1 hour ago, Gian-Reto said:

So I guess what you are looking for are just shooter games that do not involve killing people? Or soldiers fighting in a war? Isn't Splatoon something that goes into that direction, altough that is aimed at kids?

 Or am I off in a wrong direction here?

Very. In fact, you're perpetuating a cultural stereotype that women don't like violent video games. That's not only not the case, it's not what Minx said, at all - she's talking about the male gaze and lamenting how most video game stories are told from the perspective of male characters rather than female characters. She even said that she loved the new Doom (a gloriously violent video game)! Where are you getting this from? Sure can't be anything Minx has said.

When you say stuff like this, it kind of suggests that you aren't actually reading what posters here are saying and are instead responding to what you expect them to have said.

28 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

Very. In fact, you're perpetuating a cultural stereotype that women don't like violent video games. That's not only not the case, it's not what Minx said, at all - she's talking about the male gaze and lamenting how most video game stories are told from the perspective of male characters rather than female characters. She even said that she loved the new Doom (a gloriously violent video game)! Where are you getting this from? Sure can't be anything Minx has said.

When you say stuff like this, it kind of suggests that you aren't actually reading what posters here are saying and are instead responding to what you expect them to have said.

I'm sure a lot of women enjoy violent video games, however men are inherently more violent, a proven statistic. A higher percentage of men will enjoy violence. Now I'm not saying women don't, just a lower percentage.

And in regards to the actual subject. There's a woman with a metal hand, who even cares about historical accuracy at that point. The game is clearly doing it's own thing.

2 hours ago, mikeman said:

@Gian-Reto, I hate to break it to you, but the "all sides have pros and cons and are flawed" is not really the terrific insight you think it is. We already know that. Everybody knows it. Everytime I hear someone proclaiming "all sides have their flaws" as if they have made some insightful remark I can't do nothing more than restrain my yawn. It's literally nothing more than a truism that adds absolutely nothing to my knowledge of the situation. The Standard Model is flawed, and also Flat Earth theory is flawed...thank you very much. The question is which side is closer to evaluating correctly the situation, as much as it can be correctly evaluated given the tools we have.

Well, SOME people seem to either like to forget that, or simply chose to ignore it. It might be an old truism, but its sadly again what this whole conflict needs. More people in middle calling others to calm the F-Word down.

2 hours ago, mikeman said:

Otherwise we might as well accept that the world we live in is un-knowable and all we have are clashing "narratives", all equal to each other, and all we can do is maybe pinpoint the flaws in each one and call it a day, content with ourselves of how impassionately and "rationally"(the quotes are there for a reason) we can look at the matter and not side with anyone or anything in particular.

What else can you do in a time and day when the truth gets ever more murky thanks to "modern technology" and the internet? Not that the truth was ever that safe from manipulation, but again.

What do you do in an age when everything you read is easier to manipulate than ever before? In the end all you do is pick your truth if you are not very sceptical about what your read and believe.

2 hours ago, mikeman said:

We all know that each side engages from time to time in hyperbole, but that comes with the territory in enganging with social and political issues. But that doesn't mean that all sides are equally close or further from the truth. Case in point : Do you think that for non-white people, racism is still a problem, and that sexism is still an issue for women? Do you have a stance on the matter? 

Sure I have a stance. I might even think MY stance is more valid than someone elses stance.

But I do not think I have a right to force my stance on someone else... outside of a democratic process, that is. The legal system, the political system. That is what should be used to tackle REAL issues in the REAL world. You know, gays not being allowed to marry and all that. Hopefully a vote will, someday, make this a non-issue.

If someone has a different opinion, for example on gay rights... I don't think I will change his mind by being rude to him, or obnoxious. A lot of the social justice movement of the last few years has been trying to shout over other people for various reasons. I don't think this will lead anywhere good. I see the rise of the right here in europe, and worldwide as a reaction to overreaching leftist activism and politics. As someone who would like to see society slowly moving into a more progressive future, that worries me... at the same time, I have become increasingly fed up with the left in my country, and in other parts of the world. They seemed to be bogged down by petty infighting about who is the most oppressed, seemed to follow the same stupid demagogues as the rightwing, just their mirror twins, at times, all while making the same "politics for the chosen few" I detested some rightwing parties for a long time (insert underprivileged for overprivileged). I see the same rich guys at the top of the left trying to capitalize the whole thing as on the right side.

So if you ask me if I think Racism and Sexism is still a problem? Yes, sure. I am also sure it not only affects a few protected classes, but everyone. Some more than others in certain regions of the world. Some less.

But most of all I don't believe naive activism and shortsighted politics can help against it. What the world needs is societal change, and that a) cannot be forced outside of a dictatorship (and even there might lead to unwanted results), and b) takes a lot of time... you can stop someone from being racist in public sure. You cannot control his thoughts though. That takes way longer to wane, maybe generations.

Look, I do understand everyone closer to the topic not being able to step back and take a deep breath. In the end I do not think that hyperbole and grandstanding will help the issue to become a non-issue though, IMO. Only people reaching out hands to people not on their side, that might not see them as humans (yet) will. Because in a lot of cases I think missing respect and empathy comes from missing contact with people different to them. Disagree with me all you like - I prefer to find good people on both sides and listen and talk to them, and try to distance myself from the negativity of the toxic elements on both sides (if I manage to do that... I am a geek at heart, with all the fanboism that comes with it). That will naturally call for a more sceptical stance toward both sides.

3 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

There is no question about it that a fairly sizable amount of people believe this. The thing is that the reason it seems that racism and sexism have been 'eradicated' is because it's not as obvious as 'white people only' signs hanging from restaurants, right? It's far more subtle and it's hard to believe it exists unless you are on the receiving end of it, which of course, if you're in the group that doesn't get targeted, how would you know? This isn't to say anyone's at fault for not knowing: it's hard to understand another perspective fully.

Well... maybe the issue then is how the people unaffected get educated about it. Because I see a lot of people actually open to hear the reasonable complaints being kind of "turned off" listening by the slapfest of the bad apples on both sides, AND big business and media co-opting the debate and making big headlines out of it.

Sometimes, an alarmist article blaming and shaming people does more harm than good.

Again, what I have seen is that personal contact and common interest do way more to help different groups understand each other than all this lecturing and activism.

3 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

Thing is what can be done? We shouldn't dig our heads in the sand, but this goes both ways. We can't simply say 'well no more showing trailers with women in them' either.

 

Right. But I don't think the female character alone was ever the issue to begin with.

a) if the whole historical correctness angle wouldn't be there, it couldn't be used... thus making the game look more cartoony, using a fantasy world, making it clear that this is alternate history

b) if the game would be a new IP, you would have to deal with less fanboism -> hence why changing existing IPs to accomodate more diversity has to be done very carefully IMO

c) if the whole environment would have been soured by years of pointless slapfests in the media and on youtube, people would probably react less toxic and you would just hear one or two people mutter something about "that katana and robot arm is not historical" - that shit wasn't as much an issue 10 years ago, at least I cannot remember it to be.

Again, for the time being I think not provoking and not letting provocations get to you is the important thing, then hopefully both sides will cool down a little bit. And yes, I do believe the most stupid thing will be seen as a provocation at the moment. As the silly trailer to a series as chronically unhistorical as BF shows.

3 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

I'm not familiar with the Kingdom Come controversy. Any good sources on it? I wasn't able to find much.

I would be damned if I could find a real unbiased source on the matter that I would trust. I mostly pieced it together from clearly biased sources. Just read the gaming press, watch some anti-SJW youtube videos, mix it, divide by two, and you get something close to the truth.

Sorry, not going to link to something that I don't fully trust.

The gist of it, removing as much bias as I can: the guy at the top of the studio was a controversial figure during the GG controversy, obviously very involved. He headed a Czech studio to develop a first person RPG set in mediaval bohemia that was really using historical accuray as its main feature.

The game quickly got critisized for not having PoC and, as far as I remember, not enough women in it. The studio, especially the guy at the top, started a counterattack mocking the guys complaining about it. Historically accurate angle was used as defense. The whole thing exploded as it always does, gaming press started writing pieces on him, anti-SJW squad came to the defense, ugly slapfest ensued.

The result was the game came out unchanged, was a huge success for a relatively small game from a small studio, and apparently was decent, if not brilliant.

Questions got raised if the game would have gotten just as much flak for what could be seen as a minor issue in a small game from eastern europe if the guy at the top wouldn't have been wellknown from GG.

That is pretty much the gist of it, trying to be as unbiased as I can. If you want the version with more flavour, again, your probably can google it. was all the rage for a month or so, and the internet is still filled with the remains of that dumpster fire.

3 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

I was referring to the diversity part, not anything else. As stated before, Battlefield games are extremely detached from realism. Despite the complaints about BF1 being 'forced diversity', the Harlem Hellfighters were a very real division in WW1, that did have a role in the war. It was a story that many, including myself, did not know about, and BF1 shed some light on it. The other stories were pretty cool too.

And I found it important to point out that a lot of "historically inaccurate" are not about gender or race.

In case of the BF5 Trailer, after having looked into it more it seems the female soldier and the black british soldier are only about 1/4 ofwhat probably triggered people to dislike because of "historical inaccuray"... one of the british soldiers in the european theater has a katana on his back - and again, then we have robot-arm lady shooting a rifle with a pretty primitive prostetic arm.

And that doesn't even go into the full overthetopness of the whole cutscene... which in my case was easing me off a little bit because all of this probably was meant to be not taken seriously at all... looked like fortnite without the cartoon graphics... seems it still managed to trigger some people even more.

3 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

But that's just the thing Gian-Reto, all the devs did was put out a trailer that had a woman in it. Can we really class this as a provocative trailer? I do agree with @Mynx that the solution really shouldn't be to just collectively keep quiet, thinking that the whole overreactions will disappear.

No, its not a provocative trailer. But people are on edge because this whole "SJW vs. anti-SJW" thing was never allowed to die down by both sides. Its still being fed by the media and youtube channels every day, just check for yourself.

The solution to THAT problem is when people no longer care, there will be no money more in trying to rile up people for clicks.

And to make people not care anymore... yeah, you kinda have to let it die down. Kinda let more things just go instead of reacting to it. Because this loop is being fed by reactions. And it has escalated to a point where I am no longer sure there are ANY reactions that can help to de-escalate. ESPECIALLY when all these reactions often come in the heat of the moment, where even the official reps of game devs and movie studios sometimes write stuff they probably would regret having written months later. I hope at least they regret it.

Look, I understand some people wanting to change the world. I understand some people feeling the other is in the wrong, and wanting to either shut them down or convince them. But I don't think any of this can happen. This has escalated way beyond what can be contained. If you think otherwise, and want to do something against it, good luck to you. You will need it.

On 6/5/2018 at 12:00 AM, JoeJ said:

Makes sense. I do not really believe racism is the main motivation behind all this - it's much more likely that racism itself is just another result of... primal survival drope? Gather more food than our neighbour on a fine scale, gather more food than people who look obviously different at a larger scale. Don't let others take my food, don't let them play my games.

It's pretty unlikely we will ever be able to share, to increase life standard of 3rd world, to stop over population. We're born shortsighted and selfish. It's our nature. We're too much, standards go down for everyone. We'll fight each other for a space in games, money or food, does not matter. We'll blow the planet up.

What you wrote is exactly what I think, to a 'T'.  I would love to see nothing more than all peoples of race, religion, region, sex, orientation... have meaningful representation in all their daily affairs, and to be treated with respect.  But like you said, it's almost a dream that differing societies of the past have attempted to touch in their own way.  In the West we take for granted the 'forward march of progress' as though it's some destined inevitability, which it is not.  It's fragile and is largely dependent on the socioeconomic necessities of a given society at a given time in history.  That's why I think, quite ironically, our only hope lay in divorcing ourselves from reliance on nature entirely and creating an entirely artificial existence for ourselves, one that doesn't need the chaos' that come with mother nature for sustenance.  Did you know that nuclear weapons are hot to the touch?  they emit a eerie warmth and the world only has ~10,000 ready within minutes notice for use.  I'm going to enjoy the chaos while it lasts.  And God willing, it will outlast my life.