Critical Thoughts: Batman: Arkham Asylum
In one weekend, I both purchased and completed Batman: Arkham Asylum. I take my time with games, and am typically a chain-gamer, playing at any given time five or six games at once. This both says something about the game and about my interest in said game. Yes, it is very well-designed. Yes, it is entertaining. One might even call it a stellar game.
Quite simply, as Chris Lewis puts it: It's the Bat!. The ability to play as Batman and do it well says much for the game and how it is executed. Rarely are licensed games this great, and if they are, they are usually not attached to a specific event in another medium, but willing to explore the world of a franchise.
However, after finishing, there were gnawing suspicions playing around in my head, so I checked my RSS feeds to see what else was said, to better inform and discuss the issue. Like with any other media, I believe that even if I like something, it can be better appreciated after teasing a few issues I may have with it and seeing how it better informs my interaction with said medium. That is the caveat to this article.
I decided to share with you all what I read after the jump, and gather your thoughts as well (this will include spoilers for those wishing to avoid them)..
The first thing that struck me is how some things in the game are more focused on the gimmick of being a game than any inherent logic to its story. As Michel McBride-Charpentier points out, the Riddler serves little purpose beyond the game other than an experience boost and trophy acquisition. While a step up from Assassin's Creed's flags only being used to get you to explore the environment (and the resulting achievements), the narrative arc that occurs during the Riddler challenges does not really lead anywhere. After finding all but a handful of trophies, Batman will say he's locking on Riddler's signal; after finding all, there is a revealing audio track where we find out Riddler had something planned--something we never unearth, though we are called the Great Detective.
None of the trophies ever allude to this plan, which seems very uncharacteristic of the Riddler's motives and method of operation. Overall, the method with which this was approached was brilliant, but it felt a bit too apart from anything on which I, as Batman, had any impact on in the slightest.
Then there exists the dialog between Travis Megill and Justin Keverne regarding the treatment of the mentally ill in the game. We're not talking Joker and the Blackgate mercenaries, but how every mentally ill person is a stark-raving lunatic who attempts to run at Batman and attack him. The response is then to beat that person into the ground; while we're told through both Batman's Detective Mode and story that Batman is not killing them, just knocking them out, this is not softened by Batman pummeling said inmates into the ground. There is also the slightly troubling fact that all the mentally ill seem to be of the same ilk and have the exact same disorders that manifest in the exact same way--something that makes sense in a game's terms, but I find difficult to accept, making a quick mental note to myself that only in 1973 did the DSM de-list homosexuality as a mental disorder and place it in the realm of a sexual variant.
None of this is to suggest the game is bad or that it should be avoided, however. In fact, as Travis states:
I'm not interested in making people feel guilty for playing Batman: Arkham Asylum, or stirring up some controversy to make people avoid playing it. The game simply presents an opportunity to bring up an issue that doesn't get enough attention. I plan to continue enjoying the fantasy of inhabiting the character of Batman, and would recommend the game to others.
This is largely how I feel about the game; especially as it seems there are some things I am willing to forgive in this, a game about Batman, that I would find worse in other games. Such as the fact that Batman as a character is never really developed, but is merely a vessel for us with no progression. The closest we get are through the brilliant Scarecrow fear-induced levels, where we face the specter of Batman's dead parents, but never quite the more interesting psychological development that Batman is no more sane than any of the patients he places in Arkham (something the comic Arkham Asylum: Serious House on Serious Earth explored). On the other hand, the moment where I was the child Bruce Wayne had all the more impact because there was nothing else in the game that really alluded to such.
So, if we can admit the game is entertaining and well-executed for the most part, are these issues that you see as worthy of taking note? Are there other issues that struck you?
VorpalBunny
Posted to Video Games on 29 September 2009
· Comments (44)
Other stuff like this: batman: arkham asylum, critical thoughts, rocksteady
The game is amazing, probably one of the best I've played in a long time. To pick at so finely ignores the fact that no game is perfect and in total it is a spectacular experience. Sure they could have built upon it in certain ways but overall it is a very solid game. I think it's being too critical of a game.
I wish the avatars would stop yelling at me while I examine a room for the Riddler's clues. Yes, I'm coming, hold your goddamned horses.
Seriously, I agree with Lain1k. A bit too critical on the issue of mental health.
We *are* playing a game about an obsessed guy wearing tights in public, remember.
Of course a quick voice over from the Joker stating that he gassed these poor souls to make them behave that way might have softened the blow.
But that wouldn't explain the S&M gear that most of them wear...
Arkham is a jail for the "criminally insane" rather than just regular people with mental illness. Within the world of the comic book/game, anyone in there is a convicted criminal, most of which were put there by Batman and they therefore mean him harm. I don't think one should take from this that anyone is encouraged to look at everyone with mental illness this way.
I kinda feel like it's become my standard response to these sort of things at GG and I don't mean to be "that guy," but isn't this complaint a bit of an overreaction? Who looks to a video game about Batman for a responsible social commentary? I'm sure it wasn't exactly your intent, but stretching this issue into a criticism about a 35 year-old version of the (unrelated) DSM seems a bit like a manipulation to try to make the readers think this issue matters more than it does. I've said it before, but don't we have enough real problems without having to go looking for them?
Personally, I see the greater issue as one of video game logic differing from real-world logic. The Riddler trophies, as was mentioned, rely entirely on video game logic to make sense, since they don't amount to the culmination of a unifying riddle that would be consistent with the character.
Likewise with the inmates. Gameplay-wise they make sense. The "lunatic" enemies serve the purpose of providing an enemy with different attack patterns than the typical thugs. In that sense they succeed. However, as was pointed out, in the real world mental illnesses, even for the criminally insane, do not always appear with the exact same symptoms in every single case. Perhaps some of the "insane" enemies should have cowered in a corner at seeing Batman, or ignored him to perform some other action, but these actions would not serve the same gameplay purpose so in a video game they don't work as well.
I think the greater question though is should they have even been in the game? I love Batman: Arkham Asylum, it's easily my favorite game so far this year, but I think it could have done with a bit less combat. The most enjoyable parts for me were when I was sneaking around, picking thugs off one by one. And though the combat was very refined and enjoyable, I couldn't help but feel like there were too many mindless thugs wandering around (another piece of video game logic: there should always be an endless supply of enemies to fight). For me, Arkham Asylum could have been an even better game if it had borrowed from Shadow of the Colossus with the main portions of the game consisting of exploration and puzzles (without combat) and the payoff at the end of a puzzle being a super villain confrontation or a stealth/combat portion.
I'm inclined to agree with 30th Century Man here.
While I'll agree with the analysis that Batman himself is rather... stagnant as a character, I'd also like to remind you that -he's the goddamn Batman-. People expect him to be gruff, nearly emotionless, and overall a complete badass. But that's not the point of this comment. The point is this:
Really, picking at the treatment of the mentally ill in this game, and the bit about homosexuality having been classified as a mental illness is a bit... Well, come on. That has virtually nothing to do with this game. Sometimes I feel like the reviews and critiques here will do anything to criticize a game on the grounds of its treatment of homosexuality, even if they have to make a stretch as far as, "Batman's beating up criminally insane people, which could be vaguely perceived as a treatment of the mentally ill, and -thirty-six freaking years ago- homosexuality was classified as a mental illness." Really, guys...
But as 30th Century Man said, if you know about the Batman universe, then you know that the asylum's proper name is the Elizabeth Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane. Emphasis on the word "criminally." While the game does state that Arkham has a "normal" wing for patients who are merely mentally ill or disturbed, it is never any secret that you're not in that wing. You go through all sorts of security measures to get into the building at the beginning of the game.
The people you are up against are not just mentally ill, they are absolutely batshit insane and intent on murdering you. This is not the Arkham Asylum for Troubled Teens. This is the Arkham Asylum for the I-want-to-rip-your-throat-out-with-my-teeth Insane. Of course he's going to defend himself against them, and of course he's going to do that by punching them in the face a few times (in admittedly viscerally satisfying ways).
First, I'd like to nominate "This is not the Arkham Asylum for Troubled Teens. This is the Arkham Asylum for the I-want-to-rip-your-throat-out-with-my-teeth Insane," for comment of the year.
Anyway, not to pile on even more, but I just feel like between this, the recent complaining about Massive Effect and the campaign against "Dante's Inferno," it just feels like some writers on the site are looking for excuses to be offended and it's feeling a little "Fox News."
What's great about GG is that it's a place for us to come and talk about something we love in an environment where we don't have to worry about getting called "faggot" by an 8th grader. It's a place where, for once, we can let the guard down, be gamers first, and not have to stay vigilant about letting a little "gay" slip through the cracks. We shouldn't have to turn everything about games into a gay issue of some kind because there are plenty of more appropriate places to discuss serious political issues than in a review of a Batman game and this is the one place where we're supposed to be able to just come and relax.
If someone comes out with "Queer Killer Online" for the Xbox360, then yes, please call attention to it. However, also keep in mind that while the game playing audience isn't always the most mature, the people making these games tend to be made of of fairly open minded people who don't intend to deliver messages of intolerance or hate. Therefore, what we don't want to do is turn into an overzealous watchdog group that's impossible to please.
Again, I understand that this probably isn't the intention, but too many little things turn into one big thing so I guess I'd just encourage the writers to pick their battles. That way, when there's a battle really worth fighting, everyone will know that it's worth paying attention to.
Thank you, thank you. I try my best.
But yes, I'm in full agreement. Just because this is a site for Gay Gamer doesn't mean that every little thing has to be made into a huge deal. The phrase, "mountains of molehills," springs to mind.
The whole deal with Dante's Inferno was so out of hand. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one around here that feels that way.
"Perhaps some of the "insane" enemies should have cowered in a corner"
Actually, there were some "prop" lunatics that did just that (especially before the mass breakout), but they were few and far between. Also, there's at least one weird unique model non-combative gibbering lunatic forever locked in the upper floor of the room that holds Clayface (awesome cameo, by the way... did you notice that when you scan him he has no skeleton?).
Perhaps GayGamer should have an editorial column to post critiques similar to this, I found the article very thought provoking. An insightful excursion into game design and a segue using related articles to connect it to a historical homosexual topic to promote discussion.
Why does bringing up this oft-quoted issue cause people to throw it away as an attempt to make controversy, when it is part of our history and bares a resemblance to how some people live today? How involved or informed are we with our homosexual community?
(Now go forth to Wikipedia and learn stuff you didn't know, but always check the sources.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_opposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_criticism
"What's great about GG is that it's a place for us to come and talk about something we love in an environment where we don't have to worry about getting called "faggot" by an 8th grader. It's a place where, for once, we can let the guard down, be gamers first, and not have to stay vigilant about letting a little "gay" slip through the cracks. We shouldn't have to turn everything about games into a gay issue of some kind because there are plenty of more appropriate places to discuss serious political issues than in a review of a Batman game and this is the one place where we're supposed to be able to just come and relax."
--
I personally have a bit of trouble with this mentality. First off, I'm not entirely certain why someone here writing a more serious article is somehow ruining your ability to "come and relax." In the end you're not forced to read anything here, much less leave a comment, so I don't really understand the complaint.
Secondly, there's sadly an extreme lacking of any sort of "serious" discussion re: gamers in the LGBT community. Every now and then something big enough will happen where it hits the mainstream sites, either because a straight writer created an article about it or a LGBT writer for another site wrote something up. As a site dedicated specifically to this sort of exploration, the gambit necessarily should range from the wacky reviews to the more serious articles. I will also point out that Vorpal essentially quoted two other writers for this piece, it's not like he pulled the issue out of thin air. Similarly with Dante's Inferno, GG is hardly the first place to take offense with EA's marketing for that game. Several other sites have strictly called for a press boycott of the game altogether, long before anything critical came up here.
Ultimately when I was invited to write here it was under the agreement that I wouldn't necessarily be spending all my time writing light-hearted reviews. I wanted to generate discussion about some of the larger gay-political issues that rarely get any face time on other sites unless, to use your example, someone comes out with "Queer Killer Online." I have thus far really enjoyed the articles Vorpal has brought here, and appreciate the fact that he's written them. If you disagree with his, or any of the writers here, take on an issue, then that's what the comments are for. But I find people saying essentially complaining that an article is too serious and we should "relax" a bit off-- if you guys want the same reviews as written on a hundred different gaming sites, those already exist, and personally I won't really be using my slot to cater to it and I certainly hope the other writers don't feel pressured into that expectation either. That wasn't what the site was to me before I started writing here and I don't believe that should be its goal now.
Why does everything in the game seem to be textured/molded out of clay? Even metal.
Mixvio:
I'm not complaining that the article is too serious. I'm complaining that the article's points are simply not good ones. Yes, even the ones quoted from other writers.
The mentally insane issue? As I addressed, you're in the Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane. Most of the inmates there, Batman put away himself. This is explained in the game, every bit of it. They're CRIMINALLY insane. Also, this is a fantasy world. It doesn't say, "This is how schizophrenic people act, every one of them!" As far as I remember, it doesn't even name particular mental illnesses. You just know that they're criminally insane and out to get Batman. I doubt any more than 1% of the audience played through that game thinking, "Well this is a terrible and distasteful representation of the mentally ill." I mean, hell, Joker, Two-Face, the lot of them. They're all inmates at Arkham. Is anyone citing them as poor representations of the mentally ill? No, because they're criminally batshit insane, and it's what people expect, and most people won't even draw the connection between feral madmen in a game based on a comic book and people with depression, schizophrenia, and other real mental illnesses in the real world.
The bit about criminal insanity>>mental illness>>homosexuality is the one I have a huge beef with, though. Yes, I'm gay, and I'm all for addressing issues with homosexuality, but that was such a reach to pull homosexuality into things that Mr. Fantastic himself would have struggled to make that stretch.
Again, I'm all for serious discussions, but sometimes I feel like the writers around here -- and many of the forum-goers, as well -- will make huge stretches in order to somehow tie homosexuality into the issue.
Yes, it's a gay gaming site, but that doesn't mean that every single article has to pertain to homosexuality in some way. Sometimes, it'll just be a gaming news piece. I would have probably been perfectly okay with this criticism were it not for that. Albeit, I still would have disagreed with the "poor treatment of the mentally ill," bit, but I would have seen the point of view and rebutted it thusly.
What I'm meaning to say is that I believe you're missing the points of 30th Century Man's and my own posts. We're not trying to say that this shouldn't be a forum for serious discussion. It absolutely should be. We're not saying it shouldn't be a place for serious discussion about LGBT issues in games, either. It absolutely should be. But save it for when there's actually an issue, and not some perceived slight against the gay community. Don't shoehorn it in there when it doesn't need to be.
Oh, and as an aside, and something I didn't address in my original post: I really, really enjoyed hunting for the Riddler trophies and solving his riddles (I loved the creative ways they found to make you have to get JUST the right perspective to find the question mark), but it just seemed so... separated from the rest of the game, and so un-Riddler-like. I mean, what was the point of all the trophies and stuff? Just to test Batman's wits? I mean, sure, I can see it I guess, but I had thought that surely there had to be some larger scheme.
That disappointed me greatly, as I've always really enjoyed The Riddler's genius schemes, and seeing them all come together.
I don't really think Vorpal shoe-horned it in; it's the last half of one sentence in the entire article, an aside of "Oh and up until recently homosexuality was considered a mental illness too." It was hardly the focus of the entire entry as far as I read. And, again pointing this out, Vorpal is covering the criticisms leveled at the game by other people, not conjuring this out himself. Coverage that, I suspect, is the point of a news site. Just like with the gripe about Dante's Inferno coverage, a wide majority of gaming sites have been complaining about the game's advertising (and how sexist the comic convention contest was), and almost all of those complaints are coming from heterosexual writers. I don't follow the forums so I can't say anything about that, but in terms of articles I've read here I really haven't seen anything that made me feel like it was reaching for a way to complain about gay people-- I can't empathize with it on the level you seem to feel it's an annoyance.
"Perceived slights" are dependent upon the person who feels slighted; just because one person doesn't feel there's an issue doesn't necessarily imply there isn't one, or it's all in the head of the person who speaks out about it.
It is reasons like these that I enjoy bringing up points like this, and really take no offense at anything leveled toward this article.
As NaviFairy pointed out, most of this is due to videogame logic, which is perhaps where my point of consternation for a few things in this game stem (including the boss fights I did not mention--Joker and Poison Ivy in particular).
As you have very succinctly pointed out, this is an asylum for the criminally insane, but I find it hard to believe that these enemies would be easily replicable and designed to adhere to older notions of what that means. It's an easy out; one that I can understand, but one that I would like to question. I have not fully made up my mind on the issue, but feel it could bear some discussion.
The point concerning homosexuality was one that occurred to me as I read these articles, as homosexuality was not only psychologically considered a disorder, but criminally punishable. If you disagree, please feel free to do so.
But yes, while I enjoyed hunting for Riddler's trophies, by the end it felt like finishing a big, empty calorie meal. Yes, I had accomplished something, but it felt far too bloated.
And again, I enjoyed the game, but these were small things that caught my attention. It can sometimes, I will admit not always, be useful to examine these things to look at how future iterations could strive to do better.
"... a few things in this game stem (including the boss fights I did not mention--Joker and Poison Ivy in particular)."
Haha. Get it? Stem? Poison Ivy? ... No? Okay, fine.
Yeah, the bottom line is that it's simply a conflict of real-world logic and video game logic. In the real world, of course the criminally insane would manifest their insanity in different ways. They wouldn't all be steroid-driven madmen intent on murdering Batman, but it wouldn't make for a terribly good video game if they weren't. I simply think that analyzing the portrayal of the mentally ill or insane in the context of a Batman video game where there HAVE to be enemies, and those enemies happen to be inmates at Arkham, is kind of... Ehh. I mean, I say again, Joker, Two-Face, Harley, all of them are also inmates at Arkham and are also classified as criminally insane, but no one's leveling accusations at them that they misrepresent the mentally insane. It's simply video-game/comic-book/fantasy-world logic vs. real world logic, and in this case, you just have to suspend disbelief and not read so far into it.
And while I can see your point with the homosexuality, I still think it was just a bit of a stretch in this context. However, I'm glad that you're so even-headed and open to debate and discussion. It's refreshing, and I thank you for your time and your article for starting this discussion to begin with.
"However, I'm glad that you're so even-headed and open to debate and discussion. It's refreshing, and I thank you for your time and your article for starting this discussion to begin with."
--
I, on the other hand, challenge you to fisticuffs.
Or BattleForge. (article plug!)
Sorry to butt in on the ongoing discussion, but I share the sentiment put forward by Clockwork and co. and I wanted to put my 2 cents in regarding the Dante's Inferno thing.
People thought it was sexist? Well yes, of course it was. But so are all those conventions like E3 and what not. All those boothbabes aren't sexist? It seems like a cop out to complain about one little contest and not say a thing about the exploitation going on on a larger scale.
And if a large majority of gaming sites have such a problem with sexism, then why aren't they boycotting these cons? It's hypocracy.
Harping on the contest was nitpicking. Just like harping on the mental health issue is. Just like the whole RE5/black zombies was. It's okay to kill white zombies?
Nexus, there's lots of parts to this.
First, conventions are not inherently sexist, unless they're "Let's All Get Together and Fondle Women's Breasts, October 2 - 5th!" There's really nothing specifically sexualized at all about any of the gaming or comic conventions, and while women participants have and do continue to complain about the behavior of some men there, it's not the focus nor is it accepted behavior by the majority of participants. How is E3 sexist? It's a convention about games, there's nothing about sex in that at all. If some guys take it too far, the right thing to do is to complain about it. Not do your suggestion which seems to be to ignore it because, who cares, it's a game convention. That seems to be the cop out to me.
People do complain about negative behavior at these conventions all the time. This is just what I remembered from the Comic-Con coverage off the top of my head:
http://www.killtenrats.com/2009/07/24/todays-industry-wtf/
http://jeremypreacher.blogspot.com/2009/07/gahhhhhh.html
http://brokentoys.org/2009/07/24/this-just-in-we-cant-trust-any-of-you-with-those-body-parts-you-think-about-like-all-the-time/
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/09/eafail-the-story-of-the-worst-pr-campaign-in-gaming.ars
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/09/09/ea-marketers-send-joystiq-a-200-check-and-we-save-their-souls/
http://kotaku.com/5323289/booth-babe-hauls-off-on-dantes-fiasco
http://twitter.com/search?q=%23EAFail
Unless I'm mistaken every article there (minus the twitter comments) was written by a heterosexual male, and most of them predated anything on GayGamer.
If you look at this one well reasoned, well written article here covering the words of two other people and decide this constitutes harping (or in the words of another commenter, bad as Fox News) I don't really know what to say to that.
There's nothing sexist about exploiting the female form to garner interest for games?
Oooookay. O_o
BTW I'm not calling conventions themselves sexist, but the use of boothbabes. Though it is the conventions that perpatuate the use of them. So...
And I never said anything about ignoring negative behaviour. I said an honest reaction for people actually upset by sexism at cons (in any form) would be to boybcot the cons.
Please don't try putting words in my mouth.
I think you might want to check out any of those links, since the majority of them discuss and criticize the use of "booth babes," and the Kotaku link even includes statements by a woman who used to work at that job and her experiences doing it.
But even still, the conventions are not explicitly about doing that. It's been tacked on, the use of it has been complained about all the time. Boycotting the convention when it's the participants there who are behaving badly won't really accomplish anything.
Then, and this has been my main point the entire time, remove the boothbabes.
I've never seen the connection between half naked women in fantasy clothing (that barely have a connection to the games they're promoting) and videogames.
The games should be able to speak for themselves.
I haven't disagreed with that anywhere....
It is interesting, having been at GG forever, how often it seems to cause a ruckus when a writer examines gay-tangential themes - and how often I see writers being castigated for being thoughtful. I'm delighted to see original content on the site, and even more delighted to see thoughtful reflections engender thoughtful discussion in the comments.
I'm not sure I see much difference, in this context, between "a stretch" and "critical thinking" - sure, the conclusion may be "nope, I don't agree with the writer," but I'm still surprised when I see commenters who seem to wish the discussion didn't exist at all. It's that very attitude that necessitates having a place like GayGamer in the first place - where you can read (or skip, if they bother you) posts that touch upon both the gaming and the gay worlds.
It seems to me that asking questions is a very good thing to do. And that saying "nope, this isn't such a big deal" is equally good. But saying "I wish you hadn't had these ideas or talked about them" is, at the very least, self-defeating. Somebody feels that way about every discussion - but wouldn't it be horrible if a discussion you cared about were squashed because someone else thought it merely inconvenient, irrelevant, or wrong?
I am 100% with Clockwork here. I was interested in the article at first, but found it to be a complete waste of my time with trivial arguements based on a sheer lack of facts/knowledge (something that seems a recurring theme on gay gamer).
So what about the Riddler trophies? I thought it was a fantastic joke at the end once all were found. Sure, trophy finding is incredibly videogame-esque but then again so is leveling up and so are instant armour upgrades etc. And lets not forget it IS a videogame.
I'm personally feeling like some of the recent additions to this discussion haven't read the article or the other comments (besides the original critical one) and are doing their best to one up each other in disrespect and nastiness. Disagreeing is one thing, but dunking the discussion in the toilet with insults is just really unnecessary.
It was a good article. If half a sentence reporting on the words of other writers causes some of you guys to freak out this much and make these really ridiculous attacks against Vorpal or the site at large, tune in for my entry tomorrow: Why Won't Mass Effect Let Me Make Out With Kaidan, And Is This Proof BioWare Hates Gay People?
I do think it's fair to suggest that sexism may be a casualty of games conventions, or that sexism is a marketing tool used at games conventions (and everywhere else).
But I'm not sure the event itself can really be considered sexist the way, say, WeHateWomenCon 2009 might be.
A question that's closer to home, and that's been on my mind reading through these comments is: is the allergic reaction some gay readers have to discussions about sexuality and gaming rooted in reason, or some more personal discomfort?
Clockwork's quote has me particularly alert for self-recriminating gay thought:
"Yes, it's a gay gaming site, but that doesn't mean that every single article has to pertain to homosexuality in some way. Sometimes, it'll just be a gaming news piece. I would have probably been perfectly okay with this criticism were it not for that."
That's true! Many articles *are* just news pieces. But you know which articles most certainly *aren't* just news pieces? Opinion pieces. Which is where the preface "Critical Thoughts" in the post title comes in: not a news piece. Not advertised as a news piece. Advertised as a post that involves thinking critically, and maybe - scandal! - about something gay.
If reading opinion or critical pieces that deal with games and gayness isn't your bag... and you want to avoid posts that talk about gay things, that's great. Really! But what rational reason would any gay man have for trying to silence some other gay man's measured, intelligent conversation?
That's what the people who hate/fear/ignore gays do.
Why model your behavior on the people who wish you didn't exist? It seems to me that whether or not we agree is one thing, but that it isn't necessarily reasonable to take a position that says: "You should talk about the gay things I want to hear talked about, but under no circumstances should you talk about the gay things that I disagree with or am made uncomfortable by."
Well said tiny dancer, and that's really exactly the same feeling I'm taking away from this discussion, as I do any time a similar sentiment is brought up whether the subject is games or activism or anything else.
I disagree with it and I think it was a stretch of the imagination to make the connection. I am by no means saying he should not have said it. Everyone is free to say what they will. I simply believe the connection was a bit of a stretch. Nothing more.
On that note, I think comparing me to people who hate/fear/ignore gays was also quite the stretch, as I don't believe I've been anything but civil -- albeit in disagreement with some points in the article -- this entire time.
That being said, I do apologize if at any point I led anyone to believe that the author does not have every right to express his views and opinions. It is, after all, an opinion piece, as was pointed out. I simply think that on some occasions, people will stretch to bring problems relevant to themselves -- and in this case, yes, the target audience -- to the forefront. Does that make him wrong for saying it? No, it simply means I disagree.
Now to address the points directly:
"If reading opinion or critical pieces that deal with games and gayness isn't your bag... and you want to avoid posts that talk about gay things, that's great."
Totally my bag. I love it. But I simply disagreed with the way it was addressed in this article. I thought it was a stretch and honestly just unnecessary. That's only my opinion. I am not, as suggested, "allergic" to discussions about sexuality within gaming. I mean, I'm in school to become a game designer, it's kind of something I need to think about and be able to discourse intelligently on. Again, I disagreed with the way it was addressed within this article alone.
I didn't intend for any of my comments to be perceived as a personal attack or for it to be taken to mean that it shouldn't have been said. Only that I disagreed with it. It didn't make me uncomfortable, mind you. It isn't like I think, "OH LORD HE'S ADDRESSING HOMOSEXUALITY IN A GAME, GET THE MIND BLEACH AND HIDE!" I'd be pretty daft to come to a site like GG and not expect that. It's what I come here for.
On the topic of the Dante's Inferno thing, though it's a bit off topic: It was sexist, yes, but I mean... The whole idea behind it was the Seven Deadly Sins, directly relating to the source material. One of the Seven Deadly sins is Lust, which is intrinsically sexual. Never in their marketing campaign did they say, "Go out and be a womanizer!" They were asking you to stage "acts of lust," to submit to the competition, if I recall correctly. This is not sexist, in and of itself. Perhaps some of the resulting entries were, and perhaps it inadvertently promoted sexism, but that was clearly not the target of the campaign, and people who attacked EA for it were a bit out of hand in my opinion. It was a clever advertising campaign which did what it was designed to do.
Oh, and on the topic of mixvio's challenge: Good heavens, no. I'm positive you'd lay utter waste toneither has Magic. I enjoy both greatly, but I'm absolutely terrible at them. As such, Battleforge would likely cause some kind of brain melting. And fisticuffs? Psh. Like I'd want to fight any of you people. I have some decency!
Oh, and one more thing: It's one thing to say that something simply shouldn't be said, or that someone doesn't have the right to express their opinion. It's another entirely to state that you feel it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Arguments in court (Quite a lofty analogy, I know. Stay with me) get thrown out on the grounds of irrelevancy all the time. That doesn't mean that they don't get said, or that the person doesn't have every right to say them, simply that they're not pertinent.
I will never, ever tell someone not to say something simply because I disagree with it. I believe everyone should have -- and use! -- the right to voice their opinion, regardless of what I think of said opinion. I will be cliché for a moment and quote Evelyn Hall and throw out the ever-charming, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I don't believe the author was wrong in voicing his opinion. I do, however, believe that the connection was irrelevant to the points at hand. It's simply another method of disagreement, not dismissal.
Clockwork,
You have been extremely civil; the comments after yours which were turning more and more insulting, attacking Vorpal (JustTheTrick's in particular was pretty extreme, as was the Fox News comment-- really?) were the ones I found particularly offensive, myself.
Meh, I didn't think I said anything insulting either. I didn't attack any specific people or anything.
Rather I critiqued what in my opinion is misdirected complaints.
You can't really go defending the author's rights to post their opinion and then chastise people responding for giving their own opinion in turn.
I always assumed this site was a nice place to share views and opinions. Please enlighten me if I was mistaken.
I personally can't really validate passive-aggressive guilt trips in lieu of a valid argument.
Certainly everyone is able to give their opinions; I haven't seen any comments moderated from this discussion, including the particularly mean ones that I pointed out earlier. However, there's a striking difference between discussing and insulting, or insulting through being disrespectful instead of calling people names.
"I always assumed this site was a nice place to share views and opinions. Please enlighten me if I was mistaken." This is the sort of intellectually disingenuous comment that, while not being insulting on its face, is nevertheless disrespectful.
And by all means, you can be disrespectful if you want to be. But similarly anyone can reply and call that out as such, which I'm doing, because for this place to stay a nice area to share views and opinions, it's necessary that the emotional manipulation when someone else disagrees with you doesn't get played like a cliched wildcard.
And additionally, my comments/opinions shouldn't be taken as representative as anything other than my comments or opinions. I don't speak for the other writers or the site, so it's futile to play "I guess we can't really say what we think here" with me when I have no control over that dictation.
Clockwork:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Well, I definitely agree with that!
Nexus:
I think this is what sharing views and opinions looks like on the internet. On a good day.
Everyone:
Unmoderated comments are about as view-and-opinion-sharey as you can get. Unless you cross the line into outright indecency (which, by the way, nobody's really done - check Kotaku's comments for some real indecency), we don't step on your choice to express your opinions. In fact, they're welcome.
We do, however, reserve the same rights for ourselves and everyone else who reads the site - they're equally welcome.
Dish it, take it. C'est la vie.
:-D
Still not seeing where I was being disrespectful Mixvio.
In fact, the first personal attack involving me was when you invented me saying we should just ignore people sexually harrasing women at cons.
So maybe get off your high horse? Just a thought.
Nexus, that's not really accurate at all, but having seen your contribution to this discussion I don't hold much hope that my attempts to explain why would even be paid attention to by you. And your unwillingness to approach things from a position other than hostility doesn't make me think you care to.
/shrug
Hm, you give no evidence of what you say, while I do and this is evidence that I won't pay attention to you?
Great logic there.
As for me responding with hostility. How would you like me to respond to your continues and uncorroberated spiteful attacks directed at me? With glee? Gratitude maybe?
¬_¬
I'm not really sure if you're even reading your own comments by this point. I haven't been anything but civil towards you, certainly not 'spiteful,' and you've been extremely trollish in return. And yes, you're certainly being extremely rude and insulting, for no reason at all.
As to not supporting anything with evidence, I posted a wall of links further back supporting the fact that many gaming sites were criticizing the sexual exploitation aspects of conventions, an assertion you kept making that they did not which was false. You never even acknowledged that you were wrong about that, or addressed it at all, just went on repeating the same statements even though they were incorrect.
By this point, with what I can only feel is a determination to be rude and insulting, it's really not worth my time to continue to engage you further if this is the sort of discussion you want to have. If you missed my "corroboration" somewhere and would like me to elucidate something further I'm happy to do so, but if you want to be demeaning and insulting and generally trash the level of discussion with personal attacks, I've got games to play.
Not spiteful? Litering all your posts with comments about being insulting isn't spitefull?
I gave my view on how I percieve the way the media handles this thing. I don't hang at a thousand gaming blogs, I don't know every single thing they do. I mainly just visit this one.
And no, I didn't read your wall of links there. Not in the least because it came right after your made up comment I supposedly made. Not really makes people want to read the rest of what you have to say.
I have been defending myself. If you want to call that being trollish, fine. Be my guest.
Though saying you are being civil is a flat out lie.
What really perplexes me is that you go out of your way to make nice with Clockwork while totally laying into me, while my one objection was an elaberation on what 30th Century and Clockwork already said.
But whatever, I'm done with this. I'm severely regretful to all other parties involved for having allowed myself to be goated into this fight for this long.
From now on, no matter what is being said after this post, I won't be responding to it.
Mix, you're wasting your time with Nexus. Take a look at some of his comments on other posts and you'll see that his abysmally unattractive negativity is a personality trait, not something you can cure with reason and good humor.
Fortunately, that's his problem, not yours!
Ok, enough infighting, gentlemen! Don't make me lock the comments and turn myself into a hypocrite, pretty please.
Instead, let's examine another critical thought: why is the just-re-released PaRappa sequel Unjammer Lammy 1800x better than Batman: Arkham Asylum? Because it is, you know.
Science FACT. :)
Yeah, but it'll never be as good as PaRappa itself. :/
KICK, PUNCH, IT'S ALL IN THE MIND.
IF YOU WANNA TEST ME, I'M SURE YOU'LL FIND
THE THINGS I'LL TEACH YA ARE SURE TO BEATCHA
BUT NEVERTHELESS, YOU'LL GET A LESSON FROM TEACHAH!
Ahem. Sorry. Dunno what came over me.
But don't you guys think that games like Parappa lead to people forming an unfair stereotype about rapping, beanie wearing dogs and karate onions?