CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited May 2013
Well I'd just like you to notice, as a reflection on your own psyche, that you had to change our "shouldn't" into "can't" in order to make it sound at all unreasonable. Because "You shouldn't make shitty art. You should endeavor instead to make good art" sounds like something anyone might say at any time and not realize they were a demon in your eyes. In fact I bet it's something you have said yourself without even realizing it.
Uh, no you can totally tell someone they shouldn't make a shitty movie. There is actually no distinction between that and telling people not to see someone's shitty movie.
You're right, I can't prevent someone from speaking or creating. Literally.
No. That's completely incorrect, I'm sorry.
Telling someone not to consume a work is distinct and after the fact of a work being created. The artist 100% has the right to MAKE their work. However, nobody is obliged to CONSUME it. There's I don't know how many racist, shitty, awful books out there talking about some kind of New World Order and/or Nazi shit, and I don't plan to read a damn one, but it'd be wrong for me to say "You can't write that."
If I tell you you shouldn't read Twilight 'cause it's shit, it's an entirely different statement than going up to Stephanie Meyer and saying "Sorry, you can't write that; it's shit."
Telling someone they shouldn't do something doesn't infringe on their rights. Again, we have no actual authority on the matter.
Yes, it does. You are saying they shouldn't create something in the way they choose. Just because you're not a legal authority doesn't mean you can't impinge on someone's freedom of expression.
Say "If you create X, well, we won't buy it.". Say "If you create X, we'll boycott." Say anything you want, so long as you speak of your actions in response to their creation.
For instance, to use that game with the Sorceress and whatnot as an example: That's pretty stupid. I ain't buying it. He can make it all he wants, but I ain't buying it. Assuming enough people feel the same way, and/or influence people to feel the same way, holy financial failure Batman, bet that'll learn him a lesson about the impact of his chosen art style. (Ideally, not buying it is accompanied by coherent communication as to "dude, you uh, got some issues..." so he knows what's up.)
Explain to me, as if I were a child, how saying someone shouldn't or can't do something, when they are perfectly able to walk away from me and do that thing anyway, is infringing on someone's rights.
I'm a smoker. Apparently people have been infringing on my rights for years. Amazingly enough, I can still fucking smoke.
You do realize I specifically mentioned Super Metroid, right?
I even stated earlier in this thread that post-Prime 1, Nintendo seriously started fucking up. Thank you for proving that point.
And the reason people mentioned it is because even then the concept of being rewarded with more revealing shots of Samus had already been established and was continuing. It's not a coincidence that it kept going and as graphics got better the zero suit was developed!
But maybe it's not because she's a woman at all and it's not a question of a woman removing more clothing as a reward. Maybe the next Arkham game will feature special ending slides of a trunks-clad (see, I didn't even go for speedo) Bruce grinning as he basks around the pool.
(Also in Metroid 1 her being without suit was the first indication she was female at all)
Well it's a good thing she was in her underwear or I wouldn't have been able to tell.
Uh, no you can totally tell someone they shouldn't make a shitty movie. There is actually no distinction between that and telling people not to see someone's shitty movie.
You're right, I can't prevent someone from speaking or creating. Literally.
No. That's completely incorrect, I'm sorry.
Telling someone not to consume a work is distinct and after the fact of a work being created. The artist 100% has the right to MAKE their work. However, nobody is obliged to CONSUME it. There's I don't know how many racist, shitty, awful books out there talking about some kind of New World Order and/or Nazi shit, and I don't plan to read a damn one, but it'd be wrong for me to say "You can't write that."
If I tell you you shouldn't read Twilight 'cause it's shit, it's an entirely different statement than going up to Stephanie Meyer and saying "Sorry, you can't write that; it's shit."
No one has said can't in this thread. We have REPEATEDLY said that there's nothing we can or will do to prevent people from making what they want. But If I did meet Stephanie Meyer I totally would say "You shouldn't have written that, it's shit." which is perfectly valid.
You're making a cult out of semantics. Please stop.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
Dhalphir on
+8
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited May 2013
I have to say dporowski, that this argument you are advancing has been the biggest pant load of bullshit I have just about ever read on the internet. There is fundamentally not a lot of difference between criticizing the over-prominent fact women are depicted as sexual objects in games and saying "This is really over prevalent and we could use less of this, so we should find ways to discourage that" and what fundamentally happens of "I won't buy this and discourage others not to". In every way we are expressing distain for certain over used tropes and artistic expressions of women (that we also argue are entirely negative). Once again, gaming is a hugely negative area for women from the concept of "Fake geek-girls", to the recent youtube discussion about women having boobs exposed (or covered up) on youtube when talking about games, female journalists being mistaken by PR as being incapable at playing a game (and the PR person takes over playing for them), the sheer abuse women cop from gamers just for being women in general and so on. Frankly if you can't see how continually portraying women as sexual objects in games supports the incredibly hostile and vile atmosphere to women in games, then I don't know what to say to you. I don't give a flying fucking shit about your opinion if telling "artists" that "Hey, maybe you shouldn't be portraying women as scantily clad sexual objects" all the time is censorship or not. Frankly it only matters to me that it's over prevalent and contributes to a very negative atmosphere in gaming towards women, so if telling people that it's wrong means less of it then I am all for telling them that.
I like to use movies as a good comparison, because with the state that games are at the moment if you took a movie like Skyfall M would not be played by Judi Dench (an incredibly good actor), but would instead be played by a supermodel figured woman with huge breasts and not much clothing. And it's not even like this movie is a great example of positive portrayals of women or whatever, I'm literally going for the lowest possible hanging fruit of pointing out that we have an elderly woman in an important role who is non-sexualised. This is something that the vast majority of games can't even manage to get to.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
So basically no matter how often people repeat that no one supports use of legal force and are solely talking about criticism and changing the dialogue, you're going to conclude they mean controlling what people are allowed to do.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
I don't think anyone said you were infringing on anyone's rights. I only said that it creates a culture where artists are afraid to express themselves.
And yes, there is a huge difference between those two acts. Not personally paying money to see Brokeback Mountain is different from saying "Gay relationships shouldn't be in the movies." Not personally giving money to strippers is different from saying "People shouldn't be strippers." Not personally giving money to media you find sexist is different than saying "People should only make art that actively promotes my personal vision of social justice."
These are all different actions with different consequences, and they all create a very different culture.
Shouldn't and can't don't even matter as long as it's not followed up with a fine or a prison sentence. Either way they are just words and are a force that can be easily ignored.
If you don't understand that you really don't know what a right being infringed upon actually is and should stop using that phrase.
But I guess by saying that I'm infringing on someone's rights. I just said someone shouldn't do something.
No I don't.
+3
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
if your counterarguments have to boil down to arguing about the word choices of your opponents, it might be a sign that you don't have much of an argument.
+5
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
I don't think anyone said you were infringing on anyone's rights
This is inherently what all the whining about "censorship" is about, which is arguing (or at least directly implying) that it's infringing upon an artists right to free speech.
Edit: I shall cry so many tears for all the people lacking sexual objectification of women in games due to our sternly worded letters and posts on the interent. Oh woe is them, what on earth will they do when various female characters in games have more than 1 body type (that of a supermodel) and may be wearing clothes. This horrible world of the future is truly one of dreadful artistic oppression.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
Or, to pursue this avenue of discussion from a slightly different angle, there is the fact that for financial market pressure to work you need to build up a critical mass of consensus amongst consumers. How do you go about doing that if not by promoting the open criticism of such works? By stating to others that these particular works shouldn't be made or supported as much as they are because they feed into something that does real harm? Also, a tangent of this is that institutionalized sexism tends to promote the suppression of such criticisms.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
Actually, no, your statement is completely fine. If you think someone shouldn't do something, tell 'em "I think you shouldn't do something", but that's a different statement than "you shouldn't do something", and while yes, this is a semantic issue, it's kind of important when we're discussing artistic and/or expressive endeavors.
Technically I'd add "...because" and your reasons, but I mean. That's just helpful criticism then.
Actually, no, your statement is completely fine. If you think someone shouldn't do something, tell 'em "I think you shouldn't do something", but that's a different statement than "you shouldn't do something", and while yes, this is a semantic issue, it's kind of important when we're discussing artistic and/or expressive endeavors.
Oh, please, you don't have to couch every single utterance in "It is my opinion that..." or "I believe..." or "I feel...". Those things are apparent by your believing it or stating it sincerely.
I don't say "I think torture is wrong." I say "torture is wrong," and if you disagree with my evident opinion, we can then argue about it. I haven't assaulted your right to expression by leaving out an extraneous phrase.
+3
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Ok, dporowski? You're being a pretty big goose here.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
Actually, no, your statement is completely fine. If you think someone shouldn't do something, tell 'em "I think you shouldn't do something", but that's a different statement than "you shouldn't do something", and while yes, this is a semantic issue, it's kind of important when we're discussing artistic and/or expressive endeavors.
Technically I'd add "...because" and your reasons, but I mean. That's just helpful criticism then.
If you are a functioning human being you should understand that whenever someone says "you should" or "you shouldn't" that that statement is obviously an opinion. There is as much need to preface those types of statements with IMHO or "I think"as there is typing http:/www. Before a web address in a modern day browser. It's assumed.
Unless you really think sexists artist are just that out of touch with reality, where they don't understand what opinions are.
No I don't.
+4
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
you are coming in here and asking everyone to preface every sentence with a disclaimer that it is their opinion?
are you fucking serious
+10
AJRSome guy who wrestlesNorwichRegistered Userregular
Carry on I guess. Super Metroid is an example of the sexism permeating the modern video games industry and is on par with things like Dragon Crown, and is deserving of equal scorn and criticism.
my. mistake.
Nobody is saying it's on par with Dragon Crown.
Look, Super Metroid is one of my favourite games of all time. That doesn’t mean I don’t find it troubling that the ultimate reward for beating the game quickly is seeing Samus in her underwear. Yes it’s a pretty tame image. Yes there are much worse examples of sexism out there. But it’s still something that detracts from the game for me, and something worth mentioning.
Do you really, really not see how it could bother people?
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
Or, to pursue this avenue of discussion from a slightly different angle, there is the fact that for financial market pressure to work you need to build up a critical mass of consensus amongst consumers. How do you go about doing that if not by promoting the open criticism of such works? By stating to others that these particular works shouldn't be made or supported as much as they are because they feed into something that does real harm? Also, a tangent of this is that institutionalized sexism tends to promote the suppression of such criticisms.
Well, this depends on what problem you are trying to solve. Is the problem that that sexualized depictions of people in media are inherently wrong and harmful, or is the problem that there aren't enough non-sexualized depictions of women in media to balance out all the sexualized portrayals? It's important to identify the problem, because these are two different problems with two different solutions.
If your goal is more balance...I simply don't think that shouting down the art you don't like is going to get you there, any more than shouting down all the first-person shooters will cause there to be more roguelikes. If you want to solve the latter problem you'd probably want to focus on more positive things like supporting artists who create the kind of art you like. Exposure and discovery is a big problem for artists, and if you make an effort to seek them out you can make a difference in the kinds of media seen by at least your own social circle (which has ripple effects.) Meanwhile, creating controversy and shooting down what you see as negative examples just makes the whole thing more risky to address for developers, because there is a huge backlash if they try and don't get it quite right.
You know, the sad thing here, is, I actually agreed with you guys on the overall thread topic.
Please be careful with how you treat artistic expression in discussion. It's very very important to society, and when we start telling people what and how they should and shouldn't (not "i think you should/shouldn't", there IS a difference) create, we start getting into tricky, if not dangerous territory. Equally, please always respect the right of the audience to NOT like/not agree with/react negatively to a work. (Just cause someone made it doesn't mean you have to like it...)
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
Or, to pursue this avenue of discussion from a slightly different angle, there is the fact that for financial market pressure to work you need to build up a critical mass of consensus amongst consumers. How do you go about doing that if not by promoting the open criticism of such works? By stating to others that these particular works shouldn't be made or supported as much as they are because they feed into something that does real harm? Also, a tangent of this is that institutionalized sexism tends to promote the suppression of such criticisms.
Well, this depends on what problem you are trying to solve. Is the problem that that sexualized depictions of people in media are inherently wrong and harmful, or is the problem that there aren't enough non-sexualized depictions of women in media to balance out all the sexualized portrayals? It's important to identify the problem, because these are two different problems with two different solutions.
If your goal is more balance...I simply don't think that shouting down the art you don't like is going to get you there, any more than shouting down all the first-person shooters will cause there to be more roguelikes. If you want to solve the latter problem you'd probably want to focus on more positive things like supporting artists who create the kind of art you like. Exposure and discovery is a big problem for artists, and if you make an effort to seek them out you can make a difference in the kinds of media seen by at least your own social circle (which has ripple effects.) Meanwhile, creating controversy and shooting down what you see as negative examples just makes the whole thing more risky to address for developers, because there is a huge backlash if they try and don't get it quite right.
I have a new puppy in my house. By your logic, I should never tell her no when she is bad, only praise her when she is good.
I also have a daughter on the way (ironically she has the middle name Samus). I guess I should do the same to her then too. See how well that turns out. Or maybe punish her without saying why? That's what not speaking up is doing. Expecting results without doing shit to let people know why you're doing what you're doing.
No I don't.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
It's very very important to society,
It's very important to have endless examples of scantily clad unrealistically proportioned supermodels as the only women represented (if at all) in the vast majority of video games?
It's very important to have endless examples of scantily clad unrealistically proportioned supermodels as the only women represented (if at all) in the vast majority of video games?
You know, the sad thing here, is, I actually agreed with you guys on the overall thread topic.
Please be careful with how you treat artistic expression in discussion. It's very very important to society, and when we start telling people what and how they should and shouldn't (not "i think you should/shouldn't", there IS a difference) create, we start getting into tricky, if not dangerous territory. Equally, please always respect the right of the audience to NOT like/not agree with/react negatively to a work. (Just cause someone made it doesn't mean you have to like it...)
Good luck.
It's really not sad or that big of a deal, buddy. There's no law saying you can't be mean to an artist. Careers are based on the idea that I can tell you why your art isn't worth my time or yours.
I'm also pretty comfortable in saying that if the mainstream matches a person's artistic output then I'm not particularly worried about how an underrepresented group makes that artist feel.
You're an artist. Learn from it and get back to your art. We'll let you know when we like it.
And, as is evident, no matter how insulting and boring a creation is there will be a crowd standing by to cheer on its bravery. I'm sure they'll be fine.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
I don't think anyone said you were infringing on anyone's rights. I only said that it creates a culture where artists are afraid to express themselves.
Kind of like what society did in regards to racism. How is this hard to understand?
And yes, there is a huge difference between those two acts. Not personally paying money to see Brokeback Mountain is different from saying "Gay relationships shouldn't be in the movies." Not personally giving money to strippers is different from saying "People shouldn't be strippers." Not personally giving money to media you find sexist is different than saying "People should only make art that actively promotes my personal vision of social justice."
One is social change through means of economical pressure which creates an atmosphere of financial risk in regards to perpetuating a particular image unnecessarily. The other is social change through means of artistic criticism which creates an atmosphere of social risk in regards to perpetuating a particular image unnecessarily. Different means, same end goal.
These are all different actions with different consequences, and they all create a very different culture.
A different culture that doesn't promote sexism much like how our culture now (as a caveat I will admit is only in the process of getting better at) not promoting racism. I'll take that.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
Or, to pursue this avenue of discussion from a slightly different angle, there is the fact that for financial market pressure to work you need to build up a critical mass of consensus amongst consumers. How do you go about doing that if not by promoting the open criticism of such works? By stating to others that these particular works shouldn't be made or supported as much as they are because they feed into something that does real harm? Also, a tangent of this is that institutionalized sexism tends to promote the suppression of such criticisms.
Well, this depends on what problem you are trying to solve. Is the problem that that sexualized depictions of people in media are inherently wrong and harmful, or is the problem that there aren't enough non-sexualized depictions of women in media to balance out all the sexualized portrayals? It's important to identify the problem, because these are two different problems with two different solutions.
The problem is BOTH OF THEM if you actually bothered to read the thread. Or look at the links in the OP with all of the empirical research that has been done.
If your goal is more balance...I simply don't think that shouting down the art you don't like is going to get you there, any more than shouting down all the first-person shooters will cause there to be more roguelikes. If you want to solve the latter problem you'd probably want to focus on more positive things like supporting artists who create the kind of art you like. Exposure and discovery is a big problem for artists, and if you make an effort to seek them out you can make a difference in the kinds of media seen by at least your own social circle (which has ripple effects.) Meanwhile, creating controversy and shooting down what you see as negative examples just makes the whole thing more risky to address for developers, because there is a huge backlash if they try and don't get it quite right.
You can have all of the promoted positive images in the world but it doesn't matter if you don't also point out why all of the negative images are bad in the first place. And no, that is not 'shouting down', 'shouting down' would simply be telling someone they shouldn't do something because you want them to do something else without giving any reason as to why. Again, debates based upon criticism are only ever meaningful when done in good faith. If one side says "Yeah huh! 'Cause I said so!" and the other side says "Nuh uh! 'Cause I wanna!" then we're not fucking getting anywhere. And while we've given a good explanation as to why people might want to tone down the unnecessary sexual imagery being produced the other side of the argument (from the perspective of the industry) has only ever given reasons as to why they shouldn't to the effect of "But I like doing it this way! And 'cause everyone wants to see it this way!" Plus, again, there is the presence of INSTITUTIONALIZED F!&#ING SEXISM. Finally, I'd love it if they actually even made the goddamn attempt more often than not. Sure, they won't get it right all the time but that is a lot better than just collectively sticking their fingers in their ears and not even acknowledging it as a problem in a lot of cases.
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
you're being as bad as dporowski with the splitting hairs
edit: just in case you're legitimately confused, the phrase "various states of undress" is perfectly appropriate to use to describe a bunch of semi-naked pictures of somebody, even if they are all the same basic level of nudity.
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
Metroid Prime is the exception to the rule. The problem is that as you do progressively better in the other games you are rewarded with more titillation. Do only meh and you just see an image of her in her full suit. Do a little better and you see an image of her with her helmet off; which, while in and of itself isn't problematic, when put in context of the other images is an evolution of titillation. And finally, depending upon the game, if you do really well you get to see her in her skin tight jumpsuit or a sports top and shorts.
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
Metroid Prime is the exception to the rule. The problem is that as you do progressively better in the other games you are rewarded with more titillation. Do only meh and you just see an image of her in her full suit. Do a little better and you see an image of her with her helmet off; which, while in and of itself isn't problematic, when put in context of the other images is an evolution of titillation. And finally, depending upon the game, if you do really well you get to see her in her skin tight jumpsuit or a sports top and shorts.
It's not "more" titillation though. It's "one" titillation. Because the way it's put out, you make it sound like the headshot counts. Which I'm wondering if it does.
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
you're being as bad as dporowski with the splitting hairs
fucking stop it
edit: just in case you're legitimately confused, the phrase "various states of undress" is perfectly appropriate to use to describe a bunch of semi-naked pictures of somebody, even if they are all the same basic level of nudity.
And this is the problem with this thread. Either get on board 110% with the groupthink, or else prepare to get treated like you're an unrepentant shitheel for daring to ask questions or better understand the situation. I can see why this is such a hard problem to tackle and talk about. It's easier to just keep your head down and walk away, less you get beat up for taking a breath.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I don't think anyone said you were infringing on anyone's rights. I only said that it creates a culture where artists are afraid to express themselves.
Telling someone they shouldn't do something doesn't infringe on their rights. Again, we have no actual authority on the matter.
Yes, it does. You are saying they shouldn't create something in the way they choose. Just because you're not a legal authority doesn't mean you can't impinge on someone's freedom of expression.
I'd say you shouldn't post without reading even the same page you're posting on but goodness forbid I go infringing on people's rights by asking them to actually post something consistent.
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
Metroid Prime is the exception to the rule. The problem is that as you do progressively better in the other games you are rewarded with more titillation. Do only meh and you just see an image of her in her full suit. Do a little better and you see an image of her with her helmet off; which, while in and of itself isn't problematic, when put in context of the other images is an evolution of titillation. And finally, depending upon the game, if you do really well you get to see her in her skin tight jumpsuit or a sports top and shorts.
It's not "more" titillation though. It's "one" titillation. Because the way it's put out, you make it sound like the headshot counts. Which I'm wondering if it does.
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
you're being as bad as dporowski with the splitting hairs
fucking stop it
edit: just in case you're legitimately confused, the phrase "various states of undress" is perfectly appropriate to use to describe a bunch of semi-naked pictures of somebody, even if they are all the same basic level of nudity.
And this is the problem with this thread. Either get on board 110% with the groupthink, or else prepare to get treated like you're an unrepentant shitheel for daring to ask questions or better understand the situation. I can see why this is such a hard problem to tackle and talk about. It's easier to just keep your head down and walk away, less you get beat up for taking a breath.
I don't think you understand how titillation works. Think strip club as the most obvious example. Performers start with their clothes on and slowly strip down revealing more of themselves to illicit an increasing sexual reaction from the audience (in this case as a means of getting paid). As I said, the picture of Samus with her helmet off alone is not a problem. It only becomes a problem given the context of the other two pictures. It's the equivalent of a strip club performer starting off by just unbuttoning her shirt a little and saying "Do you want to see more?"
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
Metroid Prime is the exception to the rule. The problem is that as you do progressively better in the other games you are rewarded with more titillation. Do only meh and you just see an image of her in her full suit. Do a little better and you see an image of her with her helmet off; which, while in and of itself isn't problematic, when put in context of the other images is an evolution of titillation. And finally, depending upon the game, if you do really well you get to see her in her skin tight jumpsuit or a sports top and shorts.
Like so.
Various stages of Casual Time!
Clear time of 5:36:08 with %15 collected looks more awesome than 1:30:00 with %100 collected. But there's no way to know that! Damn you Nintendo.
You can have all of the promoted positive images in the world but it doesn't matter if you don't also point out why all of the negative images are bad in the first place. And no, that is not 'shouting down', 'shouting down' would simply be telling someone they shouldn't do something because you want them to do something else without giving any reason as to why. Again, debates based upon criticism are only ever meaningful when done in good faith. If one side says "Yeah huh! 'Cause I said so!" and the other side says "Nuh uh! 'Cause I wanna!" then we're not fucking getting anywhere.
You seem pretty angry. Take a deep breath. You're not battling Sauron, this is a reasonable disagreement between two adults.
So let's focus on the problem you're outlining. You say: Characters in media who exist as sex objects are always a problem. You say that those sorts of characters should never exist in art, because they promote poor treatment of actual women. You say that it's not just an issue of balance, but that those depictions are simply wrong. Is that a correct assessment of your position, or am I missing something? This differs substantially from the argument some others are making, which is that some media that uses sex is okay and that the problem is the "mosaic", so I want to be clear that it is what you are arguing.
Because I would say that, from what I have seen, the evidence supporting that position simply isn't very strong. I think that there is lots of sexism in society, but to blame it primarily on fiction strikes me as largely unfounded. There are all kinds of factors that lead people to grow up with sexist attitudes, many of which have nothing at all to do with fiction: a child can learn sexist attitudes from their parents, from their peers, from their teachers, or even from world events. There's no particular thread to suggest that fiction is a primary cause of societal sexism, or that altering the stories we tell will accomplish much in the fight against misogyny. In fact, fiction and societal progress have been evolving steadily in opposite directions; we've gotten steadily less violent and less sexist, even though our media has more sex and more violence than ever before. How does that fit in with the idea that fictional sexism is the primary cause of actual sexism?
And while we've given a good explanation as to why people might want to tone down the unnecessary sexual imagery being produced the other side of the argument (from the perspective of the industry) has only ever given reasons as to why they shouldn't to the effect of "But I like doing it this way! And 'cause everyone wants to see it this way!" Plus, again, there is the presence of INSTITUTIONALIZED F!&#ING SEXISM. Finally, I'd love it if they actually even made the goddamn attempt more often than not. Sure, they won't get it right all the time but that is a lot better than just collectively sticking their fingers in their ears and not even acknowledging it as a problem in a lot of cases.
When Dragon's Crown came out most of the major sources of games media wrote about how sexist it was. The mainstream in the triple-A games industry has gone from God of War to Tomb Raider and Bioshock: Infinite in the space of just a couple of years. The Wii and Kinect, as well as casual and social gaming, have all made huge progress in bringing in female gamers, and they continue to do so. So when you say that the industry isn't making the attempt, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Calling out chainmail bikinis is mainstream in games, while Dragon's Crown is niche. You're not fighting the system here, you are the system.
You know, the sad thing here, is, I actually agreed with you guys on the overall thread topic.
Please be careful with how you treat artistic expression in discussion. It's very very important to society, and when we start telling people what and how they should and shouldn't (not "i think you should/shouldn't", there IS a difference) create, we start getting into tricky, if not dangerous territory. Equally, please always respect the right of the audience to NOT like/not agree with/react negatively to a work. (Just cause someone made it doesn't mean you have to like it...)
Good luck.
Please stop telling me what I should and shouldn't do. You're infringing on my rights.
There is a significant yet subtle difference between:
"You can make whatever you want, but you should know that there are people who won't buy/appreciate/enjoy X and Y if you choose to make those..."
and
"You shouldn't make X and Y."
The first is absolutely fine, should be communicated, and is, I think something every artist considers when creating. (Or should, in as much as they at least consider their intended audience.) The second is, to use a term I enjoy avoiding, problematic.
It's a good thing you avoid that term because you apparently don't know what it means.
Is it problematic to tell a little kid who is about to touch a hot stove "hey, don't touch the hot stove"? Of course not. Because touching a hot stove will cause actual for real harm. Is it problematic to tell artists/game developers "hey, don't draw titty witches"? Of course not. Because drawing titty witches will cause actual for real harm.
Yeah... Watch out for them titty witches! They'll getcha while you're sleeping
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
Metroid Prime is the exception to the rule. The problem is that as you do progressively better in the other games you are rewarded with more titillation. Do only meh and you just see an image of her in her full suit. Do a little better and you see an image of her with her helmet off; which, while in and of itself isn't problematic, when put in context of the other images is an evolution of titillation. And finally, depending upon the game, if you do really well you get to see her in her skin tight jumpsuit or a sports top and shorts.
It's not "more" titillation though. It's "one" titillation. Because the way it's put out, you make it sound like the headshot counts. Which I'm wondering if it does.
Hey. I got a question, specifically about the Metroid examples posted earlier. The exact phrase used was "various states of undress". But uh... there was no variance. The only other option besides tank top and shorts was... a shot of her with the helmet off. Still in the armor, just no helmet in a "hi, I'm actually a girl" statement. Hell, this was the only reward in Metroid Prime.
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
you're being as bad as dporowski with the splitting hairs
fucking stop it
edit: just in case you're legitimately confused, the phrase "various states of undress" is perfectly appropriate to use to describe a bunch of semi-naked pictures of somebody, even if they are all the same basic level of nudity.
And this is the problem with this thread. Either get on board 110% with the groupthink, or else prepare to get treated like you're an unrepentant shitheel for daring to ask questions or better understand the situation. I can see why this is such a hard problem to tackle and talk about. It's easier to just keep your head down and walk away, less you get beat up for taking a breath.
I don't think you understand how titillation works. Think strip club as the most obvious example. Performers start with their clothes on and slowly strip down revealing more of themselves to illicit an increasing sexual reaction from the audience (in this case as a means of getting paid). As I said, the picture of Samus with her helmet off alone is not a problem. It only becomes a problem given the context of the other two pictures. It's the equivalent of a strip club performer starting off by just unbuttoning her shirt a little and saying "Do you want to see more?"
But to me it seems more like the equivalent of the same performer taking her coat off first. I mean I get what you're saying, it's the first step. The part where I kind of lose it though is... where's the line then? And when was it crossed? Because with the Metroid example, it seems crossed the instant the helm comes off and you find out her gender. Especially since there's only 3 options: Full suit, helmet off, and spandex. And just to clarify with those Fusion/Zero Mission pictures, I kinda lump the different pictures together as mostly the same. They're not going down the titillation slope, they just level off.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Posts
Explain to me, as if I were a child, how saying someone shouldn't or can't do something, when they are perfectly able to walk away from me and do that thing anyway, is infringing on someone's rights.
I'm a smoker. Apparently people have been infringing on my rights for years. Amazingly enough, I can still fucking smoke.
And the reason people mentioned it is because even then the concept of being rewarded with more revealing shots of Samus had already been established and was continuing. It's not a coincidence that it kept going and as graphics got better the zero suit was developed!
But maybe it's not because she's a woman at all and it's not a question of a woman removing more clothing as a reward. Maybe the next Arkham game will feature special ending slides of a trunks-clad (see, I didn't even go for speedo) Bruce grinning as he basks around the pool.
Well it's a good thing she was in her underwear or I wouldn't have been able to tell.
I'm not going to go back and dig up the number of varying posts where people have said variations of "they shouldn't make that" and "this shouldn't be made" and so forth.
This is a very important issue to me. I am inclined to defend it vigorously. And wording is very important. I accept that you do not mean the prevention of others from creating anything as they so choose, but I think you should know that as phrased, many of the arguments presented read as though the logical conclusion is "and we'll not let them do THAT anymore, because we feel it can hurt someone."
Frankly, I think the logical response to people creating shit you have a problem with is "don't give 'em your bloody money then". I haven't shopped at a Walton property in ever, I see no reason to buy the game with the Sorceress (Titomancer?) in it, didn't by DN3D but that was to be fair mostly due to it being shit... Commercial failure due to "guys, quit with the arbitrary tits" will send a painful lesson.
CAN'T
attend to the above difference
there is something key to it
something important
a truth to learn
about us
that will make us sound much more plausible than this strawman you've been slicing up with your sword of truth for the past few pages
So not giving an artist my money does not hurt him and is a legitimate form of criticism, but opening my mouth and saying "I don't like this, I think you shouldn't make something that is so terrible" apparently infringes on his rights as an artist?
what?
I like to use movies as a good comparison, because with the state that games are at the moment if you took a movie like Skyfall M would not be played by Judi Dench (an incredibly good actor), but would instead be played by a supermodel figured woman with huge breasts and not much clothing. And it's not even like this movie is a great example of positive portrayals of women or whatever, I'm literally going for the lowest possible hanging fruit of pointing out that we have an elderly woman in an important role who is non-sexualised. This is something that the vast majority of games can't even manage to get to.
It literally makes no sense whatsoever.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
So basically no matter how often people repeat that no one supports use of legal force and are solely talking about criticism and changing the dialogue, you're going to conclude they mean controlling what people are allowed to do.
I don't think anyone said you were infringing on anyone's rights. I only said that it creates a culture where artists are afraid to express themselves.
And yes, there is a huge difference between those two acts. Not personally paying money to see Brokeback Mountain is different from saying "Gay relationships shouldn't be in the movies." Not personally giving money to strippers is different from saying "People shouldn't be strippers." Not personally giving money to media you find sexist is different than saying "People should only make art that actively promotes my personal vision of social justice."
These are all different actions with different consequences, and they all create a very different culture.
If you don't understand that you really don't know what a right being infringed upon actually is and should stop using that phrase.
But I guess by saying that I'm infringing on someone's rights. I just said someone shouldn't do something.
This is inherently what all the whining about "censorship" is about, which is arguing (or at least directly implying) that it's infringing upon an artists right to free speech.
Edit: I shall cry so many tears for all the people lacking sexual objectification of women in games due to our sternly worded letters and posts on the interent. Oh woe is them, what on earth will they do when various female characters in games have more than 1 body type (that of a supermodel) and may be wearing clothes. This horrible world of the future is truly one of dreadful artistic oppression.
Or, to pursue this avenue of discussion from a slightly different angle, there is the fact that for financial market pressure to work you need to build up a critical mass of consensus amongst consumers. How do you go about doing that if not by promoting the open criticism of such works? By stating to others that these particular works shouldn't be made or supported as much as they are because they feed into something that does real harm? Also, a tangent of this is that institutionalized sexism tends to promote the suppression of such criticisms.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
Actually, no, your statement is completely fine. If you think someone shouldn't do something, tell 'em "I think you shouldn't do something", but that's a different statement than "you shouldn't do something", and while yes, this is a semantic issue, it's kind of important when we're discussing artistic and/or expressive endeavors.
Technically I'd add "...because" and your reasons, but I mean. That's just helpful criticism then.
But that's just my opinion.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Oh, please, you don't have to couch every single utterance in "It is my opinion that..." or "I believe..." or "I feel...". Those things are apparent by your believing it or stating it sincerely.
I don't say "I think torture is wrong." I say "torture is wrong," and if you disagree with my evident opinion, we can then argue about it. I haven't assaulted your right to expression by leaving out an extraneous phrase.
If you are a functioning human being you should understand that whenever someone says "you should" or "you shouldn't" that that statement is obviously an opinion. There is as much need to preface those types of statements with IMHO or "I think"as there is typing http:/www. Before a web address in a modern day browser. It's assumed.
Unless you really think sexists artist are just that out of touch with reality, where they don't understand what opinions are.
are you fucking serious
Nobody is saying it's on par with Dragon Crown.
Look, Super Metroid is one of my favourite games of all time. That doesn’t mean I don’t find it troubling that the ultimate reward for beating the game quickly is seeing Samus in her underwear. Yes it’s a pretty tame image. Yes there are much worse examples of sexism out there. But it’s still something that detracts from the game for me, and something worth mentioning.
Do you really, really not see how it could bother people?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Well, this depends on what problem you are trying to solve. Is the problem that that sexualized depictions of people in media are inherently wrong and harmful, or is the problem that there aren't enough non-sexualized depictions of women in media to balance out all the sexualized portrayals? It's important to identify the problem, because these are two different problems with two different solutions.
If your goal is more balance...I simply don't think that shouting down the art you don't like is going to get you there, any more than shouting down all the first-person shooters will cause there to be more roguelikes. If you want to solve the latter problem you'd probably want to focus on more positive things like supporting artists who create the kind of art you like. Exposure and discovery is a big problem for artists, and if you make an effort to seek them out you can make a difference in the kinds of media seen by at least your own social circle (which has ripple effects.) Meanwhile, creating controversy and shooting down what you see as negative examples just makes the whole thing more risky to address for developers, because there is a huge backlash if they try and don't get it quite right.
Please be careful with how you treat artistic expression in discussion. It's very very important to society, and when we start telling people what and how they should and shouldn't (not "i think you should/shouldn't", there IS a difference) create, we start getting into tricky, if not dangerous territory. Equally, please always respect the right of the audience to NOT like/not agree with/react negatively to a work. (Just cause someone made it doesn't mean you have to like it...)
Good luck.
I have a new puppy in my house. By your logic, I should never tell her no when she is bad, only praise her when she is good.
I also have a daughter on the way (ironically she has the middle name Samus). I guess I should do the same to her then too. See how well that turns out. Or maybe punish her without saying why? That's what not speaking up is doing. Expecting results without doing shit to let people know why you're doing what you're doing.
It's very important to have endless examples of scantily clad unrealistically proportioned supermodels as the only women represented (if at all) in the vast majority of video games?
Do you actually read what you write?
Why would he have to? He's a linguistic genius.
It's really not sad or that big of a deal, buddy. There's no law saying you can't be mean to an artist. Careers are based on the idea that I can tell you why your art isn't worth my time or yours.
I'm also pretty comfortable in saying that if the mainstream matches a person's artistic output then I'm not particularly worried about how an underrepresented group makes that artist feel.
You're an artist. Learn from it and get back to your art. We'll let you know when we like it.
And, as is evident, no matter how insulting and boring a creation is there will be a crowd standing by to cheer on its bravery. I'm sure they'll be fine.
Kind of like what society did in regards to racism. How is this hard to understand?
One is social change through means of economical pressure which creates an atmosphere of financial risk in regards to perpetuating a particular image unnecessarily. The other is social change through means of artistic criticism which creates an atmosphere of social risk in regards to perpetuating a particular image unnecessarily. Different means, same end goal.
A different culture that doesn't promote sexism much like how our culture now (as a caveat I will admit is only in the process of getting better at) not promoting racism. I'll take that.
The problem is BOTH OF THEM if you actually bothered to read the thread. Or look at the links in the OP with all of the empirical research that has been done.
You can have all of the promoted positive images in the world but it doesn't matter if you don't also point out why all of the negative images are bad in the first place. And no, that is not 'shouting down', 'shouting down' would simply be telling someone they shouldn't do something because you want them to do something else without giving any reason as to why. Again, debates based upon criticism are only ever meaningful when done in good faith. If one side says "Yeah huh! 'Cause I said so!" and the other side says "Nuh uh! 'Cause I wanna!" then we're not fucking getting anywhere. And while we've given a good explanation as to why people might want to tone down the unnecessary sexual imagery being produced the other side of the argument (from the perspective of the industry) has only ever given reasons as to why they shouldn't to the effect of "But I like doing it this way! And 'cause everyone wants to see it this way!" Plus, again, there is the presence of INSTITUTIONALIZED F!&#ING SEXISM. Finally, I'd love it if they actually even made the goddamn attempt more often than not. Sure, they won't get it right all the time but that is a lot better than just collectively sticking their fingers in their ears and not even acknowledging it as a problem in a lot of cases.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
So uh... is this a thing? I mean you're dead on about the short shorts and Zero suit and all that, there's no argument there. But the only other "various state" was a head shot. Is this a problem as well?
I'm honestly trying to ask it as a real question and not be snarky. But on the other hand... like I said, you're trying to use the phrase "various states of undress" with an example that not only does not have various states, but where the other state is, or at least seems to me to be, a perfectly normal and viable example. It's just her without a helmet. But is that still a problem example?
you're being as bad as dporowski with the splitting hairs
edit: just in case you're legitimately confused, the phrase "various states of undress" is perfectly appropriate to use to describe a bunch of semi-naked pictures of somebody, even if they are all the same basic level of nudity.
Metroid Prime is the exception to the rule. The problem is that as you do progressively better in the other games you are rewarded with more titillation. Do only meh and you just see an image of her in her full suit. Do a little better and you see an image of her with her helmet off; which, while in and of itself isn't problematic, when put in context of the other images is an evolution of titillation. And finally, depending upon the game, if you do really well you get to see her in her skin tight jumpsuit or a sports top and shorts.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
It's not "more" titillation though. It's "one" titillation. Because the way it's put out, you make it sound like the headshot counts. Which I'm wondering if it does.
And this is the problem with this thread. Either get on board 110% with the groupthink, or else prepare to get treated like you're an unrepentant shitheel for daring to ask questions or better understand the situation. I can see why this is such a hard problem to tackle and talk about. It's easier to just keep your head down and walk away, less you get beat up for taking a breath.
That would be because you don't read the thread.
I'd say you shouldn't post without reading even the same page you're posting on but goodness forbid I go infringing on people's rights by asking them to actually post something consistent.
I don't think you understand how titillation works. Think strip club as the most obvious example. Performers start with their clothes on and slowly strip down revealing more of themselves to illicit an increasing sexual reaction from the audience (in this case as a means of getting paid). As I said, the picture of Samus with her helmet off alone is not a problem. It only becomes a problem given the context of the other two pictures. It's the equivalent of a strip club performer starting off by just unbuttoning her shirt a little and saying "Do you want to see more?"
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
Like so.
Clear time of 5:36:08 with %15 collected looks more awesome than 1:30:00 with %100 collected. But there's no way to know that! Damn you Nintendo.
You seem pretty angry. Take a deep breath. You're not battling Sauron, this is a reasonable disagreement between two adults.
So let's focus on the problem you're outlining. You say: Characters in media who exist as sex objects are always a problem. You say that those sorts of characters should never exist in art, because they promote poor treatment of actual women. You say that it's not just an issue of balance, but that those depictions are simply wrong. Is that a correct assessment of your position, or am I missing something? This differs substantially from the argument some others are making, which is that some media that uses sex is okay and that the problem is the "mosaic", so I want to be clear that it is what you are arguing.
Because I would say that, from what I have seen, the evidence supporting that position simply isn't very strong. I think that there is lots of sexism in society, but to blame it primarily on fiction strikes me as largely unfounded. There are all kinds of factors that lead people to grow up with sexist attitudes, many of which have nothing at all to do with fiction: a child can learn sexist attitudes from their parents, from their peers, from their teachers, or even from world events. There's no particular thread to suggest that fiction is a primary cause of societal sexism, or that altering the stories we tell will accomplish much in the fight against misogyny. In fact, fiction and societal progress have been evolving steadily in opposite directions; we've gotten steadily less violent and less sexist, even though our media has more sex and more violence than ever before. How does that fit in with the idea that fictional sexism is the primary cause of actual sexism?
When Dragon's Crown came out most of the major sources of games media wrote about how sexist it was. The mainstream in the triple-A games industry has gone from God of War to Tomb Raider and Bioshock: Infinite in the space of just a couple of years. The Wii and Kinect, as well as casual and social gaming, have all made huge progress in bringing in female gamers, and they continue to do so. So when you say that the industry isn't making the attempt, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Calling out chainmail bikinis is mainstream in games, while Dragon's Crown is niche. You're not fighting the system here, you are the system.
Please stop telling me what I should and shouldn't do. You're infringing on my rights.
Yeah... Watch out for them titty witches! They'll getcha while you're sleeping
Might be something about dporowski's posts, too.
But to me it seems more like the equivalent of the same performer taking her coat off first. I mean I get what you're saying, it's the first step. The part where I kind of lose it though is... where's the line then? And when was it crossed? Because with the Metroid example, it seems crossed the instant the helm comes off and you find out her gender. Especially since there's only 3 options: Full suit, helmet off, and spandex. And just to clarify with those Fusion/Zero Mission pictures, I kinda lump the different pictures together as mostly the same. They're not going down the titillation slope, they just level off.