anyway in regards to Video Game Narrative, I never said they were worthless, I said they were'nt taking full advantage of the interactive nature of the medium. In other words most of the Video Game Narrative takes place during non-interactive cutscenes, wich is what films do, so why not watch a film instead, (to my knowledge Pac Man, Mario and Contra don't have cutscenes), also I'm not against narrative context in video games, meaning I don't want to change soldiers into cookie hustling girl scouts.
You wrote, "Meaning the difference lies on the perception and not the actual story itself." In the examples stated, changing a character's sex WOULD objectively change the story itself (namely, such changes would make the story nonsensical). You can't state that gender changes don't change the story itself, and then dismiss an example because it would objectively change the story. The fact that such obvious changes would have a huge effect on the story kills any point that you were trying to make. You're also using the "why not watch a film instead" argument to dismiss people's point about staying true to the story. That's a pretty dangerous way to go. I could just as easily say, "characters being women only matters in relation to the story, and the story is told mostly through cutscenes. So what the hell do you care that the characters aren't women? If it matters that much to you, then go watch a movie." Hey if you're gona use pregnant dudes as an example than I'l damn well dismiss whatever I wan't, but since you want me to point out the obvious then here: Other than clear physiological differences, changing the gender doesn't change the story, only the way the story is perceived, mostly in video games. There! happy now? And you completely lost me at the 2nd part of you're post. (my argument of Video Game Narrative has nothing to do the Gender argument).GTA V: No Female Protagonist
This topic is locked from further discussion.
anyway in regards to Video Game Narrative, I never said they were worthless, I said they were'nt taking full advantage of the interactive nature of the medium. In other words most of the Video Game Narrative takes place during non-interactive cutscenes, wich is what films do, so why not watch a film instead, (to my knowledge Pac Man, Mario and Contra don't have cutscenes), also I'm not against narrative context in video games, meaning I don't want to change soldiers into cookie hustling girl scouts.
You don't have to have seen them to know about the movies, they have been pretty discussed and showcased out there on the interweb and in the media. Also its BS and double BS at that games are crap at telling a story, you just have to look at Mass effect, heavy rain, uncharted, Remember me, tomb raider, La Noire, even GTA is pretty decent at telling a story, but in the end its all on how you perceive and think about what your shown. So if you lack imagination or don't have the ability to contemplate over what your playing, then that is only on you, not the game. Also in the end movies are actually pretty simliar to games in storytelling, in fact games have a advantage since they have a lot more hours to use than a movie has. And also there is the interactive part.Perhaps its a good idea to stop posting in this thread when you keep making up things you have no proof happened and therefore cannot be put down as facts. First of all you have absolutely no proof that Rockstar even once were told by anyone that their decision to go all male would be questioned, and no your links in a previous post does not constitute a media response or question to that fact, its a few bloggers who sat down and thought about it. Main stream media meaning Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, New York Times, BBC and so on, haven't had one bit about this, Second you also have no proof that Rockstar even once in their development process even discussed having a female lead, and this is something you even admitted, when you had the debate with Grammar, so perhaps its time to put that down as poor speculation and not facts as you keep doing. So you can argue all you want that Rockstar are aware and took a concious decision to avoid a female lead, but in the end you have yet you actually proof this, so right now its just you speculating and making some kinda ridiculous claims.LOL, I love your comparison, because it's not at all similar GTA and Rockstar's decision. It's like you're not reading anything I'm saying here.
I'm going to summarize it one more time for you, just in case.
The gaming industry is rife with sexism right now. It's been this way for around the past five years. Here's a link, if you'd like.Â
http://kotaku.com/5963528/heres-a-devastating-account-of-the-crap-women-in-the-games-business-have-to-deal-with-in-2012
Panels have been held at gaming conventions dealing with the issue of sexism.
Female employees have taken to Twitter, blogs, interviews and other forms of media to describe how their male bosses (or fellow employees) will sexually harass them fairly consistently.
A documentary that's been successfully funded on Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1319761157/gtfo) deals with sexism in the gaming industry.So if you're not convinced that there's tension in the gaming industry (regarding sexism) at this stage, then you're blind.
Cue Rockstar. They're making perhaps the first triple-A game to feature three main, playable protagonists. Not even one of them is female.Â
Before this is your reply (or Jacanuk's) I'm not saying they should have put a female in to be politically correct. I'm simply arguing that they were told by their PR teams that the decision to go all male would be questioned and highly examined, especially when the game came out. And there would be a high chance of negative press, most likely.
Once more, should this factor into their decision making? No. But it definitely means the idea of a female protagonist was discussed. I want to know why they chose to head in the opposite direction.
Is there a chance that their reasoning isn't sexist? Absolutely. It genuinely could be for the story, though as a writer, I'm not at all sure how plausible such an excuse is. But it is possible, I suppose.
But there are other reasons, reasons that, based on the sexism trend in the industry, are far more likely.Â
Let me give you a statistic from EEDAR (http://www.eedar.com/). Out of 669 games analyzed that have protagonists with recognizable genders, only 24 had female protagonists. That's 3%.
Female representation is important in an industry that's getting closer to 50/50 gender consumer populated. At the very least, Rockstar missed a huge opportunity. I mean, it's a tough sell to stomach in this sexism filled industry. Not even ONE out of THREE of their protagonists are female?Â
So once again I repeat, based on the sexism trend in the gaming industry, it's far more likely that the reasoning behind going with an all male, three protagonist cast in GTA V was sexist.Â
experience_fade
[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]
Mentally, men and women are 100% identical. And I am a playwright, by the way. I'm also a psychology graduate. I believe it's the environment that makes us different, not the brain. And since a writer can change the environment the characters were raised in, the gender is largely irrelevant.Â
Jacanuk
Of course you are, but since your both a playwright and a psychology graduate, i don't have to tell you that what you just said is a load of BS, especially the men and women are a 100% identical in their brains, besides the obvious size and weight difference, there are many other subtile and major differences.
As to you being a playwright, well then you must again know that gender is definitely not irrelevant, it can be made so, but if a story is written from page 1 to fit a male gender, you will have a hard time fitting a female into the same story without changing fundamental aspects of the story. Imagine Juno being a guy or Heather ledger being a women in Brokeback. None of them would be the same story.
Games are the same unless you completely disregard the story and just play for the mechanics, then yes it would be irrelevant what gender or even race the character is, but there are a lot of people out there that actually play for the story and not just to shoot someone in the head and then do tea-bagging.
Like I said, differences between males and females are due to environmental differences. The environment does induce physical changes in the brain, by the way. Such as: size and weight, which you pointed out. Now if you have evidence to suggest that these are due to genetics and not environment I would love to see it. But I haven't seen any conclusive evidence in that regard.Â
And I said LARGELY irrelevant. Obviously a guy can't get pregnant so that role requires a woman. And Brokeback Mountain is about homosexual love, so obviously both characters need to be of the same sex. And once again, maybe there are reasons this game requires 3 men. I don't know yet. But I do believe that many, if not most, stories out there can be told regardless of what sex the main character is. Revisions would be needed, but if the decision to switch the gender is made early enough that won't matter. Every play I've written stars a male character. It's something I hadn't thought of. I'm male so it just kind of happened. But honestly, I could probably change the sex of all of them and the core elements of the story as well as the message I wanted to convey would not be damaged. I would need to make some changes to the dialogue in parts for sure, but the narrative could stay the same. So considering there is a shortage of women in video games, I think developers should start using women more often.Â
EDIT* Also, I would like to point out that I said they are mentally identical, I didn't say their brains are the same. Obviously, small pieces of the brain are different. Our brains are not only home to our minds, they control all bodily functions as well. And males and female differ in certain bodily functions. Therefore, our brains could not possibly be identical.Â
[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Jacanuk"] Not really. and to say that kinda proves that your not a write, because what your saying is that  men and women are 100% identical.No ! He's saying when its time to play the game (any game) the gender becomes irrelavent to the task at hand. And that is still wrong. You might not play a game for the story or immersion and Sterling and Sessler might think its bad word, but today i play games for the those things not for the mechanics, which is also why i almost never play online games or very singular games. So if a story is built around a male protagonist it does matter if nothing but the gender was changed.Jacanuk
I'm a she. With exception to pregnancy, I do believe men and women are indentical and I write and on my way to publish my books too :DÂ
EDIT* Also, I would like to point out that I said they are mentally identical, I didn't say their brains are the same. Obviously, small pieces of the brain are different. Our brains are not only home to our minds, they control all bodily functions as well. And males and female differ in certain bodily functions. Therefore, our brains could not possibly be identical.Â
Tropictrain
While I support the notion that saying men and women are different in types doesn't mean one is better than the other, I do not agree with saying men and women don't have the same brain. They do. Studies proving otherwise can go to hell. Women are as much achieving as men are nowadays all thanks to the removal of legal and social boundraies which prevented them from pursuing certain careers. Both men and women excel and fail in subjects. There is no subject where women do better than men and the opposite. The "men and women who did better in X subject in Y study" means either of them worked hard to achieve that result nothing more. It has nothing to do with either group's gender.Â
[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]
EDIT* Also, I would like to point out that I said they are mentally identical, I didn't say their brains are the same. Obviously, small pieces of the brain are different. Our brains are not only home to our minds, they control all bodily functions as well. And males and female differ in certain bodily functions. Therefore, our brains could not possibly be identical.Â
gamingqueen
While I support the notion that saying men and women are different in types doesn't mean one is better than the other, I do not agree with saying men and women don't have the same brain. They do. Studies proving otherwise can go to hell. Women are as much achieving as men are nowadays all thanks to the removal of legal and social boundraies which prevented them from pursuing certain careers. Both men and women excel and fail in subjects. There is no subject where women do better than men and the opposite. The "men and women who did better in X subject in Y study" means either of them worked hard to achieve that result nothing more. It has nothing to do with either group's gender.Â
I think you completely misunderstood what I said. A part of my brain controls my penis Women don't have that part of the brain. Women have a part of the brain that controls their menstruation cycles. Men don't. The only parts of the brain that differ are due to differences in bodily functions. Our brain controls our bodily functions, therefore differences are inevitable. But the differences stop there. The only reason women and men tend to behave differently is because of environmental differences. We are raised differently. Genetics have nothing to do with it. If you've read the rest of my post, you would see that I'm saying the same thing you are.Â
anyway in regards to Video Game Narrative, I never said they were worthless, I said they were'nt taking full advantage of the interactive nature of the medium. In other words most of the Video Game Narrative takes place during non-interactive cutscenes, wich is what films do, so why not watch a film instead, (to my knowledge Pac Man, Mario and Contra don't have cutscenes), also I'm not against narrative context in video games, meaning I don't want to change soldiers into cookie hustling girl scouts.
You don't have to have seen them to know about the movies, they have been pretty discussed and showcased out there on the interweb and in the media. Also its BS and double BS at that games are crap at telling a story, you just have to look at Mass effect, heavy rain, uncharted, Remember me, tomb raider, La Noire, even GTA is pretty decent at telling a story, but in the end its all on how you perceive and think about what your shown. So if you lack imagination or don't have the ability to contemplate over what your playing, then that is only on you, not the game. Also in the end movies are actually pretty simliar to games in storytelling, in fact games have a advantage since they have a lot more hours to use than a movie has. And also there is the interactive part. Its not the Quality of Storytelling that I'm refering to. Its the Execution. Mass Effect, LA Noire, Remember and Heavy Rain are excellent examples because they have used their stories in an interactive way, therefore they're not comparable to movies. But Uncharted, narratively speaking, doesn't require a player, just a passive observer, good as the story may be it doesn't take advantage of medium. I'd likening it to watching a movie that has no images, just texts that you have to read, yeah its basicly reading a movie, so why not read a book instead. Therefore, Narratively speaking and in a game like Uncharted, you watch the Story, so why not watch a film instead. You know what I mean ?[QUOTE="Jacanuk"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] lol, haven't seen Juno or Broke Back mountain. And do you really wan't me to clarify out right that men can't get pregnant and changing a single gender in a homosexual relationship changes the homosexual part, you actualy want me to point out the OBVIOUS differences ? (I don't mind, just wana know before hand so I bring that right utensils to spoon feed you with) :|You don't have to have seen them to know about the movies, they have been pretty discussed and showcased out there on the interweb and in the media. Also its BS and double BS at that games are crap at telling a story, you just have to look at Mass effect, heavy rain, uncharted, Remember me, tomb raider, La Noire, even GTA is pretty decent at telling a story, but in the end its all on how you perceive and think about what your shown. So if you lack imagination or don't have the ability to contemplate over what your playing, then that is only on you, not the game. Also in the end movies are actually pretty simliar to games in storytelling, in fact games have a advantage since they have a lot more hours to use than a movie has. And also there is the interactive part. Its not the Quality of Storytelling that I'm refering to. Its the Execution. Mass Effect, LA Noire, Remember and Heavy Rain are excellent examples because they have used their stories in an interactive way, therefore they're not comparable to movies. But Uncharted, narratively speaking, doesn't require a player, just a passive observer, good as the story may be it doesn't take advantage of medium. I'd likening it to watching a movie that has no images, just texts that you have to read, yeah its basicly reading a movie, so why not read a book instead. Therefore, Narratively speaking and in a game like Uncharted, you watch the Story, so why not watch a film instead. You know what I mean ?anyway in regards to Video Game Narrative, I never said they were worthless, I said they were'nt taking full advantage of the interactive nature of the medium. In other words most of the Video Game Narrative takes place during non-interactive cutscenes, wich is what films do, so why not watch a film instead, (to my knowledge Pac Man, Mario and Contra don't have cutscenes), also I'm not against narrative context in video games, meaning I don't want to change soldiers into cookie hustling girl scouts.
Lulu_Lulu
No I don't. The interactive component of the gameplay still serves to draw me in more than a movie would. Uncharted does a great job of creating a world that I can interact with. The world feels very real. I become a part of it, even if I don't have control over the story. This is why I prefer games to movies.Â
Its not the Quality of Storytelling that I'm refering to. Its the Execution. Mass Effect, LA Noire, Remember and Heavy Rain are excellent examples because they have used their stories in an interactive way, therefore they're not comparable to movies. But Uncharted, narratively speaking, doesn't require a player, just a passive observer, good as the story may be it doesn't take advantage of medium. I'd likening it to watching a movie that has no images, just texts that you have to read, yeah its basicly reading a movie, so why not read a book instead. Therefore, Narratively speaking and in a game like Uncharted, you watch the Story, so why not watch a film instead. You know what I mean ?[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Jacanuk"] You don't have to have seen them to know about the movies, they have been pretty discussed and showcased out there on the interweb and in the media. Also its BS and double BS at that games are crap at telling a story, you just have to look at Mass effect, heavy rain, uncharted, Remember me, tomb raider, La Noire, even GTA is pretty decent at telling a story, but in the end its all on how you perceive and think about what your shown. So if you lack imagination or don't have the ability to contemplate over what your playing, then that is only on you, not the game. Also in the end movies are actually pretty simliar to games in storytelling, in fact games have a advantage since they have a lot more hours to use than a movie has. And also there is the interactive part.Tropictrain
No I don't. The interactive component of the gameplay still serves to draw me in more than a movie would. Uncharted does a great job of creating a world that I can interact with. The world feels very real. I become a part of it, even if I don't have control over the story. This is why I prefer games to movies.Â
I thought we were talking about the Story and only the Story of Video Games and Movies (its why kept saying "Narratively Speaking"), without that context my argument is useless.[QUOTE="Tropictrain"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Its not the Quality of Storytelling that I'm refering to. Its the Execution. Mass Effect, LA Noire, Remember and Heavy Rain are excellent examples because they have used their stories in an interactive way, therefore they're not comparable to movies. But Uncharted, narratively speaking, doesn't require a player, just a passive observer, good as the story may be it doesn't take advantage of medium. I'd likening it to watching a movie that has no images, just texts that you have to read, yeah its basicly reading a movie, so why not read a book instead. Therefore, Narratively speaking and in a game like Uncharted, you watch the Story, so why not watch a film instead. You know what I mean ?Lulu_Lulu
No I don't. The interactive component of the gameplay still serves to draw me in more than a movie would. Uncharted does a great job of creating a world that I can interact with. The world feels very real. I become a part of it, even if I don't have control over the story. This is why I prefer games to movies.Â
I thought we were talking about the Story and only the Story of Video Games and Movies (its why kept saying "Narratively Speaking"), without that context my argument is useless.We are. And the interactive component sucks me into the world which allows me to develop a greater emotional attachment to the characters which enhances the story. I feel more empathy for the protagonist and I suffer his pain to a greater extent when he fails. In Uncharted, I become Nathan Drake. This affects my enjoyment of the story.Â
I thought we were talking about the Story and only the Story of Video Games and Movies (its why kept saying "Narratively Speaking"), without that context my argument is useless.[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]
No I don't. The interactive component of the gameplay still serves to draw me in more than a movie would. Uncharted does a great job of creating a world that I can interact with. The world feels very real. I become a part of it, even if I don't have control over the story. This is why I prefer games to movies.Â
Tropictrain
We are. And the interactive component sucks me into the world which allows me to develop a greater emotional attachment to the characters which enhances the story. I feel more empathy for the protagonist and I suffer his pain to a greater extent when he fails. In Uncharted, I become Nathan Drake. This affects my enjoyment of the story.Â
Well, I've only played Uncharted 1 and 3, and as far as I can tell, the story isn't interactive, (or in the case of U3, isn't interactive enough). I'm not saying its bad, or isn't immersive. I'm saying, narratively speaking, it requires a passive observer, not an active participant. The game is played but the story is mostly observed, unlike Mass Effect which has a multilayed interactive story which requires an active participant. I'm running out of ways to say the samething.[QUOTE="Tropictrain"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] I thought we were talking about the Story and only the Story of Video Games and Movies (its why kept saying "Narratively Speaking"), without that context my argument is useless.Lulu_Lulu
We are. And the interactive component sucks me into the world which allows me to develop a greater emotional attachment to the characters which enhances the story. I feel more empathy for the protagonist and I suffer his pain to a greater extent when he fails. In Uncharted, I become Nathan Drake. This affects my enjoyment of the story.Â
Well, I've only played Uncharted 1 and 3, and as far as I can tell, the story isn't interactive, (or in the case of U3, isn't interactive enough). I'm not saying its bad, or isn't immersive. I'm saying, narratively speaking, it requires a passive observer, not an active participant. The game is played but the story is mostly observed, unlike Mass Effect which has a multilayed interactive story which requires an active participant. I'm running out of ways to say the samething.Then stop saying it. Obviously we're different. The story is viewed passively, yes. But because of the interactive gameplay elements (not interactive story elements) the emotional engagement is different for me. That's why the story works better as a game than a movie. It doesn't affect you the same way. But I feel more empathy for a person that I take control of than a person in a movie. So that's my defense of it. You're free to disagree.Â
Well, I've only played Uncharted 1 and 3, and as far as I can tell, the story isn't interactive, (or in the case of U3, isn't interactive enough). I'm not saying its bad, or isn't immersive. I'm saying, narratively speaking, it requires a passive observer, not an active participant. The game is played but the story is mostly observed, unlike Mass Effect which has a multilayed interactive story which requires an active participant. I'm running out of ways to say the samething.[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]
We are. And the interactive component sucks me into the world which allows me to develop a greater emotional attachment to the characters which enhances the story. I feel more empathy for the protagonist and I suffer his pain to a greater extent when he fails. In Uncharted, I become Nathan Drake. This affects my enjoyment of the story.Â
Tropictrain
Then stop saying it. Obviously we're different. The story is viewed passively, yes. But because of the interactive gameplay elements (not interactive story elements) the emotional engagement is different for me. That's why the story works better as a game than a movie. It doesn't affect you the same way. But I feel more empathy for a person that I take control of than a person in a movie. So that's my defense of it. You're free to disagree.Â
Actualy I agree. I like it that way too. But I'l never nominate Uncharted or MGS for a Best Video Game Story award, no matter how great the story is or how much I want to. Well atleast theres no confusion anymore, so my mission is over. ;)
I'm content with what I've said in this thread. In time, I'll either be proven right or wrong. Good discussion, my fair folk.experience_fade
You seem to have this mind set that you're right until people prove your claims wrong. You're the one making claims and accusations, therefor It's on your to provide proof of said claims. No one here has to "prove you wrong", It's your job to convince us that what you're saying it true, not the other way around.
No you will never be proven right or wrong, because your issues and claims only exist for you. This gives you a very convenient "out", It lets you continue to convince yourself that you're right because you were never proven wrong. We all know however that you can't disprove something that never happened. If there's no shred of evidence to suggest that what you claims is even slightly possible, no reputable source will ever bother to look into it or ask questions.Â
No one likes being wrong, these are the kinds of things the subconscious does to protect itself from such things.
[QUOTE="experience_fade"]I'm content with what I've said in this thread. In time, I'll either be proven right or wrong. Good discussion, my fair folk.keech
You seem to have this mind set that you're right until people prove your claims wrong. You're the one making claims and accusations, therefor It's on your to provide proof of said claims. No one here has to "prove you wrong", It's your job to convince us that what you're saying it true, not the other way around.
No you will never be proven right or wrong, because your issues and claims only exist for you. This gives you a very convenient "out", It lets you continue to convince yourself that you're right because you were never proven wrong. We all know however that you can't disprove something that never happened. If there's no shred of evidence to suggest that what you claims is even slightly possible, no reputable source will ever bother to look into it or ask questions.Â
No one likes being wrong, these are the kinds of things the subconscious does to protect itself from such things.
You seem to be joining the bandwagon of "convince me or what you're saying is false."
Being unable to convince you doesn't inherently make what I say incorrect. Duh.
And being wrong is a matter of perspective in the first place. In a way, I know I'm wrong. I thought an actual discussion could take place about sexism, the possibility of it being behind protagonist decisions in GTA V, and whether or not the industry needs to support female representation better.
Instead, I got a group of people who, rather than examine the sexism trend in the gaming industry, and/or examining other evidence, decided it would be better to ignore the question altogether. As in, it can't possibly be true, so why even think about it? This is popular in religious circles.
Rather than debate the finer points of something like evolution, a religious person might altogether argue it's untrue. Evolution is, after all, not something that's 100%. Is it highly plausible, given all of the evidence? Absolutely, it's quite likely. Thankfully, there are people like me, rather than you, Geezer and Jacanuk behind scientific progress, because rather than actively seeking out the huge problem of sexism in the industry, you three are content with playing dumb until some Rockstar employee is caught on camera, literally saying, "WE'RE ALL SEXIST. THAT'S WHY ALL THE PROTAGONISTS IN GTA V ARE MALE!"
Which is fine. Remaining willfully blind is a sign of fear, and fear is a sign of ignorance. In reference to your own assertions about my subconscious protecting my self esteem, this is exactly what the three of you are doing. Your beloved passion, gaming, can't possibly be rife with sexist people. No amount of gaming conventions, testimony by women who actually work in the industry, or documentaries will change your mind. Women getting paid less for doing the same exact job doesn't factor into your logic either.Â
Rockstar can do no wrong. All male lineup, three protagonists. That can't possibly be sexist.
I mean, literally some of the responses have been, "Who cares, the game will still sell incredibly well."
Enough said.
And that's the funniest part of it all. Based on most of the responses I've seen, most of you argue it's not even possible that the decision for an all male lineup was sexist. Some of you can't even admit it's a possibility. And even if it were sexist, what would you care?
So yes, there's nothing further to discuss. I'm content with what I've said in this thread.Â
Perhaps I should have asked a better question from the onset, one that would be posed as a hypothetical.Â
"If it were 100% confirmed that Rockstar's decision behind making all three of their protagonists male was sexist in nature, what would you do?"
Does it even matter to you? Would you still buy GTA V? Would you even care? Could you even be convinced that it was sexist?
[QUOTE="experience_fade"]I'm content with what I've said in this thread. In time, I'll either be proven right or wrong. Good discussion, my fair folk.keech
You seem to have this mind set that you're right until people prove your claims wrong. You're the one making claims and accusations, therefor It's on your to provide proof of said claims. No one here has to "prove you wrong", It's your job to convince us that what you're saying it true, not the other way around.
No you will never be proven right or wrong, because your issues and claims only exist for you. This gives you a very convenient "out", It lets you continue to convince yourself that you're right because you were never proven wrong. We all know however that you can't disprove something that never happened. If there's no shred of evidence to suggest that what you claims is even slightly possible, no reputable source will ever bother to look into it or ask questions.Â
No one likes being wrong, these are the kinds of things the subconscious does to protect itself from such things.
a real Shinobi makes do with what little information there is. Kage level Shinobi don't become good at what they do by sitting on their thumbs and waiting for the facts.[QUOTE="keech"][QUOTE="experience_fade"]I'm content with what I've said in this thread. In time, I'll either be proven right or wrong. Good discussion, my fair folk.Lulu_Lulu
You seem to have this mind set that you're right until people prove your claims wrong. You're the one making claims and accusations, therefor It's on your to provide proof of said claims. No one here has to "prove you wrong", It's your job to convince us that what you're saying it true, not the other way around.
No you will never be proven right or wrong, because your issues and claims only exist for you. This gives you a very convenient "out", It lets you continue to convince yourself that you're right because you were never proven wrong. We all know however that you can't disprove something that never happened. If there's no shred of evidence to suggest that what you claims is even slightly possible, no reputable source will ever bother to look into it or ask questions.Â
No one likes being wrong, these are the kinds of things the subconscious does to protect itself from such things.
a real Shinobi makes do with what little information there is. Kage level Shinobi don't become good at what they do by sitting on their thumbs and waiting for the facts.Right? They seem to think that all bad press comes to journalists willingly.Â
Apparently, no investigative journalist has ever pried into a company, game or subject and came away with a huge headline story. The only way Rockstar's decision could be sexist is if they come right out and say it. Journalists or consumers asking questions, like myself, or relaying the move to the industry's past, or comparing it with the trend of sexism in the industry is unheard of. No one ever learned anything that way.
I'm pointing all of this out before most people notice it, but mark my words, this matter will be discussed in the coming months. I strongly believe some Rockstar creative will be interviewed regarding their decision to not include a female protagonist.
And I'm sure they'll be as politically correct as a politician is with touchy subjects. And it won't inherently mean anything, of course, because that particular employee could be lying. Rehearsed answers aren't uncommon in the gaming industry.
My blog/reason for making this forum topic was done to create the discussion. It's fairly likely (though not guaranteed) their motives for going all male in a three protagonist lineup were sexist in nature. That's based on all of the information I have at hand.
The responses I get?
"Prove it."
"Who cares?"
"GTA is a male franchise, it would be weird to have a female protagonist. Lars Croft, anyone? LOL."
"Kudos to Rockstar for not bending to the will of the politically correct media. Go men!"
How telling.
a real Shinobi makes do with what little information there is. Kage level Shinobi don't become good at what they do by sitting on their thumbs and waiting for the facts.[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="keech"]
You seem to have this mind set that you're right until people prove your claims wrong. You're the one making claims and accusations, therefor It's on your to provide proof of said claims. No one here has to "prove you wrong", It's your job to convince us that what you're saying it true, not the other way around.
No you will never be proven right or wrong, because your issues and claims only exist for you. This gives you a very convenient "out", It lets you continue to convince yourself that you're right because you were never proven wrong. We all know however that you can't disprove something that never happened. If there's no shred of evidence to suggest that what you claims is even slightly possible, no reputable source will ever bother to look into it or ask questions.Â
No one likes being wrong, these are the kinds of things the subconscious does to protect itself from such things.
experience_fade
Right? They seem to think that all bad press comes to journalists willingly.Â
Apparently, no investigative journalist has ever pried into a company, game or subject and came away with a huge headline story. The only way Rockstar's decision could be sexist is if they come right out and say it. Journalists or consumers asking questions, like myself, or relaying the move to the industry's past, or comparing it with the trend of sexism in the industry is unheard of. No one ever learned anything that way.
I'm pointing all of this out before most people notice it, but mark my words, this matter will be discussed in the coming months. I strongly believe some Rockstar creative will be interviewed regarding their decision to not include a female protagonist.
And I'm sure they'll be as politically correct as a politician is with touchy subjects. And it won't inherently mean anything, of course, because that particular employee could be lying. Rehearsed answers aren't uncommon in the gaming industry.
My blog/reason for making this forum topic was done to create the discussion. It's fairly likely (though not guaranteed) their motives for going all male in a three protagonist lineup were sexist in nature. That's based on all of the information I have at hand.
The responses I get?
"Prove it."
"Who cares?"
"GTA is a male franchise, it would be weird to have a female protagonist. Lars Croft, anyone? LOL."
"Kudos to Rockstar for not bending to the will of the politically correct media. Go men!"
How telling.
lol, perhaps they got bored of System Wars and decided to dump on your thread just to compensate.I guess they just don't wana face the music, this industry has a problem but they won't budge until somebody proves the obvious. Whatever happened to common sense ?
[QUOTE="keech"]
[QUOTE="experience_fade"]I'm content with what I've said in this thread. In time, I'll either be proven right or wrong. Good discussion, my fair folk.experience_fade
You seem to have this mind set that you're right until people prove your claims wrong. You're the one making claims and accusations, therefor It's on your to provide proof of said claims. No one here has to "prove you wrong", It's your job to convince us that what you're saying it true, not the other way around.
No you will never be proven right or wrong, because your issues and claims only exist for you. This gives you a very convenient "out", It lets you continue to convince yourself that you're right because you were never proven wrong. We all know however that you can't disprove something that never happened. If there's no shred of evidence to suggest that what you claims is even slightly possible, no reputable source will ever bother to look into it or ask questions.Â
No one likes being wrong, these are the kinds of things the subconscious does to protect itself from such things.
You seem to be joining the bandwagon of "convince me or what you're saying is false."
Being unable to convince you doesn't inherently make what I say incorrect. Duh.
And being wrong is a matter of perspective in the first place. In a way, I know I'm wrong. I thought an actual discussion could take place about sexism, the possibility of it being behind protagonist decisions in GTA V, and whether or not the industry needs to support female representation better.
Instead, I got a group of people who, rather than examine the sexism trend in the gaming industry, and/or examining other evidence, decided it would be better to ignore the question altogether. As in, it can't possibly be true, so why even think about it? This is popular in religious circles.
Rather than debate the finer points of something like evolution, a religious person might altogether argue it's untrue. Evolution is, after all, not something that's 100%. Is it highly plausible, given all of the evidence? Absolutely, it's quite likely. Thankfully, there are people like me, rather than you, Geezer and Jacanuk behind scientific progress, because rather than actively seeking out the huge problem of sexism in the industry, you three are content with playing dumb until some Rockstar employee is caught on camera, literally saying, "WE'RE ALL SEXIST. THAT'S WHY ALL THE PROTAGONISTS IN GTA V ARE MALE!"
Which is fine. Remaining willfully blind is a sign of fear, and fear is a sign of ignorance. In reference to your own assertions about my subconscious protecting my self esteem, this is exactly what the three of you are doing. Your beloved passion, gaming, can't possibly be rife with sexist people. No amount of gaming conventions, testimony by women who actually work in the industry, or documentaries will change your mind. Women getting paid less for doing the same exact job doesn't factor into your logic either.Â
Rockstar can do no wrong. All male lineup, three protagonists. That can't possibly be sexist.
I mean, literally some of the responses have been, "Who cares, the game will still sell incredibly well."
Enough said.
And that's the funniest part of it all. Based on most of the responses I've seen, most of you argue it's not even possible that the decision for an all male lineup was sexist. Some of you can't even admit it's a possibility. And even if it were sexist, what would you care?
So yes, there's nothing further to discuss. I'm content with what I've said in this thread.Â
Perhaps I should have asked a better question from the onset, one that would be posed as a hypothetical.Â
"If it were 100% confirmed that Rockstar's decision behind making all three of their protagonists male was sexist in nature, what would you do?"
Does it even matter to you? Would you still buy GTA V? Would you even care? Could you even be convinced that it was sexist?
You can be content with what ever in the world mate, problem is that as long as you come with unproven statements, its hard to debate anything with you. I could as easliy as you claim that Rockstar never even once thought about it and i will put my old hat on the line, that even when its been released, Noone in the established media will even think about why there are 3 male leads and not a female included. And you can belittle people opinions all you like, it just shows a poor debate-skill and that you have lost the debate.[QUOTE="Tropictrain"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] I thought we were talking about the Story and only the Story of Video Games and Movies (its why kept saying "Narratively Speaking"), without that context my argument is useless.Lulu_Lulu
We are. And the interactive component sucks me into the world which allows me to develop a greater emotional attachment to the characters which enhances the story. I feel more empathy for the protagonist and I suffer his pain to a greater extent when he fails. In Uncharted, I become Nathan Drake. This affects my enjoyment of the story.Â
Well, I've only played Uncharted 1 and 3, and as far as I can tell, the story isn't interactive, (or in the case of U3, isn't interactive enough). I'm not saying its bad, or isn't immersive. I'm saying, narratively speaking, it requires a passive observer, not an active participant. The game is played but the story is mostly observed, unlike Mass Effect which has a multilayed interactive story which requires an active participant. I'm running out of ways to say the samething. And again it all comes down to who ever plays it, for you its one way, for others its another way and some of us do actually play games for the story even if its just as the "observer" like MGS or FF[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]Well, I've only played Uncharted 1 and 3, and as far as I can tell, the story isn't interactive, (or in the case of U3, isn't interactive enough). I'm not saying its bad, or isn't immersive. I'm saying, narratively speaking, it requires a passive observer, not an active participant. The game is played but the story is mostly observed, unlike Mass Effect which has a multilayed interactive story which requires an active participant. I'm running out of ways to say the samething. And again it all comes down to who ever plays it, for you its one way, for others its another way and some of us do actually play games for the story even if its just as the "observer" like MGS or FF Books and Films don't offer interactivity the way games do, but Game stories aren't usually interactive. Saying you play games for interacting is cool, saying you enjoy non-interactive stories in games but not in movies defeats the purpose of playing a game for the story instead of simply watching a film. Now all I need to do is find someone who prefers reading a movie instead of a book, to complete this nightmare I'm having.We are. And the interactive component sucks me into the world which allows me to develop a greater emotional attachment to the characters which enhances the story. I feel more empathy for the protagonist and I suffer his pain to a greater extent when he fails. In Uncharted, I become Nathan Drake. This affects my enjoyment of the story.Â
Jacanuk
Like I said, differences between males and females are due to environmental differences. The environment does induce physical changes in the brain, by the way. Such as: size and weight, which you pointed out. Now if you have evidence to suggest that these are due to genetics and not environment I would love to see it. But I haven't seen any conclusive evidence in that regard.Â
And I said LARGELY irrelevant. Obviously a guy can't get pregnant so that role requires a woman. And Brokeback Mountain is about homosexual love, so obviously both characters need to be of the same sex. And once again, maybe there are reasons this game requires 3 men. I don't know yet. But I do believe that many, if not most, stories out there can be told regardless of what sex the main character is. Revisions would be needed, but if the decision to switch the gender is made early enough that won't matter. Every play I've written stars a male character. It's something I hadn't thought of. I'm male so it just kind of happened. But honestly, I could probably change the sex of all of them and the core elements of the story as well as the message I wanted to convey would not be damaged. I would need to make some changes to the dialogue in parts for sure, but the narrative could stay the same. So considering there is a shortage of women in video games, I think developers should start using women more often.Â
EDIT* Also, I would like to point out that I said they are mentally identical, I didn't say their brains are the same. Obviously, small pieces of the brain are different. Our brains are not only home to our minds, they control all bodily functions as well. And males and female differ in certain bodily functions. Therefore, our brains could not possibly be identical.Â
Tropictrain
Yes, some differences are down to environmental influences and upbringing, but it doesnt count for them all. I am sure you have read the study from Harvard from 2001, where they focus on the differences in size and also a aware of the 6.5 times greater grey matter men have compared to females, and the 10 times greater white matter females have compared to men. And that is just to name a few of the differences, and yes some of them can be caused by environmental damage, but if we take a standard male/female, you would still see differences. So we are not 100% identical. And if we look mentally the difference is even greater and more visible. And that cannot just be chalked down to enjoyment and upbringing.
Despite you saying largely irrelevant you would still be stretching it, you are not as wrong as before but still not correct, since gender does indeed matter, in some stories a lot more than others. In Brokeback to females wouldn´t even be a 10th as controversial as the movie was with 2 guys, since there is a general consensus among men that 2 females together are hot. If you talk games, try removing Master Chief from Halo and have a female instead or remove Cole Phelps and put in Coleen Phelps.  In La Noire it would require a quite large rewrite.
Also why you choose male characters is probably because you do what most people do, choose things that come naturally and things you can relate to.
But I am willing to bet that you cannot change the gender of most of your stories without also making some serious revisions to the stories that would make them completely different. And this shortage of women, well since the majority of gamers are male, why should the industry not cater to this pretty big majority. Also can you give me a good reason why females should be used more, if we disregard the normal PC BS.
Well in the case of broke back mountain the story would actualy remain the same, it just won't be on the same magnitude. Its not the movie's fault if society looks down on gay dudes more than gay chicks.Yes, some differences are down to environmental influences and upbringing, but it doesnt count for them all. I am sure you have read the study from Harvard from 2001, where they focus on the differences in size and also a aware of the 6.5 times greater grey matter men have compared to females, and the 10 times greater white matter females have compared to men. And that is just to name a few of the differences, and yes some of them can be caused by environmental damage, but if we take a standard male/female, you would still see differences. So we are not 100% identical. And if we look mentally the difference is even greater and more visible. And that cannot just be chalked down to enjoyment and upbringing.
Despite you saying largely irrelevant you would still be stretching it, you are not as wrong as before but still not correct, since gender does indeed matter, in some stories a lot more than others. In Brokeback to females wouldn´t even be a 10th as controversial as the movie was with 2 guys, since there is a general consensus among men that 2 females together are hot. If you talk games, try removing Master Chief from Halo and have a female instead or remove Cole Phelps and put in Coleen Phelps.  In La Noire it would require a quite large rewrite.
Also why you choose male characters is probably because you do what most people do, choose things that come naturally and things you can relate to.
But I am willing to bet that you cannot change the gender of most of your stories without also making some serious revisions to the stories that would make them completely different. And this shortage of women, well since the majority of gamers are male, why should the industry not cater to this pretty big majority. Also can you give me a good reason why females should be used more, if we disregard the normal PC BS.
Jacanuk
movies specialise in visuals
and games specialise in interaction.
thats all that I'm trying to say. Each medium can be enjoyed for its story, but if most of the story in a movie is executed with texts that need to be read then why not read a book instead, if most of a game's story is not interactive then why not go to a medium that specialises in non-interaction, (If you're head is on fire why not put it out with water instead of gasoline). Theres nothing wrong with wanting your games to have non-interactivity, but its odd not to choose the appropriate medium to fufill your appropriate need. Quick, easy, simple. You catch my drift ?
[QUOTE="Jacanuk"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Books and Films don't offer interactivity the way games do, but Game stories aren't usually interactive. Saying you play games for interacting is cool, saying you enjoy non-interactive stories in games but not in movies defeats the purpose of playing a game for the story instead of simply watching a film. Now all I need to do is find someone who prefers reading a movie instead of a book, to complete this nightmare I'm having.Lulu_LuluWell, first of all i didn´t say i didn´t enjoy movies and books, i enjoy all storytelling "items" that makes me contemplate and use my imagination. But i kinda feel sad for you in the way you totaly disregard the story a game tries to tell, because you can be sure that unless you look at the mindless clones Call of Dogs and Battlefield bambi, most games have a story and the developers are not just making a game because you should enjoy the mechanics. And of course you cant just go watch a movie instead of playing the game, why even consider that, its not the same story. Books specialise in texts.
movies specialise in visuals
and games specialise in interaction.
thats all that I'm trying to say. Each medium can be enjoyed for its story, but if most of the story in a movie is executed with texts that need to be read then why not read a book instead, if most of a game's story is not interactive then why not go to a medium that specialises in non-interaction, (If you're head is on fire why not put it out with water instead of gasoline). Theres nothing wrong with wanting your games to have non-interactivity, but its odd not to choose the appropriate medium to fufill your appropriate need. Quick, easy, simple. You catch my drift ?
You´re right in 2 out of 3 , books and movies are text and visual Games however are a kinder-egg , 3 things in one, they are interactive, but also they specialized in text and visual storytelling, it all comes down to the developer and what kind of game they want to make. Also you completely missed the point here, a story is not just non-interactive, a story can actually be 10 times more immersive and engaging if there is a interactive element, like a game has.. So again no why would i go watch a movie or read a book that is 100% non-interactive when i can get the same and sometimes better experience and enjoyment out of playing a game, again i dont play online games or CS GO or Call of Dogs since they are just games for the mechanics and for the competetive reasons. Thats why i play games like Heavy Rain, LA Noire, Fallout, and a ton of other games that has a story driven gameplay. Its kinda funny that you keep going from story to non-inactive, because that is so not the case.[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]
Like I said, differences between males and females are due to environmental differences. The environment does induce physical changes in the brain, by the way. Such as: size and weight, which you pointed out. Now if you have evidence to suggest that these are due to genetics and not environment I would love to see it. But I haven't seen any conclusive evidence in that regard.Â
And I said LARGELY irrelevant. Obviously a guy can't get pregnant so that role requires a woman. And Brokeback Mountain is about homosexual love, so obviously both characters need to be of the same sex. And once again, maybe there are reasons this game requires 3 men. I don't know yet. But I do believe that many, if not most, stories out there can be told regardless of what sex the main character is. Revisions would be needed, but if the decision to switch the gender is made early enough that won't matter. Every play I've written stars a male character. It's something I hadn't thought of. I'm male so it just kind of happened. But honestly, I could probably change the sex of all of them and the core elements of the story as well as the message I wanted to convey would not be damaged. I would need to make some changes to the dialogue in parts for sure, but the narrative could stay the same. So considering there is a shortage of women in video games, I think developers should start using women more often.Â
EDIT* Also, I would like to point out that I said they are mentally identical, I didn't say their brains are the same. Obviously, small pieces of the brain are different. Our brains are not only home to our minds, they control all bodily functions as well. And males and female differ in certain bodily functions. Therefore, our brains could not possibly be identical.Â
Jacanuk
Yes, some differences are down to environmental influences and upbringing, but it doesnt count for them all. I am sure you have read the study from Harvard from 2001, where they focus on the differences in size and also a aware of the 6.5 times greater grey matter men have compared to females, and the 10 times greater white matter females have compared to men. And that is just to name a few of the differences, and yes some of them can be caused by environmental damage, but if we take a standard male/female, you would still see differences. So we are not 100% identical. And if we look mentally the difference is even greater and more visible. And that cannot just be chalked down to enjoyment and upbringing.
Despite you saying largely irrelevant you would still be stretching it, you are not as wrong as before but still not correct, since gender does indeed matter, in some stories a lot more than others. In Brokeback to females wouldn´t even be a 10th as controversial as the movie was with 2 guys, since there is a general consensus among men that 2 females together are hot. If you talk games, try removing Master Chief from Halo and have a female instead or remove Cole Phelps and put in Coleen Phelps.  In La Noire it would require a quite large rewrite.
Also why you choose male characters is probably because you do what most people do, choose things that come naturally and things you can relate to.
But I am willing to bet that you cannot change the gender of most of your stories without also making some serious revisions to the stories that would make them completely different. And this shortage of women, well since the majority of gamers are male, why should the industry not cater to this pretty big majority. Also can you give me a good reason why females should be used more, if we disregard the normal PC BS.
I've read several studies similar to the one you described. And why do you think it's genetic? If you take a university graduate and compare their brain to a student who never finished high school you'll see large differences in grey matter as well. Is this genetic or environmental? The more a certain part of the brain is used, the more axons will be developed in that area. This is especially crucial in the early years of life. I still believe these differences in grey matter are due to differences in upbringing, not genetics. Once again, find me a study that actually links genetics and differences in brain development. I could also find plenty of studies that demonstrate the exact same differences between white people and black people. This doesn't mean anything in terms of genetics. These differences can all be explained by differences in environment.
And you would lose that bet you mentioned in your last paragraph. My stories will not need to go through drastic revisions. Dialogue will need to be altered at times, but the core of it will remain the same. And what do you mean by "not as wrong as before?" I said "largely irrelevant" from the start. You just read it wrong.Â
And I've played the first three Halo games and if Master Chief was female it would not make any difference to me. The sex affects the story about as much as Samus's does in Metroid. I never played La Noire, so I can't comment. But I agree that some stories require a certain sex. But many, if not most, do not. Hand picking individual games and movies that are the exception does not change that.Â
movies specialise in visuals
and games specialise in interaction.
thats all that I'm trying to say. Each medium can be enjoyed for its story, but if most of the story in a movie is executed with texts that need to be read then why not read a book instead, if most of a game's story is not interactive then why not go to a medium that specialises in non-interaction, (If you're head is on fire why not put it out with water instead of gasoline). Theres nothing wrong with wanting your games to have non-interactivity, but its odd not to choose the appropriate medium to fufill your appropriate need. Quick, easy, simple. You catch my drift ?
You´re right in 2 out of 3 , books and movies are text and visual Games however are a kinder-egg , 3 things in one, they are interactive, but also they specialized in text and visual storytelling, it all comes down to the developer and what kind of game they want to make. Also you completely missed the point here, a story is not just non-interactive, a story can actually be 10 times more immersive and engaging if there is a interactive element, like a game has.. So again no why would i go watch a movie or read a book that is 100% interactive when i can get a experience and enjoyment out of playing a game, again i dont play online games or CS GO or Call of Dogs since they are just games for the mechanics and for the competetive reasons. Thats why i play games like Heavy Rain, LA Noire, Fallout, and a ton of other games that has a story driven gameplay. Its kinda funny that you keep going from story to non-inactive, because that is so not the case. Dude you lost me here ". . . . So again no why would i go watch a movie or read a book that is 100% interactive when i can get a experience and enjoyment out of playing a game. . . . "also ". . . .Thats why i play games like Heavy Rain, LA Noire, Fallout, and a ton of other games that has a story driven gameplay. . . " it makes perfect sense to play those games for their story because theirs are interactive (as in it requires more than a passive observer), it wouldn't make as much sense if you listed MGS and Final Fantasy instead because their storytelling methods have more incommon with a non-interactive (as in one can only watch the story, not partake in it) medium than they do with an interactive one like games.
now before we go any further I need to make sure we're on the same page because I can't follow half the things you're talking about.
movies specialise in visuals
and games specialise in interaction.
thats all that I'm trying to say. Each medium can be enjoyed for its story, but if most of the story in a movie is executed with texts that need to be read then why not read a book instead, if most of a game's story is not interactive then why not go to a medium that specialises in non-interaction, (If you're head is on fire why not put it out with water instead of gasoline). Theres nothing wrong with wanting your games to have non-interactivity, but its odd not to choose the appropriate medium to fufill your appropriate need. Quick, easy, simple. You catch my drift ?
You´re right in 2 out of 3 , books and movies are text and visual Games however are a kinder-egg , 3 things in one, they are interactive, but also they specialized in text and visual storytelling, it all comes down to the developer and what kind of game they want to make. Also you completely missed the point here, a story is not just non-interactive, a story can actually be 10 times more immersive and engaging if there is a interactive element, like a game has.. So again no why would i go watch a movie or read a book that is 100% interactive when i can get a experience and enjoyment out of playing a game, again i dont play online games or CS GO or Call of Dogs since they are just games for the mechanics and for the competetive reasons. Thats why i play games like Heavy Rain, LA Noire, Fallout, and a ton of other games that has a story driven gameplay. Its kinda funny that you keep going from story to non-inactive, because that is so not the case. Dude you lost me here ". . . . So again no why would i go watch a movie or read a book that is 100% interactive when i can get a experience and enjoyment out of playing a game. . . . "also ". . . .Thats why i play games like Heavy Rain, LA Noire, Fallout, and a ton of other games that has a story driven gameplay. . . " it makes perfect sense to play those games for their story because theirs are interactive (as in it requires more than a passive observer), it wouldn't make as much sense if you listed MGS and Final Fantasy instead because their storytelling methods have more incommon with a non-interactive (as in one can only watch the story, not partake in it) medium than they do with an interactive one like games.
now before we go any further I need to make sure we're on the same page because I can't follow half the things you're talking about.
Should have said 100% non-interactive, its corrected in the post. But lets get on the same page then, You say a story in a game is the cut-scenes and the non-interactive parts right? and that is what drives the story?
[QUOTE="keech"]
[QUOTE="experience_fade"]I'm content with what I've said in this thread. In time, I'll either be proven right or wrong. Good discussion, my fair folk.experience_fade
You seem to have this mind set that you're right until people prove your claims wrong. You're the one making claims and accusations, therefor It's on your to provide proof of said claims. No one here has to "prove you wrong", It's your job to convince us that what you're saying it true, not the other way around.
No you will never be proven right or wrong, because your issues and claims only exist for you. This gives you a very convenient "out", It lets you continue to convince yourself that you're right because you were never proven wrong. We all know however that you can't disprove something that never happened. If there's no shred of evidence to suggest that what you claims is even slightly possible, no reputable source will ever bother to look into it or ask questions.Â
No one likes being wrong, these are the kinds of things the subconscious does to protect itself from such things.
You seem to be joining the bandwagon of "convince me or what you're saying is false."
Being unable to convince you doesn't inherently make what I say incorrect. Duh.
And being wrong is a matter of perspective in the first place. In a way, I know I'm wrong. I thought an actual discussion could take place about sexism, the possibility of it being behind protagonist decisions in GTA V, and whether or not the industry needs to support female representation better.
Instead, I got a group of people who, rather than examine the sexism trend in the gaming industry, and/or examining other evidence, decided it would be better to ignore the question altogether. As in, it can't possibly be true, so why even think about it? This is popular in religious circles.
Rather than debate the finer points of something like evolution, a religious person might altogether argue it's untrue. Evolution is, after all, not something that's 100%. Is it highly plausible, given all of the evidence? Absolutely, it's quite likely. Thankfully, there are people like me, rather than you, Geezer and Jacanuk behind scientific progress, because rather than actively seeking out the huge problem of sexism in the industry, you three are content with playing dumb until some Rockstar employee is caught on camera, literally saying, "WE'RE ALL SEXIST. THAT'S WHY ALL THE PROTAGONISTS IN GTA V ARE MALE!"
Which is fine. Remaining willfully blind is a sign of fear, and fear is a sign of ignorance. In reference to your own assertions about my subconscious protecting my self esteem, this is exactly what the three of you are doing. Your beloved passion, gaming, can't possibly be rife with sexist people. No amount of gaming conventions, testimony by women who actually work in the industry, or documentaries will change your mind. Women getting paid less for doing the same exact job doesn't factor into your logic either.Â
Rockstar can do no wrong. All male lineup, three protagonists. That can't possibly be sexist.
I mean, literally some of the responses have been, "Who cares, the game will still sell incredibly well."
Enough said.
And that's the funniest part of it all. Based on most of the responses I've seen, most of you argue it's not even possible that the decision for an all male lineup was sexist. Some of you can't even admit it's a possibility. And even if it were sexist, what would you care?
So yes, there's nothing further to discuss. I'm content with what I've said in this thread.Â
Perhaps I should have asked a better question from the onset, one that would be posed as a hypothetical.Â
"If it were 100% confirmed that Rockstar's decision behind making all three of their protagonists male was sexist in nature, what would you do?"
Does it even matter to you? Would you still buy GTA V? Would you even care? Could you even be convinced that it was sexist?
I'm actually on the bandwagon of "innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt", the basic principle most justice systems are based on. I'm sorry but what your basically saying is "just because I can't prove what I'm saying doesn't mean It's not true". Which I'm sorry, that's not how the real world works. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, all the defendant had to do is explain why any proof you can bring to the table is invalid.
If all you were doing was trying to open up thoughtful discussion about this topic then yes it backfired. But that's typically what happens when your opening statement comes across with an apparant bias.
The scientific process? Is that what you think your following? From my perspective it looks like you came to a conclusion with no evidence (regarding this specific topic of GTA V). In the scientific method, the evidence leads you to a conclusion. You don't come to a conclusion, then cherry pick the research that supports it.
I'm not saying the sexism angle is impossible. But that's not saying much, It's possible I'll walk outside tomorrow and get bitten by a rattlesnake, It's just very unlikely. I belive many of the claims women who actually work in the industry make regarding imporper behavior in the work place.
You can claim fear and ignorance on my part all you want if that makes you feel better. In return I ask you to consider that from my point of view, you are coming across as an obsessive on a witch hunt, and I don't hold to witch hunts. I see a Joseph McCarthy screaming "communist!" at anyone who isn't acting the way you feel they should be acting. I hope that irony isn't lost on you, and I genuinely ask is that the way you want people to perceive you?
I come from the standpoint of Occam's Razor. That among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected, and the whole sexism argument in the case of GTA V is an assumption no matter how you cut it. Where as I will not assume there's any sexist reasoning behind it without some sort of proof.
To each his own, I suppose.
I'd still like an answer to my rephrased questions.
If it were 100% confirmed that the reason why Rockstar chose an all male, three protagonist lineup was because the employees were sexist, how would you react?
Does it even matter to you? Would you still buy GTA V? Would you even care? Could you even be convinced that it was sexist?experience_fade
[QUOTE="Jacanuk"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] yeah, basicly.Lulu_LuluOk, so from your edit i can take it you acknowledge that a story can also be the gameplay itself. And so we are on the same page and you are now fully aware that there are people who actually play the game for its stories.:D Yes. . . . Yes aaaaaaand yes. I just don't think Tomb Raider, MGS, and Final Fantasy are one of those games.
Actually, I only play Final Fantasy for the story. I don't even much enjoy the gameplay. The gameplay is kinda "meh" for the most part, but I like the stories told in those games. If the story was removed, I would not play the game at all. Do you think that's weird?Â
To each his own, I suppose.
I'd still like an answer to my rephrased questions.
If it were 100% confirmed that the reason why Rockstar chose an all male, three protagonist lineup was because the employees were sexist, how would you react?
[QUOTE="experience_fade"]
Does it even matter to you? Would you still buy GTA V? Would you even care? Could you even be convinced that it was sexist?experience_fade
Answer this first...
How can you make such pompous "I'm right, and you're all sexist assholes" posts and still not answer my very simple, thread-invalidating question: what does it change if Rockstar decision-makers are secretly sexist? Why do you care, and why should I care? Or more precisely, why does it "bothers you"?ReddestSkies
Yes. . . . Yes aaaaaaand yes. I just don't think Tomb Raider, MGS, and Final Fantasy are one of those games.[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Jacanuk"] Ok, so from your edit i can take it you acknowledge that a story can also be the gameplay itself. And so we are on the same page and you are now fully aware that there are people who actually play the game for its stories.:DTropictrain
Actually, I only play Final Fantasy for the story. I don't even much enjoy the gameplay. The gameplay is kinda "meh" for the most part, but I like the stories told in those games. If the story was removed, I would not play the game at all. Do you think that's weird?Â
nope. Whats weird is why the movie wasn't as well received as the games were.[QUOTE="Tropictrain"][QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Yes. . . . Yes aaaaaaand yes. I just don't think Tomb Raider, MGS, and Final Fantasy are one of those games.Lulu_Lulu
Actually, I only play Final Fantasy for the story. I don't even much enjoy the gameplay. The gameplay is kinda "meh" for the most part, but I like the stories told in those games. If the story was removed, I would not play the game at all. Do you think that's weird?Â
nope. Whats weird is why the movie wasn't as well received as the games were.I never said anything about the movie. I'm talking about the games.
Yes. . . . Yes aaaaaaand yes. I just don't think Tomb Raider, MGS, and Final Fantasy are one of those games.[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Jacanuk"] Ok, so from your edit i can take it you acknowledge that a story can also be the gameplay itself. And so we are on the same page and you are now fully aware that there are people who actually play the game for its stories.:DTropictrain
Actually, I only play Final Fantasy for the story. I don't even much enjoy the gameplay. The gameplay is kinda "meh" for the most part, but I like the stories told in those games. If the story was removed, I would not play the game at all. Do you think that's weird?Â
Second this.If it were 100% confirmed that the reason why Rockstar chose an all male, three protagonist lineup was because the employees were sexist, how would you react?
experience_fade
I'd still play and enjoy the game.
Truthfully, many of the great works in various mediums were created by people who, as human beings, were severely lacking in moral fiber.
I choose to separate the artist from the art, otherwise I'd miss out on far too many crucial works.
nope. Whats weird is why the movie wasn't as well received as the games were.[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]
Actually, I only play Final Fantasy for the story. I don't even much enjoy the gameplay. The gameplay is kinda "meh" for the most part, but I like the stories told in those games. If the story was removed, I would not play the game at all. Do you think that's weird?Â
Tropictrain
I never said anything about the movie. I'm talking about the games.
I know I know, I'm just adding random facts.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment