Random Lesser Game News Talk & Stuff

[Mantis]

I agree with this counterpoint.

It wouldn't be enough to just, I don't know, put a trans person in a game and have them there as a character. No, it has to be a political statement and you have to just let everyone know it.

But it's not really the case for this character and for the most part that article is pretty bang on.

[Quietman]

This raises an interesting question though. If you don't say a character is trans then how do the trans community know that they are represented in games? Or should they assume that whatever character they want to be trans could be?

[Subway Diet]

Hopefully this doesn't come across as antagonistic, but when I hear the claim that something is overly political, especially with an issue like this, essentially sounds more like "I don't like/agree with it. Don't talk to me about this". It's the whole coded language thing?

At least that's how it feels in the vast majority of the times I've encountered that statement in discussions about exclusivity. As if it's used as a bomb to drop when someone wants to shut down a conversation they find uncomfortable.

[Sly Boots]

This raises an interesting question though. If you don't say a character is trans then how do the trans community know that they are represented in games? Or should they assume that whatever character they want to be trans could be?

In Dragon Age: Inquisition it was pretty obvious the first time you spoke to that character. In fact, I'm not sure whether it was even overtly mentioned in the game or just hinted at (not sure about the marketing materials pre-release though). Was quite tastefully done imo.

[Lee]

The only article I have read that is looking at both sides of this story.

http://gameranx.com/features/id/47159/a ... -gategate/

[Subway Diet]

The only article I have read that is looking at both sides of this story.

http://gameranx.com/features/id/47159/a ... -gategate/

“The accounts that have been banned were banned for perpetuating a false narrative and engaging in a campaign of harassment that is being coordinated externally. Personal attacks against individual developers are also potential reasons for forum bans. Don’t think we don’t see what’s happening. Are there worthwhile criticisms of the game to be had and discussed? Sure. But let’s have that discussion. If you’re only here to hop on the GamerGate/KotakuInAction bandwagon, or to spout abuses at the LGBTQ community or one of our writers, you’re not welcome here; don’t be surprised if your posting privileges get revoked.”

Vs

“Adding a half-♥♥♥♥♥ token which trivializes a life-destroying mental disorder with no known treatment is not inclusive. It's bigotry, and there needs to be an apology.”

Both sides, am I right?

Also:
"By making a comparison to Bob Newhart, Trent makes it seem like the GamerGate controversy is just a big joke."
You're telling me GG was not some massive, tragic joke?

[Mantis]

Hopefully this doesn't come across as antagonistic, but when I hear the claim that something is overly political, especially with an issue like this, essentially sounds more like "I don't like/agree with it. Don't talk to me about this". It's the whole coded language thing?

At least that's how it feels in the vast majority of the times I've encountered that statement in discussions about exclusivity. As if it's used as a bomb to drop when someone wants to shut down a conversation they find uncomfortable.

Sure, it gets used for those reasons, but yes something can absolutely be overly political, or preachy. You can send a message and still do it tastefully or subtly, beating a concept over someone's head is not a good way of making them amenable to it. As I said, I don't really think this instance is a case of bad taste; the 4th wall breaking character who jibes at the player comes across as more of a game breaker for me than some trans character with a paragraph of dialogue. But when you're putting a political message into something like a game, music or any form of art really, you need to have a bit of tact. Being overly political is the equivalent of being a street preacher; most people aren't that fussed about hearing your message when they're busy getting on with something, you're just going to be ignored and most likely mocked for having such a blunt dumb ass approach.

[Subway Diet]

Out of interest, and again this is not to try and go for a wind up, but what are some examples of this? Specifically in games? The only one I can think of is the borderlands series, but the entirety of that game is written with the subtly of a sack of bricks. And even then, everyone casually mentioning their sexual orientation is hardly the most egregious thing that game did from a character perspective.

The thing is that a badly written character is a badly written character. It's just that people seem to complain more, even if the writing is good or not, when they find a minority being put in plain sight. Acting as though it's an infringement of some kind. It's not exactly a mindset that strikes me as, hm, open to tolerance? Especially if the gut reaction is to push back hard. I guess not being comfortable around what I perceive to be close mindedness makes me the real bigot all along, right?

Hell, the only reason I'm even pushing this is because of the people who took offence made it an issue. I don't stand on the street corner, yelling about not being dicks to people on the LGBT spectrum, or such.

[Mantis]

I don't think there really are that many instances specifically in gaming where it has been handled poorly, in terms of portraying sexuality at least. This link has a huge host of examples where developers integrated gay and bi characters really well without making a deal of it, as it should be done. I've never been a fan of how Bioware handle relationships in their games, for both gay and straight characters, but that's an unrelated matter. I think the issue is more likely to arise if a developer puts a character like that in and then attempts to draw attention to it outside of the game and politicise it when they're promoting it.

I think it's far more prevalent in movies and TV where an archetypal gay guy is written in. Ever watch Dr Who when Russel T Davies was the show runner? He was notorious for writing in characters who served no purpose other than to randomly kiss a dude at some point and be like "Oh hey, we're the gay ones in this episode!". It was their defining characteristic and clearly a case of him just shoehorning them in for the sake of it.

I'm not against the concept of politicising art, far from it. I just hate it when it lacks any sort of subtlety.

[Jez]

All I remember about dragon age inquisition was a video that MM posted showing the morning after for the player waking up with that fuckin bull creature lying there looking sexily at him. The devs must have been pissing themselves when they made that a thing.

[Edwin]

My issue is there are at least two ways to switch gender in the Baldur's Gate games and only one of those has a drawback. Why would a trans person exist for any longer than it would take to find a suitable wizard? Probably has something to do with Beamdog's writing. I didn't get too far into BG:EE before happening upon the additional content, which is uniformly terrible.

[Quietman]

If that's an actual question, then probably for reasons of money or understanding Wizards aren't cheap!

[eVoL]

DoA5 Final round hit 6million downloads and

in order to celebrate the download numbers, Koei Tecmo is making 26 of the game's characters free-to-play until 12:00 JST on April 11th. With a roster of 35 playable fighters, fans will be able to try out more than half of the cast free of charge.

Its worth a spin, its one of the better fighting games around and manages that mix of noob friendly and pro-level stuff well. Its a shame it gets landed with "oh the titty bouncing game? " when its a proper good core fighting system. PC version is based on the PS3 code though so you dont get the PS4s "soft skin tech" sadly. ;_;

edit: oh wait, theres no free Core Fighters version on the PC. Oh well! Still worth checking out if you have a console!

[Mantis]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016- ... -cancelled

Nosgoth cancelled.

It sort of sucks that Square Enix decided that it hadn't built up enough of a userbase purely from the numbers playing early access. Not everyone likes playing glorified tech demos and alphas before a game is complete, for them to close the doors on it before it has even had a proper chance is a shame and sets a bad precedent. I gave it a quick go a while back and thought it was a solid game, but it was light on content because of how fresh into early access it was; I'd have probably gone back to it on release.

Ah well. Square Enix making stupid ass decisions is sort of their modus operandi.

[Subway Diet]

The whole idea was a bad one from the start. Take an action adventure/RPG series and try to bolt it onto a team based arena... thing?
I've heard people saying that the higher-ups at the company got sold on the idea that all games going forward must be multi-player/always on-line, episodic, or both. It sent them down a weird path which they flaked out on and tried to course correct poorly. See the new Hitman, those weird leaked screen shots of JC3 micro transactions and, sadly, what they did to put a steak through the heart of the Legacy of Kain series.

So, yeah. "Square Enix making stupid ass decisions is sort of their modus operandi."

The real stinger is that the upcoming Deus Ex was conceived under that mandate.