- Location
- The Hague
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Controversial gaming opinion: video games are good.
-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
What are controversial gaming opinions you have?
Ivar
Dark Reaper
- Location
- Russia Moscow
I just refer to your point about "symbolize things you might not know.". I just specify, I do not declare that you do not know this or intend to distort the facts. In the original message, this topic simply does not rise. I just decided to clarify this point. Sorry if this was rude.
No, no, you weren't rude, that was me miscommunicating, and this ties into both our points, I think, right here! Communication is hard, and easy to mess up. My question marked "I know?" came across to you as a subtle accusation of rudeness, but I intended it as "I'm not 100% sure where you're going with this, but think I mostly follow?". I should have thought a bit about the usual context of "Um, I know?" which is typically used as "I have no idea why you're talking to me like a child". That's on me!
Honestly, all I really want is people to accept that mistakes and confusions and subtle biases that can turn into hurtful messages are a thing that exists. And it frustrates me that people argue that a story can be completely devoid of any messaging, because the very act of writing a story already opens you up for sending messages. Even if all you did was never think to include a gay person, if across a dozen books, no gay people ever show up, you're sending a message that they don't exist and aren't worth considering. It's not deliberate. You're not trying to. You'd probably be horrified if you realized, and go "nononono I didn't mean that!"
But, well, that's the message that a lot of works send to gay or trans or ect readers. "No one like you exists in this world and story you love." It's not a big deal when one work does it, but when every work contributes to this unconscious, society-wide message of "Gay people aren't a thing", then the assumption becomes "It's weird and political and uncomfortable when they DO show up". See: all the people who go on about the gay agenda, or homosexuality being shoved into their faces because a gay person just exists in Mass Effect or Dragon Age or whatever.
The prior, unconscious bias was "Gay people aren't a thing," because no writer ever thought to include them because it just wasn't in their experience, and then they got asked to do so, went "Oh, okay, that's fair!"
And a bunch of people flipped out because their unconscious world view was being challenged, and now games are "political agendas", because there's a gay in here.
But it was always political, there was always a message. The message was just an unconscious, kinda unpleasant assumption, rather than a deliberate statement. But the people being marginalized saw the message "I don't think about you, ever, you might as well not exist to me". And that hurt, that sucks to always be disincluded, or only included as a joke or villain.
Deliberate messaging is correcting unconscious messaging, signal is correcting noise, as @vicky_molokh would put it. This is a good thing! But the noise still existed, still can exist. It's important to focus on sending signals, not noise, because unless you try, you'll never know when someone will hear words where you can hear only static.
Last edited:
The Englanderish
Schrödinger's Kuudere Kitty Caliph(a)
- Location
- Califat de Chats
No? All those cultures are long dead and the idea that choosing one over another has any reflection on actual real politics is going to need some very extensive justification for me to accept it, especially since practical limitations like budget and development time constrain these things a fair bit.
I was talking about both. People can get into other mindsets to their own. Humanity is an empathetic species with a broad capacity for it.
The problem isn't in what she says, but how she says it. Saying what amounts to "you need to put in the effort but I'll totally not care if you're simply not that great at it" is just.. unpleasant? Unnecessary? The exact wording is hard, but it's a very familiar feeling.Are you serious?
It's incredibly bizarre that pointing out problematic elements in fiction apparently constitutes bullying in your mind
You literally just talked about a work of fiction that in your eyes was trying, and then expressed immediate contempt for it for doing so. This is my problem - your words are not matching up. I am not interested in provocations, cruelty justifications or 'opposition'; I am interested in people acting in an at-least halfway respectable way.
I apologise for snapping; I shouldn't have done that. But please work with me here and just... not?
Hakazin
Serpent Admirer
- Pronouns
- She/Her
...What's the definition of politics you're using, out of curiosity?
vicky_molokh
Posthuman spidery thingy.
- Location
- Kyïv, Ukraine
Communication does require effort, yes. But to assume that what one heard/understood is always what the other party said is arrogant and misguided and also contributes to misunderstandings just as much as failures on the speaker's part . . . and at times more.
As for judgement, keep mens rea (or lack thereof) in mind when doing that. Just assuming that it is there is another of those cases of people acting arrogant and overconfident.
You say this, but apparently you read messages with the glasses of your culture and not the writer's culture, and say it's bad when it fails to conform to it, which de facto does place the burden of adhering to your (often future) culture onto the author.
You can say things you didn't intend. This is my point. What I heard is, by definition, what you said. It might not be what you meant to say. But it's what you said. You don't get a free pass because you didn't mean to, that's the whole point of this. "I didn't mean to" isn't an excuse. Nobody except a few pricks like Orson Scott Card mean to. But that doesn't matter, because you still did it.
And, um, yeah, I don't really care (EDIT: Or rather, I care, but it doesn't change my moral judgement) if the culture was different in the past? That's not an excuse. They're not a bunch of helpless savages. They're adult human beings, and I will definitely judge them when they did horrible things. "It's my culture" wasn't an excuse for the Confederates, and it's not an excuse for anyone else.
vicky_molokh
Posthuman spidery thingy.
- Location
- Kyïv, Ukraine
There's two potential points of failure in conveying a meaning from the one who came up with it to the one who receives it: the speaker and the listener. The listener absolutely does contribute to misunderstandings, especially so when DotA is involved and the listener willingly ignores any clarifications.
And the bit about 'but you did' - that accounts for the actus reus, not for mens rea. Judging someone requires factoring in both, and condemnation requires both.
I don't actually really care what clarifications get offered. The text is there, it's published. The author can insist people are reading it wrong until the cows come home, but that doesn't change what they published. They don't get to decide how people read their work, and it's on the author to think about their message. The fault is certainly not on the listener if the author is insisting their work is apolitical and never put a damn bit of effort into ensuring clear lines of communication because of their political opposition to acknowledging political messaging in works.
Ivar
Dark Reaper
- Location
- Russia Moscow
In my opinion, as people say the problem is not trees, it's a forest. At least in your example this is not a separate work that may not include gays / people of color / representatives of small countries about which you know little which is the problem. Proplem is lack of such work in sufficient quantity. This is what is solved by society and by the individuals from whom it is composed.
***************************************************
Now I will say something extremely unpopular and probably even stupid. I agree that diversity is good, portraying more women / gays / lesbians / transsexuals / people of color as the main characters with their prospects is good. Simply for me, the rationale for this is less humanistic. It's not good just because people feel better and presented in the media, it's also good because it improves the number of ideas, it makes things more complicated. This is a purely practical thing for me, which is connected with the fact that there is a desire and demand for such characters, even if we do not know it consciously.
The second reason is that "when everything is super, no one is super." I know that these are words from the villain, but still. When all the female characters, gays or transgenders are the norm, it will be good. It will be good because then instead of having a bad or good gay character, we will have a character that is good or bad written and and the fact that the character is gay is not a matter of discussion. For example, when people argue about Rei and whether she is a good character or bad it is framed in such a way that personally I do not even want to express my opinion, because it can send the wrong message ... Although in fact it is just an example and I there is no opinion about Rei from star wars, because I did not watch new movies.
And finally there is a downside in the form of an extremely presentation of things. For example, this is a criticism of the fact that too many heroes of video games are card-cuts in the form of a white man of about 30 age, often of unknown sexual orientation, presumably heterosexual. True, I'm not sure that the replacement of the hero here is more helpful, since it is very likely they will still be a cardboard cutout. But I digress. The same problem exists with sexualized clothing. In my very unenlightened view, the problem is not that it exists in the media. The problem is that they give it to every fucking game.
I admit that I like sometimes to see completely inappropriate clothes in games. But sometimes I want realistic armor. And I can not find it ... Applying this to another thing, I love, I love watermelons. But if they feed me only with watermelons for years and years ... I will hate them. And the problem is that people can not find something that meets their taste.
What I want to say is that for me the presentation of people in the media is a purely practical matter that deals with the dry fact that the market is full of goods (sexualization of a certain type, harsh white guys), which eventually displaces the competitive model (realistic armor and female characters ) and does not give it place. Not to mention the fact that the underrepresentation of the product causes dissatisfaction with the groups of consumers who wish it. . Something like this.
Last edited:
Hakazin
Serpent Admirer
- Pronouns
- She/Her
That metaphor actually works pretty well to illustrate the issue. The problem may be the forest, but the forest is made up of trees. If you want to remove the forest, but are unwilling to cut down the trees, the forest isn't going anywhere.
I like this.
Ivar
Dark Reaper
- Location
- Russia Moscow
Let's continue the metaphor. You say you need to knock down some trees to solve the problem. Or just cut down all the trees. For some problems, this is a good solution. For others, I do not agree. For example, if your problem is that the whole forest is made of oaks and it harms the ecology of the forest ... You do not need to cut down the forest, you need to plant other types of trees ... Although it is possible to say that you will have to remove those unnecessary cardboard cuts that were put there to create the illusion of the forest. Well, or cut down a couple of trees, yes, because the resources of the forest (the money to create games) are not infinite.
Last edited:
No one is suggesting cutting down all the trees. No one has ever suggested cutting down all the trees.
The Englanderish
Schrödinger's Kuudere Kitty Caliph(a)
- Location
- Califat de Chats
The extremely invasive matter of real-world issues in a serious context. Though that might not be the most helpful... hmm, here's a practical example to help.
So, for those not aware, I write fanfiction (linked in my sig for the curious) and many of the characters in said fanfiction have traits that would often be considered by various groups to be inherently political - Adi Gallia is a black woman in a position of significant power who is very competent and has zero love life; Bultar Swan is a gay asian girl; Bruck Chun is gay; Agen Kolar is homosexual and Australian Aborigine; and there's a whole lot more but for the sake of brevity I shall move on. Now, since this is a Star Wars fanfiction, the 'ethnicities' are functions of their real world actors as extras from the prequel films, but [glances at certain rl reactions to Finn] yyyyeah let's not kid ourselves here. But I do not consider these traits' presence in my fic to be political since the traits aren't really relevant in any rl political sense in the story proper (human races are functionally equivalent to hair colour in the setting and sexuality as an issue boils down to pretty much "well I really hope this very sexy person swings the same way"). They simply are, and I did not choose to put them in out of what I would see as political motivations.
My fic does actually have some political themes, but these traits are not them (incidentally, one of the allegories I use is a direct allegory to the US military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy wrt homosexuality). And it's like... for me to accept that these characters were political in nature because of these traits would mean turning them from people into things, into sides and party lines and so on. And for that matter would feel entirely too much like saying that there actually is a gay agenda or a racial agenda in the context of certain unsavoury parties' claims. Treating them as political for these specific traits would, ironically enough, immediately lose political ground, in my eyes.
Politics is something I've always seen as a very ugly, nasty and scummy thing that is dealt with by necessity and needs a personal separation to remain sane. I doubt I'll ever reveal my gender, sex or race under the public moniker of The Englanderish, but I am comfortable sharing that I am bisexual. And my personal experience as such a person is that... I have this division - bisexuality on the personal level and on the political level and where one becomes the other. On the political, I am invested in various rights and attitudes and so on (and dare I say it parties). But on the personal, I need a space where I don't have to think about that or deal with it and just... be bi without any such bullshit. the division keeps me sane and sound and I will take any and all steps necessary to shut out all that and just have a comfortable, nonpolitical space I can relax in and do other things, analyse stuff in other ways.
And I apply the same basic idea with fiction. Yes, there's plenty of political stuff and that's a good thing; but there is plenty of stuff that is functionally apolitical and that is also a good thing. And then there's stuff with all sorts of political elements or small sections, but is on the whole more or less non-political; and vice versa.
That was really fucking rambley, but I hope it made some sort of sense. D'you see what I'm getting at?
Last edited:
Hakazin
Serpent Admirer
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Ah, I see where the issue is. You have a fairly specific definition of what politics is and counts as, whereas I'm using politics in the sense of 'personal politics', as a more general phrase to describe the personal opinions and views of the creator or consumer of a piece of media and how those things affect a piece of work. In turn, those opinions and views are often heavily influenced or colored by the culture that the holder lives in, and in turn influence how the holder produces and consumes media.
And, yes, I do understand needing a way to separate one's self from the constant back and forth of what you term to be political. I certainly know I need to spend some time blowing up gribblies after browsing Whitehall or N&P for a while.
- Location
- Russia
The English language, ain't it wonderful? At the very least I'm pretty sure that neither Russian, nor Spanish, nor Japanese has such an entanglement of the term politics as in "politicians" and politics as in "personal opinion".
Ivar
Dark Reaper
- Location
- Russia Moscow
Sorry that I'm quoting you, but I just want to express my long-standing opinion and your post about the character just reminded me something. This is due to the character of the First Citizen Joanne Lynette from Fallout 2(who is also a black woman in the position of the highest politics, who does not have any personal and love life, with the exception of one ending), the sexism and the Legion of Caesar. And sorry if comparing your character with Joanne Lynette offends you. I sincerely apologize.
And so, my unpopular opinion. The Caesar legion, in its present form with it's misogyny, looks like a huge cancerous tumor on the body of the canon Fallout. Let's look at the factions of Fallout 2, the two most advanced factions are managed by women and use female soldiers. Virtually all factions use female soldiers. Even the Enclave in all its fascist horror does not pull further than 50 years of America in sexism. Raiders also do not consist of only men. Smaller factions may be more sexist, like families from New Reno, but still it's not Caesar's Legion. You can see the same thing in the first part or the third with the fourth. And so the legion looks like a huge pimple for me.
I'm not saying that Fallout is some kind of post sexist utopia, mind you. A lot of old ways and thinking about women still exist. But this is clearly not our reality. And this makes the behavior of Caesar's legion even more evil for me. They deny that even raiders, you know sadists who decorate houses with human bodies do not.
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere
Aren't the legion, you know, villains? If you hate and are disgusted by them, then the writers did their job.
Ivar
Dark Reaper
- Location
- Russia Moscow
I believe that their misogyny is completely superfluous to their role of villains in the universe and frankly ... It does not fit for me in the way I see Fallout ... On the other hand, if the authors assumed that the fans of the game would go "What kind of misogynist shit is in my Fallout? I'm going to remove these guys from the world so hard that they will be removed from the canon, "well, I applaud them. But I do not think that this was intentional.
- Location
- Somewhere
I just figured it was heavy handed "these are the badguys" coding. Sort of like you always know that the slightly creeperish guy on the hero's teem at the beginning will always be the traitor in every work of fiction ever.
Carrnage
Human
- Location
- New Zealand
So what's the political meaning of chopsticks?
Reveen
Castro-Trudeauist
Get a bunch of white tourists in a upscale Chinese restaurant and watch how long it takes for them to start fucking around and goofing about their inability to use the chopsticks without caring about how it makes them look to the locals. If you're really spicy throw some crusty old guy in there and see how long it takes before he's all like "Why can't these Chinamen use fork like everyone else?".
That's the political meaning of chopsticks.
Carrnage
Human
- Location
- New Zealand
... the instrumental.
Renewal
Boring Person #5883781345
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I mean, let's not be obtuse. "Everything is political" is a snappy phrase meant to point out that subconscious political messaging is far more prevalent than many creators are willing to admit, particularly in works claiming to be apolitical. Like most forms of critique, it's not meant to be a truly absolute statement, just hyperbolic to get the point across more bluntly. If you get to a simplistic enough work that cannot properly convey a message at all, like something as basic as Chopsticks or Tic Tac Toe, then naturally it won't be political. But if a work can conceivably tell a story or any message at all, then yes, it's going to have political over- and undertones to it because personal politics affects everything about our thinking.
I think they meant the musical piece, not necessarily the utensil.
- Location
- Texas, US
Caesar is what I would call a utilitarian misogynist. Slave women are an asset to keep his numbers up. Horrible to be sure but he has no problem with a female Courier. If he had an ideological problem with women, thinking them inherently stupid or weak, he would not let you do brain surgery on him.
Also some of the cut content was Caesar's priestess caste. As a god to his people, some women are chosen to venerate him.