For example, it's a prejudice to assume that trying to pet a wild fox will get you bitten and then rabies even though being a wild fox doesn't automatically mean having rabies. That is just self-preservation.
The key is being able to judge when your prejudices are justified and helpful and when they are not.
Compared to a notion like, say, "mithril" - "SJW" is just such an impotent word. From my experience - which you might just want to put down to "SJW sensibility"
I frankly could not care less if I am labelled as such, because if it is done with malice, I quite enjoy it.
At my earlier years, with Tolkien, I found his political stuff a bore. But I was amazed how he had the power to make "mithril" a universal concept, a word that became almost general.
But mithril never did crowd anything out. Joe Hill would be a social justice warrior in my books.
SJW started out as an insult and its use today is almost universally an insult. The people who use the term are virtually always the anti-SJW folks, not the "SJWs" themselves. "Warrior" was chosen to mock people who thought they were fighting for justice, but were really just doing nothing. Social Justice Warrior is akin to "keyboard warrior." They don't call themselves warriors and mean it seriously; their opponents call them warriors and mean it sarcastically.
Saying SJWs have given themselves a bad name is a bit like saying rednecks have given themselves a bad name. In reality, "redneck" and "SJW" are just epithets invented by their enemies, and people have attached various stereotypes to each name over time.
SJW is more or less a synonym for libtard. They have the same origin, the same purpose, and the same meaning.
"This.
If the aggressive SJW rhetoric has successfully driven me off from left to the center - me, a damn "pro-Gayropean libtard" as I occasionally hear spoken in my general direction (I'm Russian), - then you know the issue is with the rhetoric."
But I've known a ton of liberals in my life, and only a single one, out of many, has been anything akin to the "SJW" stereotype. Stereotyping liberals as raging SJWs is just as ignorant as stereotyping conservatives as racist rednecks. Here's my thinking on the stereotype in a nutshell:
When something is 1% true, it's 99% false.
"SJW" is an insult, at least by intent, is it not?
Maybe my "libtard" or "SWJ" fuzzing, when favoured by you has gotten similar response - but I cannot think it ever could be viewed as intentionally insulting, or implying some sort should not game, because they cramp a style.
This here bothers me. If you want to encourage more nuanced or open conversation - I just wish your proxy would be nice, and wanting everyone to game. Do u see why I am quite bothered?
And as far as anti-SJWs are concerned, I can't really comment on that either, since I don't hang around the parts of the internet that are generally anti-SJW. All I know is plenty of self-proclaimed SJWs who deliberately spread hate and discomfort for their own selfrightiousness, who believe that being part of a minority gives them free pass on being assholes. No matter what anyone tells me (and believe me, people have told me plenty on that in the past), I have seen to much bullshit with my own eyes.
And with that I'll be out of this part of the discussion, I don't feel like chewing this through over and over again, because people here rarely believe me anyway when I make my point about SJWs. Please don't @, blockquote or talk about me in this regard any further.
@David_Gaider : I am wondering if you admire, or at least know, Peter O'Donnell of Modesty Blaise magnificence?
"The Black Pearl" is of a frankness of the pre-Chinese-know-tow era that my Taiwanese friend would translate if she could, and she quite liked it.
Plus, "Cry Wolf" - I think - is one of the few saami-referencing tales that does it basic research well enough.
It took me a long time to realise that this might be a sign that I wasn't as tolerant of others as I thought. That while I wouldn't dream of being actively unkind to a person who was different to me... I might not necessarily want them around. I might not actively help them as quickly if they were in trouble, just because of these small differences between us. Just as I might not have bothered to do a quest ingame if it was to save someone's gay lover, rather than their child.
I don't claim to have become a new person in the intervening time- this is not a "what can change the nature of a man" comment. But I am vaguely grateful that my self-awareness increased a little because of an encounter with an unexpected slice of diversity, and happy that I still have the capacity for change. It is possible that the medium of video games affected me in this way as a book or a movie would not have, especially as it was somewhat unexpected. There are probably many other people who have been touched in this way, whether they are conscious of it or not.