How can "gamers" and "social justice warriors" get along?

[carnex]

Lady Boyle provides financial backing and is sleeping with the Lord Regent; that's it.

Now, and this may just be me being ignorant of how politics and finances work, but I don't think you really need to worry about who's financing the Lord Regent when you're going to kill/oust him in the next few days. The Boyle's seemed to have no part in the actual conspiracy, nothing is gained from depriving a dead man of his financial backer, and at least one of the sisters makes it clear that she only supports the Lord Regent to keep her family safe. Short of sheer, overwhelming spite (overwhelming enough to distract from actually dealing with the Lord Regent himself) at her sleeping with your enemy, what reason is there to kill Lady Boyle?

Let me put it this way.

Without money in world where money spins everything you are nothing without money. Borgias got in their seat of power through money. William Marshal became basically equal to the king of England through money etc. Without money Lord Regent would not be able to keep his underlings loyal therefor she was key to his success, arguably more important than others. Never underestimate the power of money!

 

[Redd the Sock]

Gamers need to learn that criticizing an aspect of a game is not an attack on everything in the game or all games in general.

It's like... remember that time you were watching an old Bugs Bunny cartoon, and then suddenly he's doing a blackface gag and you're like "...yeah... I'm a bit uncomfortable now." It's not an indictment of everything in the cartoon, or every Bugs Bunny cartoon, or every cartoon in general.

Saying "Duke Nukem Forever was kinda gross" or "There sure are an inordinate number of prostitutes in AAA games, and they're kinda portrayed unrealistically" does not mean "BAN GAMES NOW."

Some gamers have this bunker mentality that they need to get over.

And conversely, SJWs need to get that a personal dislike of something may not merit criticism. Media is not made to a tailor made custom fit and (god forbid) is often created to appeal to someone else that isn't you. Since the thread's gone to Dishonored, let's use it: It strives to be a game of twisted violence and morality. Criticizing it because it uses those devices is essentially criticizing it for not taking account what you specifically wanted in production. Same with Duke Nukem. It's easy to get why people find it offensive, but it's trying to be just that, so unless you want to wear the label of censoring content to a certain moral standing (yours) it's best to leave it alone and find a game more to your liking, rather than blogging about how a company dared to make something so against what you wanted.

Criticism needs to take into account what the work is trying to be and grading it on how it achieved it, not on what you wanted it to be and getting indignant when it falls short. Larger trends and stagnation are another matter (if analyzed honestly, not done by anecdotal listings), but none of us sat on design panels, and none of us are buying custom products, so we need to step back when we see something that bothers us and ask if it really hurts the game, or if we're just unhappy a game hits a pet peeve.

 

[EternallyBored]

Let me put it this way.

Without money in world where money spins everything you are nothing without money. Borgias got in their seat of power through money. William Marshal became basically equal to the king of England through money etc. Without money Lord Regent would not be able to keep his underlings loyal therefor she was key to his success, arguably more important than others. Never underestimate the power of money!

Explain to me how money is going to keep the Lord Regent in power when he's dead, because that is pretty much what is planned to happen to him a day or so after you deal with Lady Boyle. What's her money going to do for a dead man?

Eh, as much as the fact that the one case of sexual violence/ heavily implied rape just oh so conveniently happens to the single female target in the game kind of makes me raise my eyebrow, I'm pretty sure I remember them explaining a little about why taking her out was important.

If I remember right, there's a line that her finances are what allows the lord regent to keep so many guards around his fortress whilst still maintaining order in the city. Removing lady Boyle leads to a reduction in the guard, which opens up your opportunity to assault the lord regent directly. It's kind of a half-assed excuse that so much of his guard is apparently funded by a single person, but lady Boyle's removal is supposed to be what throws enough guards outside the regents compound to make it possible to sneak in to.

 

[Dragonbums]

Let me put it this way.

Without money in world where money spins everything you are nothing without money. Borgias got in their seat of power through money. William Marshal became basically equal to the king of England through money etc. Without money Lord Regent would not be able to keep his underlings loyal therefor she was key to his success, arguably more important than others. Never underestimate the power of money!

Explain to me how money is going to keep the Lord Regent in power when he's dead, because that is pretty much what is planned to happen to him a day or so after you deal with Lady Boyle. What's her money going to do for a dead man?

Eh, as much as the fact that the one case of sexual violence/ heavily implied rape just oh so conveniently happens to the single female target in the game kind of makes me raise my eyebrow, I'm pretty sure I remember them explaining a little about why taking her out was important.

If I remember right, there's a line that her finances are what allows the lord regent to keep so many guards around his fortress whilst still maintaining order in the city. Removing lady Boyle leads to a reduction in the guard, which opens up your opportunity to assault the lord regent directly. It's kind of a half-assed excuse that so much of his guard is apparently funded by a single person, but lady Boyle's removal is supposed to be what throws enough guards outside the regents compound to make it possible to sneak in to.

I think the issue with the whole guard thing as well is also a matter of timing. I can understand his guards dropping maybe a week or so without pay. But if the man is going to be killed a literal day after killing Lady Boyle, I highly doubt the guards would just leave after one day of no pay. Assuming of course they get paid in things like weekly or bi weekly basis. (Which if they have finances the latter can be assumed.)

Keep in mind I personally haven't played this game in the slightest. I'm just talking about what's been said in this thread about the game.

 

[EternallyBored]

I do remember them saying she helps fund his guards and the like, but I feel like the impact of losing your biggest financial backer wouldn't become apparent as soon as the next day or so. If you had targeted Lady Boyle at the very beginning and the plot covered a larger timeframe, I could see the loss of her support being impactful. Hell it would even make more sense to do it that way since that would decrease the guards and security everywhere, but they set her mission right before the Lord Regent's, making it seem pretty pointless.

I think the issue with the whole guard thing as well is also a matter of timing. I can understand his guards dropping maybe a week or so without pay. But if the man is going to be killed a literal day after killing Lady Boyle, I highly doubt the guards would just leave after one day of no pay. Assuming of course they get paid in things like weekly or bi weekly basis. (Which if they have finances the latter can be assumed.)

Keep in mind I personally haven't played this game in the slightest. I'm just talking about what's been said in this thread about the game.

This is a valid point, within the context of the game it is only briefly explained that Lady Boyle is funding a lot of the guards, and is a keystone of support amongst the Lord regent's other financial backers. I think the rationale they were trying to explain was that without lady Boyle, a lot of the guards desert their posts and the Lord Regent is forced to thin the guard out in order to compensate.

This is made murkier by the between mission area lacking in a concrete indicator of how much time has passed between missions, and the fact that the Lady Boyle mission takes place immediately before assassinating the lord regent.

The entire lady Boyle mission in general feels a little disconnected from the rest of the missions, and feels kind of like it was thrown in to give you one more thing to do before the lord regent. It's likely that the rather distinctive masquerade setting was one the developers wanted to keep, and wrote the story around the level and scenario, rather than the other way around.

 

[Piorn]

You know, these are virtual problems, they don't actually exist.
I have never met any of these stereotypes, but I always hear people complaining about the other on the internet.

 

[JimB]

Should this kind of thing not be covered by the "don't be a dick" part of the forum rules?

I don't know. Ask the mods.

Is it not rude to quote someone and not actually acknowledge them?

I do not understand how quoting someone and using that quote to underline my point is not an acknowledgment of what he said.

Let's be honest, you basically went "get a load of this guy."

No, I went, "For example." He did exactly what I said in my post needs to stop happening if anyone actually wants the two groups to get along, and he did it only a few posts after mine. It seemed like the perfect example of what I was talking about.

This is the kind of post I would like to see be moderated because it really served no purpose other than as self-congratulations.

You do not understand my motivations as well as you think you do, but by all means, flag it and let the moderators deal with it. I am content that the context of the situation will bear me out, and if I'm wrong, then my actions deserve to be corrected.

To me this looks like very bad posting. If a mod reads this, would you mind explaining why this kind of thing is fine?

Wait, am I defending myself to you or to some invisible moderator who, so far as I know, has taken no interest in my post? Or is this just some threat that if I don't satisfy you with my answer, you'll sic the mods on me?

 

[carnex]

I think the issue with the whole guard thing as well is also a matter of timing. I can understand his guards dropping maybe a week or so without pay. But if the man is going to be killed a literal day after killing Lady Boyle, I highly doubt the guards would just leave after one day of no pay. Assuming of course they get paid in things like weekly or bi weekly basis. (Which if they have finances the latter can be assumed.)

Keep in mind I personally haven't played this game in the slightest. I'm just talking about what's been said in this thread about the game.

Well, the time is there for convenience sake, would you rather that game wrote "and months passed leaving Lord Regent unable to pay his guards" ruining the immersion or just cut it down for convenience.

But that is not the problem. Problem is arguing "you send that woman to probably be raped" when in the same game people end up in slavery, well, slavery while scarred, eaten alive by rats... it's making a special point of a character just because she is a female character. That is exactly what I have problem with and what, in my opinion, any reasonable person should have a problem with.

 

[EternallyBored]

Snip

I don't know about the "don't be a jerk rule" but you might be violating the low content rule, you might want to add a couple sentences to the post.

I think the issue with the whole guard thing as well is also a matter of timing. I can understand his guards dropping maybe a week or so without pay. But if the man is going to be killed a literal day after killing Lady Boyle, I highly doubt the guards would just leave after one day of no pay. Assuming of course they get paid in things like weekly or bi weekly basis. (Which if they have finances the latter can be assumed.)

Keep in mind I personally haven't played this game in the slightest. I'm just talking about what's been said in this thread about the game.

Well, the time is there for convenience sake, would you rather that game wrote "and months passed leaving Lord Regent unable to pay his guards" ruining the immersion or just cut it down for convenience.

But that is not the problem. Problem is arguing "you send that woman to probably be raped" when in the same game people end up in slavery, well, slavery while scarred, eaten alive by rats... it's making a special point of a character just because she is a female character. That is exactly what I have problem with and what, in my opinion, any reasonable person should have a problem with.

The reason people will contend your point on this is that the complaint isn't just "you do bad things to lady Boyle", it's "you've got one female target in the game, and immediately ran to the sexual violence/ implied rape angle".

Bringing up the terrible things you do to the male targets in the game does not actually address what people are complaining about. People don't point out lady boyle because you do something terrible to her, they point it out because, yet again, the main threat against a woman is sexual predation or violence. People would likely not be complaining if your options for taking out lady Boyle were to kill her or send her off to a prison camp somewhere.

People complain because it crops up a lot, and with the imbalance of female to male characters, in some games it looks like a good chunk of your characterization revolves around using sexual assault as a lazy shorthand for characterizing females, in the same way that dead parents are so often given to the protagonist. It is also sometimes seen as part of a trend where sexual violence becomes something that only female characters deal with, while it basically never exists for male characters, or when it does it's treated as a joke played off for laughs.

TL;DR: "bad things happen to other characters" is missing the point of why people take issue with things like lady boyle, so your argument about reasonable people just doesn't fly.

 

[carnex]

-snip-

Sigh...

Again. Let me repeat myself.

She is not treated any differently than other characters in game. She is equall to anyone else in he position in game world. Any arguments starts from the fact that she is female.

It's the same argument we have with prostitutes in GTA games form Anita. You can make u purchase from that character, maul it to death and take whatever pops out. But claiming that that is oppressive towards females is subverted by fact that you can and do do that with any other character that has goods for sale and is not plot crucial NPC. Well subverted if you think characters should not be treated differently based on their sex. And if you do, that is pretty much end of conversation on that topic

People argue about her. That is true. But arguing for something does not make you inherently right. If person argues against treatment of Lady Boyle and for equal treatment of characters than they fail hard at logical and critical thinking.

 

[EternallyBored]

-snip-

Sigh...

Again. Let me repeat myself.

If you actually addressed any of my points maybe you wouldn't be repeating yourself so much. You managed to miss the point quite expertly so that you could argue something that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

She is not treated any differently than other characters in game. She is equall to anyone else in he position in game world. Any arguments starts from the fact that she is female.

No, by the very fact that she is the only character in the game subject to experience sexual violence, she is inherently not being treated equally. That's still off track, because sexual violence alone isn't the sticking point, it's that it often becomes a form of violence that only females experience in games, and one that gets used as a shallow way of specifically hurting female characters, and only female characters.

It's the same argument we have with prostitutes in GTA games form Anita. You can make u purchase from that character, maul it to death and take whatever pops out. But claiming that that is oppressive towards females is subverted by fact that you can and do do that with any other character that has goods for sale and is not plot crucial NPC.

Oppressive is hyperbolic at best, do not assume your opponents argument, I do not, nor have I ever said or indicated that anything here is "oppressive" that is a lame attempt on your part to make my argument look unreasonable, don't stoop to Anita's level to make your point. At best, it is an annoying overused trope that is entirely too predictable, and at worst, it is a tool for shallow characterization and a double-standard that treats male and female sexual violence by different standards. It didn't ruin my enjoyment of dishonored, at best it got a raised eyebrow and sarcastic remark about how I bet that doesn't happen to any of the male targets in the game, and a total lack of surprise when I turned out to be right. Dishonored is not oppressive against women, it uses one slightly stupid overrused trope, and has kind of a disjointed plot, still a much better game in almost all aspects from the Thief reboot.

Which leads me to again reiterate, no, even if we disregard sexual violence as better or worse than other forms of violence, it is still a form of violence that is almost exclusively visited upon female characters, and treated as a joke when visited on male characters, a half-assed comparison to GTA and armed robbery does not change that.

Well subverted if you think characters should not be treated differently based on their sex. And if you do, that is pretty much end of conversation on that topic

Except the characters are being treated differently, not by our demands or standards, but by the game developers. selling a character (who just happens to be the only female target in the game) into a life of sex slavery and heavily implied rape does not change just because you do terrible things to other characters, because the issue is not about equality of violence.

People argue about her. That is true. But arguing for something does not make you inherently right. If person argues against treatment of Lady Boyle and for equal treatment of characters than they fail hard at logical and critical thinking.

Again, you couldn't have missed the point any harder if you tried.

The criticism is not "female characters shouldn't be hurt as much as male characters" it is "why is it that when sexual violence happens, it only seems to happen to women, and when it happens to men it is seen as a joke, or not as serious"

The argument is not about the degree of violence, it is about the type of violence, and once again, no, it is not some oppressive force against real life females as a whole, it is a cultural trope that can be used well or badly, and unfortunately, many lazy developers overuse it or use it badly. Save the oppression comments for Anita, I'm not her, and I don't give a shit what her hyperbolic arguments are.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Well Dishonored is all around a pretty fucked up game.
Branding and scaring a guy for life,
selling the twins into slavery
giving whatshername to her... "Admirer"
are all portrayed as the "good" option, where killing them would be far less painful.
the only target who's actually dealt with in a humane way is the Regent, when you reveal his crimes and get him exiled

I have a ton of problems with Dishonored

I would make just one change in your assessment of the game. Those choices are not good. Nothing in dishonored is considered good or bad, it's a place rather devoid of universal morality. It's considered just, as in just punishment for break of moral obligation that they, at their own free will, made. It might be twisted but it has it's own internal consistency.

uhhhhhhhhhh... fair point. I never looked at it like that.
I guess it is kind of fitting that they get to suffer for their actions, as where death would sort of absolve them of their responsibility.

That doesn't help explain why killing them would send the entire town into disarray, but we're kind of getting off topic

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

snip

You're acknowledging the point, you're not acknowledging the person who said it in any meaningful way. Which, to me... seems like the point of quoting someone in the first place. What's-his-name (short memory, sorry) gets a prompt that takes his attention back to the thread, only to find that someone has quoted him to say "See what I mean, guys?" I doubt anyone would be impressed by this. Also, yes... His post did follow yours laughably quickly. But, that really lessens the need to point it out.

Basically, I read your post and thought it was a douchey post. That's what happened. I might be firmly in the minority in thinking that it's poor etiquette, and I'd genuinely like to know.

Anyway. Asked and answered. It's time to take my trousers off.

- Panda out

 

[EternallyBored]

snip

You're acknowledging the point, you're not acknowledging the person who said it in any meaningful way. Which, to me... seems like the point of quoting someone in the first place. What's-his-name (short memory, sorry) gets a prompt that takes his attention back to the thread, only to find that someone has quoted him to say "See what I mean, guys?" I doubt anyone would be impressed by this. Also, yes... His post did follow yours laughably quickly. But, that really lessens the need to point it out.

Basically, I read your post and thought it was a douchey post. That's what happened. I might be firmly in the minority in thinking that it's poor etiquette, and I'd genuinely like to know.

Anyway. Asked and answered. It's time to take my trousers off.

- Panda out

Eh, if he gets a warning, it will likely be for low content rather than the "don't be a jerk" rule. He didn't really directly insult anyone, he started by calling out that both sides can't get along as long as people think their opponents are monsters. Then pointed out when someone pretty much did exactly what he said they would do.

If he had called the people who held the opinion monsters, or some other insult, then that might be close enough to an insult since his second post would be implying the insult on the person her responded to. As it stands it basically goes like this:

"we can't get along until people stop thinking their opponents are monsters"
"2nd post pretty much doing exactly what he predicted"
"and this pretty much proves my point"

It's not the nicest implication in the world, but the jerk rule is more about direct insults, ad hominem, and directly attacking a poster without addressing their post. Since JimB can be said to be attacking their post rather than them as a person, it likely does not violate the rules. It's why so many people resort to passive aggressive sarcasm and snark, as long as its not a direct insult, it's usually ok.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

snip

You're acknowledging the point, you're not acknowledging the person who said it in any meaningful way. Which, to me... seems like the point of quoting someone in the first place. What's-his-name (short memory, sorry) gets a prompt that takes his attention back to the thread, only to find that someone has quoted him to say "See what I mean, guys?" I doubt anyone would be impressed by this. Also, yes... His post did follow yours laughably quickly. But, that really lessens the need to point it out.

Basically, I read your post and thought it was a douchey post. That's what happened. I might be firmly in the minority in thinking that it's poor etiquette, and I'd genuinely like to know.

Anyway. Asked and answered. It's time to take my trousers off.

- Panda out

Eh, if he gets a warning, it will likely be for low content rather than the "don't be a jerk" rule. He didn't really directly insult anyone, he started by calling out that both sides can't get along as long as people think their opponents are monsters. Then pointed out when someone pretty much did exactly what he said they would do.

If he had called the people who held the opinion monsters, or some other insult, then that might be close enough to an insult since his second post would be implying the insult on the person her responded to. As it stands it basically goes like this:

"we can't get along until people stop thinking their opponents are monsters"
"2nd post pretty much doing exactly what he predicted"
"and this pretty much proves my point"

It's not the nicest implication in the world, but the jerk rule is more about direct insults, ad hominem, and directly attacking a poster without addressing their post. Since JimB can be said to be attacking their post rather than them as a person, it likely does not violate the rules. It's why so many people resort to passive aggressive sarcasm and snark, as long as its not a direct insult, it's usually ok.

Thanks, but I understand the sequence, and I'm not saying he insulted him. I'm saying that I don't think you should quote someone and then not address them, and I'm happy for people to disagree with that idea. The fact that it was low content obviously doesn't help any, but it would seem rude to me either way.

I'm projecting some. Someone quoted me in a similiar(slightly more antagonistic) vain once. I didn't throw a hissy or anything, but... I wouldn't invite someone to witness my disapproval of their contribution... And not address them. Because... That's bullshit, isn't it? It seems rude to me. Maybe I'm on the crazy pills.

Anyone else got an opinion? Maybe PM me, save derailing this thing any longer.

 

[Angelblaze]

It appears that many 'gamers' (and people of this thread) fail to realize that just as game makers/content producers have to right to make what they want, so do audiences (and since we're on the internet, this means the world/whoever gets the content) have the right to say what they want about it.

Now, do they have the right to make it illegal or harm the creator? No.
But, do they have the right to judge the creation? Most certainly.

And that right to judge means that, yes, they can say your favorite game is shit. Even if its Persona 4 or Planescape Torment.

That, is free speech.

So, plainly speaking, if the SJW's aren't hurting anyone, aren't giving away people's information to people who could hurt others.(I've heard a couple tumblr users do this, but in their defense gamers invented 'Swatting' and as a tumblr user, feminist, SJW, and long time gamer, I find the latter to be the most dangerous form of 'internet payback' currently imaginable. Especially with all the gun happy cops out there.)

 

[Bashfluff]

Gamers tend to not want games to change. They want game makers to make the games they want for the people who want to play them. This attitude doesn't just become manifest in the support for the indie scene where real creativity and drive is the blood of the whole operation, but also in the lack of will to change things for reasons of social justice. No one wants to see creativity fall victim to political correctness.

This doesn't mean that gamers want racist and sexist game developers, but when it comes to these arguments where damsels in distress somehow prove that developers have a hatred towards women, there's a backlash. Because it sounds like sometimes that SJW do want to take away the things we love by reading far too much into things and overreacting to the max.

 

[Vigormortis]

Huh. I was unaware that "gamers" and "SJWs" were mutually exclusive...

Learn something everyday, I guess.

:/