I think any media being sexist/offensive isn't a big deal, and the free market will adapt to phase out offensive content.

Certainly that's one possibility. And the free market tends to either follow or lead consumers, and since this is a topic consumers and creators are discussing, such discussions are influencing the market. Nobody in this thread is advocating censorships or even boycotts to artificially manipulate the market (and technically, even boycotts are part of the dynamics of the market).

Since this is a game development site, alot of us are discussing this from the side of developers - how do we adapt to give the consumers what they want? Part of business is trying to predict trends before they arrive, so your products are ready when they are wanted. If we start making a game project today, it won't be ready for another two years or more.

To say "the free market will adapt" is failing to recognize that the consumers are part of the free market, so some sub-portion of the market discussing and deciding what they want is valid and helpful. Doing so publicly helps content creators know where that sub-portion of the market is.

Likewise, saying "the free market will adapt" is failing to recognize that the content creators are part of the free market, so them discussing and deciding what they should create next is valid and helpful.

Telling consumers not to discuss what they want, and telling content creators not to discuss how to refine their craft, is trying to prevent the free market from adapting. And when markets adapt, often time the previous state of the market still sticks around as a sizable niche market anyway (just as before the market adapts, the forerunners are the niche that leads the market).

"The market will adapt" argument only works when arguing against something outside of the market (like the government) trying to influence it artificially. Which nobody in this thread is suggesting, as far as I've seen.

Anita seems to be a professional victim.

I don't disagree with that (though I do disagree with the stock phrases people are using - it's like they can't come up with their own opinions). I haven't seen enough of her stuff to make an reasonable opinion of her motives or even opinions.

Simply by mentioning her you're furthering her cause, and most of your posts mention her.

This entire thread mentions her - her comments are the topic of discussion. I'm not going to call her "she-who-must-not-be-named", and neither am I going to refuse to discuss intellectual points raised, even if they don't come from someone recognized as an intellectual.

She raises some points - whether they are good points or not, we ought to consider those points and discard what we think is wrong, and accept what we believe to be correct. Just as I do with every technical article I read, every news report, every programming tutorial, every forum post. I seriously don't care about the motives behind it, only whether there is a shard of truth about it.

It's only when people hold her up as a hero, or burn her at the stake, that things become a problem. I'm doing neither. Most of this entire thread is doing neither. If she gets attention from this thread, I don't care - we can still pan through her thoughts and separate the gold from the mud.

If someone I hate says something that I know to be true, I'd be pretty dumb to reject the truth because I hate the person saying it (easier said than done, when emotions get involved).
Likewise, if someone I admire says something that I know to be false, It'd be foolish of me to accept the falsehood just because I admire the person (again, easier said then done).

I think an easy test to see whether I'm swallowing falsehoods or rejecting truths purely because I like/dislike someone, is by asking myself "Am I rejecting/accepting everything she's saying?", because it's very unusual for 100% of what someone says to be true, or 100% of what someone says to be false; and I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater - unless I'm making an intentional decision to knowingly discard the half truths with half falsehoods together.

To choose a side in this debate is stupid. There are true things to learn on both sides - the only reasonable course of action (from where I'm sitting) is to ignore the entire debate or discuss the debate with people willing to look at it rationally. It's the same kind of stupidity that makes people assume that all democrats are dumb, or all republicans are stupid. The world just isn't that simple, and to brush it that broadly is the easy way out, instead of spending the time to consider arguments on their own merit rather than the merit of the person speaking them.

Whether she is a drama queen or not, whether she has integrity or not, whether she's honored her crowdfunding promises or not, I honestly don't care. All I care about (as far as this thread is concerned) is my game design craftsmanship, my potential customers, and also the state of the culture I live in.

(sorry for my long-winded posts. I lack skill in being succinct - definitely an area I need to improve in)

Consider the arguments, not the characters making them.

Consider the arguments, not the characters making them.

Still difficult to do, for me, since the arguments are based on the platform that games perpetuate sexism and misogyny in the real world.

But why should you care who put forward the argument? Why do you think that matters?

Are there studies that prove or disprove this? Oversexualized women and all her critiques are artistic choices of the devs and teams. Games are an art form and as such allow for freedom of expression.

Theoretically.

Sadly you can't have a serious discussion about it because Anita, McIntosh, Cross, and the others will label you GG if you disagree with any of their points and block you.

How do you think the "free market" is going to do that, if not by its constituent customers and service providers making it a "big deal" by discussing what is and is not objectionable, as we are doing here? ;)

Of course. I have no issue with it being discussed or anything like that. If a large game comes out that avoids using tropes, and is roundly liked for it's characters, that should be enough to change industry practices, or at least lower their value, if the theories posited here are correct. I personally just don't think that will be the case.

All characters in all commercial works ever? That's a pretty strong claim. Can you demonstrate its soundness?

Not in all commercial works ever made, of course. But I think many commercial works "follow the herd" because it's proven to work, not because of any form of racism.

Free market theory applied to this: Games that will do better will understand and target their market demographic better than their competition. Game companies that understand their market better will therefore be more healthy than those who do not, and have a higher chance of success.

Certainly that's one possibility. And the free market tends to either follow or lead consumers, and since this is a topic consumers and creators are discussing, such discussions are influencing the market. Nobody in this thread is advocating censorships or even boycotts to artificially manipulate the market (and technically, even boycotts are part of the dynamics of the market).

Correct. I have no issue with this discussion. I'm for completely open dialogue when it comes to this topic. If the side positing racism/sexism is something real that also impacts game sales, and has market push, they've just improved the overall market.

To say "the free market will adapt" is failing to recognize that the consumers are part of the free market, so some sub-portion of the market discussing and deciding what they want is valid and helpful. Doing so publicly helps content creators know where that sub-portion of the market is.

Likewise, saying "the free market will adapt" is failing to recognize that the content creators are part of the free market, so them discussing and deciding what they should create next is valid and helpful.

Agreed.

"The market will adapt" argument only works when arguing against something outside of the market (like the government) trying to influence it artificially. Which nobody in this thread is suggesting, as far as I've seen.

Obviously these Obama loving feminist liberal muslim gungrabbers are trying to restrict my company's market value by not letting me sell NC-17 games outside the local elementary school.

This entire thread mentions her - her comments are the topic of discussion. I'm not going to call her "she-who-must-not-be-named", and neither am I going to refuse to discuss intellectual points raised, even if they don't come from someone recognized as an intellectual.

She raises some points - whether they are good points or not, we ought to consider those points and discard what we think is wrong, and accept what we believe to be correct. Just as I do with every technical article I read, every news report, every programming tutorial, every forum post. I seriously don't care about the motives behind it, only whether there is a shard of truth about it.

That's not wrong. That's why I'm fine with posting in this thread too. I'm just pointing out to BHX that he's had a large role in furthering discussion over her ideas, and introducing new people to her content (like me). So from the original OP, where he intended to criticize her, he only accomplished giving her more attention/outreach then if he didn't make this thread to begin with. I hadn't watched any of her videos before this thread. Now that I've seen a few, my impression is that she's trying to force everything through a feminist lens, without being an expert on the subject, but, I've given her some adsense revenue and a couple of youtube hits, thanks to BHX.

Oops, I missed that your "simply by talking about her" was directed at BHX. My bad!

"The market will adapt" argument only works when arguing against something outside of the market (like the government) trying to influence it artificially. Which nobody in this thread is suggesting, as far as I've seen.

Obviously these Obama loving feminist liberal muslim gungrabbers are trying to restrict my company's market value by not letting me sell NC-17 games outside the local elementary school.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You're the one who said, "the market will adapt"...
"I think any media being sexist/offensive isn't a big deal, and the free market will adapt to phase out offensive content."

You're saying 'the free market will adapt', but then using tongue-in-cheek language to mock people agreeing that the 'free market' will likely resolve itself in this situation? Unless you were meaning "Obama loving feminist liberal muslim gungrabbers" literally?

This quote just went over my head and I'm confused about what you are saying.

The part that makes it extra confusing to me is that movie and game ratings are non-government-enforced voluntary measures taken by the industry to permit free-market without government interference - so the government doesn't ban NC-17 movies, or the gaming equivalent (AO) - an alliance of videogame/movie developers voluntarily rate them, and retailers decide independently which ratings they want to carry.

Yes, the government put pressure on the movie and game industries for them to come up with some system, but once both industries did, the government mostly backed off (not every individual politician backed off, but the government itself mostly did, as far as I know).
And yes, a rating system does create artificial influence of some sort because a single committee basically says what is or is not acceptable (but cannot enforce or block the creation of anything - only rate it badly enough that retailers decide on their own not to carry it), but historically, these rating committees have been increasingly liberalizing their standards (except in a few outlying cases) year by year anyway.

I was poking fun about the dangers of a completely free market, since my position comes off extremely libertarian when put on paper.

Some regulation never hurt anyone but Ron Paul.

Oh.

I definitely agree there is a balance between zero regulation and too much regulation.

Though in this area (potential sexism/racism in games), I think we are already fine regulation-wise.

I'm not smart enough to understand what's happening here, but I just want to say that's it's perfectly possible to have strong female characters, even protagonists without loosing the interest and relating of male consumers. The best example I know for that is some Japanese anime (most Studio Ghibli films for example).

I'm not smart enough to understand what's happening here, but I just want to say that's it's perfectly possible to have strong female characters, even protagonists without loosing the interest and relating of male consumers. The best example I know for that is some Japanese anime (most Studio Ghibli films for example).

Or BloodRayne, though she was not musculine on figure , but musculine on every fklittle aspect left. The game introduced pretty naive gameplay and combat but rulled out quite great reception. BloodRayne 2 was a destroyed sequel and bloodrayne movies were Uwe Boll shots a student would shoot better.

Over a week away in my holidays, and this thread is still going strong? Wow....

Or BloodRayne, though she was not musculine on figure , but musculine on every fklittle aspect left. The game introduced pretty naive gameplay and combat but rulled out quite great reception. BloodRayne 2 was a destroyed sequel and bloodrayne movies were Uwe Boll shots a student would shoot better.

I don't think bloodRayne is a very fitting game to bring into discussion here... cannot comment on the game itself, the plot, or the main characters.... ehr... character as I haven't played the game myself, but from the visuals it is quite obvious that the devs went the "oversexed female character in skimpy dress" route.

I am in no way trying to judge that... just saying its one of the games that actually just proves sharkeshians points, at least one of them, and no matter if the main character might else NOT follow the other points she made (no damsel in distress, no helpless female character, and so on), the character failed to be a feminist approved character.

That might not prove to be a problem to all female players, some might be okay with the skimpy dresses and oversexed characters as long as the female character protrays a strong independent woman, but for a lot of them, it is a no-go it seems.