Originally a comment by Marcus Ranum on Don’t change a god damn thing.
Nobody is immune to critique.
Ultimately, if they don’t respond to critique, the “invisible hand of the market” may correct them, anyway. Don’t anyone break it to the gamer geeks but half the gamers in the world are women, now. Sure, there is a smaller market for ‘hard core’ (i.e.: guy) gamers but it risks being marginalized out of the mainstream, which will mean that those games won’t be very well-funded or good. Sort of like how cis porn split off from the Hollywood mainstream and maintained its ‘independence’ in return for acquiring an unenviable cachet.
I thought these guys liked the “invisible hand of the market” since so many of them are libertarians!? Candy Crush has 93 million people playing it every day – a bit more than half of which are women. 8 million people play Farmville. Those are big numbers. They’re right up there with big ‘hard core gamer’ franchises like Call of Duty (100 million) and then there are the mega-game franchises like World of Warcraft that held 12-20 million gamers for 12 years paying $15/month. The point is that it doesn’t matter at all what the gamergaters think: the market is going to change in spite of them; they are nothing but the sound of defeat.
Interestingly, Vox Day appears to have decided to savor defeat on two fronts: feminism in gaming and feminism in science fiction — both markets that are undergoing inexorable change at the hand of the libertarians’ own god. It’s the invisible hand of the market slapping them; the same hand they kiss so fervently.
The ironic thing about them arbitrarily not including players of Candy Crush and other “casual games” as gamers, is that years ago the people who played nothing, but FPSes, MMOs and sports game, weren’t considered true gamers and the derogatory term, “gramer”, was applied to them. None of them were ever harassed, which is an important point to make.
Outside of gamergate circles I never felt it was used like that, but that’s just my opinion.
Ironically, this was a term the massive influx of jocks into video games commandeered and are now the same people using it to claim others aren’t true gamers.
I might be fine with excluding players of Candy Crush as gamers, but Gamergaters don’t consistently apply the term “gamer” in a way that would be analogous to how I view the term “film-buff” with respect movies. Essentially it’s like people who only watch Michael Bay films calling themselves “film-buffs” while simultaneously calling people who watch nothing but chick-flicks “fake film-buffs.”
Ironically with how well received games are in the market at large, games with lower budgets tend to be better received and be more fun.
(PS. I’m sorry that this was kind of scattered.)
I find this line of argument neither convincing nor appealing.
I’m certain even most libertarians know what genres and niches are.
While the invisible hand probably would make a shittier gardener than a competent human would, it still wouldn’t prune away everything leaving only a single solitary leaf on the last branch of the only remaining plant.
Secondly, the idea that games that are so devoid of content and enjoyability that they couldn’t even be sexist if they tried are doing well financially, and likely will in the future, doesn’t comfort me at all.
I don’t want to play candy crush.
I want to play games of genres and themes I actually enjoy, only, if possible, and it most certainly is possible, without too many unnecessary sexist or racist tropes.
Partly because of possible societal impact but mainly because writing that relies on those creates shitty stories and boring characters.
Representation wouldn’t hurt either.
sugarfrosted@#1Gamergaters don’t consistently apply the term “gamer” in a way that would be analogous to how I view the term “film-buff” with respect movies
I think the situation with movies is apt: gamergate is trying to lay claim to the entire spectrum of criticism, while simultaneously trying to defend a specific venue of gaming. It would be as if the guys who like a specific type of porn were trying to claim authority over all movie criticism from art-house flicks to Michael Bay blockbusters. I’ve argued some of these issues with gamergaters in online gaming forums(*) and the definition of ‘hard core gamer’ is crucial to the discussion the same way that ‘military science fiction’ is in the whole sad puppies debacle. It amounts to the proponents trying to deflect criticism by claiming they are a niche, while criticizing the critics for overreaching.
I believe the best response-move is to explain to them that nothing is immune to criticism and if they want to shelter themselves as a niche, they’re just going to enjoy the benefits of being a niche: steadily reducing quality. The reason that even high quality pornography is not as well-produced as mainstream movies is because ‘mainstream’ is where the market is and to produce good stuff you need capital and a large customer-base. In gaming that customer-base exists but it’s moving away from violent misogynistic shoot-em-ups. There’s not likely to be an effort to prevent people from making crappy games – any more than there will be an effort to stop Vox Day and John Wright from churning out turgid prose – it’s just going to appeal to a proportionately smaller part of the market. That’s the problem with the whole ‘puppies’ thing: they are choosing to write for a smaller market – ‘military science fiction’ and then complaining that they are not getting recognized by the mainstream. Well, yeah. You can be a small fish in a big pond, or a big fish in a small pond, but it takes amazing game and funding and time to be a big fish in a big pond.
games with lower budgets tend to be better received and be more fun.
Just like with fim; you occasionally get people with amazing game who can break into the mainstream with a stunning success. I think ‘Primer’ was made on a budget of something like $75k. And of course ‘El Mariachi’ cost $7,000 to make and ushered in 2 decades of remakes by Robert Rodriguez. The same with games – Flappy Bird was amazingly popular and came out of the blue. Etc. I don’t think it’s safe to generalize that lower budget games are better received and more fun, though — the lower budget games that make it through the ‘greatness filter’ are the very few that were great and more fun and were well-received. For every one of those games, thousands die and are never heard of. For every movie like ‘Primer’ or ‘El Mariachi’ (or author like JK Rowling, for that matter) there are many thousands that never get any attention at all.
This is the way things work in every creative medium. I have no problem with it, because mainstream media co-evolve with the culture they shape and which shape them.
(* Specifically, the Elite: Dangerous forums, where a few ‘O NO SJWs are invading our space!’ postings cropped up)
ubjouern@#2: Secondly, the idea that games that are so devoid of content and enjoyability that they couldn’t even be sexist if they tried are doing well financially, and likely will in the future, doesn’t comfort me at all.
I’m not trying to comfort you.
I pointed to Candy Crush as an example of the demographics of gaming, and the finances of gaming. Game publishers that want to be in business and succeed are aware of market forces and play to them/with them. At Blizzcon last year I had a chance to ask one of the panelists from Blizzard’s design team about representation of body self-image in Blizzard games and he replied that it’s a thing they are extremely aware of and generally try hard to represent a wide range of body types and skin colors, etc (hey, you can be green if you want!) and genders in their games. Blizzard Gets This. It probably isn’t sheer coindence that World of Warcraft caters to wide ranges of looks and roles, as well as having roles that are not purely violent (as well as roles that are) — there is a lot of space for players to find identity and – ta-da! A lot of players do, in fact, find identity. Blizzard’s revenues speak for themselves. Meanwhile, Duke Nukem games are .. “unspecified date” Even heavy shoot-em-ups like Bungie’s Destiny are gender-neutral and steer completely away from gendered violence. Blizzard, Bungie, … et tu, Rockstar. Wait for GTA 6 and I bet you’ll find an interesting female protagonist and a lot fewer women in throwaway roles as strippers and punching bags. The gamergaters have actually done a service to gaming by pitching their little shit-fit and putting Sarkeesian (in particular) in the role of the adult voice at the table.
I don’t want to play candy crush.
Don’t, then. I don’t, either.
I want to play games of genres and themes I actually enjoy, only, if possible, and it most certainly is possible, without too many unnecessary sexist or racist tropes.
Yes, that’s what the mainstream is going to be bringing us. It’s also going to be bringing a lot of games like Candy Crush (I term them “obssession games”) and I predict the sexist and racist tropes are going to start dropping sharply.
Frontier had an “ask me anything’ with David Braben (the person behind Elite: Dangerous) and someone asked him why imperial titles are male-only and whether that was going to get fixed. He immediately said, “oh yeah, that’s on the list.” Game publishers get it.
You’re steering dangerously close to the stupid gamergater trope that if game developers stop producing violence and misogyny, games won’t be fun anymore. No, not all games will look like Candy Crush. They’ll probably look more like Destiny and Mass Effect. You can play a female avatar or a male avatar. And you can wear a ton of armor that covers your body, or a pink lame bikini, regardless of your gender.
I meant to write:
It probably isn’t sheer coindence that World of Warcraft caters to wide ranges of looks and roles
…. and World of Warcraft has a significant female player population (about 40% at last count)
If you look at the games that are big successes, they are big successes either because they are good and inclusive, or great and not too horribly offensive. In the next 2-3 years look for the effects of market pressure on the ‘offensive’ side.
The willingness to ignore the free-market realities of their own situation does amuse me.
Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency were inundated with cash just for saying she’d talk about feminism; meanwhile, all of her assorted detractors combined can barely make enough money to travel to the Calgary Expo (and get kicked out).
Well, on the other hand Thunderfoot / Phil Mason makes a fortune from his anti-feminist videos. The Amazing Atheist probably does even better.