except it all often boils down to the classic "your rights end where muh feelings begin"The Crispy Tiger said:
Watch_Dogs and rape -no spoilers-
- Thread starter dogefan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
*Text Equivalent of a Raspberry*NuclearKangaroo said:
I'm not saying we start getting rid of rights, I'm saying I am using my rights to say that your shit sucks. Simple.
yeah but, does it truthly suck or are you just offended by it? because theres a differenceThe Crispy Tiger said:
i think feminism when it comes to gaming is awfully misguided, instead of demonizing current portrayals of rape, women, etc. in games, shouldnt these feminists try to make their own games?
some people dont mind the portrayal of those topics in their games, hell some might even feel the quality of the game might be reduced if the devs try to pander to everybody
A few gifs of oddities and its now a bash against rape victims and HIV+ people with no mention of the first game I've ever seen an NPC serpentine while running away from a person with a gun... before they fire even.
Also its happened on a few occasions that blood donors were HIV+ and the screening process didn't catch it or otherwise screwed up, and there's absolutely no context to the whole "rape" thing other than a gif.
Also its happened on a few occasions that blood donors were HIV+ and the screening process didn't catch it or otherwise screwed up, and there's absolutely no context to the whole "rape" thing other than a gif.
Okay, so you have someone making dirty searches on his phone, a woman who may or may not have legit reasons to search for rape frequently, and a guy who looks like "Hollywood homeless" who is HIV positive and a blood donor.
I'm missing the problem here. These look more like social commentary to me than stuff I can't believe they're trying to get away with. Am I missing something very important in the text? Some of the words are a little blurry, but I didn't see the woman with anything that demonstrated that it was a fetish.
I'm missing the problem here. These look more like social commentary to me than stuff I can't believe they're trying to get away with. Am I missing something very important in the text? Some of the words are a little blurry, but I didn't see the woman with anything that demonstrated that it was a fetish.
Errr...I mean...Crap, I'm doing this all wrong.delta4062 said:
The best way to stop it is to not talk about it. Your post is a perfect on-ramp to talk about it.
By that same logic, shouldn't you "just sit down and deal with" the complaining? Why do you get to complain but not them?Whitbane said:
In fairness, the US Constitution does guarantee us the right to not have our feelings hurt. And by us, I mean the internet, since the internet is the property of America.NuclearKangaroo said:
I'm finding I have less and less patience for sensitivity when it comes to any given subject matter like rape or HIV. I think this video demonstrates why.
Sure lots of times people making these jokes or references are just being assholes, and I don't condone being an asshole per se, but the only way to really address what is or isn't rude or offensive is to look at everything on a case by case basis, not to simply draw a line at certain issues like rape or HIV, and I don't see anything particularly offensive in this case.
Sure lots of times people making these jokes or references are just being assholes, and I don't condone being an asshole per se, but the only way to really address what is or isn't rude or offensive is to look at everything on a case by case basis, not to simply draw a line at certain issues like rape or HIV, and I don't see anything particularly offensive in this case.
You're allowed to criticize it all you want, but if you want anyone to care about your criticism you need to have some reasoning behind it. And even if you do it doesn't take away the creator's right to create the content you find offensive.The Crispy Tiger said:
You mean ignoring the possibility they don't have the requisite skills, the part where publishers apparently don't like to look at games with female leads (as a rule), and the part where such games received markedly less marketing resources?NuclearKangaroo said:
Where does that leave us, then? Indie games? No room in the big sandbox because we wouldn't want to pander [footnote]which is absurd, since we already pander heavily to the people complaining about pandering[/footnote] or cheapen the experience[footnote]for the people being pandered to, currently[/footnote]?
I really hope you haven't put any thought into this, because when faced with the reality of the games industry, "make your own games" sounds like an impractical method used to dismiss people.
And I don't get how someone being HIV positive is considered a joke. These kinds of people exist, you know. Only time I saw this being laughed at was during that E3 presentation. If that's what the OP's referring to, it's not really Ubisoft's fault that the crowd is immature.Zachary Amaranth said:
And also, yeah, a women who's not conventionally attractive searching "rape" a lot must totally mean she wants it. Like, totally. How else would she get laid, amirite bro?!
dont get me wrong, my problem is that they arent even trying, i dont think ive seen a very successful indie game that challenges the current portrayal of women in video games, except maybe transistor, and that one wasnt made by feministsZachary Amaranth said:
then you have the arguments of people like anita sarkeesian, high profile feminism and internet hate sponge, criticizing games like rogue legacy because they dare put a bow in female playable characters, completely ignoring the fact that game revels in its ridiculousness, i mean its almost like anita saskatchewan doesnt even play video g-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw
oh
oh the whole dragon's crown debacle, with feminists eager to condemn the oversexualization of female characters in the game, while ignoring that many male charatcers in the game are like 90% pecs
many more things can be accomplished by actively trying to change things, than by merely complaining about the way things are
I remember a while ago there was an article from Ubisoft saying that Watch_Dogs was intended to incorporate complex morality; i.e. the player will be met with events in the world, their responses to which will be "off the books", so to speak.
To me, this kind of thing just reinforces that notion. The player will react to people like this differently than if there were a "kill" or "spare" moral choice. It's the kind of thing that can add some hidden depth to the Aiden; beyond his reputation and beyond his actions in the story. And it's made possible by NPCs that have a bit more apparent depth than "Doesn't enjoy Dr Pepper as much as they say they do".
To me, this kind of thing just reinforces that notion. The player will react to people like this differently than if there were a "kill" or "spare" moral choice. It's the kind of thing that can add some hidden depth to the Aiden; beyond his reputation and beyond his actions in the story. And it's made possible by NPCs that have a bit more apparent depth than "Doesn't enjoy Dr Pepper as much as they say they do".
Oh no! Someone with HIV is a blood donor! Something like that could NEVER happen in the REAL WORLD! Oh man, someone has a rape fetish! And she isn't attractive! OH THE HUMANITY! (If you don't know: Rape is fetishized in the real world. People have that fetish. Hell most adults (and within that, the majority are more female) have had a rape fantasy at least once in their lifetimes. Look it up.)dogefan said:With all the leaks of watch dogs showing up now that people are able to play the game we now have images of some quite disturbing material.
I was quite disappointed after spotting the below images on an irc channel that I frequent. Unfortunately the people who were commenting on them were just laughing the whole issue off.
It would seem like ubisoft still hasn't gotten away from the disturbing rape and STD references that they were also criticized for when Far Cry 3 came out.
Just like in Far Cry 3 the Ubisoft team is handling these issues with little understanding of the topics and even less regard for actual victims of rape or STDs.
For example in the pictures and gifs below we see HIV being made into a joke by assigning the disease to a character who is a blood donor.
And even worse, rape is being handled by portraying it as a fetish for women who are larger and don't conform to the beauty standards we have today. The text messages related to the rape references are also disturbingly degrading.
Why can't we have a game that deals with these issues with at least some understanding and care? Why does this happen even after all the public outrage about similar cases in the past? Do these companies not have PR departments capable of thinking straight? Why do they want to drive away big parts of their potential customer base?
Is it just too much to ask not to have to see material like this in majority of the big budget titles these days? Would people actually miss this stuff if it was gone?
This is supposed to be disturbing? I am sorry, I was kind of distracted by the game I was just playing where you play as a women who kills her sisters, basically enslaves their disciples just to fuck when she wants to, AND gains powers from bathing in the blood of her enemies. But wait, a randomized NPC has a rape fetish! This is by far the more disturbing of the two. (By the way, the NPCs are RANDOMIZED. So you can get someone who is a pedophile AND a kindergarten teacher.)
I like how the HIV Positive thing is information you can access, as well as perverted things being searched for. The things that set off red flags for me is that the HIV guy is a blood donor which isn't cool, and the woman who searches "rape" is a school teacher. Rape fantasy is fine if there are safe words and consent, but it implies that both of those things may have been thrown out the window and traded for the adjective "Statutory".
Then again, A)it's a game, thus not real. and B) You have a right to make gritty media.
Personally I don't much care one way or another, but if Ubi was smart, they would step back a bit. Especially since their graphics were greatly exaggerated to the point where there is a bigger shitstorm online about it than usual.
Then again, A)it's a game, thus not real. and B) You have a right to make gritty media.
Personally I don't much care one way or another, but if Ubi was smart, they would step back a bit. Especially since their graphics were greatly exaggerated to the point where there is a bigger shitstorm online about it than usual.
Hmm, doesn't seem to me like any of this is really meant as a joke. Though the HIV blood donor thing slightly annoys me. But that's only because I'm barred from donating blood simply because I'm gay.
That's hardly Ubisoft's fault though.
That's hardly Ubisoft's fault though.
Drakengard 3 I think. Haven't played it myself but from what I've seen it's quite weird. Nothing new for that series though.guitarsniper said:
No.
No one else gets to decide for a creator that they can't broach an issue like HIV or rape because they aren't "respectful" enough. The real world doesn't work like that, art that reflects the real world isn't required to fall under that standard either.
There are people who give blood who are HIV positive. There are women who have rape fantasies. Assuming that by placing them in the game the creators are making any broad assumptions about women, rape or rape fantasies, blood donors or HIV positive people, or their numbers in the general public, is projection.
Yes, even if it were true that this was occurring in "the majority of mass market games", which it isn't by a long shot, it is too much to ask to "not have to see this kind of stuff" in an M-rated title. By all means warn other people who are sensitive to such subjects off, but don't assume to call such shots for everyone else.
No one else gets to decide for a creator that they can't broach an issue like HIV or rape because they aren't "respectful" enough. The real world doesn't work like that, art that reflects the real world isn't required to fall under that standard either.
There are people who give blood who are HIV positive. There are women who have rape fantasies. Assuming that by placing them in the game the creators are making any broad assumptions about women, rape or rape fantasies, blood donors or HIV positive people, or their numbers in the general public, is projection.
Yes, even if it were true that this was occurring in "the majority of mass market games", which it isn't by a long shot, it is too much to ask to "not have to see this kind of stuff" in an M-rated title. By all means warn other people who are sensitive to such subjects off, but don't assume to call such shots for everyone else.
Eh, I don't think any of those combinations are intentional, from what I've seen in gameplay demos, the factoids and occupations are randomized, so sticking HIV positive and blood donor together was likely more just an unintentional combination of facts and occupations drawn from the games database, than any attempt from Ubisoft to make a crass joke.EHKOS said:
OT: Yeah, I'm usually on the pro side for these kinds of threads, the one or two people on this forum that may actually remember me from those threads can vouch for that, but there really doesn't seem to be much to actually criticize here, I think the OP is just reading too far into Ubisoft's random info database set up for the game.
As for Farcry 3, they probably didn't listen to criticism because there honestly wasn't that much of it, I remember the controversy against them trivializing Jason's friends rape implications died down pretty fast. Most people were talking about the game's silly ending and making fun of the writer for trying to portray it as a lot deeper than most people though it was. As much as I hate trivializing other people's complaints, I doubt you're going to get much traction with this one, it just isn't really that problematic to most people, I seriously doubt this will develop into an actual controversy a la the Hitman trailer, outside of maybe a few angry posts online, I just don't see this one as really being that offensive to many people.