Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
RHIANNA PRACHETT (TOMB RAIDER REBOOT WRITER) DISCUSSES GENDER/SEXUALITY IN GAMES
Posts
kentona
View playlists
Close
@PentagonBuddy
It's cool dude; I don't have to necessarily agree with your opinions to respect them. I read your review of Spec Ops, and the point about not having control is a valid one. The player only thinks that he/she is playing as Walker, when really Walker was playing himself the whole time. I think that's interesting, but wouldn't it be much more effective if the player really did have to be the one to make the tough decisions, especially in a no-win scenario?
Well, I can think of one (and really only one) game that truly does this, and a guarantee that most of you have never even heard of it before.
Pathologic is a 2005 Russian game set in a small town where a lethal and devastating plague has just broken out. The player chooses to play as one of three characters; a doctor referred to as "Bachelor", a shaman-like character called "Haruspex" or a priestess-like character called "Devotress", all of whom are trying and stop the plague. The game gives the player 12 days to find a cure, and every day the town falls apart more and more. Allies can die, safe areas can become dangerous, prices for critical supplies will go up, and, since the player needs to eat and keep himself/herself healthy, many difficult ethical decisions lie ahead.
And that's where this idea of the player-avatar connection comes back; the player has full control of the doctor or the shaman or the priestess as they are more or less blank slates, but, since the game world treats each of these characters differently, players will soon find themselves fully taking on a role in such a desperate situation. The way the doctor can survive is not the way the shaman can survive, and with such a long and difficult road ahead, the player needs to think like the character in order to figure out how to solve the problem and stay alive. Just as the old saying goes that a dangerous situation can bring two people closer together, so too can an unforgiving and relentless game create a connection between the player and the character; much like in Spec Ops, you'll feel bad about playing the game further. Unlike Spec Ops, however, everything bad that you do is your call, and your call alone.
While all this goes on, the game just watches the player, recording everything that was done during a given day. If the player does nothing, the game still plays out in real-time, and eventually the plague consumes the small town. While most game worlds seem to only exist for the player, and depend on the player's input to get things going, Pathologic just dumps the player in a hellish scenario where characters lie and have their own agendas, events go one without the player being present, items are scarce, and failure is an ever-present possibility in a cruel, unfair and merciless world, and it does it all just to see what the player will do. Quite literally, this game plays you.
If you want to read more (spoiler heavy) thoughts about the game, I suggest checking out these articles:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/04/10/butchering-pathologic-part-1-the-body/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/04/11/butchering-pathologic-part-2-the-mind/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/04/12/butchering-pathologic-part-3-the-soul/
I brought up Pathologic because it's an example of what the industry could do if it left its comfort zone and started exploring other scenarios, different kinds of people to interact with in games, and different kinds of challenges for the player. The harsh, gritty reality of living in a plague town in Pathologic is far more true to life than the 'apocalyptic' scenarios of a typical zombie shooter.
In the same way Parchett was unable to make Lara as relateable and traumatized by death as she would have liked, for the sake of gameplay, we can't really take on a role in a game fully until game worlds more accurately reflect reality. This would mean sacrificing conventions that make games easy, and even fun, but the payoff might be worth it in the long run.
Or maybe not. You decide.
By the way, you can buy Pathologic on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-First-1628-Pathologic-Download/dp/B0030EFVDE
It's cool dude; I don't have to necessarily agree with your opinions to respect them. I read your review of Spec Ops, and the point about not having control is a valid one. The player only thinks that he/she is playing as Walker, when really Walker was playing himself the whole time. I think that's interesting, but wouldn't it be much more effective if the player really did have to be the one to make the tough decisions, especially in a no-win scenario?
Well, I can think of one (and really only one) game that truly does this, and a guarantee that most of you have never even heard of it before.
Pathologic is a 2005 Russian game set in a small town where a lethal and devastating plague has just broken out. The player chooses to play as one of three characters; a doctor referred to as "Bachelor", a shaman-like character called "Haruspex" or a priestess-like character called "Devotress", all of whom are trying and stop the plague. The game gives the player 12 days to find a cure, and every day the town falls apart more and more. Allies can die, safe areas can become dangerous, prices for critical supplies will go up, and, since the player needs to eat and keep himself/herself healthy, many difficult ethical decisions lie ahead.
And that's where this idea of the player-avatar connection comes back; the player has full control of the doctor or the shaman or the priestess as they are more or less blank slates, but, since the game world treats each of these characters differently, players will soon find themselves fully taking on a role in such a desperate situation. The way the doctor can survive is not the way the shaman can survive, and with such a long and difficult road ahead, the player needs to think like the character in order to figure out how to solve the problem and stay alive. Just as the old saying goes that a dangerous situation can bring two people closer together, so too can an unforgiving and relentless game create a connection between the player and the character; much like in Spec Ops, you'll feel bad about playing the game further. Unlike Spec Ops, however, everything bad that you do is your call, and your call alone.
While all this goes on, the game just watches the player, recording everything that was done during a given day. If the player does nothing, the game still plays out in real-time, and eventually the plague consumes the small town. While most game worlds seem to only exist for the player, and depend on the player's input to get things going, Pathologic just dumps the player in a hellish scenario where characters lie and have their own agendas, events go one without the player being present, items are scarce, and failure is an ever-present possibility in a cruel, unfair and merciless world, and it does it all just to see what the player will do. Quite literally, this game plays you.
If you want to read more (spoiler heavy) thoughts about the game, I suggest checking out these articles:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/04/10/butchering-pathologic-part-1-the-body/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/04/11/butchering-pathologic-part-2-the-mind/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/04/12/butchering-pathologic-part-3-the-soul/
I brought up Pathologic because it's an example of what the industry could do if it left its comfort zone and started exploring other scenarios, different kinds of people to interact with in games, and different kinds of challenges for the player. The harsh, gritty reality of living in a plague town in Pathologic is far more true to life than the 'apocalyptic' scenarios of a typical zombie shooter.
In the same way Parchett was unable to make Lara as relateable and traumatized by death as she would have liked, for the sake of gameplay, we can't really take on a role in a game fully until game worlds more accurately reflect reality. This would mean sacrificing conventions that make games easy, and even fun, but the payoff might be worth it in the long run.
Or maybe not. You decide.
By the way, you can buy Pathologic on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-First-1628-Pathologic-Download/dp/B0030EFVDE
author=PentagonBuddy
You can measure the effects of communicating prejudice of any kind. If the results are the same regardless of intent, (again, this assumes the premise of being able to do bad things without intending to... we often call these "accidents") then intent isn't the thing we should be focusing on. Results and the situations that lead to these ideas shining through in the first place are what we oughta focus on.
And what you suggest we can do about that? I often ask this question and I rarely get a satisfactory answer... So Ok, let's say games that communicate prejudicial ideas have an adverse effect on real life. We all know that Correlation =/= Causation, but Ok; What happens next? Do we ban certain subjects from even be addressed on media? Because that's the conclusion I've seen people reach when confronted to subjects they feel too personally about. e.g. "Rape should not be in games" etc.
I'm pretty much up for anything, but assigning blame to games/creators and trying to erode free speech is not the way to go...
author=Craze
-flat-out calls attention to boobs
-generic, non-specific praise (or, "we like our women young !!")
-we need her in a game with a leading man
Ok, so maybe whoever wrote that article isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. But your take on it isn't exactly fair either...
How about:
-Recognizing that "sex appeal" is a quality. We all love to look at attractive people; Nothing really wrong about that.
-This one took a weird turn, but I think it was meant to praise Lara's sophistication and dedication to her work... Welp!
-Or, simply that people love crossovers between similar/rival franchises... Sonic/Mario? Marvel/DC?
No, you don't have to ban games that misinform people. Freedom of speech gives you the right to say nearly anything you want, truth or not. What we should be doing is calling those people out, holding them responsible, and demanding better. If you're making something realistic that's supposed to be set in the real world, you have to be intelligent about it. Having free speech doesn't mean you are free of blame, even if you can legally get away with it. We let the Westboro Baptist Church run around and do whatever the hell they want, but that doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their actions.
I would have a lot less of a problem with Lara Croft's design if there were other girl main characters representing other aspects of femininity (or just humanity) as well. Believe me, I think the vast majority of male characters have shitty design too. I think Isaac from the Binding of Isaac is a lot more relatable than fucking Marcus Fenix is. At least guys get enough blank slate characters like Mario, Link or Crono.
I remember as a kid I always wanted to be Wolverine from that X-Men game, or Link, or Chaz from Phantasy Star IV. If you're a little girl growing up playing games, do you have any female heroes?
---
Tangentially related current news story:
If you didn't know, the IGDA (International Game Development Association) is the largest non-profit organizations for video game developers in the world. There are no barriers and anyone who considers themselves a game developer can join.
The IGDA has done a lot to promote workplace fairness for game developers, promote growth in the industry, and set professional standards.
They also know how to throw a SWEET party: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2013/03/27/really-igda-party-at-gdc-brings-on-the-female-dancers/
If you want to hire dancers for your bachelor party, whatever, but the IGDA is a professional organization dedicated "to improving developers' careers and lives through Community, Professional Development and Advocacy." When you're supposed to represent game developers as professionals, you don't hire half-naked females to dance on your tables. It's pretty embarrassing if you want games to be treated as a legitimate medium. If you're cool with games being "goofy kid shit" then yea, naked ladies at your business parties are totally rad, bro.
Anyway, rant over, never joining the IGDA, whatever.
I would have a lot less of a problem with Lara Croft's design if there were other girl main characters representing other aspects of femininity (or just humanity) as well. Believe me, I think the vast majority of male characters have shitty design too. I think Isaac from the Binding of Isaac is a lot more relatable than fucking Marcus Fenix is. At least guys get enough blank slate characters like Mario, Link or Crono.
I remember as a kid I always wanted to be Wolverine from that X-Men game, or Link, or Chaz from Phantasy Star IV. If you're a little girl growing up playing games, do you have any female heroes?
---
Tangentially related current news story:
If you didn't know, the IGDA (International Game Development Association) is the largest non-profit organizations for video game developers in the world. There are no barriers and anyone who considers themselves a game developer can join.
The IGDA has done a lot to promote workplace fairness for game developers, promote growth in the industry, and set professional standards.
They also know how to throw a SWEET party: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2013/03/27/really-igda-party-at-gdc-brings-on-the-female-dancers/
If you want to hire dancers for your bachelor party, whatever, but the IGDA is a professional organization dedicated "to improving developers' careers and lives through Community, Professional Development and Advocacy." When you're supposed to represent game developers as professionals, you don't hire half-naked females to dance on your tables. It's pretty embarrassing if you want games to be treated as a legitimate medium. If you're cool with games being "goofy kid shit" then yea, naked ladies at your business parties are totally rad, bro.
Anyway, rant over, never joining the IGDA, whatever.
I think we have a miscommunication problem, because when you say things like "Hold them responsible" I imagine you mean something like actual charges... Let's say some moron goes and kills someone because of something in your game, even if it was totally misconstrued. Do we slap you with involuntary manslaughter? Do we force you to do community service? Do we at least get to boycott you? To teach you the hard lesson that anything you do and say influences WEAK MINDED people?
Free speech means exactly that you are free of responsibility. Unless, you say something that is not covered by free speech. =P
_
I'm not a girl but a boy, and while I never saw Lara Croft as a role model per se, I liked a lot her old self. They way I perceived her was a strong willed person, who trained very hard from an early age, who had to sacrifice many aspects of her life to reach her goals, and succeeded in a lot of ways... I mean, if that's not something positive, I don't know what is. xP
Free speech means exactly that you are free of responsibility. Unless, you say something that is not covered by free speech. =P
_
I'm not a girl but a boy, and while I never saw Lara Croft as a role model per se, I liked a lot her old self. They way I perceived her was a strong willed person, who trained very hard from an early age, who had to sacrifice many aspects of her life to reach her goals, and succeeded in a lot of ways... I mean, if that's not something positive, I don't know what is. xP
I want to give out a warning to anybody interested in Pathologic is the translation for it ranges from "kinda acceptable" in the Bachelor's scenario to "Google Translate" in the Impostress' scenario. Example: 'Devotress' isn't even an English word, the correct translation is Impostress. It also isn't fun, it is about trying to convey an experience to the player which is amazing but admittedly not for everyone.
Also your move speed is trash. Why Ice Pick Lodge made it so fucking slow is beyond me. On the first day if you haven't completed your objective by a certain date you can get a letter saying "hey bro better hurry up else you'll die" (the only time in the game you can die like that iirc) except if you ever get the letter you're a dead man walking because you move too slow to finish the objective anyways.
Also your move speed is trash. Why Ice Pick Lodge made it so fucking slow is beyond me. On the first day if you haven't completed your objective by a certain date you can get a letter saying "hey bro better hurry up else you'll die" (the only time in the game you can die like that iirc) except if you ever get the letter you're a dead man walking because you move too slow to finish the objective anyways.
Yeah, it's pretty much the most unforgiving, cruel game I've ever seen, but it's also amazing and remarkable in many respects. Again, you guys can decide for yourselves if it's an experiment worth revisiting.
@Lucidstillness: don't want to give the impression I'm ignoring you! Have heard of Pathologic but never actually played; will probably check it out since it interested me the first time I heard about it.
Plenty of things; they've been going on for awhile.
Discussion among regular ol' folks is actually a huge first step and important to do.
Change of any kind won't happen if the majority of people in an industry/sales audience don't care. You can't force anyone to care about anything, but discussion, especially among friends, can influence how someone thinks, especially if they're on the fence about something.
Consider your personal purchasing power.
Game developers won't care about X issue unless it affects their sales. Spend your money supporting companies and developers you care about and want to see future games from. YOUR specific choice to buy/not buy a game based on whatever factors won't affect sales. But if enough people don't buy something, it has an effect. There can be no storm without drops of water and all that.
And I'm still talking wider than issues of representation here, too. Tired of cover-based shooters? Stop buying cover-based shooters.
Actually hold developers responsible for their content.
I mention it further down but no this doesn't mean TOSS THE RACISTS IN JAIL or anything. Let people know something isn't good to do. Even if YOU, PERSONALLY don't care enough to, say, tell a LoL designer boob-armor is dumb, at the very least don't silence people who do. The reason people constantly get away with doing X-ist things? It's when people don't call them out on it, silence dissent, or minimize the issue. These send a message of "this is okay to do".
Educate yourself.
This can be interpreted hilariously widely, but being motivated to learn is an important life skill for anything. Like seriously... if you don't know much about a topic, consider trying to learn about it? Don't assume your personal experience = everyone's experiences. If you're too lazy to bother with this, don't be surprised if you end up doing/saying things people take issue with. You don't have to be a scholar or an expert or go read the Ancient Eldritch Tomes. Even 5 minutes with google is better than nothing.
Here, using this Tomb Raider business as an example: say you're wondering "why are people complaining about this new Lara Croft? I think she's way cooler than the old one. Is this person claiming it's sexist?"
google > tomb raider 2013 sexism
Here's a few results.
Do you have to read all of them? Of course not, read as much as you friggen want. But is it good to at least attempt to see what people are actually saying instead of making assumptions? Absolutely.
Change of any kind begins on an individual level. Even if you don't personally care, the least you can do is try to avoid stomping on people who do. I could keep going with things you or people in general could do, but wow this sure is a long post.
No one in this thread has suggested censorship. Assigning blame to anyone isn't the same thing as censorship. Blame rests with both creator and audience. Blaming anyone won't "fix" anything; all it does it call attention.
That being said, I do think there's a world of difference between something being in a game and something being made into a game. To go with the rape example, there's no comparing this to this outside of "both are an instance of rape in games". One's worth a lot more condemnation than the other. while I don't think there's any subject "off-limits", there are ones that shouldn't be made a source of fun and entertainment, which is what games usually are.
Annnd I'm taking a moment to address this. You imagine correctly. Legal consequences are different from social consequences. "Holding people responsible" doesn't mean throwing them in jail or fining them. It can, and maybe that's what slashphoenix is referring to (I won't know until I master the skill of e-telepathy) but you shouldn't conflate the two.
Free speech continues to refer to protection against government censorship, for the record. It doesn't cover people calling you or something you did shitty. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and should be free from all consequences.
If you want to be treated like an adult, then yes, take responsibility for your words and actions. If someone can't do this, I really just hit that point of telling them "please grow up".
alterego
And what you suggest we can do about that? I often ask this question and I rarely get a satisfactory answer... So Ok, let's say games that communicate prejudicial ideas have an adverse effect on real life. We all know that Correlation =/= Causation, but Ok; What happens next?
Plenty of things; they've been going on for awhile.
Discussion among regular ol' folks is actually a huge first step and important to do.
Change of any kind won't happen if the majority of people in an industry/sales audience don't care. You can't force anyone to care about anything, but discussion, especially among friends, can influence how someone thinks, especially if they're on the fence about something.
Consider your personal purchasing power.
Game developers won't care about X issue unless it affects their sales. Spend your money supporting companies and developers you care about and want to see future games from. YOUR specific choice to buy/not buy a game based on whatever factors won't affect sales. But if enough people don't buy something, it has an effect. There can be no storm without drops of water and all that.
And I'm still talking wider than issues of representation here, too. Tired of cover-based shooters? Stop buying cover-based shooters.
Actually hold developers responsible for their content.
I mention it further down but no this doesn't mean TOSS THE RACISTS IN JAIL or anything. Let people know something isn't good to do. Even if YOU, PERSONALLY don't care enough to, say, tell a LoL designer boob-armor is dumb, at the very least don't silence people who do. The reason people constantly get away with doing X-ist things? It's when people don't call them out on it, silence dissent, or minimize the issue. These send a message of "this is okay to do".
Educate yourself.
This can be interpreted hilariously widely, but being motivated to learn is an important life skill for anything. Like seriously... if you don't know much about a topic, consider trying to learn about it? Don't assume your personal experience = everyone's experiences. If you're too lazy to bother with this, don't be surprised if you end up doing/saying things people take issue with. You don't have to be a scholar or an expert or go read the Ancient Eldritch Tomes. Even 5 minutes with google is better than nothing.
Here, using this Tomb Raider business as an example: say you're wondering "why are people complaining about this new Lara Croft? I think she's way cooler than the old one. Is this person claiming it's sexist?"
google > tomb raider 2013 sexism
Here's a few results.
Do you have to read all of them? Of course not, read as much as you friggen want. But is it good to at least attempt to see what people are actually saying instead of making assumptions? Absolutely.
Change of any kind begins on an individual level. Even if you don't personally care, the least you can do is try to avoid stomping on people who do. I could keep going with things you or people in general could do, but wow this sure is a long post.
alterego
assigning blame to games/creators and trying to erode free speech is not the way to go...
No one in this thread has suggested censorship. Assigning blame to anyone isn't the same thing as censorship. Blame rests with both creator and audience. Blaming anyone won't "fix" anything; all it does it call attention.
That being said, I do think there's a world of difference between something being in a game and something being made into a game. To go with the rape example, there's no comparing this to this outside of "both are an instance of rape in games". One's worth a lot more condemnation than the other. while I don't think there's any subject "off-limits", there are ones that shouldn't be made a source of fun and entertainment, which is what games usually are.
= alterego
when you say things like "Hold them responsible" I imagine you mean something like actual charges
= alterego
Free speech means exactly that you are free of responsibility.
Annnd I'm taking a moment to address this. You imagine correctly. Legal consequences are different from social consequences. "Holding people responsible" doesn't mean throwing them in jail or fining them. It can, and maybe that's what slashphoenix is referring to (I won't know until I master the skill of e-telepathy) but you shouldn't conflate the two.
Free speech continues to refer to protection against government censorship, for the record. It doesn't cover people calling you or something you did shitty. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and should be free from all consequences.
If you want to be treated like an adult, then yes, take responsibility for your words and actions. If someone can't do this, I really just hit that point of telling them "please grow up".
I agree with you in almost every point, but I still sense some dissonance in your post... Perhaps it's because first you say: "No one in this thread has suggested censorship." and then: "There are (subjects) that shouldn't be made a source of fun and entertainment" When that, in essence, is calling for censorship. Not institutionalized censorship, but one you wish creators self-impose themselves under the guise of 'responsibility' and the idea of becoming social pariahs if they don't.
To be fair you could say the same thing about me. In fact, I think you already have. But my point is not so much: "Don't voice your concerns or else" but: "You're voicing the wrong concerns, and doing us all a disservice" For example, look at the video Shinan posted in that other thread you made. It starts kinda like this: "This isn't about how games are corrupting our innocence." And I'm glad, because if it would have gone that route: "Dehumanization! Desensitization! We NEED Non-violent problem-solving games!" I would have just closed the video. No, instead it makes a very objective, concise argument about how 'killing' can sometimes be construed as bad game design, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. ...Wow! Same result, different rhetoric. Who could have thought!?
Again, it's about doing the right things, but for the right reasons. And so far I just can't get 100% behind with what you say...
To be fair you could say the same thing about me. In fact, I think you already have. But my point is not so much: "Don't voice your concerns or else" but: "You're voicing the wrong concerns, and doing us all a disservice" For example, look at the video Shinan posted in that other thread you made. It starts kinda like this: "This isn't about how games are corrupting our innocence." And I'm glad, because if it would have gone that route: "Dehumanization! Desensitization! We NEED Non-violent problem-solving games!" I would have just closed the video. No, instead it makes a very objective, concise argument about how 'killing' can sometimes be construed as bad game design, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. ...Wow! Same result, different rhetoric. Who could have thought!?
Again, it's about doing the right things, but for the right reasons. And so far I just can't get 100% behind with what you say...
author=alterego
that, in essence, is calling for censorship. Not institutionalized censorship, but one you wish creators self-impose themselves under the guise of 'responsibility' and the idea of becoming social pariahs if they don't.
The "guise" of responsibility? Because my true intentions would be to silence free thought or something? Take a moment to look at the language you're using. In essence, I'm saying that I don't condone institutional censorship and there's a lot of difference between being forbidden from doing something and when someone, on a personal level, takes the time to think "what might be the results of this?"; if they come up with something like "wow that'd be shitty for someone else" then maybe they should consider not doing it. Yes, let's call this self-censorship and imply the slippery slope that once we start doing this it's going to create some climate of fear where people won't speak out.
If you take issue with "there are certain subjects that shouldn't be made a source of fun and entertainment" which was made in reference to something about turning rape into a fun game, then I'll gladly get tarred with the "calling for censorship" brush.
Despite the fact I didn't say "this should be banned" or "they shouldn't have been allowed to make this game', but that they deserve every ounce of condemnation they got because wow that's awful. Even Beautiful Escape is more tasteful. It's an intentionally extreme example because with so many topics and games it's a grey area with a lot of debate over whether or not something is acceptable. I draw the line when you hit things like RapeLay, and if that's not a line you agree with then that's just one of those "we're at an impasse" moments.
Feel free to call it "self-censorship under the guise of responsibility"; I'll stick with "trying to be a decent person". Again, if you want to be taken seriously, you need at least think about the effects you can have on other people. Ignoring potential consequences with an attitude of "I should be allowed to do whatever I want" is both selfish and thoughtless.
I'm voicing concerns of "be considerate of others", or if you prefer, "self-censor when it means you can avoid harming others" or, "your right to do whatever you please should not come with a lack of responsibility or consequences". If that's the wrong one to voice and doing us all a disservice, then what's the right one?
author=PentagonBuddy
they deserve every ounce of condemnation
You're preaching to the choir when you're telling me that we have a responsibility and that doing whatever we want is selfish. I already agree with that. But to me there's a fundamental difference between Responsibility and being "held responsible". The former is a state reached voluntarily, by reason and understanding. The later is a hair short of coercion... This is a crucial distinction, and I have a hard time accepting that is Ok to set such a standard by means of peer pressure...
I was going to write a long-ass post about how what happened to that game "Six days in Fallujah" was unfair (You've probably watched the ExtraCredits video of it already). About how a thoughtful, researched, sensible, well-intentioned game (Because intent is worthless after all, right?) took "every ounce of condemnation" it could until it finally tanked. I was going to write about how this kind of mentality that you seem to subscribe to, doesn't discriminate, and thus you shouldn't give it any legitimacy. And how ultimately, it's best to acquire a more detached outlook of things... But well, this little paragraph will have to do. =P
Crystalgate
694
author=slashphoenix
Maybe the solution lies in thinking critically and carefully how certain aspects of a character's life would affect their personality. Stereotypical writing seems to come from laziness as often as malice.
While stereotypical writing doesn't necessarily come from malice, I think that most likely the writer is either indifferent or at a subconscious level harbors cetain attitudes.
You cannot write a damsel in distress without realizing that you are in fact writing a damsel in distress. If you write a character like Barret, you have to either know that you are stereotyping black men or you have to at least subconsciously think that this really is how black men behaves.
I'm all for thinking critically about the characters, but I don't think it takes good writing just to not stereotype characters. I think stereotyping has far more to do with attitude than writing skills.
I find the best characters are written as people first and everything else second and that's the all-around best way to break out of those comfort zones and still do a service to the stories and concepts. Everyone can relate to that fundamental humanity on some level, it's how we end up with classic characters from the entire width and breadth of human experience, not a checklist of surface traits and stereotypes, though those can be a helpful tool to translate human nature.
Pratchet doesn't really go that route. Instead of thinking, how does Lara Croft respond to rape, she thinks, what happens if I rape Lara Croft? All she has done is make it a more dangerous place for female protagonists, further cementing the notion that female characters should be intrinsically tied to that bullshit as, what, the most dramatic aspect of female sexuality?
Triple A publishers make the same mistake with their parade of gritty soldier clones and Brosephs, they tell a white straight male writer, 'Hey, write us up a white straight male doing a bunch of white straight male stuff,' and what are they supposed to do with that even if they supposedly fit into the mold? What would you do with that? A shameless Mary Sue is about the best case scenario there.
Pratchet doesn't really go that route. Instead of thinking, how does Lara Croft respond to rape, she thinks, what happens if I rape Lara Croft? All she has done is make it a more dangerous place for female protagonists, further cementing the notion that female characters should be intrinsically tied to that bullshit as, what, the most dramatic aspect of female sexuality?
Triple A publishers make the same mistake with their parade of gritty soldier clones and Brosephs, they tell a white straight male writer, 'Hey, write us up a white straight male doing a bunch of white straight male stuff,' and what are they supposed to do with that even if they supposedly fit into the mold? What would you do with that? A shameless Mary Sue is about the best case scenario there.
Crystalgate
694
I noticed I said you don't need good writing in order not to stereotype characters, but didn't give any suggestions.
If you aren't very good at writing, there's one method you can still employ (and this is also useful if you are a good writer) and that's to take a look at your characters and compare them to each other. For simplicity's sake, let's take gender as an example. What you do is to compare your male characters with your female characters. What traits did you give them and what events have you planned for your characters?
Let's say you have two female party members and you notice that you made both of them more emotional than all the male members. This could be a problem. You could also find that you have planned events for your male characters where they do something awesome, but no such events exist for the female characters. This will be a problem. However, not every instance of you finding that one gender is more X than the other has to be changed, you could for example notice that your male characters are more hot-headed than your female characters and decide that you are okay with it being that way.
The same can be done with black vs white characters, homosexual vs heterosexual and whatever vs whatever. Just remember to compare them to each other, not to real life humans. The characters do not exist in a vacuum, how the audience views a character is dependent not only by the character in question, but also by other characters.
Even if you're skilled at writing characters and don't intend to stereotype them, it's very easy to subconsciously slip something in. It's also very easy to deceive yourself, so actually looking critically at the notes you've put down on paper may let you notice something your brain rationalized away.
If you aren't very good at writing, there's one method you can still employ (and this is also useful if you are a good writer) and that's to take a look at your characters and compare them to each other. For simplicity's sake, let's take gender as an example. What you do is to compare your male characters with your female characters. What traits did you give them and what events have you planned for your characters?
Let's say you have two female party members and you notice that you made both of them more emotional than all the male members. This could be a problem. You could also find that you have planned events for your male characters where they do something awesome, but no such events exist for the female characters. This will be a problem. However, not every instance of you finding that one gender is more X than the other has to be changed, you could for example notice that your male characters are more hot-headed than your female characters and decide that you are okay with it being that way.
The same can be done with black vs white characters, homosexual vs heterosexual and whatever vs whatever. Just remember to compare them to each other, not to real life humans. The characters do not exist in a vacuum, how the audience views a character is dependent not only by the character in question, but also by other characters.
Even if you're skilled at writing characters and don't intend to stereotype them, it's very easy to subconsciously slip something in. It's also very easy to deceive yourself, so actually looking critically at the notes you've put down on paper may let you notice something your brain rationalized away.
author=alterego
to me there's a fundamental difference between Responsibility and being "held responsible". The former is a state reached voluntarily, by reason and understanding. The later is a hair short of coercion... This is a crucial distinction, and I have a hard time accepting that is Ok to set such a standard by means of peer pressure...
I guess this is the root of disagreement for me, too. While I agree there's a difference between responsibility and being held responsible for something, I don't consider the latter a hair's breadth from coercion.
I don't think you can have the reason and understanding that lead to developing a sense of responsible behavior without other people being involved. It doesn't make someone weak-minded if they're influenced by a person or thing since interacting with the world around us is how we generate meaning about that world. You don't develop anything in a void.
If you steep people in environments filled with X-ist ideas, it doesn't make them weak-minded to hold those ideas.
Here's what I said about holding developers responsible for their content:
I mention it further down but no this doesn't mean TOSS THE RACISTS IN JAIL or anything. Let people know something isn't good to do. Even if YOU, PERSONALLY don't care enough to, say, tell a LoL designer boob-armor is dumb, at the very least don't silence people who do. The reason people constantly get away with doing X-ist things? It's when people don't call them out on it, silence dissent, or minimize the issue. These send a message of "this is okay to do".
Here's what I mean when I talk about holding people responsible for their actions:
When someone does something not very good to do, let them know. If you personally don't care, try to avoid silencing people who do let their grievances be known.
You can never, ever force someone to take responsibility for something they don't see as a problem. The most you can do that way is silence them and cause them to go express their view on the matter somewhere else. (probably with a heaping of personal griping on account of feeling silenced).
But for so, so many matters, oftentimes people don't even notice them as a problem. If no one steps up to say "hey, what you did was wrong" - if no one holds them responsible - then that person can go on doing the same harmful thing without ever realizing. That's starting a dialogue that may or may not end well, but it's not silencing people and it's different from censorship.
I also think it's good to define standards of acceptable behavior and hold people to them. If they don't agree with those standards, then either the standards or the people involved need to change.
Since you brought up Six Days, hey, that's a situation where I think the standards need to change, not the people. The people involved, as far as I've seen, have demonstrated good intentions.
author=alterego
a thoughtful, researched, sensible, well-intentioned game (Because intent is worthless after all, right?) took "every ounce of condemnation" it could until it finally tanked.
Here's what I actually said about intent:
once you get outside the personal level of "hey do I want to be friends with this person/look up to them as a role model/think positively of them?", intent is just about worthless on a larger scale.
I think the developers are well-intentioned, and respect what they were trying to do. I support them in making the game. This affects my personal opinion of the developers and is separate from the game itself.
But what if they had ended up making a game that did glorify violence in the way many people feared? The fact they didn't intend to wouldn't change that. And in THIS specific case, we have no way of knowing for sure what Six Days would have been like because they weren't allowed to publish the game, so no one can look at how their intentions turned out.
A lot of the criticism (but not all) stemmed from perceptions about their intent, and a lot of the criticism was also well-intended. Just because some critics might not have intended to silence a game with potential social value doesn't change the fact that's what they ended up doing.
Ultimately, games are still seen and treated as a fun, entertaining pastime. Escapism and power fantasies are the norm. Despite supporting the game, I agree with criticisms based around the fact that people shouldn't take painful subjects from reality and treat them as fun and games. I don't think the developers were doing that, but chances are most players would approach it as fun and games and act with the flippancy of playing most gams. I still support the game because people like that are the ones who could, and should, learn from it, and think the standards of how games are treated/viewed are what oughta change.
Tying all this back to the new Tomb Raider, that's a situation where I think both people and standards oughta change. I don't think it's good that you can find so much sexism in most games, for instance. There shouldn't be a standard where women (and men, really) have only 2-3 modes of being written, especially when in the case of women there's a trend of taking the ~STRONG FEMALE CHARACTER~ and "breaking" her or otherwise emphasizing her vulnerability to a degree that just doesn't happen with dudes. But in order for these standards to change, the people involved have to change.
author=monkeynohito
Pratchet doesn't really go that route. Instead of thinking, how does Lara Croft respond to rape, she thinks, what happens if I rape Lara Croft? All she has done is make it a more dangerous place for female protagonists, further cementing the notion that female characters should be intrinsically tied to that bullshit as, what, the most dramatic aspect of female sexuality?
Pratchett's actually critical of the whole first kill trailer business that sparked the discussions of rape.
= Pratchett
"Being a gamer and also a former journalist myself, I can understand why people were concerned," Pratchett said. "If I was on that side of things, I probably would've been too. However, it's important that players experience that scene in context. Once you do, it's much clearer that scene is about the act of taking a human life and the impact it can have on someone. The man's actions are a lot less important for the scene, than Lara's reactions — particularly after the kill (which was unfortunately cut down for the trailer.)
- Rhianna Pratchett: 'Nothing is taken lightly' for Tomb Raider subject matter
I wouldn't blame her or any one singular person.
RE: Accountability/responsibilty, etc: I fully support free expression in the appropriate forums, but that also means supporting people's ability to respond. If you want to spout off certain things, people will hold you to it and whinging about thought control when people simply disagree is juvenile. The silent majority won't engage a broken argument, they'll just tune it out. Remember we're taking about entertainment here too, no one needs to pay for the privilege of getting pissed off and offended no matter how much an artist is impressed with themselves.
Otherwise, I suppose I did run my mouth a bit on Pratchet, sorry about that. I have to admit I don't have enough experience with it in context to really go one way or the other. It still has the flavor of territory that didn't need to be covered though, something that removes the mystique a bit. I mean, we don't need to see every character shit themselves as a toddler and establish it as an important part of their canon.
As an aside, I saw Wreckit Ralph yesterday and thought the FPS chick was an interesting character in light of this sort of stuff. She seemed like a goofy cliche at first, but then I don't think you can actually get away with that strong of a female character in a AAA game these days. She seemed a little older, experienced enough to have a romantic history and developed a romance with a supporting character. She was also mean as hell and -right- about everything she bitched about. She was most definitely a mature woman and a badass and I couldn't see that character being a bad thing to happen to a real FPS.
Otherwise, I suppose I did run my mouth a bit on Pratchet, sorry about that. I have to admit I don't have enough experience with it in context to really go one way or the other. It still has the flavor of territory that didn't need to be covered though, something that removes the mystique a bit. I mean, we don't need to see every character shit themselves as a toddler and establish it as an important part of their canon.
As an aside, I saw Wreckit Ralph yesterday and thought the FPS chick was an interesting character in light of this sort of stuff. She seemed like a goofy cliche at first, but then I don't think you can actually get away with that strong of a female character in a AAA game these days. She seemed a little older, experienced enough to have a romantic history and developed a romance with a supporting character. She was also mean as hell and -right- about everything she bitched about. She was most definitely a mature woman and a badass and I couldn't see that character being a bad thing to happen to a real FPS.
author=PentagonBuddy
I guess this is the root of disagreement for me, too. While I agree there's a difference between responsibility and being held responsible for something, I don't consider the latter a hair's breadth from coercion.
Well, I was referring to the whole "condemnation" thing. Maybe in your mind you were using it interchangeably with some other word, but to me it holds stronger negative connotations than other terms you could have used...
Of course, I'm not opposed to criticism. But to me, there's a difference. An honest observation about how 'rape' can be a cheap writing device, doesn't look to hold anyone 'responsible'; It's just that, an observation. In the other hand, huge media scandals over a tiny fraction of a game that everybody condemns for different reasons, do have that kind of vested interest.
It may sound weird, but if we really want our medium to evolve, we must give it complete freedom. We must give people the chance to reach the right conclusions on their own... The only 'consequences' we should be accepting are the legal ones, and the no-brainer, real-life ones, such as the fact that the bad games are going to be outsold by the good ones anyway.
author=PentagonBuddy
I don't think you can have the reason and understanding that lead to developing a sense of responsible behavior without other people being involved. It doesn't make someone weak-minded if they're influenced by a person or thing since interacting with the world around us is how we generate meaning about that world. You don't develop anything in a void.
Yes, exactly. But if we have an entire Real world around us, why do we let a tiny Fictional world faze us? Fiction can only influence you (or hurt you, for that matter) if you let it do it... At least I think so, and I must be doing something right since I can mow down hundreds of polygons in a screen and feel no less empathy than I should for the real people around me.
_
Heh; I don't know if my point of view is just too naive, or if yours puts too little faith in your fellow hooman bings. ;P
Speaking of faith in humanity...I recently came across something that suggests that we have a long way to go before seeing gender equality in escapist works.
A man recently edited a ROM of Donkey Kong so that his 3 year-old daughter could play as Pauline, since she enjoyed playing as Princess Toadstool/Peach in Super Mario Bros. 2. He succeeded in editing the ROM, and posted a video on Youtube with the following description:
My three year old daughter and I play a lot of old games together. Her favorite is Donkey Kong. Two days ago, she asked me if she could play as the girl and save Mario. She's played as Princess Toadstool in Super Mario Bros. 2 and naturally just assumed she could do the same in Donkey Kong. I told her we couldn't in that particular Mario game, she seemed really bummed out by that. So what else am I supposed to do? Now I'm up at midnight hacking the ROM, replacing Mario with Pauline. I'm using the 2010 NES Donkey Kong ROM. I've redrawn Mario's frames and I swapped the palettes in the ROM. I replaced the M at the top with a P for Pauline. Thanks to Kevin Wilson for giving me the lead on the tools and advice.
You can see the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeXDNg7scyU
Naturally, this being Youtube, many people took grave offense at this change, and were outspoken about their outrage. Here are some quotes collected in a different video (warning, foul, and at times incomprehensible, language):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9zIbiNqAM4
...Yeah. So, that kind of proves what Pentagon was saying about how you can't force people to take responsibility for their actions, and if nobody says what is happening is wrong, these people will feel further justified in their viewpoint that everything they just said was perfectly fine and acceptable.
I feel like that's where we are right now; developers have the ability, and in my opinion the obligation, to reduce or eliminate such attitudes by setting an example. Today, there are more 3-dimensional female characters in games today than ever before, and indeed more female characters than ever before, period. I think developers are taking more risks with the stories and characterization of their characters than was typically seen in mainstream gaming in the past. Even so, the kind of sexism you've just witnessed is still very prevalent in the industry's demographic, and that is something developers have to deal with, in a viscous cycle of consumer demands and expectations.
It's total "Facism".
A man recently edited a ROM of Donkey Kong so that his 3 year-old daughter could play as Pauline, since she enjoyed playing as Princess Toadstool/Peach in Super Mario Bros. 2. He succeeded in editing the ROM, and posted a video on Youtube with the following description:
My three year old daughter and I play a lot of old games together. Her favorite is Donkey Kong. Two days ago, she asked me if she could play as the girl and save Mario. She's played as Princess Toadstool in Super Mario Bros. 2 and naturally just assumed she could do the same in Donkey Kong. I told her we couldn't in that particular Mario game, she seemed really bummed out by that. So what else am I supposed to do? Now I'm up at midnight hacking the ROM, replacing Mario with Pauline. I'm using the 2010 NES Donkey Kong ROM. I've redrawn Mario's frames and I swapped the palettes in the ROM. I replaced the M at the top with a P for Pauline. Thanks to Kevin Wilson for giving me the lead on the tools and advice.
You can see the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeXDNg7scyU
Naturally, this being Youtube, many people took grave offense at this change, and were outspoken about their outrage. Here are some quotes collected in a different video (warning, foul, and at times incomprehensible, language):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9zIbiNqAM4
...Yeah. So, that kind of proves what Pentagon was saying about how you can't force people to take responsibility for their actions, and if nobody says what is happening is wrong, these people will feel further justified in their viewpoint that everything they just said was perfectly fine and acceptable.
I feel like that's where we are right now; developers have the ability, and in my opinion the obligation, to reduce or eliminate such attitudes by setting an example. Today, there are more 3-dimensional female characters in games today than ever before, and indeed more female characters than ever before, period. I think developers are taking more risks with the stories and characterization of their characters than was typically seen in mainstream gaming in the past. Even so, the kind of sexism you've just witnessed is still very prevalent in the industry's demographic, and that is something developers have to deal with, in a viscous cycle of consumer demands and expectations.
It's total "Facism".
Well, I certainly don't put the bulk of my faith in YouTube commenters, as I do in developers and most gamers, perhaps? The former are the kind of people who just sit behind a screen and rage at everything on it. The later know how difficult is to actually create something -specially something worthwhile- and they value that.
The problem is exactly that kind of overreactions, though. That is what keeps developers frozen in place. If they move to one side the cry out is: "Misogyny!" If they move to the other side the cry out becomes: "Emasculation!" or whatever... And just like that, from every corner, different groups of people have the notion that content creators have an obligation to them; to their ideas. And they're more than happy to "held them accountable" if their expectations are not met...
If we distanced ourselves from this vicious cycle, and let developers know they too don't have to submit to it, things would evolve faster.
The problem is exactly that kind of overreactions, though. That is what keeps developers frozen in place. If they move to one side the cry out is: "Misogyny!" If they move to the other side the cry out becomes: "Emasculation!" or whatever... And just like that, from every corner, different groups of people have the notion that content creators have an obligation to them; to their ideas. And they're more than happy to "held them accountable" if their expectations are not met...
If we distanced ourselves from this vicious cycle, and let developers know they too don't have to submit to it, things would evolve faster.
Perhaps it would help if we just had a kind or encouraging word for developers once in a while, to let them know why we like a game's content. Criticism is very important, but I feel that we've all become too mired in negativity, and that developers are naturally going to become jaded and cynical if they only hear about what they did wrong in increasingly absurd and hyperbolic testimonies.
People are very outspoken when they hate something, but they tend to be much more quiet when they actually like something.
People are very outspoken when they hate something, but they tend to be much more quiet when they actually like something.
