Representation in games must be properly contextual

[Netrigan]

As for chivalry, it was created by 18th century romantic art and literature looking at the pre-enlightenment Europe through rose-tinted glasses. If I remember correctly it all came from some writings by some scholars on how knights "should" behave at the time, which were taken by later generations as how knights "actually" behaved and got spun into chivalric tales by writers.

Actually, that's not correct. It is a Medieval concept that starts with the knighthood moving from a strictly military class to a more landed gentry around the 12th century. One of the earliest sources codifying it is the Art of Courtly Love, by Andreas Capellanus (written around 1190), although this is in many ways a parody of the courtly romances that are arising (and, frankly, a pretty funny one). But, by the 15th century, the Arthurian Romances are in place in the form we know today, as are the Carolingian Romances.

By the time Cervantes writes Don Quixote in the 17th century, he's parodying a genre of chivalric literature with centuries behind it. I have no doubts that the Victorians added their own spin here and there to the idea of Chivalry, quite likely giving it more weight than it actually had in the Middle Ages (where it was mainly a literary concept) but it is a concept created and more or less codified in the Middle Ages.

(My first degree was in this stuff.)

Some examples of what we know about history that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

And ninjas really didn't look like stage hands from Japanese plays (the traditional ninja outfit is just what stage hands wore in plays, real ninjas dressed to blend in). The pyramids were white. Those elegant marble statues of Greece and Roman were brightly painted. Usually people just keep repeating the lie because reality would just look too weird and distracting.

 

[GabeZhul]

As for chivalry, it was created by 18th century romantic art and literature looking at the pre-enlightenment Europe through rose-tinted glasses. If I remember correctly it all came from some writings by some scholars on how knights "should" behave at the time, which were taken by later generations as how knights "actually" behaved and got spun into chivalric tales by writers.

Actually, that's not correct. It is a Medieval concept that starts with the knighthood moving from a strictly military class to a more landed gentry around the 12th century. One of the earliest sources codifying it is the Art of Courtly Love, by Andreas Capellanus (written around 1190), although this is in many ways a parody of the courtly romances that are arising (and, frankly, a pretty funny one). But, by the 15th century, the Arthurian Romances are in place in the form we know today, as are the Carolingian Romances.

By the time Cervantes writes Don Quixote in the 17th century, he's parodying a genre of chivalric literature with centuries behind it. I have no doubts that the Victorians added their own spin here and there to the idea of Chivalry, quite likely giving it more weight than it actually had in the Middle Ages (where it was mainly a literary concept) but it is a concept created and more or less codified in the Middle Ages.

(My first degree was in this stuff.)

You are right, thank you for the correction. I should have specified that I was mostly focusing on the modern source of the chivalric ideal, as most of our conceptions of it were codified in the 18th century, though it is true that the literary concept itself was a far bit older.

However, I do not think it changes the core of my original objection: The "Age of Chivalry" and the noble knights in shining armor were all just fantasies with only minimal grounding in reality. Claiming that chivalry existed as it was depicted in the Arthurian lore or other troubadour tales would be like trying to claim that police officers in the 80s were wearing Armani suits and were driving around in Ferraris because of Miami Vice. Sure, there is a kernel of truth there (the reason why the protagonists were outfitted like that was because an actual law that allowed the police to use the property seized from drug dealers in law enforcement), but you wouldn't try to draw historical conclusions from the episodes, now would you?

 

[Something Amyss]

One of the side-quests in the game is to get revenge on the Thresher that killed/maimed (I forget which) Hammerlock's boyfriend. There's a bit of suggestive dialogue in the Sir Hammerlock DLC which is highly suggestive that he likes that sort of thing. And I think there's a spot or two were he casually mentions a boyfriend.

I don't remember that quest at all. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe it's just been too long.

The whole thing about Axton's kind of awesome, though.

There's a lot of subtle stuff going on in Borderlands, like Moxxi being Scooter's mom, making Ellie his sister, making his interest in her a lot creepier.

Now that, I remember.

First to the OP: Are you aware of just how racist your statement was? There are plenty of Native American CEOs, and African American CEOs, etc. That notwithstanding, the games are fiction - they can be whatever the developer wants it to be.

I actually think this is some permutation of the CSI effect, where people are more/less inclined to believe things abotu a scientific principle based on its portrayal by fake experts on TV. In short, CEOs in media should be portrayed as white dudes because that's pretty much all we ever see in media.

There are cases where context is important. If you're going to make a game about Shaka Zulu, he shouldn't be white. But otherwise, it is whatever the game developer wants it to be. For all the complaints of "SJW"s supposedly trying to tell video games what to be, inclusiveness means removing restrictions on content, not putting restrictions on. It means letting developers tell whatever stories they desire - if they want to make a game full of social commentary, that's their choice, just as if they want to make a first person shooter with no social commentary at all.

It's interesting that people get shut down for being too political or whatnot when the defense of straight white dudes in games is often about the artist making the story. However....I disagree with your premise.

I don't really expect a lot of artistic expression, at least not from the mainstream "AAA" industry. I mean, this is the portion of the business that has brought us 5 million dudebro shooters about killing people of various shades of brown. I don't think most of these games were intended to have a message. They were designed to get our money. Which is fine. But you know what? These are businesses that want to expand in ways that would make the Borg look lethargic. For all the cries of "social justice," I want games to pander to me as well as the straight white dude.

Now, people insist women and minorities don't play games, but vidya gaemz got a good chunk of their audience by pandering to people who weren't "core gamers" before. Which is weird because it sort of gets into the same effect: straight white dudes might just be the main audience because of explosion in popularity of "core" titles like Call of Duty. That's sort of the elephant in the room, too. People bemoan the casualistion (I may have just made up a word) and "dumbing down" of games to appeal to a broader audience, complain about call of duties and "dudebro shooters," and then turn around and argue their base as proof that they should be pandered to.

To use a religious metaphor, Dudebros are like Catholics: they're counted as Christians when someone wants to argue a Christian majority in the states, then treated as heretical demon worshipers and child molesters the rest of the time.

I'm not strictly speaking against artistic expression, but these are commercial products aimed at making cash off of as many people as possible.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

However, I do not think it changes the core of my original objection: The "Age of Chivalry" and the noble knights in shining armor were all just fantasies with only minimal grounding in reality. Claiming that chivalry existed as it was depicted in the Arthurian lore or other troubadour tales would be like trying to claim that police officers in the 80s were wearing Armani suits and were driving around in Ferraris because of Miami Vice. Sure, there is a kernel of truth there (the reason why the protagonists were outfitted like that was because an actual law that allowed the police to use the property seized from drug dealers in law enforcement), but you wouldn't try to draw historical conclusions from the episodes, now would you?

That really depends - are we allowed to talk about hair?

 

[Lotet]

-snip-

-snip-

My God. It's an Omnicidal Imperialist who thinks America is too nice and Russia and China are aggressive and ruthless by comparison. A guy who thinks an apocalyptic war is the only solution to save humanity.

And one of the leads is accidentally bisexual. Axton has a line of dialogue which had been meant to only be directed at female characters when he healed them. Something like "I've got you, darling" only they coded it wrong and he says it to male characters, too. Instead of fixing it, they added some lines of dialogue in one the DLC packs to confirm he was bisexual.

Just quoted to say it's ?woah ? do you, uh, work out??. Also to give you the article.
http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/community/articles/1077/inside-the-box-inclusivity

 

[Mikeyfell]

BOY! this thread started out fucking sketchy!

I'm glad I finished it because you actually had a point behind your horrific cold open.

Yes I would welcome game narratives that explored gender and race issues. But you didn't have to lead in to it, you didn't have to lead into it with a frankly disturbing thesis statement.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

I don't really expect a lot of artistic expression, at least not from the mainstream "AAA" industry. I mean, this is the portion of the business that has brought us 5 million dudebro shooters about killing people of various shades of brown. I don't think most of these games were intended to have a message. They were designed to get our money. Which is fine. But you know what? These are businesses that want to expand in ways that would make the Borg look lethargic. For all the cries of "social justice," I want games to pander to me as well as the straight white dude.

Now, people insist women and minorities don't play games, but vidya gaemz got a good chunk of their audience by pandering to people who weren't "core gamers" before. Which is weird because it sort of gets into the same effect: straight white dudes might just be the main audience because of explosion in popularity of "core" titles like Call of Duty. That's sort of the elephant in the room, too. People bemoan the casualistion (I may have just made up a word) and "dumbing down" of games to appeal to a broader audience, complain about call of duties and "dudebro shooters," and then turn around and argue their base as proof that they should be pandered to.

Well, the latest figures are here: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2014.pdf

Overall, we're basically close enough to a 50/50 split between men and women that it is functionally a 50/50 split. Of the total, action and shooter games still represent 51.9% of games sold, but the audience for those games is only around a quarter of the market. Obviously, that quarter is buying more right now than the others put together, but times are changing. As one article pointed out, the number of "core gamers" is remaining the same, while the number of other gamers is increasing. As that market share goes down, the focus will shift (because the big companies care about making money).

But, I don't think it's the AAA titles where the big changes will happen - the big shifts rarely come from there anyway (the only one I can really think of was the migration to the consoles due to increasing piracy). Back around 1995, the big shift started in the shareware market (seriously, if you take a whole bunch of the big AAA developers today and trace them back 20 years, you'll find them making shareware games). Today it's going to happen - and is already happening - in the indie games. Sure, a lot of them are going to be crap, but we actually have the circumstances today where you can release an indie game of sufficient quality and success that it can become a AAA title in its own right (Minecraft, anybody?), and the ones who succeed there will be the AAA developers of tomorrow.

It's quite breathtaking, really.

 

[Something Amyss]

Overall, we're basically close enough to a 50/50 split between men and women that it is functionally a 50/50 split. Of the total, action and shooter games still represent 51.9% of games sold, but the audience for those games is only around a quarter of the market.

"Action" and some form of "shooter" has been popular almost as long as there has been gaming, though. And while I can't preclude that they might one day lose their stranglehold, I'm not sure if it's going to affect the business as gamers like the ones on here define it.

I'm going to, for the moment, assume the position that AAA action/shooter games are much like the death of PC and console games. So let's assume, for the moment, that these are here to stay.

The reason I'm doing this is because of the way this market treats women. I'm not talking about abuse or animosity or even necessarily misogyny. A Penny Arcade Report [http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/11/27/1243361/video-games-penny-arcade-report/] has been frequently used to "prove" that games with female leads don't sell, but look at what else it says: games with female protagonists receive significantly less funding. Jim Sterling brings up the whole Remember Me deal where the publishers weren't interested in a female protagonist, we've got games that don't feature prominent female protagonists on the cover (or games where the devs fought to do just that), and we've had indications that women are excluded from focus groups.

Is this "core gamer" market predominantly male because women don't like it, or because it's marketed predominantly at males? Do female protagonists not sell because people don't want them, or because they're not aware of them? I mean, people will ***** about how the reason game X or show Y or property Z failed is because they didn't handle it well, but with female protagonists, suddenly it's a case of "see? See? Nobody wants to play as a chick!"

I'd actually be curious as to whether an otherwise identical GTA V would have sold with the gender of at least one of the characters swapped. Or howabout all of them. Would a GTA game suddenly stop being awesome because it featured Michelle, Fran, and Trish? I mean, critics of diversity in games often say the gender doesn't matter, but it does. Because when you have a female lead, the odds are you're going to be doing less marketing.

I mean, yeah. Maybe other markets will become bigger, but honestly, this is the part I care about and a lot of the people talking care about because this is where we play. And I'm pretty sure they don't want these games to go away, either.

As for change coming from without instead of within, that may be the case. However, there really isn't a lot of that going around right now. Pointing out Minecraft is close to equivalent to pointing out a multi-million dollar jackpot winner. For every person that wins, there are millions of players who lost.

 

[Netrigan]

The reason I'm doing this is because of the way this market treats women. I'm not talking about abuse or animosity or even necessarily misogyny. A Penny Arcade Report [http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/11/27/1243361/video-games-penny-arcade-report/] has been frequently used to "prove" that games with female leads don't sell, but look at what else it says: games with female protagonists receive significantly less funding. Jim Sterling brings up the whole Remember Me deal where the publishers weren't interested in a female protagonist, we've got games that don't feature prominent female protagonists on the cover (or games where the devs fought to do just that), and we've had indications that women are excluded from focus groups.

The fucked up part of this is it just assumes guys are so sexist they won't play as a woman... even if they know that game is really good. And while I'm sure there's a few knuckle-draggers out there like that, I don't think they make up a significant percentage. If Doom was centered around Doom Girl instead of Doom Guy, how many guys would have been, "screw this, I ain't playing as a chick".

Now, caveat time, I do think we focus in on our own demographic more so than others. We like people who look like us, so if I'm flicking through the game bin and I see someone I recognize someone as myself, I'm more likely to stop and really look at it.

Which, I think, makes the whole Bioshock: Infinite cover thing so ridiculous. Why wouldn't you double the reach by presenting both major characters. Focus groups are only as good as the questions being asked. Ask bad questions and your results are garbage. And if Bioshock: Infinite isn't willing to take such a minuscule risk, that pisses me off.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

I think there's also an age thing going on, and what I mean by it is this - most of the "core gamers" tend to be 18-25. Well, when you're in that age range, your career is still getting started, and while you may be in a relationship, you're not likely to have children yet, or a mortgage. If you have the means, you're probably going to spend four of those seven years as a student.

Once you get over 25, things tend to change. Back in my early 20s, I played games like Warcraft III, Neverwinter Nights, Medal of Honor, and Civilization a LOT. As I got into my early 30s, that changed - things were more busy, my interests had expanded, my ability to do new things had expanded, and by the age of 33 one of those bigger AAA games would be wasted on me - I actually had to start turning games down. I just don't have the time to play. I went from spending a lot of money on computer games to spending next to zero money on computer games.

Now, I still consume games, but I'm far more interested in card games like Magic and board games where I can spend time playing face-to-face with my friends. I did spend time playing tabletop RPGs for a while, but even that faded, as something short with a low time commitment made more sense to my lifestyle than a campaign that would take several weeks, if not months. I also really enjoy watching the LRR crew stream on Twitch - but again, that's consuming games in bite-sized pieces, rather than long campaigns.

So, that "core gamer" demographic tends to stay the same, while the others grow bigger. How much would you like to bet that's because as people hit 18 and have money and time to spend on games, the same amount of people hit 26, have their priorities change, and move out of that demographic?

 

[Therumancer]

-snip-

-snip-

My God. It's an Omnicidal Imperialist who thinks America is too nice and Russia and China are aggressive and ruthless by comparison. A guy who thinks an apocalyptic war is the only solution to save humanity.

And one of the leads is accidentally bisexual. Axton has a line of dialogue which had been meant to only be directed at female characters when he healed them. Something like "I've got you, darling" only they coded it wrong and he says it to male characters, too. Instead of fixing it, they added some lines of dialogue in one the DLC packs to confirm he was bisexual.

Just quoted to say it's ?woah ? do you, uh, work out??. Also to give you the article.
http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/community/articles/1077/inside-the-box-inclusivity

Well, you dropping the insulting tone might be nice, but yes I do have a fairly unique spin on things for forums like this. I'm actually more of a pessimistic realist who doesn't subscribe to the "peace at any price" attitudes that are popular with a lot of people. I'm the first person to tell you it sucks, but at the end of the day you can't have anything good without earning it through a whole lot of really bad things. The world is a mess, and to do good, and fix it, is going to take a mountain of bad. The more we ignore the bottom line the higher that bill gets to be. I do believe the US is too moral, in part because of responses like yours, and yes I do believe Russia and China are a *LOT* worse, but at the same time I'm also the first guy that will tell you that everyone believes they are doing the right thing, and real conflicts are about "us vs. them" not so much about good vs. evil like in a comic book or fantasy novel. To make things better, sometimes a lot of people that haven't done anything wrong in an absolute sense have to die or have bad things happen to them. I don't like it, but I didn't make the world this way either. I just try and give idealists a wake up call.

As far as why I responded, I just wanted to say that as entertaining as their stuff can be, I don't think Gearbox set out to make some kind of message for inclusivity. It set out to be absurd and funny, but Gearbox seems to be opportunistic and is willing to try and grab whatever press and attention it can. This is why I say that analyzing a character like "Handsome Jack" is going too far, since he's supposed to make you laugh about how wrong the whole thing is, as opposed to being "deep". Likewise I don't think Ellie had much to do with body image issues, but existed largely because the idea of a fat hambeast like that thinking she's beautiful is absurd and funny, and the fact that she's a sociopath that murders anyone that disagrees (and the way they looks means a whole lot of people) just adds to the style of Borderlands. Basically she's supposed to be nuts, like nearly everyone on the planet, not an icon. Of course if someone wants to suggest otherwise with Gearbox they seem like the kinds of guys to run with it. The same applies to Axton, I think they decided to make him bi- in later expansions because of the attention the glitch got and the figured they could score a few points. Hammerlock, well yeah, he's always been gay, but at the same time the whole thing is played up as a giant joke as well. Gearbox's method seems to mostly be "how wrong can be make things".

I also suspect Gearbox went on the PC warpath, and did intend the bit in "Dragon's Keep" (quite obviously) and has promoted these other things, because one of the first things that happened when the game came out is they got flak for Tiny Tina being an offensive stereotype of black people (or "wiggers" since she's not black, but it can ultimately cover the same territory). Gearbox didn't seem to immediately counter with how inclusive they were, etc... that seems to be the result of some damage control later. Not to mention them digging for every bit of support they can get from any quarter after the whole "Colonial Marines" fiasco which had people screaming for their blood and still has some taint on them.

I know many might disagree, but really I don't think Gearbox is a company that deserves much credit at this point. Calling them champions of politically correct inclusiveness would be like claiming the same of Troma studios (who they sort of remind me of at times) or Howard Stern. You can't make a claim about being a champion of something when your initial intent was to make a joke out of it (so to speak).

 

[Netrigan]

-snip-

-snip-

My God. It's an Omnicidal Imperialist who thinks America is too nice and Russia and China are aggressive and ruthless by comparison. A guy who thinks an apocalyptic war is the only solution to save humanity.

And one of the leads is accidentally bisexual. Axton has a line of dialogue which had been meant to only be directed at female characters when he healed them. Something like "I've got you, darling" only they coded it wrong and he says it to male characters, too. Instead of fixing it, they added some lines of dialogue in one the DLC packs to confirm he was bisexual.

Just quoted to say it's ?woah ? do you, uh, work out??. Also to give you the article.
http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/community/articles/1077/inside-the-box-inclusivity

Well, you dropping the insulting tone might be nice, but yes I do have a fairly unique spin on things for forums like this. I'm actually more of a pessimistic realist who doesn't subscribe to the "peace at any price" attitudes that are popular with a lot of people. I'm the first person to tell you it sucks, but at the end of the day you can't have anything good without earning it through a whole lot of really bad things. The world is a mess, and to do good, and fix it, is going to take a mountain of bad. The more we ignore the bottom line the higher that bill gets to be. I do believe the US is too moral, in part because of responses like yours, and yes I do believe Russia and China are a *LOT* worse, but at the same time I'm also the first guy that will tell you that everyone believes they are doing the right thing, and real conflicts are about "us vs. them" not so much about good vs. evil like in a comic book or fantasy novel. To make things better, sometimes a lot of people that haven't done anything wrong in an absolute sense have to die or have bad things happen to them. I don't like it, but I didn't make the world this way either. I just try and give idealists a wake up call.

As far as why I responded, I just wanted to say that as entertaining as their stuff can be, I don't think Gearbox set out to make some kind of message for inclusivity. It set out to be absurd and funny, but Gearbox seems to be opportunistic and is willing to try and grab whatever press and attention it can. This is why I say that analyzing a character like "Handsome Jack" is going too far, since he's supposed to make you laugh about how wrong the whole thing is, as opposed to being "deep". Likewise I don't think Ellie had much to do with body image issues, but existed largely because the idea of a fat hambeast like that thinking she's beautiful is absurd and funny, and the fact that she's a sociopath that murders anyone that disagrees (and the way they looks means a whole lot of people) just adds to the style of Borderlands. Basically she's supposed to be nuts, like nearly everyone on the planet, not an icon. Of course if someone wants to suggest otherwise with Gearbox they seem like the kinds of guys to run with it. The same applies to Axton, I think they decided to make him bi- in later expansions because of the attention the glitch got and the figured they could score a few points. Hammerlock, well yeah, he's always been gay, but at the same time the whole thing is played up as a giant joke as well. Gearbox's method seems to mostly be "how wrong can be make things".

I also suspect Gearbox went on the PC warpath, and did intend the bit in "Dragon's Keep" (quite obviously) and has promoted these other things, because one of the first things that happened when the game came out is they got flak for Tiny Tina being an offensive stereotype of black people (or "wiggers" since she's not black, but it can ultimately cover the same territory). Gearbox didn't seem to immediately counter with how inclusive they were, etc... that seems to be the result of some damage control later. Not to mention them digging for every bit of support they can get from any quarter after the whole "Colonial Marines" fiasco which had people screaming for their blood and still has some taint on them.

I know many might disagree, but really I don't think Gearbox is a company that deserves much credit at this point. Calling them champions of politically correct inclusiveness would be like claiming the same of Troma studios (who they sort of remind me of at times) or Howard Stern. You can't make a claim about being a champion of something when your initial intent was to make a joke out of it (so to speak).

The writing in between the two games was a pretty huge leap. In one of the DLC for the first game, you have to break into a prison where one of Moxxi's ex-husbands is and it's just an endless parade of shitty gay jokes. "Don't worry, we haven't violated her... although we totally would". It's such an improvement, I can't believe it was an accident.

A lot of the stuff with Ellie plays out in conversation and her estrangement with her mother, Moxxi is due in part to her mom hassling her about her looks. Her character is played for laughs, but there's a consistency of tone to it that I think suggests a deeper intent. And time and again there's surprising depth to the characters and their interactions. The Tiny Tina DLC has some of the strongest writing about grief I've seen in a video game and it's often played for laughs.

 

[Therumancer]

I think it was Heinlein who at one point mentioned that codes of conduct like Bushido and Chivalry worked great until conflict with an enemy that didn't respect them. The Samurai were overthrown by mobs of peasants, and Chivalry arguably ended with battles like "Agincourt" when the flower of French knighthood took the field and marched out to claim a victory since by the rules they should have won easily, and got massacred by longbows when the British decided they weren't submitting to French rule based on some code of honor. There are apparently still some hard feelings about this today.

Patently untrue. Both chivalry and bushido are ideals created way after the time periods in which they purportedly existed. Bushido in particular was created as a part of WWII war propaganda and actual samurai were no better than the nobles, chiefs and errant knights of any other nation of the world. Hell, actual samurai didn't even use their "fabled" katanas all that much other than ceremonies and as status symbols. They were actually all about archery.

As for chivalry, it was created by 18th century romantic art and literature looking at the pre-enlightenment Europe through rose-tinted glasses. If I remember correctly it all came from some writings by some scholars on how knights "should" behave at the time, which were taken by later generations as how knights "actually" behaved and got spun into chivalric tales by writers.

In other words, the downfall of the samurai and knighthood was not due to their non-existent codes of conduct somehow holding them down in a cruel environment, but because they became obsolete on the battlefield and later lost their status as nobles due to the societal upheavals of the 19th and 20th century.

Not sure I'm buying that as it contradicts everything else I've heard, and that includes visiting the Higgins Armory Museum.

That said I'll be the first to admit that romantic writers and poets did exaggerate things, but on the battlefield and the effect such attempts to put "rules" on war ultimately had.

Your free to disagree of course, but I personally think that things like "The Geneva Convention" and various UN guidelines are pretty much the modern equivalent of Bushido and Chivalry, and in the end spell the doom of anyone following them if the enemies do not also do the same. For the purposes of my point, even if your right, it actually makes it worse since it's akin to saying that nobody made it work even for a while, and people who think they can limit warfare through regulation akin to living in fantasy worlds.

At the end of the day I tend to think that those who try and regulate war morally do so by looking at past cases where it lasted for a while, and thinking they can avoid the inevitable doom it brings and make it everlasting. I consider that foolish. After all even "The Peace Of Frothi" largely came about because there was a scary bastard who was going to do terrible things to you if you didn't abide by it.

 

[Netrigan]

Your free to disagree of course, but I personally think that things like "The Geneva Convention" and various UN guidelines are pretty much the modern equivalent of Bushido and Chivalry, and in the end spell the doom of anyone following them if the enemies do not also do the same. For the purposes of my point, even if your right, it actually makes it worse since it's akin to saying that nobody made it work even for a while, and people who think they can limit warfare through regulation akin to living in fantasy worlds.

Don't know the validity of this one, but a soldier friend of mine told me several times that certain kinds of weapons are prohibited against human targets, only enemy equipment. So when used on soldiers, they're officially targeting their belt buckle and the soldier is collateral damage. It's an amusing enough story to repeat in case it's untrue.

Although such codes often have some effect, as you had to be seen as following the rules even if you weren't. Ninja were hired to do the Samurai's dirty work. Torture was used in POW camps in WWII, but kept secret to keep Germany following the rules... who almost certainly broke many of the same rules, but the rules kept things from getting too out of hand.

It's the old 11th Commandment: Thou Shall Not Get Caught.

 

[Therumancer]

Your free to disagree of course, but I personally think that things like "The Geneva Convention" and various UN guidelines are pretty much the modern equivalent of Bushido and Chivalry, and in the end spell the doom of anyone following them if the enemies do not also do the same. For the purposes of my point, even if your right, it actually makes it worse since it's akin to saying that nobody made it work even for a while, and people who think they can limit warfare through regulation akin to living in fantasy worlds.

Don't know the validity of this one, but a soldier friend of mine told me several times that certain kinds of weapons are prohibited against human targets, only enemy equipment. So when used on soldiers, they're officially targeting their belt buckle and the soldier is collateral damage. It's an amusing enough story to repeat in case it's untrue.

Although such codes often have some effect, as you had to be seen as following the rules even if you weren't. Ninja were hired to do the Samurai's dirty work. Torture was used in POW camps in WWII, but kept secret to keep Germany following the rules... who almost certainly broke many of the same rules, but the rules kept things from getting too out of hand.

It's the old 11th Commandment: Thou Shall Not Get Caught.

True, but what I'm getting at is that you can only do this kind of thing on a small scale. It becomes a much bigger problem when you cannot win a war or conflict while following those doctrines. You can't "conceal" an entire engagement strategy.

Basically the current rules governing the militaries of the civilized world is that we won't directly attack civilian population centers, minimize collateral damage, and things like that. This is all fine if you say have a fight between say France and England over who controls a couple of islands. It doesn't apply when you facing a threat like the one from The Middle East where the rules are not acknowleged, and they are pretty much setting their goal as the subversion of the entire world under religions rule headed by god's chosen peoples. What's more when the enemy your facing is poor, doesn't really have an infrastructure to attack, and the governments are fairly transient and irrelevant anyway because it's more the societal principles your fighting than the policies of any particular leader or set of leaders, the current rules of engagement do not allow you to win. All you can do is react, wait for them to attack you, and hope for the best. Offensive actions become rather meaningless because for every leader you kill, another one simply appears, created by the same idealogy that made the previous ones martyrs. I mean we've been destroying "top leaders" in groups like say Al Qaida for a long time, and we achieved absolutely crap. Ditto for Israel wiping out leaders in Hamas. All this does when dealing with an enemy like this is slow things down for 10 seconds while new leaders step up. Your not facing a cult of personality or a set of principles created by this leaders, but rather leaders created by the principles and ambitions of the society as a whole.

See, at the end of the day what happens if we go in there and kick butt on ISIS/ISIL, or wipe out Al Qaida? Not a whole lot. The reason being is that because all those Muslim civilians that didn't pick up guns are still going to be riding their camals around, preaching the Muslim right to rule, the destiny to have an Islamic state, how various Arab peoples are the chosen ones of god, and how evil and backwards he rest of the world is. Millions upon millions of people will continue to do this and practice that way of life, and for the most part the majority of them are directly harmless, and won't do anything to attack or hurt anyone, BUT those very ideas being circulated and saturated through society will ensure people inevitably do step up and decide "this is how things are supposed to be, and to achieve it we need to fight, god tells us this is so". They can't beat us with standing armies, so of course that means terrorism and similar things.

How do you end that? Well the only way to do that is to pretty much wipe out the culture itself, because that's the actual enemy more than any nation or organization, those things spring from that culture and the way it is. This is of course prohibited by various rules and regulations set by groups like the UN who created those rules without considering this kind of a threat. After all there is no real reason why say France and England would need to entirely destroy each other on a cultural level in pursuit of any reasonable goal, the kinds of wars they are likely to have in the modern age aren't going to require it. The same can be said of most civilized, enlightened, nations. But what happens when your being attacked by "Neo-Barbarians"? This is the fundamental question in this conflict.

Now what I present is pretty bloody dark and depressing, I don't like it much myself, but at the end of the day it comes from the simple fact that there is no other way. We've been dealing with it for decades and trying all kinds of strategies ranging from ultra-dirty covert ops and manipulations, to trust and diplomacy (building up nations like Iraq in the process), and recently to relatively humane invasions. It's not like we haven't exhausted all the other viable alternatives first. You can't reason with groups of people that aren't governed by reason, and instead use spirituality and religion as the backbone of their society. I'd love to see The Middle East join the rest of the civilized world, but I don't see it happening, not to mention the people there are attacking constantly and distrupting our interests. Right now it's a situation where we either wipe that culture out, or it does the same to us (and it's frequently quite frank about it's intent in doing so). That basically means that since I don't want to die, the other guys have to. Us or them, the basic principle of our screwy reality. Not being able to adapt is part of why I have issues with the UN and a lot of the peace at any price crowd. Basically when your big wigs sit down for a meeting with the other guys and they insist on referring to you as "The Great Satan" instead of by your nation's name and acting with respect, that pretty much says it all about how deep this poison goes.


Don't get me wrong, if I felt there was some viable hope I'd embrace it, but I don't. Basically either people come around to think like me, or we all lose, and probably die in the long term. That's how I see it.

I basically think our current codes and rules of engagement need to be modified based on who your engaging, whether they follow the same rules, and of course the nature of the enemy and it's overall objectives. I think what people are taught is right and wrong and the standards presented in the media should more accurately reflect that a well, as opposed to acting like high moral principles are going to guarantee success. In the end it's your intentions that matter, more than how you go about things, as bad as that sounds (you know what they say about the paving of the road to hell... I can't help but disagree with that on a level that goes beyond this discussion). If someone is telling you they want you dead and view your as a blight on the world, your as stupid as the corporation in the "Aliens" movies for trying to deal with them or preserve them. As time goes on it's increasingly our own fault that we get betrayed and hurt down there trusting people, because you'd think we'd learn by now someone that portrays you as the ultimate evil isn't going to deal honestly, and at most use parlay for an advantage. An example would be all these Muslim nations Obama is bringing into coalition with us, after how well Pakistan turned out (they had Bin Ladin and were protecting them) this seems like a super sized version of that for example.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

You know what, the issue shouldn?t even be about female or ethnic minority representations. Just more variety. It just so happens that, despite the video game industry having so much creative freedom to just go balls-to-the-wall with whatever it wants, the protagonist ends up a lot of the time as a white guy. And people that want something different are understandably a little peeved about that.

Personally, as a black man (God, I hate saying that; sounds so pretentious), I honestly never gave the issue a second thought until someone else brought it up and then I started noticing stuff. I don?t know whether that?s a good thing or a bad thing, but?I just don?t care. I care about the game being good, and enjoying myself, not whether or not the character I?m playing as reflects me or the entire make-up of the human population.

As for people that still want to ***** and moan, they could always, I dunno, make a game with equal minority representation themselves. But it takes much less effort to write an article crying out ?MISOGYNY? than be proactive about something. If the game is grounded firmly in real-life and attempts to reflect said reality (perhaps unlike the OP?s well-meaning, yet flawed, CEO example), then?well, it reflects said reality, whether it be the race majority of a certain profession or the fucking breast size of your average assassin. If it?s a fantasy world?it?s all game. Make the protagonist a middle-aged brown-haired white guy with a raging boner for space chicks from Saturn, or make them a transsexual ninja girl who uses throwing stars to kill futuristic cyborgs. As long as the game?s good and the story is compelling, who gives a fuck? This is video games, people. Entertainment.

And they don?t need to be token characters either (although, if you want to use a game for socio-political commentary, then fine). Heck, you may not even have to include it in the game at all. You could just do a J.K. Rowling and mention it in their backstory or a guidebook, which could perhaps help in giving a new perspective on them, how they react to certain events in the story, and their relationships with others. Whether it be in films, books, or video games, you don?t have to know everything about a character when you?re first introduced to them, and some of the greatest fictional characters have been those without a defined past and subject to multiple interpretations (e.g. the Joker). Heck, maybe Griffith from Berserk is bisexual; he doesn?t seem averse to fucking a guy or girl, if it gets him where he wants. See, this isn?t fucking hard!

Anyway, I feel like I?m rambling, so I?ll just stop and prepare myself a flame shield just in case.

 

[Lotet]

-snip-

-snnap-

Or you could get out of that country. But no, you really can't, because you need to sustain your unsustainable way of life.

I don't know why you think America is so moral. America invades, uses attack drones/bombers and installs puppet regimes while Russia and China are a LOT worse because... they also invade countries and install puppet regimes?

And how can you say the rules shouldn't apply because of what the enemy is doing? Your forces are there right now destroying their homes. You've been doing it for a long time, justifying every single attack against civilians as necessary. Using Terrorist attacks against them under the name of "shock and awe". Maybe you should get the hell out of other countries and use that $600 Billion+ per year to create a more sustainable country?

You sound like one of those sneering people during the time of the British Empire who KNEW that that taking over/wiping out all the barbarians is the best thing for the world. That if any of them resisted it was because they were completely illogical to bow to their superiority, nothing to do with being an invading army pushing your culture onto others and claiming the natural resources.

I always wonder why some people end up as well intentioned extremists [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist](here's some quotes [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/WellIntentionedExtremist] you might find amusing). Why do you have this determination that the world must be fixed? I hope you never join the army where you can cause some actual damage. Or maybe you already have... heavens forbid someone like you ends up in an office of power.

captcha: collaborate and listen
what are you saying captcha?

 

[Therumancer]

-snip-

-snnap-

Or you could get out of that country. But no, you really can't, because you need to sustain your unsustainable way of life.

I don't know why you think America is so moral. America invades, uses attack drones/bombers and installs puppet regimes while Russia and China are a LOT worse because... they also invade countries and install puppet regimes?

And how can you say the rules shouldn't apply because of what the enemy is doing? Your forces are there right now destroying their homes. You've been doing it for a long time, justifying every single attack against civilians as necessary. Using Terrorist attacks against them under the name of "shock and awe". Maybe you should get the hell out of other countries and use that $600 Billion+ per year to create a more sustainable country?

You sound like one of those sneering people during the time of the British Empire who KNEW that that taking over/wiping out all the barbarians is the best thing for the world. That if any of them resisted it was because they were completely illogical to bow to their superiority, nothing to do with being an invading army pushing your culture onto others and claiming the natural resources.

I always wonder why some people end up as well intentioned extremists [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist](here's some quotes [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/WellIntentionedExtremist] you might find amusing). Why do you have this determination that the world must be fixed? I hope you never join the army where you can cause some actual damage. Or maybe you already have... heavens forbid someone like you ends up in an office of power.

captcha: collaborate and listen
what are you saying captcha?

We're not passive by any means, or perfect, but the bottom line is the US has the potential to be a real ogre, indeed we probably could have taken over the world where Hitler failed had we wanted to. Rather we tend to share our technology, engage in at best limited intervention, and when we meddle we do so the same way cops do, usually with UN authority or something coming from pre-existing treaties. Basically "World Police" has actually been an apt description because like a cop everyone hates you when your laying down the law on them, but your the first person everyone calls and wants help from when something is wrong... help which we usually give.

As a general rule while we do protect our own interests and prominence like everyone else does their own, we tend to back down when the moral cost is too high, namely when it represents a threat to civilians or will cost someone else too dearly.

See, right now the very fact that we're discussing morality and "rules" when the US is facing clear threats is exactly what I mean about morality. Other countries in our position generally wouldn't bother, they would just get what needs to be done, done. Overall in a real war the basic reality is that there are no rules, no right and wrong, and no good or evil, it's just about us or them.

The difference between my basic attitudes on this front is a lot different from The British Empire because the BE was expanding and conquering. I have no real desire to take over and rule The Middle East, my concerns begin and end with the threat the region poses. Personally, I'd love for them to just knock it off, but I don't think that's going to happen due to the basic principles of the regional culture. Various measured responses have been tried, of all sorts, including a lot of dirty tricks, all with the end of trying to find some solution to end this without having to go in there and pretty much just take them out. I believe in trying that stuff first, but once you've done it and are left with the last resort, you need to go through with it. Let's be honest if tomorrow all the Muslims said "hey we were wrong, we're going to institute a separation of church and state, bring about equality for women, and live at peace with Israel. We're sorry about all that terrorism and the things we did, some day when we've matured we'll make it up to you by becoming a worthy, civilized, nation" I'd be overjoyed, but honest I don't think that's happening. Basically I want them dead because they represent a threat to me.

This could also by extension be applied to nations like Russia and China, but to a lesser extent. China might need to be attacked culturaly to an extent, but for the most part they could be dealt with on a fairly civilized level in the end as they have standing armies, infrastructures, etc. At the end of the day they are attempting to expand their territory and conquer, or re-conquer lands, and expand their area of influence into areas that conflict with the US and it's allies. I believe very much in stopping them.

At the end of the day I suppose you could argue it's no different than the US, but that just makes things even. It still doesn't mean we should let this kind of thing go on, and cultures that want to eradicate us continue to thrive and present a threat. As I've said before in a real war it always comes down to "us or them" since everyone is the good guy by their own standards. Personally I think there is a fairly objective standard when it comes to the US in that we at least moralize about it (like we've been doing) where we probably shouldn't in order to compete, and we also haven't jumped at every sign of weakness around the globe to expand our holdings, with our military if we had acted like China and Russia just did, or went around terrorizing people like The Middle East, we'd either all be dead, or living on Planet America.

Now, outside of this discussion some of my points about the need for one world government come closer to what you imply, but a lot of that has to do with the spread of ideas first and foremost. Also eventually when the world is unified, after the inevitable bloodbath, it would not suddenly become "Planet America" rather I'd imagine the US would wind up disbanding like other countries and to work we'd need to form a world government from scratch. Probably starting with something equivalent to the old constitutional convention among the survivors.

Also one thing I will point out in your trope link that it doesn't cover is that in a lot of examples of the "well intentioned extremist" the good guys have no real plans for solving the major problems the bad guy does. They merely stop him from say killing a huge number of people to avert a crisis or make things objectively better because "mass murder is wrong". It all comes down to the whole "magical ethics" thing which is a problem where fiction and morality lessons in the US tend to be unrealistic by showing that simply by doing the right thing everything will work out. That's not reality, the "hero" doesn't get to channel cosmic karma and magically stop or created whatever the villain was trying to prevent without the cause with a giant climactic asspull. See if one could wave a magic want and solve all the worlds problems, by all means we should it that... but sadly we live in a sucky world, and that means our solutions all generally suck. Anything worthwhile winds up getting built on corpses of good people. That said who knows, maybe cosmic karma will see a massive overnight renaissance in The Middle East, and Russia and China will pull back into their borders, and everyone will say "hey, let's all have a big meeting to disband our current cultures and government and build a global one so we can solve our problems and more efficiently focus on worthwhile things like space exploration". That's not likely to happen though, so I'm afraid I remain Ozymandias Von Doom.

 

[Vault101]

snip.

[I/]I don't care about this so therefore you shouldn't, now let me come up with some bullshit to "solve all your problems"[/I]

you do realise people can enjoy games AND be critical about them at the same time? hell they can even create stuff at the same time too!

 

[Harpalyce]

I really hate the "well just go make 'em yourself weh weh weh" argument.

Come on, guys. The flak women creators and devs get is obvious and insidious. The harassment is endemic and truly reaches terrifying depths. There are plenty of women who like games. There are very few with the time, resources, and extreme willpower to thrive in such an environment that has definitely turned toxic since the time of, oh, Roberta Williams, for instance. And that's the indie scene. One does just not decide to become a triple-A developer overnight. That's not how the industry works! And anyone trying to sell that as a solution is patently disingenuous and a fool. I'm not going to spam links because it's common fucking sense if you open your eyes for more than two picoseconds.

That's not a solution. That's justifying how women and minorities are excluded from the industry by broad oversimplification of how easy-peasy it is to make video games.

Also: I like how the OP has been posting pretty much everywhere else but the thread he created to start shit. #classy