Are Internet Discussions Regressing?

[Elfgore]

It's not about the character's sexuality, gender, or whatever the fuck. It's about whether or not they're a relatable and interesting character.

This is true, however, if I remember correctly[footnote]last time I saw this video was in 2012. And I've not played the game, so I literally only have that video to go off on.[/footnote] the idea was that the character was interesting because he was gay, albeit not directly. It was something to do with this being a major factor for him - he was...conflicted? Or something about his sexuality which is where the drama and engagement about him comes in. Of course, on top of that, he was also fully fleshed out, and "gay" wasn't his only feature, but it was one of the primary motivators behind his character.

So, I believe the point wasn't that "being gay makes you a good character" but "being gay" can be used as a powerful device to build a good character out of.

He's not exactly gay and from what I played never stated as such, he's most likely Bi or a straight dude wondering about his sexual orentiation. His arc is also much more focused on him having traditionally girly hobbies as a guy, not his sexual orentation. I'll have to watch the video to see if that's what they actually said.

Edit: Oh dear lord they projected their viewpoints so hard on that game it hurts. That video was just all wrong.


Anyway, blame it on the knee jerk and buzzwords. Oh and lodging everyone into groups.

 

[9tailedflame]

No, internet discussions have been a clusterfuck for a long, long time. It's not a new thing at all. Certain topics may come and go, but the flame and vitriol has been here with us since at least the late 90s, as i can speak from personal experience. It's just the nature of the internet. It's a place where you can say what you want with significantly less repercussions than irl, and all the good and bad that comes with that. It's the wild west.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I think a lot of the people who used to say "video games deserve to be treated as a mature form of media" all of a sudden realized that mature forms of media draw political discussions, and now they're desperately attempting a rear-guard action to prevent criticism with sad little arguments like "just shut up and don't play the game if you don't like it". What they really wanted was to get rid of the stigma of indulging in an "immature" pasttime, while not actually doing anything to change it. Now they're scared that the attention games are getting for their treatment of issues will lead to changes that they don't want.

 

[ThereIsNoSanta]

I just want to mention some stats that you haven't but seem relevant:

First video has 5,631 votes in total as opposed to the second video's 24,165 total votes. Both videos also have a comparable number of views the one which is (almost exactly) 4 years old has 369,759 views while the other one has 324,635, yet it's only barely a month old. So, it seems that the new video has gathered a lot more audience as opposed to the old one, however, that's only views on YouTube - it doesn't count other sites it's been hosted on and people who've seen it there. However, that also means that it doesn't reflect the disagreements of the people from those sites.

Actually, that's a great point. Thanks for bringing it up, I'm actually disappointed that I hadn't considered it.

I do however still believe that backlashes against inoffensive words such as "problematic" are a recent phenomenon, though.

Some words are overused and misused to the point it becomes kinda ridiculous, and hard to take seriously. Like, whenever someone says a work is 'problematic', it just comes with baggage for a lot of people. Like, seemingly most people, since most people in general seem to hate the crap out of the recent trend of overkill social justice. ( http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/09/82-percent-of-americans-dont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/ )

I'd say it's more likely that Extra Credits is out of touch with their own demographics. And current events. And the outside world off the internet.

 

[2xDouble]

"Regressing" implies that internet discussions had any cultural value or significance to begin with. As someone who has been around since before the so-called "Information Age", I can assure you, that is not the case. The only change is that they're using slightly different slurs and epithets to both express and casually dismiss opinions, as this very thread will undoubtedly demonstrate.

EDIT: Read the first few comments. Confirmed.

 

[Zontar]

I think you have groups that are more actively seeking confrontation, and Extra Credits has pretty much always had a progressive lean to it.

I don't know, they seem to have very little overlap with their current audience and that which they cultivated 4 years ago.

They've certainly changed their style. Once upon a time they'd never have batted an eyelash at The Division's story since they'd realize it's not particularly important to the game when compared to the mechanics. Their rant about the political message they projected onto it would have seemed alien to their work from 2011.

 

[Prepper247]

It's just that people are too scared to voice their own opinions so they just side with the majority and it snowballs.

 

[FalloutJack]

I refuse to acknowledge Youtube as a viable means of determining discussion regression.

 

[DoPo]

I refuse to acknowledge Youtube as a viable means of determining discussion regression.

Well, I disagree. I would, in fact, definitely acknowledge that YouTube is where discussion goes to die.

 

[Smooth Operator]

No we haven't noticed the band of utter nutters smearing their shit around any and all internet pages they find, it was all smooth sailing these past few years...
And EC has put itself right in the middle of that circle, that is mostly why people dislike like their stuff, also they make more and more fluff pieces with no real reasoning or direction, just making random noise.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

In my opinion Extra Credits has gone downhill. They talked smack about a game that had no ambition to address real world politics, draw some absurd conclusions that hoodie = african american ergo the game is 'problematic' and complain about violence in games, in a game that was designed to be disposable popcorn entertainment.

Their Extra History episodes are also good, even if they did oversell Mary Seacole's contribution to the Crimean War Effort, and also them dedicating half an episode to talk about her being black and stalling actually chronicling her story for whatever reason.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I kinda agree with a lot of what you said so I won't address that, but about that EC episode...

At 20:07 he says we can relate to this gay character despite his sexuality, which to me kind of debunks the whole "we need more inclusion in games" thing. I mean, the title of the video is "Why a gay character made Persona 4 great", implying that the character made the game great BECAUSE they're gay. Which is horseshit. It's not about the character's sexuality, gender, or whatever the fuck. It's about whether or not they're a relatable and interesting character.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. There's a difference between being able to relate to a character and having certain groups of people represented in media. Take a game like Thief for example. I'm not a thief like Garret is, I don't find myself constantly evading law enforcement to do my job. Yet I can relate to his non-partisian stance, being confronted by two extremes and choosing neither. I think a lot of us can relate to that.

I'm sure gay people can relate perfectly well to straight characters, but does that mean we should have nothing but straight characters? Having relatable gay characters can open up new gameplay experiences, as well as explore themes that haven't already been done to death with heterosexual themes. Also there's a difference between "a gay character made a game great" and "this game is great specifically because it has a character that is gay". The latter suggests that just the fact that there was a gay character was enough to make the game great, while the former suggests that a character that happens to be gay made a game great.

Now I know a common response to this would be "but why does it matter if they're gay or not?" Well it's because gay characters in video games are so rare. Having a gay person be the breakout character in a video game is quite remarkable, so Extra Credits y'know... remarked on it.

Saying a character is good because they're well written and they just happen to be gay doesn't equate to 'well I want nothing but straight characters'. That's a misnomer pushed by people sticking their politics into games. Games and gamers are incredibly varied sociologically, and just pointing to games that are intended to be sold to the lowest common denominator as an example for the entire industry is just false.

In a world where Undertale exists and is beloved by the gaming community at large, no one can claim that 'aw yeah but we should still be more inclusive'. It's been proven time and time again that it's the quality of the game and the characters that matter the most. Games are about assuming a role, and proposing that because you share token characteristics with certain game characters such as gender, ethnicity and/or appearance that you are automatically relating to them is identity politics nonsense. If a game isn't marketed towards your demographic, no one is forcing you to play it, and it's not like there aren't many, many alternatives available on the indie scene or across gaming history.

If people are complaining about mainstream AAA games not being marketed towards them, again, it's not a publisher's responsibility to be inclusive. Their responsibility is to their stockholders and to ultimately make money. So if they are going to market, they're going to market to the most reliable and widest audience possible. It's not their responsibility to market to minority groups or even design games about minority groups, and all we can do is vote with our wallet.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Controversial positions are controversial and there is controversy?

Not seeing anything new there. Hell, look at the way the same issues are discussed outside the net, and have been for ages, lots of vitriol there.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Maybe, but not exactly? It's just that there is a lot more yelling right now, with more people involved and a rise in reactionary culture from all sides of the political spectrum.

The thing is, at least from where I stand, once upon a time we all wanted to have these discussions. They were interesting, they were engaging and they came at a time that videogames moved from being something niche to being something huge and mainstream and we were all excited about the prospects.

Then some people ran these discussions into the ground, started demonizing others, went out of their way to polarize the community and suddenly battle lines were drawn. That's not to say that there was unanimous agreement in the past, just that disagreement, for the most part, was handled either via "eh, we'll agree to disagree" or, in lesser moments, dogpiling on the extreme voices until they shut up. The latter is harder to do right now, but so is the former, as we adopted the degenerate "console wars" debate methods into practically every discussion on videogames.

You can still have these discussions, if you can find people that will give you the time of day even in the face of disagreement, but it's a lot harder to find such spaces nowadays.

 

[wulf3n]

Firstly For as far back as I can remember the Youtube comments section was never a place you would go to get reasonable opinions. I don't think it demonstrates a "regression", simply what has always been.

Second, the Extra Credits video you linked on The Division was arguably one of their weakest episodes to date, which perhaps informs the poor like ratio.

 

[Dizchu]

Like, whenever someone says a work is 'problematic', it just comes with baggage for a lot of people.

But why? It's a perfectly reasonable word. "Problematic" is an adjective form of the word "problem", should "problem" also be considered a taboo word?

When people shut themselves off from such benign words such as "problematic" it ironically comes off as the same "safe space" mentality that these people like to ***** about constantly. "Please don't use that word! It's offensive!"

Saying a character is good because they're well written and they just happen to be gay doesn't equate to 'well I want nothing but straight characters'.

Where did I say this?

In a world where Undertale exists and is beloved by the gaming community at large, no one can claim that 'aw yeah but we should still be more inclusive'.

Two things. First of all Undertale is an indie game developed primarily by one person. Second of all, I wasn't even going into the whole "we should be more inclusive" discussion. I was just explaining why Extra Credits' video didn't equate to "hurr this character is gay therefore the game is 10/10".

I don't understand why these discussions always have to end up being about the "lowest common denominator" or "marketing to demographics". Extra Credits thought a character in a game that happened to be gay provided a novel and interesting experience for them. I think a character like Garret from Thief was a breath of fresh air, doesn't mean I want to pressure developers and publishers into making non-partisian thief characters. That's a key misunderstanding I keep seeing.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Like, whenever someone says a work is 'problematic', it just comes with baggage for a lot of people.

But why? It's a perfectly reasonable word. "Problematic" is an adjective form of the word "problem", should "problem" also be considered a taboo word?

When people shut themselves off from such benign words such as "problematic" it ironically comes off as the same "safe space" mentality that these people like to ***** about constantly. "Please don't use that word! It's offensive!"

Saying a character is good because they're well written and they just happen to be gay doesn't equate to 'well I want nothing but straight characters'.

Where did I say this?

In a world where Undertale exists and is beloved by the gaming community at large, no one can claim that 'aw yeah but we should still be more inclusive'.

Two things. First of all Undertale is an indie game developed primarily by one person. Second of all, I wasn't even going into the whole "we should be more inclusive" discussion. I was just explaining why Extra Credits' video didn't equate to "hurr this character is gay therefore the game is 10/10".

I don't understand why these discussions always have to end up being about the "lowest common denominator" or "marketing to demographics". Extra Credits thought a character in a game that happened to be gay provided a novel and interesting experience for them. I think a character like Garret from Thief was a breath of fresh air, doesn't mean I want to pressure developers and publishers into making non-partisian thief characters. That's a key misunderstanding I keep seeing.

I'm sure gay people can relate perfectly well to straight characters, but does that mean we should have nothing but straight characters?

^Said it right there

And RE: Extra Credits is because they misunderstood his character (Kanji isn't gay nor is he straight, he's conflicted) and because they used him specifically to show that 'hey if we had more gay characters then we'll be able to write better stories'. I wouldn't call that trying to sneak in some sort of intent but I would definitely call it a blundered statement at the very least.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Perhaps EC isn't the best example for this. You have to keep in mind statements they've made in recent years concerning certain views and individuals in the wake of a certain controversy. At the risk of being banished to the dungeon GID subforum...

Spoiler

http://extra-credits.net/news/other-news/a-statement-on-gamergate/ [http://extra-credits.net/news/other-news/a-statement-on-gamergate/]
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1skam53 [http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1skam53]

It probably doesn't help that they're on friendly terms with one of the individuals that got said controversy off to a howling start...

Spoiler: Note the name of their guest speaker

Regardless of how one interprets these factoids, I think we can all agree that such views remain "hot button" issues with the gaming community. Personally, I can't bring myself to watch them anymore because of this, but that's just one white cis male shitlord's opinion...

 

[Dizchu]

I'm sure gay people can relate perfectly well to straight characters, but does that mean we should have nothing but straight characters?

^Said it right there

Nope, try again. What you quoted does not equate to what you said:

Saying a character is good because they're well written and they just happen to be gay doesn't equate to 'well I want nothing but straight characters'.

You have constructed a strawman. I responded to a comment that said "[if] we can relate to this gay character despite his sexuality, [it] kind of debunks the whole "we need more inclusion in games" thing."

 

[FalloutJack]

I refuse to acknowledge Youtube as a viable means of determining discussion regression.

Well, I disagree. I would, in fact, definitely acknowledge that YouTube is where discussion goes to die.

Ah, but what I'm saying is that because of that, it's not a viable control group to compare/constrast discussion and any downward trend. It's not a discussion place. It's Twitter with videos and more characters. Not valid for tests.