Gamergate

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:38 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
Chen wrote:
Xenomortis wrote:Actually, I expect 40+ to be.
Well, I expect it to be largely uniform (with a slight bias to older generations).


http://www.people-press.org/2002/10/17/ ... n-in-iraq/ and
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th- ... stake.aspx

Seem to imply that its the younger generation that seems to be more supportive of war than the older. Probably because the older generation actually remembers previous wars and the horrors therein.

I find that surprising, actually.

But I don't think this proves the point about war games at all. If we compare the 18-30 group and the 50-64 group, we see that support went from 69/61 in 2002 to 48/39 in 2013. So support dropped in both groups, and by similar amounts. Although with an 11 year gap between the surveys, it might be better to move the age brackets up (so we're comparing roughly the same set of people in 2002 and 2013), in which case the 2013 ratio would be 43/36. Note that the first Call of Duty game was released in 2003, and the serious really took off, and exploded the modern military shooter genre, with CoD4 in 2007. I think you're going to have a hard time proving any causality here between playing CoD and supporting war.


When you consider that the younger generation voted Obama in (who ran on the platform of "End the War in Iraq"... among other things), vs the War Hero John McCain, things get even murkier.

18-29: 66% for Obama / 32% McCain
30-44: 52% for Obama / 46% McCain
45-64: 50% Obama / 49% McCain
65+: 45% Obama / 53% McCain

------------------------------

PolakoVoador wrote:Well, it "kind of" solves. If every game which had Chain Bikinis (or whatever variant) also had Armour Loincloth version for the male characters, than it wouldn't be the case of a industry always promoting woman as eye candy in contrast to fully clothed men. It would be just games with Non-sensical Sexy Battle Gear.

Of course this is imagining a world where the Chain Bikini/Loincloth equallity started from the beginning. Considering reallity, yeaaaah, not a solution, but I see it as some sort of improvement.

Also, according to some female gamers I know (including my girlfriend), the Chain Bikini is not the problem per se, but being the ONLY option for, say, high level gear. For what KE posted, Guild Wars seems to do a good job on the matter: both genders apparently have the option to go the Sensible Battle Gear route if they want to, while still allowing for unresonable eye candy sexyness.


I'll just... leave this here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWRmH_Uyu6U (NSFW)

The amount of fanservice with male characters is growing, at least within the video game world. So I do think games are moving in the general direction of "Non-sensical Sex jokes" with both male and female characters. Kinda like how "Policeman" is no longer proper, and everyone is saying the non-gender specific "Police Officer".

Case in point: the only charracter with a "Swimsuit" in the new SSB game is Shulk. Samus gets her Shorts / Halter Top (a throwback to her Metroid: Fusion ending), but this isn't technically a swimsuit :-p.

I am told that the Shulk costume is a joke regarding his game as well. But I haven't played the Xeno series and am ignorant of it.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:49 pm UTC

Forest Goose wrote:Do you have a study backing up what you claim? "Pointless dodge" is how it sounds to you because you believe something else, I've asked you multiple times to back up your claims, and you've criticized other peoples attempts at backing up their claims (weak, or no), some studies would nicely complement your position and argument style.

...yes, the studies that have already been posted. I'm on board with you as to playing violent video games not being demonstrated to leading to enacting violence, but the mindset thing...no, there are several studies (already posted) that show evidence counter to that, and it kind of defeats the purpose of art or media as a thing if such a claim was true.

I've asked you multiple times to back up your claims, and you've criticized other peoples attempts at backing up their claims (weak, or no), some studies would nicely complement your position and argument style.

Like I said, studies to this effect have already been posted on this thread, so if you're asking me to provide studies to back up my claim, that's...kind of a nonsensical request because it's already been done and I'm commenting based on what the studies appear to show.

As for my criticizing other people's claims: again, like I said, they're using incredibly poor pirates/global warming reasoning. We should all be past the point where we think such lazy correlations (or lack of apparent correlation) actually mean anything.

Look, if you think (like some others above have), that I "hate" video games for having these effects, or think they should be censored, or banned, or whatever -- you can just drop that strawman right now, because at the very most, I think that the designers who keep designing games that objectify women should feel more self-aware and ashamed. Honestly, I doubt they're even doing it so much because they feel like women are inferior, than that they just think it's an easy way to make a buck. What "should" be done? People should be better people, and should probably be ashamed of not being that already. That's about it for what I care for here.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Forest Goose
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 9:27 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Forest Goose » Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:06 pm UTC

-- For reasons unrelated to anything in your post, I'm bowing out on this thread; despite that I have a confrontational debate style, it has been interesting and enjoyable talking with you (@KrytenKoro), feel free to respond to this post, though, again, I won't reply in this thread --

KrytenKoro wrote:...yes, the studies that have already been posted. I'm on board with you as to playing violent video games not being demonstrated to leading to enacting violence, but the mindset thing...no, there are several studies (already posted) that show evidence counter to that, and it kind of defeats the purpose of art or media as a thing if such a claim was true.


I'm not seeing as to how that defeats the purpose of media as a thing, I'm not sure how it would, if you think I'm claiming something different, or if we're using these terms differently. As for these posted studies, all of the ones I saw were about violence, not acceptance of war (which is quite different), and I don't recall any of the studies definitively proving this, nor that they were undisputed. Could you point to these studies showing that playing a video game, casually, makes people more receptive of war? Since you are treating it as a forgone conclusion, it should be a fairly simple task.

Like I said, studies to this effect have already been posted on this thread, so if you're asking me to provide studies to back up my claim, that's...kind of a nonsensical request because it's already been done and I'm commenting based on what the studies appear to show.

As for my criticizing other people's claims: again, like I said, they're using incredibly poor pirates/global warming reasoning. We should all be past the point where we think such lazy correlations (or lack of apparent correlation) actually mean anything.


Again, I have yet to see these papers making such a strong claim, one that I, personally, think is quite a bit stronger than "Playing games causes violence".

Look, if you think (like some others above have), that I "hate" video games for having these effects, or think they should be censored, or banned, or whatever -- you can just drop that strawman right now, because at the very most, I think that the designers who keep designing games that objectify women should feel more self-aware and ashamed. Honestly, I doubt they're even doing it so much because they feel like women are inferior, than that they just think it's an easy way to make a buck. What "should" be done? People should be better people, and should probably be ashamed of not being that already. That's about it for what I care for here.


What now? I never said any of that, you're telling me to stop arguing a strawman that I never did in the first place - that's like a reverse strawman argument...? At any rate, it's hard to take you seriously when you are telling me to drop an argument I never made. Also, despite you mentioning a "dodge" earlier, we weren't talking about objectifying women, we we're talking about CoD making people more receptive to armed conflicts - you are, suddenly, telling me your position on if game designers should be ashamed of their views of women assumed from their games. That's a hell of a jump in topics, it seems like it would make more sense in responding to what I'm actually saying, then using something I never said as a soap box for something that you and I were not discussing.

addams wrote:Dear Mr. Goose;
You don't know anything about Real War;
Do you?


Personally? No. Aside having several vets in my family, volunteering with various vets staying at my family's homeless shelter, my friends that were vets (some of which have died in recent conflicts), and those I met at PTSD support groups, and what I know from studying history and politics: I know nothing about war. What exactly is your point, though? Aside from sounding highly confrontational, atopical, and, honestly, vaguely threatening (if we weren't online, I'd say that sounds highly threatening, like someone asking "You don't know anything about real violence, do you?"). Were you trying to make a point, because you just seem inflammatory.
Last edited by Forest Goose on Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forest Goose: A rare, but wily, form of goose; best known for dropping on unsuspecting hikers, from trees, to steal sweets.

Williks
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:53 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Williks » Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:52 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:...yes, the studies that have already been posted. I'm on board with you as to playing violent video games not being demonstrated to leading to enacting violence, but the mindset thing...no, there are several studies (already posted) that show evidence counter to that, and it kind of defeats the purpose of art or media as a thing if such a claim was true.

The "mindset thing" is, I think, what demands a definition. If you're referring to desensitization to violence spurred by exposure to violent images and/or topics, I suppose I can accept that, but you still have yet to prove that desensitization leads to undesirable results. If it were the case that desensitization lead to support for war, or even a passive acceptance of it, then why, when inundated with images showing the violence in Vietnam, did support drop as time went on? Shouldn't exposure to those images have lead to desensitization among the American populace? Or is it that there isn't such a clear link between exposure to images of violence and moral support or apathy towards violence? I don't need to have a visceral gut reaction to a violence for me to decide it's unacceptable.

----

There was a study I read several years back (apologies, I can't seem to find a link) shortly after the Nintendo Wii was released which further explored the impact of violent games on an individual. The claims being investigated were that games would have a greater impact than other forms of media in that the player is not simply a passive observer, but an active participant in the violence on screen. The study was wondering whether the introduction of the Wii's motion controls would lead to more "real" feeling violence and therefore have a greater impact on the player participating in that violence. That said, they didn't limit the study solely to motion controls, and examined controller/mouse+keyboard setups as well.

What they found was that games actually had less of an impact that other forms of media. The reason for this was that clicking a mouse or mashing a button was a very poor analogue for real world actions. By virtue of making the player issue commands through arbitrary button presses, they were actually cementing the idea that none of this was real in the player's mind. It was greater in establishing a boundary between the fiction appearing on screen on reality. Things like movies or television, however, are a much better analogue for real world voyeurism. And so while viewers are not active participants, their brains did a poorer job of separating the fiction from reality. The programs they watched felt more "real" because they weren't actively engaging with them.

This isn't to argue that games have no effect on people. It's to argue that media's effect on people is very complicated, and that to boil it down to violent images/underdressed characters = incontrovertibly bad demands a lot more investigation than simply what someone imagine's the outcome would be.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gamergate

Postby addams » Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:02 pm UTC

Forest Goose wrote:
addams wrote:Dear Mr. Goose;
You don't know anything about Real War;
Do you?


Personally? No. Aside having several vets in my family, volunteering with various vets staying at my family's homeless shelter, my friends that were vets (some of which have died in recent conflicts), and those I met at PTSD support groups, and what I know from studying history and politics: I know nothing about war. What exactly is your point, though? Aside from sounding highly confrontational, atopical, and, honestly, vaguely threatening (if we weren't online, I'd say that sounds highly threatening, like someone asking "You don't know anything about real violence, do you?"). Were you trying to make a point, because you just seem inflammatory.

oh.
I was responding to what seemed to be an authoritative statement that is so very UnTrue as to shine a Bright and Glaring Light on what I think is a Fact.
Forest Goose wrote::war isn't random violence it is a specific political situation involving violence.


Yes. Seen from a distance, though a screen War may look like that to you.
It does not often look so sanitary when it is Up Close and Personal.

Your post explains both your lack of formal education and personal experience.
The experience the screen has given you may serve you well if confronted with The Real Deal.

Then again; Maybe, Not.
The Rules might surprise you.

Spoiler:
The Mods are going to yell at me, again.
I'm going back under my Rock.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

wumpus
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:16 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby wumpus » Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:42 am UTC

Some notes:
In 2000 the US Department of Defense (presumably the Army) launched a video game called "America's Army". It was presumably designed as more of an recruitment aid over any idea of glorifying war, but due to later events it was likely expected to improve perceptions of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the effects of CoD on players, Uncle Sam dropped $32.8 million dollars to make a similar game do exactly that.

"The first Movie, I know of, that caused a Riot and put Real People at risk of Real Physical Harm from the audience is The Steps of Odessa." Shouldn't you say the Battleship Potemkin, the title instead of the sequence?

DDO had a "pay for prettier graphics on your character" option added a few years ago (and recently added a thing similar to what LOTRO has had for a long time (free for LOTRO) on a pay-per-use basis). There were similar comments that it wouldn't have been so bad having the sexy sorceress outfits (which fit the game in ways mentioned already) if they only had the sexy barbarian "armor" (which fit the game/setting/etc. just as well). Especially since for years armor was useless for all but the lowest level barbarians. The same company doesn't include such options in LOTRO, although that could be due to controls from Tolkien Enterprises instead of issues of women players numbering at least as many as the men.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Derek » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:29 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Case in point: the only charracter with a "Swimsuit" in the new SSB game is Shulk. Samus gets her Shorts / Halter Top (a throwback to her Metroid: Fusion ending), but this isn't technically a swimsuit :-p.

I am told that the Shulk costume is a joke regarding his game as well. But I haven't played the Xeno series and am ignorant of it.

Somehow this post sent me on a Wikipedia, TVTropes, and Youtube crawl starting with the Xeno series and ending with The Incredible Machine, and learning that there is a remake of The Incredible Machine on Steam. Congratulations.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:47 am UTC

Derek wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Case in point: the only charracter with a "Swimsuit" in the new SSB game is Shulk. Samus gets her Shorts / Halter Top (a throwback to her Metroid: Fusion ending), but this isn't technically a swimsuit :-p.

I am told that the Shulk costume is a joke regarding his game as well. But I haven't played the Xeno series and am ignorant of it.

Somehow this post sent me on a Wikipedia, TVTropes, and Youtube crawl starting with the Xeno series and ending with The Incredible Machine, and learning that there is a remake of The Incredible Machine on Steam. Congratulations.


Huh. Shulk is technically first-party Nintendo. Who'd have known? Did you figure out the joke regarding the swim trunks? Cause I'm still ignorant, and would like to be filled in :-)

Also, "The Incredible Machine" is incredibly addicting. I'll go check that out. FYI: Putt Putt is also on Steam, while we're on the topic of old 90s games.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Derek » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:14 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Huh. Shulk is technically first-party Nintendo. Who'd have known? Did you figure out the joke regarding the swim trunks? Cause I'm still ignorant, and would like to be filled in :-)

Also, "The Incredible Machine" is incredibly addicting. I'll go check that out. FYI: Putt Putt is also on Steam, while we're on the topic of old 90s games.

Not a clue, most of the crawl was spent reading about the older Xeno games (Xenogears and Xenosaga). I actually didn't even know that Xenoblade was part of that meta-series before hand.

I think I remember playing a Putt-Putt game at a friend's house once or twice back in elementary school. I also recall him having Chex Quest and a game based on Busy Town. I didn't have any of those games though, I had Reader Rabbit and Math Rabbit. But those games don't sit next to The Incredible Machine in my memory, because I played TIM in Middle School tech class, and unlike those other games TIM is a game that can be enjoyed by much older audiences as well.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Gamergate

Postby Zamfir » Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:42 pm UTC

addams, if you know you are overstepping the line, stop. You're being needlessly insulting, and you know it.

I have warned you before. Please do not post anymore in the Gamergate thread.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:55 pm UTC

What now? I never said any of that, you're telling me to stop arguing a strawman that I never did in the first place - that's like a reverse strawman argument...? At any rate, it's hard to take you seriously when you are telling me to drop an argument I never made.

"Look, if you think" => "(like some others above have),"

Trying to clarify my position, because at least one person above has decided that I'm against video games and need to be refuted. All I was saying is that if that's a concern driving your responses, you don't need to worry.

Also, despite you mentioning a "dodge" earlier, we weren't talking about objectifying women, we we're talking about CoD making people more receptive to armed conflicts - you are, suddenly, telling me your position on if game designers should be ashamed of their views of women assumed from their games. That's a hell of a jump in topics, it seems like it would make more sense in responding to what I'm actually saying, then using something I never said as a soap box for something that you and I were not discussing.

Again, clarifying what my "goal" in this discussion is: that I'm not trying to say video games are bad or need censoring vis a vis violence, and that the only topic on which I care to say they should be improved is the objectification (which, yes, it's not part of this facet of the discussion). I wasn't trying to get us on another topic, just clarifying because apparently at least one person has already assumed I'm on the offensive.

The "mindset thing" is, I think, what demands a definition. If you're referring to desensitization to violence spurred by exposure to violent images and/or topics, I suppose I can accept that, but you still have yet to prove that desensitization leads to undesirable results. If it were the case that desensitization lead to support for war, or even a passive acceptance of it, then why, when inundated with images showing the violence in Vietnam, did support drop as time went on? Shouldn't exposure to those images have lead to desensitization among the American populace? Or is it that there isn't such a clear link between exposure to images of violence and moral support or apathy towards violence? I don't need to have a visceral gut reaction to a violence for me to decide it's unacceptable.

Media can depict what seem to be the same events, and give a far different portrayal of it.

Media in Vietnam was often specifically calculated to focus on revealing the "horror" of war -- in contrast to previous propoganda, it focused on the painful parts, so that war became synonymous with "suffering" instead of "victory". None of this was information that was unavailable to previous generations, it just wasn't thrust in their face in the same manner, and it horrified the public.

In contrast, very, very rarely does a video game focus on the horror of war -- specifically in CoD; you may have chapters where you learn, later, that "you were really the bad guy", but do they spend copious amounts of time beforehand showing what war does to people and society? Not so much. Instead, victory in war is treated as success in the video game. It's generally the point of the game that you're supposed to want to keep playing the game, and the series, instead of being repulsed by the images and never want to see them again. If the intent of the media in CoD was anything like the intent of the media in Vietnam, they would not have sold more than one game. America did not come out of Vietnam saying, "That was a hard-hitting, brutal, unflinching look at the evil in men's hearts, let's do it again next year".

As far as the request to post more studies, wikipedia has pretty fair coverage of both sides. Yes, the evidence is mixed on whether video games cause "significant harm" and need to be reduced, the general scientific consensus, based on decades of study (and decades-long studies) is that violent video games cause their audience to become desensitized to violence, and to exhibit pro-violence attitudes. Attitudes, not action.

Again: I'm not saying, in any way, that video games need to be policed for violence. It is not clear to me that the effects scientists agree on are bad, or at least, worse than the benefits they also agree on -- and certainly there are much more pressing factors into violence, like society's rewarding of those who cheat others, poor parenting, a broken system, etc. Video games are, at worst, like having someone with a cold sneeze near you when you already have ebola. But the idea that the propagandic effects of video games are so minor, so nil that it's not even worth considering (as a designer) or pointing out (as a reviewer) or watching for (as a parent/consumer) -- that seems like a desire to just ignore any possibility for fault in a beloved toy.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gamergate

Postby addams » Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:26 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:addams, if you know you are overstepping the line, stop. You're being needlessly insulting, and you know it.

I have warned you before. Please do not post anymore in the Gamergate thread.

ok.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1260
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Sizik » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:06 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:In contrast, very, very rarely does a video game focus on the horror of war -- specifically in CoD; you may have chapters where you learn, later, that "you were really the bad guy", but do they spend copious amounts of time beforehand showing what war does to people and society? Not so much. Instead, victory in war is treated as success in the video game. It's generally the point of the game that you're supposed to want to keep playing the game, and the series, instead of being repulsed by the images and never want to see them again. If the intent of the media in CoD was anything like the intent of the media in Vietnam, they would not have sold more than one game. America did not come out of Vietnam saying, "That was a hard-hitting, brutal, unflinching look at the evil in men's hearts, let's do it again next year".


I haven't actually played through the game, but from what I've heard, Spec Ops: The Line does this.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:15 pm UTC

wumpus wrote:Some notes:
In 2000 the US Department of Defense (presumably the Army) launched a video game called "America's Army". It was presumably designed as more of an recruitment aid over any idea of glorifying war, but due to later events it was likely expected to improve perceptions of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the effects of CoD on players, Uncle Sam dropped $32.8 million dollars to make a similar game do exactly that.


This project is an excellent way of pointing out how the government wastes money. The game wasn't(IMO) very good, and while they prioritized realism, it mostly just made it not-fun. Like, the mandatory basic-training talk-fest everyone had to do. Loads of fun, that.

Incidentally, it would immediately end the game if you shot the angry TI. That may be relevant, I guess? Anyway, I just saw it as a case of too many PR dollars.

KnightExemplar wrote:
ahammel wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Yeah...you can make arguments that the chainmail bikini thing is obviously intended to be objectification, but...it's not "unrealistic", per se.

Hell, you could make arguments for naked warriors being totally realistic.
I'm not saying it's unrealistic, I'm saying it's poor storytelling if there isn't a reason for it within the fictional universe.


Trust me on this. If you want a good, immersive storyline, stay the hell away from MMORPGs.

Normal RPGs are the closest you've got to a decent storyline within video games. But chances are, if you're an avid reader... just keep on reading. Most video game writing is absolute garbage... and the best of it is only somewhat passable.


This. It seems like most game stories exist as a halfass attempt at best. In some cases, it's little more than an outline(see, Destiny). Subtlety and nuance are something not found in a great many game stories.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:36 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Derek » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:52 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:I haven't actually played through the game, but from what I've heard, Spec Ops: The Line does this.

Yes, and it does it very well. It's a game worth playing.

Tyndmyr wrote:This. It seems like most game stories exist as a halfass attempt at best. In some cases, it's little more than an outline(see, Destiny). Subtlety and nuance are something not found in a great many game stories.

Definitely, but I'm not really sure that it's a problem. If you just want to tell a great story, there are already several great mediums for that. The unique aspect of games is that they are interactive. This makes telling a well-crafted story much more difficult, but it also means that the story doesn't have to be Pulitzer-prize worthy. The quality of the game as a whole comes primarily from the gameplay, and the story exists primarily to provide context for and motivate the gameplay, and to reward the player. So it's fine that Half-Life 2's story is rather generic near-future, sci-fi, dystopia, because the story glues the game's otherwise disjointed (but very fun) levels together, and the brilliant gameplay and pacing make it one of the best games ever.

When games do have objectively good stories, it's usually because the game is very linear, removing most the player interaction to keep the story on track (see visual novels). Some games can also get away with sketching out a very vague story, with just enough clues to let the player's imagination go wild and fill in the details (Portal).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:38 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This. It seems like most game stories exist as a halfass attempt at best. In some cases, it's little more than an outline(see, Destiny). Subtlety and nuance are something not found in a great many game stories.

Definitely, but I'm not really sure that it's a problem. If you just want to tell a great story, there are already several great mediums for that. The unique aspect of games is that they are interactive. This makes telling a well-crafted story much more difficult, but it also means that the story doesn't have to be Pulitzer-prize worthy. The quality of the game as a whole comes primarily from the gameplay, and the story exists primarily to provide context for and motivate the gameplay, and to reward the player. So it's fine that Half-Life 2's story is rather generic near-future, sci-fi, dystopia, because the story glues the game's otherwise disjointed (but very fun) levels together, and the brilliant gameplay and pacing make it one of the best games ever.

When games do have objectively good stories, it's usually because the game is very linear, removing most the player interaction to keep the story on track (see visual novels). Some games can also get away with sketching out a very vague story, with just enough clues to let the player's imagination go wild and fill in the details (Portal).


Sure. Not every medium has the same needs. There's definitely more to a game than story(and indeed, plenty of games historically had no story at all).

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:47 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
Sizik wrote:I haven't actually played through the game, but from what I've heard, Spec Ops: The Line does this.

Yes, and it does it very well. It's a game worth playing.

Do you actually have the choice to not do the "abhorrent" acts?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1455
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Xenomortis » Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:50 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Do you actually have the choice to not do the "abhorrent" acts?

Stop playing the game?
(This is kind of the point).
Image

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Derek » Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:55 pm UTC

Xenomortis wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Do you actually have the choice to not do the "abhorrent" acts?

Stop playing the game?
(This is kind of the point).

Spoilers, but yes. The point is that just as the protagonist believes he has no choice but to complete the mission, you the player believe you have to beat the game, even if that means committing atrocities. In reality the protagonist could have turned back at any point, and the player could simply stop playing the game.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:25 am UTC

I'll note that the devs for that game have explicitly stated that they consider putting the controller down and walking away from the game to be a valid ending.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Derek » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:26 am UTC

On a less meta note, the game at several times presents you with a choice between two bad options. Most of the time if you're creative you can take an alternative, less bad option. Regardless of what you choose though, there is no significant difference in the story.

The most well known atrocity you commit in the game is not a choice though. I tried to take a different option, but the game just won't let you (other than the "stop playing" option).

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:47 am UTC

On topic of 8chan and the kind of company (besides mra and stormfront) that gamergate keeps:


https://medium.com/@FoldableHuman/the-m ... f750f879fc

EXTREME trigger warning, contains discussion and legally-acceptably obscured but still very disturbing images of child abuse. Honestly i would suggest copying the text to notepad and reading it there.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:12 am UTC

Its a shame for all those feminists to associate on Reddit/GamerGhazi, when reddit/UpSkirt is still around. </sarcasm>

I understand the issue with child porn, and it is shameful that 8chan hosts such material. But you're gonna have to tell me exactly how 8chan/gg is connected to those other channels in a way that doesn't apply to GamerGhazi (the anti-GamerGate movement on Reddit).

I do think that reddit/upskirt is a shameful blight to the Reddit community. But I'm not going to use it as evidence against GamerGhazi... or any other subreddit, unless the community in that subreddit was somehow closely related to reddit/upskirt. (Like reddit/Jailbait, or any of the other crazy subreddits there).
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:47 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Its a shame for all those feminists to associate on Reddit/GamerGhazi, when reddit/UpSkirt is still around. </sarcasm>

I understand the issue with child porn, and it is shameful that 8chan hosts such material. But you're gonna have to tell me exactly how 8chan/gg is connected to those other channels in a way that doesn't apply to GamerGhazi (the anti-GamerGate movement on Reddit).

I do think that reddit/upskirt is a shameful blight to the Reddit community. But I'm not going to use it as evidence against GamerGhazi... or any other subreddit, unless the community in that subreddit was somehow closely related to reddit/upskirt. (Like reddit/Jailbait, or any of the other crazy subreddits there).

Playing devils advocate: Cause ghazi isnt funding reddit through patreon, claiming its done nothing wrong, or defending it across twitter.

More to the point, i really dont care to defend ghazi or not -- the kind of company that gg willfully keeps and the system it gladly props up are beyond fucked up. Even if the goal was something obviously workable and gg was working efficiently towards that instead of constantly chasing cats, something laudable, it still wouldnt be worth it if they continued to defend child porn distribution facilities to do it.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gamergate

Postby Xeio » Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:59 am UTC

You know, I'd agree it was mostly irrelevant if #GG hadn't jumped so hard at the chance to now defend 8chan and CP... apparently there are no sane limits to free speech. I dunno, I never thought we'd get to this point.

FoldableHuman did not even mention #GG in the medium page.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:26 am UTC

Example pic from kia itself: http://m.imgur.com/eGyQFuE

Call me when ghazi tries that same rationale. Or dont, because it wouldnt make it any less sickening.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby jseah » Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:03 am UTC

Ideological purity check: If the images weren't actual photos but were realistic drawings / cartoons / anime, I wonder how many people would drop their objections or even switch sides.

Note: I haven't seen any of those images since I'm allergic to Chans. Consider this an uninformed armchair philosophy.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:34 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Example pic from kia itself: http://m.imgur.com/eGyQFuE


I'll accept this as evidence then and give you the point in the debate.

Although I should note that KIA is a reddit, so typically a link to the post should be good enough. On 8chan, posts aren't archived so screenshots are better there.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Goplat » Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:25 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:On topic of 8chan and the kind of company (besides mra and stormfront) that gamergate keeps:


Did the 2008 McCain campaign join anti-gamergate? First Obama's a terrorist because of his connections with Bill Ayers, now this.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Gamergate

Postby jestingrabbit » Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:00 am UTC

Goplat wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:On topic of 8chan and the kind of company (besides mra and stormfront) that gamergate keeps:


Did the 2008 McCain campaign join anti-gamergate? First Obama's a terrorist because of his connections with Bill Ayers, now this.


Did Obama run his campaign out of Bill Ayers' living room? Did BIll Ayers' group kill anyone besides (accidentally) their own members? There's a genuine distinction to be drawn here, surely.

GG went to 8chan by choice, and decided to base their movement from there. That's nothing like the relationship between Obama and Ayers.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Gamergate

Postby Weeks » Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:10 am UTC

I ate at McD's once. Am I a corporate shill? YOU DECIDE
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Jan 05, 2015 3:34 pm UTC

jseah wrote:Ideological purity check: If the images weren't actual photos but were realistic drawings / cartoons / anime, I wonder how many people would drop their objections or even switch sides.

Note: I haven't seen any of those images since I'm allergic to Chans. Consider this an uninformed armchair philosophy.

Arguing devil's advocate, technically the cartoons are less bad because no actual children are being systematically violated in their construction.

From a personal perspective? I'd still be extremely sickened by anyone who dignified (much less glorified) such images, even if I couldn't coherently argue that they should be illegal -- which I freely admit.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby jseah » Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:55 pm UTC

By western standards, a pretty large proportion of Japanese animation (anime) are basically that. Given that a large number of them feature sexual situations from a (plot unnecessary) beach/pool episode to full blown sex scenes, some of which involve characters at or under highschool age, that qualifies.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:19 pm UTC

jseah wrote:By western standards, a pretty large proportion of Japanese animation (anime) are basically that. Given that a large number of them feature sexual situations from a (plot unnecessary) beach/pool episode to full blown sex scenes, some of which involve characters at or under highschool age, that qualifies.

I guess I don't understand your point.

I think the sexualization of children is abhorrent and disgusting.
Simultaneously, I cannot (with current empericial evidence) construct a self-consistent legal justification for rendering the sexualization of imaginary children to be illegal.

I don't really see what bearing this has on anything.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1260
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Sizik » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:28 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
jseah wrote:By western standards, a pretty large proportion of Japanese animation (anime) are basically that. Given that a large number of them feature sexual situations from a (plot unnecessary) beach/pool episode to full blown sex scenes, some of which involve characters at or under highschool age, that qualifies.

I guess I don't understand your point.

I think the sexualization of children is abhorrent and disgusting.
Simultaneously, I cannot (with current empericial evidence) construct a self-consistent legal justification for rendering the sexualization of imaginary children to be illegal.

I don't really see what bearing this has on anything.


I think the point is that ~14+ (i.e. post-pubescent) is not considered "children"/lolicon in Japan, compared to the West.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:53 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:
jseah wrote:By western standards, a pretty large proportion of Japanese animation (anime) are basically that. Given that a large number of them feature sexual situations from a (plot unnecessary) beach/pool episode to full blown sex scenes, some of which involve characters at or under highschool age, that qualifies.

I guess I don't understand your point.

I think the sexualization of children is abhorrent and disgusting.
Simultaneously, I cannot (with current empericial evidence) construct a self-consistent legal justification for rendering the sexualization of imaginary children to be illegal.

I don't really see what bearing this has on anything.


I think the point is that ~14+ (i.e. post-pubescent) is not considered "children"/lolicon in Japan, compared to the West.

That's definitely a true fact. I don't see how it has anything to do with the actual images of actual human children that were posted on 8chan and defended by large portions of the GG/KiA community.

Photos of ducks are not considered CP in Azerbaijan. That's definitely a true fact, but how is it relevant?

If I could hazard an assumption, it almost sounds as if this is meant to be an "idealogical purity gotcha" along the lines of "why are you okay with anime, but jump on the bandwagon to castigate 8chan?" If that's the intention, my answer is: I'm not okay with anime that sexualizes children either, and I'm bored and a bit ashamed of anime that lingers on gratuitous hot springs episodes, etc. That being said, I can't construct a coherent legal reason to forbid such things, so I keep my opinion on them to myself and, at most, suggest to those around me that anime can do better and support the shows that do.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby jseah » Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:18 am UTC

Actually, it's a genuine question. I was wondering how many separate the issue of this 8 chan board with... say, the rapelay case. With a sliding slope down to almost clean adaptations of eroge VNs.

I even have a stake in this since I do watch substantial amounts of anime, with sufficient inurement that fanservice scenes bounce off my long term memory. (Have recommended many a series only to be embarrassed at the content which was nothing like I remember)
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:27 pm UTC

jseah wrote:Actually, it's a genuine question. I was wondering how many separate the issue of this 8 chan board with... say, the rapelay case. With a sliding slope down to almost clean adaptations of eroge VNs.

I even have a stake in this since I do watch substantial amounts of anime, with sufficient inurement that fanservice scenes bounce off my long term memory. (Have recommended many a series only to be embarrassed at the content which was nothing like I remember)

Like I said, this game sounds absolutely abhorrent, but beyond being able to identify it as evil, I can't construct a coherent legal framework in which it would be banned.

I like neither of these things, but one of them is more clearly harmful to actual persons than the other.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:35 pm UTC

Not nearly the most appalling thing about this situation (the abuse of children is, and will continue to be, the most horrifying bit), but still flummoxing -- that gamergaters on KiA and twitter will simultaneously claim that gamergate does not defend CP or CP providers while, just a post above them (or even in their own post!) saying that they will defend CP and CP providers as a "free speech issue", and that it is "without precedent and assholish" to try to clamp down on the CP providers' "freedom of speech to create and provide CP". (Because the freedom of the children being exploited is apparently worth less than the freedom of speech to exploit them?) And the people posting that they will defend CP? "Guilded" and upvoted for it.

Let me be frank -- this is not merely an issue of "guilt by association", that it is some coincidence that one prominent GG member associated with CP providers and Nazis, and detractors are trying to tar them by saying "you should feel bad for engaging these people in conversation!". CP and Nazi hate speech is something that GG, en masse, will continuously and vociferously defend not only as "technically legal free speech" (which only Nazism technically is in a few countries, not worldwide, and CP is basically nowhere), but as something that should not even be condemned. So long as you support gamergate (and refuse to question any of the leaders of the movement, as people like lousypencilclip found out when they voiced dissent with Milo's transphobia and the GG movement's widespread embrace of it), there appears to literally be no abominable crime that the horde of Gamergaters will not only defend but encourage in you. It is this defense and encouragement of evil that speaks badly of gamergate, clearly and explicitly, yet GG members will continue to deny that any one of them will defend evil in the same breath as defending evil, instead strawmanning the criticism of what they've done as "ad hominem".

And in the next breath, will then claim that it is in fact FoldableHuman who should be found guilty of CP for finding these images on 8chan, writing an expose, and reporting them to the authorities -- when he should obviously (according to them) instead be reporting them to the mods of 8chan, who have said they know the material exists, will make no move to remove it unless it so blatantly breaks the law that they can no longer claim plausible deniability for themselves, and whose system is set up to sweep the infraction under the rug so that the offenders cannot be found and prosecuted. As if notifying the legal authorities of a crime makes you guilty of accessory to the crime in any sane legal system.

Furthermore, they will then claim that gamergate does not support harassment or doxxing, while simultaneously expressing support and encouragement for the harassment-and-doxxing board "baphomet".

The worst part of this is that this utter incoherence, continuous doublethink, and total denial of responsibility even when the individual themselves, not just the group, committed the crime -- is absolutely representative of gamergate as a whole. This is what you see of it, day in and day out, without even having to go "digging up dirt" on forums that detest Gamergate, like Gamerghazi. This is not obscure opinions posted on threads taken out of context, this is what Gamergaters (and KiA especially) put up on their front pages as their most popular threads and most lauded commentary. This is what they look up to.

Gamergate.

Is.

Fucking.

Evil.

And they're happy about it.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gamergate

Postby Xeio » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:32 pm UTC

Today/yesterday they decided to attack Intel's diversity initiative announced at CES 2015.

Woo.

I need to just stop reading all this stuff. I'm not sure why I keep coming back to it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests