blizzard really has no idea what the phrase "saving face" means
i'm pretty sure at this point they want to be hated
jesus christ again with the fucking SJW bullshit
[quote][b]RPS: But it’s not even about a message. The goal is to let people have fun in an environment where they can feel awesome without being weirded out or even objectified. This is a genre about empowerment. Why shouldn’t everyone feel empowered? That’s what it’s about at the end of the day: letting everyone have a fair chance to feel awesome.[/b]
Browder: Uh-huh. Cool. Totally.
[PR says we've run over, tells me I have to leave][/quote]
Well that must have been awkward.
Geezus, those last three questions must have been awkward as fuck for Browder to answer.
[editline]22nd November 2013[/editline]
[quote]NOTE: This interview, quite obviously, ended in an uncomfortable place, and I decided to break that down at length in a separate opinion piece. It will be live soon, and I’ll link it here when it’s been posted.
[/quote]
Great, looking forward to the shit storm this is going to cause.
[quote]RPS: Over the years, I’ve developed a wild theory: Blizzard is not, in fact, an altruistic charity like everyone presumes, but is instead some sort of business. How do you plan on making money off this one? [/quote]
god shut the fuck up
[QUOTE=LeonS;42949896]jesus christ again with the fucking SJW bullshit[/QUOTE]
[quote][b]The goal is to let people have fun in an environment where they can feel awesome without being weirded out or even objectified. This is a genre about empowerment. Why shouldn’t everyone feel empowered? That’s what it’s about at the end of the day: letting everyone have a fair chance to feel awesome.[/b][/quote]
.
Oh man that must have been so fucking awkward for both of them
The last questions were so insistent, so blunt and out of left field that, in combination with the title, they just invoke the impression it was done for clicks
, but
I don't think they were completely unjustified.
Most people don't even think about ridiculous battle swimsuits and combat stilettos anymore, they've accepted them as horny teen bait and moved on and know it only makes those uncomfortable that haven't gotten used to them yet.
But ignoring it doesn't solve the problem obviously. Even if you take away all "social justice bullshit" it still leads to creative restrictions when female characters have to be sexy 20-something Caucasians [url="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuysSmashGirlsShoot"]that deal damage from afar[/url]/magically (or are lightly armored assassins). Male character designs tend to offer much more diversity, with sexy 20-something Caucasians being only one variant.
So I can understand the Blizzard guy feeling uncomfortable when receiving critique for doing something normal, and RPS being upset it's even considered normal. If they didn't just clickbait. The topic was so aggressively pursued it's hard to tell for me. Then again, PR guy said there was little time, so maybe this was just exceedingly important for them or something.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;42950611]The last questions were so insistent, so blunt and out of left field that, in combination with the title, they just invoke the impression it was done for clicks
, but
I don't think they were completely unjustified.
Most people don't even think about ridiculous battle swimsuits and combat stilettos anymore, they've accepted them as horny teen bait and moved on and know it only makes those uncomfortable that haven't gotten used to them yet.
But ignoring it doesn't solve the problem obviously. Even if you take away all "social justice bullshit" it still leads to creative restrictions when female characters have to be sexy 20-something Caucasians [url="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuysSmashGirlsShoot"]that deal damage from afar[/url]/magically (or are lightly armored assassins). Male character designs tend to offer much more diversity, with sexy 20-something Caucasians being only one variant.
So I can understand the Blizzard guy feeling uncomfortable when receiving critique for doing something normal, and RPS being upset it's even considered normal. If they didn't just clickbait. The topic was so aggressively pursued it's hard to tell for me. Then again, PR guy said there was little time, so maybe this was just exceedingly important for them or something.[/QUOTE]
RPS has been on this crusade forever and are overly crass about it. They need to shut up or be less rude about it.
the article was terribly written overall if i'm going to be honest
Quick, time is running low! Ask complicated questions that are only going to have long winded answers!
Why do people who regularly complain about game journalists are also not satisfied when they start asking actual questions...?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42951872]Why do people who regularly complain about game journalists are also not satisfied when they start asking actual questions...?[/QUOTE]
Because they force the matter, make it awkward, and are less likely to actually report on what they are supposed to be there for which is the game itself. On top of that, they backloaded the questions so when they did ask they didn't have time and have spun it into DEVELOPERS DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO US THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY SEXIST
RPS is quickly becoming Kotaku-tier SJW clickbait.
What is with all these gaming "journalists" jumping on the whiteknight/Hurt Feelings Police bandwagon lately? I really fail to see how these 'issues' that basically amount to "I am offended by this character design because it makes me feel insecure about my self" have anything to do with things that actually matter, like "does this game play well and is it fun and worth your money?", you know, things these journos are supposed to be writing about in the first place.
if you think a company is objectifying women then don't buy their game, maybe if people had any sense of control to put their ideals before their own interests then they wouldn't be taken as such a joke
[QUOTE=Kuro.;42952260]RPS is quickly becoming Kotaku-tier SJW clickbait.
What is with all these gaming "journalists" jumping on the whiteknight/Hurt Feelings Police bandwagon lately? I really fail to see how these 'issues' that basically amount to "I am offended by this character design because it makes me feel insecure about my self" have anything to do with things that actually matter, like "does this game play well and is it fun and worth your money?", you know, things these journos are supposed to be writing about in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I personally view them as suggestions. Blizzard aren't a group of Batman-esque supervillians, but they would benefit greatly if they changed some of their practices. It would expand the AAA audience and everyone would be able to enjoy it.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42951872]Why do people who regularly complain about game journalists are also not satisfied when they start asking actual questions...?[/QUOTE]
both this journalist and the representative were clowns. that room was a pack of peanuts away from being a fucking circus
notable point of the interview was when the rep was asked what the target audience was and his said "we really don't know".
is this making products? is this the way? not knowing who you're making it for? wow who needs school for this
thing is nobody takes journalists seriously because of sites like RPS and Kotaku (lack of professionalism from both) and nobody takes video game developers seriously because theyre represented by people who either tiptoe around how offensively bad their products can actually be, are still stuck in the 90s X-TREEM era of SpikeTV video game commercialism, or straight up miss the mark and say everything wrong.
I never thought I'd read an interview that made sympathize with the Blizzard guy. While Blizzard do need to improve some, Nathan is way too brash and unprofessional in this interview and I'm relieved to see it got canned.
I remember when I liked reading RPS, then they got pulled from the News Node, a few things happened to the website in the interim, then we got them back and haven't had a headline without a pun for less than 24 hours and embarrassing articles like this one.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42951872]Why do people who regularly complain about game journalists are also not satisfied when they start asking actual questions...?[/QUOTE]
Because they're asking the wrong questions. We care about the reporting being a middle man and protecting and informing consumers, not taking money to lie to consumers out right. We don't care about this SJW BS
[QUOTE=Kuro.;42952260]What is with all these gaming "journalists" jumping on the [B]whiteknight/Hurt Feelings Police[/B] bandwagon lately?[/QUOTE]
I really [I]love[/I] the term "white knight" and how it’s used by gamers like it’s a bad thing to stand up for other people. Like, the entire idea behind the phrase white knighting is defending somebody or something or a group of people when you have no personal stake in it, which is hilarious, that's implying RPS should just be incredibly selfish.
How dare people consider more than the straight male audience...
[QUOTE=Fish_poke;42951966]they didn't have time and have spun it into DEVELOPERS DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO US THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY SEXIST[/QUOTE]
I'm absolutely not seeing that in the article. Mind pointing out to me?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42954771]I'm absolutely not seeing that in the article. Mind pointing out to me?[/QUOTE]
[quote][PR motions that time is running low][/quote]
Time to ask those hard hitting questions that can take time to extrapolate on and answer thoroughly just as we're running out of interview time totally out of the blue!
[quote][B]RPS: But it’s not even about a message. The goal is to let people have fun in an environment where they can feel awesome without being weirded out or even objectified. This is a genre about empowerment. Why shouldn’t everyone feel empowered? That’s what it’s about at the end of the day: letting everyone have a fair chance to feel awesome.[/B]
Browder: Uh-huh. Cool. Totally.
[PR says we've run over, tells me I have to leave]
[B]RPS: Thank you for your time.[/B]
[I]NOTE: This interview, quite obviously, ended in an uncomfortable place, and I decided to break that down at length in a separate opinion piece. It will be live soon, and I’ll link it here when it’s been posted.[/I][/quote]
Then he went on to write an article about how the atmosphere changed when he asked those questions and how the Blizzard guy was [I]resistant[/I] to answering such things like he didn't spring this kinda stuff on him near the end of the time they had together, in a fashion that was not only totally out of the blue but not even hinted toward talking about in relation to what was asked earlier. There was no segue into the subject, he just abruptly went "Hey this video game is cool and all but don't you think this stuff can be really sexist too?" [I]I[/I] felt uncomfortable for Browder because it was such a tone shift the knocking down of the Berlin wall was a more subtle act.
[QUOTE=Kuro.;42952260]RPS is quickly becoming Kotaku-tier SJW clickbait.
What is with all these gaming "journalists" jumping on the whiteknight/Hurt Feelings Police bandwagon lately? I really fail to see how these 'issues' that basically amount to "I am offended by this character design because it makes me feel insecure about my self" have anything to do with things that actually matter, like "does this game play well and is it fun and worth your money?", you know, things these journos are supposed to be writing about in the first place.[/QUOTE]
The point is that it makes the game less fun. Here's what sexualized female character design does for you here:
- it fills the demographic with horny male teens and ronery neckbeards here for the tits/ass, not the game
- the pervertedness makes everyone else uncomfortable that just wants to play an action game - unless you've already gotten used to the tropes, which doesn't solve the actual problem of course
- keeps a degree of immaturity in and keeps a degree of immaturity out, as well as signaling certain women/girls "welp, another game made for the boys", contributing to the typical competitive multiplayer cesspool.
- Combat stilettos and skintight suits and battle bikinis look as out of place as if Tychus with lollipop instead of cigar, a see-through shirt and a camera man that zooms in on his skinny jeans bulge every time he says "Jimmy"
- it's making erotic design and action design clash without rhyme or reason beyond "gotta enforce that male power fantasy to improve our horny male teen demographic", which also makes it feel uncomfortable in the sense someone's sacrificing decency and sensible game design to exploit you
- it restricts what female character design can be, ultimately making it way more same-y and boring than male character design
There's nothing positive to be gained from this unless you're talking about expanding a certain demographic or you come for the tits/ass yourself. It's probably not enough for most people to ruin the entire game for them if the rest is really well done, but it puts an unnecessary damper on things for everyone not used to this practice.
The reason people "suddenly get upset about it" is because gaming's not a teen boy club anymore. There's people that would like gaming to be so much more, but it's held back by this embarrassing exploitative character design. There's people that just wanna play a good action game, but it's got these weird fetishistic elements sticking in it. There's people that just don't give a fuck, and for those no list of arguments will ever be relatable or make sense from any angle.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42954771]I really [I]love[/I] the term "white knight" and how it’s used by gamers like it’s a bad thing to stand up for other people.[/quote]
White Knight on the internet generally means "he acts like a white knight, but he didn't really mean it, he just wants pussy in return"
Ridiculous understatement in this circumstance of course.
[QUOTE=Banned?;42954882]Time to ask those hard hitting questions that can take time to extrapolate on and answer thoroughly just as we're running out of interview time totally out of the blue! [...] There was no segue into the subject, he just abruptly went "Hey this video game is cool and all but don't you think this stuff can be really sexist too?"[/QUOTE]
Well of course they didn't segue into it, they were just motioned they were out of time.
id say gaming is held back by terrible writing and unimaginative rehashes and bullshit sequels but ok if you think that tropey women are holding it back im not even gonna bother
[QUOTE=LeonS;42955120]id say gaming is held back by terrible writing and unimaginative rehashes and bullshit sequels but ok if you think that tropey women are holding it back im not even gonna bother[/QUOTE]
then dont bother; having non-stupid female character designs doesnt have anything to do with "SJW" w/e that is
[editline]23rd November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;42954626]Because they're asking the wrong questions. We care about the reporting being a middle man and protecting and informing consumers, not taking money to lie to consumers out right. We don't care about this SJW BS[/QUOTE]
who's we
[editline]23rd November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42951872]Why do people who regularly complain about game journalists are also not satisfied when they start asking actual questions...?[/QUOTE]
to be fair this is an awful interview. i doubt the "game director" even talks to the art design people. there wasnt much he could say.
I'm really frustrated at all of the leading questions throughout, especially on the last 3. 50 bucks say that if they had more time, the writer would probably put the blizzard guy in a chokehold and force him to say "WE LIKE TO MISOGYNIZE TEH WOMYN!!" Or a variant of it.
[QUOTE=Doritos-pope;42955564]50 bucks say that if they had more time, the writer would probably put the blizzard guy in a chokehold and force him to say "WE LIKE TO MISOGYNIZE TEH WOMYN!!" Or a variant of it.[/QUOTE]
How's that strawman working out for you?
[QUOTE=LeonS;42955120]id say gaming is held back by terrible writing and unimaginative rehashes and bullshit sequels but ok if you think that tropey women are holding it back im not even gonna bother[/QUOTE]
Why so dismissive? Marik's post is pretty good and you're saying "im not even gonna bother". So you imply that there are obvious mistakes in the points raised, which are so simple that explaining them is beneath you. Very hard to tell what your actual position is like this.
Are you annoyed by people complaining and feel like they just want to claim they're superior? Do you not want the gaming-audience to grow for whatever reason (watered down design, more money will ruin games, I was here first,...)? Or are you actually afraid that you can't enjoy games anymore if cheap sexappeal won't be as widespread?
It's hard to figure out what exactly you oppose and have a discussion based on that if you just go "ur dumb". Or if you even want to discuss it.
The problems you mention, like rehashes, can very likely be solved by more people getting into making games. If they have a different background from the current norm, even better. Also a broader audience. But unfortunately many of the tropes we simply put up with because they have been repeated over and over and over so we don't even notice it anymore, are very off-putting for someone unfamiliar with them, so they might not bother looking further into games. [I]Creating[/I] games is hard work.
Now you might say, "well, I don't want these people to make games". That's rather elitist, but ok, nobody forces you to play them.
Oh and btw, I think the journalist did handle that very poorly. It does feel very forced. He's basically berating his interviewee instead of trying to get his thoughts with something like "Do you think Blizzard, as a big player in the industry and going for as you said a more casual accessible game, has to assume some responsibility regarding larger issues in gaming culture?" (hey, I'm no writer/journalist, just a thought).
i think we can all agree video games need more homoeroticsm
[editline]23rd November 2013[/editline]
lots of dicks and/or butts
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.