Firstly, I'd just like to say your point is perfectly valid, but ONLY IF you are correct in your assumption of the nature of the convention she was at.
There are a couple of reasons why I don't agree that it was an internal industry event. In particular, one line in particular suggests to me otherwise, and that is the line: 'At a recent convention party, I overheard a group of guys begging their games journalist friend to get them into a "wild party" for the game in question. ' Firstly, she mentions a games journalist. If this was an event for PR people, so that they better understand the message they are trying to send out, why would a games journalist be there? Games journalists are the people who the message is going to be sent out to, not the ones spreading it (at least only in the sense that they report the message for the benefit of the general public). But suppose this journalist had a reason to be at this internal industry, that still doesn't explain why he would have the authority to get other people into the event. Other people who work in PR, who this event is supposedly for, and yet they have to ask a journalist to get them in? That doesn't really add up. Nor does the idea that the event would be restricted in the first place. If you are trying to convey your marketing message, you don't do so by being exclusive. Besides, how many of these events in the PR industry are so fun that people would beg to go to one?
Regardless of which of us is right about the nature, however, the fact that this uncertainty was even able to come up is the problem here. My biggest gripe with the article is not the point she is making (though I do disagree with it) but the fact it is simply bad journalism. If you are right, why didn't she explain the nature of the PR event, which you managed to sum up pretty well in a single paragraph, instead of waffling on for 9 paragraphs without actually contributing to the argument she puts forward in the last two paragraphs? When she finally does get round to the point of her article, there is a woeful lack of specifics - it is one thing not to tell us who the concerned parties are, but completely another not to even tell us what they are, I have no idea what these 'guys' do for a living, and no idea what the games journalist's role at the event is, or even which one of them turned her away from the event. Both mine and your arguments have had to be based on assumptions. We have come away from the article with polarised interpretations of the factual parts of it. Simply put, it was bad writing.
So the only part of your argument I disagree with is with regards to the nature of the event. Neither of us a to blame for that, though, the article is simply not clear enough.
There are a couple of reasons why I don't agree that it was an internal industry event. In particular, one line in particular suggests to me otherwise, and that is the line: 'At a recent convention party, I overheard a group of guys begging their games journalist friend to get them into a "wild party" for the game in question. ' Firstly, she mentions a games journalist. If this was an event for PR people, so that they better understand the message they are trying to send out, why would a games journalist be there? Games journalists are the people who the message is going to be sent out to, not the ones spreading it (at least only in the sense that they report the message for the benefit of the general public). But suppose this journalist had a reason to be at this internal industry, that still doesn't explain why he would have the authority to get other people into the event. Other people who work in PR, who this event is supposedly for, and yet they have to ask a journalist to get them in? That doesn't really add up. Nor does the idea that the event would be restricted in the first place. If you are trying to convey your marketing message, you don't do so by being exclusive. Besides, how many of these events in the PR industry are so fun that people would beg to go to one?
Regardless of which of us is right about the nature, however, the fact that this uncertainty was even able to come up is the problem here. My biggest gripe with the article is not the point she is making (though I do disagree with it) but the fact it is simply bad journalism. If you are right, why didn't she explain the nature of the PR event, which you managed to sum up pretty well in a single paragraph, instead of waffling on for 9 paragraphs without actually contributing to the argument she puts forward in the last two paragraphs? When she finally does get round to the point of her article, there is a woeful lack of specifics - it is one thing not to tell us who the concerned parties are, but completely another not to even tell us what they are, I have no idea what these 'guys' do for a living, and no idea what the games journalist's role at the event is, or even which one of them turned her away from the event. Both mine and your arguments have had to be based on assumptions. We have come away from the article with polarised interpretations of the factual parts of it. Simply put, it was bad writing.
So the only part of your argument I disagree with is with regards to the nature of the event. Neither of us a to blame for that, though, the article is simply not clear enough.
Nice to have someone on the internet agreeing with me for once. XD
I had exactly the same problem with trying to work out what the point of the article was, and sadly any validity there might have been to her argument is just going to be drowned out by the poor execution of the article.
I had exactly the same problem with trying to work out what the point of the article was, and sadly any validity there might have been to her argument is just going to be drowned out by the poor execution of the article.
@NorthStar37
Once again, I will repeat: 'the article doesn't even state that the man who discouraged her from going to the press event (and emphasis on the discouraged as opposed to outright prohibited) was even affiliated with 2K Games or the people responsible for marketing the game. Who was this 'guy' who is allowed to speak for the games industry in its women-hating entirety?'
From what I can glean from the article, she approached a bunch of 'guys' (who, from the phrasing of the article, it seems like she doesn't even know very well, if at all) and asks to get into the party with them (which, since their 'games journalist friend' said 'he could get everyone at the table in' then we can infer from that that she and the rest of the 'guys' were not officially invited to the event anyway). This group of 'guys' are the ones who tell her not to come to the event - not someone who works for 2K Games or on the PR team working on the game. SO, yes, it was an industry promotion, but nothing in the article suggests it was a official representative of the industry (whatever that might be) who turned her away.
With regards to the race thing, the only reason I would react differently to people turning away black people is because I cannot, in any way shape or form, fathom a game that would singularly appeal to white people (or vice versa). There is a very definite biological difference between men and women and as a result between their respective subjectivities, the difference between a person with white skin and a person with black skin, on the other hand, is entirely superficial, and any difference in subjectivity that exists between them is a result of cultural differences, not inherent biological differences. If, however, a company wanted to market a game starring, say, a ginger protagonist, and held a press event exclusively for ginger people, turning down anyone who wasn't ginger (which obviously excludes any black people) I would have no problem whatsoever. It's not a case of turning people away because they are black, it is a case of turning them away because they are not within the specific demographic which the PR company has every right to choose to market their game to.
That is besides the point, however, this has nothing to do with race. She was turned away because (presumably) the 'guys' who had nothing whatsoever to do with 2K or the PR company marketing the game (unless we get more evidence that contradicts this, but my point was that the article doesn't give us enough information to form a solid argument) didn't think she'd really want to see her fellow women being objectified and degraded, and whilst it wasn't right for the 'guys' to insist she didn't go, nor was it wrong for them to warn her that it was a male-orientated thing.
Once again, I will repeat: 'the article doesn't even state that the man who discouraged her from going to the press event (and emphasis on the discouraged as opposed to outright prohibited) was even affiliated with 2K Games or the people responsible for marketing the game. Who was this 'guy' who is allowed to speak for the games industry in its women-hating entirety?'
From what I can glean from the article, she approached a bunch of 'guys' (who, from the phrasing of the article, it seems like she doesn't even know very well, if at all) and asks to get into the party with them (which, since their 'games journalist friend' said 'he could get everyone at the table in' then we can infer from that that she and the rest of the 'guys' were not officially invited to the event anyway). This group of 'guys' are the ones who tell her not to come to the event - not someone who works for 2K Games or on the PR team working on the game. SO, yes, it was an industry promotion, but nothing in the article suggests it was a official representative of the industry (whatever that might be) who turned her away.
With regards to the race thing, the only reason I would react differently to people turning away black people is because I cannot, in any way shape or form, fathom a game that would singularly appeal to white people (or vice versa). There is a very definite biological difference between men and women and as a result between their respective subjectivities, the difference between a person with white skin and a person with black skin, on the other hand, is entirely superficial, and any difference in subjectivity that exists between them is a result of cultural differences, not inherent biological differences. If, however, a company wanted to market a game starring, say, a ginger protagonist, and held a press event exclusively for ginger people, turning down anyone who wasn't ginger (which obviously excludes any black people) I would have no problem whatsoever. It's not a case of turning people away because they are black, it is a case of turning them away because they are not within the specific demographic which the PR company has every right to choose to market their game to.
That is besides the point, however, this has nothing to do with race. She was turned away because (presumably) the 'guys' who had nothing whatsoever to do with 2K or the PR company marketing the game (unless we get more evidence that contradicts this, but my point was that the article doesn't give us enough information to form a solid argument) didn't think she'd really want to see her fellow women being objectified and degraded, and whilst it wasn't right for the 'guys' to insist she didn't go, nor was it wrong for them to warn her that it was a male-orientated thing.
Fair enough, I agree with that. After all videogames are hardly unique as an art form in their obsession with sex and death, especially considering when considering the earliest examples of an art form.
I suppose I'm just weary of people excusing games because they are new, when they often mess up the bits that have existed for years (writing especially) so badly. Having said that, there are plenty of films and books out there about which you could say the same thing, it just so happens that there are less games that break the mould and really excel (for now).
I suppose I'm just weary of people excusing games because they are new, when they often mess up the bits that have existed for years (writing especially) so badly. Having said that, there are plenty of films and books out there about which you could say the same thing, it just so happens that there are less games that break the mould and really excel (for now).
@Yukichin
Not agreeing with Kryptolojik here, but I don't see any problem with having press events exclusively for the target audience of a entertainment product. You don't hear anyone complaining that they held special screenings of the film Bridesmaids for real life brides (ie. no men allowed), because why the hell would a man want to go to that screening? I also doubt that not going to a 'wild party' in anyway prevented her from doing her unspecified job is. What was she even doing at the convention? Was it something to do with her job as consultant and PR manager? Perhaps she was working as a games journalist (no wait, the quality of the article suggests otherwise).
Apart from that, the article doesn't even state that the man who discouraged her from going to the press event (and emphasis on the discouraged as opposed to outright prohibited) was even affiliated with 2K Games or the people responsible for marketing the game. Who was this 'guy' who is allowed to speak for the games industry in its women-hating entirety?
Not agreeing with Kryptolojik here, but I don't see any problem with having press events exclusively for the target audience of a entertainment product. You don't hear anyone complaining that they held special screenings of the film Bridesmaids for real life brides (ie. no men allowed), because why the hell would a man want to go to that screening? I also doubt that not going to a 'wild party' in anyway prevented her from doing her unspecified job is. What was she even doing at the convention? Was it something to do with her job as consultant and PR manager? Perhaps she was working as a games journalist (no wait, the quality of the article suggests otherwise).
Apart from that, the article doesn't even state that the man who discouraged her from going to the press event (and emphasis on the discouraged as opposed to outright prohibited) was even affiliated with 2K Games or the people responsible for marketing the game. Who was this 'guy' who is allowed to speak for the games industry in its women-hating entirety?
'Compare that to any other form of art or expression:
Writing - thousands of years
Painting/visual arts - tens of thousand of years
Music - Also tens of thousands of years'
Name me one videogame that doesn't contain at least one of the following: writing, visual art (ie graphics) or music. The problem isn't the form, in fact there is no more misogyny in videogames then can be found in other art forms, it's just that videogames have a much smaller target demographic at the moment (one that is starting to open up). When videogames are as widely accepted as the other art forms you mention, then we will begin to see a greater variety of content in them, and just like other art forms some of this content will be mature or of artistic merit, some of it less so.
Writing - thousands of years
Painting/visual arts - tens of thousand of years
Music - Also tens of thousands of years'
Name me one videogame that doesn't contain at least one of the following: writing, visual art (ie graphics) or music. The problem isn't the form, in fact there is no more misogyny in videogames then can be found in other art forms, it's just that videogames have a much smaller target demographic at the moment (one that is starting to open up). When videogames are as widely accepted as the other art forms you mention, then we will begin to see a greater variety of content in them, and just like other art forms some of this content will be mature or of artistic merit, some of it less so.
'There are tons of games that they enjoy without being made to feel objectified.'
Unless, of course, they are playing with a guy who thinks a girl playing videogames is hot (exclamation mark).
Unless, of course, they are playing with a guy who thinks a girl playing videogames is hot (exclamation mark).
Well maybe the article should have focused on the sexism of the game, that, surely, being the root of any sexism surrounding it. The PR is clearly focused at the target audience set by the game itself.
Furthermore, who was this 'guy' who was possibly a games journalist, or a friend of a games journalist of just one of a bunch of guys who were friends with the games journalist, and what was his affiliation, if any, with 2K Games or the PR team working on it? What does this article even prove other than the fact a few 'guys' at a PR event for a game aggressively marketed towards the misogynistic, crude-minded, testosterone-controlled male gamer stereotype are a little bit sexist (even then, only in as much as they don't think a party whose main selling point was probably the objectification of women was not really the place for an actual honest-to-god woman with brains and thoughts and whatnot attached to their tits and ass.)
Furthermore, who was this 'guy' who was possibly a games journalist, or a friend of a games journalist of just one of a bunch of guys who were friends with the games journalist, and what was his affiliation, if any, with 2K Games or the PR team working on it? What does this article even prove other than the fact a few 'guys' at a PR event for a game aggressively marketed towards the misogynistic, crude-minded, testosterone-controlled male gamer stereotype are a little bit sexist (even then, only in as much as they don't think a party whose main selling point was probably the objectification of women was not really the place for an actual honest-to-god woman with brains and thoughts and whatnot attached to their tits and ass.)
Where do you video game bad guys come from?
Here's a hint: they don't come from countries where the games were made.
Here's a hint: they don't come from countries where the games were made.
@ObiWanMcColey: I had one on my actual penis when I was eleven. Tweezered it out myself and all.
@MrSnuffles: Wait how do you move and aim in a FPS if one analogue stick is dedicated to weapons? That just wouldn't work.
@Beasy: The fact is no one outside of North Korea really knows what's going on inside North Korea. This, combined with its undisguised enmity for 'the West' and the fact it is actively seeking to become a nuclear power make it a worrying, if somewhat impotent threat.
The only suspension of disbelief that the game is asking you to make in terms of its premise is that North Korea has somehow acquired the military strength to invade America. I don't think this is asking a lot; in all other regards North Korea is the perfect antagonist already in real life.
Finally, if we rejected every piece of fiction than presents a seemingly impossible scenario we wouldn't have literary classics like Frankenstein or Dracula which are still being studied hundreds of years after they were first published. (The link is a little tenuous but I'm studying Frankenstein at the moment; the point, I think, is valid though).
The only suspension of disbelief that the game is asking you to make in terms of its premise is that North Korea has somehow acquired the military strength to invade America. I don't think this is asking a lot; in all other regards North Korea is the perfect antagonist already in real life.
Finally, if we rejected every piece of fiction than presents a seemingly impossible scenario we wouldn't have literary classics like Frankenstein or Dracula which are still being studied hundreds of years after they were first published. (The link is a little tenuous but I'm studying Frankenstein at the moment; the point, I think, is valid though).
@Beasy: Jeez it's almost as if they were making this up or something.
@kencosgrove: 'world's most popular sport'? I think you mean America's most popular sport.
Definitely physical. Some people have mentioned that the physical stuff takes up space and it's only the kind of thing a die-hard fan would care about. Well that's why they're called Collector's Editions. They are for people who do want to and do have the space to display those kind of things.
As for digital goodies, they're just charging extra for stuff that once upon a time would have gone straight into the standard edition of the game. Game content should be limited to how much time and resources a studio has, not on whether or not you bought a more expensive version of the game. I'm not totally opposed to little extras, for example the Golden Lancer which came with the Gears of War 2 special edition, but anything that goes beyond a purely cosmetic re-skin of something small like a weapon is just wrong in my opinion.
As for digital goodies, they're just charging extra for stuff that once upon a time would have gone straight into the standard edition of the game. Game content should be limited to how much time and resources a studio has, not on whether or not you bought a more expensive version of the game. I'm not totally opposed to little extras, for example the Golden Lancer which came with the Gears of War 2 special edition, but anything that goes beyond a purely cosmetic re-skin of something small like a weapon is just wrong in my opinion.
@AJ: Whether they are good or not, the point I was making is that the reason the vast majority of people haven't read the Halo books is not, like you suggested, because people don't read enough these days. It's because video-game tie-in sci-fi novels aren't appealing to the vast majority of people.
@AJ: But when Halo: Combat Evolved was made there were no novels. Therefore the character that Bungie made for their video-game was pretty characterless.
'Read the books (oh shit, I forgot; who knows how to read these days...)'
I have never read the Halo books because they were not written to provoke thought and emote feelings, they weren't even written because the author had an interesting story to tell, they are attempts to cash in on a franchise, a franchise that comes from a medium that is not exactly known for the strength of it's writing. I would hazard a guess that they are pretty shit.
'Read the books (oh shit, I forgot; who knows how to read these days...)'
I have never read the Halo books because they were not written to provoke thought and emote feelings, they weren't even written because the author had an interesting story to tell, they are attempts to cash in on a franchise, a franchise that comes from a medium that is not exactly known for the strength of it's writing. I would hazard a guess that they are pretty shit.
Incredibly well done for an (almost definitely) fan-made machinima but the over-the top tag team cannonball special stuff just isn't Batman at all; he's all about maximum efficiency not double somersault flair.
@Archaotic: I don't play enough JRPGs to confirm this for myself but the way I understand it is that the majority of major JRPG releases are as equally homogenised as all the small budget rip-offs found in every genre. This may or may not be the case but I can comment on the fact that FPSs are not 'far, FAR more guilty of homogenization' than any other genre.
@Archaotic: TF2, Left4Dead, Half Life (1&2), Shadowrun, Gears of War (yes I know it's a TPS but it's the same kind of game), Halo. Those are my favourite shooters. Not only is each one vastly different from the others, they are all unique games.
OK so Halo hasn't innovated particularly since the first game and Gears of War has generic characters and has spawned countless imitators which makes it feel less original but I'm not entirely sure how you can say the genre is guilty of homogenisation.
The only truly plagiaristic FPS I can think of that has come out recently is Medal of Honour. CoD releases a new game every year so the market feels saturated that's all.
Edit. I forgot to mention Portal.
OK so Halo hasn't innovated particularly since the first game and Gears of War has generic characters and has spawned countless imitators which makes it feel less original but I'm not entirely sure how you can say the genre is guilty of homogenisation.
The only truly plagiaristic FPS I can think of that has come out recently is Medal of Honour. CoD releases a new game every year so the market feels saturated that's all.
Edit. I forgot to mention Portal.
