Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

GTA V may not be misogynist - but its 'supporters' are

GTA V may not be misogynist - but its 'supporters' are

Fri 20 Sep 2013 6:43am GMT / 2:43am EDT / 11:43pm PDT
Politics

This vicious treatment of unpopular opinions robs us all of the chance to have nuanced discussions about our medium

The launch of a Grand Theft Auto game is inevitably attended by controversy. Ever since the very first game was propelled into the public consciousness thanks to a cynically orchestrated PR campaign to generate tabloid outrage (endlessly punchable PR 'guru' Max Clifford specifically targeted politicians and newspapers who would be outraged by the game in order to generate free publicity), the series' masters have seemingly felt that a GTA outing needed to be accompanied by a moral panic if it was to retain its commercial crown. Tabloid newspapers and rolling news channels, desperately reliant on manufactured controversy to justify their execrable existences, have been only too happy to oblige; dumb politicians and even dumber lawyers have always been on tap to throw fuel on the fire.

"GTA may be cheapened by the controversy, but it's such an extraordinary artistic and entertainment achievement that it can easily weather a little cheapening"

It's to the enormous credit of the immensely talented creative team that works on GTA that the series manages to stand head and shoulders above the mire of its PR campaigns. If GTA was just a game about controversy - a high-budget Postal, throwing as much offensiveness in the box as possible in the hope that someone, somewhere will be angry enough to try and ban it - then it would have run out of steam years ago. Controversy never lasts as a selling tactic. The teenagers who found you controversial grow up to be adults who think you're cute and nostalgic. Madonna used to be able to draw shock and condemnation; now she's just a bit embarrassing to everyone involved. Marilyn Manson was the Antichrist for a good few years, the terror of middle America - better years, one feels, than his present incarnation as an obese middle-aged goth with 'fuck' written on his face. Eminem had mothers clutching their pearls across the English-speaking world; now your dad quite likes that one song he did with the girl with the nice voice, and thinks the one about the letter from his fan is funny.

GTA has escaped that fate, so far - not because its controversy is so intense that it defies the slow fading into cute nostalgia that attends every 'shocking' form of entertainment, but because it's consistently a fantastic game. It may not be to your specific tastes (the series and I parted ways at GTA IV, and I'm not sure we'll ever be on the same wavelength again), but it's impossible to deny the sheer scale and intensity of the creativity and artistry which goes into crafting the game's dark version of America, its dreams and its nightmares. GTA may be cheapened by the controversy, but it's such an extraordinary artistic and entertainment achievement that it can easily weather a little cheapening.

When you read a story about how GTA V - barely out the door - is already inspiring copy-cat violent crimes, you are perfectly justified in rolling your eyes. It's utterly daft stuff, and quite possibly manufactured daftness at that. The launch has, however, been attended by another controversy - one which Rockstar had no hand in creating, and probably doesn't want anything to do with. You see, GTA isn't very nice to its female characters, from the infamous 'sleep with a prostitute then run her over to get your money back' escapades of GTA 3 (which was actually emergent player behaviour, if you think about it, so it's you that's a depraved homicidal pervert, not Rockstar's designers) onwards. One reviewer of GTA V dared to mention that the game's casual misogyny could be a bit uncomfortable. Worse still, this reviewer dared to mention being uncomfortable with the misogyny while also being a woman herself.

"GTA V is worthy of a nuanced discussion about its treatment of women - but the response to any attempt at that so far has been unequivocally misogynist"

I don't know if I think GTA V is misogynist, because I haven't played it. I know people, both male and female, who have played it and find the misogyny a bit distressing. I know people who have played it and say the misogyny fits in the game, because it's also relentlessly misandrist and treats all humans, regardless of gender, in a pretty terrible manner. It fits with the 'dark mirror of society' that GTA builds as its world, say some. It singles out women in a fairly sexist manner even within that context, say others.

This is a really interesting discussion. It's an important one, too. Nobody having this discussion in a serious way is saying 'BAN GTA' or 'ALL GAMERS HATE WOMEN' or whatever. It's much more complex than that - it starts from the absolutely basic standpoint that a reviewer's task is to express their feelings about a game (not to write an 'objective review', an oxymoron in which the pronunciation stress should be on the syllables 'mor' and 'on'), continues through a comparison of the different feelings which GTA V evoked in different reviewers from different standpoints and backgrounds, and should lead us into a nuanced discussion around notions of misogyny, misandry, satire and social reflection. This could and should be a great conversation to have, none of which means 'GTA is bad' and all of which means 'GTA is interesting and we should talk about it'.

Except, no. Instead, the author of the review and most others participating in the discussion have endured near-constant abuse from the howling morons whom game site operators inexplicably allow to spew their hate-filled moronic dribblings all over the bottom of every article and image (then they call this cesspit their 'community', which only makes sense if you were brought up in a village full of lobotomised psychopaths whose diet consisted largely of crystal meth). GTA V itself is worthy of a nuanced discussion about its treatment of women - but the response to any attempt at that discussion so far has been absolutely, unequivocally misogynist. The game may or may not have a problem with women. Its ardent defenders absolutely hate women.

This outpouring of anti-woman hatred isn't the first. It's not even the first in the past month - you may be aware of the utterly depressing and nasty campaign to Stop Anita Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian's academic work on the depiction of women in games is imperfect but that's not the problem these aggressive man-children have with it; the crime of which their court convicts her isn't imperfect critical work, it's stating an opinion while female.

"This isn't just about women - it's robbing every single one of us of the opportunity to have intelligent, interesting discussions about the medium"

Why do I raise this, again (and again)? Because it's incredibly important - not the specific question of whether GTA V is misogynist, or whether Sarkeesian's work is academically rigorous, but the broader context, in which we are all being robbed of the ability to have nuanced, interesting discussions about games by a culture that shouts down criticism from any quarter, and shouts it down twice as viciously if a woman is involved. Complex subjects are reduced to meaningless soundbites, a sin of which the supposedly thoughtful corners of the media are often guilty as well. There's no room for a spectrum of opinion, especially for women, who are regularly, idiotically, asked to act as representatives of their entire gender in discussions, while the existence of any woman who doesn't think something is misogynist is held up as incontrovertible proof that every other woman is automatically wrong. This isn't just about women - it's robbing every single one of us of the opportunity to have intelligent, interesting discussions about how our medium deals with gender, sexuality, race, class or any one of a host of other fascinating, complex topics. We're reduced to shouting and throwing rocks. It's frustrating, it's stupid, and it's downright boring - and it risks making our games stupid and boring too.

What's the solution? "Don't feed the trolls" is the usually cited adage, and it's true to an extent - but it only works up to a certain point. "Don't read the comments" is bloody good advice for the most part, although it still raises the point that most consumer sites' justifications for having comment sections at all are deeply flimsy. There is an extent to which the internet is just hostile and unpleasant because it exposes us to a grimy underbelly of humanity in which people, granted anonymity, are hostile and unpleasant, especially to women and minorities, and we just have to get used to that and build a thicker skin until such time as we can build a better society.

We can, though, help to cut off the oxygen that the trolls breathe. Speak up. Carry on intelligent discussions without fear of the backlash, recalling when you flinch that the backlash comes from people to whom you wouldn't grant the time of day in any case. Support people who say interesting things even when you don't agree with the things they're saying. Seek to create environments that are safe and welcoming, if you have a hand in such a thing, and always remember that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to publish whatever you want, wherever you want - comment threads, forums and so on are private publishing spaces and nobody has a right to spew hatred in them, nor is it censorship to clean up and moderate those spaces, any more than it's censorship to stop a child tearaway from graffitiing a sexual slur on the bonnet of your car.

Most of all, don't be part of the problem. You may disagree - vehemently! - with the notion that GTA V is misogynist, or that Resident Evil 5 was racist, or that Killer Is Dead is unpleasantly sexist, but respect those who put forward opinions you disagree with in an intelligent and reasonable way, and respond in kind. It's easy to be tempted to just tell someone to shut up online. Don't. The whole world of talking about, criticising and debating games and their culture has become hostile and nasty in recent years, a turn for the worse which threatens to damage the entire medium in subtle yet profound ways. If being polite and reasonable when your brain mutters at you to type obscenities instead is all it takes to be part of the solution, then not one of us has an excuse for being part of the problem.

72 Comments

James Prendergast
Research Chemist

735 432 0.6
I think you meant to write "misogynistic" rather than "misogynist" at various points (including the title). You are a misogynist or you are misogynistic. You can not be misogynist unless that's your name (since it's a noun).

I think you're right otherwise though. The "cesspits" are allowed to develop and thus cultivate an even worse cesspit through example for newer viewers/readers and forum-goers...

I think the final two paragraphs are actually a pretty good guide in how to act in life in general. :)

Edited 1 times. Last edit by James Prendergast on 20th September 2013 8:17am

Posted:A year ago

#1

Jessica Hyland
Character Artist

316 1,276 4.0
'Misogynist' is also usable as an adjective.

Nice article, Rob. Thoroughly agree with your take on comments sections... I can't count the number of times I've recommended interesting, intelligent articles to friends on Facebook/Twitter with the addendum 'Just don't read the comments if you don't want to be depressed/disgusted'.

I've had some interesting discussions about this lately... and some less interesting but far more upsetting ones :/

Posted:A year ago

#2

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

682 335 0.5
Maybe it would be wise to ignore articles, that complain about trolls by insulting the press as "execrable" and politicians as "oblige, dumb", but then I am not strong enough to ignore trolls.
These articles are usually labelled "trollbait" for a reason.

Posted:A year ago

#3

James Prendergast
Research Chemist

735 432 0.6
@ Jessica:

Fair enough. It just reads really weirdly to me. :)

Posted:A year ago

#4

Jason Avent
VP, Studio Head

139 140 1.0
GTA hates everything. That's kind of the point.

It would be great to have a female character in the mix though. Having three characters this time around is a masterstroke. They are really different from each other but having a woman involved could have been ace. Someone strong enough to deal with Trevor, perhaps give Michael some sagely, timely advice and coach Franklin out listening to his idiot friends. Or something completely different. I'd really like to see a writer create a female character who could credibly live alongside the trio. She'd have to be pretty well sorted. She could be an awesome character to play. (Don't take the easy route of making her some kind of manly-woman)

Posted:A year ago

#5

Helen Merete Simm
Senior UI Artist

49 262 5.3
@Jason Avent
Would be awesome to see someone like Ma-Ma from Dredd:)

Posted:A year ago

#6

Kieran Keegan
Gameplay Programmer

6 19 3.2
Great Article Rob!

Being a white male gamer I'm lucky to get little abuse aimed in my direction (except when on xbox live :-) )
My heart goes out to people like Anita Sarkeesian who are trying to discuss games academically and receive such vitriol in return.

I don't understand those who abuse her and attach her work, they might feel threatened or something but I am guessing that like most bullies they have other problems and she is target for their frustration. She is not hurting anyone, just holding up a mirror to the industry and allowing developers to see their work from a new perspective that they mightn't have been aware of before. If more brave people like her take a stand it means only one thing, better games for everyone! (#1ReasonToBe)

There is a new wave of intelligent critical analysis of games bubbling up, shows like Errant Signal and Super Bunny Hop give me hope for the future of our medium. (if anyone knows any others, please let me know) There may still be plenty of trolls lurking beneath the surface, but they are fast becoming an irrelevant minority.

The fact that we're having discussions like this at all means that things are improving, if unfortunately progress is still very slow.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Kieran Keegan on 20th September 2013 12:02pm

Posted:A year ago

#7

Benjamin Crause
Supervisor Central Support

82 38 0.5
I think the problem is not that there are places that we can call cesspits but that huge media sites that claim to serve the community allow such places under their hood.
Anyone who is interested in meaningful discussions that can become heated and passionate without harrassment and bullying should seeks closed groups with selected members who slowly grow.
For example I am in a closed group on Facebook that is invite only. We got all those topics about woman, harassment in online game, flame wars, console wars, etc. All members are passionate about one or more aspect of gaming and its related fields. And boy can it get heated in there but it works with proper respect and tolerance for all which prevents bullying or harassment and we all can get along even thou we do not agree with each other.
Public comment sections like most hyperbole media sites have these days are not worth it if you want to get honest comments from all angles of a topic from a broad range of people.

Posted:A year ago

#8

Daniel Hughes
Studying PhD Literary Modernism

436 496 1.1
Brilliant stuff Rob.

Posted:A year ago

#9

Peter Brobby
Director

2 4 2.0
@Kieran, Anita Sarkesian seems to be a fraud, she is not even a gamer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

Posted:A year ago

#10

Nicholas Pantazis
Senior Editor

1,020 1,467 1.4
@ Benjamin I largely agree, which is why I get far more stimulating conversation from Games Industry than, say, Eurogamer or Joystiq.

Posted:A year ago

#11

Kieran Keegan
Gameplay Programmer

6 19 3.2
@Peter That may be true, or not, but it doesn't matter. She is still making a meaningful contribution to the industry.

Games need more outside voices, not fewer and not being a gamer, or only becoming one recently, doesn't mean you don't have something important to say.

Posted:A year ago

#12

Rick Lopez
Illustrator, Graphic Designer

1,269 942 0.7
Popular Comment
I dont think we have to have a female character. An the fact that the game doesnt have one doesnt mean its flawed. At the end of the day it all comes down to what the creators of the game wanted to achieve. If they wanted to write a story and thought 3 male characters was the best way to tell it, or simply thought it was better, than thats fair enough. And if they felt the 3 main characters should all be male, then thats ok. Nothing mysogenist about it. Its just the story they wanted to tell. I think its ok that we have a game where all main characters are male. They live a life of crime, and that world usually means going to strip clubs, getting laid, the use of drugs etc. I mean if you watch any gangster movie, youll see these guys have access to sex and drugs that the normal person doesnt, they have all the money in the world and they can do what they want when they want. They can bully, push around people and are generally the boss, they have access to weapons, cars, cribs etc. I havent played the game, so Ill keep my opinions a bit reserved. However we also have games where both male and female characters appear and we have games where female characters play a predominant, well written roles, such as Tomb Raider, Mass Effect (Female Shepard) and Lightning Returns. All who are awsome female characters... and I wont even go into talking about Anita Sarkesian simply because I consider her perspective one sided, adamant and biased towards a singular way of thinking. And I belive GTAV will be the target of certain people who have certain frustrations, and really cant see that the objective behind the creation of the game is simply different than what they think it should be. And the inclusion of a female character may not be something the creators wanted, because of the type of story they wanted to tell. Period. And so far it seems to be working...

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 20th September 2013 6:46pm

Posted:A year ago

#13

Jean-Marc Wellers
Assistant Online Services

17 7 0.4
@Helen Merete Simm, hahaha, you make it sound alright :D

Posted:A year ago

#14

Jason Avent
VP, Studio Head

139 140 1.0
Exactly. She was badass. More like that.

Posted:A year ago

#15

James Ingrams
Writer

215 85 0.4
I'll think you'll find it because we're all "individuals" in the West now, rather than what we used to be - "societies"

And way beyond GTA V, this is why I believe the world' problems will never be fixed and we're for a bumpy 10-20 years!

Posted:A year ago

#16
It's a game about gangsters and the undercurrent of society. You can't faithfully recreate those worlds and tell these stories without making the characters and even the world they exist misogynist. It doesn't make the developers, players or industry misogynistic.

I've said before and this article highlights that this is the problem which goes beyond mere sexism. Because the medium is interactive and the gamer "becomes" the protagonist certain sections of society feel that games industry should be held to a different standard than any other entertainment medium. Personally I think we should be defending these games not bowing down to those that would hurt the medium in the long term.

It doesn't effect developers if all they want to do is make the game from the perspective of the "good guys" with no character flaws but it will becomes increasingly difficult to make it from the perspective of the "bad guys" or any character with human failings which will ultimately lesson the medium as a whole.

Posted:A year ago

#17

Greg Wilcox
Creator, Destroy All Fanboys!

2,193 1,170 0.5
@Christian: have you ever seen a US "news" program or politician who's not a gamer talk about video games? They all sound like rude children who've never seen something trying to explain it in the worst way possible and since they have an audience of millions watching, those sheep generally believe what's told to them. People calling games "murder simulators", noting "evidence" that games "cause people to kill" and other bile that makes no sense to anyone with a working brain open to actual facts.

That these people REFUSE to educate themselves on the subject because keeping the sensationalist element of games "causing" violence drives up their ratings or popularity with an ignorant voter base doesn't allow them ANY sort of credit if you ask me.

Posted:A year ago

#18

Tim Ogul
Illustrator

335 462 1.4
Oh look, another pointless article about how horrible trolls are. Must be Friday.

Posted:A year ago

#19

Paul Jace
Merchandiser

935 1,410 1.5
Madonna used to be able to draw shock and condemnation; now she's just a bit embarrassing to everyone involved.
Thats what I keep saying about Miley. The reason her 15 minutes of shock continues is because people won't shut up about it. She really isn't doing anything new or shocking although it was pretty embarassing, She'll figure that out years for now but hopefully it doesn't take the media that long....although I'm not holding my breath.

Posted:A year ago

#20

Tim Ogul
Illustrator

335 462 1.4
@Kieran,
I don't understand those who abuse her and attach her work, they might feel threatened or something but I am guessing that like most bullies they have other problems and she is target for their frustration. She is not hurting anyone, just holding up a mirror to the industry and allowing developers to see their work from a new perspective that they mightn't have been aware of before. If more brave people like her take a stand it means only one thing, better games for everyone! (#1ReasonToBe)
There are two types of people who "attack" her work, and should be taken quite separately. The first group are trolls. They DO NOT CARE what she is saying, they just know that it is about misogyny, and therefore know that misogynistic comments will be the most inflammatory, and that's what they use. The reaction is what they want, they do not want to harm the argument she is making, and in fact do not care that they are actually supporting it, they just want to watch the world burn.

The proper response to these people is to ignore them, ANY reaction to their behavior WHATSOEVER is only a victory for them. Writing articles about their behavior is akin to presenting them with a sexual favor. Don't play their game and you cannot lose it.

The second type is more reasonable, and thus far less reported on, and is based on pointing out the numerous intellectual flaws in her videos. They really are terrible, if you've actually watched them. The points she makes are one-sided and often nonsensical, and she routinely ignores the glaring flaws in her position. There have been plenty of counter-videos to hers that take a more honest view at the material, some are no better than hers but come from the opposite side, but others are quite well thought out and presented. She is a talented public speaker, no question, but a terrible journalist/researcher/sociologist, and would have been much better off had she hired a better one to write her material instead.

Remember, just because people choose to troll her, no matter how viciously, does not mean that her original point had any value.

Posted:A year ago

#21

Andrew Goodchild
Studying development

1,253 418 0.3
If her articles/videos are unbalanced and one-sided (I can't comment on that as I haven't found time to watch them), that is one thing, but I don't see why not being a gamer is a deal breaker. Should Fred Dinaege not have done the book on they Krays because he'd never beaten someone with an ashtray?

Posted:A year ago

#22

Tim Ogul
Illustrator

335 462 1.4
The "not really a gamer" thing isn't itself a deal-breaker, but since she actively portrays herself as such, it's a sign of fairly clear deceit on her part. Other researchers have said up front that they don't actually play games, but if she tries to portray herself as "one of us" to lend some credibility to her work, when in fact this is not true, then it's just being intellectually dishonest, equivalent to someone claiming to be a member of one political party, so that when they then tear into said party it seems like a less biased attack from within, rather than an attack from without that would be more likely to suffer from bias or a lack of detailed knowledge. It's basically a lazy claim to authority.

Posted:A year ago

#23

Kieran Keegan
Gameplay Programmer

6 19 3.2
@Tim I have watched them and I don't think they are terrible.

Tropes vs Women in videogames, does exactly what it says on the tin. She discusses tropes of female characters present in videogames. It's only the "damsel in distress" trope that she has discussed so far, and I think we can all agree that this is overused and one-dimensional.

A new perspective on things is always good.

Posted:A year ago

#24
There is nothing wrong with a new perspective on any topic (within reason), however whoever you are, whenever you make your points, you have to be sure that they are well researched & backup. If you have an opinion and nothing to back it up, you can at least state it, say why you believe in it and go from there.

The white lies never help in an argument, they just give the opposition something to pick on and detract from what your key points really were.

As for the article, i agree with the comment made above Christian Keichel. It was poor press on the writers part to simple slam all politicians and journalists with the same brush. The real shame though comes from the truth in the comments by Greg Wilcox. He is correct in saying that most politicians you see (whether US or other, I'm UK Based) are ignorant and use it to paint half a picture (if at all half). There are however politicians (in the UK) who are trying to portray gaming in a more realistic light.

It would be nice if they could be more positive stories in main stream media about gaming, it is however always going to be the bad things that we hear and write about.

Posted:A year ago

#25

Tim Ogul
Illustrator

335 462 1.4
The trope is often used, but the way she presents that makes it out to be a bad thing. As in more than it just being a vaguely lazy storytelling element, most often used by games that really aren't trying to come up with a complex story, she makes it out to be somehow actually destructive and a negative to the game, rather than just being a neutral element that neither adds nor removes from it. As she frames it, it's Tropes VS Women, not "Tropes and Women," or even better, just "Tropes." By setting her presentation antagonistically, the burden is on her to prove that out, which she fails to do by any objective measure.

The Damsel trope is in no way anti-women, or really even about women in any way. It's just a gender neutral story telling mechanism, in which the damsel is more often portrayed by a female character, because the hero is more often portrayed by a male character, which comes down to a number of factors, primarily that the people creating the game are more likely to be male, and the people playing the games are more likely to be male, and both are more likely to default to a character that is more similar to themselves.

If she actually objects to the number of damsels in games that happen to be female, the solution is not Internet videos on the topic, trying to convince the current industry to change the way they make games, or trying to convince gamers to look at their games differently. This isn't an issue where "Convincing people" really leads to a solution. The solution involves both more women joining the gaming industry (not being invited in, but rather choosing to join), and more women choosing to play the sorts of games that end up having damsels in them, such as action platformers and RPGs. There still isn't 50/50 parity there. You can bet that as soon as more women play a certain type of game, and their sales choices determine whether it profits or not, then their opinions will start to actually matter, but until then, it'd be a gift to take them into consideration, not an obligation.

Posted:A year ago

#26

Kieran Keegan
Gameplay Programmer

6 19 3.2
@Kyle Hey man, how's things? Been a while!
BTW of course opinion should be supported by evidence, or else it's simply pointless conjecture. Hooray for the scientific method! :-)

@Tim From your perspective "damsel in distress" is merely lazy storytelling but from hers it IS destructive and negative, even if not done so purposefully. She is trying to raise an issue that many feel is important and for that she should be commended. Her videos are far from perfect but they are an academic appraisal of the current state of games, and we need more of these types of work.

And the roots behind it are deeper than just the lack of women in game development (which is unfortunately still very unbalanced.) When you apply the Bechdel Test to Hollywood movies, they're just as bad as games. Raising awareness is a good first step.

Posted:A year ago

#27

Tim Ogul
Illustrator

335 462 1.4
Popular Comment
@Tim From your perspective "damsel in distress" is merely lazy storytelling but from hers it IS destructive and negative, even if not done so purposefully.
Perhaps, but if so then that's where she's wrong, and it's perfectly fair to point that out.
Her videos are far from perfect but they are an academic appraisal of the current state of games, and we need more of these types of work.
That's the problem, they are not. They are a biased screed against the current state of games, that do a horrible job at presenting an academic or objective view of the situation. Other videos have addressed the topic far better. The only advantage hers has is higher production values and a more polished host.
When you apply the Bechdel Test to Hollywood movies, they're just as bad as games.
Because the Bechdel test itself is nonsense pseudo-science. Just make good games and movies, don't try to apply some sort of "female empowerment meter" to them to see whether they are gender balanced. The point of art is not to be gender balanced, it is to tell a good story and/or make an entertaining game. Gender balance should not be a consideration at all, it should just be a random outcome as a result of the final product.

Posted:A year ago

#28

Paul Smith
Dev

189 154 0.8
@Kieran Keegan The Bechdel Test is a really terrible test, If a films main character is male then it's most likely that the majority of dialogue between any characters other than the MC is going to be about the MC.

Also GTA V is not in anyway misogynist, The reason why the reviewer got so much grief for her comments was because in the pro and cons section of the review her only con was that "its misogynist" Which to anyone who has played the game and knows what "misogynist" means, knows that it isn't also she completed ignored legitimate faults with the game IE the crappy cop chase system.

Posted:A year ago

#29

Curt Sampson
Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
Just make good games and movies, don't try to apply some sort of "female empowerment meter" to them to see whether they are gender balanced. The point of art is not to be gender balanced, it is to tell a good story and/or make an entertaining game. Gender balance should not be a consideration at all, it should just be a random outcome as a result of the final product.
Try substituting "gamer" or "computer geek" in there and then think about how pleased you are with representations of people like you in films and television shows.

Fact is, it's this "I don't want to take a close look at this" attitude that makes it easy for politicians, journalists and the general public to carry on with the assumption that video games are kids' toys and shouldn't have in them any content beyond a PG level.

Posted:A year ago

#30

Tim Ogul
Illustrator

335 462 1.4
Try substituting "gamer" or "computer geek" in there and then think about how pleased you are with representations of people like you in films and television shows.
Typically pleased. Look, when a program goes out of their way to mock "gamers" or "geeks," that does often annoy me, but very few games go out of their way to mock women (at least any more than they simultaneously mock men). It doesn't bother me that there aren't as many big budget movies that have Jim Parsons in the lead as have Tom Cruise in the lead, or that this means that if Jim Parsons is in the movie he will be reduced to a supporting role in which his agency is largely at the whims of the main character.

If people want to make a game with a woman lead? Fantastic. If they don't? EQUALLY fantastic. If you don't like a game because it features a male lead, then don't buy that game, vote with your wallet. If you do like games that feature female leads, then buy those games, and they'll make more of them.

They have no obligation to set a social trend, their obligation is to make the best games they can, in hopes that they will sell. If the record is that female led games match or exceed similar male led games, you can rest assure that they will make more like that. If they try out female led games, and they don't seem to sell as well as male led games, then it's unreasonable to expect them to even attempt 50/50 parity. Tomb Raider selling 10m copies instead of 4m would have been worth a million Sarkeesian videos.
Fact is, it's this "I don't want to take a close look at this" attitude that makes it easy for politicians, journalists and the general public to carry on with the assumption that video games are kids' toys and shouldn't have in them any content beyond a PG level.
No, it doesn't. It actually reinforces their negative stereotypes by pointing out how "horrible" games are (by which I mean, not nearly as horrible as most other forms of entertainment). If gaming's critics want to find examples that support their theories they should have to do the research themselves, they shouldn't have them provided in handy bite-sized Youtube videos.

Posted:A year ago

#31

Curt Sampson
Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
Typically pleased.
Actually, looking back I chose a bad example. Since you're just an illustrator with no real technical knowledge, you aren't really a computer geek anyway.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Curt Sampson on 22nd September 2013 10:59am

Posted:A year ago

#32
@Rick Lopez,
I'll start off with that I have played GTA V. I love the idea of it and can't tell you how many days alone I spent playing the original game when I was still back in school (and of course great games back then like Doom, Quake or even Duke Nuke-em 3D). When my brother showed me how you could burn the secretaries with a flame thrower and they'd strip as a result in "return to castle wolfenstein" I laughed like an idiot. I'm not easily offended by seemingly misogynist scenes or games labelled as such.


I belive GTAV will be the target of certain people who have certain frustrations, and really cant see that the objective behind the creation of the game is simply different than what they think it should be.

Posted:A year ago

#33
It's a game about gangsters and the undercurrent of society. You can't faithfully recreate those worlds and tell these stories without making the characters and even the world they exist misogynist. It doesn't make the developers, players or industry misogynistic.
Having played the game, there are certainly artificially created misogynistic scenes in the game that are unnecessary for the plot or to create the world. I don't see this game's depiction of women to be a true representation of the undercurrent society. I am not talking about prostitutes or strippers here. I'm talking about the chance interaction with female NPCs that don't add to the story line. The office workers, the joggers, the random side quests.

Posted:A year ago

#34

Paul Smith
Dev

189 154 0.8
There's only 1 character in the entire game who is shown in a positive light and that's a female character.

Posted:A year ago

#35

Tim Ogul
Illustrator

335 462 1.4
Actually, looking back I chose a bad example. Since you're just an illustrator with no real technical knowledge, you aren't really a computer geek anyway.
I don't know whether to take that as an insult or not. . .

Posted:A year ago

#36
How can you not like Michael? Poor sod is just misunderstood ;)

Posted:A year ago

#37

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
What is wrong with a bit of misogyny? Especially in a work of intellectual property art.
We have vastly too much political correctness in our world that denies our basic human condition and tries to indoctrinate us into being something that we aren't.
I hear massive misandry from the feminazis, but apparently this is OK and right on under current dogma norms.

It disgusts me what the thought police have done and are doing. For instance Rudyard Kipling is well into the very top echelon of writers ever in the history of the English language. To me he is simply the best ever. Yet his superb body of work is falling by the wayside because it does not meet the favour of the politically correct idiots. They are, quite simply, ignorant and uncultured vandals.
Just read If and Baa Baa Black Sheep to appreciate the heights that the English language can reach.

Posted:A year ago

#38

Jessica Hyland
Character Artist

316 1,276 4.0
What's wrong with being reminded how horrible the real world can be to me because of my gender? That's a good question, Bruce. One you would obviously never understand the answer to.

Posted:A year ago

#39

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
@Jessica Hyland

The whole purpose of entertainment IP is to engender an emotional response.
Going against political correctness is one way to achieve this. As many books, films, plays etc do.

And saying what I do or don't understand is far too much presumption on your behalf.

Posted:A year ago

#40

Jessica Hyland
Character Artist

316 1,276 4.0
And here's me thinking the purpose of entertainment was to entertain, silly me.

Bruce, it's not presumption if you've given plenty of evidence that you're not just unable but unwilling to empathise with anyone who isn't exactly like you. Hence the FYGM railing against 'political correctness' (we like to call it empathy over here) and hypocritical, paranoid whining about thought police and misandry.

Posted:A year ago

#41

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
@ Jessica Hyland

You're not just unable but unwilling to empathise with anyone who isn't exactly like you.

And you certainly haven't the faintest idea about entertainment.

Posted:A year ago

#42

Shehzaan Abdulla
Translator

124 243 2.0
Popular Comment
@Jessica
I think the point Bruce is getting at is that not all media is strictly for entertainment (at least not in the sense that it is made to make you feel good); some of it is designed to freak you out, some of it is designed to make you examine the world around you or even the biases we all carry.

Having a videogame reflect problems in the real world (which is different from championing them as an ideal state of being) is a natural evolution. It is the point where games move beyond simply being toys (fun, but ultimately meaningless) to being art (meaningful).

I find it very fitting that in an article that talks about how many attitudes on the internet shut down creative discussion the attitudes in your posts have just contributed to the same problem; maybe you feel better now that you've boxed Bruce into the unempathetic category (and as such have freed yourself from having to contend with his perspective), but I have to ask, how much good has really come about from it? Bruce went from giving a fairly detailed responses to effectively retreating because continuing the dialogue 'simply isn't worth it' when you can't get a word out without someone sticking a label on you. To me that doesn't look like an open exchange of ideas and it isn't the internet I want to frequent. We all have a responsibility to keep channels of communication open as long as we want to engage in the dialogue.

It is easy to see how men can make an online venue toxic for conversation when women are involved, but the reverse happens too and it is finally started to be recognised; many women use broad judgements like that to categorise people rather than deal with difficult (often stressful) ideas. The difference is that most women have a cause they are fighting for that most people can rally behind, as a result a less than praiseworthy approach to dialogue often goes uncriticised, but certainly not unignored; those attitudes create tension between the different parties involved and erode meaningful dialogue.

Posted:A year ago

#43

Jessica Hyland
Character Artist

316 1,276 4.0
Popular Comment
Whereas the point I was making is this: a man telling a woman that games which showcase misogynist attitudes are all about 'entertainment' and fighting the dreaded 'thought police' that only exist in his own head is an incredibly stupid thing to be saying. 'What's wrong with a little misogyny?' he asks, while in the same comment decrying the invented misandry of 'feminazis'. Ironic much?

It is super easy for someone who is not a member of an oppressed group in society to ignore the concerns of that group and paint media that further marginalises them as 'realistic!', as though that absolves a work from any criticism - it's also super patronising and insensitive. I know pretty damn well how misogynist real life is. I live that every single day. Bruce and every other guy crying about their precious right to say whatever they want without criticism do not live that reality. So having Bruce condescend to tell me that I know nothing about how entertainment works and my misgivings about the content of games like GTA is just 'political correctness' and 'indoctrination' is really offensive. He is basically the all-grown-up version of the angry young men this very article is about.

And please, please don't make a tone argument here. I know I can come off a bit angry in these comments but, you know what? I am pretty angry about things like this. I am pretty angry about the aggressive, and hysterically defensive attitudes infesting the comments sections of every single article I have seen that dares to suggest that maybe GTA has a problem with women, including this one. I think I'm allowed to be angry about that.

Posted:A year ago

#44

Robin Clarke
Producer

321 748 2.3
Bruce went from giving a fairly detailed responses to effectively retreating because continuing the dialogue 'simply isn't worth it'
I'm failing to see how this is not a positive outcome.

Posted:A year ago

#45

Shehzaan Abdulla
Translator

124 243 2.0
Popular Comment
@ Jessica
The misandry of feminism is a very complicated topic that would require its own evidence and debate. There is no way I could hope to talk about it here in any detail (and it is slightly off-topic as well). I'm not about to get into that here and nor am I about to step in and make Bruce's argument for him. I just attempted to add a rational take on what it looked like he was saying; I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are more likely to be closer to agreeing with me than disagreeing. Doing so is conducive to dialogue.

I get the impression you've very much misconstrued what Bruce was saying. Or at least interpreted in an unflattering way. Maybe my interpretation is in fact the one that is wrong, but it does at least leave room for Bruce to come forward and clear things up. If you label someone though you do one of two things:

i. Force them onto their back foot so that the dialogue devolves into the accused having to defend their position or clear up misgivings (all the while the point of argument becomes increasingly obscured).

ii. The accused simply exits the dialogue out of frustration from being lambasted rather than having their ideas listened to.

My general rule for the internet is to deal with ideas (not the people behind them). If you have an issue with something you can always address the issue rather than knocking the person down for being term xyz or holding a particular perspective. It goes double for an oppressed group as they should have a better understanding of how their actions damage dialogue and hurt other people from experience.

Sure you could keep a hostile tone or keep putting people into an unflattering labelled box, but don't be surprised if they switch off, and stop engaging. Just remember though, an oppressed group needs to be listened to more than an unoppressed one, as as such they need to take responsibility for communicating in a way that increases their chances of being listened to. That might make you even angrier, but it doesn't diminish the responsibility to be civil and open. That is the very lesson of this article. By all means, be angry, use it to energise you, but don't mistake the target of that anger the very people whom you need to be on your side the most.

Being oppressed is an understandable reason for being angry, it is not an acceptable reason for being uncivil.

Just to clarify it isn't the tone of the posts that bothers me the most though. It's the actions that damage dialogue. Tone is part of that, but the indirect labelling is the bigger issue IMO. As I said before this does indeed cut both ways (from the misogynistic side as well) but we have plenty of articles like this illuminating that issue so I am not dwelling on it much (we all know about it by know I would hope!). The reverse though (from women and feminists) is also damaging to constructive dialogue but it goes uncriticised and unimpeded even though it is just as damaging to reaching mutual understanding and progress.

I want to say this in no uncertain terms; it is in your own interest to conduct yourself openly. But I have to regress here and give a solid example of what I mean by behaviour that is unconducive to dialogue; can I ask a genuine question here? Do you even want to be understood or listened too? Your very first response to Bruce was to tell him that he couldn't possibly understand. If the default position is one of 'not being understood'? then what hope of there of making constructive inroads in this dialogue (can those inroads even be made without understanding)? Maybe you are okay with that. But many people (men and women) would like to make strides in constructive dialogue rather than lament how hopeless it all is.

Posted:A year ago

#46

Shehzaan Abdulla
Translator

124 243 2.0
@ Robin
It is a negative outcome because instead of getting him to engage with the ideas at the table he has left and the people who want change (who need people like Bruce on to see their side) are now left without the additional support they could have gained and without being understood (and possibly even begrudged).

Now multiple that failure hundreds of thousands of times over and you are beginning to see the formation of the roadblock in progress for not only the feminist movement, but (and this might sound a bit grand) understanding between humans as a whole.

Posted:A year ago

#47

Robin Clarke
Producer

321 748 2.3
Whereas terms like "feminazis" are entirely conducive to reasoned debate. Are you taking the piss?

Posted:A year ago

#48

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
@ Jessica Hyland

You have a chip on your shoulder the size of the Matterhorn and will never be liberated. You enjoy being a victim far too much.
Also you are in the wrong industry because you really do not understand the nature of entertainment IP, the part that human emotions play and the mechanics for realising this.
To try and stick a label on my forehead is utterly ridiculous and ignorant. You are trying to oppress me. I am far more liberated than you will ever be with your narrow minded dogma.

Political correctness is a poison in our society because it takes away freedom of expression, which is perhaps our most important fundamental freedom. To me people who "take offence" are the enemy. They want everyone to conform to their way of thinking.

Posted:A year ago

#49

Shehzaan Abdulla
Translator

124 243 2.0
@ Robin
Whereas terms like "feminazis" are entirely conducive to reasoned debate. Are you taking the piss?
Oh cool, I've just figured out how to use quotes. Awesome.

Okay. I'm going to add another rule to my list of internet etiquette:
-Do not put words in other people's mouths. Either directly or indirectly.

The rationale is the same as above; it forces people into retreat (and away from the topic at hand).

I have to ask what is the core point of the question you are asking? It has an implied question, but it isn't stated outright. Is it that I should take issue with Bruce's comment's just as much as Jessica's?

Sure, I could have reprimanded Bruce's comments, but I made a concious effort to choose Jessica's because those are the kind of comments that go uncriticised, whereas Bruce's will not will most certainly not go unnoticed. But also because Jessica's comments were the point at which the dialogue began to erode. Now she can't take responsibility for it eroding (it might have happened no matter how well she conducted herself), but she could still have gone about a few things better.

To me it looked like Bruce he had his buttons pushed and responded emotionally. I don't mention this as a way to play a game of 'but he/she started it' blame assignment (that is a pointless exercise), but to draw attention to the fact that up until that point Bruce was being civil towards other participants. The word 'feminazi' isn't nice, but it wasn't aimed at any one single participant and it isn't necessarily interchangeable with the word 'feminist' (my understanding is that it points specific kind of feminist who is in fact misandric but goes unnoticed because they are a minority. A phenomenon that the feminist movement has yet to acknowledge and discredit...much to it's own discredit).

We can't be responsible for how other people respond (that would be silly). But we can all take responsibility for trying to keep this common space (the space of dialogue) open so that we can all use it. That means being careful and respectful, yes, even if other people aren't respectful, or don't come across as respectful towards us.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 23rd September 2013 5:22pm

Posted:A year ago

#50
No-one is denying GTA isn't a misanthropic game but it's no more misogynist than misandric.

A lot of humour takes a general misanthropic view of the world - and it's funny because it has an element of truth but it's also a pessimist view. The problem with feminism is that it won't allow that to be expressed. Women always have to be portrayed as sugar and sweet and all things nice.

Lets just admit that women are no better or worse than men and move on. Enough of the thought police.

Posted:A year ago

#51

Chris Reeves
2D Artist

7 35 5.0
@Shehzaan
The misandry of feminism is a very complicated topic
It would be if such misandry existed beyond the tiniest minority of extremist womyn which do not represent Feminism as a whole.

As it is, it's a very simple topic. It doesn't exist. Feminists don't hate men and the movement as a whole is striving for big pushes for the destruction of patriarchy, which while it hurts women tenfold more, does hurt men as well by forcing us within tightly constrained gender roles.

Misandry is rapidly becoming a trigger word for "I Don't Understand Gender Politics Or Gender Privilege".

@Bruce.

I can only condemn your views in the strongest possible way. For shame.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Chris Reeves on 23rd September 2013 5:37pm

Posted:A year ago

#52

Michael Ball
Studying Computer Science

2 3 1.5
@Reeves
I seriously hope you aren't trying to construe that small snippet as representative of his entire post. That would be very deceitful of you.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Michael Ball on 23rd September 2013 6:07pm

Posted:A year ago

#53

Morgan King
Animator

48 92 1.9
GTA exists - narratively, at least - to push buttons and start difficult conversations, and it does from a decidedly male perspective (so... mission: accomplished?) but I think not acknowledging how vehemently it mocks the hetero masculine failings and facades of its protagonists and cultural settings is doing its writing a disservice. Women are minimized and objectified as part of that greater meta-satire, and, on balance, I'd rather not have Dan Houser and the others to attempt to write their satire from a female perspective out of obligation instead of inspiration. Ideally, they could collaborate with a similarly-inclined sardonic writer who could tackle writing compelling female voices into GTA. Personally, I'll be using GTA Online as a place to inject some powerful female archetypes into their world.

Posted:A year ago

#54

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
Just coming back to this conversation. I have been cooking the wife's meal.
Turkey with ginger, tarragon and garlic. :-)
I told her about this conversation and she says that if people don't like the misogyny in GTA then they shouldn't buy it. Simple.
By this she means:
1) If people are happy with the misogyny then it is up to them.
2) If people are not happy with the misogyny then it is up to them.
3) We shouldn't be telling other people what to think.
4) The market is always right.
5) It is just a game.

Posted:A year ago

#55

Shehzaan Abdulla
Translator

124 243 2.0
@Chris Reeves
It would be [complicated] if such misandry existed beyond the tiniest minority of extremist womyn which do not represent Feminism as a whole.
I don't disagree with your what you are saying (that misandry within feminism is a minority), but I feel that treating those extreme elements as 'ignorable' because they are a minority does not show that the issue is simple, but rather that it is being treated overly simply.

Allow me to explain. There are complicated facets such as 'why does such a minority exist? How real are the stimuli that create those viewpoints?' and one of the most complicated is to do with responsibility and accountability, that is 'why doesn't feminism identify and denounce extremism'? These are all tough issues that can not be easily explained, but do merit exploration because of the damage this tiny minority (and its influence through association) are doing to feminism as a whole.

To use what I think is in upstanding example; whenever there is a bombing the Islamic communities are the first to stand up and denounce terrorist acts in no uncertain terms. They state clearly that they disapprove of the actions and do not stand for them. Even though these actions are carried about by the same 'Islamic' people (albeit radicals who have perverted the original message of the religion). Feminism would benefit greatly from taking the same hard-line stance against the minorities that operate within it without criticism. As it stands the feminism movement is doing the equivalent of responding to a bomb attack by saying 'Bomb? What bomb? I don't know no bomb'. That doesn't instil confidence in the people it needs to convince the most.

Posted:A year ago

#56

Darren Adams
Managing Director

252 503 2.0
#57

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
People seem to have lost sight that the Grand Theft Auto series are a comedic satire of American culture. And Wikipedia says that satire is:

Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, and society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
[2][3] juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.
Satire is nowadays found in many artistic forms of expression, including literature, plays, commentary, television shows, and media such as lyrics.

Posted:A year ago

#58

Rick Lopez
Illustrator, Graphic Designer

1,269 942 0.7
I personally enjoy many female characters in games. Would it be nice if Grand theft Auto had a female character? Sure, however it would need to fit the story and the context of the universe created for the game. And I do not think this is the case with GTAV. It really doesnt scream for the need of a female character. Its has a pretty deep story and tells it well using 3 male character. Adding another character of either geneder would be redundant and changing one of the characters into a female probably wouldnt allow the creators of the game to tell the story they wanted to tell. Just as there are stories you cant tell using a male character.

I just cant understand why its not ok to make a game with 3 male protogonists. I dont even understand why its necessary to include a female. And it should not be done in order to conform to other peoples frustrations. That would be wrong. There are plenty of games which have strong well written female protogonists and roles. There are games that allow you to be either male or female.

Grand Theft Auto V does not seem to NEED a female character. It would be nice if it had one as long as it conformed to the universe and story created for the game. However, including a female character or any element out of context with whats established would ruin the expirience.

I myself am not a huge fan of the series, but i do acknowlage GTAV turned out to be a pretty damn good, well written and well designed game. I do want to buy this one. i too enjoy female characters in games. However I dont think this game needs one. The only people complaining about it not having a female character are those that cant see beyond their way of thinking and appreciate it for what it is.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 24th September 2013 7:00pm

Posted:A year ago

#59

Roger Edwards
Writer/Blogger/Podcaster

6 7 1.2
@ Bruce Everiss
Political correctness is a poison in our society
and marketing isn't?

Posted:A year ago

#60

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
Marketing is the strategic business function that matches an organisation's core competences to a demand.
Every organisation does it, otherwise they would not exist. In fact they would not even have a product or service to offer.
Zero marketing = zero sales.

Some people think that product promotion is marketing.
In fact some people say that they are in marketing when really they are in product promotion.
The reality is that product promotion is just a small part of what marketing is.

Just to confuse/educate you further.
Communications is identifying all the key stakeholders in a organisation. Then establishing a two way dialogue that includes communicating key messages pertaining to the organisation.

So obviously you can create a Venn diagram with a big overlap between communications and marketing. Some organisations have a communications person in charge of all such activities. Other organisations have a marketing person in charge of all such activities.

Meanwhile isn't game development evil? Wasting good brains that could be doing better things for society and creating products that waste millions of hours. Video games must be a major contributor to teenage obesity. etc etc :-)

Posted:A year ago

#61
Shehzaan,
To use what I think is in upstanding example; whenever there is a bombing the Islamic communities are the first to stand up and denounce terrorist acts in no uncertain terms. They state clearly that they disapprove of the actions and do not stand for them. Even though these actions are carried about by the same 'Islamic' people (albeit radicals who have perverted the original message of the religion). Feminism would benefit greatly from taking the same hard-line stance against the minorities that operate within it without criticism. As it stands the feminism movement is doing the equivalent of responding to a bomb attack by saying 'Bomb? What bomb? I don't know no bomb'.
I think it reflects poorly on our society that Muslims are compelled to denounce terrorist acts committed by people claiming to be Muslims. Because obviously if you don't explicitly say you're against murder you must therefore support it. Right? Likewise if you don't explicitly say you oppose misandry you must therefore support it. Right?
That doesn't instil confidence in the people it needs to convince the most.
Who, people who think all Muslims are terrorists and people who think all feminists are misandrists? People who jump to conclusions based on their prejudices, absent evidence? Well, there's no reasoning people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into. Frankly I don't think the people who need to be convinced the most are likely to be convinced at all - indeed I seem to recall some studies that suggest people become more entrenched after reading contrary views. But there are plenty of waverers, fence-sitters and undecideds.

Bruce,
People seem to have lost sight that the Grand Theft Auto series are a comedic satire of American culture.
I like the series but I get the joke - I got it the first time, the second time, the third time... maybe next time they could try something a little different.

Posted:A year ago

#62

Roger Edwards
Writer/Blogger/Podcaster

6 7 1.2
Thank you @ Bruce Everiss. The way you described marketing simply validated my disdain for it.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Roger Edwards on 25th September 2013 4:45pm

Posted:A year ago

#63

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
@Roger Edwards
Your disdain is not matched by your actions.
Everything you eat, everything you wear, everything you spend your money on is a result of marketing. People have decided to create these goods and services and those decisions are marketing decisions.
Basically without marketing you would be dead.

Posted:A year ago

#64
"Basically without marketing you would be dead." Humble, nuanced and reasonable, I'm sold.

Posted:A year ago

#65

Roger Edwards
Writer/Blogger/Podcaster

6 7 1.2
@Bruce Everiss What a risible comment, but that's the nature of your industry.

Posted:A year ago

#66

Chris Reeves
2D Artist

7 35 5.0
Basically without marketing you would be dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

Posted:A year ago

#67

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Another person who does not understand what marketing is.
There is a lot of ignorance around.

Posted:A year ago

#68

Curt Sampson
Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
1) If people are happy with the misogyny then it is up to them.
2) If people are not happy with the misogyny then it is up to them.
3) We shouldn't be telling other people what to think.
4) The market is always right.
Let's apply this to white supremacist hate literature and see how this comes out.

1) If people are happy with the racism, it is up to them.
2) If people are not happy with the racism it is up to them.
3) We shouldn't be telling other people what to think.
4) The market is always right.

(And yes, there is certainly a market for white supremacist hate literature.)
Marketing is the strategic business function that matches an organisation's core competences to a demand.
Or quite frequently creates the demand. Would you say that the worst of the free-to-play games that use nasty tactics to suck money from you, which apparently satisfy a demand, are a good thing?

Posted:A year ago

#69

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
@ Curt Sampson

But misogyny isn't race hate.

We all have many inbuilt prejudices both for and against other people. Old people, young people, fat people, thin people, gingers, blondes, Americans, scousers etc etc. Saying that all prejudices are the same is not at all clever.

As for FTP, we are all responsible for our own actions despite our nanny socialist state trying to protect us by taking away our freedoms.

Posted:A year ago

#70

Curt Sampson
Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
But misogyny isn't race hate.
That leaves me astonished. You seriously think it's more acceptable to hate people based on some biological characteristics than others?
As for FTP, we are all responsible for our own actions despite our nanny socialist state trying to protect us by taking away our freedoms
Any society removes certain freedoms from its members for the good of all members. Our "nanny state" protects you from violence against you by people stronger than you. One of the biggest interventions (possibly the biggest) our "nanny state" makes in the laissez faire markets is a huge distortion to prevent people from taking what would be otherwise free to all so that you can charge rent on it: this is how you make your living. Your entire career exists solely due to state support of it.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Curt Sampson on 7th October 2013 7:11am

Posted:A year ago

#71

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now