Do you think games are too woke?

[Shagger]

44 minutes ago, Crazycrab said:

 

The actual reason why ships in maritime tradition are referred to as "she" isn't all that clear or rational in the first place.  Some say it's a reference to the idea of goddesses and mother figures playing a protective role.  There was (and to some degree still is) a lot of superstition when it comes to ships and sailing.

 

All I know is the case of Bismarck they decided to make an exception.  It was a tribute to arguably the most powerful man in Europe in second half of the 19th century and they thought that "she" wouldn't have been appropriate.  It was also reported that the captain believed that since the ship had such massive biceps and solid steel pecks that it should be a "he"... Ok those probably weren't his literal words but you get the idea.

 

As to why the Tirpitz was still referred to as "she" and other ships from other countries (at least to my knowledge) never made the same exception even when the name is in reference to a male figure?  I DON'T KNOW, why do they have genders in the first place?  You seem to be looking for some logical explanation for choosing one pronoun over the other  in this situation when their is no logical reason to use either of them!  It's like shining a torch on a black hole and expecting to see what it looks like.

 

To sum up, you posted the question...

 

 

...as if there was no answer or at least not one that was attainable, but their is.  The answer is contradictory and doesn't make much sense BUT there is an answer.  It was a terrible example that doesn't drive the point you were trying to make at all.

 

17 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

I think another reason a lot of ships were always referred to as “she” is because 1000, 1500, 2000 years ago almost all nations were under the rule of some form of a monarchy. It was a reference to their queen being considered the owner of the ships they sailed on.

 

There is some logic to be found in what you said @Crazycrab, but that doesn't change the fact the Bismarck may be the only ship in history that has testicles, and there is nothing that anyone can say that will make that not weird.

 

@The Blackangel, it's just as likely those kingdoms were rules by a, you know, king? I don't know, I think @Crazycrab had point. The world is used to it, but if one actually stops and thinks about it, the thing about ships being female is a bit strange. The Bismarck being the only one with a dangle is just even stranger.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Shagger

[Reality vs Adventure]

11 hours ago, m76 said:

Some regularly misconstrue being progressive and open minded, with being woke.
And thus we see statements like "Star Trek has always been woke" which is blatantly false.
Star Trek was progressive, as it would include ideas, themes and representation that was not common at the time.

 

 

11 hours ago, m76 said:

Representation and progressivism in games is great, as long as it is not the end goal of the game, and story and world building comes first.

I'm a bit confused about your stance on progressives and your definition of woke and progressivism. Because I clearly remember you attacked progressives in games and I even posted a topic to debate it here: https://www.vgr.com/forum/topic/11744-what-exactly-do-progressives-believe/

I wouldn't have felt the need to post that topic if you didn't attack progressives here: https://www.vgr.com/forum/topic/11704-nearly-80-of-video-game-characters-are-male/page/2/#comment-81579

I think YOU are the one who is confused about woke and progressive

[The Blackangel]

3 hours ago, Shagger said:

 it's just as likely those kingdoms were rules by a, you know, king?

True, but typically from my experience everything I have ever encountered has always been “…her royal majesty’s…” without mention of the/a king. Even Columbus had to plead his case to the queens of both Italy and Spain in order for his cross-Atlantic voyage. Things in a functioning democracy typically have the First Lady just as involved if not more so than the president himself.

[Crazycrab]

26 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

True, but typically from my experience everything I have ever encountered has always been “…her royal majesty’s…” without mention of the/a king. Even Columbus had to plead his case to the queens of both Italy and Spain in order for his cross-Atlantic voyage. Things in a functioning democracy typically have the First Lady just as involved if not more so than the president himself.

 

When it comes to European history you might be being a little (albeit unintentionally) selective there.  I mean in the UK the last two centuries of the Monarchy have been dominated by woman with Queen Victoria at a reign of 63 years (1838 - 1901) was a record holder.  Then the current Queen Elizabeth was coronated in 1953 and is currently longest reigning monarch in British history at 68 Years and ongoing.

 

So that's recent history at least but in terms of the time periods you pointed out it's really just a coincidence.  Monarchs are not traditionally female or male dominated, it's just who happens to have the strongest claim in terms of ancestry.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Crazycrab

[The Blackangel]

12 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

When it comes to European history you might be being a little (albeit unintentionally) selective there.

I'm sure I am. Being American, the only political system I have any form of education on is our own of electing a president every 4 years. We are given a brief look at monarchy, but only because it was a factor in the American Revolution. I don't want to get into that though, because a lot of people on both sides of the pond are still butthurt over that war. 250 years, and people still whining. But then again, we have that with the Civil War. 160 years and a bunch of Confederate assholes still whining about losing.

So my knowledge of monarchical systems is very limited. Would you believe that a lot of people (Americans anyway) think the movie Braveheart is an accurate modern day depiction of what Scotland is like? Everyone running around in a kilt and carrying a claymore? There's also an extremely fucked up view of Mexico as well. Check this Family Guy clip to see what the majority of Americans think Mexico is like.

 

[Crazycrab]

3 hours ago, The Blackangel said:

So my knowledge of monarchical systems is very limited. Would you believe that a lot of people (Americans anyway) think the movie Braveheart is an accurate modern day depiction of what Scotland is like? Everyone running around in a kilt and carrying a claymore?

 

There's some people in Scotland that believe that movie's bullshit.  For example, did you know that Wallace and other lowland Scot's at the time NEVER wore kilts?  He dressed pretty much the same as the English and most of continental Europe with long sleeve tunics, trousers and when in battle chain mail Armour.  Yep, the guy getting his throat slit by Wallace in this scene is dressed closer to the historical William Wallace than Mel Gibson is!

 

 

That is just the tip of the iceberg of bullshit that movie presents.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Crazycrab

[The Blackangel]

Doesn't surprise me. Americans prefer stereotypes over facts. It has to be either more entertaining, or more comforting. Or both. Otherwise, Americans will reject it. We're basically ignorant pansies.

Edited January 9, 2022 by The Blackangel

[Boblee]

12 hours ago, The Blackangel said:

Doesn't surprise me. Americans prefer stereotypes over facts. It has to be either more entertaining, or more comforting. Or both. Otherwise, Americans will reject it. We're basically ignorant pansies.

Americans will always act like Americans, anyone who is expecting anything less than that is just kidding himself 😂. 

[The Blackangel]

2 hours ago, Boblee said:

Americans will always act like Americans, anyone who is expecting anything less than that is just kidding himself 😂. 

That's the sad and frightening thing.

[Empire]

Game development budgets have gotten so bloated just like Hollywood films. To get funding from certain 'entities', they need to push a certain agenda. A minor example of this is, $200 million movies that have the Pentagon/U.S. military approve the script before filming their armaments.

Imagine 1997's Starship Troopers trying to get funding in this post 9/11 era.

[m76]

On 1/9/2022 at 2:26 AM, Reality vs Adventure said:

 

I'm a bit confused about your stance on progressives and your definition of woke and progressivism. Because I clearly remember you attacked progressives in games and I even posted a topic to debate it here: https://www.vgr.com/forum/topic/11744-what-exactly-do-progressives-believe/

I wouldn't have felt the need to post that topic if you didn't attack progressives here: https://www.vgr.com/forum/topic/11704-nearly-80-of-video-game-characters-are-male/page/2/#comment-81579

I think YOU are the one who is confused about woke and progressive

Note that I said "so called progressives" which makes a huge difference. Not all who self identify as a 'progressive' are actually progressive. But there is no clear terminology established. They are sometimes referred to as regressives, wokists, sjws. But those are basically the same mindset.

[Shagger]

3 hours ago, m76 said:

Note that I said "so called progressives" which makes a huge difference. Not all who self identify as a 'progressive' are actually progressive. But there is no clear terminology established. They are sometimes referred to as regressives, wokists, sjws. But those are basically the same mindset.

 

I really am starting to tire of your attempts to insult the intelligence of the people who post on this forum. No only is all of that completely untrue, you're trying to muddle reality, clearly in the efforts to make you more straightforward, but misguided views more palatable. For your sake, I hope that's what you're doing because the only alternative that makes sense is that you don't really have a clue what you're talking about. Either, it's not going to work.

 

First of, it's very clear what "progressives" are as a social/political stance. It's people who believe in a progressive society. They believe that a society advances and best evolves through change rather than relying of older values. There not referred to as "regressives", that is really fucking stupid to say as that is literally the exact opposite. It's also not accurate nor fair to label them as "SJWs" or "Wokists" because there liberal extremes. It's like saying all Muslims are terrorists, which is obviously ridiculous. But of course, you'll paint everyone with liberal or progressive views with the same brush because that's what you, as someone so determined to push your own social/political ideology onto this forum, do. Sorry mate, but whilst you may be used to people who would fall at such propaganda and manipulation, we are not that stupid.

 

And that is what really annoys me about you. You come on this forum wanting us to be stupid, counting on us be be impressionable. What your doing here is wrong. It's morally questionable, it's lies whether you know that or not and it's insulting to this community that you think we are only here to soak up whatever you have to say, and how dare we question it. That's why you can't handle people disagreeing with you on your views, isn't it? For you it's not about personal, but optional, vindication of what you believe, for you it's the goal. The whole purpose of being here. When you don't get it (and let's face it, it's rare that you do), that's a failure on you part. However, you can't look at yourself and think "Maybe it's me that's wrong?", your overly inflated ego would never allow that. So you last out, accuse people of "attacking" you when all they're doing is challenging your opinions. Newsflash, that's what forums are for!

 

Me and others, like @Reality vs Adventure bring up you older posts and past behaviour like we do because you never learn from it. That has been personally frustrating to me since even your early days on VGR. I've said it before, I think you're a smart guy, but nobody, no matter how intelligent or knowledgeable they are, is ready to teach anyone anything unless they themselves are first able to learn. People offering vindication on what you say and especially how you feel are nice things, but if your not enough without them, trust me when I tell you you will not be enough with them. Ask yourself, are you here willing and able to learn? It partake of knowledge as will as impart it. If the answer is no, then I'm sorry, but I must inform you that you came here for the wrong reasons and I think you're wasting your time.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Shagger

[Boblee]

On 1/10/2022 at 12:28 PM, The Blackangel said:

That's the sad and frightening thing.

Truly, it's indeed sad and frightening but what can the world do about it but live and accept them the way they are? 

 

On 1/10/2022 at 12:40 PM, Empire said:

Game development budgets have gotten so bloated just like Hollywood films. To get funding from certain 'entities', they need to push a certain agenda. A minor example of this is, $200 million movies that have the Pentagon/U.S. military approve the script before filming their armaments.

Imagine 1997's Starship Troopers trying to get funding in this post 9/11 era.

Seriously, I can't imagine how that would be a possibility. 

[Clara_Morse]

On 1/8/2022 at 3:50 PM, Shagger said:

In response to the actual topic, there is only one difference between a game that's "woke" and a game that's "offensive", and it's not even in the game itself, but in the person observing it. They're both needlessly offended in a way that a civilised, sensible person wouldn't be observing the same thing, It's just as stupid for someone to be offended by a female character being needlessly sexualised as somebody being offended, and offended is the right word, by the same character now wearing jeans instead of skin tight short shorts.

 

I've been playing a game called The Vagrant on steam (I'm tempted to do a "Shagger Says" on this game when I'm done) and it's from a publisher that's known for catering to a, well, let's say "I'm not crying, but still need an ample supply of tissues" demographic. And yes, the protagonist looks lie she just walked of the set of "Lord of the G-Srings" or some shit. However, the game itself, that I only bought to use up leftover funds from my Steam wallet, is superb! A dark, gothic side scrolling JRPG in the art style of some Vanillaware games like Odin's Sphere. It's brilliant and I honestly don't think anyone's Steam library is right without it. The story is fantastic and really engaging, the gameplay is satisfying, it is gorgeous and at $4 it is the bargain of the century. The main character may be drawn like she belongs in a god damb hentai, but that is the last reason anyone should choose to buy or not buy this game. However, there will be people who will do one thing or the other and it is not fair on the game. So because of that, I would say they would have been better of designing the main character in a way that was more, let's say, subtle. Does that mean I'm offended by the way she looks? No. If I was, I wouldn't have tried the game to begin with. Did the way she looked persuade me to buy the game? Again, no. Like it or not, when you swim through the bargin basement on Steam, the kindest thing I can say is that it's an ocean of lowest common denominator mucus, so even The Vagrant actually stands out as something to take at least a little bit more seriously. Like I said, I might do a full boar full roar "Shagger Say's" on the game, but TL;DR is, it's $4, buy it, I promise you won't regret it.

 

I used "the Vagrant" as an example of how I'm a rational person and how I hoped everyone would view a game like that. I understand why some people would attack the game over the design of the main character and I would too if the game used that as crutch because it had no other way to stand on it's own, but that just isn't the case. There will be people who will defend the game from such attacks because "complaining about it makes you woke", and to me that's at least just as stupid.

 

Don't jump on hate trains or bandwagons, don't stand up for any cause other than your own and what you truly believe in, and if you do, make it about something that actually matters.

 

great point! 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Shagger

[Shortie]

I don't have any issues with games and I feel that a lot of what we see in games now is something we need to adjust to. Of course you will get some who will not adjust and have something to say about it which causes debates and issues but the reality is that we are going to see these things and we are going to have to adapt in the future.