|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You misunderstand. They're products of liberal democracy (which is capitalistic). This political system emphasises individual freedoms, human rights, and rationality. It's what's behind things like the LGBT movement. But liberal democracy is unable to correct the fundamental inequality of capitalism. So we see progress in race relations and LGBT rights, but not economically (class and poverty still dominate our world) and the environment (it is being destroyed). I don't misunderstand. I know that you are saying this is driven by the fundamental inequity of capitalism. I understand your claim. I am saying that you are asserting this, but it is a claim that would need an actual argument to support it, which you have not provided, you have simply asserted this at quite a high rate of frequency. No one will become convinced by raw assertion, but an actual argument that capitalism drives identity politics in the mechanism in which you describe seems to me much larger than the scope of this thread.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, they are incorrect. She changed the schedule while updated her backers, and changed because she was over delivering on content--that's why the schedule changed. The videos actually went out. At best, it is a lie of omission. It's like comparing a friend who promised to bring beer to your party and came late but brought both beer and schnapps and a friend who promised to bring beer to your party and never showed up, and then asked you for money to bring beer to your next party. My statement that Video 12 doesn't exist and was part of the original kickstarter remains true. You are really taken my comments out of context and spinning them. I've already said the jab was ill informed and I don't know what else you want. Obdicut posted:So why did you make the statement that he had said it was not a conspiracy? Remember that was your initial claim, before you revised it? So you do understand that I read a post, everyone said the post said poster was calling it a conspiracy, and I pointed out the post didn't? I don't know how much clearer I can get. I also leave my posts as is, I usually edit them to add grammar or further arguments. I don't know where I have revised my statement saying "In this post the poster didn't say it was a conspiracy". Obdicut posted:It was a completely and utterly inaccurate comparison with absolutely nothing in any way to make it a good one. Why did you make it? I feel like answering this question is a bit too personal , envolves a lot of top level and philosphical discussion that I think we will argue over terms and also is a complete derail for the thread. It is an interesting question, asking why people post, or why some of their posts may be bad, but I don't think that discussion belongs in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Sure, and it's not something I get angry about. But there was a point where Sarkeesian made a tweet to the effect of "Video Games will never be taken seriously as long as they indulge in such childish fantasy" that rubbed me the wrong way -childish power fantasy is neither the only thing games have to offer right now (though I won't deny it's too prominent) nor devoid of merit- and a good number of progressive-minded folks got pretty pissed off when Mcintosh (I think) went so far as to say people who enjoy spectacle violence like you find in Mortal Kombat and Doom are actively sick, which is both a sweeping generalization and the sort of vaguely ableist dismissal that I'd classify as not constructive at best and actively alienating at worst. But I think Anita's tweet is right. Video Games won't be taken seriously until we get a wide range of experiences where violence is not the solution to most problems. Spec Ops: The Line kind of shied away from one of the endings where you just choose not to engage at all, but apparently I heard they took it out because too many people were picking that option. I mean, it really is childish fantasy to think that you are a better person because you beat the poo poo out of, tortured, and put someone into a coma, but you showed restraint by not killing them. Or thinking that adding a non-lethal option like tranquilizer gun is a moral decision because it is non-lethal, when in fact, tranquilizer guns are hardly ever used in that manner because you can cause some serious harm if you misjudge the dose. I mean, not to connect games to real life events, but tasers have killed people. But games expect us to feel better about ourselves because we didn't actually kill that person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Sure, and it's not something I get angry about. But there was a point where Sarkeesian made a tweet to the effect of "Video Games will never be taken seriously as long as they indulge in such childish fantasy" that rubbed me the wrong way -childish power fantasy is neither the only thing games have to offer right now (though I won't deny it's too prominent) nor devoid of merit- and a good number of progressive-minded folks got pretty pissed off when Mcintosh (I think) went so far as to say people who enjoy spectacle violence like you find in Mortal Kombat and Doom are actively sick, which is both a sweeping generalization and the sort of vaguely ableist dismissal that I'd classify as not constructive at best and actively alienating at worst. Video games are predominantly some sort of childish fantasy and the reaction to trying to change that is further proof of the medium's relative immaturity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't misunderstand. I know that you are saying this is driven by the fundamental inequity of capitalism. I understand your claim. I am saying that you are asserting this, but it is a claim that would need an actual argument to support it, which you have not provided, you have simply asserted this at quite a high rate of frequency. No one will become convinced by raw assertion, but an actual argument that capitalism drives identity politics in the mechanism in which you describe seems to me much larger than the scope of this thread. I think it's quite clear cut: identity politics are a product of liberal democracy, which emphasises individuality, human rights, and rationality. The Problem is that liberalism cannot overcome systemic faults, which is why its shifts its focus on massaging those faults. Slavoj Zizek posted:The inner tension of this project is discernible in two aspects of liberalism: market liberalism and political liberalism. As Jean-Claude Michea has brilliantly argued, these two aspects of liberalism are linked to two political meanings of "Right": the political Right insists on market economy, the politically-correct Left insists on the defence of human rights - often its sole remaining raison d'etre. Slavoj Zizek posted:What is increasingly emerging as the central human right in late-capitalist societies is the right not to be harassed, which is the right to be kept at a safe distance from others. A terrorist whose deadly plans should be prevented belongs in Guantánamo, the empty zone exempted from the rule of law; a fundamentalist ideologist should be silenced because he spreads hatred. Such people are toxic subjects who disturb my peace. I am not saying that the concerns of liberal feminists and others aren't illegitimate. They're still part of the progressive movement. But the problem is that "identity politics" (and I use the term reluctantly) are the only fights that liberalism can win. Which is why AGG is part of The Problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Exmond posted:My statement that Video 12 doesn't exist and was part of the original kickstarter remains true. You are really taken my comments out of context and spinning them. I've already said the jab was ill informed and I don't know what else you want. Yes, it is very technically true--that's why I called it a lie of omission. The reason it hasn't been released is because they've made much longer videos than they originally promised. What I'm asking is why you made the comparison in the first place. You scolded someone else, telling them to use the same lens looking at Sarkeesian as at Slade. Okay, we've used the same lens: Slade looks like poo poo, Sarkeesian looks fine. Comparing someone who changed the scope of their kickstarter to someone who abandoned it is a dishonest comparison. quote:So you do understand that I read a post, everyone said the post said poster was calling it a conspiracy, and I pointed out the post didn't? No, you claimed the poster said it was not a conspiracy. That is different from saying the post didn't say there was a conspiracy. Do you understand this? quote:I don't know how much clearer I can get. I also leave my posts as is, I usually edit them to add grammar or further arguments. I don't know where I have revised my statement saying "In this post the poster didn't say it was a conspiracy". You see, the part in quotes isn't what you said, that's the problem. You said: quote:The user said there isn't a conspiracy Not quote:In this post the poster didn't say it was a conspiracy Those are very, very different claims--first of all, one says that the person said there wasn't a conspiracy, and it also doesn't refer to a particular post. In case you somehow still don't understand this straightforward point, if I say "He said there wasn't going to be a cheetah guarding the filing cabinet", that is very different from saying "He didn't say there was a cheetah guarding the filing cabinet". BravestOfTheLamps posted:I think it's quite clear cut: identity politics are a product of liberal democracy, which emphasises individuality, human rights, and rationality. This is a hypothesis that you would need to prove through an argument with evidence. quote:The Problem is that liberalism cannot overcome systemic faults, which is why its shifts its focus on massaging those faults. Again, hypothesis, needs an argument, needs evidence. quote:I am not saying that the concerns of liberal feminists and others aren't illegitimate. They're still part of the progressive movement. But the problem is that "identity politics" (and I use the term reluctantly) are the only fights that liberalism can win. Which is why AGG is part of The Problem. Etc. Nobody will ever be convinced by you saying the same thing 100 times in a row without providing evidence for it. If you are simply going to restate what you've already said, then we're kind of at an appropriately demonstrative impasse here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, it is very technically true--that's why I called it a lie of omission. The reason it hasn't been released is because they've made much longer videos than they originally promised. Obdicut, what do you want man? You keep going over points that I have allready conceded. I've allready explained why I don't want to continue the "Why did you make this comparison" line of discussion. You keep referencing it and calling me out. Please stop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Exmond posted:Obdicut, what do you want man? You keep going over points that I have allready conceded. I've allready explained why I don't want to continue the "Why did you make this comparison" line of discussion. You keep referencing it and calling me out. Please stop. Sure, let's drop that part, no problem. You've conceded your comparison was baseless, that the sarcasm excuse doesn't work, and that Sarkeesian has been ethical and aboveboard with her kickstarter, delivering content while informing backers of changes in the schedule. Cool. I'd be happy now if you explained why you just misquoted yourself repeatedly, claiming that you didn't say something you did, and that I even quoted for you. Any shot of you taking responsibility there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Nobody said they did, though. First  at the idea that I'm upset, or to be a bit more edgy, hysterical about the topic. Second I agree that there is a difference between criticizing lack of variety in a medium, and the elements that make up that particular thematic glut.However I don't see the people going on about sexism or "toxic masculinity" as making that argument especially since they are completely ignoring the majority of the industry and instead obsessing about the most visible part of it, why? The Male demographic is the target for most of the industry because of marketing and economics, which I'll even charitably agree is a result of societal sexism. However in the gaming space I (and others) don't care about society at large, as we play games purely for selfish reasons. In other words if you want to be a societal critic go for it, but if you are going to focus on gaming, include all of gaming, if you want to focus on marketing, gaming marketing is fair-game, but saying gaming is bad because of the sexist marketing is tautological. Marketing is a reflection on the values of society, society is sexist, ergo, the most heavily marketed games are sexist. Good job Einstein. You aren't fighting sexism by pointing this out nor making shallow critiques of a narrow subset of the industry. Now for my stance on the thing I care about itt, videogames. Everything can be critiqued in a lot of different ways, political, mathematical, through the lens of religion, or through the eyes of a 10th century Mongolian horse farmer. However as a videogame reviewer for an entertainment website that caters to the participants of a videogame market and claims to be "a gamer," it implies that a review will be through a more narrow lens, namely through the lens of a consumer who is looking to potentially purchase a game. This consumer may be interested in many aspects of any given game, but there are a few things to consider as a reviewer. First and foremost, who is the audience of the game? You care about the audience of the game, because in order for your review to be useful your review should be aimed at that audience. Second who is the audience of your website, if you have a niche website, you'll want to adjust your review to cater to that space. All of this is fine, imo. The "problem" comes when instead of reviews, you are peddling click-bait but still claiming you are providing reviews, or instead of the type of reviews people are looking for, you are now writing gender theory 101 discoure, or talking about privilege, or whatever other ideological axe you have to grind.. The reason is you've alienated your audience, and now they resent you for it, hence gamergate. So while I agree there are lots of ways to critique something, if you are trying to be a consumer-facing videogame reviewer, not all are equally valid. Note that all this is just my opinion and sort of the frame that I view video games and the gamergate response through and certainly doesn't apply to anyone but myself. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:First They aren't ignoring the majority of the industry--no idea why you think they are. Can you explain this strange assertion? quote:The Male demographic is the target for most of the industry because of marketing and economics, which I'll even charitably agree is a result of societal sexism. However in the gaming space I (and others) don't care about society at large, as we play games purely for selfish reasons. And I, and others, do. quote:In other words if you want to be a societal critic go for it, but if you are going to focus on gaming, include all of gaming, if you want to focus on marketing, gaming marketing is fair-game, but saying gaming is bad because of the sexist marketing is tautological. Marketing is a reflection on the values of society, society is sexist, ergo, the most heavily marketed games are sexist. Good job Einstein. You aren't fighting sexism by pointing this out nor making shallow critiques of a narrow subset of the industry. I'm not sure what you mean by 'marketing'. But yes, pointing out that games are being marketed in a sexist way is, in fact, fighting sexism, as are articles that point out that the market for games could be larger if they didn't market them in a sexist way. quote:Now for my stance on the thing I care about itt, videogames. Everything can be critiqued in a lot of different ways, political, mathematical, through the lens of religion, or through the eyes of a 10th century Mongolian horse farmer. However as a videogame reviewer for an entertainment website that caters to the participants of a videogame market and claims to be "a gamer," it implies that a review will be through a more narrow lens, namely through the lens of a consumer who is looking to potentially purchase a game. This consumer may be interested in many aspects of any given game, but there are a few things to consider as a reviewer. First and foremost, who is the audience of the game? You care about the audience of the game, because in order for your review to be useful your review should be aimed at that audience. Second who is the audience of your website, if you have a niche website, you'll want to adjust your review to cater to that space. All of this is fine, imo. This makes zero sense. If they have alienated their audience, the audience just wouldn't read their reviews. Others who wanted that sort of review, would. quote:So while I agree there are lots of ways to critique something, if you are trying to be a videogame reviewer, not all are equally valid. Yes, they are, because this is all subjective. quote:Note that all this is just my opinion and sort of the frame that I view video games and the gamergate response through and certainly doesn't apply to anyone but myself. This is directly at odds with the sentence that precedes it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They aren't ignoring the majority of the industry--no idea why you think they are. Can you explain this strange assertion? quote:I'm not sure what you mean by 'marketing'. But yes, pointing out that games are being marketed in a sexist way is, in fact, fighting sexism, as are articles that point out that the market for games could be larger if they didn't market them in a sexist way. quote:This makes zero sense. If they have alienated their audience, the audience just wouldn't read their reviews. Others who wanted that sort of review, would. quote:Yes, they are, because this is all subjective. You are right, nothing matters what is reality anyway? quote:This is directly at odds with the sentence that precedes it. Everything is subjective, there is no objective truth. Gaze into the gate of gamers, and face to bloodshed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Perfectly equal gender representation has been achieved, and nothing is problematic any more. Behold: This was a cool game. Glad you approve of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Yo I don't know if you don't understand the word "industry" or how percentages work or what but those 10s of AAA titles make exponentially more money that everything else put together so that makes them a HUGE part of the industry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Triple AAA titles are a small part of the industry, but get the most press. There are hundreds of new games per year, but only 10's of AAA titles. Why focus on them? They obviously aren't directed at you? They are directed at me. I am a gamer. I play most AAA titles. Why do you think they're not directed at me? And they aren't a small part of the industry--that's why they're called the AAA titles. quote:Demographics, games are made to make money. If the male demographic is most likely to buy the next "halo killer" then the next halo killer will be marketing to and developed for the male demographic. This is circular reasoning, though. If a greater market can be gained--as argued by Leigh Alexander--by deviating from the trite formula of the past, then that's fine, right? quote:The market isn't made up of rational actors particularly on the consumer side, hosed up but true. This is, actually, directly opposed to your previous statement. Why is the consumer market for games rational, to you, but not for games journalism? You simply dodged this. quote:
No, as you say, this is just your opinion. It's subjective whether or not a critique is equally as valid as another critique. There are no objective criteria. quote:Everything is subjective, there is no objective truth. Gaze into the gate of gamers, and face to bloodshed. Are you saying your opinion is objective truth?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They are directed at me. I am a gamer. I play most AAA titles. Why do you think they're not directed at me? And they aren't a small part of the industry--that's why they're called the AAA titles. quote:This is circular reasoning, though. If a greater market can be gained--as argued by Leigh Alexander--by deviating from the trite formula of the past, then that's fine, right? Marketing and the consumer market is a lot of snake oil mixed with the status quo. No one can predict what the next "big game" will be, but the publishers will absolutely play copycat until studio's go bankrupt. I'm not saying it's rational behavior, it's just what they do. Consumers are trite, and while they will jump on Halo they will ignore another well-designed game even in the same genre. I'm just saying what is, not claiming to know the why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Triple AAA titles are a small part of the industry, but get the most press. There are hundreds of new games per year, but only 10's of AAA titles. Why focus on them? They obviously aren't directed at you? You're being dense. The whole point is that the games that get the most resources and talent behind them are the same old thing catering to the same old people, while everyone who wants different types of games has to make do with low-budget indie stuff. That's not to say that a game's production values determine it's overall merit or quality, but this whole "if you don't like my type of game, you can find plenty of others" schtick is really disingenuous when "your type" is largely the only one the bulk of the industry throws its weight behind. I love dumb (and not so dumb) action movies, but if I'm in the mood for something a little deeper, there's no shortage of major studio movies that offer that too. I don't have to resign myself to watching student films or backing some rando on kickstarter if I would rather watch something with more talking than shooting. Somebody compared Man of Steel and 12 Years A Slave before, and I think that's pretty apt. It's great that major studios are spending money and hiring talented people to make both silly movies about an alien who wears his underpants on the outside punching other aliens really hard AND really artful, emotionally gripping adaptations of historical autobiographies. People simply want the games industry to grow up to the point where it can do the same, but for some reason you find that threatening and concerning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Dragonshirt posted:Yo I don't know if you don't understand the word "industry" or how percentages work or what but those 10s of AAA titles make exponentially more money that everything else put together so that makes them a HUGE part of the industry. Can you only enjoy a game that makes "the most money?" Does the amount of money a game cost reflect on how good a game it is? As a consumer why should you give a poo poo whether a game is AAA or indie?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:AAA is money spent to develop them, not anything else. 10's of games is much less than 100's of games, thus AAA games are a small part of the industry. This shouldn't be confusing. Unless you want to argue marketing, but I thought we were talking about gaming? I seriously don't even understand what your argument is. Yes, they are smaller by number. They are very large in audience, however. That's why they're important. quote:Leigh very well may be right, but maybe she isn't. I know one thing for sure, she objectively sucks at marketing if the performance of "Sunset" is any indication so she was absolutely wrong there. But if you are looking for a greater market, what the AAA's are doing should be the last place you look as they are pretty much a Lagging indicator of consumer preference. This doesn't really make any sense and goes against what you already said--that's a habit of yours. If the AAAs don't actually know how to market, they how is your claim that they're marketing to their audience true? quote:Marketing and the consumer market is a lot of snake oil mixed with the status quo. No one can predict what the next "big game" will be, but the publishers will absolutely play copycat until studio's go bankrupt. I'm not saying it's rational behavior, it's just what they do. Again, you argue against yourself. quote:Consumers are trite, and while they will jump on Halo they will ignore another well-designed game even in the same genre. I'm just saying what is, not claiming to know the why. I don't really have to do much to your argument, you beat the poo poo out of it on your own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:e: I forgot that you were the guy who dropped out of high school but believes you're naturally more intelligent than 99% of the population, and that you're just incredibly talented at sniffing out conspiracies. I've never dropped out of highschool, I said I simply never went to higher education. I dont believe I'm particularly intelligent. I do have a sensitive disposition and was advanced compared to my classmates at reading meaning from texts. After seeing people unironically swallow the propaganda for the iraq war I was convinced that alot of people simply aren't that great at telling when they're being manipulated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I seriously don't even understand what your argument is. Yes, they are smaller by number. They are very large in audience, however. That's why they're important. Being willfully ignorant about the difference between consumer producer and marketer isn't worth quibbling about. Hulk Krogan posted:You're being dense. The whole point is that the games that get the most resources and talent behind them are the same old thing catering to the same old people, while everyone who wants different types of games has to make do with low-budget indie stuff. That's not to say that a game's production values determine it's overall merit or quality, but this whole "if you don't like my type of game, you can find plenty of others" schtick is really disingenuous when "your type" is largely the only one the bulk of the industry throws its weight behind. Games aren't really comparable to movies imo. But if you look at raw numbers. 12 Years a Slave cost 22million dollars whereas the The Lone Ranger cost 225 Million. Or man of Steel was 250million. If anything, 12 Years a Slave was an indie movie comparable to the game Faster than Light (200K) as compared to Call of Duty (60 million). ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Q.E.D I'm sure you think this is some sort of burn, but it's just incomprehensible. Like I said, you've just managed to argue against yourself, your argument kinda fell apart there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Games aren't really comparable to movies imo. Well that's convenient. quote:But if you look at raw numbers. 12 Years a Slave cost 22million dollars whereas the The Lone Ranger cost 225 Million. If anything, 12 Years a Slave was an indie movie comparable to the game Faster than Light (200K) as compared to Call of Duty (60 million). Yes, they would be comparable if 12 Years a Slave wasn't released by a major studio and if it it didn't feature any well-known actors or a well-regarded director, and also if it was a comic book. What's your point? I'm sure Rocksteady could make a dialogue-driven game about a homeless black lesbian for a lot less than what it cost to make Arkham Knight, but it would still be a game by a AAA developer utilizing the talents of accomplished professionals instead of being a roguelike with minecraft graphics and no voice acting that one lady made in her spare time. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, but pretending like it's incomprehensible that people want to see their kinds of stories and see them realized to their full potential is pretty silly. Just because my local high school could do a good production of Death of a Salesman with what they have on hand doesn't mean I wouldn't rather see it on Broadway with professional actors. Hulk Krogan fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
While an indie movie wouldn't have any of that stuff, an indie or kickstarter game might. I'll also say that the quality of a game is much less reliant on the cash it has available. Basically don't assume you would have to settle for a sub-par game just because it isn't AAA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:While an indie movie wouldn't have any of that stuff, an indie or kickstarter game might. I'll also say that the quality of a game is much less reliant on the cash it has available. So then it shouldn't be a problem if AAA developers started making different kinds of games and you had to get your hard-boiled gangster revenge simulator fix from Kickstarter and the Humble Indie Bundle, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:While an indie movie wouldn't have any of that stuff, an indie or kickstarter game might. I'll also say that the quality of a game is much less reliant on the cash it has available. Let me remind you that Pulp Fiction was a indie film as was Drive. The independent film industry is quite a bit more vast and actually has a lot of star power behind their films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Can you only enjoy a game that makes "the most money?" Does the amount of money a game cost reflect on how good a game it is? As a consumer why should you give a poo poo whether a game is AAA or indie? No, no, and I don't, but none of those have anything to do with what I said or what you said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:I've never dropped out of highschool, I said I simply never went to higher education. I dont believe I'm particularly intelligent. I do have a sensitive disposition and was advanced compared to my classmates at reading meaning from texts. After seeing people unironically swallow the propaganda for the iraq war I was convinced that alot of people simply aren't that great at telling when they're being manipulated. You yourself have been manipulated by a few poorly edited YouTube videos, do you understand that yes/no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cgnso/i_just_got_control_of_rpolygon_now_it_is_a_forum/ This sure is a civil and mature way to point out issues with Polygon's writing style and policies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Perfectly equal gender representation has been achieved, and nothing is problematic any more. Behold: It's so nice of those guys to support their wives' racing careers by offering to hold their trophies while they celebrate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cgnso/i_just_got_control_of_rpolygon_now_it_is_a_forum/ It could be funny, it won't be, but what would you do? Oh cultural critic? Also it looks like they are using it as a one stop shop to air all their grievances about polygon, is that a problem for you? ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Dragonshirt posted:No, no, and I don't, but none of those have anything to do with what I said or what you said. You are the one that brought up the money, which is literally the only thing that defines a game AAA. I was obviously talking about the quantity of games indeed, my entire premise has been the AAA is just the most visible target, and a lagging indicator of what the game industry is. If you want to critique games because you want better ones, then you would talk about the better ones, maybe even along side the most notable ones, not complain about the ones with the most mass appeal without offering an alternative. If your intention was to create controversy, while doing the least amount of work, then obviously the AAA is what you would attack since it would get the most peoples attention. Of course that makes me question what your motivation is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
The idea that AAA is ever going to be more than tentpole blockbusters is ridiculous. The game industry doesn't work like the film industry, in which a handful of very bankable stars slum it on smaller projects for backend points/prestige between huge bloated franchise films with huge bloated budgets. The film industry also doesn't require the purchase of very expensive dedicated units as a buy-in to view top-level content. No film studio would have ever risked 200m on 12 Years a Slave, no matter how important the story. Likewise, no game publisher is ever going to risk a GTA V budget (estimated at ~200m) on a walking sim with queer themes. The economics aren't there, and all the think pieces and rage on tumblr won't change that. There are TONS of smaller games at all sorts of budget levels. "indie" now means anywhere from "1 guy in the basement " to "former EIC of world's largest game site gets a few million in venture capital." Diversity in games, in game types, in platforms, in budgets and price points already exists. But many invested in this topic won't stop clutching pearls unless EA gives Fullbright the budget of Battlefield to make their next title, because I guess they feel entitled to tens of millions of investment capital to make things that will never return it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You yourself have been manipulated by a few poorly edited YouTube videos, do you understand that yes/no? I find that people who claim to be immune to the influence of media tend to even more vulnerable to being manipulated*. I think that this is probably because if you're aware of the influence media has on you, you can better "resist it" (though obviously no one is completely immune to the influence of media). *It's similar to people who insist they aren't racist; everyone has some racist feelings, and it's only really possible to "counteract" them if you're aware that they're there. But the guy who is convinced that he's totally not a racist will assume that any racist thoughts he has are't actually racist; after all, someone who isn't a racist can't have racist thoughts!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
bloodysabbath posted:The idea that AAA is ever going to be more than tentpole blockbusters is ridiculous. The game industry doesn't work like the film industry, in which a handful of very bankable stars slum it on smaller projects for backend points/prestige between huge bloated franchise films with huge bloated budgets. The film industry also doesn't require the purchase of very expensive dedicated units as a buy-in to view top-level content. The sheer expense of AAA games means that developers are essentially being held hostage by these glorified advertisers who can send their entire studios under with bad coverage. It seems like the only way to avoid another video game industry crash is to crash traditional games journalism instead and transfer the power to youtubers and crowdsourced reviews who cost less/nothing. (I'd laugh at realtime worlds but too many of my friends ended up unemployed because of the company's fantastic decision making)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Broniki posted:The sheer expense of AAA games means that developers are essentially being held hostage by these glorified advertisers who can send their entire studios under with bad coverage. It seems like the only way to avoid another video game industry crash is to crash traditional games journalism instead and transfer the power to youtubers and crowdsourced reviews who cost less/nothing. It's not traditional games journalims that drives sales now. It's advertising and word of mouth
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:It's so nice of those guys to support their wives' racing careers by offering to hold their trophies while they celebrate. Is that the Texas flag?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cgnso/i_just_got_control_of_rpolygon_now_it_is_a_forum/ They should turn it into a discussion forum for Philippino politics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's not traditional games journalims that drives sales now. It's advertising and word of mouth I know. The supposed 'invasion' of politics into these games sites is really just journalists setting themselves up as culture writers as they prepare to get off the sinking ship. Pumping out clickbait is an early sign of desperation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
bloodysabbath posted:Diversity in games, in game types, in platforms, in budgets and price points already exists. But many invested in this topic won't stop clutching pearls unless EA gives Fullbright the budget of Battlefield to make their next title, because I guess they feel entitled to tens of millions of investment capital to make things that will never return it. I think the point of contention is that this isn't really true. Broniki posted:I know. The supposed 'invasion' of politics into these games sites is really just journalists setting themselves up as culture writers as they prepare to get off the sinking ship. Pumping out clickbait is an early sign of desperation. I think the invasion of politics into these websites are a response to ever changing demographics much like the surge of voter ID laws are a response to the same thing. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Broniki posted:I know. The supposed 'invasion' of politics into these games sites is really just journalists setting themselves up as culture writers as they prepare to get off the sinking ship. Pumping out clickbait is an early sign of desperation. Why can't those pesky journalists stop writing about women and get back to regurgitating press releases, like in the good ol days
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 05:04
|
|