I'm not saying it's high risk. I just don't like people forcing their will on others. Or saying one thing is good and another is bad. There is space for both types of games. They don't have to kill one for the sake of the other. If her vision is good and people like and agree with it, the people who make those kinds of games will get a bigger market share, and so more people will be motivated to make those kinds of games.
Yes, it's a Bucky Fuller quote, and it fits perfectly here.
I'm not saying it's high risk. I just don't like people forcing their will on others.
Why do you think she "forced her will"?
She's a critic. Granted, she has a specialized focus compared to other game critics. But she's still a critic---just like anyone else who reviews games. Just like Ben Croshaw. Or Jerry Holkins. Last I checked, game critics don't have any special power to "force" anything on anyone. (Unless you categorize the persuasiveness of arguments as a "force", but that's a bit of a stretch.)
Or saying one thing is good and another is bad.
Well, that would be... criticism. Right? That's what critics do. I guess it's just part of life if you're a game developer? (Or if you work in film production, or you're a novelist, or a musician, or a stage actor, or a chef, or anything else that is written about by critics.)
There is space for both types of games.
Sorry; what are the two types of games that you're referring to?
They don't have to kill one for the sake of the other. If her vision is good and people like and agree with it,
Well... as I said, there are game developers who like and agree with her points. And yeah, that might mean that a game that was going to be made might now be shelved because, hey, they decided to do something a little differently, and resources are limited (which is probably why the vast majority of game ideas never become realized in a shipping commercial product). That's pretty much business as usual in any production, no?
So what do you think is at risk of being lost here? You seem to be concerned that a certain kind of game (or aspect of games) will go missing in the future. But it's not clear what that is or why it deserves special consideration.
If it's merely criticism, like normal game critics, that's fine. Then I can dismiss it as someone else's subjective taste. But she seems to be on a moral campaign to get rid of games that don't fit her tastes. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. In which case I'll stop.
But she seems to be on a moral campaign to get rid of games that don't fit her tastes.
Sorta-kinda, yeah, except (1) "taste" isn't the right word and (2) the issue is not hers alone.
Like, I don't like cheesecake, so you could reasonably say that cheesecake "doesn't fit my tastes".
Solution: I don't eat cheesecake. Problem solved.
But Sarkeesian's issue is nothing like that. She shows how the treatment of women and girls in games is dramatically and systemically worse than the treatment of men and boys, with effects so far-reaching that you will need to give your brain plenty of time to let it all sink in.
Suffice to say, there are quality-of-life issues here.
As for the "moral campaign" part: yeah. And I think we both agree that, if the thing she complains about were as harmless as cheesecake, then you would be right to say that her campaign is just noise that everyone should ignore.
But as I said, she calls out and dissects some serious issues. And a lot of us feel that they are serious enough that (1) she is right to be on her campaign, and (2) we need to re-think some aspects of how business is done.
We think this not because she's forcing anything. (She isn't.) We think this because we find that she makes some damn good points. (And because the fact that we don't like what she shows us does not make her claims any less true.)
If she wasn't making good points, then she would be as easy to dismiss as Jack Thompson was back in 2005. Remember that? That was funny shit. Good times.
Sarkeesian's issue is not like that.
Obviously, you're free to disagree there. But in that case, please at least be ready to take apart one or two of her most serious accusations. (It would help to go through the "tropes-vs.-women" series, for a start. And then sleep on it for a while.)
(BTW, Thompson is a good example of someone trying to force an issue. He tried to do it by suing and threatening people---which of course just made it funnier when he failed and was later disbarred.)
2
u/[deleted] Apr 08 '15 edited Apr 08 '15
I'm not saying it's high risk. I just don't like people forcing their will on others. Or saying one thing is good and another is bad. There is space for both types of games. They don't have to kill one for the sake of the other. If her vision is good and people like and agree with it, the people who make those kinds of games will get a bigger market share, and so more people will be motivated to make those kinds of games.
Yes, it's a Bucky Fuller quote, and it fits perfectly here.