|
On March 12 2015 13:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
"Casualization" is not certain if you try to make a game more female friendly. You are conflating "female" and "casual". Yes, females are currently overwhelmingly "casuals" when it comes to video games, but this is not an intrinsic part of being a female gamer, and it can be argued that the current setup is due, at least in part, to the fact that "hardcore" games aren't female friendly in the first place.
you could argue that women tend to stretch their interests out more than men do and thats why "hardcore" games will find less female fans. in general you dont play multiple of those games and they are not really fun without learning them a bit first.
you can look at everything and you will always notice that at the very top men are always overrepresented. thats not because men are inherently better at everything or women get discriminated, its just because there are more men that are willing to sacrifice everything to just do one thing and one thing only.
i mean, look at us here. i am sure a lot of people on tl will spend 20h+ a week on dota/sc2 (playing and watching). its a shitload of time we sink into that and i dont know that many women who are willing to spend so much on one single thing.
|
Canada11504 Posts
But it's artistic fantasy. It's fiction, not the real world. For example, in a game like Halo, involving faster than light spaceships, aliens, laser guns and energy shields, the sexualized image of a holographic AI is a problem because it's not realistic? It's not the real world so that should give even greater licence to be creative with your female characters. You do not, after all, need to stick to norms that have built up over centuries in the real world.
I was trying to find a few of Shamus Young's old posts on the subject and this was a great quote paraphrasing some thoughts on panel back in 2011:
If games are escapism, why do we always have to escape to a world where we're helpless, clueless, and witless?
A Male on Females on Female Characters
Girl Games (This is from 2006)
Ah, here's another good one- on the Tomb Raider reboot and the character of Samantha
Lara's Damsel in Distress
But before we unleash the kraken of gender politics, it's important to remember that Samantha's problem isn't that she's a weak woman. Samantha's problem is that she is a horrible character. She only exists to stroke the protagonist's ego between rescues. She has no important dialog, she needs to have everything explained to her, she doesn't get any funny lines, and despite being in almost constant peril she doesn't seem to go through any kind of character arc. She's shallow, she's annoying, and the story would be better if she was just replaced with an inanimate object for the two sides to fight over.
Yes, far too many times the inept doormat character that we have to rescue ends up being a woman. But making Samantha into Samuel and having Lara rescue a spineless whiny dude wouldn't fix the problem that the person we're trying to save is the least interesting person in the game. Let's not argue over how sexist this character is. Let's get rid of it and replace it with something better.
Dunno. Seems we are far afield from harassment in games, but I have always appreciated Shamus Young's take on storytelling in games in general and so I like bringing him in whenever I can 
edit
AHA! Here is the quote I was remembering, but couldn't find:
If all male characters were like (female characters), I'd spend a lot of my gaming time rolling my eyes and sighing. Can't I play as a badass once in a while? What, ANOTHER spineless boy-toy? Come on! Why do all the characters exist for women?
My wife and my two daughters are gamers, and they run into this a lot. They get excited when they find out a game has a female character, and then disappointed when she turns out to be nothing more than a stepping stone for THE MAN to showcase his badassery.
Regardless of whether women gravitate to 'hardcore' games out there, at least anecdotally there ARE female gamers that would appreciate a wider pallette of female characters every now and then.
|
On March 12 2015 14:21 stapla05 wrote:
Just because someone is female does not make them any worse then a male gamer or any better it would all vary on the person in question.
Technically, don't girls have worse reaction speed and hand-eye coordination than guys though? Sure, you can argue that maybe it's only a non-trivial factor when trying to reach the top of the top but still, on average, it should give guys some level of an advantage. At least on average. Then there's the individual factor playing a major role of course.
|
On March 12 2015 14:52 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +But it's artistic fantasy. It's fiction, not the real world. For example, in a game like Halo, involving faster than light spaceships, aliens, laser guns and energy shields, the sexualized image of a holographic AI is a problem because it's not realistic? It's not the real world so that should give even greater licence to be creative with your female characters. You do not, after all, need to stick to norms that have built up over centuries in the real world. I was trying to find a few of Shamus Young's old posts on the subject and this was a great quote paraphrasing some thoughts on panel back in 2011: Show nested quote + If games are escapism, why do we always have to escape to a world where we're helpless, clueless, and witless? A Male on Females on Female CharactersGirl Games (This is from 2006) Ah, here's another good one- on the Tomb Raider reboot and the character of Samantha Lara's Damsel in DistressShow nested quote +
But before we unleash the kraken of gender politics, it's important to remember that Samantha's problem isn't that she's a weak woman. Samantha's problem is that she is a horrible character. She only exists to stroke the protagonist's ego between rescues. She has no important dialog, she needs to have everything explained to her, she doesn't get any funny lines, and despite being in almost constant peril she doesn't seem to go through any kind of character arc. She's shallow, she's annoying, and the story would be better if she was just replaced with an inanimate object for the two sides to fight over.
Yes, far too many times the inept doormat character that we have to rescue ends up being a woman. But making Samantha into Samuel and having Lara rescue a spineless whiny dude wouldn't fix the problem that the person we're trying to save is the least interesting person in the game. Let's not argue over how sexist this character is. Let's get rid of it and replace it with something better.
Dunno. Seems we are far afield from harassment in games, but I have always appreciated Shamus Young's take on storytelling in games in general and so I like bringing him in whenever I can edit AHA! Here is the quote I was remembering, but couldn't find: Show nested quote +
If all male characters were like (female characters), I'd spend a lot of my gaming time rolling my eyes and sighing. Can't I play as a badass once in a while? What, ANOTHER spineless boy-toy? Come on! Why do all the characters exist for women?
My wife and my two daughters are gamers, and they run into this a lot. They get excited when they find out a game has a female character, and then disappointed when she turns out to be nothing more than a stepping stone for THE MAN to showcase his badassery.
Regardless of whether women gravitate to 'hardcore' games out there, at least anecdotally there ARE female gamers that would appreciate a wider pallette of female characters every now and then.
You don't need any sort of license to create. Your license is the fact that you are doing it, using your own hands. What requires a license, is telling other people, who create, how they should use their talents.
If women and girls can't find the games they would like to play, there are very few possible explanations. Feel free to add to the following list:
1. Making these games is really difficult, and nobody has figured out how to make them. Those who claim they know what's the missing ingredient really ought to put their money where their mouth is and turn a nice profit.
2. People in the industry know how to make these games, but the demographic simply isn't profitable - for whatever reason, there's not purchasing power to justify the expenses. Again, those who disagree can prove them wrong, all while turning a nice profit.
3. There is an industry conspiracy, where they are boycotting a profitable niche market for no apparent reason. The solution from (1) and (2) still works, though the initiative will have to come from outside the established industry.
|
On March 12 2015 15:32 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 14:52 Falling wrote:But it's artistic fantasy. It's fiction, not the real world. For example, in a game like Halo, involving faster than light spaceships, aliens, laser guns and energy shields, the sexualized image of a holographic AI is a problem because it's not realistic? It's not the real world so that should give even greater licence to be creative with your female characters. You do not, after all, need to stick to norms that have built up over centuries in the real world. I was trying to find a few of Shamus Young's old posts on the subject and this was a great quote paraphrasing some thoughts on panel back in 2011: If games are escapism, why do we always have to escape to a world where we're helpless, clueless, and witless? A Male on Females on Female CharactersGirl Games (This is from 2006) Ah, here's another good one- on the Tomb Raider reboot and the character of Samantha Lara's Damsel in Distress
But before we unleash the kraken of gender politics, it's important to remember that Samantha's problem isn't that she's a weak woman. Samantha's problem is that she is a horrible character. She only exists to stroke the protagonist's ego between rescues. She has no important dialog, she needs to have everything explained to her, she doesn't get any funny lines, and despite being in almost constant peril she doesn't seem to go through any kind of character arc. She's shallow, she's annoying, and the story would be better if she was just replaced with an inanimate object for the two sides to fight over.
Yes, far too many times the inept doormat character that we have to rescue ends up being a woman. But making Samantha into Samuel and having Lara rescue a spineless whiny dude wouldn't fix the problem that the person we're trying to save is the least interesting person in the game. Let's not argue over how sexist this character is. Let's get rid of it and replace it with something better.
Dunno. Seems we are far afield from harassment in games, but I have always appreciated Shamus Young's take on storytelling in games in general and so I like bringing him in whenever I can edit AHA! Here is the quote I was remembering, but couldn't find:
If all male characters were like (female characters), I'd spend a lot of my gaming time rolling my eyes and sighing. Can't I play as a badass once in a while? What, ANOTHER spineless boy-toy? Come on! Why do all the characters exist for women?
My wife and my two daughters are gamers, and they run into this a lot. They get excited when they find out a game has a female character, and then disappointed when she turns out to be nothing more than a stepping stone for THE MAN to showcase his badassery.
Regardless of whether women gravitate to 'hardcore' games out there, at least anecdotally there ARE female gamers that would appreciate a wider pallette of female characters every now and then. You don't need any sort of license to create. Your license is the fact that you are doing it, using your own hands. What requires a license, is telling other people, who create, how they should use their talents. If women and girls can't find the games they would like to play, there are very few possible explanations. Feel free to add to the following list: 1. Making these games is really difficult, and nobody has figured out how to make them. Those who claim they know what's the missing ingredient really ought to put their money where their mouth is and turn a nice profit. 2. People in the industry know how to make these games, but the demographic simply isn't profitable - for whatever reason, there's not purchasing power to justify the expenses. Again, those who disagree can prove them wrong, all while turning a nice profit. 3. There is an industry conspiracy, where they are boycotting a profitable niche market for no apparent reason. The solution from (1) and (2) still works, though the initiative will have to come from outside the established industry.
You forgot option 4.
4) Make youtube videos showing the patriarchal conspiracy to keep women oppressed in the gaming industry (or all industries for that matter), and turn a nice profit off of playing the victim.
|
Canada11504 Posts
Not sure why you are jumping on 'license' as it's just flipping around creative license.
Other reasons-
The industry could also be rather myopic, could be conservative and lacking in creativity and adhering to status quo.
Possibly the industry hasn't simply been around long enough and females haven't joined in large enough numbers and people that have been playing for decades hadn't gotten sick of the 30 something brown-haired protagonist for there to be a shift... yet. I think we are seeing that shift. People are starting to ask for something more- whether it is insiders that have seen it all and want something different or whether it is outsiders just starting to come into the fold of gaming. I think we are at a transition point. People are starting to express that they would like something different (demand) and hopefully game makers will meet that demand (supply.)
You seem to be arguing what is, must be, and shall ever be, forever more, ahem.
Whereas, I would say what is, will likely remain, but there likely will be changes as the market gets shook up. It is shaking and we will likely see changes. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. Don't mistake the status quo for inevitability.
|
On March 12 2015 15:56 Falling wrote:
Not sure why you are jumping on 'license' as it's just flipping around creative license.
Other reasons-
The industry could also be rather myopic, could be conservative and lacking in creativity and adhering to status quo.
Possibly the industry hasn't simply been around long enough and females haven't joined in large enough numbers and people that have been playing for decades hadn't gotten sick of the 30 something brown-haired protagonist for there to be a shift... yet. I think we are seeing that shift. People are starting to ask for something more- whether it is insiders that have seen it all and want something different or whether it is outsiders just starting to come into the fold of gaming. I think we are at a transition point. People are starting to express that they would like something different (demand) and hopefully game makers will meet that demand (supply.)
You seem to be arguing what is, must be, and shall ever be, forever more, ahem.
Whereas, I would say what is, will likely remain, but there likely will be changes as the market gets shook up. It is shaking and we will likely see changes. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. Don't mistake the status quo for inevitability.
Well, with the direction of the past few months considered, it's likely the industry will become even more consumer-centric with even less pandering to social justice, equality and whatnot. These are companies who wants to turn a profit and if there is low demand for something (for example games marketed towards women in mainstream/hardcore gaming), it will likely be abandoned.
|
On March 12 2015 15:56 Falling wrote:
Not sure why you are jumping on 'license' as it's just flipping around creative license.
Other reasons-
The industry could also be rather myopic, could be conservative and lacking in creativity and adhering to status quo.
Possibly the industry hasn't simply been around long enough and females haven't joined in large enough numbers and people that have been playing for decades hadn't gotten sick of the 30 something brown-haired protagonist for there to be a shift... yet. I think we are seeing that shift. People are starting to ask for something more- whether it is insiders that have seen it all and want something different or whether it is outsiders just starting to come into the fold of gaming. I think we are at a transition point. People are starting to express that they would like something different (demand) and hopefully game makers will meet that demand (supply.)
You seem to be arguing what is, must be, and shall ever be, forever more, ahem.
Whereas, I would say what is, will likely remain, but there likely will be changes as the market gets shook up. It is shaking and we will likely see changes. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. Don't mistake the status quo for inevitability.
I jump on creative license, because it is a bankrupt concept which suggests limits to what people are allowed to create, for others to define. Fictional works have zero obligations, to realism or moral standards or anything else, and as such require absolutely no creative license. The only exception is when the fictional work is explicitly presented as an accurate representation of something, such as historical events, the book it is a translation of, etcetera - and even in this case, this is a voluntary limitation the creator imposes on himself.
I'm not arguing that the status quo must or should go on indefinitely. I'm arguing against the idea that when something doesn't exist (female oriented games), this is the responsibility of people who have chosen to make different things (the game industry). This is the necessary, unstated premise for every criticism of games being exclusive, male-oriented, so on and so forth..
|
Female oriented games exist. Female oriented competitive games don't. The market is too small; the potential for having any impact in the scene is minimal. The disparity between the sexes is extremely evident in competitive gaming, and yet I can remember when some league created a female division (as almost every sport does, including snooker for example) there was an outrage.
This is an overwhelmingly male pastime. That's not to say that women shouldn't be a part of it - it's better for everybody if they are - but when one joins a community composed almost entirely of a certain demographic one has to be prepared for the way in which they behave and should not feel entitled to any special treatment. Everybody gets some abuse in this community, and they are either okay with it or they have the option of muting, reporting, etc.
It's beneficial to have women in the community, but not so beneficial that everybody in the community should have to adapt their behaviour to make them feel comfortable. A lot of people will do that automatically, but there should be no obligation to give anybody special treatment.
|
On March 12 2015 13:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
"Casualization" is not certain if you try to make a game more female friendly. You are conflating "female" and "casual". Yes, females are currently overwhelmingly "casuals" when it comes to video games, but this is not an intrinsic part of being a female gamer, and it can be argued that the current setup is due, at least in part, to the fact that "hardcore" games aren't female friendly in the first place.
I'd argue that the main reason that most female gamers are casual is because the female gaming demographic was far smaller than the male demographic, until the more recent wave of social media games which brought in much wider audience.
A smaller demographic means that developers need to appeal to as much of their potential audience as possible in order to make money, this naturally tends towards more casual gameplay that has less mechanical and time requirements.
Add to this the fact that it was mostly casual social media games that expanded the female demographic, companies are more likely to jump on this and keep making more casual games when targeting girls rather than risk losing their money.
You could try to argue that the female demographic was smaller because traditionally games have not been "female friendly" but in my opinion it's just because the majority of games were targeted to the larger, male demographic, and targeting for one gender doesn't mean that it's necessarily unfriendly to the other, it's just that it's potentially less interesting to the other.
Edit: I'm not trying to say that no games are "unfriendly" to females, just that I don't think that this is the main cause.
|
Canada11504 Posts
On March 12 2015 16:30 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 15:56 Falling wrote:
Not sure why you are jumping on 'license' as it's just flipping around creative license.
Other reasons-
The industry could also be rather myopic, could be conservative and lacking in creativity and adhering to status quo.
Possibly the industry hasn't simply been around long enough and females haven't joined in large enough numbers and people that have been playing for decades hadn't gotten sick of the 30 something brown-haired protagonist for there to be a shift... yet. I think we are seeing that shift. People are starting to ask for something more- whether it is insiders that have seen it all and want something different or whether it is outsiders just starting to come into the fold of gaming. I think we are at a transition point. People are starting to express that they would like something different (demand) and hopefully game makers will meet that demand (supply.)
You seem to be arguing what is, must be, and shall ever be, forever more, ahem.
Whereas, I would say what is, will likely remain, but there likely will be changes as the market gets shook up. It is shaking and we will likely see changes. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. Don't mistake the status quo for inevitability. I jump on creative license, because it is a bankrupt concept which suggests limits to what people are allowed to create, for others to define. Fictional works have zero obligations, to realism or moral standards or anything else, and as such require absolutely no creative license. The only exception is when the fictional work is explicitly presented as an accurate representation of something, such as historical events, the book it is a translation of, etcetera - and even in this case, this is a voluntary limitation the creator imposes on himself. I'm not arguing that the status quo must or should go on indefinitely. I'm arguing against the idea that when something doesn't exist (female oriented games), this is the responsibility of people who have chosen to make different things (the game industry). This is the necessary, unstated premise for every criticism of games being exclusive, male-oriented, so on and so forth..
You have somehow gotten what I mean backwards. You are taking what I mean to be freeing and turning into a limitation when you are misinterpreting my greater license comment. I'm saying the majority of female characters in game is like a rabbit in the cage- I'm saying we can open up the cage door and come out. You're saying that would be limiting because you're being told to come out of the cage. Well, you can stay in the cage, certainly. But if games need not correspond to reality then there really is no limit to how females are portrayed. Instead of exploring that freedom, we get the same old rabbit in the cage that suspiciously sniffs the open cage door, wary of being taken in by some moral obligation or standard, afraid of being taken in by the feminists. Nevermind any obligations or standards beyond the artistic imperative to be more creative, to write better characters, to execute ideas better than past ideas, to look at what has been done before and to put your own stamp on it.
To answer your last paragraph, no they do not have to make different things. But neither do I have to stop complaining about poor characterization, lazy story-telling, and the like.
Or as Shamus put it, referring some of Ubisoft's PR on Assassin's Creed:
A male-focused or female-focused game is fine. It's not that any one game leaves out women. It's that so many games leave out women.
And
No, they don't have to put females in their games. But I don't have to stop heaping shame on them for fumbling at PR and game design. Their characters are bland, their multiplayer system sounds awkward and silly, and their excuses are actually more patronizing and irritating than just coming out and admitting that the only thing they want to do is make more stories about shallow 30-something white dudes.
Ubisoft: Straighter. Whiter. Duder.
|
On March 12 2015 17:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 16:30 Darkwhite wrote:On March 12 2015 15:56 Falling wrote:
Not sure why you are jumping on 'license' as it's just flipping around creative license.
Other reasons-
The industry could also be rather myopic, could be conservative and lacking in creativity and adhering to status quo.
Possibly the industry hasn't simply been around long enough and females haven't joined in large enough numbers and people that have been playing for decades hadn't gotten sick of the 30 something brown-haired protagonist for there to be a shift... yet. I think we are seeing that shift. People are starting to ask for something more- whether it is insiders that have seen it all and want something different or whether it is outsiders just starting to come into the fold of gaming. I think we are at a transition point. People are starting to express that they would like something different (demand) and hopefully game makers will meet that demand (supply.)
You seem to be arguing what is, must be, and shall ever be, forever more, ahem.
Whereas, I would say what is, will likely remain, but there likely will be changes as the market gets shook up. It is shaking and we will likely see changes. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. Don't mistake the status quo for inevitability. I jump on creative license, because it is a bankrupt concept which suggests limits to what people are allowed to create, for others to define. Fictional works have zero obligations, to realism or moral standards or anything else, and as such require absolutely no creative license. The only exception is when the fictional work is explicitly presented as an accurate representation of something, such as historical events, the book it is a translation of, etcetera - and even in this case, this is a voluntary limitation the creator imposes on himself. I'm not arguing that the status quo must or should go on indefinitely. I'm arguing against the idea that when something doesn't exist (female oriented games), this is the responsibility of people who have chosen to make different things (the game industry). This is the necessary, unstated premise for every criticism of games being exclusive, male-oriented, so on and so forth.. You have somehow gotten what I mean backwards. You are taking what I mean to be freeing and turning into a limitation when you are misinterpreting my greater license comment. I'm saying the majority of female characters in game is like a rabbit in the cage- I'm saying we can open up the cage door and come out. You're saying that would be limiting because you're being told to come out of the cage. Well, you can stay in the cage, certainly. But if games need not correspond to reality then there really is no limit to how females are portrayed. Instead of exploring that freedom, we get the same old rabbit in the cage that suspiciously sniffs the open cage door, wary of being taken in by some moral obligation or standard, afraid of being taken in by the feminists. Nevermind any obligations or standards beyond the artistic imperative to be more creative, to write better characters, to execute ideas better than past ideas, to look at what has been done before and to put your own stamp on it. To answer your last paragraph, no they do not have to make different things. But neither do I have to stop complaining about poor characterization, lazy story-telling, and the like. Or as Shamus put it, referring some of Ubisoft's PR on Assassin's Creed: Show nested quote + A male-focused or female-focused game is fine. It's not that any one game leaves out women. It's that so many games leave out women. And Show nested quote +No, they don't have to put females in their games. But I don't have to stop heaping shame on them for fumbling at PR and game design. Their characters are bland, their multiplayer system sounds awkward and silly, and their excuses are actually more patronizing and irritating than just coming out and admitting that the only thing they want to do is make more stories about shallow 30-something white dudes. Ubisoft: Straighter. Whiter. Duder.
Heaping shame? For following their artistic vision? That is vile and reprehensible, and an excellent example of someone trying to impose their own standards of artistic merit on other people - the exact same thing you meant that I had gotten backwards.
In your own description of the artistic imperative, you sneak in the same sort of judgement - better characters, better execution - tautological, if we go by the artist's own standards, and a cage in your imagery if we don't. An artist has no obligation, but to make whatever he damn well pleases, even if that is a woman with tits the size of Jupiter.
The quotes you give are nothing but a more elaborate form of I want -thing- to exist, and my contribution will be to bully people who are actually creating into making it.
|
You act as if all art is above critique - that is patently unworkable. The artist can of course have women with cosmic breasts, but he is by no means immune from critique, and people lampooning such bad tastes. You are, yourself, of course free to come to the defence of the Jupiter tits. Critique is not bullying that much should be painfully obvious.
I mean applying your tortured logic, M Night Shyamalan is somehow above reproach because he followed his (really bad) artistic visions to continually put out bad and formulalistic movies.
|
Criticism of artistic efforts is not bullying. If artist can't take criticism of their work and the reasons behind why they made specific choices, they wouldn't make art. There is nothing vile about it.
|
Nobody heaps shame on failed artists - those, we sympathize with. This is not about mere critique. We are talking about successful artists with satisfied customers, and someone on the sidelines butting in on this relationship. It is someone trying to impose their superior values on people who create things they are supposedly wrong to create, and the people who like things they are supposedly wrong to like.
|
Northern Ireland26734 Posts
On March 12 2015 10:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 09:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
Apparently girls are too dumb to identify with characters who aren't female. I for example share a lot in common with a ripped Demi-God in Kratos, or a government agent augmented with nanotechnology like JC Denton They are not to dumb, but they would like more characters like them. I don't think any girl thinks she is Korra from LoK, but they like her. Heaven forbid they(and everyone else really) ask for characters that aren't brooding, gritty, loner male protagonist. Personally I am bored to death of them and want like anything else.
Evidently they aren't, I feel the problem with games supposedly made to be 'female friendly' is that the devs assume that they are:
1. A homogenous bloc who want the same/similar things
2. Placated with sub-standard games as long as they're not sexist in some way.
Both of which I would consider to be patently idiotic. My last post was badly phrased but essentially sarcastically saying that.
|
On March 12 2015 18:34 levelping wrote:
formulalistic
...........expialidocious.......
|
On March 12 2015 18:49 Darkwhite wrote:
Nobody heaps shame on failed artists - those, we sympathize with. This is not about mere critique. We are talking about successful artists with satisfied customers, and someone on the sidelines butting in on this relationship. It is someone trying to impose their superior values on people who create things they are supposedly wrong to create, and the people who like things they are supposedly wrong to like.
For a guy who was talking about people on the Internet getting a thicker skin and hugboxes earlier, you sure are concerned with the feelings of a few game developers. By your previous logic, if they can't take the criticism, they shouldn't be making games.
|
On March 12 2015 19:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 18:49 Darkwhite wrote:
Nobody heaps shame on failed artists - those, we sympathize with. This is not about mere critique. We are talking about successful artists with satisfied customers, and someone on the sidelines butting in on this relationship. It is someone trying to impose their superior values on people who create things they are supposedly wrong to create, and the people who like things they are supposedly wrong to like. For a guy who was talking about people on the Internet getting a thicker skin and hugboxes earlier, you sure are concerned with the feelings of a few game developers. By your previous logic, if they can't take the criticism, they shouldn't be making games.
What in the world are you talking about?
|
On March 12 2015 19:04 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 19:01 Plansix wrote:On March 12 2015 18:49 Darkwhite wrote:
Nobody heaps shame on failed artists - those, we sympathize with. This is not about mere critique. We are talking about successful artists with satisfied customers, and someone on the sidelines butting in on this relationship. It is someone trying to impose their superior values on people who create things they are supposedly wrong to create, and the people who like things they are supposedly wrong to like. For a guy who was talking about people on the Internet getting a thicker skin and hugboxes earlier, you sure are concerned with the feelings of a few game developers. By your previous logic, if they can't take the criticism, they shouldn't be making games. What in the world are you talking about?
Phone posting. I mistook you for another poster because I couldn't see the top of the post when I hit reply.
Either way, criticism is not bullying. The people that makes these games are prepared to hear for people who don't like them. They don't need to be protected from that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
