As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[PA Comic] Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - Southron Swords, Part Two

12346»

Posts

  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Are you really arguing that videogames can turn people into mysogynists? Really?

    It is "Games cause violence" again.

    cause it? well, as much as the Bible causes Christianity, or the Constitution causes a lot of different political beliefs. no, games don't directly cause misogyny. but as part of the media we all consume, games do influence how humans who play them view the world. that's not surprising in the least, and the science backs it up.

    i'm not calling for a Jack-Thompson-style banning of games. but i am also arguing that we should be demanding better from the games we play. expose gamers to the revolutionary idea that women, people of color, lgbt folks, hell, anyone currently considered "different" are actually fellow human beings.

    which returns to the original argument: consumers demanding better games from devs and retailers, and devs and retailers responding to that consumer demand, is part of the free marketplace of ideas and goes hand in hand with freedom of speech.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
    Caulk Bite 6Edith Upwards
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Distec wrote: »
    He certainly did say it comes at the cost of dehumanizing others. Yes it is the same argument, and it has just as much evidence to support as its predecessor. He also called gaming an "Old boy's club" which is strange, because I thought our hobby was basically alien gibberish to much of the elderly.

    I'm not sure why the argument has now shifted to one of "Is gaming inclusive enough" since it only seems tangentially related to current one, and I don't think anybody here has expressed any opinion that non-white dudes shouldn't be part of gaming or have objections...?
    Namrok literally said "I'm old" in an earlier post. :D And "Old boy's club" is an expression, comparing the "treehouse" tendencies of a certain demographic of hardcore gamer to the "old boy's club" mentality of golf and finance (and other areas). It's a valid idiomatic expression. Gamers are older now, and the average age is now in the 30s. A lot of gamers feel like their hobby is "under attack", which seems weird to me.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    NamrokAlbino BunnyCrippl3
  • DistecDistec Registered User regular
    I'm aware of the expression, but I don't like its usage here because it does conjure a very potent image of some gamer treehouse that is purposefully pushing women off the ladder to it. That's pretty much how it was used previously and I'm not convinced that's the case here. There's been a lot of talk in this topic about "dog-whistle words" or whatever, and I don't think this is much different.

    Also, 30 ain't old!

  • KenninatorKenninator Registered User regular
    Well until this game is actually proven to be a literal manifesto bent on changing people's opinions and getting them to view minorities and women as objects, I'll continue to be substantially less worried about it than the bible.

    I'm not saying it wouldn't worry me, or that some theoretical influx of racist and misogynist games wouldn't also worry me. And it seems pretty clear to me that the "free market" has decided it wants this game on Steam. And it has also simultaneously decided that it does not want GTA5 to be sold in Target Australia.

    Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.

    Distecarmageddonbound
  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    Distec wrote: »
    He certainly did say it comes at the cost of dehumanizing others. Yes it is the same argument, and it has just as much evidence to support it as its predecessor. He also called gaming an "Old boy's club" which is strange, because I thought our hobby was basically alien gibberish to much of the elderly.

    at least one study has explicitly pointed out a link on racism in video games: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/raceavatar.htm

    i already cited a study pointing out that video games can and do increase objectification of women.

    and as a counterpoint, here's something i found showing that coop games actually help promote pro-social, cooperative behavior in the real world: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesick-cyborg/2014/10/24/can-video-games-curb-racism/#.VJRull4CA

    there's literally tons of proof out there that playing video games affects human behavior and attitudes. but honestly, this isn't surprising, because literally every single form of art has done the same thing since the dawn of humanity. the only difference is the degree of influence.
    I'm not sure why the argument has now shifted to one of "Is gaming inclusive enough" since it only seems tangentially related to current one, and I don't think anybody here has expressed any opinion that non-white dudes shouldn't be part of gaming or have objections...? Furthermore, I don't see how Hatred is some threat to a diverse gaming audience, assuming such an audience is capable of ignoring it. Quite frankly, anybody who would look at a game like this and then writes off the medium as not for them is doing themselves a disservice. I don't feel like gaming needs to bend over backwards and apologize for itself to pull such people.

    and yet if you just listened to folks who are marginalized in video gaming, you'd realize it's quite the opposite. i used to be pretty upset that a lot of people were boycotting PAX, until i heard the innumerable stories of women being randomly felt up by con goers at PAX. like, what the hell. what gives people the idea that they can simply to that to people?

    in short, listen. even have a little empathy.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
    Caulk Bite 6Albino BunnyEdith Upwards
  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.

    "hey, segregation isn't such a bad idea, why are you so upset?"

    "hey, those Japanese internment camps aren't so bad, at least you're not in em, right?"

    "hey, so what if that guy called you a gook, quit being so offended."

    no. fuck that. i'd rather say something now, before it does become something later.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
    Orphane
  • CybitCybit Merch Underling RedmondRegistered User regular
    I am mostly in agreement with Squidget and the ACLU argument - the issue is that the ideas Pony describes are what historically people do when they want to deal with the problem on a surface level and hide it rather than admit to the idea that there are (a non insignificant apparently) amount of people who are drawn to these bad ideas.

    The best way to expose something as a bad idea is to let it hang itself; not just try to ban it. There's a reason the KKK was never "banned" or had the gov't try to "regulate" it, just like the crazy Westboro people. They can hang themselves with their own actions.

    I feel like with how racism was dealt with in the US is a perfect example. We tried to engage it on the surface level and make it "taboo", and all we did was merely drive it underground and possibly make it even stronger in some areas.

    As for studies that try to link playing games to temporary behavior shifts - there's a big difference between a temporary behavior shift from doing an activity as opposed to a permanent behavior shift. Social studies have a large issue with correlation vs causation currently; right now you can more or less create a study that backs any conclusion you want to come up with. There were lots of "violent video games cause people to be violent" studies that used the same methodologies; but when they tried to extrapolate that to long-term behavior - they found that it had an opposite effect. They basically managed to take a long time and a lot of money proving that venting is a good thing. :-p

    KenninatorfortyDistecTryCatcherMrMiscreant
  • KenninatorKenninator Registered User regular
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.

    "hey, segregation isn't such a bad idea, why are you so upset?"

    "hey, those Japanese internment camps aren't so bad, at least you're not in em, right?"

    "hey, so what if that guy called you a gook, quit being so offended."

    no. fuck that. i'd rather say something now, before it does become something later.

    Ok, so gamers aren't currently all racist sociopaths? I think we agree that this would be a bad thing and that it would be good to prevent it. I'm just not sure if a video game can help somebody that literally views others as non-human objects, or even come close causing that in the first place.

  • KenninatorKenninator Registered User regular
    Cybit wrote: »
    I am mostly in agreement with Squidget and the ACLU argument - the issue is that the ideas Pony describes are what historically people do when they want to deal with the problem on a surface level and hide it rather than admit to the idea that there are (a non insignificant apparently) amount of people who are drawn to these bad ideas.

    The best way to expose something as a bad idea is to let it hang itself; not just try to ban it. There's a reason the KKK was never "banned" or had the gov't try to "regulate" it, just like the crazy Westboro people. They can hang themselves with their own actions.

    I feel like with how racism was dealt with in the US is a perfect example. We tried to engage it on the surface level and make it "taboo", and all we did was merely drive it underground and possibly make it even stronger in some areas.

    As for studies that try to link playing games to temporary behavior shifts - there's a big difference between a temporary behavior shift from doing an activity as opposed to a permanent behavior shift. Social studies have a large issue with correlation vs causation currently; right now you can more or less create a study that backs any conclusion you want to come up with. There were lots of "violent video games cause people to be violent" studies that used the same methodologies; but when they tried to extrapolate that to long-term behavior - they found that it had an opposite effect. They basically managed to take a long time and a lot of money proving that venting is a good thing. :-p

    There's a great episode of Drunk History about the KKK and how exposing their secret signs and rituals showed people that they were basically giant children.

  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    I think what frustrates me most about this whole "Games cause people to view X as objects" argument is it's absurd on so many levels.

    On the most basic level, everything in a game is an object, and must be an object, on a technical level. Because they are just abstractions of the real world at worst, and highly imperfect simulations at best. I'm saying they aren't real and they cannot possibly be real. Creating a game that fully represents all the consequences and depth of the real world would be literally godlike.

    Thinking this is problem, or "problematic" like the cool kids are saying, means you either think people cannot tell the difference between reality and non-reality, or that something subliminal gets in people. That indulging in a simplified game world somehow overrides your experiences growing up with your family, classmates, neighbors, etc. That the games will subliminally override all the humanizing experiences you've had with real people, and make you view them as objects like the games you play.

    Yeah, I know it sounds absurd when I put it like that. I know your gut reaction is "That is not what I'm saying". But that is what it sounds like to me.

    KenninatorrchouDistecTryCatcherMrMiscreantarmageddonbound
  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.

    "hey, segregation isn't such a bad idea, why are you so upset?"

    "hey, those Japanese internment camps aren't so bad, at least you're not in em, right?"

    "hey, so what if that guy called you a gook, quit being so offended."

    no. fuck that. i'd rather say something now, before it does become something later.

    Ok, so gamers aren't currently all racist sociopaths? I think we agree that this would be a bad thing and that it would be good to prevent it. I'm just not sure if a video game can help somebody that literally views others as non-human objects, or even come close causing that in the first place.

    one game, no. a pattern of them? that's what i'd like to see not happen. letting game companies know that people want better games is the best way to have better games.

    i would like to see games that have better writing, or at least characters that aren't two dimensional caricatures. i'd like to see games that stop relying on dumb, overused stereotypes. i'd like to see games that are accessible and welcoming to more people, not less.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
    KenninatorCaulk Bite 6
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited December 2014
    If people want to keep having this discussion, I made a thread about this very topic a long while back. I don't really think it's as appropriate to keep discussing this in the thread for a comic that has nothing at all to do about free speech/censorship/etc.

    joshofalltrades on
  • KenninatorKenninator Registered User regular
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.

    "hey, segregation isn't such a bad idea, why are you so upset?"

    "hey, those Japanese internment camps aren't so bad, at least you're not in em, right?"

    "hey, so what if that guy called you a gook, quit being so offended."

    no. fuck that. i'd rather say something now, before it does become something later.

    Ok, so gamers aren't currently all racist sociopaths? I think we agree that this would be a bad thing and that it would be good to prevent it. I'm just not sure if a video game can help somebody that literally views others as non-human objects, or even come close causing that in the first place.

    one game, no. a pattern of them? that's what i'd like to see not happen. letting game companies know that people want better games is the best way to have better games.

    i would like to see games that have better writing, or at least characters that aren't two dimensional caricatures. i'd like to see games that stop relying on dumb, overused stereotypes. i'd like to see games that are accessible and welcoming to more people, not less.

    Well hey, that sounds good to me.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Distec wrote: »
    I'm aware of the expression, but I don't like its usage here because it does conjure a very potent image of some gamer treehouse that is purposefully pushing women off the ladder to it. That's pretty much how it was used previously and I'm not convinced that's the case here.
    I believe that the Steam case is different from previous arguments/debates. There's no evidence that it's because of a moral minority mob or anything other than a Steam-internal decision. So yes, I'm inclined to agree with you, with this regard.

    There is a gamer treehouse that gamers have been using to push women out. Many women have already been drummed out of the industry, and women make up less than 20 percent of people who are involved in making games. But I don't think this has anything to do with Steam and Hatred in particular. It is important to make this distinction and not conflate this incident with other recent controversies.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Kenninator wrote: »
    Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.

    "hey, segregation isn't such a bad idea, why are you so upset?"

    "hey, those Japanese internment camps aren't so bad, at least you're not in em, right?"

    "hey, so what if that guy called you a gook, quit being so offended."

    no. fuck that. i'd rather say something now, before it does become something later.

    Ok, so gamers aren't currently all racist sociopaths? I think we agree that this would be a bad thing and that it would be good to prevent it. I'm just not sure if a video game can help somebody that literally views others as non-human objects, or even come close causing that in the first place.

    one game, no. a pattern of them? that's what i'd like to see not happen. letting game companies know that people want better games is the best way to have better games.

    i would like to see games that have better writing, or at least characters that aren't two dimensional caricatures. i'd like to see games that stop relying on dumb, overused stereotypes. i'd like to see games that are accessible and welcoming to more people, not less.

    Nobody is against that. Keeping Hatred off of Steam is also not that.

    rchouKenninatorDistecfortyEdith Upwards
  • DistecDistec Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Distec wrote: »
    He certainly did say it comes at the cost of dehumanizing others. Yes it is the same argument, and it has just as much evidence to support it as its predecessor. He also called gaming an "Old boy's club" which is strange, because I thought our hobby was basically alien gibberish to much of the elderly.

    at least one study has explicitly pointed out a link on racism in video games: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/raceavatar.htm

    i already cited a study pointing out that video games can and do increase objectification of women.

    and as a counterpoint, here's something i found showing that coop games actually help promote pro-social, cooperative behavior in the real world: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesick-cyborg/2014/10/24/can-video-games-curb-racism/#.VJRull4CA

    there's literally tons of proof out there that playing video games affects human behavior and attitudes. but honestly, this isn't surprising, because literally every single form of art has done the same thing since the dawn of humanity. the only difference is the degree of influence.

    There's tons of evidence for short-term effects, not long-term thinking. This argument could have merit if we were buried in a sea of misogynistic and racist content, but we're not. As Cybit mentioned, these were the same kinds of methods and findings that were used to argue that violent games bred violent mentalities.

    This also flies in the face of historical context. Consumption of violent and sexual media has steadily risen over decades, but we never see a causal or correlated result of the consumers actually becoming more violent or sexist.

    I'd be much more concerned if a product like Hatred was typical of gaming, but it really isn't. It's one loud, obnoxious voice.
    and yet if you just listened to folks who are marginalized in video gaming, you'd realize it's quite the opposite. i used to be pretty upset that a lot of people were boycotting PAX, until i heard the innumerable stories of women being randomly felt up by con goers at PAX. like, what the hell. what gives people the idea that they can simply to that to people?

    in short, listen. even have a little empathy.

    I don't think I am lacking empathy. I'm sorry if some girls got grabbed at PAX, but I have seen nothing to indicate this is a normal occurrence at the event, that it is at all condoned or encouraged by PA or anybody else involved, or that it has much of anything to do with the games people are playing.

    I really want to be clear that I think the gender disparity in game development is unfortunate, but I'm guessing we have some differences as to how that should be solved. The hard truth, as I see it, is that is not going to change until some people tough through those those barriers (few of which are "hard-coded" IMO) and make that culture change organically. That's not an argument to be passive and just wait it out though. I just don't see how covering up games with offensive material is in any way conducive to fixing this. And to be fair, I think some of gaming media has played a part in scaring away women as well when they repeatedly report on how awful it is.

    ...I don't know what I'm arguing about any more or what led me here. Can we get back to Hatred? It's some shit, right?

    Distec on
    fortyMrMiscreant
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Speaking of reaching out and touching things you aren't supposed to, here is an anecdote in no way related.

    I'm at the National Art gallery on a date with my girlfriend. If you've never been, there are strong no touching rules. It's pretty obvious. Also, there are low paid bitter/angry security guards in every room whose sole task is to yell "No touching" at people whose hands begin to reach cautiously out towards a priceless work of art.

    Yes, it is just like Arrested Development.

    Now for the most part, everyone gets it. Nothing gets touched. But on the ground floor, in the furniture section, there was this amazing stone table with elaborate stone inlay I lack the poetry to describe. I cannot fathom how people could have made it without laser cutting and CAD. And this one table, for whatever reason, compelled everyone who walked by to touch it. No other art in the entire museum had that effect on people. People saw it, and immediately forgot, "I'm not supposed to touch that." You just need to feel for yourself the lack of seems along the inlay.

    And that poor security guard in that room was so frustrated about it. You'd hear increasingly frustrated shouts of "NO TOUCHING!" every 5 minutes on that floor. I wonder if that's the punishment room for the security guard who got on a supervisors shitlist.

  • beeftruckbeeftruck Registered User regular
    Distec wrote: »
    I don't think I am lacking empathy. I'm sorry if some girls got grabbed at PAX, but I have seen nothing to indicate this is a normal occurrence at the event, that it is at all condoned or encouraged by PA or anybody else involved, or that it has much of anything to do with the games people are playing.

    Seriously, PAX these days typically has a population equivalent to a small city. If anyone can figure out how to put that many people in one place for three days without various crimes and misdemeanors being committed, please let the rest of us know.

  • Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    Okay, so I just watched the trailer for Hatred. In doing so, I've tried my best to ignore all the extra information I picked up from here.

    In the minute and a half, I did not see as many PoCs die as others have said, but I did recognize the dwelling of the Disaffected White Guy in Trenchcoat, right down to the "I'm Angry" level of discarded beer cans. Also noticed was the monologue of the Edgy White Guy who sounds a bit too much like Duke Nukem.

    Now, while I said I didn't see too many persons of colour die brutally on the ad itself, when the ad cuts from him angrily loading a gun and talking about his genocidal crusade to the outside of his house and a depiction of his very multicultural neighbourhood? Shit's gonna happen, dog. Not just in a "watch_dogs" style emergent gameplay. You can pretty much tell there's going to be 'hilarious' cheevos attached to how many and what kind of PoCs you kill.

    jnij103vqi2i.png
  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Namrok wrote: »
    It's perfectly acceptable for people not to buy things for whatever reason. Sometimes they don't buy an otherwise good game because it would support someone whose views they don't support. For many people, in the case, they don't want to buy what looks to be a garbage game, made by what looks to be a team of people with views they don't want to support, and the game itself reflects those values.

    I feel that's disingenuous? Nobody has said anybody has to buy it. And the claims made by people in this very thread are that they don't want that game sharing shelf space with other games. Because hate is like lice, and it leaps to other games in close proximity.

    I just want it available on Steam for anybody who does want it. Which appears to be a lot of people given the Greenlight votes. Although personally I think it's just another instance of slacktivism, and most of those people won't buy it. It's ambiguous what the "other side" wants. To me, I see 1000's of weasel words that heavily imply censorship, and rhetorically lead you right up to censorship being the only possible conclusion, and then just stop. Now this could easily be me seeing something that's not there, but that last second backing down comes with a very telegraphed wink and a smile. Is that one of those dog whistles everyone keeps talking about?

    Sorry, I was kind of responding to a sentiment that I don't think anybody in this particular thread has specifically made yet. The first sentence of your post just above mine reminded me of it. Basically, what's happened a lot of times when these kinds of discussions come up, is someone says "I don't buy/eat/watch <THING> even though it is entertaining/delicious, because I find the creator's/owner's ideology to be abhorrent" and a bunch of people jump down their throat about how dare they not buy a quality product just because some portion of the money goes to support some unrelated thing they don't like.
    Was trying to head some of that off by pointing out, indications seem to be this probably won't be a quality product and the views many people object to are built right in to it.

    Tofystedeth on
    steam_sig.png
  • RatherDashing89RatherDashing89 Registered User regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    It's perfectly acceptable for people not to buy things for whatever reason. Sometimes they don't buy an otherwise good game because it would support someone whose views they don't support. For many people, in the case, they don't want to buy what looks to be a garbage game, made by what looks to be a team of people with views they don't want to support, and the game itself reflects those values.

    I feel that's disingenuous? Nobody has said anybody has to buy it. And the claims made by people in this very thread are that they don't want that game sharing shelf space with other games. Because hate is like lice, and it leaps to other games in close proximity.

    I just want it available on Steam for anybody who does want it.

    People have said someone has to buy it. They are saying Steam has to buy it (for redistribution). I know Steam doesn't personally buy copies of the game and then sell them, but the principle is the same. Steam is not "society" or "mankind". Valve is a private company who is in no way obligated to do business with anyone. If so many people want the game, they can email the guys who wrote it. People do actually sell indie games without Steam. It's just hard to get visibility. If that many people genuinely want it, they've got their visibility and don't need to go through Steam. In any case. Valve doesn't owe them anything.

    Caulk Bite 6CambiataEdith UpwardsQuidRear Admiral Choco
  • MrMiscreantMrMiscreant Mean motor scooter Hiding in the back seat of your carRegistered User regular
    as one of those "loud activist minorities", frankly, getting stuff that attacks people on a personal level out of the market is entirely worthy of the fight. based on the gameplay trailers, Hatred specifically targets Muslim folks. that is screwed up. i'm not even all that active, but seeing a game out there that attacks people because of their skin color and/or religious beliefs, and then seeing a bunch of gamers rallying around it feels like a personal attack.

    you might not view it as such, because you are in a position where it does not affect you. when people talk about "privilege", this is precisely what they mean. you've got the privilege of not having this be an attack on you.

    Your feelings on the matter are valid, and they're not at all unreasonable, but I don't agree that the people with other opinions on the matter are simply exhibiting privilege. I'm an atheist, but my whole family is Muslim. This game is a direct attack on me, my family, and my background (from what I've gathered; I have minimal first-hand knowledge). My people are exactly the North African immigrants that the racists in Europe are always angry about. Here's the thing: I can take it. They can take it. We can take it. But (for reasons well-communicated by others) I'm squarely in the "You let the KKK march" camp with all of this. It's too easy to assume that people with misgivings about things like this must be right-leaning white people with giant invisible knapsacks.

    LIVE: CitizenZero
    PSN: CitizenXero
    NNID: TheFennec
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    A reminder that Minecraft is not and has never been available on Steam, until it was ported to consoles and phones the only place to purchase it was through Mojang's website directly, and for PC in 2014 that is still the case.

    Yet, somehow Notch made two billion dollars this year off what has become not just a game but a cultural phenomenon.

    The comparison Jerry and some of you made between Steam and Google, acting as if Steam is digital game distribution in the 21st century, somehow have a monopoly, or are otherwise obligated to carry fucking anything are not only hilariously out of touch with what those words mean (monopoly especially)

    It is meaningfully, demonstrably false on a grand scale.

    CambiataCaulk Bite 6Commander ZoomRear Admiral ChocoEdith Upwards
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    "Oh, but Pony," you might say "That's not fair! Minecraft is literally one of the largest games in the world! It's a cultural phenomenon, the cherished part of childhoods across the globe, it has spawned official Lego sets and even is getting its own Telltale adventure game!" (Which, as an aside, is weird as fuck but that's totally off-topic)

    And yes, all of those things are true, except the part where this is unfair. Minecraft didn't start out as those things. It started out as some weird dude's hobby project with javascript. Mojang (which, for the first couple years, was really just Notch himself) got their largest success through word of mouth and a marketing budget of zero dollars. They had a single website (that was often creaky as fuck!) through which you could purchase Alpha (and then later Beta) access to their game, and it was through that which Minecraft created the foundation that allowed it to explode into the cultural phenomenon it is today.

    It is the definition of a plucky little indie game out of nowhere on a budget of piss-all developed by a couple guys to make a game they wanted to make regardless of its marketability. And they never used Steam, and part of that was their choice and part of it was just Steam's policies wouldn't work for them (their official reasoning for why not go to Steam has changed significantly over the years, I'm unsure what the official line is nowadays).

    It mattered not a single bit to their overall success as one of the biggest games on Earth.

    Can every game be Minecraft? No, of course not. That's silly, and if you think that's my comparison of course that's unfair. But every game is capable of succeeding in the open digital marketplace if people actually want to carry and purchase and play your game.

    If nobody does, then maybe that's your god damn fault?

    AegeriCaulk Bite 6Rear Admiral Choco
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    And to put the final fuckin' nail in this post combo and put a personal spin on it

    I'm an Unreal Engine 4 licensee, I've been using it to develop a game for a while now. I am not so pretentious as to call myself a "game developer" for the unreleased, not even Alpha state thing I've been working on, but theoretically one day it might actually coalesce into something resembling a game that I could release for sale. That sure would be nice!

    Would I like to, one day, see my stuff go through the Greenlight process and get up on Steam? Sure would! But I'm also a one-man-show developing my first project, and therefore in all likelihood it's going to be technically garbage regardless of the conceptual merits I might think it have. The quality of it will probably just not be up to snuff. Who knows. I'll give it my best shot.

    Does Steam owe me a shot? Fuck no! Even if I had a finished, technically flawless, completely workable game that I'm 100% sure people will pay real dollars for, Steam doesn't owe me jack shit. And that's fine. It's not desirable, it's not optimal, but it's certainly liveable. There's other digital distribution methods I could go to (GOG.com, to name one) or I could simply attempt to self-publish through my own website. I know someone who publishes their own independent game through that method, and their game is pornographic in nature and thus, ineligible to be on Steam by Steam's own policy.

    Of course, that's easy for me to say, because I haven't poured thousands of dollars into this project. Who knows how much say, Hatred's developers have spent and are looking to recover with sales? I don't know. I'm not their people. They've got at least a dozen white guys on their dev team, that can't be free, and their game is using UE4 too, and they don't look like they're using stock assets so they developed their own and etc.

    So for them, they need to make a certain amount of money to make a profit off this game or it might actually sink them as a studio, and not being on Steam might represent such a significant hit to that profitability that even if they could publish through say, GOG.com, they're just not going to make enough back to survive let alone profit healthily. I think you could possibly make that argument.

    But you know what? Maybe tough shit, then.

    Maybe you should've considered that when you made a literal spree-killer simulator (instead of a game where spree-killing is simply possible within the open gamespace) in a cultural climate where spree-killings are a very real almost biannual occurrence in the United States alone. Maybe you should've considered that when you released the trailer for your spree-killing simulator only days after a notable video game critic had to cancel her public speaking event on the misogynistic and hateful culture in video games due to the threat of a killing spree. Maybe you should've considered not openly painting your game as an actual stated political message against "political correctness" and progressive values and diversity in gaming.

    Maybe, if your game can't survive after you do all those things and the largest digital game distributor wants nothing to do with you because of it, then you shouldn't have done that shit in the first god damn place? Because clearly it didn't pan out.

    Now, all of this is theoretical, of course, because ultimately Valve did backpedal on their decision, internally, within 48 hours and Hatred will go through the Greenlight process and if it does end up on sale on Steam (which is still, in the end, Valve's call regardless of what Greenlight votes say. Greenlight votes are just market data, not democracy), Hatred will make some money because some people (including folk who have posted stating as such in this thread!) intend to purchase it as a matter of political principle regardless of its merits or if it's even a game worth playing.

    So the message they'll take from this is what they did was perfectly fine. Good job, gamers.

    RatherDashing89Caulk Bite 6AegeriCommander ZoomCambiataGoatmonRear Admiral ChocoDjiem
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Yeah... one of the craziest things that comes out of the gaming community on the regular, is that games developers are entitled to things in the free market that no other product is owed. Just as an example, I've been accused of being a censor myself for flatly refusing to buy a game because it had a feature I didn't like. But saying that a game deserves space on someone's store shelf feels at least almost that crazy.

    Cambiata on
    AegeriCaulk Bite 6Quid
  • beeftruckbeeftruck Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Yes, yes, we're all aware that retailers aren't actually required to carry every game ever made. That doesn't get anyone off the hook for being the sort of person who feels compelled to concern themselves with what kinds of media other people may choose to purchase. Nor does it mean that anyone is required to feel chastened for expressing their displeasure toward retailers who choose to bow to such people.

    You lot seem to be trying to convince yourselves that nothing is "censorship" unless it's either somehow illegal or coming directly from the government, and it's pretty clear by now that no one else, including the owners of this site, buy that shit. At all. It's as if you think there's some other word for "person who attempts to police what media others consume" and if you can only get everyone to use that word instead, they'll all have to reluctantly admit that they're totally cool with with strangers attempting to interpolate themselves between the public and the games available to them.

    It doesn't work that way.

    God am I ever enjoying the outrage from people horrified to discover that the general gaming scene considers them nothing but a slightly different flavor of the same old "Think of the children!" crusaders, rather than the glorious revolution for artistic progress they've convinced themselves they are while sitting around their handful of echo chamber websites. Sorry, but Polygon doesn't get to police every comment section in the entire world.

    And the funniest part? Given how splendidly this controversy has worked out for the Hatred devs, offending the guardians of political correctness is likely to become a cottage industry. They're too dumb not to bite even when a dev comes out and flatly states that they're trolling for publicity.

    beeftruck on
    NamrokDistecTryCatcherrchou
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Giving the time that it takes to develop a game, Hatred would have been gone as-is even without the highly unpleasant mess on the last few months, so don't see the point of bringing up the subject again. Also, on what context do you think that Postal was released on the first place?

    TryCatcher on
    Distec
  • DistecDistec Registered User regular
    It seems weird to keep lecturing people about Hatred and the free market as if it has been pulled from Steam. Not sure know why I'm hearing "Well tough shit" and "Maybe you should have considered" as if this game wasn't reinstated and didn't shoot to the top of Greenlight.

    "Hey, you dumb gamers! Steam has no obligation to make space for your shitty, offensive product!" The argument is technically correct, but seems rather pointless when I can pull up Hatred's Greenlight page right now as I type this.


    beeftruck
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    beeftruck wrote: »
    God am I ever enjoying the outrage from people horrified to discover that the general gaming scene considers them nothing but a slightly different flavor of the same old "Think of the children!" crusaders, rather than the glorious revolution for artistic progress they've convinced themselves they are while sitting around their handful of echo chamber websites. Sorry, but Polygon doesn't get to police every comment section in the entire world.
    Says the person who goes to reddit to validate his own opinion. :D The "general gaming scene" isn't what you think it is (not anymore), and it's the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity besides. The places that tell you that your opinions are right are just as much of an echo chamber as anywhere else on the internet.

    What does Polygon have to do with anything, anyway?

    The "general gaming scene" right now is a demographic of middle-aged people who don't really know/care about whether or not Steam lists or delists a small game on Greenlight, besides. The folks who post here and the folks who post on Reddit are the fringe gamer, not the mainstream gamer. The best that you can say is that your gaming tribe doesn't like the opinions of that other gaming tribe, and vice versa.
    Distec wrote: »
    "Hey, you dumb gamers! Steam has no obligation to make space for your shitty, offensive product!" The argument is technically correct, but seems rather pointless when I can pull up Hatred's Greenlight page right now as I type this.
    This is unnecessary editorialization. The people here aren't saying "Hey, you dumb gamers!". Everyone here is a gamer, and we care about different things. Only one person in the thread has been using slurs to attack other posters, and that person has been warned.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    CambiataPreciousBodilyFluids
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Since the whole delisting/relisting thing has essentially created non-news for the past week, here's a friendly reminder that the discussion about "censorship" and the non-monopoly of Steam has moved on to this thread:
    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/185693/

    Scroll to the end of the thread to find the relevant bits (since the first part is about Duck Dynasty, which isn't relevant). You'll find more voices, fresh faces, and people eager to debate you. More importantly, this comic thread can return to discussion about dick stabbing and vasectomies.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
  • Caulk Bite 6Caulk Bite 6 One of the multitude of Dans infesting this place Registered User regular
    Distec wrote: »
    The argument is technically correct, but seems rather pointless when I can pull up Hatred's Greenlight page right now as I type this.

    Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I'm unable to do this, just now.

    jnij103vqi2i.png
  • hsuhsu Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Only one person in the thread has been using slurs to attack other posters, and that person has been warned.
    When did we go back in time to our grade school days?
    Hey wait, let me call up my big brother to beat up your big brother because you called me names.

    hsu on
    iTNdmYl.png
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    hsu wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Only one person in the thread has been using slurs to attack other posters, and that person has been warned.
    When did we go back in time to our grade school days?
    Hey wait, let me call up my big brother to beat up your big brother because you called me names.

    I meant they were violating the glorious edict, and were warned in a friendly manner later in the thread. Geez. No need to accuse me of infantilization. Not everyone reads the forum rules thoroughly.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    CambiataCaulk Bite 6Aegeri
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited December 2014
    hsu wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Only one person in the thread has been using slurs to attack other posters, and that person has been warned.
    When did we go back in time to our grade school days?
    Hey wait, let me call up my big brother to beat up your big brother because you called me names.

    Oh god. By all means, let us see your arguments about how the forum rules are a form of artistic suppresion against you and therefore evil. I'll get the popcorn.

    Cambiata on
    QuidAegeri
  • beeftruckbeeftruck Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Says the person who goes to reddit to validate his own opinion. :D The "general gaming scene" isn't what you think it is (not anymore), and it's the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity besides. The places that tell you that your opinions are right are just as much of an echo chamber as anywhere else on the internet.

    What does Polygon have to do with anything, anyway?

    The "general gaming scene" right now is a demographic of middle-aged people who don't really know/care about whether or not Steam lists or delists a small game on Greenlight, besides. The folks who post here and the folks who post on Reddit are the fringe gamer, not the mainstream gamer. The best that you can say is that your gaming tribe doesn't like the opinions of that other gaming tribe, and vice versa.

    That other tribe doesn't seem able to prosper anywhere except for a relative handful of carefully-policed hugboxes where they repeat "gaming is changing" and other mantras ad nauseum and make excuses for how all those "problematic" games they hate so much outsell their politically correct hipster-trash darlings a billion to one.

    beeftruck on
  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Distec wrote: »
    I'm aware of the expression, but I don't like its usage here because it does conjure a very potent image of some gamer treehouse that is purposefully pushing women off the ladder to it. That's pretty much how it was used previously and I'm not convinced that's the case here.
    I believe that the Steam case is different from previous arguments/debates. There's no evidence that it's because of a moral minority mob or anything other than a Steam-internal decision. So yes, I'm inclined to agree with you, with this regard.

    There is a gamer treehouse that gamers have been using to push women out. Many women have already been drummed out of the industry, and women make up less than 20 percent of people who are involved in making games. But I don't think this has anything to do with Steam and Hatred in particular. It is important to make this distinction and not conflate this incident with other recent controversies.

    Is there a treehouse in Nursing that pushes men out? Is there a treehouse in primary school teaching that pushes men out? Is there a treehouse in child care that pushes men out? (in that case I would say there is)

    Or in the majority of cases are women and men different and select different fields? Unless you somehow force women against their will to enter the field there is never going to be a 50-50 representation of women in stem fields.

  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    I'm going to go ahead and suggest that you don't need to bump month old threads to talk about whatever MRA bee is in your bonnet this week.

Sign In or Register to comment.