Post by crocodile on Jan 8, 2016 10:43:58 GMT -6
For what it's worth, if the aim is to increase visibility of the curse and also move the mark closer to Miriam's actual heart, moving the mark lower on the breast is actually the correct thing to do.
While I agree that diversity in a lot of cases is a good thing and having more of it is not a "sad thing", calling for "more" diversity simply for the sake of having more diversity I don't think is necessarily a good thing. Sometimes segregation and/or limiting options is a good thing. Discrimination can have positive effects that outweigh potentially negative ones. And when it comes to art, so long no harm is intended from its creation and no direct harm comes to people from its creation, let the artist do their art. For those of us in the US, I find that we have kind of a bipolar conservative/liberal view point on many things, like sexualization. We all bounce back and forth about what is offensive, what is desirable, what is acceptable, and what is intolerable. Where as in Japanese culture sexualization, and even OVER sexualization, seems to be pretty much accepted as "mainstream" and just "part of doin' business". Just as much as we have multiple different views on "how the world SHOULD BE" we must also remember that other cultures have their own views on the subject that can be wildly different from our own. We may even consider them to be morally wrong views. But just because we think they're wrong does that make them so? Of course not. Now if people, property, and/or the like are getting harmed or destroyed then yes, I would hope that EVERYONE could universally agree that those things are wrong. But even that must be tempered by the decision of what we consider harm. Physical harm is pretty obvious. Mental harm not so much.
Discrimination can be good? You're going to have to provide examples because I'm really not sure where you're going with that. Most video games aren't historically accurate recreations of the past nor do they seek to discuss the topic of discrimination, racism, sexism, etc. in a mature way and thus require those aspects to be in their product. Also nobody is asking for tokens, they are just asking for more and better representation. With regards to the US being "bipolar", I don't think that's odd considering how much larger and more diverse the population of the country is compared to Japan. You're going to get a larger swath of diverse opinions - there's no way to avoid that. I understand Japanese culture is overall very different and I appreciate that (I consume a lot of Japanese media and appreciate its differences) but that doesn't mean its above reproach or criticisms. Nobody is perfect after all. If people are allowed to criticize the US for say our Gun culture (and they are), they are certainly allowed to criticize Japan for say its Youth culture that is taken a step too far. You can still love their output overall while critiquing the aspects of it you don't like.
AND BEFORE EITHER SIDE STARTS A FLAME WAR ON THE TOPIC OF MENTAL HARM.... yes some "mental trauma" is necessary in this world to prepare you for dealing with those in society who will refuse to play by the rules and either won't care if they hurt you or will intentionally hurt for no reason other than their pleasure, or even no reason at all ("You were just there."). You cannot and should not coddle everyone. But by the same token, you cannot say that everyone just needs to "suck it up and grow a thicker skin". I do believe that there are people who really do not have the mental faculties to handle that kind of stress, or any stress at all. Just the same as military life is not for everyone in that not everyone can handle the stress from the threat of being potentially shot and killed at any given moment, some people simply cannot even handle being called names by those around them. Now that's nothing to say anything about how those people can be identified and given the help they need versus people who honestly, "just need to stop whining and get on with life". I do not, however, believe that the people who "cannot handle life" make up a vast majority of the public and rather, I am confident they are a small minority of the population. Either way, they should not be ignored but should also not be used as an example of the expectations that others will and should be held to.
Was this meant as a response or a rebuttal to a different post? I'm really lost with what this is doing here. This seems like a weird tangent otherwise.
Asking for diversity isn't leading to homogenization, its leading to heterogeneity as we see perspectives, character designs, narratives, etc. in the gaming industry now that you wouldn't see 5, 10, 20 years ago. Nobody (or at least no large group of people) is saying you can't make an all white cast or whatever and nobody is not being allowed to do anything - people are merely commenting and critiquing. Me, personally? I tend to celebrate the products I want rather than shout down the products I dislike unless I feel a line is crossed. Where that line rests for a product though will vary from product to product and situation to situation. Anyway, whether the critiques and comments on a product have a leg to stand on or not will vary from situation to situation - sometimes they may be completely misplaced or sometimes they might be on the money. I think in this circumstance, the topic that started this thread, they are off the mark and should be ignored but that doesn't mean people aren't free to politely express them (which for the most part they have).
Actually... Depending on WHAT exactly was "shitty" and how I went about making the complaint, that response is EXACTLY THE RESPONSE I WOULD EXPECT TO GET... Followed by promptly being asked to leave or being thrown out. And this is not a subpar retort. This is a statement of, "You shouldn't be allowed to force someone to do something they don't want to, just because it's just what you want." If you go to an artist for a painting of a landscape and ask for a painting of a grass field, if they reply with, "well I really don't like doing grass fields.", then that's where the discussion should end. You should just go find a different artist, or... *gasp* try painting your own landscape the way you want it. You shouldn't be allowed to force the artist to make a grass field painting simply because, "Well, they're an artist and I want a painting of a grass field!"
Now if the artist agrees to do "what you want" then you have a right to complain/critique the finished work because after all the artist, "agreed to give you what you wanted" And the same goes with the restaurant example. When you go to a specific restaurant you are not going there to tell them, "This the food I want, and this is how I want it prepared, and this is how much I will pay for it." No, you're going there because someone decided to open up a shop an said, "Here is the food I am offering, here is how it's being prepared, and here's how much it cost." and you decided that you liked one of the things they offered, how it was prepared, and were willing to pay the price requested for the food. Now if you bought cooked chicken and it was given to you raw, then yes, complain, demand a refund, demand the mistake be corrected. But if you order a beef steak, don't complain that it tastes nothing like lobster.
Yeah there are a lot of analogies in here that aren't working or kind of tangential to the conversation. With the restaurant example, "why don't YOU do it if you don't like it?!" is not a rebuttal to a substandard meal - you paid for and expected X and if you get X - Y (something below the reasonable standards of expectations) you are entitled to complain. Essentially, one does not have to be able to make a product or render a service themselves to be able to critique a similar product or service from someone else. It behooves the complainer to be at least aware of what it entails to produce said product/service (often gamers don't know how hard it is to actually make games so they often make asinine complaints) but again, just because I'm not a chef doesn't mean I can't complain if I get a shitty meal.
As for your artist example, the timing is off. This isn't a case of a patron chewing out an artist for refusing to accept a commission for a particular piece of work but rather an artist having already accepted a commission and offering their patron a peek of a WIP. The patron is allowed to say "I'm not a fan of this element". Again they may be off the mark for a variety of reasons but they have the right to say that. The artist can then decide "maybe they have a point?" or they can say "sorry, I think you're wrong - trust me of this I know what I'm doing". Again, hopefully in this scenario the later option is chosen but either way this is an acceptable interaction and I think most people aren't crossing any lines. I've seen a few out there who I think say things that make me roll my eyes or SMH but they still have the right to say it. Also, let's remember, there are few people on either "side" that are actually outraged.
The power of the dollar is the best way to affect change within the context of capitalism but many times producers can have no idea why a product they made isn't selling. So often commentary is useful and needed in combination with a boycott to make sure the change you seek to enact actually happens - or that producers at least consider your vantage point. With Konami, nothing we say matters because they only care about the bottom line (which isn't inherently bad for a business to do) and because they are HUGE assholes (this is a big problem though for any business).
While I agree that diversity in a lot of cases is a good thing and having more of it is not a "sad thing", calling for "more" diversity simply for the sake of having more diversity I don't think is necessarily a good thing. Sometimes segregation and/or limiting options is a good thing. Discrimination can have positive effects that outweigh potentially negative ones. And when it comes to art, so long no harm is intended from its creation and no direct harm comes to people from its creation, let the artist do their art. For those of us in the US, I find that we have kind of a bipolar conservative/liberal view point on many things, like sexualization. We all bounce back and forth about what is offensive, what is desirable, what is acceptable, and what is intolerable. Where as in Japanese culture sexualization, and even OVER sexualization, seems to be pretty much accepted as "mainstream" and just "part of doin' business". Just as much as we have multiple different views on "how the world SHOULD BE" we must also remember that other cultures have their own views on the subject that can be wildly different from our own. We may even consider them to be morally wrong views. But just because we think they're wrong does that make them so? Of course not. Now if people, property, and/or the like are getting harmed or destroyed then yes, I would hope that EVERYONE could universally agree that those things are wrong. But even that must be tempered by the decision of what we consider harm. Physical harm is pretty obvious. Mental harm not so much.
Discrimination can be good? You're going to have to provide examples because I'm really not sure where you're going with that. Most video games aren't historically accurate recreations of the past nor do they seek to discuss the topic of discrimination, racism, sexism, etc. in a mature way and thus require those aspects to be in their product. Also nobody is asking for tokens, they are just asking for more and better representation. With regards to the US being "bipolar", I don't think that's odd considering how much larger and more diverse the population of the country is compared to Japan. You're going to get a larger swath of diverse opinions - there's no way to avoid that. I understand Japanese culture is overall very different and I appreciate that (I consume a lot of Japanese media and appreciate its differences) but that doesn't mean its above reproach or criticisms. Nobody is perfect after all. If people are allowed to criticize the US for say our Gun culture (and they are), they are certainly allowed to criticize Japan for say its Youth culture that is taken a step too far. You can still love their output overall while critiquing the aspects of it you don't like.
AND BEFORE EITHER SIDE STARTS A FLAME WAR ON THE TOPIC OF MENTAL HARM.... yes some "mental trauma" is necessary in this world to prepare you for dealing with those in society who will refuse to play by the rules and either won't care if they hurt you or will intentionally hurt for no reason other than their pleasure, or even no reason at all ("You were just there."). You cannot and should not coddle everyone. But by the same token, you cannot say that everyone just needs to "suck it up and grow a thicker skin". I do believe that there are people who really do not have the mental faculties to handle that kind of stress, or any stress at all. Just the same as military life is not for everyone in that not everyone can handle the stress from the threat of being potentially shot and killed at any given moment, some people simply cannot even handle being called names by those around them. Now that's nothing to say anything about how those people can be identified and given the help they need versus people who honestly, "just need to stop whining and get on with life". I do not, however, believe that the people who "cannot handle life" make up a vast majority of the public and rather, I am confident they are a small minority of the population. Either way, they should not be ignored but should also not be used as an example of the expectations that others will and should be held to.
Was this meant as a response or a rebuttal to a different post? I'm really lost with what this is doing here. This seems like a weird tangent otherwise.
Back on topic... If a company or artist wants to make a game with an all white cast. They should be allowed. If they want to make an all female cast, they should be allowed. If they want to make a game about a transgender transexual brothel with a cast featuring gays, obese transvestites, bulimic drag queens, anorexic cross dressers, and diabetic clowns... They should more than be allowed to make that game. But NO ONE should be telling them, "You're cast isn't diverse enough. You need to add these characters to this game.", or the reverse of "We don't like THOSE kinds of people. You shouldn't have those kinds of characters in this game." Please note that this IS DIFFERENT from asking to have games made with other characters. One is asking for an artist to change a work simply to suit your specific tastes. The other is asking for a different piece of art to suit your specific tastes.
Again, I have nothing against diversity and I think that it is in general a good thing, but not diversity for its own sake. After all, we ARE all humans and in the end diversity is technically about individualism and people being different, not the same. (no, furries don't count
) ((I'm kidding))
Again, I have nothing against diversity and I think that it is in general a good thing, but not diversity for its own sake. After all, we ARE all humans and in the end diversity is technically about individualism and people being different, not the same. (no, furries don't count
) ((I'm kidding))Asking for diversity isn't leading to homogenization, its leading to heterogeneity as we see perspectives, character designs, narratives, etc. in the gaming industry now that you wouldn't see 5, 10, 20 years ago. Nobody (or at least no large group of people) is saying you can't make an all white cast or whatever and nobody is not being allowed to do anything - people are merely commenting and critiquing. Me, personally? I tend to celebrate the products I want rather than shout down the products I dislike unless I feel a line is crossed. Where that line rests for a product though will vary from product to product and situation to situation. Anyway, whether the critiques and comments on a product have a leg to stand on or not will vary from situation to situation - sometimes they may be completely misplaced or sometimes they might be on the money. I think in this circumstance, the topic that started this thread, they are off the mark and should be ignored but that doesn't mean people aren't free to politely express them (which for the most part they have).
Actually... Depending on WHAT exactly was "shitty" and how I went about making the complaint, that response is EXACTLY THE RESPONSE I WOULD EXPECT TO GET... Followed by promptly being asked to leave or being thrown out. And this is not a subpar retort. This is a statement of, "You shouldn't be allowed to force someone to do something they don't want to, just because it's just what you want." If you go to an artist for a painting of a landscape and ask for a painting of a grass field, if they reply with, "well I really don't like doing grass fields.", then that's where the discussion should end. You should just go find a different artist, or... *gasp* try painting your own landscape the way you want it. You shouldn't be allowed to force the artist to make a grass field painting simply because, "Well, they're an artist and I want a painting of a grass field!"
Now if the artist agrees to do "what you want" then you have a right to complain/critique the finished work because after all the artist, "agreed to give you what you wanted" And the same goes with the restaurant example. When you go to a specific restaurant you are not going there to tell them, "This the food I want, and this is how I want it prepared, and this is how much I will pay for it." No, you're going there because someone decided to open up a shop an said, "Here is the food I am offering, here is how it's being prepared, and here's how much it cost." and you decided that you liked one of the things they offered, how it was prepared, and were willing to pay the price requested for the food. Now if you bought cooked chicken and it was given to you raw, then yes, complain, demand a refund, demand the mistake be corrected. But if you order a beef steak, don't complain that it tastes nothing like lobster.
Yeah there are a lot of analogies in here that aren't working or kind of tangential to the conversation. With the restaurant example, "why don't YOU do it if you don't like it?!" is not a rebuttal to a substandard meal - you paid for and expected X and if you get X - Y (something below the reasonable standards of expectations) you are entitled to complain. Essentially, one does not have to be able to make a product or render a service themselves to be able to critique a similar product or service from someone else. It behooves the complainer to be at least aware of what it entails to produce said product/service (often gamers don't know how hard it is to actually make games so they often make asinine complaints) but again, just because I'm not a chef doesn't mean I can't complain if I get a shitty meal.
As for your artist example, the timing is off. This isn't a case of a patron chewing out an artist for refusing to accept a commission for a particular piece of work but rather an artist having already accepted a commission and offering their patron a peek of a WIP. The patron is allowed to say "I'm not a fan of this element". Again they may be off the mark for a variety of reasons but they have the right to say that. The artist can then decide "maybe they have a point?" or they can say "sorry, I think you're wrong - trust me of this I know what I'm doing". Again, hopefully in this scenario the later option is chosen but either way this is an acceptable interaction and I think most people aren't crossing any lines. I've seen a few out there who I think say things that make me roll my eyes or SMH but they still have the right to say it. Also, let's remember, there are few people on either "side" that are actually outraged.
The same goes for the game. If you feel that strongly that you don't like the look of a video game's character, then don't get the game. But don't complain that they should change the game just for you.
Heck the whole thing with Konami falls in this category. Don't like what Konami is doing? Don't buy their stuff. And the people who do like what Konami is doing WILL buy their stuff. And so long as there are enough people buying Konami's stuff to make them more money than they spend they'll stay in business despite what the rest of us think of the products they make. But for ANY of us to FORCE Konami to change their ways, much as we might disagree with them, is wrong.
Heck the whole thing with Konami falls in this category. Don't like what Konami is doing? Don't buy their stuff. And the people who do like what Konami is doing WILL buy their stuff. And so long as there are enough people buying Konami's stuff to make them more money than they spend they'll stay in business despite what the rest of us think of the products they make. But for ANY of us to FORCE Konami to change their ways, much as we might disagree with them, is wrong.
The power of the dollar is the best way to affect change within the context of capitalism but many times producers can have no idea why a product they made isn't selling. So often commentary is useful and needed in combination with a boycott to make sure the change you seek to enact actually happens - or that producers at least consider your vantage point. With Konami, nothing we say matters because they only care about the bottom line (which isn't inherently bad for a business to do) and because they are HUGE assholes (this is a big problem though for any business).
quack
yey