|
On March 09 2015 01:05 travis wrote: I really don't think the immature kids that talk to girl gamers like this are going after girl gamers. I think they are being dicks to everyone. Most guys, especially ones over 12, LOVE to have girls that play their games too.
In general this "defend girl gamers!" thing is ridiculous. Everyone has to deal with the shitty little immature trolls, not just girls.
The majority of this journalism on girl gamer equality is only a way for the producers of this content to make money. Which is why I didn't click the link.
Agreed. /end thread
Although, I am interested in the psychology of males/females/other and gaming in general. So I would watch this docu with low expectations anyway.
Most gaming related docus are pretty weak, or the same rehashed shit, regardless what they are about, but I watch em anyway.
I even watched a ton of those Anita Sarkeesian videos about female tropes (even though she is way off, and who gives a shit).
|
Canada11030 Posts
@Darkwhite Do you believe in the idea of criticism at all? (Or for that matter, reviews?) Because I can't understand your comments in any way, shape, or form in terms of what critics do all the time. To paraphrase CS Lewis, an author intends, but a work means. There is such thing as failed art- that is an artist intends to create something according to his vision and he fails. That's why there are films that are so bad, they're good (Star Crash and Troll 2, for example.) A critic can come in and separate from creator intention, evaluate the success of the work on its own merits. I, as gamer, can evaluate whether I think the story holds together, whether I think the gameplay is interesting, whether I think the characters make sense, etc, etc. No an artist is not my bitch- to borrow Neil Gaiman's defence of GRRM. But criticism is a way of engaging in the work- especially if the work isn't working for you. It's not lazy, nor is it naive- uncritical and passive acceptance could possibly be considered lazy- I'm not sure I'd go there. But I don't see criticism as lazy- far from it.
I'm trying to get a sense of your defence of game developers- Was the cancellation of Dungeon Keeper 3 a terrible travesty because people dared to criticize the artistic vision of the free artist, who ought to have been defended and protected from condemnation? (Although condemnation is a pretty strong word, I only use it because you were- it's not something most criticisms do.)
|
i think what darkwhite is trying to say is that when you criticise an artist you have to focus on what he has intended to do. for example, when an artist wants to create a character with a troubled personality who is a victim of circumstances and becomes the tragic villian you can critisise that the character doesnt react reasonable in multiple situations, which makes the development of said character not understandable and ultimately, doesnt make him the intended tragic villian. what you can not do is critisise that he has a troubled personality. the latter really is just lazy, because it doesnt take the artists work in consideration and is nothing more than a random "i dont like it because reasons" comment. in the end, critique doesnt want people to stop something, critique want people to do better in what they were doing.
with the gender equality debate a lot of people fall into the trap where they have a certain ideal and critisise everything that doesnt adhear to this ideal. you can not critisise an artist for having less female characters or no strong female characters in his work. you can however carp at the nonsensical behaviour the female characters might have or how they dont fit into the piece the way they are shown.
|
On March 13 2015 17:12 Falling wrote: @Darkwhite Do you believe in the idea of criticism at all? (Or for that matter, reviews?) Because I can't understand your comments in any way, shape, or form in terms of what critics do all the time. To paraphrase CS Lewis, an author intends, but a work means. There is such thing as failed art- that is an artist intends to create something according to his vision and he fails. That's why there are films that are so bad, they're good (Star Crash and Troll 2, for example.) A critic can come in and separate from creator intention, evaluate the success of the work on its own merits. I, as gamer, can evaluate whether I think the story holds together, whether I think the gameplay is interesting, whether I think the characters make sense, etc, etc. No an artist is not my bitch- to borrow Neil Gaiman's defence of GRRM. But criticism is a way of engaging in the work- especially if the work isn't working for you. It's not lazy, nor is it naive- uncritical and passive acceptance could possibly be considered lazy- I'm not sure I'd go there. But I don't see criticism as lazy- far from it.
I'm trying to get a sense of your defence of game developers- Was the cancellation of Dungeon Keeper 3 a terrible travesty because people dared to criticize the artistic vision of the free artist, who ought to have been defended and protected from condemnation?
I am not at all familiar with any of the particulars you reference, though it doesn't seem to matter much.
There is of course nothing wrong holding your own opinions about an art piece, or about expressing these. One can of course try to engage in criticism - to evaluate an art piece, relative to whatever criteria one deems important.
But literally no one other than the artist himself can evaluate whether his art is a failure or not, because it is he who has decided to invest resources into making it, and it is he who decides what the purpose of that investment was. It is perfectly irrelevant whether critics think his art is distasteful, insofar as he is himself satisfied. Insofar as he isn't, it is only relevant what he himself feels that he failed to achieve.
There is nothing wrong with thinking a game isn't fun to play. There is nothing wrong with expressing an honest opinion either, even with a sweeping generalizations like This game feels like it's straight out of 1992 and will bore you to tears if you even manage to install the broken piece of junk.
But everything is wrong with crossing the line and imposing on the artist's right to make whatever he pleases. Every statement about what the artist should have done is a sleight of hand, where you substitute the artist's autonomy with an obligation towards you, or society at large, or your own moral standards. An artist has no right to demand that others care about his art, and a consumer has no right to demand that the artist accommodates his whims.
Just try writing out the argument for why Ubisoft should have put a female main character in AC:Unity - or read the article you were yourself applauding (?) . These perversions crop up everywhere - Ubisoft should care about the female demographic, Ubisoft should feel that the sex of the main character is important for reaching this demographic, Ubisoft should take responsibility for the lack of female main characters in games at large (though they themselves have only made a tiny slice of all games), Ubisoft should contribute to upending the heteronormativity of popular culture. Long version short, Ubisoft should surrender part of their self-authorship to my vision of gaming, and if they don't follow up on my supposedly well-intended guidance, I will shame them for it, for who are they to just decide what they want to spend their time making?
Notice that this is not a blanket criticism of making requests, but only of pretending others have a moral duty to comply. It's fine to ask someone to be your girlfriend, but not to shame her and call her a failure of a human being for refusing.
|
On March 13 2015 18:43 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 17:12 Falling wrote: @Darkwhite Do you believe in the idea of criticism at all? (Or for that matter, reviews?) Because I can't understand your comments in any way, shape, or form in terms of what critics do all the time. To paraphrase CS Lewis, an author intends, but a work means. There is such thing as failed art- that is an artist intends to create something according to his vision and he fails. That's why there are films that are so bad, they're good (Star Crash and Troll 2, for example.) A critic can come in and separate from creator intention, evaluate the success of the work on its own merits. I, as gamer, can evaluate whether I think the story holds together, whether I think the gameplay is interesting, whether I think the characters make sense, etc, etc. No an artist is not my bitch- to borrow Neil Gaiman's defence of GRRM. But criticism is a way of engaging in the work- especially if the work isn't working for you. It's not lazy, nor is it naive- uncritical and passive acceptance could possibly be considered lazy- I'm not sure I'd go there. But I don't see criticism as lazy- far from it.
I'm trying to get a sense of your defence of game developers- Was the cancellation of Dungeon Keeper 3 a terrible travesty because people dared to criticize the artistic vision of the free artist, who ought to have been defended and protected from condemnation? I am not at all familiar with any of the particulars you reference, though it doesn't seem to matter much. There is of course nothing wrong holding your own opinions about an art piece, or about expressing these. One can of course try to engage in criticism - to evaluate an art piece, relative to whatever criteria one deems important. But literally no one other than the artist himself can evaluate whether his art is a failure or not, because it is he who has decided to invest resources into making it, and it is he who decides what the purpose of that investment was. It is perfectly irrelevant whether critics think his art is distasteful, insofar as he is himself satisfied. Insofar as he isn't, it is only relevant what he himself feels that he failed to achieve. There is nothing wrong with thinking a game isn't fun to play. There is nothing wrong with expressing an honest opinion either, even with a sweeping generalizations like This game feels like it's straight out of 1992 and will bore you to tears if you even manage to install the broken piece of junk. But everything is wrong with crossing the line and imposing on the artist's right to make whatever he pleases. Every statement about what the artist should have done is a sleight of hand, where you substitute the artist's autonomy with an obligation towards you, or society at large, or your own moral standards. An artist has no right to demand that others care about his art, and a consumer has no right to demand that the artist accommodates his whims. Just try writing out the argument for why Ubisoft should have put a female main character in AC:Unity - or read the article you were yourself applauding (?) . These perversions crop up everywhere - Ubisoft should care about the female demographic, Ubisoft should feel that the sex of the main character is important for reaching this demographic, Ubisoft should take responsibility for the lack of female main characters in games at large (though they themselves have only made a tiny slice of all games), Ubisoft should contribute to upending the heteronormativity of popular culture. Long version short, Ubisoft should surrender part of their self-authorship to my vision of gaming, and if they don't follow up on my supposedly well-intended guidance, I will shame them for it, for who are they to just decide what they want to spend their time making? Notice that this is not a blanket criticism of making requests, but only of pretending others have a moral duty to comply. It's fine to ask someone to be your girlfriend, but not to shame her and call her a failure of a human being for refusing. You are coming at this from a very odd angle, and seeing as how Falling's references were beyond you, it would seem you haven't spent all that much time looking into the art of criticism. With that in mind, I'd suggest you focus on how or why the criticisms levied against game makers are wrong in terms of their substantive value or direction instead of attempting to indict the methods of criticism themselves. A critical perspective that revolves around identity theory is a valid lens with which to view any type of media no matter how much you dislike its normative implications. Attempting to shame someone or something into adopting a view is not somehow intrinsically out of bounds, and can in fact prove very useful when appealing to people's sense of right and wrong. That being said, there are other critical perspectives, such as those that focus on utility, aesthetics, or design itself, that can be argued to supersede a view that identity theory ought to dictate design choices on the part of game developers, and I think this route would prove far more effective.
In other words, you aren't going to convince anyone by telling politically correct or identity theory folks that they are inherently wrong because of the selfishly normative angle of their perspective; literally every single critical statement privies the speaker of the criticism and normativity hides in almost every single statement we, as humans, can make. Instead, I think it would be far more useful to argue that a competing set of ideals ought to effectively defeat or lessen the concerns of those whom you disagree with.
|
On March 13 2015 15:29 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2015 01:05 travis wrote: I really don't think the immature kids that talk to girl gamers like this are going after girl gamers. I think they are being dicks to everyone. Most guys, especially ones over 12, LOVE to have girls that play their games too.
In general this "defend girl gamers!" thing is ridiculous. Everyone has to deal with the shitty little immature trolls, not just girls.
The majority of this journalism on girl gamer equality is only a way for the producers of this content to make money. Which is why I didn't click the link. Agreed. /end thread Although, I am interested in the psychology of males/females/other and gaming in general. So I would watch this docu with low expectations anyway. Most gaming related docus are pretty weak, or the same rehashed shit, regardless what they are about, but I watch em anyway. I even watched a ton of those Anita Sarkeesian videos about female tropes (even though she is way off, and who gives a shit). are you suggesting no one has ever made fun of someone on a video game because they were girls? not just normal flack but when they identified as a girl they got made fun of specifically for being a female.
what do you think the 'defend girl gamers' people are doing thats so bad? i though in essense it was just people saying stop being a dick.
|
On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change.
Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests.
For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study.
|
On March 13 2015 22:45 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 15:29 MarlieChurphy wrote:On March 09 2015 01:05 travis wrote: I really don't think the immature kids that talk to girl gamers like this are going after girl gamers. I think they are being dicks to everyone. Most guys, especially ones over 12, LOVE to have girls that play their games too.
In general this "defend girl gamers!" thing is ridiculous. Everyone has to deal with the shitty little immature trolls, not just girls.
The majority of this journalism on girl gamer equality is only a way for the producers of this content to make money. Which is why I didn't click the link. Agreed. /end thread Although, I am interested in the psychology of males/females/other and gaming in general. So I would watch this docu with low expectations anyway. Most gaming related docus are pretty weak, or the same rehashed shit, regardless what they are about, but I watch em anyway. I even watched a ton of those Anita Sarkeesian videos about female tropes (even though she is way off, and who gives a shit). are you suggesting no one has ever made fun of someone on a video game because they were girls? not just normal flack but when they identified as a girl they got made fun of specifically for being a female. what do you think the 'defend girl gamers' people are doing thats so bad? i though in essense it was just people saying stop being a dick. I am with you, I don't really understand the need to tell women in gaming to toughen up. It reminds me of when women faced sexual harassment when they tried to get into the armed services, police and fire department. Men would tell them to "toughen up" or "that is the environment you decided to get into" to justify shitty behaviors.
And all studies based on "biological interests" are sort of flawed because they don't take into account culture or social causes why specific genders don't get involved with specific events. You don't see a lot of boys playing with barbies and I don't think thats because their DNA is hard coded to dislike the color pink.
|
Northern Ireland21301 Posts
It's very difficult to judge either way. I'm not around his daycare, but with my son he's super into toy cars and the likes. I'd always assumed that this was a cultural imposition, that these are 'boy things' so he gravitated towards them but we've never guided him in any particular direction towards that. He also isn't allowed to watch television with commercials (which do clearly market toys along gender lines)
Perhaps he's picked it up from somewhere that I'm unaware of, but it's interesting to compare him and my kid sister's interests at the same age (just coming up 2 years old) and how nearly they fit into genderised roles
|
I don't know why boys gravitate towards trucks, but a friend of mine has a girl who loves them too. But at that age kids are so impressionable its hard to figure how where they get the ques that they should like anything.
It think there are the same issues with girls getting into gaming as guys getting into competitive dance or cheer leading. Sure people do it, but they catch a lot of unnecessary shit from assholes. The problem with gaming right isn't that the abuse is there, but a lot of people are so dismissive of it. I really see a lot of similarities with women in the armed services getting sexually harassed(which is still going on) and the armed services just dismissing it.
And its not just gaming, the tech industry as a whole is having similar issues. Its just an inherent problem with something being dominated by one gender for so long.
|
On March 13 2015 22:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 22:45 ComaDose wrote:On March 13 2015 15:29 MarlieChurphy wrote:On March 09 2015 01:05 travis wrote: I really don't think the immature kids that talk to girl gamers like this are going after girl gamers. I think they are being dicks to everyone. Most guys, especially ones over 12, LOVE to have girls that play their games too.
In general this "defend girl gamers!" thing is ridiculous. Everyone has to deal with the shitty little immature trolls, not just girls.
The majority of this journalism on girl gamer equality is only a way for the producers of this content to make money. Which is why I didn't click the link. Agreed. /end thread Although, I am interested in the psychology of males/females/other and gaming in general. So I would watch this docu with low expectations anyway. Most gaming related docus are pretty weak, or the same rehashed shit, regardless what they are about, but I watch em anyway. I even watched a ton of those Anita Sarkeesian videos about female tropes (even though she is way off, and who gives a shit). are you suggesting no one has ever made fun of someone on a video game because they were girls? not just normal flack but when they identified as a girl they got made fun of specifically for being a female. what do you think the 'defend girl gamers' people are doing thats so bad? i though in essense it was just people saying stop being a dick. I am with you, I don't really understand the need to tell women in gaming to toughen up. It reminds me of when women faced sexual harassment when they tried to get into the armed services, police and fire department. Men would tell them to "toughen up" or "that is the environment you decided to get into" to justify shitty behaviors. And all studies based on "biological interests" are sort of flawed because they don't take into account culture or social causes why specific genders don't get involved with specific events. You don't see a lot of boys playing with barbies and I don't think thats because their DNA is hard coded to dislike the color pink.
But I said in my post that it was before they were exposed to any of these barbie things. I.e. they were toddlers.
|
On March 13 2015 22:52 haleu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change. Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests. For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study. that sounds like a great study do you have a link?
|
On March 13 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 18:43 Darkwhite wrote:On March 13 2015 17:12 Falling wrote: @Darkwhite Do you believe in the idea of criticism at all? (Or for that matter, reviews?) Because I can't understand your comments in any way, shape, or form in terms of what critics do all the time. To paraphrase CS Lewis, an author intends, but a work means. There is such thing as failed art- that is an artist intends to create something according to his vision and he fails. That's why there are films that are so bad, they're good (Star Crash and Troll 2, for example.) A critic can come in and separate from creator intention, evaluate the success of the work on its own merits. I, as gamer, can evaluate whether I think the story holds together, whether I think the gameplay is interesting, whether I think the characters make sense, etc, etc. No an artist is not my bitch- to borrow Neil Gaiman's defence of GRRM. But criticism is a way of engaging in the work- especially if the work isn't working for you. It's not lazy, nor is it naive- uncritical and passive acceptance could possibly be considered lazy- I'm not sure I'd go there. But I don't see criticism as lazy- far from it.
I'm trying to get a sense of your defence of game developers- Was the cancellation of Dungeon Keeper 3 a terrible travesty because people dared to criticize the artistic vision of the free artist, who ought to have been defended and protected from condemnation? I am not at all familiar with any of the particulars you reference, though it doesn't seem to matter much. There is of course nothing wrong holding your own opinions about an art piece, or about expressing these. One can of course try to engage in criticism - to evaluate an art piece, relative to whatever criteria one deems important. But literally no one other than the artist himself can evaluate whether his art is a failure or not, because it is he who has decided to invest resources into making it, and it is he who decides what the purpose of that investment was. It is perfectly irrelevant whether critics think his art is distasteful, insofar as he is himself satisfied. Insofar as he isn't, it is only relevant what he himself feels that he failed to achieve. There is nothing wrong with thinking a game isn't fun to play. There is nothing wrong with expressing an honest opinion either, even with a sweeping generalizations like This game feels like it's straight out of 1992 and will bore you to tears if you even manage to install the broken piece of junk. But everything is wrong with crossing the line and imposing on the artist's right to make whatever he pleases. Every statement about what the artist should have done is a sleight of hand, where you substitute the artist's autonomy with an obligation towards you, or society at large, or your own moral standards. An artist has no right to demand that others care about his art, and a consumer has no right to demand that the artist accommodates his whims. Just try writing out the argument for why Ubisoft should have put a female main character in AC:Unity - or read the article you were yourself applauding (?) . These perversions crop up everywhere - Ubisoft should care about the female demographic, Ubisoft should feel that the sex of the main character is important for reaching this demographic, Ubisoft should take responsibility for the lack of female main characters in games at large (though they themselves have only made a tiny slice of all games), Ubisoft should contribute to upending the heteronormativity of popular culture. Long version short, Ubisoft should surrender part of their self-authorship to my vision of gaming, and if they don't follow up on my supposedly well-intended guidance, I will shame them for it, for who are they to just decide what they want to spend their time making? Notice that this is not a blanket criticism of making requests, but only of pretending others have a moral duty to comply. It's fine to ask someone to be your girlfriend, but not to shame her and call her a failure of a human being for refusing. You are coming at this from a very odd angle, and seeing as how Falling's references were beyond you, it would seem you haven't spent all that much time looking into the art of criticism. With that in mind, I'd suggest you focus on how or why the criticisms levied against game makers are wrong in terms of their substantive value or direction instead of attempting to indict the methods of criticism themselves. A critical perspective that revolves around identity theory is a valid lens with which to view any type of media no matter how much you dislike its normative implications. Attempting to shame someone or something into adopting a view is not somehow intrinsically out of bounds, and can in fact prove very useful when appealing to people's sense of right and wrong. That being said, there are other critical perspectives, such as those that focus on utility, aesthetics, or design itself, that can be argued to supersede a view that identity theory ought to dictate design choices on the part of game developers, and I think this route would prove far more effective. In other words, you aren't going to convince anyone by telling politically correct or identity theory folks that they are inherently wrong because of the selfishly normative angle of their perspective; literally every single critical statement privies the speaker of the criticism and normativity hides in almost every single statement we, as humans, can make. Instead, I think it would be far more useful to argue that a competing set of ideals ought to effectively defeat or lessen the concerns of those whom you disagree with. The particulars in question are Neil Gaiman on G.R.R.Martin, Star Crash and Troll 2, and especially Dungeon Keeper 3 which he asked me about, and not especially relevant to art criticism in general, but good work on the condescension.
The substance of the criticisms are perfectly irrelevant to my argument, it is the form of criticism itself which is inherently reprehensible - the form, which tries to twist differences in preferences and values into moral failings. Normative implications are an excellent reason to refuse something outright, when we are discussing art, and not the obligations people have to not steal and murder.
Attempting to shame someone into adopting a view, is almost perfectly the opposite of appealing the their sense of right and wrong. Shaming tactics tautologically appeal to people's fear of social stigma - the fear of what others might think of them, and subsequently that they might to do. Of course it is useful in a scarequotes sense, but the same could be said for any other way of controlling people's behavior, be it lynch mobbing or slut shaming, which is very seldom applauded.
It is true that insofar as people bite the bullet - namely, that they find their own ideals so noble that they should be imposed on unwilling artists - then I have nothing to leverage against them. Well, nothing but to appeal to their sense of right and wrong and to remind them that giving up tolerance to obtain diversity is much like fucking for virginity. And I suspect that this is a bullet they are unwilling to bite.
|
On March 13 2015 18:43 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 17:12 Falling wrote: @Darkwhite Do you believe in the idea of criticism at all? (Or for that matter, reviews?) Because I can't understand your comments in any way, shape, or form in terms of what critics do all the time. To paraphrase CS Lewis, an author intends, but a work means. There is such thing as failed art- that is an artist intends to create something according to his vision and he fails. That's why there are films that are so bad, they're good (Star Crash and Troll 2, for example.) A critic can come in and separate from creator intention, evaluate the success of the work on its own merits. I, as gamer, can evaluate whether I think the story holds together, whether I think the gameplay is interesting, whether I think the characters make sense, etc, etc. No an artist is not my bitch- to borrow Neil Gaiman's defence of GRRM. But criticism is a way of engaging in the work- especially if the work isn't working for you. It's not lazy, nor is it naive- uncritical and passive acceptance could possibly be considered lazy- I'm not sure I'd go there. But I don't see criticism as lazy- far from it.
I'm trying to get a sense of your defence of game developers- Was the cancellation of Dungeon Keeper 3 a terrible travesty because people dared to criticize the artistic vision of the free artist, who ought to have been defended and protected from condemnation? I am not at all familiar with any of the particulars you reference, though it doesn't seem to matter much. There is of course nothing wrong holding your own opinions about an art piece, or about expressing these. One can of course try to engage in criticism - to evaluate an art piece, relative to whatever criteria one deems important. But literally no one other than the artist himself can evaluate whether his art is a failure or not, because it is he who has decided to invest resources into making it, and it is he who decides what the purpose of that investment was. It is perfectly irrelevant whether critics think his art is distasteful, insofar as he is himself satisfied. Insofar as he isn't, it is only relevant what he himself feels that he failed to achieve. There is nothing wrong with thinking a game isn't fun to play. There is nothing wrong with expressing an honest opinion either, even with a sweeping generalizations like This game feels like it's straight out of 1992 and will bore you to tears if you even manage to install the broken piece of junk. But everything is wrong with crossing the line and imposing on the artist's right to make whatever he pleases. Every statement about what the artist should have done is a sleight of hand, where you substitute the artist's autonomy with an obligation towards you, or society at large, or your own moral standards. An artist has no right to demand that others care about his art, and a consumer has no right to demand that the artist accommodates his whims. Just try writing out the argument for why Ubisoft should have put a female main character in AC:Unity - or read the article you were yourself applauding (?) . These perversions crop up everywhere - Ubisoft should care about the female demographic, Ubisoft should feel that the sex of the main character is important for reaching this demographic, Ubisoft should take responsibility for the lack of female main characters in games at large (though they themselves have only made a tiny slice of all games), Ubisoft should contribute to upending the heteronormativity of popular culture. Long version short, Ubisoft should surrender part of their self-authorship to my vision of gaming, and if they don't follow up on my supposedly well-intended guidance, I will shame them for it, for who are they to just decide what they want to spend their time making? Notice that this is not a blanket criticism of making requests, but only of pretending others have a moral duty to comply. It's fine to ask someone to be your girlfriend, but not to shame her and call her a failure of a human being for refusing.
I'm not sure that the distinction here between "criticism" and "shaming" is entirely accurate. From what you say, it seems like "shaming" involves coercing artists into making something that fits another person's idea of good. I agree that there are more and less respectful ways of responding to a work of art and that some responses can be needlessly hurtful, but this definition of shaming is so broad that it isn't clear what is left for "criticism." You offer an example---"This game feels like it's straight out of 1992 and will bore you to tears"---but this feels like it could easily be interpreted as a form of subtle coercion: "I found this game boring and old-fashioned and have noted this publicly to tell people that you've done a terrible job because you didn't cater to my idea of fun."
Moreover, if a critic notes that an artist has made a piece that reinforces a certain sexist worldview, is that shaming? If so, then it seems like critics can never ask or answer questions about sexism. The same problem might emerge when a critic asks "What ideologies does this piece of art draw from" or "Why does so much popular art show signs of these oppressive social trends?" If critics can't ask these questions because any answer is "shaming," then it seems like the critic is getting silenced more than the artist. That seems problematic.
|
On March 14 2015 00:15 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 22:52 haleu wrote:On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change. Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests. For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study. that sounds like a great study do you have a link? Might have been this one.
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Human_Development_Center/Roundtable/Serbin2.pdf
|
On March 13 2015 22:52 haleu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change. Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests. For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study. I don't know what study you're referring to, but there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however. Since you may be referring to a study by Baron-Cohen that was already discussed on these forums, allow me to quote a post of mine in which I explained why the study did not prove the existence of the kind of innate biological differences some claimed it did:
One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point. More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant. If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?". Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958. To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations). I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
|
On March 14 2015 02:30 haleu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 00:15 ComaDose wrote:On March 13 2015 22:52 haleu wrote:On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change. Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests. For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study. that sounds like a great study do you have a link? Might have been this one. http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Human_Development_Center/Roundtable/Serbin2.pdf only the first page will load for me for some reason. that is a 15 year old study by students where they only had <150 kids and boys didnt even demonstrate their results in half their trials and they say that behavior rolls of males and females may be assimilated before they do the test.
|
Hmm, the findings in the study I linked seem to be statistically significant though. Either way, I'm convinced there are biological differences. The empirical evidence is just too much.
|
On March 14 2015 03:08 haleu wrote: Hmm, the findings in the study I linked seem to be statistically significant though. Either way, I'm convinced there are biological differences. The empirical evidence is just too much. Can you provide said empirical evidence?
|
I have seen the exact opposite from my research, but we might both be looking at confirmation bias at this point. Either way, I don't think it should have any bearing on how women are treated in gaming or if some of their criticism of games is warranted.
|
|
|
|